Part Two: Wahabi’ism Its Origins, History, And Beleives.

The Wahabi Doctrine Concerning The Attributes Of Allah:

The Wahabi doctrine on Allah’s attributes is the same as that of al- Mujasima:^* They claim that Allah possesses actual organs such as a hand, a leg, an eye and a face. They also describe him as literally siting, moving, changing position, descending and ascending.⁸

This doctrine which they borrowed from Ibn Taimia originated with the Hoshawia who lacked profound knowledge of Islamic tenets and teachings. The Hashawia endorsed the literal meanings of religious texts and their tajseem is similar to that of some Jewish denominations.

The Wahabis failed to support this belief with a single testimony by any of the Companions or early Muslims. But this did not deter them from claiming that this belief represents the consensus of early Muslims. In any case, their argument in defense of their belief regarding divine attributes lacks logical substance and hence it is unconvincing.

To justify their belief, however, the Wahabis relied entirely on a statement by Ibn Taimia who claimed that after reviewing all available commentaries by the Companions and the traditions reported by them and collected from several sources which amounted to more than 100 commentaries he could not find a single evidence from one Companion interpreting the attributes’ verses in variance with their literal meanings.⁹

This allegation repeated by Ibn Taimia is false and was clearly refuted by the same sources whose authenticity and reliability were confirmed by Ibn Taimia himself. These sources include the commentaries of al-Tabari, Ibn Atia and al-Bagawi.¹⁰

All of these sources reported that the Companions interpreted the Quranic verses on Allah’s attributes and did not endorse their literal meanings. To illustrate, Ayat al-Kursi or Chair verse was interpreted by Al-Tabari, Ibn Atia and al-Bagawi by referring to Ibn Abbas’ comment that the chair means Allah’s knowledge. Ibn Atia upheld this and regarded any other interpretation to be of Jewish or Hashawi origin which must be ignored.¹¹

In the same fashion, Allah’s ‘face’ is interpreted in all verses in which mention of it is found as purpose, recompense or other meanings depending on its context. Anyone can check al-Bagawi’s commentary which Ibn Taimia praised as utterly reliable to find out for himself that Ibn Taimia’s claim is unfounded. In specific, al-Bagawi’s commentaries on the following verses may be consulted: The Cow: 115, 255 and 272; Thunder: 22; The Narratives: 88; The Romans: 38, 39; The Man: 9; and the Night: 2. From this evidence it can be concluded that the companions did not support the Wahabi’s doctrine on divine attributes.

* Al-Mujasima or anthropomorphist believed that Allah possessed physical attributes.

The Wahabi And Muslim: The Wahabi Biddah {Innovation}:

The Wahabis believe that they are the only true Muslims because they uphold divine unity while other Muslims are idolaters who deserve to lose their lives and possessions. According to them, a person must not be considered a Muslim even if he pronounces al-Shahadatain, the two testimonies, that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his apostle if he also believes that he could be blessed by visiting the Prophet’s mosque and ask for his intercession.

They maintain that any Muslim who professes such beliefs is an idolater whose idolatry is a worse kind than that of Pre-Islamic people who worshipped idols and planets.

In his book Kashful al-Shubuhat, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab called all Muslims, with the exception of his followers, idolaters about 24 times. Other labels he used to describe them were: heretics, idols’ worshippers apostates, anti-divine unity, enemies of divine unity, Allah’s enemies and perfidious Muslims in 20 different parts of the same book. His followers copied him in this practice.

It is essential to ask here if this doctrine was truly based on a consensus of learned scholars or is it a Wahabi bida’ or corruption? Ibn Hazim, the well- known Sunni scholar, asserted that «a Muslim can not be called a heretic or a sinner on the bases of his opinions whether made in the form of a doctrine or a religious decree. After mentioning numerous religious scholars who endorsed this viewpoint he concluded that it was the consensus of all Companions who commented on it.»¹³

According to Ibn Taimia only the Khawarij judged other Muslims to be heretics on the bases of their sins and learned opinions or deductions.¹⁴ As such, the Wahabis have no precedent supporting this bida’ except the infamous Khawarij.

The Wahabi & Khawarij:

Surprising, there are many similarities between the Wahabi and the Khawarij which distinguish them from the rest of the Muslim. Some of these common points follow.

1. The Khawarij disagreed with all Muslims by maintaining that whoever commits a cardinal sin is a heretic. The Wahabis copied them by equating heresy with committing what they considered to be sins.¹⁵

2. The Khawarij decreed that if committing cardinal sins become common in a Muslim land then it deserved to be considered dar harb, literally a land of war and those who live in it forfeit their lives and possessions.

This is also the Wahabi’s verdict on the nation of Islam if they believe that it is permissible to travel to the Prophet’s tomb and the shrines of pious men and ask for their intercession with Allah, though they worship only Allah and perform good deeds.

It is clear from the previous two points that the Wahabis are more disruptive and evil than the Khawarij While the khawarij based their verdict of heresy on deeds that all Muslims agreed on being cardinal sins, the Wahabis chose acts which are not actually sins but favourable deeds performed by devout early Muslims including the Prophet’s Companions.

3. The Wahabis and the Khawarij are similar in their strict application of religion and their ossified interpretations of its doctrines. Thus when the Khawarij read the Quranic verse: «Judgment belongs to Allah» they said that whoever allowed resort to settlement is an idolator. ‘There is no judgment but Allah’s’ became their slogan. And though it is indisputable it was misapplied to justify their deviant ways. This attitude illustrates their ignorance of Islam and rigid thinking since the principle of settlement of dispute through adjudicator or third-party intervention was established by the Holy Quran, the Prophet’s Tradition and the deeds of the Companions and early Muslims. It is also supported by common logic.

Similarly, the Wahabis interpreted the following verses:

«You alone we worship and You alone we pray for help».¹⁶
«Who is he that can intercede with Him but by His own permission».¹⁷
No intercession shall avail with Him but that which He Himself allow».¹⁸

To mean that anyone who justifies visiting the Prophet’s Mosque or the shrines of pious Muslim and ask for their intercession is an idolator. They considered such acts as tantamount to worshipping the Prophet or those pious Muslims instead of Allah. Accordingly, they declared that there is no deity but Allah and there is no intercession except His.

While these heated declarations are indisputable, the intentions behind them are open to suspicions. The Wahabis chose to ignore the tradition established by the Companions and early Muslims regarding the legality of visiting the Prophet’s Mosque and other shrines and asking for intercession.

4. Ibn Taimia observed that the deviant group the Khawarij was the first bida’ or corruption in Islam because its followers judged other Muslims as heretics and legalized killing them.¹⁹ It can be added that the Wahabia, and for the same reason, is the last bida’ in Islam.

5. Some of the Prophet’s comments on the rise of the Khawarij and their deviation from Islam also apply to the Wahabis. Consider, for example, the Prophet’s saying that: «a group of people shall emerge from the east who reads the Quran without understanding it. They shall deviate from it like an arrow missing its target. Shaving the head shall be their distinguishing characteristic.»²⁰ In commenting on this saying, al-Qastalani said that «’due east’ means east of al-Medina such as Najid and further.»

Najid is the birthplace of Wahabia from which it spread to other places. Also, shaving their heads was one of the Wahabis’ established tradition which was mandatory for all their followers including women. None of the deviant groups who predated them was known to impose it. Some of the religious scholars who witnessed the rise of this movement maintained that there is no need to write books to refute the Wahabia because it is sufficient to repeat the Prophet’s saying that ‘Shaving the head is their distinguishing characteristic,’ since none has done it before them.

6. The Prophet described the Khawarij as «those who will slaughter Muslims and leave the pagans unharmed.» This also applies to the Wahabis who fought only Muslims. Their scholars and books also call for waging war on other Muslims only.

7. Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn Omar described the Khawarij as «having applied verses revealed regarding pagans to the believers.»²⁴ Ibn Abbas is reported to have said on the same subject:

Don’t be like the Khawarij who interpreted some [verses] of the Quran to apply to the faithful. Those verses were revealed regarding followers of other divine messages and pagans. The Khawarij were ignorant of their meanings and as a result they killed [Muslims] and looted their possessions.

The Wahabis followed suit by applying verses revealed in the case of idolaters to the believers.

8. We can now imagine the following dialogue between a Sunni and a Wahabi:

-The Wahabi: The Hanabila [i.e. followers of Imam Ibn Hanbal] books are also ours. Which of these books do you disapprove of? If you indeed have something against them then you must cite their books and not their critics!

-The Sunni: What do you think of the Karamita? [a dissident group formed during the Abbasid rule].

-The Wahabi: They are pagans and idolaters.

-The Sunni: But they claim adherence to the Prophet Household’s doctrines and that their books are also theirs. But the books of the Prophet Household contain nothing but words of enlightenment and truth.

-The Wahabi: The Qaramita were liars and historians have demonstrated their heresy and falsification.

-The Sunni: Then you accept evidence presented by historians?

-The Wahabi: Yes! Imam al-Shafi said that the historian’s methodology in relying on multiple sources is better, in his opinion, than the acceptance of a single source by the narrators of the Prophet’s Tradition.

-The Sunni: Then you must accept what the historians considered as evidence of the Wahabi heresy. A person’s deed may be held as evidence against him or her even if he denies doing it. And when the Qaramita legalized murdering Muslims and stealing their possessions no doubt regarding their heresy remained. This also applies to your Wahabi masters.

-The Wahabi: (was angry and speechless).

- The Sunni then added: What is your opinion of the description of the Khawarij as heretics who shall be punished with Hell’s fire?

-The Wahabi replied: The consensus is that the Khawarij deviated from the true path and thus incurred Allah’s wrath. But the Khawarij were put to rout at the Nahrawan battle and the Wahabis do not belong to them!

-The Sunni said: Why do you think the Khawarij deserved Allah’s wrath? was it because of the inadequacy of their prayers and fasting?

-The Wahabi: No!

-The Sunni: Was it then because of their devotion, or recital of the Quran or paying lipservice to the truth?

-The Wahabi: No!

-The Sunni persisted: Why then? Tell me!

-The Wahabi stammered and could not manage a reply.

-The Sunni: There is one and only one reason for incurring Allah’s wrath and that is legalizing the slaughter of innocent Muslims and the theft of their possessions after calling them heretics and also whoever makes the claim that he is the only true Muslim. Anyone who commits such deeds and makes such claims deserves the same fate.

The Wahabi And The Extremists:

The Ghulat or extremist are those who went to extremes in exalting a person or persons to the extent of raising him or them above the ranks of ordinary human beings.

At the same time of the rise of Wahabia in Najid, another person was preaching a new doctrine which renewed much of what has disappeared of the beliefs of the first Ghulats who deified Imam Ali and other members of the Prophet Household. His teachings were similar to those of Ibn Abdul Wahab in labeling his opponents as heretics. He actually went further than the Wahabia founder by attacking most of the Prophet’s Companions and calling them heretics.

The name of that man was Shaikh Ahmed al-Ihsaie (died 1241 AH.) His followers were thus known as al-Shaikhia. He was succeeded by Khathim al-Rashti who established his headquarters at Kerbala in southern Iraq.

The Wahabi’s attitudes toward this movement is interesting. As history report, the Wahabis attacked Karbala where al-Rashti and his followers resided. As their custom in all their military campaigns, the Wahabis sacked the city, slaughtering thousands of innocent men, women and children and looting and destroying houses and shops. But they guaranteed al-Rashti’s personal safety and declared that anyone entering his house shall be safe. This special treatment of this group and their leader unveils the true nature of the Wahabi and exposes the falsehood of their claim of opposing idolatry and defending divine unity.

At this point, it may be useful to compare this position with a similar one by Ibn Taimia, whom the Wahabis claim to follow, toward another extremist group, namely the Yazidis. The Yazidis exalted Yazid ibn Muawiya whose un-Islamic deeds were enumerated earlier. A branch of this sect was named al-Adawia after Udai ibn Musafir whom they exalted along with Yazid.

Ibn Taimia who was a contemporary of this sect maintained an inexplicably untypical attitude toward this group. Famed for his extreme opinions and fierce attacks on Islamic sects swiftly judging them to be deviant and heretic, he wrote a letter to this group addressing them as faithful Muslims. In this civil and well-wishing letter we find none of his offending style and usual labels which he used in communicating with or writing on other Islamic groups such as the Asharia, the Imamiya Shia, the Zaidis, Mutazila, Murajia and others.

His letter to this group begins as follows:²⁶

From Ahmed ibn Tairnia to whoever receives this letter of the Muslims who belong to the Sunna and follow the exemplary, blessed, and learned shaikh Udai ibn Musafir al-Umawi. Allah has mercy on him and all those who follow his path.. May Allah lead them to His path and obey Him and His Prophet.

This shows that Ibn Taimia considered this deviant group as Sunni Muslim in variance with the consensus identifying them as extremists, heretics and idolaters who did not worship only Allah.

Part One: Wahabi’ism Its Origins, History, And Beleives.

Al-Wahabia And Its Founder:

The Wahabi sect was founded by Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab ibn Suleiman al-Najdi (1111 – 1206 AH.). After obtaining fundamental religious training he developed a special interest in books on false Prophets such as Musailama al-Kathab, Sajah al-Aswad al-An’si and Tulaiha al- Assadi. In the early period of his scholarship his father and tutors became aware of his deviant thinking and this led them to warn people of him by saying: “This man will go astray and will mislead those whom Allah wish to keep distant [from Him] and torment.”

In 1143 AH. Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab called upon the people of Najd to follow his new doctrine. However, his father and religious teachers rehmently opposed him and publicly refuted his ideas. Consequently, his mission remained unpopular until his father’s death ten years later. At that time he resumed his preaching and a small group of villagers followed him. Most of the villagers were, however, incensed by this and tried to kill him. He was thus, forced to flee to another town, Uyayna, where he won the favour of its ruler by marrying his sister. He remained there preaching his new doctrines until the indignant population drove him out. In al-Daria in eastern Najid he finally found permanent refuge. As a historical footnote it should be remembered that this was the land of the false prophet Musailama and the birthplace of the rada or apostatsy movement after the Prophet’s death. Ibn Abdul Wahab’s ideas fell on fertile ground in the town of al-Daria and its ruler, Muhammad ibn Saud, and most of its inhabitants converted to the new doctrine.

At that time Ibn Abdul Wahab behaved as if he had absolute monopoly over ijtihad, i.e. the ability to arrive at logical deductions on religious questions. In reality however, Ibn Abdul Wahab lacked the basic prerequisites that could qualify him to the rank of ijtihad. This was the opinion of his brother; Sulaiman, who knew him closely and authored a book refuting his brother’s invocation and demonstrating its falsehood. His book includes the following passage which concisely sums up the Wahabia and its founder:¹

At present people are plagued by someone who claims to follow the Holy Quran and al-Sunna (the Prophet Tradition) and dares to deduce from their teachings paying no heed to any opposition. Because anyone who opposes him [he calls] a heretic although he possesses none of the qualifications of the mujtahedeen – and, I swear by Allah, not even one tenth of one of these qualifications. In spite of this, his teachings have attracted many simpletons. To Allah we belong and shall return.

Origins Of Wahabi Thought:

The Wahabi sect has two basic tenets, a declared tenet and a hidden one. The declared tenet is commitment to divine unity and opposition to idolatry and paganism. But as we shall see later, this commitment is not confirmed by the actual history of the Wahabi.

The hidden tenet is sowing the seeds of schism, discord, conflict and war among Muslims to serve the goals of foreign domination. This is the real purpose which the Wahabia has sought to achieve since its inception and until the present day. This means that the declared objective or tenet served only to impress followers and enlist their efforts in achieving the real objective.

Undoubtedly the slogan of reviving the concept of divine unity and opposing idolatry has its attraction, and followers can be expected to rally around it with enthusiasm but without being aware that it is only a camouflage for the real hidden purpose.

Experts on the history of the Wahabia confirm that the movement was originally established upon an order by the British colonial administration. The list of authoritative sources supporting this conclusion is long and includes Saint John Philpy in The History of Najd, Khairi Hamad in The Pillars of Colonialism, Hamaion Himáyati in Al-Wahabi Criticism and Analysis, and finally, Haiem Wiseman, the first prime minister of the Jewish entity in Palestine in his memoirs.

Sources Of Wahabi Thought:

The Wahabi sect classified doctrines into two categories. The first category includes all those doctrines based on a text in the Quran or the Prophet Tradition. They claimed that such doctrines can be derived from these two sources directly and without resorting to the logical deductions of religious scholars regarding their meaning – even if these sources happen to be the Prophet’s Companions, early Muslims or other scholars.

The second category includes all doctrines which are not based on a Quranic or Prophetic text, and in such cases the Wahabis claim that they defer to the teachings and jurisprudence of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taimia.

Regretably, they failed in both categories by falling into contradictions and making gross errors of judgment as the following points show:

1. They relied entirely on interpretations based on the literal meaning of the texts, and thus they contradicted basic tenets and ijam, the consensus of religious scholars. This is why the Egyptian religious scholar of the last century, Muhammad Abdo, described them as worse than those who follow others blindly because they “believe that the literal meanings must be endorsed and adhered to without paying heed to the basic tenets on which religion is based.”²

2. They contradicted Ahmed ibn Hanbal clearly and openly in pronouncing as blasphemers and heretics Muslims who disagreed with them though none of Ibn Hanbal’s religious decrees support this. According to Ibn Hanbal, only a Muslim who intentionally refuses to perform obligatory prayers can be called a blasphemer or heretic.

Similarly, no support for this Wahabi belief can be found in the works of Ibn Taimia. Indeed, Ibn Taimia opposed such thinking. He maintained that “whoever approved of those in agreement with him and condemned those who opposed him, created schisms in the ranks of Muslims, labeled those who disagreed with him regarding points of opinion and logical deduction as heretics, and approved waging was on them is a person who seeks to divide and create discord.” This description by Ibn Taimia fits the Wahabis completely.³

3. If the Wahabi doctrine on visiting shrines is endorsed then Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal and all his followers are idolators who must be denounced and their lives and possessions legally forfeited. This is in view of a report by none other than Ibn Taimia that Imam Ibn Hanbal wrote a treatise on visiting the shrine of Imam al-Hussain ibn Ali (the grandson of the Prophet) at Kerbala with specific instructions for visitors. Ibn Taimia commented on this that «people at the time of Imam Ahmed [ibn Hanbal] frequented [the shrine].»⁴

But the Wahabi creed considers making a journey to a shrine for the purpose of visiting it a form of idolatry which deserve the extreme punishment of loss of life and possessions. In effect, they condemned Imam Ahmed, his contemporaries and early Muslims who practiced this ritual and condoned it as idolators who must be put to death and their possessions confiscated. Furthermore, this Wahabi decree must also extend to the Prophet Companions who approved or performed this ritual. Their claim to be followers of Imam Ahmed is thus unfounded.

The same argument applies also to their belief regarding asking for the Prophet’s intercession. According to this, whoever asks for the Prophet intercession after the Prophet’s death is committing a cardinal idolatry. They argue that by performing such an act, a person treats the Prophet as an idol and worships him instead of Allah. According, they considered killing such a person and confiscating his possessions a religious duty.⁵

This Wahabi doctrine runs contrary to the practice of asking for the Prophet’s intercession performed by a large number of his prominent Companions and early Muslims – whose requests, the subjects of these intercessions, were usually granted. Ibn Taimia has confirmed this in his book Al-Ziara on the bases of evidence by several authorities including al- Baihaqi, al-Tabarani, Ahmed ibn Hanbal and Ibn Abi al-Dunia.⁶ Nevertheless, Ibn Taimia chose to go against these authorities by banning the call for intercession. Unlike the Wahabi, however, he refrained from calling it a cardinal act of idolatry.

To repeat, if the Wahabi doctrine regarding intercession is endorsed then all the Companions and early Muslims who practiced it must be considered idolaters who deserve to be put to death. Not only those are idolaters, according to the Wahabi, but also anyone who knew about this practice and refrained from opposing it and condemning those who performed it as heretics. These also must be executed and their possessions forfeited. In the final analysis, all early Muslims deserve such a sentence leaving none whom the Wahabi could regard as the model to emulate.

The Wahabi Doctrine Concerning Prophet’s Companions: 

1. As indicated earlier, the Wahabi effectively charged most of the Prophet Companions with idolatry and heresy because they continued, after the Prophet’s death, to allow asking for his intercession and visiting his tomb. They also included in this category all those who condoned this practice or knew about it and did not brand it as an idolatry and heresy which is punishable by death and loss of possessions.

This is their true doctrine which contradicts their claim of holding the Prophet’s Companions in the highest position.

2. The Wahabi went further than this by directly attacking the Companions who followed the Prophet. Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, the founder of the Wahabi sect, asserted that:

.. a group of Companions who fought with the Prophet, prayed, paid alms, fasted and made pilgrimage with him were, in fact, heretics and distant from Islam.⁷

3. It is unsurprising, therefore, for the Wahabi writers and scholars to go to an extreme in defending Yazid ibn Muawiya^* whose deeds altest to his animosity to the Companions. It was Yazid’s army who sacked al-Medina at al-Hara battle in which countless Companions were murdered and their women raped. It is reported that in the aftermath of this one thousand unwed girls became pregnant.

Before that, Yazid’s soldiers had committed the atrocious crime of murdering eighteen members of the Prophet Household at Kerbala including his grandson, al-Hussain, a number of his brothers, and their sons including children and newborn infants.

During the reign of Yazid also, Mecca was sacked and Al-Kaba set on fire. In spite of these, the Wahabi applaud Yazid in their writings which can only mean that they condone his deeds. They also blatantly ignore the documented accounts confirming that Yazid did not perform obligatory prayers and drank alcohol. For these transgressions alone, they should have declared him a heretic in accordance with Imam Ahmed’s teachings which they claim to follow. Instead of this they praise Yazid and condemn all those who ask for the Prophet’s intercession including the Companions as heretics

* He is the second Umayyid Caliph appointed by his father Muawiya as his successor.

Brelwi & Deobandi Dispute: A Analysis Of Reasons Which Caused The Split

Alhamdulillahi Rabil Alameen. Maliki Yaum Id’deen. Was’Salatu Was’Salamu Ala Sayee’dil Mursa’leen. A’uzbillahi Manishayta Nir’Rajeem. Bismillah Ir’Rahma Nir’Raheem.

Many of the readers belonging to the Subcontinent who have interest in religious literature will be familiar with the names Barelvi and Deobandi. They also will be familiar with the fact that both of these two groups oppose each other vehemently, but not many of the readers will be aware of the reasons which lead to this opposition among these two groups.I the humble servent of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat {Barelwi} have been authorised by spiritual guide to write about the issues which lead to the devision and opposition. Many more have attempted to write about this controversial vast subject especially on internet, but have not been able to do justice to the issue at hand, for myrids of reasons, bais being major cause of it. First systemetic, comprehensive analysis of the dispute in English language between the two groups has been carried out by Seikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller. He attempted to wrestle with these hotly contested issues, but has failed to deal with them subject, making grave mistake on few instances. His mistakes were more then likely for two reasons being misinformed, not having access to actual disputed sources and the language barrier, language being the main. Had he command of the Urdu language he would have been the ideal person to deal with this issue in a sober, calm, refflective and unbaised manner. The noble Seikh has made a great effort with sincere heart, pious intentions, and as done a remarkable job, but his unability to understand the Urdu language has caused him to err in few places, and I beseech Allah subhana wa tallah from the depth of my heart: “O Allah grant the Noble Seikh a place in Jannah with Prophet {SAW} and his companions, Ameen.” Broadly categorising the reasons of IKHTILAAF they would come under the fallowing catgories:

* Insulting Statements Written About Prophet {SAW}
* Aqahid
* Fiqhi Ikhtilaaf

The intensity of the Ikhtilaaf is around those statements which are DIRECTLY ATTACKING PROPHET {saw}. Weather these statements were written intentionally or un-intentionally, regardless of the circumstances, context, they are the major cause. Then comes the issue of AQAHID, QASIM NANOTAVI’S STATEMENTS IN WHICH FINALITY OF PROPHET {saw} HAS BEEN DENIED, RASHEED . A . GANGOHI’S TALIFAT E RASHIDIYAH, Fatawah e Rasheediyah, Ismail Dehalvi’s Yaq Rozi, and other books which approve that ALLAH COULD POSSIABILY LIE WHICH IS A INNOVATION OF WORST KIND. Author of Talifat e Rasheediyah transgressed as far as proving WAQIYAH E QIZB {Lieing Taking Place}. These were the hot issues in the second category, the remaining are, Ilm Al Ghayb For RasoolAllah {SAW}, Status Of Shahid Of Prophet {SAW}, Prophet {SAW} Being Noor In Body, Saying “Ya RasoolAllah {SAW}!”, Knowledge Of Ghayb Of Prophet {SAW} Comprimising Al Lawh Al Mafooz etc. Fiqhi Ikhtilaaf is something which I do not consider serious enough to even disscuss it in here.

Ismail Dehalvi wrote Taqwiyatul Imaan, Siratum Mustaqeem, in which he wrote statements which were of offensive nature. First statement in which focusing on Prophet {SAW} while performing Salah was stated to be worse then thinking of donkies, ox, even worse then thinking about have sexual relation ship with wife while one is in prayers. In Taqwiyatul Imaan numerous statements were written in which the aim of the author was to encourage its readers to show less respect to PROPHET {saw}, one such statement was that Prophet {SAW} is like a village elder, we should respect him accordily, but even less then this. In another statement Prophet {SAW} was stated to be like a elder brother and one should only respect him as one respects his elder brother.

Note that by todays standard what ISMAIL DEHALVI wrote was nothing short of encouraging people to insult Prophet {SAW}. But we should not forget the context which such statements were written, late 18th century, and early 19th century at that time the social values of INDIAN SUBCONTINENT were intact. And younger brother respected his elder brother as a father figure, and the village heads were respected due to their financial status and education. It would be great injustice to look at the modern social chaos and try to understand Ismail Dehalvi’s statements. But one should understand these statements keeping the historical context in mind … otherwise IF ONE LOOKS AT THE MODERN SOCIAL CHAOS and ponders over statement of ISMAIL DEHALVI one would come to realise that these statement would be openly inviting people to insult Prophet {SAW}. But even in the context of late 18th, century such statements are shocking, because PROPHET {saw} has been given the highiest of status, a status so high that if your voice raises over the voice of PROPHET {SAW} Allah will void your good deeds. Taking Prophet {SAW} as elder brother, and as Village Head and respecting him accordingly without doubt will remove from the heart of beleiver the love effection for Rasoolallah {SAW} which Allah as bound a beleiver by.

But the worst is that those who read these statements in present era are interpreting them in the modern context, where a elder brother is no longer the father figure, its ok to mock him, redicule him. Where the Village Head is accused of corruption, disrespected, discrdited by making mockery. Making likeness and encouraging its readers to respect Prophet {SAW} as these two figures are respected is now an open invitation to mock Prophet {SAW}. And the author has manage to indoctrinate a entire generation to saying things like: “Had Muhammed known Ghayb, he would have known whats behind wall.” “How can Muhammed now ghayb when he didnt even know the dog was under his bed?” The mentality encouraged by Ismail Dehalvi has firmed its roots in the hearts of Deobandi, and Wahabis, and such insulting mannerism is being used widely among these two groups adherents.

Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Khalil Ambethvi, were the other two who had written statements in which Prophet {SAW} insulted, but by far the most serious offender, and one can feel the deliberateness of the insulting statenments were authored by the cursed ISMAIL DEHALVI, one can feel that author planned to write these statements, and these statement were not written in sleep mode. There is a tradition I cant recall the exact refference in which ISMAIL DEHALVI had invited a group of scholars, and explained to them that his book Taqwiyatul Imaan contains strong statements, i require your advice, he was advised not to publish it, but SHAYTAN got best of him and he published it. Its also stated that after his book caused a stir certain individual told him what has his book done, his famous reply was: “People after fighting arguing will sought out the truth from falsehood them selves.” but its been over hundered year the fighting, is becoming reality, and debates arguments had become reality after the book was published. But one thing will neve become the reality is people knowing the truth.

Qasim Nanotavi was also charged with denying the finality of Prophet {SAW}, stating that if another Prophet is born after Prophet {SAW}, Prophet {Saw} will still remain the Last Prophet. He also wrote beleife Prophet {SAW} being the Last Prophet, and him arival at the last era is opinion of the common folk, and its not the opinion of the common folks but IJMAH E UMMAT {AGREEMENT OF UMMAT} Prophet {SAW} is the Last Prophet and he came in the Finale period in which there will be judgement day will come. Its not the opinion of the common, illiterate, backward, people, but understanding of Sahabah, Tabi’een, Muhadditheen, Mujtahideen, Mufassireen, Awliyah e Kamileen, the entire Ummah.

Khalil Ambethvi was guility of writting that Shaytan has more Knowledge then Prophet {SAW}, Ashraf Ali Thanvi was guilty of writting that Prophets Knolwedge is same as animals, mad people, and children.

The details of these matters will be dissucused in seperate articles. In which the original statements, their translation, scanned refferences, the SHARA’EE VERDICT, as well as popular TAWEELAAT will be discussed. This article is just introduction for those who would like to familirise them self with historical events.

Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Al Brelvi rahimullah alayhi tallah, wrote numerous letters to these inviduals, asking them to repent and correct their statements, but no effort was made by these people to repent or correct their statements. It was then that Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Brelwi issued the fatwah of kufr, and made Takfir of Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Qasim Nanotavi, Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Khalil Ambethvi. He travelled to Hijaaz e Maqdis on Hajj where he had his Fatwah certified by over thirty eminent scholars of Arab world. Note that Imam Ahmad Raza Khan {rehmatullah alay} did not makde Takfir of Ismail Dehalvi. Due to the reason that it was rumoured that Ismail Dehalvi had repented from his insulting statements before his death.

The oppenants of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat have tried to smear the image of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Bralwi rahimullah alayhi tallah by stating in their numerous books that he was not carefull in his TAKFIR. Infact he is mocked as Takfir Machine Gun. The logic behind it is that anyone whom he opposed he declared them KAFFIR. Yet case of Ismail Dehalvi demonstrates quite another fact that had he been careless TAKFIR MONGER then ISMAIL DEHALVI would have also have been delcared KAFFIR. It was widely speculated that Ismail Dehalvi repented prior to dieing, hence Ala Hazrat Imam of Ahle Sunnah Maulna Shah Ahmad Raza Khan did not declare him as Kaffir. Because there is a Hadith of Prophet {SAW} which states that anyone who delcares a Muslim as Kaffir, either one of the is Kaffir definately. Keeping this in mind Imam Ahmad Raza did not make Takfir, justifying it with the reason that if Ismail Dehalvi as repented prior to dieing then the Takfir made of him will return on him self, and if he has not then Allah will judge him. But he made absolutely apparent that the statements found in the books of Ismail Dehalvi are without doubt KUFFR.

His Fatwah all the statements of those Eminent Scholars was published in a book called Hasam ul Haramayn Ala Maharil Kuffr Wal Mayn. At this juncture the it became a dispute of gigantic propotions. Deobandis rebutted this Fatwah, Al Muhannad was written some 5 years after Hasam ul Haramayn, this was rebutted by a companion of Ala Hazrat Shah Ahmad Raza Khan Bralvi. Maulana Hashmat Ali rahimullah alayhitallah’s Ulamah e Deobandi Ke Mak’kariyan {Deception Of Ulamah of Deoband}. Which since then as continued to evolve into a bigger problem.

The size and the seriousness of this problem is becoming a manace to the unity of “Ummah”. Hence its resolution according to the KITABULLAH & AHADITH is essential, and this does no way imply that one should abandon SHARI’AH for the sake of UNITY.

Our job is to bring this BRAILWI & DEOBANDI dispute into knowledge of PEOPLE and how it can be resolved. Without comprimising injunctions of Quran O Ahadith, without comprimising any part of DEEN. Note that there can no tolerance of WRONG, regardless of who was preaching it. We must adhere to Shariah even it means the out come of our adherance to SHARIAH leads this BRAILVI & DEOBANDI dispute to a greater level. But no tolerance, no peacefull co-existance, if it comes at the cost of abandoning KITABULLAH AND SUNNAH OF RASOOLALLAH {saw}. Rather then abandoning KITABULLAH AND SUNNAH OF RASOOLALLAH {saw} we should cherish, and celebrate, and proudly show our distaste of batil. We should ask Allah subhana wa tallah to grant us paitance, firmness against the heretics, and apostates. Grant us the knowledge with which we can reffute such batil {false} beleives and stand firm in opposition to such HERETICS & APOSTATES.

Wama Alayna Ilal Balaghul Mobeen.

Ali