|
|
Post by Deoband on Nov 26, 2018 14:26:48 GMT
ILMUL GHAYB AND THE KUFR OF BARELWIS The extreme deviance of the Barelwis and the crooked lie of their deceptive claim of being authentic adherents to the Hanafi Madh-hab and the generality (Jumhoor) of the Fuqaha, are exposed thoroughly by their attribution of detailed (tafseeli) knowledge of “everything that was and everything that will be” to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).This belief is summed up, in very clear terms, as follows by their arch-idol, Ahmad Raza Khan:
“It is without a doubt that the Almighty has given His Noble Beloved (Allah bless him and grant him peace) the complete knowledge of everything from the first till the last. From the east to the west, from the Throne till the earth, everything was shown to him. He was made witness to the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth. From the very first day till the last day all of the knowledge of what was and what shall be (ma kana wa ma yakun) has been shown to him. From all of the above, not even an iota is outside the knowledge of the Prophet. Great knowledge has been encompassed by the Noble Beloved (Allah bless him and grant him peace). It is not just of a summary type but what is small and big, every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness of the earth are in their entirety known to him individually and in detail. Much praise to Allah. In fact, that which has been discussed is not, never, the complete knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace and send peace on his family and companions, all of them); but this is a small part of the Prophet’s knowledge.” (Inba al-Mustafa, p.486)To illustrate better what is meant by the detailed knowledge of “every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness”, let us consider the example of a Nikah (wedding). According to this perverted Barelwi creed, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) possesses the knowledge of every single one of the billions of Nikah that had ever taken place in the past, is currently taking place, and the billions more that are due to take place in the future.Furthermore, according to this twisted creed, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) possesses not only the knowledge of the general arrangements of each and every Nikah, but also every single paraphernalia attached to each Nikah, from the food items, the guests, the clothes worn by the guests, to every other minute detail connected to the Nikah, even the detailed knowledge of each and every leaf that falls in the vicinity of the Nikah and the detailed knowledge of each and every grain that is consumed during the Nikah.The leafy and grainy detail of the knowledge attributed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is made clear in unambiguous terms:“From all of the above (i.e. all that has occurred and all that will occur – including obviously every single Nikah) not even an iota is outside the knowledge of the Prophet….It is not just of a summary type but what is small and big, every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness of the earth are in their entirety known to him individually and in detail.”Similar statements affirming detailed (tafseeli) knowledge of everything to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), as opposed to a summary overview (ijmaali) of all significant events relevant to the creation, can be found in other books of Ahmad Raza Khan such as ad-Dawlat ul-Makkiyyah, Khaalis ul-I’tiqaad, al-Malfooz al-Shareef, and also in the books of other arch-idols of the Barelwis such Jaa al-Haq and Shane Habeebur Rahman of “Hakeem ul-Ummat” (The quack doctor of the Ummah), Ahmad Yaar Khan.Now compare and contrast this belief, O Barelwi worshippers of Ahmad Raza Khan, against THE Fatwa of the Hanafi Madh-hab regarding a person who attributes to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the knowledge of a single and solitary Nikah for which there is no apparent means for him (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to gain the knowledge of.
The Hanafi Mujtahid from the 5th Century, As-Sadr ush-Shaheed Husam ud-Deen, who was the senior teacher of numerous other pillars of the Hanafi Madh-hab, including the famous authors of al-Hidaayah and al-Muheet al-Ridawi, narrates the following ruling from his pious predecessors:من تزوج امرأة بشهادة الله و رسوله لا يجوز لأنه نكاح لم يحضره الشهود، وحكى عن أبو القاسم الصفار أن هذا كفر محض لأنه اعتقد أن رسول الله يعلم الغيب وهذا كفر“Whoever marries a woman, taking Allah and his messenger (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as witnesses – it is not permissible because witnesses are not present for the Nikah. It is related from Abul Qaasim as-Saffaar that this is Kufr Mahd (pure, unadulterated disbelief that expels a person from Islam) because he believed that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows the unseen (ghayb) and this is Kufr.” [Al-Waaqi’aat, page 70 of the manuscript]
Imam Abul Qaasim as-Saffaar as-Soofee (326H) was a Hanafi Mujtahid with only three links between himself and Imam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullahi alayh). This fatwa has been accepted and transmitted in every age by the Hanafi Fuqaha. The very same Fatwa or similar versions to it were accepted and quoted approvingly by the early Fatwa manuals which constituted the Hanafi Madh-hab such as al-Fataawa ul-Walwaalijiyyah (Vol. 5, pg. 422), Khulaasat ul-Fataawa (Vol. 4, pg. 385), al-Muheet ul-Burhaani (Vol. 7, pg. 407), al-Fataawa al-Bazzaaziyyah (Vol. 6, pg. 325), al-Fusool ul-Imaadiyyah, al-Multaqat (pg. 244), Fataawa Qaadhi Khaan (Vol. 2, pg. 517), and other authoritative texts.
Again, compare and contrast the statement, “this is pure Kufr because he believed that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows the unseen (ghayb)”, accepted by all these early Fuqaha, with the Barelwi Aqeedah as exemplified by another one of their arch-idols, Muhammad Umar Icharwi, who commits the greatest act of Kufr and Gustakhi (demeaning Allah and his Rasool sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by making Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) prophethood wholly dependent on an attribute exclusive only to Allah Ta’aala:
“For the Prophethood to be valid it is necessary that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows ALL OF THE UNSEEN.” (Miqyase Hanafiyyat, p. 385) Continued here:reliablefatwas.com/ilmul-ghayb-and-the-kufr-of-barelwis/
|
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Dec 1, 2018 11:46:04 GMT
The following point, not covered in the article posted above, will be elaborated in more detail in future insha-Allah:
"While the Jumhoor (vast majority) Fuqaha - those whom the Barelwis deceptively claim to follow - have unequivocally declared the Kufr of one who holds such an abominable belief, a fringe minority have proffered an excuse to avoid having to do Takfeer on the one who holds this belief. Furthermore, even this weak view narrated only by a fringe minority, which exonerates the perpetrator only of exiting Islam, relates to the knowledge of just the one solitary Nikah attributed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), not the detailed leafy and grainy knowledge of billions and billions of Nikah, upon which the Gustakhi Barelwis make Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) perfections dependent.
Since in the Barelwi “deen" an abominable act on which there is allegedly an ikhtilaaf on its Kufr, translates into permissibility or even commendability, we shall demonstrate the weakness and questionable origins of this view later. For now, we quote Allamah Ibn Abideen (Shaami), who was one of the minority of Fuqaha to relate the weak view, alongside the view of the Jumhoor Fuqaha who unequivocally declared as Kaaafir the holder of this belief regarding just the one Nikah. We quote directly from the very work he referred readers to when citing the weak view, which demonstrates that even those few scholars who narrated the weak view, also agree that the Barelwi Aqeedah is pure, unadulterated Kufr:
"That which is exclusive to Allah Ta'aala is only knowledge of all [matters] and knowledge of the keys of the ghayb referred to in His (Ta'aala) saying: Verily, with Allah is knowledge of the Hour, and He sends down rain, to the end of the verse. The outcome of this explanation is that one who claims knowledge of ghayb in one matter or several will not become Kaaafir, and this is the subject-matter of what is mentioned in Rawdah; while the one who claims its knowledge in all matters becomes KAAAFIR, which is the subject-matter of what is found in its source [i.e. Sharh al-Wajeez of al-Rafi'i]....As for that [knowledge] which does not relate to it in either of the two ways from unseen things (i.e. non-beneficial knowledge that does not relate directly to the Prophetic mission such as the knowledge of billions of Nikah or even just the one), from the totality of which is the timing of the commencement of the Hour, He will NEVER disclose it to anyone, while an explanation of its timing infringes on the legislative wisdom around which the orbit of risālah revolves." [Majmoo'at Rasaa-il Ibn Aabideen]
"All matters" clearly refer to the knowledge referred to in the verse cited which unambiguously pertains to the creation only, the detailed knowledge of which, leaf and grain, is explicitly ascribed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by the Barelwis.
Regarding the Fatwa issued by Imam Abul Qaasim as-Sufi al-Mutakallim, it is worth that in ALL the early authoritative Fatwa manuals, and even in most of the later ones (e.g. Nisaab ul-Ihtisaab explicitly states that there is no ikhtilaaf), no ikhtilaaf on this particular issue is cited, while in the very same chapters, multiple other beliefs or statements are often listed regarding whose Kufr there exists an Ikhtilaaf. For example, regarding the anthropomorphic statement, “Allah is looking from the throne“, Fataawa al-Hindiyyah states that this is Kufr (with no attention paid to the intention of the utterer) “according to the majority” i.e. a minority refrained from doing Takfeer for this crime. Perhaps now some stupid Halafi (Hanafi influenced by Salafism), in the manner of the Barelwis, will now take that as a full endorsement of his anthropomorphic views since a minority of Hanafi authorities have refrained from doing Takfeer.
In any case, we shall demonstrate that the weak view, which exonerates the one who holds this deviant belief regarding just the one solitary Nikah (NOT billions), is absolutely Marjooh and Ma'doom (non-existent) according to the principles of the Hanafi Madh-hab which are delineated by Allamah Ibn Aabideen himself in his Sharh Uqood Rasm ul-Mufti."
|
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Dec 19, 2018 10:31:25 GMT
BARELWIS AND WAHHABIS - TWIN MUJADDIDS OF TAKFEER
The Mujaddid of Takfeer, Ahmad Ridha Khan, declaring as *no takfeer* hundreds of millions of Muslims who associate themselves with the school of Deoband OR have any sort of ties with them, states explicitly and unambiguously in his Fatawa Africa:“The final appeal to the Muslims in regards to the Deobandis. Those who do not call them kafir, those who pay respect to them, those who bear in mind any teacher-student, family or friendship ties are also from among them and are kafir like them. They shall be tied together with one rope on the Day of Reckoning.” (p. 115)Even Barelwis who doubt the *no takfeer* status of the Deobandis are also *no takfeer* according to this Mujaddid of Takfeer – a concept known as chain-takfeer. Ahmad Ridha Khan re-iterates his Fatwa of mass-takfeer and chain-takfeer in numerous places in his works, in which he groups the Deobandis with such groups as the Qadiyanis. To cite just one example out of many, the following Fatwa states unambiguously that anyone who does not consider all Deobandis as *no takfeer*, or even doubts that they are *no takfeer*, becomes *no takfeer* himself:“Nadhir Hasan Dehlawi, Amir Ahmad Sehaswani, Amir Hasan Sehaswani, Qasim Nanotwi, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani, Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi and all of their adherents, followers, devotees and those who praise them are through the consensus of notable scholars kafir. And those who do not consider them to be kafir and doubt their kufr are also, without doubt, kafir.” (‘Irfan-i-Shari‘at, part 2, p. 29; also see Malfuzat, part 1, p. 115)Hundreds of millions of Muslims in whose lineage is a Deobandi or one who doubts that they are all *no takfeer*, are illegitimate children according to this Mujaddid of Takfeer:“Likewise, the Wahhabis, the Qadiyanis, the Deobandis, the humanists, the Chakralwis are all apostates (murtad), in that whoever their males or females marry in nikah from the people of the entire universe—regardless of whether they are Muslim, originally kafir, an apostate human or absolute animal—then this [nikah] will only be absolute falsehood (batil) and pure adultery (zina) and the children will be illegitimate (wald al-zina).” (Malfuzat, part 2, P. 105 of the Lucknow print and p. 100 of the Lead Press, Karachi)According to the Fatwas of mass-takfeer of this “Mujaddid”, the Barelwis should verify first whether or not those who slaughter their meat doubt that the Deobandis are *no takfeer*. If the slaughterer happens to be a Deobandi, or follows them, or praises them, or even doubts the *no takfeer* status of the Deobandis, then the meat is absolutely impure (najis), carrion and completely haram:“Answer: The slaughtered animal of a woman is permissible when she is able to carry out the slaughter properly. The slaughtered animal of a Jew is halal when slaughter is done with the name of the Most High, likewise [this is the case] if someone is truly a Christian and not an atheist Humanist like the general Christians of nowadays in that the slaughtered animal of a Humanist who claims Islam is carrion and not halal. The one who claims Christianity, the Rafidi, the Tabra’i, the Wahhabi Deobandi, the Wahhabi Ghayr Muqallid, the Qadiyani, the Chakralwi and the Humanist, all of their slaughtered animals are absolutely impure and firmly carrion and haram even if they recite the name of Allah a hundred thousand times and behave in a god fearing and pious way because they are all apostates…” (Ahkam-i-Shariat, part 1, p. 68)Such Fatwas of mass-takfeer and chain takfeer bear a distinct resemblance to those of the other great Mujaddid of Takfeer of the recent age, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. Since Wahhabis are second only to the Shiah in the chameleon-like art of Taqiyyah (holy hypocrisy and deception) it is worth citing here the true non-Taqiyyah Fatwa of the Wahhabis in regards to the Ash’aris, who along with the Maturidis, have constituted virtually the whole Ummah for the past thousand years. The Wahhabi authority, Shaykh Abdur Rahman ibn Hasan, the direct grandson of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab states in a Wahhabi gospel known as, “ad-Durar as-Sanniyah”:“This group which affiliates itself to Abul Hasan al-Ashari, describes the Lord of the Worlds with attributes of a non-existent and inanimate being…They deny the Oneness of Allah in Godhood, and permit the Shirk which Allah does not forgive (i.e. Shirk Akbar)…and they deny the oneness of His attributes by negating (them). So the Imams of Ahlus Sunnah and their followers have well-known publications in refutation of this obstinate, Kaaafir group…” [ad-Durar as-Sanniyah]
[Excerpts from ReliableFatwas] |
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Jan 2, 2019 22:28:28 GMT
Here is one example of an application by Allamah Abdul Hayy al-Laknawi of this ruling transmitted by the Hanafi Fuqaha, pertaining to some practices and beliefs of shirk that had become prevalent amongst the common people (who all have their "ulama" such as the likes of Ahmad Raza Khan):
Question:
What do you say (may Allāh ۢMost High have mercy on you) regarding the issue that is prevalent in our lands amongst the common people that in times of calamity and dire need, they call out in asking for assistance from the prophets and saints from afar believing that they are ḥāḍir & nāẓir and that whenever they implore them they are aware, and in turn, supplicate for them in the fulfilment of these needs? Is this permissible or not? Explain, and be rewarded.
Answer:
He grants direction to what is correct: In reality, such belief in the prophets and saints being ḥāḍir and nāẓir, and at all times are aware of our calling out to them even from afar is shirk, since it entails belief in ‘ilm al-ghayb for other than Him Most High, and this belief is shirk. This is because this characteristic is from those exclusive to Allāh (Great is His Grandeur), which no other being can have partnership with Him in. It states in al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah: ‘One marries without witnesses, saying: I make Allāh, His Messenger and the Angels witness, he disbelieves, because he believes that the Messenger and Angel know the Ghayb.’ [1] Further, it states in Bazzāziyyah: ‘About this our scholars have said: Whoever says the souls of Mashāyikh are present and knowing have committed disbelief.’ And Allāh knows best.
This was written by one hopeful of the pardon of his Powerful Master, Abu l-Ḥasanāt Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥayy, may Allāh pardon his manifest and hidden sins.” (Majmū‘at al-Fatāwā p. 344-5)
[1] The jurists also state that if one were to say the angels on their shoulders are witness to their marriage, they will not become disbelievers “because these angels are never absent from them.” (al-Muḥīṭ al-Burhānī, 7:407; see also: al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah, 2:288) Hence, shirk and kufr is in affirming knowledge of something to a being that is not proven that they have acquired.
(Translated by Mufti Zameelur Rahman)
|
|
