||False Allegations against Deobandi Ulama: ANSWERED|
The False Allegation - The Truth - Clarification
The false propaganda against and blatant fabrications about our highly acclaimed
and respected Ulama of Deoband by the ignorant must be refuted at all costs.
Numerous pamphlets and booklets have been written distorting the truth about and
writings of our distinguished Ulama.
Among the most common pamphlets displayed is "Tabliqism - one way ticket to
Hell". "Are these Islamic Beliefs": in one column is the 'Deobandi Tabliqi
Beliefs' and next to it is the 'Islamic beliefs'. However, answers to the
allegations have been given in various publications. Therefore, this publication
will attempt to print all the false allegations and the correct views.
The False Allegation
Rashid Ahmed Gangohi, a founder of Deobandi Movement has the following beliefs:
1. The Almighty Allah can speak a lie. (Fataawa Rashidiyya part 1 pg. 20)
2. Allah has already spoken a lie (Taqseedul Qadeer pg. 79).
The view of Hadhrat Moulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi Saheb is
that Allah is far above and pure from being attributed with falsehood. There is
no blemish of falsehood in His words at all for Allah says, 'Who is more
truthful than Allah in speech.' He who believes that Allah speaks a lie is an
accursed outright Kaafir and opposed to the Qurăn and Sunnah. (Fataawa
Rashidiyya part 1 pg. 3)
Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 84: 'From servant Rashid Ahmed Gangohi, after Salaam
Masnoon, you have inquired concerning the Masalah 'Imkaane Kizb' (possibility of
falsehood). But 'Imkaane Kizb' in the sense that Allah Taăla has the power
to act contrary to what He has ordered, but will not to do with His Free Will,
is the belief of this servant. The Qurăn Shareef and the Sahih Ahaadith bear
testimony to this belief, and this is the belief of all the Ulama of the Ummah
too. For example, Firáwn is promised to be thrown into Hell, but Allah Taăla has
the power to enter him into paradise, although He will never give him paradise.
And this is the Masalah under discussion at the moment. This is the belief of
all my friends. The enemies must have related it differently. Referring to this
Power and the non-occurrence of it is termed 'Imkaane Zaati' and 'Mumtana bi
Ghayr' Was salaam Rashid Ahmad Gangohi.
Look, how they lay waiting with vicious, malicious attempts to defame this noble
personality. If it is not slander then what is it?
To distort the above mentioned Masalah and refer it to Hadhrat Moulana Rashid
Ahmad Gangohi Saheb is totally evil and wrong. It is a slander and slander is
worse than back-biting,
Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 90: 'That person who believes or utters with the tongue
concerning Allah Taăla that "He spoke a lie", is positively a Kaafir, an
accursed and opposed to the Qurăn, Hadith and the unanimity of the Ummah. He is
definitely not a Mu'min. Taălallaahu ammaa yaqoolu dhaalimoona oluwwan kabeeraa.
(Allah is far above from what the transgressors are saying).'
The misrepresenter, besides being involved with misrepresentation, has earned
the wrath of Allah. Let the Hadith of the Master of the Green Dome once again
ring in his ears. 'A person does not target another with impiety or a person
does not target another with Kufr, but it returns to the former if the latter is
not guilty of it.' (Bukhari)
Taqdeesul Qadeer is not compiled by the Ulama of Deoband.
In fact there is no such Kitaab by this name.
The Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) is not the only Rahmatullil Aalameen.
(Fataawa Rashidiyya part 2 pg. 19)
The view of Hadhrat Moulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi is that: ''One should know that
the attribute of being Omnipresent is the quality of Allah Taăla alone, like
All-Knowing, Creator of the Skies and Earths and so forth. Therefore to
attribute this quality of being Omnipresent to someone else, though it be a 'Nabi',
'Wali', or Saint, is to ascribe Partners to Allah in His Qualities, which is
termed as 'Shirk-fis-Sifaat."
The word 'Rahmatullil Aalameen' is not a characteristic only of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu
Álayhi Wasallam). In fact other Awliyaa, Ambiyaa and Ulamaa-e-Rabbaniyyeena are
also a means of mercy unto the world, although Rasululla (Sallallaahu Álayhi
Wasallam) is the highest of them all. Therefore, if it is used for others with 'Taaweel'
(by elucidation) it is permissible.' (Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 96/97)
To lecture on or discuss the Shahaadat of Hadhrat Imaam
Hussayn (Radhiallaahu Ánhu) is Haraam even if the stories are true. (Fataawa
Rashidiyya part 3 pg. 113)
The incident of the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussayn (Radhiallaahu Ánhu) who
sacrificed his life for the sake of Truth, is surely very important. But the
method adopted, like beating the chest, tearing the garment, pulling the hair,
slapping the face, shouting slogans of 'Yaa Hussayn, Yaa Hussayn' and taking out
processions to parade in the streets, is what Hadhrat Moulana has stopped and
said is Haraam.'
The reason for stopping this is that Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam)
has forbidden the slapping of faces and the tearing of garments.
Therefore to lecture on or discuss the Shahaadat of Hadhrat Hussayn in the
abovementioned fashion, with that type of pomp and show, is forbidden in the
light of the Hadith. (Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 104/105)
In the month of Muharram, providing free water and feeding people with milk or
Sharbat is Haraam. (Fataawa Rashidiyya part 3 pg. 113)
To feed the poor and needy and to distribute water free to quench their thirst
as 'Isaale Sawaab' is no sin. Neither did Moulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi nor
anyone else say it is Haraam.
The Barelvis belief is this, that on the plains of Karbala the martyrs
sacrificed their life in thirst. Therefore, the water that is given here as a
drink, reaches them.
It is common sense, that this water does not reach them, nor are they in need of
it. They are in Jannat. If the whole idea is to convey the reward (Isaale Sawaab),
the whole year is available for that. No question arises then whether to make 'Isaale
Sawaab' or not. The practice mentioned above similitudes the practices of the
Rawaafidh; therefore it is Haraam.' (Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 147/148)
Ashraf Ali Thanvi, a founder member of Deoband says: 'The Holy Prophet (Sallallaahu
Álayhi Wasallam) has an education like that of children, lunatics and animals of
every category.' (Hifzul Imaan pg. 7)
The view of Hadhrat Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi is that: Hadhrat Moulana was
asked, 'Did you in Hifzul Imaan or any other book write anything directly or
indirectly comparing the education of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam)
to that of children, lunatics and animals? If not then what is your ruling
regarding a person who holds such a belief?' In reply to that Moulana states,
'Let alone writing such falsehood and filth, my heart had never even perceived
such falsehood and verily if anyone holds such a belief he is out of the fold of
Islam.' (Faisal-e-Khusoomat pg. 21)
Hadhrat Hakimul Ummah, Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (author of the famous 'Bahishti
Zewar') did not write the abovementioned statement in Hifzul Imaan. Nor is it
his belief. It is a slander on the said Moulana. In fact Hadhrat Moulana has
stated clearly in 'Hifzul Imaan' that, 'Knowledge with regard to the Excellence
of Prophethood has been bestowed totally upon Rasul (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam)
(Hifzul Imaan pg. 12)
Prophets are not free from sins. (Tasfiyatul Aqaaid pg. 24 - Cassim Nanotwi, a
founder of Deoband)
The topic under discussion in 'Tasfiyatul Aqaaid' was this: It was mentioned in
the Hadith, in Shaf'at that on the plain of resurrection people will gather with
great fear, perturbed and disturbed. They will go to Hadhrat Aadam (Álayhis
salaam) and request him to intercede on their behalf in front of Allah Taăla.
Hadhrat Aadam (Álayhis salaam) will refuse and say that it is beyond his
influence, because of the incident that he ate from the tree of Jannah which was
forbidden to him. Hadhrat Aadam (Álayhis salaam) will say, 'Today Allah's wrath
is so great that His anger was never great before and will never be so great
after' (though Allah Taăla has forgiven him). He will advise them to go to
Hadhrat Nuh (Álayhis salaam). In this way people will flock to the other Ambiyaa
(Álayhimus salaam). Each one will be fearful and reluctant, for some reason or
the other to intercede on behalf of man. At the end when the people will come to
Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam), Rasul (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam)
will say, 'Very well, I will intercede on your behalf. I will take permission
from my Sustainer and He will grant me that permission.'
Hadhrat Moulana wrote that, which was mentioned in the Hadith and not that,
'Prophets (Álayhimus salaam) are not free from sins,' as mentioned in the said
Shaytaan has more education than our Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam). (Barahine
Qatia pg. 51 - Khalil Ahmad Ambhetwi)
We strongly believe and openly claim that Rasulullah (Sallallaahu
Álayhi Wasallam) was given more knowledge than the entire creation of Allah and
it is our belief that whosoever says that anyone has more knowledge than
Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) then such a person is a Kaafir. Our
great Úlama have already given a Fatwa of Kufr upon a person who says Shaytaan
has more knowledge than Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) then how could
I ever have written such a thing. (Al Muhnad Allal Mufannad Q&A 18-19)
It is totally incorrect. This sentence is not
written anywhere in 'Baraahine Qaati'ah', that 'Shaytaan has more knowledge than
Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam).'
Moulana Khalil Ahmad (RA) was asked whether he wrote such a statement or not? He
replied, 'I did not write such a statement anywhere. It is an open slander on
me. On the day of Qiyaamat account will be taken with Ahmad Raza Khan.'
To read Alhamdu Fateha before eating food is Bidat (Fataawa Rashidiyya part 2
In order to establish anything in Islam, it is necessary
that it be verified in the light of the Shariáh. Unless it is not proven by the
Shariáh, it cannot be regarded as Deen. Yes, one may call it a matter of
convenience. For example, the use of an electric fan, motor vehicle, etc. The
moment a person wants to make it part and parcel of Deen, immediately it will
need verification from the Shariáh, whether it be Meelaad, Fateha, Giyaarwi, Urs,
Dua-e-Thani, Dua immediately after Janaaza prayer or any other ritual for that
matter. And on failing to be verified, it will be regarded as Bidat -
innovation. The wickedness of being involved in Bidat is that the Sunnats are
automatically left out. As darkness spreads, light vanishes.
To read Al-Hamd, Fateha before eating food is not verified and proven in the
Shariáh, therefore, it is a Bidat.
Regarding Bidat, Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) has decreed:
1. "He who innovates something in this matter of ours that is not of it will
have it rejected." (Bukhari)
2. "Beware of newly-invented matters! For every invented matter is an innovation
and every innovation is leading astray and every leading astray is in
Hell-Fire." (Abu Dawud; Tirmidhi)
The 'Masnoon' Duas read by Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) before meals
and after meals, should surely be read. Hadhrat Moulana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi
(RA) did not stop anyone from this.
We cannot make Nikah with any person who takes part in Urs, etc. (Fataawa
Rashidiya part 2 pg. 142)
Moulana Rashid Ahmed says in Fataawa Rashidiya, "Taking
part in Urs is not an act of Kufr therefore Nikah with a person who takes part
in Urs is valid."
Those who go to the Urs and make Sajdah (prostrate) to the graves, pray for boon
or ask for a favour from the inmates of the graves, and make Tawaaf of the
graves; to solemnise marriages with them will inculcate these Shirk practices in
them and others as well. Therefore, unless they don't make Tawbah and
refrain from such Shirk practices, Nikah is not allowed until then.
Giyaarwi Shareef is Haraam and Kufr, even if Qur'an is read. (Fataawa Rashidiyya
part 1 pg. 95)
Anything in the name of 'Ghayrullah' (someone other than Allah), whether it be
Giyarwi Shareef' or 'Baarwi', is Haraam. This Masalah is found in Shaami,
Tahtaawi, Bahrur Raaiq and in many other Kitaabs.
On the other hand, Esaale Sawaab is permissible. No one prohibited Esaale Sawaab
provided it is done without specifications of time, place and invitation. But
look at the beliefs of these people. They have this belief that the distribution
of sustenance is entrusted to Peerane Peer (RA). If the Giyaarwi is held back,
he will stop the food.
It is Sawaab to eat crows (Fataawa Rashidiyya part 2 pg. 130)
Crows are of three types: The first type is that which feeds only on grain. It
is exactly like a wild pigeon. It is Halaal according to all Jurists. The second
type is that which only feeds on excreta, and prey on other animals. It is
exactly like a vulture. It is Haraam according to all Jurists. The third type is
that which feeds on grain, eats excreta and it catches and eats mice as well. It
is like an uncaged fowl, which feeds on grain, worms and even on mice.
Hadhrat Moulana wrote concerning this third type of crow that it is not Haraam.
This Masalah of the crow is found in Hidaaya, Durre Mukhtaar, Fataawa Aalamghiri,
as well as the other 'Kitaabs' of Fiqh (Jurisprudence).
Therefore, should anyone not eat a crow or a fowl for the rest of his life,
there is no criticism and blame on him according to the Shariáh. Yes, if he
takes it to be Haraam then he will be answerable. Thus whosoever takes it to
beHaraam, in order to correct his belief it is a 'Sawaab' and reward to eat it.'
(Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 492 Rahimia print)
Almighty Allah Taăla is not always 'all knowing'. He finds out whenever
necessary. (Taqwiyatul Eemaan pg. 26).
This is an open Calumny and a False Accusation. This sentence is not written at
all in 'Tawiyatul Eemaan' that 'Allah Taăla is not always "all knowing". He
finds out when necessary.
The Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) will die and become sand one day. (Taqwiyatul
Imaan pg. 69)
The view of Hadhrat Moulana Rashid Ahmed Saheb is that: The
meaning of the (phrase) 'to lie on sand' has two meanings. The one is to become
soil, the other is the body touches the sand. The latter meaning is meant, and
Moulana (author of Taqwiyatul Imaan) also believes that the
bodies of the Anbiyaa (Álayhimus salaam) do not turn to dust. Because a deceased
is buried in a grave and he is surrounded with soil all over, his body together
with the 'Kafn' touches the sand beneath him is called 'Mitti me milnaa' - to
lie on sand. Hence, there is no point of objection. (Fataawa Rashidiyya pg.s
In Taqwiyatul Imaan, a Hadith is mentioned in which a Sahaabi (Radhiallaahu Ánhu)
told Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) that the people of other places
bow out of respect to their Rulers; whereas Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi
Wasallam) is more worthy of being bowed to. At this, Rasulullah (Sallallaahu
Álayhi Wasallam) said, 'Look if you happen to pass by my grave, will you bow to
it?' The Sahaabi (Radhiallaahu Ánhu) said 'No, I will not do so.' On this,
Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said, 'So do not bow to me ...' (A
Sajdah Taazimi is also forbidden).
'I will also die
one day and lie on sand (buried); therefore am I worthy to be prostated to?'
This phrase 'Mitti me milne waalaa hoo - I will lie on sand' (meaning to be
buried one day), became the bone of contention for the Barelvis.
To think of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) in
Salaat is worse than thinking of cows and donkeys. (Siraate Mustaqeem pg. 150)
The abovementioned statement is not found anywhere in 'Siraate Mustaqeem' that,
'To think of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) in Salaat is worse than
thinking of cows and donkeys.'
That which was written in 'Sarfe Himmat'. This is terminology used by the Sufis
in Tasawwuf (the spiritual field). 'Sarfe Himmat' in 'Tasawwuf' means that a
person's meditation over a thing becomes so overpowering and predominant that no
other thoughts penetrate into the mind and soul. Like a mirror, if a person does
not want any person's reflection to come into it, he covers it with a black
cloth and thus no reflection will appear. To contemplate over a figure so that
no other thing is contemplated is called 'Sarfe Himmat'.
This has been forbidden in Salaat, that besides Allah, 'Sarfe Himmat' should not
be done towards anyone. Salaat should purely and solely be for Allah alone. If 'Sarfe
Himmat' is done towards Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam), then the
entire Salaat and Ibaadat will be for him.
On the other hand, if any thoughts of cows, donkeys, business, etc. come to
mind, or a person gets drowned in these thoughts whilst in Salaat, it is
regrettable. There is no fear of it being worshipped. In fact the person regrets
that in the course of an esteem Ibaadat like Salaat, he should have such
The Kitaab, 'Siraate Mustaqeem' is based on 'Tasawwuf'. The objector is not
versed in Tasawwuf'. Therefore, he has translated 'Sarfe Himmat' to mean a mere
What comes to mind is this; that the Objector presents a picture of a Grade One
child, learning to read and write ABC and wishing to interpret the writings of
Moreover, it is stated in the Hadith that Salaat should be performed with full
attention. Therefore, when the name of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam)
is recited in 'Tashahhud' the thought of the Rasul (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam)
will come and should come. The Salaat will not be rendered incorrect and this is
not unlawful at all. The respected Moulana did not stop anyone from this.
Article taken (with Thanks) from Islam.tc