Tag Archives: Deobandi

Muhadditheen Did Not To Taqleed Part 1

Author: Abu al-Asjad Muhammad Siddeeque Raza

Translator: Raza Hassan

Muqallideen use many different tactics to prove their unproven Taqleed. They concoct many things to satisfy the people, one of which includes that the writers and collectors of the books of ahadeeth were Muqallid. The people who have extended tongues say many other things too, but right now, our discussion is restricted to the Muhadditheen.

1-   Ameen Okaarvi from the Deobandi School of thought titled “Wakeel-e-Ahnaaf, Tarjumaan ul-Islaam, Munaazir-e-Islaam” and has been given many other titles, writes:

“Whereas, all the books of ahadeeth that we have today, are either written by Mujtahideen or by Muqallideen, who are mentioned in Tabaqaat Hanafiyyah, Tabaqaat Maalikiyyah, Tabaqaat Shaafi’eeyyah, and Tabaqaat Hanaabilah…. There does not exist a single reliable book of hadeeth in which believing in Ijmaa and Ijtihaad is considered to be Haraam & Shirk; or believing in Fiqh has been prohibited. Not even one reliable reference can be presented concerning its compiler that he was neither able to do Ijtihaad nor did he do Taqleed, that’s why he was a Ghayr Muqallid.” [Tajalliyaat Safdar: 1/113; Published in Multan, Majmoo’ah Rasaail: 3/13]

2-   Mufti Ahmed Mumtaaz Saahib “Ra’ees Daar ul-Ifta Jaami’ah Khulafa Raashideen, Karachi” writes:

“This is why in these two last issues, Muhadditheen – rahimahumullah also do the Taqleed of Mujtahideen – rahimahumullah. Therefore, it is due to this taqleed that the mention of Muhadditheen (rahimahumullah) is only found in 4 types of books: (1) Tabaqaat Hanafiyyah, (2) Tabaqaat Maalikiyyah, (3) Tabaqaat Shaafi’eeyyah, (4) Tabaqaat Hanaabilah. No Muhaddith or a Historian has ever written a book named ‘Tabaqaat Ghayr Muqallideen’ in biographies of Muhadditheen” [Asli Chehra, P. 7]

It can easily be understood from these two quotes that they have tried to prove the authors of all the books of ahadeeth to be Muqallid.

Okaarvi Sahab had only written that the Muhadditheen are either Mujtahideen or Muqallideen, but while copying him, Mufti Ahmed Sahab, went even more ahead and tried to prove all the Muhadditheen to be Muqallid.

Anyway, this is correct that the mention of Muhadditheen is only found in these 4 tabaqaat, however, this is not correct at all that it is the result of the same Taqleed – meaning, they [the tabaqaat] are the cause of Muhadditheen being Muqallid.

On the contrary, it is the result of these Muqallideen being engaged in Taqleed that upon seeing the mention [of Muhadditheen] in these 4 tabaqaat, they think that the Muhadditheen were Muqallid.

So what is the actual reason for the existence of these tabaqaat? If we say something from our own selves then it is possible that ta’assub might come in the way of accepting our remarks. Therefore, we will present a “big” reason for it from the books of “Major Deobandi Scholars” themselves. It is possible that they might accept the reality then. See below:

1-   Their “Shaikh ul-Hadeeth, al-Muhaddith al-Kabeer” Zakariyyah Kaandhalwi writes:

“An issue here is that: Were Ahl ul-Hadeeth and Aimmah Muhadditheen Muqallid or Ghayr Muqallid? And if they were Muqallid then who did they do Taqleed of? There is a difference of opinion in it among the Scholars. And the thing is that a person who is big [respected/Major Scholar], everyone wants that he should join his party, because he has too much value & attraction, and everyone tries to pull him towards himself….” [Taqreer Bukhaari: 1/52, Published in Daarul Aha’at Karachi]

So what is the reason that the mention of Muhadditheen is found in 4 Tabaqaat? It has many other reasons, but the reasons that are made clear from the statement of Zakariyyah Sahab are as follows:

i-     It is the result of Muhadditheen being big [great] personalities

ii-   Everyone wants that the big [great] personalities should join his party

iii- There is “attraction” in proving big personalities to be theirs.

Because of this attraction, everyone seems to pull big personalities towards them. For example: Hanafis say that so-and-so was a Hanafi, Shaafi’ees say that he was a Shaafi’ee, Maalikis and Hanbalis also try to prove him to be theirs. A big reason that these 4 Tabaqaat came into existence is this “Attraction”. What is more is that many of the Muhadditheen have been added in these 4 Tabaqaat merely because of studentship also. Moreover, we do not also lack the amount of Muhadditheen who have been added in 2 to 3, in fact in all 4 Tabaqaat at the same time. If the reason is only to indicate their being the student or to indicate that they gained benefits from those Imaams, then there does not seem anything wrong in it. But above that reason, the attempt to prove Muhadditheen to be Muqallid is absolutely intolerable.

The “Imaam Ahl-e-Sunnat” of Muqallideen, Sarfaraz Khan Safdar writes: “If one is a Jaahil (ignorant), he should do taqleed of Scholars. And Taqleed is only for a Jaahil who is unaware of the proofs of Ahkaam….” [Al-Kalaam ul-Mufeed: P. 234]

Notice what he wrote: “And Taqleed is only for a Jaahil”! Were, (Na’oozubillah), the noble Muhadditheen Jaahil? And were they not aware of the Proofs of Ahkaam? Those who dedicated their whole lives in service of ahadeeth, possessing great memories, extracting Masaail from each hadeeth by naming chapters and Tarajim were Jaahil? If not, and certainly not, then it is also not correct to call Muhadditheen Muqallid. And it is akin to strengthening the claims of Munkireen (Rejecters of) Hadeeth, though unknowingly. Because on this claim, they would immediately say that “Taqleed is only for a Jaahil” and Muhadditheen also used to do Taqleed, therefore they were Jaahil! Now how can we trust the ahadeeth collected by these Jaahils?

If Muqallideen had paid attention to the consequences of their claims, then they would not have dared to call Muhadditheen Muqallid. May Allaah give them the ability [to speak truth]!

2-   Another one of their “Muhaddith al-Kabeer, Allaamah” Abdur Rasheed Nu’maani, after narrating the opinions of different people of knowledge concerning the Madhaahib of the authors of Sihaah Sittah, writes:

“فانظر الي هذا التجاذب الذي وقع بين هولاء العلام فتارة يعدون احدهم شافعيا و تارة حنبليا و اخري مجتهدا وهذا كله عندي تخرص وتكلم من غير برهان فلو كان احد من هولاء شافعيا او حنبليا لا طبق العلماء علي نقله ولما اختلفوا هذا الختلاف كما اطبقوا علي كون الطحاوي حنفيا و البيهقي شافعيا و عياض مالكيا وابن الجوزي حنبليا، سوي الامام ابي داود فانه قد تفقه علي الامام احمد و مسائله عن احمد بن حنبل معروف مطبوع”

“Look at this force of attraction which occurred between these big Scholars. They count one of them to be Shaafi’ee, sometimes Hanbali, and after sometimes Mujtahid. According to me, all these are merely pointless, and sayings without evidence. If anyone of them had been Shaafi’ee or Hanbali then the Scholars would have agreed upon narrating it and they would never have fallen into such difference, as they agreed upon Tahaawi being a Hanafi, Bayhaqi being a Shaafi’ee, Eyaadh being a Maaliki, and Ibn al-Jawzee being a Hanbali, except Imaam Abu Dawood as he learned fiqh from Imaam Ahmed and his Masaail from Ahmed bin Hanbal are famous and published” [Ma Tamassu Ilaihi al-Haajjah Liman Yutaali’ Sunan Ibn Majah: P. 26]

This was the statement of Nu’maani Deobandi, which makes the following points clear:

  • Calling the authors of Kutub as-Sittah to be Hanbali or Shaafi’ee is “Tajaazub” (act of pulling towards oneself), pointless, and rubbish, which have no daleel.
  • These are “Takharrus” made up, fabricated, and sayings made up from minds, without any evidence & Burhaan.
  • Someone calls a Muhaddith to be Shaafi’ee; some call him Hanbali, while some declare him to be Mujtahid.
  • No one of them is Shaafi’ee, Hanbali etc. If they were, then the Scholars would have agreed upon narrating it.
  • The Scholars are differed upon these Muhadditheen being Hanbali, Shaafi’ee etc. They are not agreed upon.

3-   Their “Mufti A’dham Pakistan” Rafee’ Uthmaani writes:

“The opinions of the Scholars are different as to what is the Fiqhi Madhab of these six Aimmah of hadeeth; because none of them ever confirmed their Madhab. Therefore, some Scholars opine that all these were absolute (Mutlaq) Aimmah & Mujtahideen; they were not the Muqallid of anyone. While some say that none of them was Mujtahid and their Madhab was that of other common Muhadditheen which are neither Muqallid nor Mujtahid. And some have gone into details, and then there is difference in that detail as well.” [Dars-e-Muslim: P. 71-72]

Muhadditheen did not confirm it themselves. Of course how would they have done so when the Taqleedi Madhaahib had not yet come into existence! Thus people made it their blank book, and wrote whatever came in their minds. Some even counted a Muhaddith from their Madhab if they merely saw some of his ahadeeth in accordance to their Madhab and in opposition to the other Madhaahib; while some declared him to be from another Madhab by looking at other Chapters and Ahadeeth. And Muqallideen took these sayings so seriously as if these are the actual facts and realities. Let’s come and see how people “pulled each other” as per the saying of Zakariyah Kandhalwi, and how they “made up” guesses, as per the saying of Nu’maani Sahab. We will, in example, mention their sayings concerning some of the Muhadditheen:

1) Sayyid ul-Muhadditheen Imaam Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari – rahimahullah


First, we will observe the opinions of people concerning the author of “The Most authentic book after the Book of Allaah” Saheeh Bukhaari, which is Imaam Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari (rahimahullah):

1: Anwar Shaah Kashmiri writes: “Know that Imaam Bukhaari was a Mujtahid, there is no doubt in that. And what became famous that he was a Shaafi’ee then it was only because of his accordance to Imaam Shaafi’ee in the famous Masaail [not otherwise]” [Faydh ul-Baari: 1/58].

2: Ibraaheem bin Abdul Lateef bin Muhammad Haashim Thathwi writes: “As for Imaam Bukhaari then Taaj as-Subki has mentioned him in his Tabaqaat (Shaafi’eeyyah) that he was a Shaafi’ee. Allaamah Nafees ud-Deen Sulemaan bin Ibraaheem refuted him and said: ‘Bukhaari himself was a Mujtahid like Abu Haneefah, Shaafi’ee, Maalik, and Ahmed’” [Sahq al-Aghbiya with reference from Ma Tamassu Ilaihi al-Haajjah: P. 26]

3: Zakariyyah Kandhalwi says in his special terminology: “[Chakki ka Paat yeh hai ke] Fact of the matter is that Imaam Bukhaari was strongly a Mujtahid.” [Taqreer Bukhaari: P. 52]

4: Abdur Rasheed Nu’maani writes: “According to me, Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Abu Dawood as well are like the other Aimmah mentioned above. They were neither the Muqallid of a specific Imaam nor were they absolute Mujtahids” [Maa Tamassu Ilaihi al-Haajjah: P. 27]

5: Mufti Rafee’ Uthmaani says: “The opinion of Hadhrat Maulaana al-Imaam al-Haafidh Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiri, based on some proofs, is that Imaam Bukhaari was without any doubt a Mujtahid Mutlaq, and his book is the just witness of this fact” [Dars-e-Muslim: P. 72]

6: Their “Imaam Ahl-e-Sunnat” and “Muhaddith A’dham Pakistan” Sarfaraz Khan Safdar writes: “And similarly Imaam Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari is counted among Tabaqaat Shaafi’eeyyah… Hadhrat Imaam Bukhaari is the one upon whose two booklets: Juzz Rafa al-Yadain & Juzz al-Qira’at, the opposing party run their car of two Ikhtilaafi Masaail. But look at the wonder of Allaah’s nature that even Imaam Bukhaari is proven to be a Muqallid” [al-Kalaam ul-Mufeed: P. 128]

Looking at the practice of Subki, Sarfaraz Khan Safdar declared Imaam Bukhaari to be the Muqallid of Imaam Shaafi’ee. Whereas, Anwar Shah Kashmiri writes:

“And what became famous about Imaam Bukhaari that he was a Shaafi’ee was only because of his accordance with Imaam Shaafi’ee in the famous Masaail. Otherwise, his accordance with Imaam A’dham (Abu Haneefah) as well, is no less than his accordance with Shaafi’ee… Counting him among the Shaafi’ees as per the Tabaqah is no better than counting him among the Hanafis.” [Faydh ul-Baari: 1/58]

Another one of their “Muhaddith Kabeer” Zakariyyah sahab said: “Since Imaam Bukhaari is angrier with Hanafiyyah that’s why it becomes apparent that he is a Shaafi’ee. Whereas, as much Imaam Bukhaari is angry with Hanafiyyah, about the same in fact even more, he is opposed to the Shaafi’eeyyah” [Taqreer Bukhaari: 1/52]

Sarfaraz Sahab became Happy merely upon seeing the name of Imaam Bukhaari in Tabaqaat. He then started screaming upon Ahl ul-Hadeeth and declared it “a wonder of Allaah’s nature” by declaring a huge Muhaddith like Imaam Bukhaari to be a Shaafi’ee Muqallid; whereas, this is only the wonder of Sarfaraz Sahib’s love for “Taqleed”. He should have at least thought that he himself has written in his book that: “If one is a Jaahil, he should do taqleed of Scholars, and Taqleed is only for a Jaahil” [Al-Kalaam ul-Mufeed: P. 234]. Then he himself writes Imaam Bukhaari to be a “Muqallid” right in the same book! Is this not equal to declaring a huge Muhaddith to be a Jaahil? Is this not an insult of Muhadditheen?

And then as per the saying of Kashmiri Sahib, he has accorded Imaam Abu Haneefah more than Imaam Shaafi’ee; and as per the saying of Zakariyyah Sahib “As much Imaam Bukhaari is angry with Hanafiyyah, even more than that he is against Shaafi’ees”. When this is the matter then declaring him to be a Shaafi’ee Muqallid can only be the wonder of Taqleed, not of justice and fairness!

The noble purpose of Imaam Bukhaari (rahimahullah) was to present the Saheeh ahadeeth of the Prophet (peace be upon him) which he did, but someone amongst the Muqallideen comes and says that he is more angry with Ahnaaf, someone says that he accorded Ahnaaf more and was angry with Shawaafi’. [What nonsense is this]!! Nu’maani Sahib said the truth that these are mere Fabrications, assumptions, and claims without proofs.

Now as you can see, Kashmiri Sahib affirmed that: “Imaam Bukhaari is a Mujtahid” and Nu’maani sahib, that: “Imaam Bukhaari is not a Muqallid”, but while ignoring the sayings of their Akaabir (elders), someone says in “Takharrus & Tajaazub”: “Imaam Bukhaari, the Taqleedi Hayaati Samaa’ee” [See, Mahnamah “Qaaflah”, Vol 3 Shumara # 3, P. 14-15].

Inna Lillaahi Wa Inna Ilaihi Raaj’oon!

2) Imaam Abu Dawood Sulemaan bin al-Asha’th as-Sijistaani (rahimahullah)


There are different opinions found concerning him as well. Mentioning all of them would cause too much length to the article. To make it short we will mention the opinions of two personalities of “Muqallideen”, and it itself will contain a lot of contents for those who understand.

So listen, Zakariyyah Kaandhalwi writes:

“My opinion concerning Abu Dawood is that he was a firm Hanbali. Therefore, Hanaabilah have also added him in the Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilah; and with that, he has proven the permissibility of urinating while standing by naming a chapter in his book ‘Al-Baul Qaa’iman’ which is the Madhab of Hanaabilah, whereas, it is Makrooh according to the other A’immah…. Similarly, (the issue of) performing wudoo upon eating the food touched by fire is Mansookh according to everyone, except Hanaabilah, this is why, Imaam Abu Dawood has mentioned this Baab (Chapter) after giving precedent to the chapter of Tark-e-Wudoo and has emphasized it even more ahead with the title ‘At-Tashdeed fi Dhaalik’ and the hadeeth which says that the Prophet (peace be upon him) abandoned (Tark) performing ablution upon that which touched fire at the end (of his age), Imaam Abu Dawood interpreted it to be related to a restricted incident.” [Taqreer Bukhaari: 1/52].

“Mufti” Sa’eed Ahmed Paalanpoori, the teacher of Hadeeth in Daarul Uloom Deoband, writes:

“According to the insignificant opinion of the Author (which is Paalanpoori himself), this last opinion is correct, because taraajim (Chapters) of the Sunan (Abi Dawood), where, accord with Imaam Ahmed, at the same time, some are also against him. Some of its examples are as follows:


  1. 1.    Concerning the Virgin Adult (Baalighah) Woman, does the Wali (Guardian) has the authority of compelling her or not? Ahnaaf refuse it, according to them, her (the woman’s) agreement is a condition for the Nikaah to be valid; but the A’immah Thalathah (the three other Imaams) say that as long as she is virgin – though a Baalighah (Adult) – still the wali has the authority to compel her (to do Nikaah); meaning, her agreement is not a condition for the Nikaah to be valid… Imaam Abu Dawood has brought a chapter concerning this issue in his Sunan named: ‘Chapter: On the virgin girl whose father marries her without her permission’ and then he narrates the hadeeth of Ibn Abbaas (radiallah anhu) that: A virgin girl came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, upon which the Mercy for all Man-kind (peace be upon him) gave the girl permission to keep or not to keep her Nikaah. [Bazl al-Majhood: 3/26]


Allaamah Kaashmiree said concerning this chapter: ‘The purpose of Imaam Sahab with this chapter is to accord the Ahnaaf (Iraaqis) and this is also assumed from the approach of Imaam Bukhaari’


  1. 2.    Does touching the ‘private part’ invalidate Wudoo or not? The wudoo is not invalidated according to the Ahnaaf, whereas, it is invalidated according to the Shawaafi’ and Hanaabilah [Bidaayat al-Mujtahid: 1/39, al-Minhal: 2/196]

Imaam Sahab (Abu Dawood) brings the first chapter on this issue by the name: ‘Chapter on one performing wudoo upon touching the penis’, and then he names the other chapter: ‘Chapter on permissibility concerning that’. The order of (naming the chapters) by Imaam Sahab denotes that he is favoring the view of Ahnaaf.


  1. 3.    Does eating the food touched by fire invalidate wudoo or not? The opinion of A’immah Arba’ah (the four Imaams) is that the wudoo remains [al-Manhal: 2/213]. The first chapter that Imaam Abu Dawood brought concerning this issue is: ‘Chapter on the abandonment of performing wudoo from that which touched the fire’, and then after that, he says: ‘Chapter: At-Tashdeed fi Dhaalik (meaning, on the wudoo being necessary upon eating the food touched by fire)’, from which this can be deduced that according to Imaam Abu Dawood, the obligation of performing wudoo is raajih (the more correct view)… Hadhrat Maulaana Zakariyyah Sahab rahmatullah alaih has presented the same example in proving him a Hanbali, but as you saw, this chapter is in fact against Imaam Ahmed rahmatullah alaih. Then how can this chapter be a proof of Imaam Sahab (Abu Dawood) being a Hanbali?! Rather this chapter is against the Jumhoor!


These were a few examples I presented, otherwise, there are many Taraajim (Chapters) in the Sunan which can be found against the Madhab of Imaam Ahmed (rahimahullah). That is why, instead of considering Imaam Sahab (Abu Dawood) to be a Hanbali or a strict Hanbali, it is more correct to consider him a Mujtahid.” End Quote of Paalanpoori [Hayaat Abu Dawood with reference to the translation of Sunan Abu Dawood: 1/30-32]

Did you see, how by looking at only one or two chapters, Zakariyyah Sahab considered Imaam Sahab (Abu Dawood) to be a firm or strict Hanbali, and then the chapter he presented from Sunan Abi Dawood as an example, the same chapter came out to be against the view of Imaam Ahmed (rahimahullah), as per the saying of Paalanpoori “How can this be the proof of him being a Hanbali or a Mutashaddid Hanbali?” Anyway, we can imagine from this that by looking at a few chapters like this, people have tried to make guesses and assumptions, and whatever anyone could understood, they made him such. Whereas, we can even find some chapters in Sunan Abu Dawood which support & strengthen Hanafi Madhab; if this is the measure of considering him a Hanbali, then why don’t the people declare him a “Hanafi”? Similarly, even Maaliki Madhab can get some support from some of the chapters, then why is he not declared a “Maaliki”? In fact Taaj as-Subki did bring his name in Tabaqaat ash-Shaafi’eeyyah!!

3) Imaam Muslim bin al-Hajjaaj al-Qushayri (rahimahullah)


Imaam Muslim is the author of Saheeh Muslim. Saheeh Muslim is second in status after Saheeh Bukhaari, and all its narrations are authentic. Listen to some opinions concerning Imaam Muslim:

  1. The “Shaikh ul-Islaam” of Deobandi Muqallideen, Shabbeer Ahmed Uthmaani writes:

“As for Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasaa’ee, Ibn Maajah, Ibn Khuzaymah, Abu Ya’la, Bazzaar, and the other Muhadditheen like them, then they were upon the Madhab of Ahl ul-Hadeeth. They neither were the Muqallid of a specific Scholar among the Scholars, nor were they Mutlaq A’immah Mujtahideen” [Fath ul-Mulhim: 1/281]

  1. “Mufti” Rafee’ Uthmaani writes:

“The opinion of Shaah Sahab (Anwar Shah Kaashmiree) concerning Muslim and Ibn Maajah is that we could not find about their Madhab. And their being Shaafi’ee is famous based on the chapters of Saheeh Muslim, which mostly are in accordance to the Shaafi’ee Madhab, but this base is not correct, because the taraajim (chapters) (of Saheeh Muslim) were not named by Imaam Muslim himself, rather they are named by the people after him” [Dars Muslim: P. 72-73]

Pay attention to the statement of “Mufti” Sahab and see what kind of guesses the guessers have made? They are assuming his “Madhab” from the names of Chapters of his book, whereas, those chapters were not even named by Imaam Muslim himself, rather it is an effort of the late-comers, therefore, this base is extremely weak and groundless. All the attempts of declaring Muhadditheen to be Muqallideen are based mostly on these weak bases. So how much importance the guesses made on such weak bases would hold?

  1. Zakariyyah Kaandhalwi writes:

“As for Hadhrat Imaam Muslim, some have declared him Shaafi’ee, while most of them have declared him Maaliki” [Taqreer Bukhaari: 1/52]

  1. “Mufti” Irshaad Qaasmi writes:

“Imaam Muslim…. It is written in the Muqaddimah of Fath (al-Baari) that he was upon the Madhab of Ahl ul-Hadeeth. He was not the Muqallid of anyone.” [Irshaad Usool ul-Hadeeth: P. 166]

  1. Abdur Rasheed Nu’maani writes:

“ولعل الصواب في هذا الباب ما نقله الشيخ طاهر الجزائري في “توجيه النظر الي اصول الاثر” عن بعض الفضلاء ونصه: (وقد سئل بعض البارعين في علم الاثر عن مذاهب المحدثين مرارا بذالك المعني المشهور عند الجمهور فاجاب عما سئل عنه بجواب يوضع حقيقة الحال… اما البخاري و ابو داؤد فاما مان في الفقه وكانا من اهل الاجتهاد، واما مسلم والترمذي والنسائي وابن ماجة وابن خزيمة وابو يعلي والبزار ونحوهم فهم علي مذهب اهل الحديث ليسوا مقلدين لواحد من العلماء ولا هم من الائمة المجتهدين بل يميلون الي قول ائمة الحديث كالشافعي و احمد و اسحاق وابي عبيدة….” الخ

“I think the correct opinion in this issue is that which Ash-Shaikh Taahir al-Jazaairi narrated in ‘Tojeeh un-Nadher Ila Usool al-Athar’ from some Fudala which is that: The experts in the field of Ilm ul-Hadeeth are asked many times about the (Fiqhi) Madhaahib of Muhadditheen in the meaning which is famous according to the Jumhoor, so they answered this question posed to them with an answer which clarifies the actual condition…. As for Bukhaari and Abu Dawood then they are Imaams in the field of Fiqh and they both are from the people of Ijtihaad (Mujtahids), and as for Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasaa’ee, Ibn Maajah, Ibn Khuzaymah, Abu Ya’la, Bazzaar, and other similar Muhadditheen then they were upon the Madhab of Ahl ul-Hadeeth. They were neither the Muqallideen of a specific Scholar among the Scholars, nor were they from the A’immah Mujtahideen; rather they were mild towards the opinions of Imaams of Hadeeth such as Shaafi’ee, Ahmed, Ishaaq, Abu Ubaydah and the similar Muhadditheen” [Maa Tamassu Ilaihi al-Haajjah P. 26]

The Madhab of Muhadditheen: ‘Adm-e-Taqleed

It became clear from this statement that not only Imaam Muslim but all the other famous Muhadditheen such as: Imaam Tirmidhi, Imaam Nasaa’ee, Imaam Ibn Maajah, Imaam Ibn Khuzaymah, Imaam Abu Ya’la, and Imaam Bazzaar rahimahumullah were also upon the Madhab of Ahl ul-Hadeeth. They were not the Muqallideen of any one Imaam among the A’immah – they did not do Taqleed. This also makes clear that the famous books of ahadeeth such as Saheeh Muslim, Sunan Tirmidhi, Sunan Nasaa’ee, Sunan Ibn Maajah, Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah, Musnad Abi Ya’la, and Musnad al-Bazzaar etc were not compiled and author by Muqallideen but by Ahl ul-Hadeeth; whose purpose and ambition was only to follow Qur’aan and Hadeeth and not to favor, support, or explain any Madhab attributed to any Imaam. This is why, with the study of these books, one does not feel or realize even a little that it is written in accordance to a specific Taqleedi Madhab and neither does the reader feel that only those of the verses of Qur’aan, ahadeeth, and Athaar are compiled in these books which are the outcome of the Ijtahaadaat of a Specific Imaam. Whereas on the contrary, this thing is frequently realized with the study of the books of Fiqh in every step, no matter if they are the books of Fiqh of Shawaafi and Hanaabilah, or Maalikis and Ahnaaf.

This is the reason why all the Fiqhi Madhaahib take benefit from the books of ahadeeth without any distinction, and these books hold reliable and established status among all of them. If these Muhadditheen would also have been affected with Taqleed and had they taken under consideration the Taqleedi thought and methodology then these books of ahadeeth would also have been divided and would have become the books of specific Madhaahib just like the books of Fiqh, and we would also have found in these books the arguments that this hadeeth is our Daleel and that hadeeth is the daleel of our enemy, as this kind of division is found frequently in the books of Fiqh.

In short, Okaarvi Deobandi had demanded that “Not even one reliable reference can be presented concerning its compilers that he was neither able to do Ijtihaad nor did he do Taqleed” as passed above; thus no one can say about any book mentioned above that it is unreliable. And concerning its compilers, we have already presented the references of Shaikh Taahir al-Jazaairi, then the “Shaikh ul-Islaam” of Muqallideen Shabbeer Ahmed Uthmaani, then their “Imaam Ahl Sunnat Muhaddith A’dham Pakistan” Sarfaraz Khan Safdar; their “Muhaddith al-Kabeer” Abdur Rasheed al-Nu’maani, and “Mufti” Irshaad Qaasmi from their books; which contain the clarification that “they were neither the Muqallideen of any one Scholar among the Scholars, nor were they A’immah Mujtahideen”. As if, this fulfilled the exact mouth spoken demand of Ameen Okaarvi and his followers; I don’t think that any person related to the Deobandi School of Thought would consider these references to be “unreliable” or non-trustworthy.

Tabaqaat al-Muqallideen?

Okaarvi and, in his imitation, Mufti Mumtaaz as well, said that there has not been till today a book written with the name “Tabaqaat Ghayr Muqallideen”. We say to them, did any Muslim Muhaddith or Historian ever also write a book named “Tabaqaat al-Muqallideen”?

Okaarvi is not alive today, but we ask “Mufti” Ahmed Mumtaaz and the lovers of Okaarvi to tell us that have you ever studied a book of “Tabaqaat” attentively? Have you ever done their Tahqeeqi observation? Even if you have a cursory look on them, it will become clear that there are many Muhadditheen which are mentioned in several different Tabaqaat (at the same time). One same Muhaddith is mentioned in Tabaqaat ash-Shaafi’eeyyah and in Tabaqaat Hanaabilah or Maalikiyyah as well. Merely the mention of someone in these Tabaqaat does not necessitate his being a Muqallid; and neither does it, by any chance, necessitate his being a Muqallid according to your conditions and principles of being a Muqallid.

The Muhadditheen have also been added in these Tabaqaat because of their being student of a specific Imaam like someone is a student of Imaam Maalik, or his Silsilah (chain) of teachers goes back to Imaam Maalik; similarly, the students of Imaam Ahmed or Imaam Shaafi’ee are mentioned in the related Tabaqah because of their being his students, or because their Silsilah (chain) of teachers goes back to them. How does just being a student necessitate his being a Muqallid? Don’t go far let’s for example take Imaam Tahaawi who is famous as being a “Hanafi” and is actually a Hanafi, but not a Taqleedi or Muqallid Hanafi!!! Since it is this same Imaam Tahaawi (it is said) who said that: “No one does Taqleed except the one who is Muta’assib or stupid” and this saying of his had become a famous adage in Egypt. [Lisaan al-Meezaan: 1/280]

Is a Muhaddith like Imaam Tahaawi a Muqallid? Is he, by his own saying, a Muta’assib or Stupid person? We cannot even imagine that he would be a Ghabi/stupid! But those who consider him a Muqallid should think that he is really such a person (Muta’assib and Stupid) according to their opinion.

In fact, Abdul Qaadir Ar-Raafi’ee al-Hanafi has written:

“وقد نقل ابو بكر القفال وابو علي والقاضي حسين من الشافعية انهم قالوا لسنا مقلدين للشافعي بل وافق راينا رايه، وهو الظاهر من حال الامام ابي جعفر الطحاوي في اخذه بمذهب ابي حنيفة واحتجاجه له وانتصاره لاقواله”

“And he narrated from Abu Bakr al-Qaffaal, Abu Ali, and Qaadhi Husayn from the Shaafi’eeyyah that they said: ‘We are not the Muqallideen of Shaafi’ee, but our opinion accords with his (Shaafi’ee’s) opinion’, and this is also apparent from the condition of Imaam Abu Ja’far at-Tahaawi that his adoption to the Madhab of Abu Haneefah, and his Ihtijaaj for him, and his support for his Aqwaal was not in his Taqleed (rather his opinion matched with the opinion of Abu Haneefah)” [Taqreeraat ar-Raafi’ee: 1/11]

See, Though Abu Bakr al-Qaffaal, Abu Ali, and Qaadhi Hussayn are Shaafi’ees, but as per the saying of Raafi’ee, they said, we are not the Muqallids of Shaafi’ee, meaning, their opinion was based on Tahqeeq, extracted from the Dalaail, and not due to Taqleed, and neither did they like for them to be called “Muqallid” and as per the saying of Raafi’ee, same is the condition for Imaam Tahaawi being a Hanafi.

“Mufti” Sa’eed Ahmed Paalanpoori writes:

“And Allaamah Qaasim (Ibn Qatlubagha) has written in another risaalah that: I say, with the blessing of Allaah, the same as what Imaam Tahaawi had said to Ibn Harbawiyyah that ‘No one does Taqleed except a Muta’assib or Stupid person!’” [Aap Fatwa Kaise Dain? P. 82]

Yes, Ibn Qatlubagha was a Hanafi, but not a Muqallid. This proves that merely belonging to the Hanafi Tabaqah does not necessitate that he must be a Muqallid? Similarly, the mention of someone’s name in any of the Tabaqah does not necessitate his being a Muqallid.

Allaamah Zayla’ee was a Famous Hanafi, but he himself says: “A Muqallid is negligent and a Muqallid is ignorant” [Nasb ur-Rayaa: 1/287]

Similarly, Allaamah Aynee was also a Hanafi, he himself said: “Thus Muqallid commits mistakes, and Muqallid acts ignorant, and taqleed is the cause of every calamity”. [See, al-Binaayah fi Sharh al-Hidaayah: 1/317]

In spite of that, merely because of his being a Hanafi, declaring him a Muqallid is Baatil from his own saying. This is equal to proving him a double-faced person!

Similarly, Allaamah Ibn Abdil Barr who brings the chapter of “Trials of Taqleed” in his famous book “Jaami Bayaan al-Ilm”, people are also often busy in proving him a Maaliki Muqallid.

A staunch opposer of Taqleed like Ibn al-Qayyim, who has proven Taqleed to be Baatil, based on many reasons, and refuted the so-called Dalaail for the permissibility of Taqleed in his book “I’laam al-Mawqa’een”, but there are many people who still consider him a Hanbali Muqallid.

Now, those People of Knowledge from whom the condemnation of taqleed is clearly proven, people do not sit calmly without declaring them to be Muqallid as well, so (if they can declare them to be Muqallid) then they must have the free license to declare all the other Muhadditheen to be Muqallideen.

Let them do whatever comes in their heart, but their happiness upon seeing “Tabaqaat” and the names of Muhadditheen and Scholars in these Tabaqaat, and declaring them to be Muqallid because of that, is mere an assumption. It has nothing to do with the reality. If they want to prove something then they should discover and bring a book named “Tabaqaat al-Muqallideen”! Otherwise, who wants to listen to their “Assumptions” “Takharrus” and “Speeches without any evidences”?

Leave a comment

Filed under Fiqh, Muqallid, Taqleed

Allah sends down a letter for his pious slave in the 21st century

Zulnun Misri narrates that he saw some youth bowing and prostrating with great zeal, upon inquiring the youth or one of them said “I am seeking permission from Allah” so within moments, a paper sheet came down flying and it had written on it “this is a message from Allah to his pious and grateful slave that you may go back for I have forgiven all your sins”

[Ref: Fadhail Hajj, Fasl 10, Allah waalo ke Qissay , Qissa number 15]

Source: Deobandi Karamaat Blogspot

Leave a comment

Filed under Aqeedah, Shirk, Tablighi, Tablighi Jamaat

The gaze of a Tableeghi on a pregnant woman could deliver a wali

Tabish Sahib writes that someone informed him that in the masjid of Maharashtra college (Bombay) once a jama`at came to conduct lessons/dars. So this man also sat with this group. So the speaker started praising this blessed work of tableegh and what they do until he said “the virtue of this blessed work is such that even if the one who goes out in it’s path and lays his eyes upon a pregnant woman then she will give birth to a WALI due to his seeing”

[Ref: Kitab mazkuraa page 18]

Source: Deobandi Karamaat Blogspot


Leave a comment

Filed under Aqeedah, Tablighi, Tablighi Jamaat

An-Nabbahanni said in Jami Karamat ul Awliya

An-Nabbahanni said in Jami Karamat ul Awliya (v 2 o 396):

“Our Shaykh Ali Al-‘Umari Ash-Shazili At-Trabulsi, the most famous of Awliya of that time and the one having the most Karamat and Khawariq ul ‘Adat…and among his Karamat, may Allah be pleased with him, is what Al-Haaj Ibrahim mentioned (before) said: I came one day to the Hamam (public bath) with our SHaykh ‘Ali Al-‘Umari and with us there was his Khadim (servant) Muhammad Ad-Dubbusi At-Trabusli, et he is the brother of one the wives of the Shaykh, and there was no other than us in the Hammam. He said: I saw from the Shaykh a Karamat among most amazing Khawariq ‘Adat and most rare, and it is that he became angry on his Khadim, this Muhammad, and desired to punish him, and the Shaykh took his own Ihlil, meaning penis with his both hands below his Izar and it became very long until it exceeded his shoulders and became longer than him, and he started to beat his Khadim mentioned, and the Khadim was shouting because of the intensity of the pain, and he did this many times then left him, and the penis returned to his first size, and I understood that the Khadim indeed did something deserving punishment, and he punished him with this amazing form, and when Haaj Ibrahim narrated this to me, he narrated this in the presence of the Shaykh, and the Shaykh was aware. The Shaykh said to me: Do not trust him but check (before), then he took my hand by force and put it on the place of his penis, and I did not feel anything, as if he was not a man at all…”

And Ahsraf Ali Thanvi summarized this book and it was translated into Urdu by one of his student. Despite such falsehood, Nabbahani is a good Sufi for Thanvi…


Leave a comment

Filed under Ashraf Ali Thanvi

Tahreef of Allaah’s Attributes – Changing the Meaning

Regarding Istiwaa Maulana Ashraf Alee Thanwee said in an explanation of a verse,

“This verse is an evidence that Allaah is not in a particular direction, (rather everywhere).” [Tafseer al-Bayaan pg.36), and Maulana Shabeer Ahmad Uthmaanee (the author of Fath al-Mulhim Sharh Saheeh Muslim) also said the same in his notes to the Qur’aan (pg.22 note.7)]

Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madanee, another eminent deobandee scholar wrote in refutation of the Aqeedah Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, who he terms ‘Wahabiyyah’,
“The Wahabiyyah group take Istiwaa literally and establish a direction (for Allaah) from the verse, “The most Merciful rose over his Throne.” and other similar verses, which necessitate a body for Allaah.” (ash-Shihaab ath-Thaaqib (pg.64)]

In this defective understanding of the deobandee’s, Imaam Maalik (rahimahullaah) said when replying to the one who asked, ‘How did Allaah make Istawaa? (Ascension above the Throne)’,
“Al-Istiwaa is Known, and its how is unknown, to have faith in it is obligatory, and to question it is an innovation.” Then he said to the questioner, “I do not think except that you are an innovator,” and he ordered him to be expelled.”
[The sanad of this narration is good. See Mukhtasar al-Uluww of Imaam al-Albaanee and al-Asmaa was Sifaat (pg.516) of Baihaqee, Aqeedatus-Salaf Wa Ashaabul-Hadeeth (pg’s.17-18), also a supporting narration from Umm Salamah with a similar meaning in Aqeedatus-Salaf Wa Ashaabul-Hadeeth (pg.16), Laalikaa’ee in Shrah Usool al-Ei’tiqaad, Fath ul-Baaree (13/406), Imaam Dhahabee in al-Uluww (pg.65) and Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdisee in Kitaab al-Uluww (no.82).]

A prominent Hanafee scholar, counted amongst the mujtahid of his madhhab Allaamah Nisfeee Hanafee said, says in his book ‘Tafseer Madaarik at-Tanzeel wa Haqaiq at-Ta’weel’ (2/56),
“We translate thuma Istiwaa to mean Istawlaa (conquer) that Allaah conquered the Arsh … and so Allaah subhaanahu wa ta’aala conquered the whole of the creation.” And he says to take the meaning of Arsh as Throne and Istiwaa to mean establishment is baatil like it is the Aqeedah of the Mushabihhah Sect (those who liken the creation with Allaah)

Regarding this we bring the words of the great Muhaddith Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah, author of ‘Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah’ and student of the great Imaam of Hadeeth, Imaam Bukhaari.

Imaam Haakim mentions in ‘Ma’arifah Uloom Al-Hadeeth’ that Imaam Abu Bakr Ibn Khuzaimah said:
The one who does not proclaim Allaah subhaanahu wa ta’aala is above His Arsh, then he commits kufr with Allaah and he must be given the instruction to repent. If he repents it is better otherwise his neck should be cut and it should be thrown on piles of rubbish so that the Muslims and disbelievers are not troubled by the smell of the body (his condition will be an advice). No Muslim can be his inheritor because it is the saying of the Messenger of Allaah sal-Allaahu ‘alayhe wa sallam that the Muslim can not be the inheritor of the kaafir.”
[Ma’arifah Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg. 84), Aqeedatus-Salaf Wa Ashaabul-Hadeeth (pg’s 20-21) of Imaam Saboonee, Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah authenticated it]

The statement of the pious predecessors are numerous with regards to this issue which. Refer to the article, ‘The Sunnah of the Ascension of Allaah’.

Source: http://ahlulhadeeth.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/the-aqeedah-creed-of-the-deobandi-hanafis/

Leave a comment

Filed under Aqeedah, Bid'ah, Imdadullah Makki, Qasim Nanotowi, Rasheed Ahmad Al-Gangohi, Shirk

Ashraf Alee Thanvee & Aqeedah Of Deoband – Built Upon Concocted Lies!!!

Ashraf Alee Thanvee & Aqeedah Of Deoband – Built Upon Concocted Lies!!!

After mentioning who the Walee Of Allaah is according to Shaykh Abd al-Qaadir rahimahullaah one should beware of those who concoct lies upon the Shaykh and have deviated far away from his path. (check here)

Ashraf Alee Thanvee says in his book Malfoozaath Volume 3

# Malfooz Number 41- Para 2

….The third affair of strangeness is that a desciple (mureed) of Hadhrath Ghaws-al-Aadham ( referring to Shaykh Abd al Qaadir Jeelaanee rahimahullah which means Very Great Helper – This is why they invoke him in the times of need not just at his grave but anywhere, everywhere! Other Awliyaa and Saaliheen and Ambiyaa are considered just helpers but he is considered the greatest aider in the times of distress) narrated a strange incident which is quite astonishing which most probably I have come across in some book of Shaykh Abd-al-Haq Muhaddith Dehlavi.

That once Hadhrath Ghaws-al-Aadham rahimahullah woke up in accordance with his mundane schedule for Salaah at-Thahajjud and stepped out of his monasterial hermitage (Khaankhaah) and this khaadim (desciple) aswell got together with him. After walking for a while they reached a town and soon afterwards entered a house in which there was a congregation and those people stood up after seeing him and he (the Shaykh rahimahullah) seated himself in a position while the desciple also seated himself in a corner.

From a nearby chamber there could be heard a patient’s groaning voice and after sometime this voice disappeared and four people exited (the chamber) with a janaazah and accompanied with them was an old person and this janaazah was placed in front of Hazrath (Shaykh Abd al-Qaadir) and he offered janaazah prayer soon after that congregation took the janaazah and left. The Shaykh got back to his previous position.

When the congregation had left, soon after a person who was a Christian appeared. Hadhrath pulled out the cross hanging on his neck and broke its chain and made him recite the Kalimah and then addressed the congregation that he (this new muslim) is (now) such and such headed back to his hermitage.

After reaching his place he became busy in Salaah at-Thahajjud. After the night passed, this mureed (desciple) questioned Hadhrath as to what the issue was concerning the incident the previous night. Hadhrath said, that the maqaam to which we had been was a town named Mawsil and that congregation was the jamaah of Abdaal ( A soofee terminology; their belief is that all the affairs of this universe are governed by Abdaal who are human beings and whenever one of them dies, there is a replacement and their number remains fixed) and that ailing person was one of them and they communicated to me spiritually (baathinee – soofees believe their saints have super natural ways to communicate that are far above general human abilities) that he shall be dying very soon and they requested him to be replaced. This is why I had been there and when he died then I requested Allaah to appoint someone in his place. Then there was an Order from Allaah that in Rome, a Christian is immersed in worshipping the cross, so he should be appointed as a replacement for the dead person.

Then I asked (Allaah) as to how should his appearance here be requested? He then appeared in a strange abnormal miraculous way and immediately he was converted to a Muslim and placed on the position of abdaal and the message was conveyed that no one should be proud of one’s class/elegance and everything is restricted to My (Allaah’s) Fadhl.

Source: http://salaf-us-saalih.com/2010/12/07/ashraf-alee-thanvee-aqeedah-of-deoband/

Leave a comment

Filed under Aqeedah, Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Shirk

Ashraf Ali Thanvi – Muraaqabah At The Graves

Presence Of Graves Of The Ambiyaa alaihim us salaam In India

Some of the noble ones (buzurg) received kashf (hidden ghayb) that even in India also there are shrines (graves) of certain ambiyaa alaihim us salaam and there is a place after Ambaala (name of a place) there is an enclosure and in it there are these graves/shrines. The signs of these graves have not remained intact of all these graves but for some of them the signs still remain. Maulana Rafee uddeen once visited that place and some students aswell accompanied him and maulana became a MURAAQIB ( Devotee of the grave who medidates at the grave to receive hidden knowledge from the souls and enguages in communication with the dead souls) there and I did not hear from the Mawlaana directly but he mentioned it to his soofi-desciple (mureed) named Hussaini , and this mureed (follower of a peer – soofee shaykh) mentioned it to the son-in law of the Maulana and his son-in-law mentioned it to me that Maulana described the kayfiyah (state) of receiving kashf (hidden ghayb) – the souls of those noble ones (those alleged Prophets) enguaged in a spiritual connection with the Maulana and he met them and it came to be known that from among them one noble person’s name was Khidr or Khidhr and one other was his son (named) Ibraaheem and he informed that his era was Karnaa. With a rigorous research it was found that there was a King Karan (Raja Karan) who lived there and passed away approximately 2000 years from now.

[Ashraf Alee Thanvi in Malfoozaath – Malfooz number 403 Volume 5 page 355]

[Note:- Raja Karna is the one mentioned in the hindu religious scriptures, whose city is very close to Ambala]

1. Deobandee maulvees become Muraaqib at the graves (known or maj’hool).

2. Receive Kashf from the graves by enguaging in discussion with the dead souls.

3. Dead souls give the living deobandees knowledge of unseen.

4. Through Kashf deobandees come to know things that only Prophets were able to know through revelation. Like names of the Prophets that neither Allaah nor His Messenger Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam have informed us, their location of graves, etc.

5. Deobandee maulvees dont have any shame to declare a Prophet named Ibrahim during the time of Raja Karna without any evidence from either the Qur’aan or the Sunnah but by way of Kashf!!!

Source: http://salaf-us-saalih.com/2010/12/07/ashraf-alee-thanvee-aqeedah-of-deoband/

Leave a comment

Filed under Ashraf Ali Thanvi

The Statements of the Deobandee Hanafee Scholars on Jamaat ut-Tableegh

Comp. Abu Hibbaan and Abu Khuzaimah Ansaari

Since the establishment of Jamaat ut-Tableegh the scholars of Ahlus sunnah Wal-Jaamah have pointed out and highlighted their mistakes according to their aims and objectives, their way’s method and Manhaj. However the words of the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Hadeeth was and is never taken even after they highlighted the mistakes of Jamaat ut-Tableegh evidently from the book and the authentic sunnah. The most ironic thing of this whole disagreement with Jamaat ut-Tableegh is that the points raised by Ahlus-Sunnah Wa Ahlul-Hadeeth are exactly the same to those that their own leaders, the deobandee hanafees raised themselves, for example

1. The method of Jamaat ut-Tableegh is not in accordance with the Qur’aan, Sunnah or the understanding of the Pious Predecessors.

2. Their abandonement of rectifying the beliefs of the general masses

3. Concentrating on the prayer and leaving the fundamental creed of Tawhed (oneness of Allaah). Also saying the work of tableegh is of the greatest importance.

4. Speaking without knowledge, normal people give the lectures and sermons who lack knowledge

 5. and believing the method of Jamaat ut-Tableegh is the only method of rectification and that it is complete.

 The Statements Of the Deobandee Hanafee Scholars

Maulana Ehtishaam al-Hasan Khandelvi was a very very close friend of Maulana Muhammad Ilyaas (the founder of Jamaat ut-Tableegh) from childhood to oldage. Maulana Ehtishaam al-Hasan wrote a book called, “Zindagee Kee Siraat-e-Mustaqeem” (The straight Path of Life) at the end of which he included a very small treatise entitled, “An Important Note”, in this he wrote,

“The tableegh of the present Nizaam ud deen (Delhi- the headquarters of the Tableeghi Jamaat) according to my knowledge and understanding it is neither according to the Qur’aan nor to the method of Hazrat Mujaddid Alf Thanee, Hazreat Shaah Waleeullaah Muhaddith Dehlawee or according to the scholars of the truth. So the scholars who participate in this tableegh, their first responsibility should be to conform this effort according to the Qur’aan, Hadeeth, to the way of the Scholars of the Salaf (Predecessors) and the scholars of the truth.”


So another deobandi hanafee scholar attempted to answer this. Mahmood Hasan Gangohee (Not THEE Mualana Mahmood al-Hasan or Shaikh ul-Hindh) said,

 “To this day i had been assuming that he (Maulana Ehtishaam al-Hasan) remained in Khandelah because of his bad health and and due to which he abandoned his presence in Nizaam ud deen and did not participate in the work of tableegh, however from this ‘Important Note’ I found out the reason for him not participating was because acording to him the work of tableegh is not necessary rather it is destroying the religion.” (Chashmah Aftaab (pg.7)


The author of Chashmah Aftaab, Qamar ud deen Mazaahiree writes in his foreword,

“Maulana Ehtishaam ul-Hasan is from the founders of this movement and very recently he has strongly refuted Jamaat ut-Tableegh and said it is a group that calls to misguidance.” (Chashmah Aftaab (pg.3)


Maulana Muhammad Zakariyyah admitted this and at the same time he mentions the internal feud of the tableeghee’s and deobandee’s. he says,

“However even I am hearing that some of the represenatatives (khulafaa) and Hawaas of Maulana Thanwee do not like Jamaat ut-Tableegh.” (Chashmah Aftaab (pg.11)


The representative (khaleef) of Khaleel Ahmad Saharanpooree and a close worker with the founder of Jamaat ut-Tableegh Muhammad Ilyaas and his son Maulana Yoosuf, the deobandee scholar Abdur Raheem Shaah said,

“The work that is for the people of knowledge, the general people want to do. Yet not only are they unaware of the religion but they are also not seen in good terms because of their ignorances and bad deeds in the community. Then consider the following, “When the leader of a nation becomes bad then he only teaches a path of destruction to his people.” (Usool Dawat Wat-Tableegh (pg.3)

He further said,

“I (Abdur-Raheem) swear by Allaah and say this tableegh I am doing is only due to a necessity and so I am excused by the people because since these youth have started their open sermons for which they do not have permision according to the sharee’ah and they have exceeded the bounds in regards to its virtue (ie tableegh). Also they have openly hidden other aspects of the religion and after constant reminders by the superiors they were not stopped, then in these situations the people with responsibility should make this open and public.” (Usool Dawat Wat-Tableegh (pg.52)


Maulana Abdur-Raheem Shaah writes,

“Considering the innovation (non-Sunnah) to be the sunnah is a blameworthy act of the creedal aspect. I fall short in understanding how is it correct to rectify some actions (of the people) and yet turn a blind eye to defects in their beliefs as the correct beliefs are the means of salvation, and not the actions.” (Usool Dawat Wat-Tableegh (pg.64)

The famous deobandee scholar Manzoor Ahmad Nu’maanee raises an objection on Jamaat ut-Tableegh, he say,

“This mistake is quite common, that in general gatherings people are encouraged to deliver lectures who are not worthy to do so. Sometimes these very same people are not even fully aware of the associated issues and so whilst speaking they do not even realise the limits of their knowledge. So this is the reality of this and these mistakes occur frequently so it is upon the superiors to think and reflect upon this.” (Tadhkirratudh-Dhafar (pg.244)


Abul Hasan Alee Nadwee said, “One of the disatisfactions the Maulana (Ashraf Alee Thanwee) had, was how will these people (ie Jamaat ut-Tableegh call the people to the importance of tableegh without knowledge. So when (the nephew of the maulana) Dhafar Ahmad (Thanwee) informed him that the speakers who deliver these lectures only speak about the issues they have been ordered to speak about and they do not speak about anything other than this, so he (Maulana Ashraf Alee) became satisfied.” (Deenee Dawat (pg.126).


The biographer of Maulana Dhafar Ahmad Thanwee, Maulana Abdush-Shakoor Tirmidhee said,

“And we are seeing more commonly the people who travel for tableegh do not have knowledge and due to this the speakers, speak about of all kinds of issues whilst mentioning stories and folk tales and in doing so most of them exceed the limits of theie knowledge.” (Tadhkirratudh-Dhafar (pg.242)


Maulana Dhafar Ahmad Thanwee himslef said,

“The present method of Jamaat ut-Tableegh in cultivating the people upon the knowledge of Islaam and of the various sciences, is totally neglected.” (Tadhkirratudh-Dhafar (pg.252)

He further said,

“The tableegh of the defective person is unreliable.” (Tadhkirratudh-Dhafar (pg.253).

Bare in mind Maulana Dhafar Ahmad Thanwee addressed an individual who does tableegh according to the way of Jamaat ut-Tableegh as defective.


Abdush-Shakoor Tirmidhee writes,

“Maulana (Dhafar Ahmad) did not at anytime consider joining and working with Jamaat ut-Tableegh sufficient.” (Tadhkirratudh-Dhafar (pg.241)

Another teacher of Daar al-Uloom Deoband said,

“From the time I familiarised myself with their method of tableegh (ie of Jamaat ut-Tableegh’s), I was never satisfied with it.” (Tanbeehaat (pg.12)

Source: http://ahlulhadeeth.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/the-statements-of-the-deobandee-hanafee-scholars-on-jamaat-ut-tableegh/

Leave a comment

Filed under Bid'ah, Tablighi

Jamaatut-Tableegh by Shaykh Hammaad Al-Ansaari

by Shaykh Hammaad ibn Muhammad al-Ansaaree[1]

Reference: Almajmoo’ the biography of Allamah Hammad bin Muhammad Alansaree, Volume 2, page 587 / 672-673 / 762

With regards to Jamaatut-Tableegh [2] then they have within them good and bad [characteristics]. In ‘Aqeedah they adhere to the heretic innovated beliefs of the Matureedeeyah, [3] and are bigoted blind-followers of the Hanafee[4] Madhab [in Fiqh].

He also said: This group [Jamaatut-Tableegh] does not have an interest or zeal for [Islaamic] knowledge, nor do they seek [Islaamic knowledge]. Based upon this methodology, they cause more corruption and mischief [in the religion] than goodness and righteousness. I know [Jamaatut-Tableegh] very well. In Aqeedah they are Matureedee and Chishtis[5], and in Fiqh they are bigoted blind followers of the Hanafee Madhab.

He also said: The Salafees are the people of Sunnah and they are the Jama’ah, because Salafiyyah means to adhere and hold fast upon that which the pious predecessors were upon.

He also said regarding them: Anybody that adheres to a view that contradicts and opposes the [way of the] people of Sunnah, then that person can not be regarded as being from amongst them. Therefore Ikhwaanul-Muslimeen[6] & Jamaatut-Tableegh are not from Ahlus-Sunnah because their ideology contradicts and opposes the way of the people of Sunnah.

[1] He is the Allamah Hammad bin Muhammad Alansaree As’sadee Alkhazrajee, born in the year 1343 or 1344 AH [1924 CE] in Mali, West Africa. He died on Wednesday morning 21st Jamaaduth-Thanee 1418 AH corresponding to 22nd October 1997. For a detailed biography of the Muhadeeth of Madeenah in English refer to: fatwa-online.com [TN]

[2] Jamaatut-Tableegh is a group who ascribe themselves to the innovated ideology in calling to Islam of Muhammad Ilyas Deobandee Chisti [1885-1949 CE]. Muhammad Ilyas founded this group in the early 1920’s and adopted this idea from a man by the name of Saeed Annoorsee, nick-named as Badeeuz-Zamaan Annoorsee [1293-1379 AH] from Turkey. For a detailed history about this group and its beliefs refer to the following books:

1. Alqawlul-Baleegh Fee Tahdeer min Jamaatet-Tableegh by Allamah Hamood Tuwaijaree;

2. Asiraajul-Muneer Fee Tanbeeh Jamaatet-Tableegh Alaa Akhtaaehim by Allamah Dr Taqiudin Alhilali;

3. Jamaatut-Tableegh its history & its beliefs by Abu Usamah Sayeed Talibur-Rahman, with the introduction of Allamah Saleh Alfawzaan. [TN]

[3] Matureedeeyah: a heretic sect in Aqeedah that opposes the methodology of the pious predecessors particularly in understanding the Names & Attributes of Allaah the Most Exalted and many other issues pertaining to Aqeedah. Its founder was Abu Mansoor, Muhammad bin Mahmood bin Muhammad Almatureedee, Asamarqandee Alhanafee born in the year 238 or 258 AH and died on 333 AH. [Almatureedeeyah Volume 1 page 212-213.] For a detailed refutation on this heretic sect, their history and beliefs refer to the outstanding refutation of Allamah Shams Asalafee Alafghani known as ‘Almatureedeeyah’. [TN]

[4] Blind-followers of Numan bin Thabit bin Alkhazaz Alkufi (80-150 A.H), famously known as Abu Haneefah in the application of the subsidiary issues of the Shariah [Fiqh] [TN].

[5] Ascription to the Chishti Sufi order. This order was founded by a man by the name of Khawja Abu Ishaq Shami [d. 941 AH] who brought Sufism to the town of Chist, 95 miles east of Herat in present day Afghanistan. The most famous of the Sufis in the Chisti order is Khawja Moinuddin Chishti who was born 536 AH/1141 CE in Sajistan, Khorasan in Persia. He travelled to India and was the first person to introduce Sufism in India. He settled in the city of Ajmer, India where he died on 627 AH/1230 CE. His tomb has become the central place of grave worshipping worshipped by ignorant Muslims, Hindus, soothsayers, and magicians etc. Jamaatut-Tableegh ascribe themselves to this man and his heretic beliefs. For his detailed biography refer to ‘Nuzhatul-Khawaatir’ Volume 1 page 104. [TN]

[6] The group Ikhwaanul-Muslimeen [Muslim Brotherhood] was founded in 1928 by a school teacher by the name of Hassan Albanna (1906-1949 CE). Its other influential leader and main writer include Sayyid Qutub (1906- 1966 CE). For detailed refutations of this deviated sect refer to the refutations of Shaykh Rabee ibn Hadee Almadhkhalee which include:
1. Mataeenu Sayyid Qutub Fee Ashaabi-Rasulillah;
2. Addwaau-Islamiyyah Alaa Aqeedati-Sayyid Qutub;
3. Alawaasim Mimmaa Fee Kutub Sayyid Qutub minal Qawaasim. [TN]

Translator: Zulfiker Ibrahim al-Memoni al-Athari
Source: http://www.madeenah.com/article.cfm?id=1169

Leave a comment

Filed under Aqeedah, Bid'ah, Tablighi, Taqleed

Deobandi’s and Black Magic

As other Sufis, many Deobandis are also involved in magic, and this shows that many of the Sufis so-called Tasarrufat (controls) and karamat are in fact the works of Jinns and they use magic and Jinns to fool people and make them think they have Karamat from Allah and many of their ignorant followers are deceived by this.

Ashraf Ali Thanvi and magic to separate between two persons

Ashraf Ali Thanvi wrote a book called “A’mal e Qurani”, a book of invocations, Ta’wizat (Tamaim) and ‘Amaliyat (Sufi formulas).


In this book, p 21, Thanvi told how to use some magic to separate between two persons: “(Allah said:) ”We have put hatred and animosity between them until the day of Resurrection”

If you desire to separate and put hatred between two persons, write this verse on a Bhuj stone, then write (the picture):

And below the picture write the sentence: may the separation occur between Fulan (so and so) and Fulan. Write the names of the two persons instead of Fulan, make a Ta’wiz (Tameemah) of it and bury it between two old graves , but don’t do it for people not deserving this, as it will be a sin.”


One can clearly see that the picture Ashraf Ali Thanvi told to write contains the words “Sihr” meaning magic, and learning magic is Kufr. The heart of the Muslim cries and gets a shock to see that such a Kufr is propagated under the name of Islam and Quran. And in this book, Ashraf Ali Thanvi gave other Ta’wizat to cure from some disease or to have a boy and these Ta’wizat contain numbers and unknown words, and this is also clear magic.



Invocation to control the Humans and Jinns and possess the kingdom of Sulayman

The Deobandi book called “Jawahir Khamsah” is about Du’a, Ta’wizat and ‘Amaliyat. The author is Muhammad Ghawth Gulyari, and it has been translated from Persian by Mirza Muhammad Beg An-Naqshabani and it is published by famous Deobandi publisher of Karachi “Dar ul Isha’at”, and it is also published by another Deobandi publisher of Lahore “Maktabah Rehmaniyah”. At the end of this book, the Risalah “Futuh ul Ghayb” has been added.


In this book, the author teaches an invocation to possess the kingdom of Sulayman, control humans and Jinns: “Name 33 for greatness and control of humans and Jinns: “Ya Quddus Tahir min kuli Su fala Shayun Yu’azuhu min jami’ khalqihi” (O Quddus, pure from all evils, none can be protected in

His whole creation). This composed name’s particularity is that whoever for Zahiri and Batini (apparent and interior) greatness, reads it ten thousands time fir forty days, will be cut from what is other than Allah, and all the creation including humans and Jinns will be under his control and obedience…and he will become the inheritor of the kingdom of Sulayman (aley salam)

Also to possess the kingdom of Sulayman: whoever read this name for five years … (in a specific manner), he will have improvement in all of his works and the kingdom of Sulayman (aley salam) will come in his hands, and he will possess the control of the earth and the skies, and all the creation of the great and small universe will be under his control, and the whole universe will be enlightened by his benediction…even if he gives order, then the sun will appear in the night and disappear in the day


One can wonder is such things are possible then why did the Sahabah fought their enemies and some became martyrs? This kind of Tasawwud totally destroys the intelligence of its author, and they are totally lost in this world of hallucination and madness and accept any kind of fairy tale and nonsense. Allah created humans on pure Fitrah, but this wrong Sufism corrupted his Fitrah and made him accept such falsehood.

Invocation to the men of the invisible (Rijal ul Ghayb)

In the same book “Jawahir Khamsah” p 310 there is an invocation:
Peace be upon you O men of the invisible (Rijal ul Ghayb) and noble souls, help us with your special help and look at us with your special looking, O Ruqaba, O Nuqaba, O Nujaba, O Bukhaba, O Abdal, O Awtad, O Aqtab, O Qutb al Aqtab help me in this matter…”


About the invocation called ”Du’a Sayfi”, the author showed that it is finished with a table of numbers, and he does not know reality of it. So these people are writing numbers not knowing what they mean, they found this from Sufis.


He also gave a circle of the men of invisible (Rijal ul Ghayb) which is at the end of this invocation:


And it has preceded that these people believe that these Awliya, Abdal and Qutb rule the world.

Writing Al-Fatihah in disorder

This book “Jawahir Khamsah” also tells to write Surah Al-Fatihah in disorder to cure from some diseases. And it is well known that this is pure magic and clear Kufr pleasing Jinns, as Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyah explained in his book “Furqan bayna Awliya Rahman wa Awliya Shaytan”.


Circles and crosses with strange words

This book also contains some pictures of crosses made with letters.


And there are strange circles with words like: Haqiqat Ism A’zam, Haqiqat Muhammad Haqiqi, ‘Alim Wahdat, ‘Alim Sifat, Arwah Maqam Haqiqat, Maqam Arwah.



There is also a circle containing 19 circles containing words such as: Soul (Ruh), secret (Sir), reason (‘Aql), imagination (Khyal), the heart (Qalb) and others.


And these terms are the Batini and Zahiri sense known to the Greek philosophers and used by Ibn Sina and then Sufis like Al-Ghazali and others.

Formula to kill someone

In “Futuh Ghayb” of Mirza Beg Naqshabandi published at the end of “Jawahir Khamsah” there is a formula telling us how to kill someone deserving death, not an innocent:

“’Amal (Sufi formula) number ten: killing an enemy whose killing is permissible by the religious law. One should take and put a tree of Sanubar in an empty house, and he should write on it all the Great Names (of Allah) and if there is a group, then 48 times and if there are three then 27 times, and should do Dam (Ruqiyah) with the Great Names (of Allah) on the tree…and he should have no cloth on the head, and he should take a stick and imagine his
enemy then beat the Sanubar and say: I have killed Fulan (so and so) with the domination of Allah (Jalla Jalaluhu)”. He should do such three or seven days.”


One can wonder if such things were correct why the Sahabah and Salaf fought and got martyred. But this kind of Sufism is an opium which totally destroys the reason of the person who enters it. This person might be attracted by the stories softening the heart, but then he is brain washed and accepts magic and all these fairy tales containing abominable Kufr and Shirk

Invocation to have the attributes of Allah

In the same “Futuh Ghayb”, there is an invocation for the purpose of possessing the
attributes of Allah:

“If someone wants to enter the state of Fana fi Allah and Baqa bi Allah, and wants to possess the attributes of Jamal and Jalal of Haqq (Allah), and great subsistence and honour…and Ilm Ladduni (Sufi secret knowledge) and Kashf (unveiling) of hidden lights, then he should first fulfill the conditions of this name…then he should do Ghusl in one of the beginning day of the month, sing one or two songs for the soul of the leader of Prophets (saw) and read hundred times Darood Sharif, then he should start reciting this
name 2695 times in the day and night for forty days…”


May Allah protect us from such Kufr and Shirk.
May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household, companions and those who follow them.
Compiled by Ali Hassan Khan

Leave a comment

Filed under Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Shirk, Taweez