Tag Archives: Hanafee

by | June 13, 2014 · 10:59 pm

Ganghoi never took a breathe except after consulting the prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) for 12 years

Ganghoi never took a breathe except after consulting the prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) for 12 years

Gangohi not doing anything without asking the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) !

it is written: “Once Hazrat Maulana Ganghoi (rah) was very enthusiastic and there was a discussion on the topic of Tasawwur e Shaykh (imagining the face of his Shaykh always when doing Zikr and others) and he asked: “Shall I mention it?” and they said yes, and he said again: “Shall I mention it?” and they said yes, and he said again: “Shall I mention it?” and they said yes. Then he said: “For three complete years, the face of Hazrat Imdad was remaining in my heart, and I did not do anything without asking him. “ Then he became enthusiastic again and said: “Shall I mention it?” and they said: yes surely mention it…: “For 12 years Hazrat (the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam)) remained in my heart and I did not do anything without asking him.” And after saying this he became more enthusiastic and said: “Shall I mention it?” and they said yes, but he remained silent, and people insisted and he said: “leave it” and tomorrow they insisted again and he said: “Brother, I remained then in the state of Ihsan”.

[Ref: story no. 307 of “Arwah Thalathah”,]

Scan: http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/17902368/301585547.jpg

Only if the sahaaba knew the secret recipee of ganghoi , they would have too been able to consult the prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) in matters of war-fare and especially the khilafah.

Source: http://deobandhikaramaat.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/ganghoi-never-took-breathe-except-after.html?m=1

Leave a comment

Filed under Aqeedah, Bid'ah, Dua, Imdadullah Makki, Rasheed Ahmad Al-Gangohi

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | March 12, 2014 · 11:13 pm

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…

http://www.siratemustaqeem.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4786

Leave a comment

Filed under Ashraf Ali Thanvi

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | March 2, 2014 · 10:56 pm

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

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | March 2, 2014 · 10:41 pm

Ta’weel of Allaah’s Attributes – Figurative Interpretation

Khaleel Ahmad Saharanpooree is one of the foremost scholars of the Deobandee Hanafee’s. He is the author of the book ‘Al-Muhannad A’la Mufannad Aqaa’id Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jama’ah.’

This book is a reply to some questions concerning aqeedah posed by Ahmad Raza Khaan Hanafee Bareilwee. The replies of Maulana Khaleel Ahmad have signatures of affirmation to indicate the signed people agree to its contents i.e. the beliefs it contains. So some of the Deobandee scholars who have signed it included:

Maulana Mahmood al-Hasan
Maulana Meer Ahmad Hasan Amaruhwee
Maulana Azeezur Rehmaan.
Maulana Hakeem al-Ummat Ashraf Alee Thanwee
Maulana Muhammad Ahmad (The son of Maulana Qaasim Nanautwee)
Maulana Aashiq Elaahee Meerthy.
Maulana Muhammad Mas’ood Ahmad (The son of Maulana Rasheed Ahmad Gangohee)
Mufti Kifaayatullah,

Infact there are over 100 testification’s of deobandee scholars affirming and agreeing with the beliefs and concepts of the deobandee hanafee’s in this book.

Therefore it will be correct to assume the contents of this book reflect the belief’s of the Deobandee Hanafee’s. We will also include other statements from the eminent deobandee scholars that establish the same beliefs so that a deobandee does not argue we have just quoted from one book and that this may have been a personal belief of the author, as opposed to the general belief of the deobandee’s.

Maulana Khaleel Ahmad writes,
“And our Imaams who have performed permissible ta’weel (figurative interpretations) of the verses in terms of correct language and Sharee’ah, so that we, with little comprehension, understand. For example taking Istiwaa to mean Conquer and Hand to mean Power; then this is also correct with us.” [al-Muhannad A’la Mufannad (p.10) (p.31 in another edition)]

Oh deobandee’s, figurative explanation’s in the attributes of Allaah are not acceptable as his attributes are to be accepted in the same manner in which they were narrated. Similarly and likewise it is also incorrect to figuratively explain Istiwaa to mean conquer, as Istiwaa can only mean conquer when there is something or someone to conquer or to overpower, so who competed with Allaah whilst he was over the Throne, and who was more powerful then Allaah that he had overpower them. We seek refuge in Allaah from this.

Furthermore, the linguists of the Arabic language have declared this meaning (of conquering) to be incorrect. (See Fath ul-Baaree (1/177).

Imaam Abul Hasan al-Asha’aree himself said, “With agreement this meaning according to the explainers of the Qur’aan is incorrect.” (Mukhtasir Sawaa’iq al-Mursalah (2/326).

Maulana Khaleel Ahmad Saharanpooree further said,
“In aqeedah we follow Abul-Hasan al-Ash’aree and Abu Mansoor Mautureedee and in the tareeqah of the Soofiyyah we follow the Naqshbandiyyah, Chistiyyah, Qaadirayyah and the Seharwardiyyah.” [al-Muhannad A’la Mufannad (p.13-14), there are many similar statements from other deobandee scholar affirming also affirming this, see also Ulama Deoband’s Ka Maslak (pg.59) of Qaaree Muhammad Tayyib, Fataawaa Raheemiyyah of Muftee Laajpooree, Taareekh Dawat Wa-Azeemat of Maulana Abul Hasan Alee Nadwee,, Ikhtilaaf-e-Ummat Aur Siraat-e-Mustaqeem of Maulana Yoosuf Ludhiyaanwee and many more.]

We ask the deobandee’s, why do you follow Abul-Hasan al-Asha’aree and Abu Mansoor al-Matureedee in their beliefs? Is it because the belief’s of Abu Haneefah were incorrect, if this is the case then how can you do taqleed of him in subsidiary issues which are of lesser importance then the more important issues of beliefs. Also if his beliefs were incorrect then it must follow that his understanding of subsidiary issues would have also been incorrect as the subsidiary issues are built upon the principles. We say this is disrespect and disparagement to Abu Haneefah from your part because you abandon him in the more important issue’s.

Which tareeqah did Abu Haneefah follow? If he did not follow any tareeqah then why do you follow a particular one, did Abu Haneefah order this? Have the deobandee’s surpassed him in his knowledge and adopted one of these tareeqah’s. The tareeqahs are not from the madhab of Abu Haneefah, this is another discredit to him.

The concept of tasawwuf (Soofism) has not been mentioned from Abu Haneefah so how have the deobandee’s adopted and began this practise. All these points show the vessel echoing, “We do taqleed of Abu Haneefah.” and yet at the same time it is empty.

You follow the old beliefs of Imaam Abul-Hasan al-Asha’aree and you still continue in taqleed of his old beliefs to this today. Hence you follow and do taqleed of two Imaams. The slogan the deobandee’s used to utter of not being allowed to pick and chose between the madhabs has been abandoned. They follow one madhab in issues of belief and another in issues of fiqh. It is well established with the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah al-Jama’ah that Abul Hasan al-Asha’aree left the way of figurative explanation of the attributes of Allaah and adopted the way of Ahlul-Hadeeth, so we was Ahlul-Hadeeth. So now you should also become and call yourselves Ahlul-Hadeeth. Lastly there are differences in beliefs in the Asha’aree and Matureedee schools of beliefs, so how can the deobandee’s follow both, do you pick and chose again.

Regarding the Aqeedah of Abul-Hasan al-Ash’aree then he has affirmed that he left this Aqeedah (i.e. of ta’weel of the Sifaat of Allaah) and adopted the path of Ahlus-Sunnah, which is to affirm the meaning of the attribute without asking how (the kayfiyyah).

He mentions leaving this old Aqeedah and accepting the correct Aqeedah in his two books, ‘Al-Ibaanah an Usool ad-Diyaanah’ and ‘Maqaalat A-Islaamiyyeen.’ He also proclaimed the Aqeedah of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah whilst giving khutbah’s from the minbar.

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Aqeedah, Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Qasim Nanotowi, Rasheed Ahmad Al-Gangohi

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | January 9, 2014 · 11:19 pm

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

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,