The Perils of Associating with the People of Baatil

FROM:Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng

In a village in Punjab, a beautiful Qadiani girl was presented to an army officer for marriage. The military officer made a condition for the acceptance of the marriage proposal that he would never accept Qadianism.

The Qadianis accepted the condition and sent the girl with the army officer. After the marriage, he would frequently visit his in-laws and they began sweet-talking him to (accept) Qadianism. One day, the pope of the Qadianis visited and he told the military officer: “You do not consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani to be a prophet. However, accept this one thing which I will tell you: Make Istikharah whether there is a prophet after the Holy Prophet or not? Is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani a true prophet or not?”.

The soldier was being given poison to drink, but as he drank he did not realize that he was raising a cup of poison to his lips. He accepted the idea of making Istikharah.

After performing Istikharah at night, he saw in a dream that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani had become a prophet and people were gathered around him. When he woke up in the morning, he believed in Qadianism in accordance to his Istikhara. He alone believing (in Qadianism) was not the major problem. He began inviting people to believe in the prophethood of Mirza and converted his family to become followers of Mirza Qadiani. All the scholars were helpless (in convincing him to leave Qadianism).

If a scholar invited him (to revert to Islam and the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah), he would say, “I did not consider Mirza as a prophet on the invitation of a Qadiani. I made istikhara and in my istikhara I was shown Qadiyani to be a nabi. I personally had the opportunity to see the dream.” When no scholar could satisfactorily answer him with proofs and arguments, he lost hope and stopped meeting the Ulama.

Eventually Maulana Yusuf Ludhianvi Shaheed graced the jalsah of Chenab Nagar. Maulana was a famous personality, hence this military officer agreed to meet him on the pretext that he would also see their (the Ahlus Sunnah’s) great Maulvi. When the military officer stated his case before Maulana that he did not become a Qadiani at the invitation of anyone nor on account of greed (for money), rather, he became a Qadiani due to (what was in his understanding) proof which he personally witnessed (i.e. his dream). (The military officer made his case as follows:) “Istikharah is advice from Allah. I consulted (made istikhara) with the Rabb in accordance to the law of Islam. Allah showed me Mirza Qadiani to be a prophet. Now must I believe in what Allah says or what the Maulvis say? How can I leave what Allah Himself showed me in a dream and believe in what the Maulvis say?” Maulana Ludhianvi Shaheed held his hand and said by means of his bodily expression, “At present, do not obey the (that) rabb, obey this humble Maulvi.

It is only the Maulvi who can tell you what the true Rabb is saying.” Maulana spoke and said: “When you doubted the personality of Nabi-e-Akram sallallahualayhi wasallam, then you ceased to be a Muslim. If you truly believed with conviction that Nabi-e-Akram sallallahualayhi wasallam is the final Nabi and there is no possibility of the emergence of any new Nabi, then you definitely would have not made istikhaarah (since istikhaarah is to gain contentment on something which you are uncertain about).

When you decided to make istikharah, then it was tantamount to you having doubt whether Sayyidul Abraar (Nabi) sallallahu alayhi wasallam is the final Nabi or not. When you were in doubt with regards to the personality of the Noble Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam, you became a disbeliever. Having doubt in the personality of a Prophet is also clear-cut disbelief. The moment you began doubting (the finality of the Prophethood of Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam), you instantly became a disbeliever and in this condition of disbelief you saw Qadiani to be a Nabi (in your dream)”.

Upon hearing this argument, the army officer was aroused, jumped up and embraced Maulana Shaheed. There and then he repented and reverted to Islam. (O Reader!) Think to yourself! Where did it all start? (Answer: on account of associating with people who are not on the right path). How did he begin doubting the personality of Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam and what was the (disastrous) outcome?

This is exactly what the great Imam Abu Hanifa rahmatullahi alayh said: “Believe in the finality of Prophethood without (seeking) any evidence. Whoever questions (in this regard) will become a disbeliever”. Questions and enquiries are made on the basis of doubt and doubting the personality of Nabi sallallahu alayhi wasallam is clear-cut kufr.

The Major Signs Of Islam In Our Times

For the love of the Mujaddid, Imam Rabbani

… and who are the self-hating Islamites?

As-Salamu ‘Alaikum

Years ago, a jew visiting my blog once asked me – “What do you mean by ‘self-hating Islamites’? What’s an Islamite? Is it something like Canaanites mentioned in the Torah?” I replied that the term ‘self-hating’ was borrowed from their own jargon of ‘self-hating jews’. As for “Islamites”, I said that I just imply by it – CLAIMANTS TO ISLAM, people who profess Muslim names, and supposedly identities, but either have left Islam or are severe heretics.

Recently, a brother asked me to list out some of the major perennialism and modernism infested bid’ahs of our times. I decided to list both out in a tabular form as the signs of Islam negate the posion of kufr and bid’ah. In any case the signs of Islam are the negators of the bid’ahs. The anti-dote of a poison is that which negates…

View original post 2,961 more words



Shaitaan is an extremely cunning plotter. In his scheme to destroy the Deen, he surreptitiously introduces bid’ah which he paints with Deeni hues. It is with bid’ah that shaitaan had succeeded in mutilating beyond recognition the Shariats of Nabi Musaa (Alayhis salaam) and of Nabi Isaa (Alayhis salaam), and of all previous Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam). The ‘deeni’ veneer provides an excellent subterfuge for Iblees.

Short-sighted molvis are prone to fall into the bid’ah snare of Iblees. All acts of bid’ah we find today were introduced by sincere molvis and walis with good intentions and motives. But, diversion from the Sunnah is fraught with vile consequences. When even a permissible act is promoted to Deeni significance, it develops into an entrenched bid’ah practice. Then it no longer remains permissible.

(1) One such permissible act which have lately become associated with the 10th Muharram is the custom of making gifts to the wife specifically on 10th Muharram, the Day of Aashura. According to the Hadith, there is encouragement for providing lavish meals to the family on this Day. Besides food for the family, there is nothing else added by the Hadith. This new addition of making gifts has developed only recently, more than 1400 centuries after Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

This new accretion more than 14 centuries later should by itself be sufficient for intelligent people to understand the error of this new custom which has no origin in the Sunnah nor in the Ummah for more than 14 hundred years. Shaitaan effects changes in the Deen gradually by imperceptible degrees, hence most ulama who are deficient in Taqwa and lack in baseerat fail to detect the intricacies of the scheme of Iblees. The practice of making gifts to the wife specifically on the 10th Muharram has now been elevated to the status of ibaadat. Shaitaan has provided the Hadith pertaining to some extra food as justification for this new bid’ah.

The far-sighted, intelligent Mu’min will understand that all the Sahaabah were not paupers. All of them were not daily deprived of delicious and sumptuous meals. There were millionaires among the Sahaabah and the Salafus Saaliheen in general. Furthermore, numerous among the Sahaabah and the Salafus Saaliheen had embraced Poverty volitionally. Their poverty was self-imposed in view of their focus being on the futility of this earthly life and the reality of the Aakhirat. Despite an abundance of wealth and wealthy persons among the Sahaabah, and despite the merit and virtues of giving gifts, especially to the wife, and furthermore, despite the Qur’aan Majeed encouraging gifts, the minds of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and of the Sahaabah did not drift in the direction of specifying the 10th Muhaaram for making presents to the wife.

Thus, whilst the very same circumstances as we have today prevailed during the era of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the practice on 10th Muharram remained attached to food, not gifts to the wife. There are hundreds of other days in the year to make gifts to the wife. But molvis with myopic intellectual vision are shaitaan’s prime agents for the introduction of bid’ah, hence Iblees has dangled the chimera of the thawaab of 10th Muharram in front of the molvis to entrench this new bid’ah.

The reason why many people are unable to practically implement the letter of the Hadith pertaining to some lavishness of food on 10th Muharram, is the evil addiction to gluttony and carrion consumption. Almost daily, people consume lavish and delicious meals. The degree of extravagance precludes them from even special meals on Eid Days. Every day they gobble and guzzle varieties of foods thereby destroying their health and bloating their nafs. This precludes scope for lavish meals for the family on 10th Muharram in terms of the Hadith. The large scale obesity – detestable fatness – and the epidemic proportion of a variety of diseases – are the evidence for the haraam gluttonous indulgence – an indulgence in which the consumption of haraam and doubtful food is predominant.

The Hadith in this regard largely applies to the poor and those not poor, but also not wealthy enough to destroy their health and souls with daily sumptuous meals. Such people should make an effort to procure some extra food for a delicious meal for their families. As for the wealthy ones who are sinking in a cesspool of iniquitous obesity and opulence, they should search for the poor, give them Sadqah or luxury foodstuff for their families to partake on 10th Muharram. They should not degenerate into stupid foolery with the bid’ah practice of stupid gifts deeming it propitious for the acquisition of thawaab.

The claim that the Hadith is general and applies to any kind of ‘spending’ is incorrect. The Hadith specifically refers to some delicious / lavish meal for the family, not for only the wife. Family refers to wife and children in this context. In its response to a question on this issue, the Jamiat KZN said:

“Therefore it would suffice for one to spend on his / her family on the day of Aashura by giving gifts, clothing or making a special meal for the family.”

While the Hadith mentions only ‘food’, the Jamiat KZN relegates it to number three after the accretion of two unrelated and unconfirmed acts, i.e. gifts and clothing. At least the Jamiat should have accorded the ‘special meal’ mentioned in the Hadith first status, not assign it to third grade.

In support of its bid’ah view the Jamiat KZN cites Shaami. Let it be understood that Allaamah Ibn Aabideen, the author of Shaami appeared on the scene more than 1200 years after Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Notwithstanding the lofty status of Shaami, his error may not be presented to abrogate or alter a teaching / practice of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah. The Jamiat KZN should furnish daleel from the Salafus Saaliheen. The word of an Aalim regardless of his status, 12 centuries after the era of Nubuwwat, must be set aside when it is in clear conflict with the statement and practice of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and of the Sahaabah.

The personal view of Shaami is not a valid proof for a practice which has not existed in the Ummah for more than fourteen centuries. All senior Ulama / Fuqaha have committed errors. Someone, to soothe his nafs, can cite a Faqeeh to bolster the satanic practice of masturbation or for the claim that it is not incumbent to remove the underarm and pubic hairs or for viewing a woman stark naked for the purpose of marriage. When such bizarre views come to the ears, then we have to incumbently resort to our hearts in obedience to the command of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam): “Seek a fatwa from your heart.”

And, it will come to light that the fatwa of the heart will conform to the Fatwa of the Jamhoor Salafus Saaliheen. When Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that the “Masturbator is Mal-oon (accursed).”, we stand in no need of a view which violently clashes with this Fatwa of our Nabi. This principle applies to all issues. Thus, Allaamah Abdul Wahhaab Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) said: “He who seeks daleel from the rarities of the Ulama, verily he has made an exit from Islam.” Thus the clinching factor in these bizarre opinions is the Fatwa of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Hence, on the 10th Muharram the meritorious deed is some special food for the family, not gifts. The practice of gifts is Bid’ah.

(2) The second Bid’ah which has also been introduced by some stupid molvis / sheikhs who really do not know whether they are walking forwards or backwards, pertains to the two-day fasting. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) advised fasting on the 9th and 10th or on the 10th and 11th Muharraam in order to distinguish the Islamic practice from the custom of the Yahood who also used to fast on the 10th Muharram in commemoration of having crossed the sea in their flight from Fir’oun.

Regarding this fact, the wayward molvis say that since the Yahood no longer fast on 10th Muharram, there is therefore no need to fast two days. Fasting only on the 10th will no longer create a resemblance with the practice of the Yahood, they aver. Firstly, have they established what the practice of the orthodox Jews is in this regard. There are extremely orthodox Yahood in Israel and also elsewhere.

Secondly, an entrenched Masnoon custom which has existed in the Ummah since the era of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) cannot be discarded and abrogated merely on the basis of the Jews no longer adhering to one of their tenets. Who has invested the right of abrogation in these miscreant molvis of this age to tamper with the Deen. Assuming that the Yahood no longer fast on the 10th Muharram, it does not follow that the two day Fast ordered by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) can be tampered with and one day abrogated. This is a despicable new Bid’ah.

If this type of convoluted logic is to be accommodated as valid for adding and deleting to the Shariah, then someone may argue that there is no longer a need to perform Zuhr and Asr Salaat Sirran, i.e. reciting the Qiraa’t silently. The Sirr (Silent) method was ordered during the Makki period of Nubuwwat when performing Salaat was at the peril of torture and being killed by the mushrikeen. To avoid detection, the two Salaat were performed clandestinely and silently. In view of this no longer being the fear, a moron may argue that the Qiraa’t in Zuhr and Asr should be recited audibly. But, no one ever ventured such corruption even when Islam was ruling the world.

These interpolations and changes introduced by molvis and sheikhs are schemes of Iblees who harnesses into his plot the ‘scholars’ who in turn endeavour to convince the ignorant and unwary of the correctness of their Bid’ah introductions. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Every man of bid’ah is deprived of Taubah.”

Why would a bid’ati resort to Taubah when he believes that his act of bid’ah is ibaadat? Thus, the bid’ati is deprived. He is among the Kilaabun Naar (the Dogs of the Fire) who will be buffeted from Haudh-e-Kauthar on the Day of Qiyaamah.

4 Muharram 1442 – 24 August 2020


When we talk about a subject like “American Islam” or the other reformist projects in the modern world, what do we mean?

To define “American Islam,” it is really a series of concessions to the American establishment and Western cultural hegemony. That’s all it is. Concession after concession after concession.

The question is, how do you justify watering down the deen with these non-stop compromises? You have to give a reason to justify your distortion. So you say:

1. “We have to compromise because there is an overwhelming need!”

2. “We have to compromise because this is what is means to be compassionate!”

3. “We have to compromise because this is the only way we can catch up to the West!”

4. “We have to compromise because we have to make sure no one is ever Islamophobic and everyone loves us!”

5. “We have to compromise because that is the only way to effectively do dawah!”

In virtually all cases, these are nothing but empty excuses. And it is very clear when we read the Quran and the Sunna.

1. Were the Prophet ﷺ , His Family, the Khulafa, the Sahaba not in dire need?

2. Were they not compassionate?

3. Were they trying to catch up to the superpowers of their time, Rome and Persia, by imitating them?

4. Were they concerned about making sure kuffar liked them?

5. Were they not the best in dawah in a time when Islam was something seen as “strange”?

So these bogus reasons given to justify “American Islam,” they are terrible, myopic, and reminiscent of the jahaliyya Muslims are meant to transcend.

But there is a lot at stake with these reasons. People have internalized them and it has become part of their identity. It is who they have become. And the compassionate imams and faux-traditionalists pushing this narrative of auto-compromise will lash out with a vengeance against anyone who points out the obvious deceit.

We have to continue our work and not let their hot rage stop us.

Do we fear Allah or do we fear ignorant people?

questions for hadith rejectors

Dealing with some characters from the so-called Qur’anist Cult (Hadith-Rejectors). When dealing with them, you don’t want to get into long debates about Qur’anic Verses–for they make up meanings as they go along. You want to expose the faulty nature of their whole methodology. The following questions we’re posed to them… for which they never provided answers:

—Which Muhammad are you speaking of? [They frequently disregard history.]

—When did he live? [Again, by their method, they can’t prove (without external sources) the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) ever lived)]

And they were asked:

—Who numbered the Verses of the Qur’an? [They arbitrarily will accept certain things and reject others]

—How did they learn the rules related to Tajweed–and with whom did they recite the Qur’an so that they would know they are reciting properly? How would they know where to stop when reciting?

–And how did you come to be able to read the Qur’an and understand it without the i`jaam and harakaat? [I`jaam = dots on letters. Of course, they can’t read such Books–if they can find one. So, in reality–according to THEIR method–they are not actually reading the Qur’an]

***The point of raising these questions is that the so-called “Qur’anists” claim the Hadiths of the Prophet should not be followed. Now aside from the issues of Fiqh, like, how would a person pray, when would they pray, what would invalidate one’s wudu‘, how would one perform istinja’, how would one perform Hajj, or how would one perform a marriage contract, etc., the Hadith-Rejector STILL requires Islamic scholarship to read—much less understand—the Qur’an. And when it comes to Prophetic biography and Fiqh, a so-called “Qur’anist” can’t answer the above mentioned questions—without referring to traditional Islamic scholarship and the Hadith of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam).

These rejectors of the Sanctified Sunnah will tell Muslims to remain ignorant of these essential matters. Or the Hadith-Rejectors will tell the people to follow THEIR (i.e., Hadith-Rejectors) OWN OPINIONS about how these matters should be done…. So, in reality, the Hadith-Rejctors aren’t calling people to follow the “Qur’an only”–rather, they are calling the people to follow THEIR (Hadith-Rejectors) OPINIONS about the Qur’an–while rejecting and disparaging the scholarship of 1,400 years of learned, pious, wise Muslim men and women.***

In summary, the methodology Hadith-Rejectors is bankrupt and is ultimately a call to ignorance and doubt, which leads many of them to becoming open atheists. May Allah protect us from their demonic ideology.

The Bid’ah of al-Takfeer – Men Placing the Hands on the Chest


It is authentically related that Sa’eed ibn Jubayr (rahmatullahi alayh), the famous student of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum), while doing Tawaaf of the Ka’bah, saw a man praying with his hands on his chest. So abhorrent and unusual was the sight of this abnormal posture that it compelled Sa’eed ibn Jubayr to interrupt his Tawaaf, walk over to the man, smack him, and physically separate his hands, even while the man was in prayer.

The Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah narrates the incident with an authentic sanad (chain) as follows:

حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ عَبْيدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْعَيْزَارِ قَالَ: «كُنْتُ أَطُوفُ مَعَ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، فَرَأَى رَجُلًا يُصَلِّي وَاضِعًا إِحْدَى يَدَيْهِ عَلَى الْأُخْرَى، هَذِهِ عَلَى هَذِهِ، وَهَذِهِ عَلَى هَذِهِ، فَذَهَبَ فَفَرَّقَ بَيْنَهُمَا، ثُمَّ جَاءَ»

Yahya bin Sa’eed narrates from Ubaydullah ibn al-Ayzaar who said:

“I was performing Tawaaf with Sa’eed ibn Jubayr when he saw a man praying having placed his hand upon the other, this upon this, and this upon this (referring to the left hand upon the chest, and the right hand upon the left). So he went (to him) and separated them. Then he came (back).”

Dr. Bashar Awwaad, an expert in editing manuscripts, has clarified in his annotations of Ibn Abdul Barr’s Tamheed where this very same narration is cited, that “عبيد” (Ubayd) is the correct name of the individual narrating this incident. The name “عبد” (with the letter ‘ya’ missing) found in the manuscripts is a typographical error.

In the version of this incident narrated by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal to his student, Muhanna, the smacking is mentioned. Imam Ahmad also clarifies exactly why Sa’eed bin Jubayr took such stern measures:

قال مغلطاي في شرح سنن ابن ماجه (5/131):
وفي سؤالات مهنا: قلت لأحمد: ثنا خالد بن خداش، ثنا مهدي بن ميمون، عن عبيدالله بن العيزار، قال: (كنت أطوف مع سعيد بن جبير، وكان مهيبًا، فرأى رجلاً يصلي قد وضع إحدى يديه على الأخرى، فضرب يده)؟ فقال: (إنما رآه قد وضع إحدى يديه على الأخرى، وجعلهما عند صدره؛ لأن ذلك شبه التكفير).

Muhannā said: I asked Ahmad (about the narration)…: Ubaydullah ibn al-Ayzār said: “I was performing Tawaaf with Sa’eed bin Jubayr. He was awe-striking. He saw a man place one of his hands over the other (in prayer), so he (Sa’eed bin Jubayr) smacked his hand.”

So he (Imam Ahmad) said:

“(He did this because) he only saw that he had placed one hand over the other and placed them against his chest, since that resembles al-Takfeer.”

The above narration is recorded by Allamah Mughultai in his Sharh of Ibn Majah. Shaykh Dr. Abul Hasan has demonstrated in his treatise, “The Hanbali Position of Placing the Hands Below the Navel, that the chain of this narration is authentic.

Al-Takfeer, also known as al-Taqlees, was the practice of the Christians and Jews placing their hands directly on the chest during their prayers. Neither did Imam Ahmad, nor anyone from the Salaf-us-Saaliheen, ever understand the Hadith narrations mentioning the word “Sadr” (chest) to be referring to placing the hands directly on the breast which was precisely the practice of the Jews and Christians. ALL of the Imams of the Salaf understood the word “Sadr”, in this context, to be referring to below the breast and above the navel. This will be demonstrated conclusively on this page insha-Allah.

Let us establish first the fact that placing the hands directly on the chest (i.e. on the breast or above, as opposed to below the breast) was the religious practice of the Jews and Christians.

In Kitaab ul-Ain of al-Khaleel ibn Ahmad (d. 170H), the oldest Arabic dictionary to have reached us from the era of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen, there is explicit proof that the practice of placing both hands on the chest was associated with the Christians:

كتاب العين للخليل بن أحمد الفراهيدي المتوفي ١٧٠

ﻭاﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺲ: ﻭﺿﻊ اﻟﻴﺪﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺼﺪﺭ ﺧﻀﻮﻋﺎ ﻛﻔﻌﻞ اﻟﻨﺼﺮاﻧﻲ

At-Taqlees: Placing the two hands upon the chest in humility like the practice of the Christians.”

Abu Ubayd al-Qaasim ibn as-Salaam (d. 224H), possibly the greatest and most famous of the early linguists, also defines this Kuffaar practice of al-Takfeer as:

تهذيب اللغة ابو منصور الهروي المتوفي ٣٧٥

ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺑﻮﻋﺒﻴﺪ: اﻝﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ: ﺃﻥ ﻳﻀﻊ اﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻳﺪﻳﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﺪﺭﻩ

Al-Takfeer: That a man place his two hands upon his chest.”

The statement above is narrated in the early Arabic dictionaries such as Tahdheeb al-Lugah of Abū Mansoor al-Harawī (d. 375).

Ibn Qutaybah, another famous linguist and polymath from or close to the era of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen, also defines this act similarly, in his “al-Jaraatheem”:

الجراثيم لابن قتيبة المتوفي ٢٧٦:

اﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮﺋ: ﺃﻥ ﻳﻀﻊ ﻳﺪﻳﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﺪﺭﻩ

Al-Takfeer: That he places his two hands on his chest.

The later Arabic dictionaries simply reiterate the definitions cited above. For example, Ibn al-Jawzi, the famous Hanbali jurist, states in his Ghareeb al-Hadeeth:

غريب الحديث لابن الجوزي:

ﻭاﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺲ اﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻭﺿﻊ اﻟﻴﺪﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺼﺪﺭ ﺧﻀﻮﻋﺎ

Al-Taqlees is al-Takfeer – and this is placing the two hands upon the chest in humility.”

Both the words al-Taqlees and al-Takfeer carry many other meanings. However, the specific definitions cited above constitute a clear proof that the practice of placing one’s hands on the chest was known well enough to be a distinct practice of the Kuffaar such that specific words were coined for it, during or even prior to the era of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen.

The Salaf harboured the greatest degree of aversion for Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar (resemblance to the non-Muslims), in view of the numerous verses of the Qur’aan and authentic Hadiths condemning and prohibiting such resemblance. The prohibition of an act is of an even greater degree if it resembles the manner of worship of the Kuffaar.

It should also be borne in mind that while the Salaf were the most tolerant and broad-minded of people in regards to valid differences of opinions amongst themselves, they were also the most intolerant of people in regards to any differences which they deemed to be invalid and alien to Islam. Intolerance and “bigotry” towards Baatil (falsehood) was a salient feature of all the Salaf-us-Saaliheen. In contrast, tolerance of Baatil and intolerance of the Haqq are salient features of our current era, which is precisely why Allah Ta’ala has granted the very worst of people power over us, exactly as warned in the Hadiths.

Thus, it is of no surprise that a senior Tabi‘i such as Sa’eed ibn Jubayr felt compelled to interrupt his own ibaadah (worship) and interrupt the man’s salaah, and correct the abominable sight in the manner that he did. In all probability the poor man was a new convert to Islam who had carried over that particular habit from his previous religion.

In Imam Ahmad’s “Masaa-il” and collection of his Fatwas transmitted by his direct students is further confirmation of the reprehensibility of a man placing his hands on his chest during prayer.

Ibn ul-Qayyim, in his Badaaī’ al-Fawaaid cites al-Muzani, the student of Imam Ahmad, as follows:

ونقل المزني عنه…ويكره أن يجعلهما على الصدر، وذلك لما روي عن النبي -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم- أنه نهى عن التكفير، وهو وضع اليد على الصدر

بدائع الفوائد

Imam Ahmad said:

“It is reprehensible for him to place both of them (hands) upon the chest. And that is because of what is related from the Prophet ﷺ that he prohibited al-Takfeer – and that is placing the hand upon the chest.”

The sanad of the particular Hadith referred to above by Imam Ahmad has not reached us. However, it is sufficient for us that Imam Ahmad regarded it as authentic enough to adduce as evidence. The authentication of a Mujtahid such as Imam Ahmad is infinitely more reliable than that of any of the glut of paper “Mujtahids” who have mushroomed during these worst of eras, and whose word is taken almost as holy writ. The phrase “authenticated by al-Albani” is often issued by scholars, leave aside laymen, as an authoritative stamp on which confidence can be reposed, even though al-Albani was extremely unreliable and untrustworthy, as will become glaringly clear when we analyse the academic shenanigans he (and Zubayr Ali Zai) perpetrated while attempting to authenticate the Jewish practice of al-Takfeer.

As will be demonstrated when we discuss the Hadith of Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) in which he states that the Sunnah is to place the hands below the navel, which was the primary narrational Daleel (proof) used by the Hanbali and Hanafi Fuqaha (despite the weaknesses in its chain), there are numerous qaraa-in (indicators) which the Mujtahids such as Imam Ahmad would use in determining the authenticity of a Hadith. The sanad was only one factor out of many that were considered in such a process. Thus, in relation to the narration condemning al-Takfeer, Imam Ahmad’s word for it, or of any other Mujtahid from the Salaf, is sufficient authentication for us.

Imam Abu Dawud, the famous author of the Sunan (collection of Hadith) and student of Imam Ahmad, also narrates Imam Ahmad’s condemnation of al-Takfeer:

ﻭﺳﻤﻌﺘﻪ، ﻳﻘﻮﻝ: ” ﻳﻜﺮﻩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ، ﻳﻌﻨﻲ: ﻭﺿﻊ اﻟﻴﺪﻳﻦ ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﺼﺪﺭ «.

“I heard him say: ‘It is reprehensible (prohibitively disliked) to do that – meaning, placing the two hands on the chest.” (Masaa-il of Imam Ahmad)

Returning back to the narration of Sa’eed ibn Jubayr, Imam Ahmad’s explanation for this senior Tabi’i’s stern action also provides the perfect, and perhaps only viable, interpretation for the following two narrations from two other major authorities from the Tabi’een era, Hasan al-Basri and Mujahid – both recorded in the Musannaf of Ibn Abī Shaybah:

حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ، عَنْ يُوسُفَ بْنِ مَيْمُونٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «كَأَنِّي أَنْظُرُ إِلَى أَحْبَارِ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وَاضِعِي أيْمَانهُمْ عَلَى شَمَائِلِهِمْ فِي الصَّلَاةِ»

Hasan (al-Basri) narrates that Rasulullah ﷺ said: “It is as if I am seeing the Priests of Banī Isrāeel placing their right hands over their left hands in prayer.”

Regarding Yusuf ibn Maymoon, the narrator from Hasan al-Basri, al-Haythami summarized the criticism of him as follows:

ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﺑﻦ ﻣﻴﻤﻮﻥ اﻟﺼﺒﺎﻍ, ﺿﻌﻔﻪ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﻭﺛﻘﻪ اﺑﻦ ﺣﺒﺎﻥ ﻭﺃﺑﻮ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺪﻱ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ اﻟﺒﺰاﺭ: ﺻﺎﻟﺢ اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ

A whole group have regarded him as weak, although Ibn Hibbaan and Abū Ahmad ibn Adī considered him trustworthy. Al-Bazzaar said: ‘Acceptable in Hadith.’”

And the narration from Mujahid:

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا حَفْصٌ، عَنْ لَيْثٍ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ، أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَكْرَهُ أَنْ يَضَعَ الْيُمْنَى عَلَى الشِّمَالِ، يَقُولُ: «عَلَى كَفِّهِ، أَوْ عَلَى الرُّسْغِ»، وَيَقُولُ: «فَوْقَ ذَلِكَ» وَيَقُولُ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ: يَفْعَلُونَهُ

Mujahid regarded it reprehensible to place the right hand upon thd left. He said, “Upon its palm or upon the wrist.” And he said (or showed): “Above that”, saying, “The Ahl ul-Kitaab (Jews and Christians) do it.”

Al-Haythami said in assessment of Layth ibn Abi Sulaym, the narrator from Mujahid:

ﻟﻴﺚ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺳﻠﻴﻢ, ﻭﻗﺪ ﻭﺛﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺿﻌﻒ ﻓﻴﻪ

He has been considered trustworthy despite weakness in him.”

Despite the weaknesses in the chain of both narrations above, they are, nevertheless, suitable (according to the methodology of the Salaf) to use for the tremendous Fadhāil (virtue) of condemning the religious posture of the Jews which their brethren, agents and unwittingly witless puppets (e.g. Salafis and other modernists) have infiltrated into this Ummah during the past few centuries.

Hasan al-Basri and Mujahid were students of hundreds of Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) including those whose authentic narrations (e.g. Ibn Abbaas and Anas radhiyallahu anhuma) establish beyond any doubt the Sunnah status of placing the right hand over the left in prayer. It is therefore inconceivable that Hasan al-Basri and Mujahid would have dared to condemn as a practice of the Kuffaar, a practice that they would’ve witnessed from innumerable Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) and other Tabi’een, and one also adopted by the overwhelming majority of the Ummah. They could only have condemned the placement of hands at a particular place on the body, not the placement of hands per se.

As with the narration from Sa’eed ibn Jubayr, Imam Ahmad’s explanation is the only reasonable one. This is bolstered further by the fact that al-Takfeer is confirmed by the ancient dictionaries to be the only posture involving the placement of hands, one over the other, which was associated with the priests of the Ahl ul-Kitaab.

We will cite one more narration from a major Tabi’i to emphasize further the abhorrent nature of this practice, specifically in respect to men. Ibn Abi Shaybah narrates with an authentic chain from the great Tabi’i, ‘Atā’ ibn Abī Rabah, the following statement:

تجمع المرأة يديها فى القيام ما استطاعت

“A woman gathers her hands in the standing position as much as she is able to.”

It is only possible to gather one’s hands together “as much as one is able to” high up on the body, around the area of the chest. ‘Atā’ ibn Abī Rabah witnessed and learnt his Deen from a large number of Sahabah, numbering in their hundreds. The position he states above has been the position of a major portion of this Ummah, including the Hanafi school, right from the era of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen.

Thus, for a man to place his hands on the chest will entail, in addition to Tashabbuh bil Jews, the added aggravating element of Tashabbuh bin Nisaa’ (resemblance to women). This is similar to how other practices such as clapping one’s hands in prayer or shaving one’s beard would also entail both, at the same time, Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar and Tashabbuh bin Nisaa’.

Although the testimonies of Imam Ahmad and the definitions cited above from the dictionaries authored during or close to the era of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen are more than sufficient as proof that the practice of men placing the hands on the chest is an exclusive practice of the Kuffaar, we will add here, as a bonus supplement, one of many citations that can be found in the scriptures of Ahl ul-Kitaab (Jews and Christians).

In an article found on the orthodox Jewish website,, specifically on hand positions during prayer, the following is cited from their scriptures:

Before Shemoneh Esrei, Rava would put his hands on his chest, one resting on the other, like a slave in front of his master” (Shabbos 10a)…The Shulchan Aruch writes that one should place his right hand over his left.”

A brief search on Christian sources will also bear similar results.


Imam Ahmad’s condemnation of placing the hands on the chest is especially significant if we take into consideration the fact that he accepted all the various positions for placing one’s hands: below the navel, above the navel, or choosing freely between below and above the navel.

The other Imams also carefully avoided the “red zone” – the chest. These are the various positions authentically attributed to the Imams of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen:

1) Imam Abu Hanifah’s position, as reported by his student, Imam Muhammad ash-Shaybaani, in several of his books, was placing the hands below the navel.

2) Imam Ishaaq ibn Raahwayh also adopted the stance of placing the hands below the navel, as reported in his “Masaa-il” by his student.

3) Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri also adopted this stance as related by Imam al-Mundhiri and many other reliable authorities.

4) Imam Maalik held the stance that the hands should be placed above the navel and below the chest. His major students, Imam al-Mutarrif and Imam Ibn al-Maajishoon have transmitted this position in Kitaab ul-Waadiha. The other famous position of Imam Malik is leaving the hands to one’s sides as narrated by his student, Ibn al-Qaasim, in al-Mudawanna.

5) Imam Shafi’i’s direct student, al-Muzani, states “below the chest” in his al-Mukhtasar, which is the position attributed to Imam Shafi’i by all of the Shafi’i Fuqaha.

6) Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s stance is accurately portrayed by the citations above from Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim. While below the navel was his preferred position and the one held by the generality of the Hanbali Fuqaha, he also put into practice the placement of the hands above the navel and below the chest, whilst clearly condemning the placement of hands directly on the chest.

Note how all the Imams carefully avoided the position of a man placing his hands directly on the chest. Evidently then, Imam Ahmad and the rest of the Salaf were totally and blissfully unaware of even the remote existence of a so-called Firqat un-Naajiah (the saved sect) who were responsible for upholding or reviving such authentic “Sunnats” (of the Jews and Shiah Kuffaar) as placing the hands on the chest or a Bid’ah 8 raka’ts “Taraweeh”. (Refer to the article, “The Bid’ah of 8 Raka’ts ‘Taraweeh” for conclusive proof of the complete non-existence of this Bid’ah amongst the Salaf-us-Saaliheen.)

Let us now fast forward several centuries to the 7th and 8th century to try to determine whether or not this “Firqat un-Naajiah”, upholding the Sunnah of the Jews, had begun to rear its ugly head before that era.

Ibn taymiyyah, in his exposition of this issue in “Sharh ul-Umdah”, runs through the various positions in respect to the placement of hands in prayer. Observe how he accepts all the positions as valid except the Jewish practice of al-Takfeer:

كتاب صفة الصلاة من شرح العمدة لابن تيمية الحراني الحنبلي الدمشقي المتوفى: 728 هـ:

ويجعلهما تحت سرته, أو تحت صدره, من غير كراهةٍ لواحدٍ منهما, والأول أفضل في إحدى الروايات عنه…ولأن ذلك أبعد عن التكفير المكروه…وفي الأخرى: تحت الصدر أفضل…والرواية الثالثة: هما سواء…فأما وضعهما على الصدر، فيكره، نص عليه… وما روي من الآثار عن الوضع على الصدر فلعله محمول على مقاربته

And he places them below his navel, or below his chest, without any reprehensibility entailing in either one of them. The first is better according to one of the transmissions from him (Imam Ahmad)… and also because it is furthest from the detested al-Takfeer. In another (transmission), below the chest is better. And in the third (transmission), both are equal… And as for placing both (hands) on the chest, this is reprehensible. There is an explicit statement (from Imam Ahmad) on this…and what is transmitted of narrations on placing the hand on the chest is perhaps interpreted based on nearness to it.

Note also how Ibn Taymiyyah offers an explanation for the narrations which mention the word “chest”. He interprets the narrations in terms of the unanimous and mass-transmitted practice of the entire Ummah – not the other way round. Despite Ibn Taymiyyah’s unique propensity to go against Ijma’ (consensus), even he was not so audacious and stupid enough to assume that in such a simple and clearly visible matter of placement of hands in prayer, mass-transmitted from generation to generation from the time of Rasulullah ﷺ, the entire Ummah could have erred so drastically.

Ibn al-Qayyim, similarly, in Badaai al-Fawaa’id, accepts all the various positions transmitted from the Salaf as valid whilst at the same time condemning the practice of placing the hands on the chest:

بدائع الفوائد المؤلف: ابن قيم الجوزية المتوفى: 751هـ

ﻭاﺧﺘﻠﻒ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ اﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﻓﻌﻨﻪ ﻓﻮﻕ اﻟﺴﺮﺓ ﻭﻋﻨﻪ ﺗﺤﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﻋﻨﻪ ﺃﺑﻮ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﺳﺄﻟﺖ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺃﻳﻦ ﻳﻀﻊ ﻳﺪﻩ ﺇﺫا ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺼﻠﻲ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: “ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺴﺮﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻭاﺳﻊ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺇﻥ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻓﻮﻕ اﻟﺴﺮﺓ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺤﺘﻬﺎ…ﻗﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭاﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﺰﻧﻲ: “ﺃﺳﻔﻞ اﻟﺴﺮﺓ ﺑﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﻭﻳﻜﺮﻩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺠﻌﻠﻬﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺼﺪﺭ ” ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻤﺎ ﺭﻭﻯ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﺻﻠﻰ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻧﻬﻲ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻭﺿﻊ اﻟﻴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺼﺪﺭ.

He (Imam Ahmad) varied (in his stance) on the area of placement (of hands). Above the navel is narrated from him and below it is narrated from him. Abū Taalib narrated from him: ‘I asked Ahmad where should one place his hands when he prays?’ He said: ‘Upon the navel or below.’ All of these are permissible according to him if he places (his hands) above the navel or upon it or below it…He said in the transmission from al-Muzani: ‘Below the navel slightly. It is reprehensible for him to place them on the chest.’ That is because of what is narrated from the Prophet ﷺ that he forbade al-Takfeer, which is placing the hands upon the chest.”

From the above two citations, it is manifestly clear that the so-called saved sect responsible for upholding or reviving the Jewish Sunnah of Al-Takfeer, failed to make an appearance even during the 7th and 8th centuries.

Other than Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim, there are many more reliable Fuqaha we could have cited on this issue. We only cite these two scholars because most of those (Salafis and modernists) who are responsible for reviving this practice of the Jews and importing it into the Ummah, during the past few centuries, regard these two to be trustworthy and reliable authorities of Islam.

It appears that this Bid’ah started appearing in this Ummah some time during the 11th or 12th century (Hijri). The root-cause, as with all deviations that have cancerously infected the Ummah, was Ghair Muqallidism – the act of leaving one’s Madh-hab for a ruling which one deceives oneself to be “better”. One of the first proponents of unrestrained Ghair Muqallidism, along with the necessarily accompanying Bid’ah such as the Kuffaar practice of al-Takfeer, was an Aalim named Shaykh Hayaat Sindhi. He had begun to propagate the Jewish practice of placing one’s hands on the chest.

In response, another Aalim from Sindh, Allamah Hashim Sindhi penned a refutation of him. Several refutations and counter-refutations then ensued between the two. They have all been compiled into one book that can be downloaded here.

Allamah Hashim mentions at one place that one of the reasons given by the Hanafi Fuqaha (and some Hanbalis) for giving preference to placing the hands below the navel is that it is, “furthest from resemblance with the Ahl ul-Kitaab”. This is similar to Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement, already cited above, that:

ويجعلهما تحت سرته, أو تحت صدره, من غير كراهةٍ لواحدٍ منهما, والأول أفضل في إحدى الروايات عنه…ولأن ذلك أبعد عن التكفير المكروه

The first (i.e. below the navel) is better…because it is furthest from the detested al-Takfeer…” (Sharh ul-Umdah)

Allamah Hashim goes onto relate his experience in attempting to find real-life corroboration for this particular reason given for preferring the position of placing the hands below the navel:

This Faqeer (poor, lowly person – referring to himself) – may Allah Ta’ala rectify his condition – when he arrived at Bandar Adan…he found there a group from the Jews residing there. So he summoned them, asking about the place of placement of their hands in prayer. They said: “Upon the chest.” A group from them were in agreement on that, and (both) their leaders and the masses concurred on that.”

Orthodox Jews and Christians who still uphold this practice are extremely rare today. It is divine providence that Allah Ta’ala, in His infinite wisdom, has granted one of the most deviated of sects the “privilege” of bearing the torch of upholding this particular Sunnah of the Jews. In one of the most clearly visible aspects of one of the most fundamental pillars of the Deen, the Salafis have been made to stand apart from the Islamic luminaries of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen and resemble instead the Jews and Christians of that blessed era.

Allah Ta’ala has laid bare vividly for any sincere Muslim to appreciate the brazen fraud behind the claims of Salafis and other Ghair Muqallids of being true followers of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen. If they are able to miss the mark so widely on such basic Masaa-il (juristic matters of the Deen) as the placement of the hands in prayer, or the number of raka’ts in a prayer (Taraweeh) practiced by the Ummah, including the Salaf, for over 1400 years, then it can be firmly asserted, without any shadow of doubt, that such deviated groups will have inevitably missed the mark far more widely in more complex issues of the Deen. The sincere layman only needs to observe their deviation – so visibly discernible without much intellect required – and their satanic influence on innumerable Muslims who have adopted the Jewish or Shiah (8 rakats Bid’ah taraweeh) Sunnah, to appreciate how distant from the Salaf-us-Saaliheen they are in reality.

Much more to come insha-Allah…



Q. Over the last few years with the advancement of technology, sending messages and
remaining in contact with family and friends have become easy and convenient.
In recent years it has become the habit of family members to wish one another
“Jumuah Mubarak” or “May your Jumuah be blessed and your duas accepted” or “have
a blessed day filled with piety and ibadaat” etc., etc.
Everyone that I have asked know that this is not a sunnah act. So why do it?
They reply that it is a way of showing love and care for family and close friends. People that receive such whatsapp messages say that they appreciate that the sender is thinking of them. Is this wrong and should we desist from sending Jumuah messages?
The following was a message sent to me:
Mufti Taqi on sending Jumu’ah Mubarak: (I’ll paraphrase)
“Nowadays it has become very common that people spread messages of Jumu’ah
Mubarak especially on social media. 25yrs from now people will think it is compulsory
or some form of Sunnah and they will begin to belittle those who don’t say it or send
it. This is wrong. Allah’s Rasool never did this, nor did the Sahaabah.
This is becoming a new bid’ah of our time. We don’t need to say Jumu’ah Mubarak to anyone and if anyone sends us a message, we should clarify this to them. Every
bid’ah starts with very small things but later develops into a very big fitnah.”
Please comment. Is this practice valid in terms of the Shariah?

A. Mufti Taqi’s answer is adequate. It is not valid nor is it permissible to fabricate this or
any other similar practice into the Deen as if it is an act of ibaadat.

Why is the Majlis so harsh?

answer given by a student of deen and approved by hazrat

Why is the Majlis so harsh towards the Salafis, Barelwis and other deviant sects? So-and-so Akaabir had praised so-and-so person from a deviant sect, and so-and-so Deobandi website contains ample praise of people from deviant sects. This kind of attitude is creating disunity and drives a wedge between Muslims which is exactly what the CIA and the Kuffaar want???


The issue of dissociating (Baraa’) from people from deviant sects is yet another tenet of the Shariah which was upheld by the Ijma’ (consensus) of Salaf-us-Saaliheen, and which is flagrantly and recklessly neglected by the Ummah as a whole today. Innumerable quotes and incidents of the Salaf-us-Saliheen vividly portray their ‘extreme’ attitude towards people associated with deviant sects, which throws into stark contrast the nafsaani (desire-ridden) attitude of today’s so-called ‘muftis’ and ‘maulanas’.

The Shariah is crystal-clear and explicit on how we should regard people from deviant sects. This is a ‘wedge’ made Waajib by the Ijma’ (consensus) of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen, not the CIA or other Kuffaar. What so-and-so shaykh or so-and-so website says is powerless and impotent to alter this Shariah position – a Shariah position which has become Ghareeb (strange, lone, forlorn) and unpalatable now, just like most other parts of the Shariah.

Even a perfunctory reading of the lives and anecdotes of the Salaf-us-Saliheen, whom many falsely claim to follow, will bring to the fore their ‘extreme’ ghairah for the purity of the Deen, and their ‘harsh’ and ‘extreme’ attitude towards deviants. In fact, if a complete Jaahil were to observe the massive contrast between the satanic pin-drop silence of the Ulama today, and the deafening noise of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen with their innumerable Fatwas of Kufr, Tabdee’, Baraa’, the Jaahil might mistakenly assume these worst of times today to be a Golden Age, free from deviances, and the blessed era of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen to be the age of Jahiliyyah.

The Salaf-us-Saaliheen never recognised any such stupid concept of ‘unity’ as trumpeted by deviants of all breeds today. The slightest deviation from the Haqq was abominable to the Salaf-us-Saliheen. In their eyes there was no such creature as a ‘good’ deviant or a ‘moderate’ deviant. Deviation has no moderation. One person’s stupid idea of ‘moderate’ is another stupid person’s idea of ‘extremism’ – and vice versa.

Furthermore, those who pipe the stupid ‘unity’ slogan are extremely selective in the type of deviants they are willing to flirt with. Thus, for example, while the salafi-inclined ‘deobandis’ have no hesitation in proclaiming the Barelwi-like sects as deviants, they will suddenly bury their heads deep deep in the sand regarding the clear-cut beliefs of Kufr held by the leading Imams of the Salafi sect, such as Ibn Taymiyyah, which have only recently been thoroughly exposed in manner that does not leave the slightest shred of doubt regarding their Kufr anthropomorphic nature, thanks mainly to the mass-publishing and mass-propagation of Ibn Taymiyyah’s books carried out by the Salafis of this age.

Just look at the destruction wrought to the Deobandi Maslak and efforts of Deen because of our flagrant and reckless negligence of this vital tenet of Shariah. It is now not uncommon to come across ‘deobandi’ muftis who believe that Allah (azza wa jal) is in the physical direction upwards, sat (juloos) on the throne. A local ‘deobandi’ Maulana now propounds the Kufr belief of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim, that hell-fire will eventually shut down even for disbelievers. The most senior and prominent Deobandi Shaykh and Buzurgh in the UK recently instructed the use of Shirki Istigaathah “zikr”. Not co-incidentally the said Buzurgh has amicable relations with the Barelwis. Public Bid’ah Zikr sessions, in the manner of the fraudulent ‘sufis’, orchestrated by our Mashaikhs and Buzurghs are now commonplace. More and more ‘muftis’ and ‘maulanas’ are today regurgitating the same fatwas first issued by salafi ‘jihadis’ many years ago, that suicide bombing in public places for a ‘need’, targetting women and children, Haraam ‘jihadi’ promotional videos, and the like are amongst the means through which Jihaad must be fought. Not co-incidentally these ‘muftis’ and ‘maulana’ squander all their time indulging in and propagating Haraam ‘jihadi’ videos excreted by salafi ‘jihadis’.

Senior muftis who are known to associate and socialize with deviants and fussaaq of all breeds, were amongst the first Deobandis to issue the grievously ruinous Haraam fatwas legalizing pictures of animate objects, interest (riba), and the like, against the Ijma’ (consensus) of ALL the Akabir of Deoband and the Fuqaha of all ages, and which have now suddenly become the Mash-hoor (preponderant) majority opinion of the ‘deobandis’ today. Relying on the Faasiq-Faajir Saudi government for moon-sighting, permitting women to go to the Masjid, holding Meelad-un-Nabi conferences, and innumerable other practices and rulings first adopted by deviant sects, have already become, or are rapidly on the way to becoming the ‘majority’ opinion amongst the ‘Deobandis’ today.

Our reckless negligence of this vital tenet of Shariah just so that we can squeeze enough room to justify an inclination to a pet deviant of ours, has practically opened the floodgates for every other type of deviant and deviance to enter our ranks and be conferred Deeni respectability. Kuffar domination, which is only a manifestation of Allah’s Wrath and Azaab upon this Ummah is only set to increase. No Divine Nusrat appears to be forthcoming any time soon.

Yes, senior Akabir of Deoband had praised and approved of people from extremely deviated sects such as salafis, fraudulent ‘sufis’, maududis, qutbis, etc. We do not say that such Akabir had Nifaaq in their hearts. Since we know them to be 100% stern upholders of the Haqq, even when Haqq would become extremely bitter, we adopt Husn-e-Zann and say that they were genuinely unaware of the deviation of the person or sect in question. We are convinced that had they become aware of the deviation, they would have adopted dissociation (Baraa’, Bughd fillah, etc.) immediately, unlike the nafs-following ‘muftis’ and ‘maulanas’ of today and recent times.

Many of the Akabir had initially admired and praised Maududi and Sayyid Qutb both of whom were guilty of the most blood-curdling statements regarding the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum). A few of the Akabir had passed away while holding Maududi in great esteem. But after Shaykh Zakariyyah, Allamah Binnori, and others had thoroughly exposed the deviation of Maududi and his sect, virtually all our Akaabir, without the slightest hesitation, dissociated (Baraa’) themselves from the Maududis. Undoubtedly, today’s ‘muftis’ and ‘maulanas’ would have desperately clutched at straws to maintain their Nifaaqi admiration and connection to such a person and group.

Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani once mentioned that only after residing in Madinah did he come across books of Ibn Taymiyyah which were not available in India and which made it clear to him that Ibn Taymiyyah had veered blatantly out of Ahlus Sunnah wa’l Jama’ah. From that time onwards, he was unable to tolerate any respect shown to Ibn Taymiyyah. Now that the Salafis of this age have mass-propagated the books of Ibn Taymiyyah which expound such anthropomorphic beliefs as Allah having a size, a body (jism), limits (hudood), spatial direction (jiha), Allah having the actual ability to sit upon the back of a mosquito, the non-eternity of Hell-fire, and innumerable other abominable beliefs which go against the Ijma’ of the whole Ummah, it is only Nafsaaniyat and Nifaaq which prevent the Salafi-lovers today from recognising the Salafi sect as amongst the worst of Ahlul Bid’ah.

Shaykh Rashid Ahmad Gangohi and other senior Mashaykh did praise Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. We do not say that they had Nifaaq in their hearts. Without any doubt, they were genuinely unaware of his deviation and the deviation of the Arab Salafis in general. However, now that it is open knowledge that he was of the deviant Salafi aqeedah of Ibn Taymiyyah, and that he had made Halaal (Mubaah-ud-Dam and Waajib-ul-Qatl) the blood of thousands of Muslims just like the Salafi-influenced ‘jihadis’ are doing today, then to proclaim him as a ‘Mujahid’ or a ‘Reviver’ is undoubtedly, according to the Shariah, aiding in the destruction of the Deen, and a result of pure Nafsaani Nifaaq lurking in the heart like a filthy thief.

Sacrifices for the Deen do not exonerate a person from a deviant sect. The original Khawarij were unmatched in their passion for the Deen, their willingness for Jihaad, their concern for the Ummah, their Ikhlaas, their night-vigils, their Ibaadah, and even their honesty. Yet that did not alter in the slightest their status of being the Dogs of Hell-fire – the worst of Ahlul Bid’ah with whom dissociation is Waajib.

Shaykh Zakariyyah himself and other senior mashaikh had great admiration for and close ties with Muhammad al-Alawi al-Maliki who was from one of those deviated Arab fake ‘Sufi’ sects. There is no doubt, Shaykh Zakariyyah was unaware of al-Alawi’s barelwi-like aqeedah, otherwise he would have been the very first to do Baraa’ of him. Shaykh Zakariyyah passed away without becoming aware. Once it is clear that a person is from a deviant group, the Shariah is crystal-clear that it becomes Haraam to honour and praise him, and to do so aids in the destruction of the Deen. Yet, stupid ‘muftis’ and ‘maulanas’ and ‘deobandi’ websites today use Shaykh Zakariyyah to justify their admiration for this Bidati and other similar deviant Arab ‘Sufis’.

Lastly, even assuming that any of the Akaabir were aware of the deviance of a deviant whom they had praised, this would not alter in the slightest the truth behind Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) statements that to honour a deviant aids in the destruction of the Deen and causes the Arsh of Allah (azza wa jal) to shudder.

May Allah (azza wa jal) grant us the Tawfeeq to adopt and have full Yaqeen in the efficacy of every single tenet of Allah’s glorious Shariah even if the ‘wisdom’ behind that tenet escapes are puny, miniscule and chaotically varying intellects.


Ilm al-Ghayb and the Kufr of Barelwis

The extreme deviance of the Barelwis and the crooked lie of their deceptive claim of being authentic adherents to the Hanafi Madh-hab and the generality (Jumhoor) of the Fuqaha, are exposed thoroughly by their attribution of detailed (tafseeli) knowledge of “everything that was and everything that will be” to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

This belief is summed up, in very clear terms, as follows by their arch-idol, Ahmad Raza Khan:

“It is without a doubt that the Almighty has given His Noble Beloved (Allah bless him and grant him peace) the complete knowledge of everything from the first till the last. From the east to the west, from the Throne till the earth, everything was shown to him. He was made witness to the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth. From the very first day till the last day all of the knowledge of what was and what shall be (ma kana wa ma yakun) has been shown to him. From all of the above, not even an iota is outside the knowledge of the Prophet. Great knowledge has been encompassed by the Noble Beloved (Allah bless him and grant him peace). It is not just of a summary type but what is small and big, every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness of the earth are in their entirety known to him individually and in detail. Much praise to Allah. In fact, that which has been discussed is not, never, the complete knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace and send peace on his family and companions, all of them); but this is a small part of the Prophet’s knowledge.” (Inba al-Mustafa, p.486)

To illustrate better what is meant by the detailed knowledge of “every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness”, let us consider the example of a Nikah (wedding). According to this perverted Barelwi creed, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) possesses the knowledge of every single one of the billions of Nikah that had ever taken place in the past, is currently taking place, and the billions more that are due to take place in the future.

Furthermore, according to this twisted creed, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) possesses not only the knowledge of the general arrangements of each and every Nikah, but also every single paraphernalia attached to each Nikah, from the food items, the guests, the clothes worn by the guests, to every other minute detail connected to the Nikah, even the detailed knowledge of each and every leaf that falls in the vicinity of the Nikah and the detailed knowledge of each and every grain that is consumed during the Nikah.

The leafy and grainy detail of the knowledge attributed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is made clear in unambiguous terms:

“From all of the above (i.e. all that has occurred and all that will occur – including obviously every single Nikah) not even an iota is outside the knowledge of the Prophet….It is not just of a summary type but what is small and big, every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness of the earth are in their entirety known to him individually and in detail.”

Similar statements affirming detailed (tafseeli) knowledge of everything to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), as opposed to a summary overview (ijmaali) of all significant events relevant to the creation, can be found in other books of Ahmad Raza Khan such as ad-Dawlat ul-Makkiyyah, Khaalis ul-I’tiqaad, al-Malfooz al-Shareef, and also in the books of other arch-idols of the Barelwis such Jaa al-Haq and Shane Habeebur Rahman of “Hakeem ul-Ummat” (The quack doctor of the Ummah), Ahmad Yaar Khan.

Now compare and contrast this belief, O Barelwi worshippers of Ahmad Raza Khan, against THE Fatwa of the Hanafi Madh-hab regarding a person who attributes to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the knowledge of a single and solitary Nikah for which there is no apparent means for him (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to gain the knowledge of.

The Hanafi Mujtahid from the 5th Century, As-Sadr ush-Shaheed Husam ud-Deen, who was the senior teacher of numerous other pillars of the Hanafi Madh-hab, including the famous authors of al-Hidaaya and Badaai us-Sanaai, narrates the following ruling from his pious predecessors:

من تزوج امرأة بشهادة الله و رسوله لا يجوز لأنه نكاح لم يحضره الشهود، وحكى عن أبو القاسم الصفار أن هذا كفر محض لأنه اعتقد أن رسول الله يعلم الغيب وهذا كفر

“Whoever marries a woman, taking Allah and his messenger (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as witnesses – it is not permissible because witnesses are not present for the Nikah. It is related from Abul Qaasim as-Saffaar that this is Kufr Mahd (pure, unadulterated disbelief that expels a person from Islam) because he believed that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows the unseen (ghayb) and this is Kufr.” [Al-Waaqi’aat, page 70 of the manuscript]

Imam Abul Qaasim as-Saffaar as-Soofee (d. 326H) was a Hanafi Mujtahid with only three links between himself and Imam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullahi alayh). This fatwa has been accepted and transmitted in every age by the Hanafi Fuqaha. The very same Fatwa or similar versions to it were accepted and quoted approvingly by the early Fatwa manuals which constituted the Hanafi Madh-hab such as al-Fataawa ul-Walwaalijiyyah (Vol. 5, pg. 422), Khulaasat ul-Fataawa (Vol. 4, pg. 385), al-Muheet ul-Burhaani (Vol. 7, pg. 407), al-Fataawa al-Bazzaaziyyah (Vol. 6, pg. 325), al-Fusool ul-Imaadiyyah, al-Multaqat (pg. 244), Fataawa Qaadhi Khaan (Vol. 2, pg. 517), and other authoritative texts.

Again, compare and contrast the statement, “this is pure Kufr because he believed that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows the unseen (ghayb)”, with the Barelwi Aqeedah as exemplified by another one of their arch-idols, Muhammad Umar Icharwi, who commits the greatest act of Kufr and Gustakhi (demeaning Allah and his Rasool sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by making Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) prophethood wholly dependent on an attribute exclusive only to Allah Ta’aala:

“For the Prophethood to be valid it is necessary that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows ALL OF THE UNSEEN.” (Miqyase Hanafiyyat, p. 385)

Let us now relate a few of the different versions of the same Fatwa related by all the authoritative Hanafi texts, in order to aid in acquiring a better understanding of the import of the Fatwa and the severity of the issue at hand.

The following version is found in the authoritative compendium of the Hanafi Madh-hab, Fataawa ul-Hindiyyah, which was the product of a collaborative effort involving hundreds of Ulama from around the Ummah who were commissioned by Hadhrat Alamghir Aurangzeb (rahmatullah alayh) to record those rulings upon which there is consensus or a general agreement amongst the Hanafi Fuqaha:

“A man marries a woman while witnesses are not present. He says: “I make Allah and His Rasul witness”, or he says, “I make Allah and His Angels witness”, he becomes Kaafir; but if he says: “I make the angel on the left shoulder and angel on the right shoulder witness”, he does not become a Kaafir.” [Vol. 2 pg. 288]

As in most of the other authoritative Fatwa manuals, no ikhtilaaf on this particular issue is cited, while in the very same chapters, multiple other beliefs or statements are often listed regarding whose Kufr there exists an Ikhtilaaf. For example, regarding the anthropomorphic statement, “Allah is looking from the throne“, Fataawa al-Hindiyyah states that this is Kufr (with no attention paid to the intention of the utterer) “according to the majority” i.e. a minority refrained from doing Takfeer for this crime.

The same version of the aforementioned Fatwa narrated by Fataawa al-Hindiyyah is found in earlier compilations such as Khulaasat ul-Fataawa, al-Fusool ul-Imdaadiyyah, Fataawa al-Bazzaaziyah and al-Muheet ul-Burhaani.

Explaining why the one who invokes the two writing angels (Kiraaman Kaatibeen) as witnesses does not become a Kaafir, as opposed to the one who attributes the knowledge of the very same Nikah to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the author of al-Muheet narrates from an earlier Fataawa compilation:

“He does not become Kaafir because those two (i.e. the writing angels in the right and left shoulders) do know that (i.e. the Nikah), since they are not absent from him (i.e. the man making the statement).” [Vol. 7, pg. 407]

This succinctly answers the moronic question posed by Bidatis and Mushriks today, “If it’s not Kufr to ascribe such knowledge to the two writing angels, how could it be Kufr to ascribe it to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)???”

The Hanafi authority of the 6th century, Qaadhi Khaan, while narrating this Fatwa, added:

“He (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) didn’t have knowledge of the unseen while alive, so how would he after his death?” [Vol. 2, pg. 517]

The terrible crime of the apostate which caused his instantaneous exit from Islam, is mentioned in absolutely unambiguous terms by Imam Abul Qaasim as-Saffaar, in one of numerous transmissions of his Fatwa:

“…since he believes that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows this Nikah…”

O Barelwi, if the authentic belief of Ahlus Sunnah is that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has detailed knowledge, leaf and grain, of EVERYTHING that was and that shall be (maa kaana wa maa yakoon), then on what grounds did all these Fuqaha attribute Kufr to the man who believes that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has knowledge of just the one Nikah?

Isn’t this one Nikah automatically and by default included in the “detailed knowledge of everything that was and everything that will be” which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) supposedly has according to your religion?

Were the Fuqaha all guilty of Haraam Ghuloo’ (extremism) and Gustakhi – demeaning Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) – by denying for him (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the knowledge of billions and billions of Nikah ceremonies?

Or is it not you, O Barelwis, who are guilty of the most abominable degree of Ghuloo’ and Gustakhi – of the degree of Kufr – by fabricating upon Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the multitude of categories of knowledge which can be termed “Ilmun Laa Yanfa’” (knowledge which serves no beneficial purpose) from which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would repeatedly and earnestly seek refuge?

Is it not you, O Barelwis, who are guilty of the most abominable level of Gustakhi by mutilating beyond recognition many of the supreme and sublime attributes of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), such as the noble quality of “Ummi” – defined as “unlettered” by the consensus of the Fuqaha whom you fraudulently claim to follow – which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) proudly proclaimed for himself and his (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) noble Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum)?

Is it not you who commit the dastardly Gustakhi crime of implying deficiency in Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by propounding the perverted idea that the consensus of the Fuqaha on the definition of Ummi (unlettered), and the consensus of the Fuqaha on negating for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the multitude of categories of knowledge that is Ilmun Laa Yanfa’ (such as billions of Nikah ceremonies) from which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself repeatedly sought refuge, results in a diminishing of the perfections of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Na’oozubillah!?

Did the Salafi arch-idol, Ibn Abdul Wahhab, perform a spectacular and unprecedented miracle (istidraaj) by time-travelling back to the third century and injecting “wahhabism” into the books of all the Hanafi Fuqaha whose books are replete with Fatwas such as the above – Fatwas which condemn unequivocally numerous beliefs and acts that have become the Sha-aair (salient identifying features) of the Barelwis today, such as attributing knowledge of the Hour to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and a chronic addiction to building and plastering over graves – which when cited faithfully by the Ulama-e-Haqq tend to elicit violently allergic reactions and irrational allegations of “wahhabi influence”?

We interject here to point out that while we accept the Hanafi ruling that this particular aspect of Barelwi creed is Kufr, we refrain from doing Takfeer on the Barelwis in general, just as we refrain from doing Takfeer of the Salafis despite the very same Hanafi texts cited above declaring as Kaafir the one who attributes a place or direction to Allah Ta’aala as the Salafis do. We shall dilate on this point in the complete article, to be published in future, which will contain, insha-Allah, a demolition of the Ghutha (trash) arguments employed by the Barelwi arch-idols to befool their followers.

For now, we release this much information, which we believe to be sufficient for most sincere seekers of truth, to warn the Barelwi masses of the potentially eternal doom that awaits them – the status of a Kaafir according to the Jumhoor Fuqaha of the Hanafi Madh-hab – should they persist in clinging onto their deviant religion.

Addendum: Why We Warn Against Wahhabism

FacetoFloor's Weblog

Addendum to “Why We Warn”

In the initial post here:  four points were mentioned about the dangers of Wahhabism (quasi-Salafism).  There is another that is important to keep in mind.  Although it was alluded in the first post, i think that it needs to be elaborated on some more.  The Wahhabis (quasi-Salafis) sever the Muslims from their historical and scholarly heritage.  The (moderately informed) Wahhabis know that what they follow does not match up with history.

Prior to the era of European colonialism and the rise of Wahhabism in central Arabia in the mid 1700’s C.E.—or even more recently prior to the founding of the Saudi-Wahhabi state and discovery of petrol in Arabia, what were the Sunni Muslims following around the world following?  The Muslims of North Africa, of the Indian subcontinent, the Sunnis of Iraq and Ash-Shaam (Greater Syria), the Sunnis of Malaysia and Indonesia, the…

View original post 1,376 more words