BRAAI AND BRABBLE

Posted on by alfaida

“THE LIFE OF THIS WORLD IS BUT PLAY AND AMUSEMENT WHILE THE ABODE OF THE
AAKHIRAH IS BEST FOR THOSE WHO HAVE TAQWA. WHAT! DO YOU HAVE NO
INTELLIGENCE?” — Qur’aan

The culture of Islam is the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which
covers every aspect in every sphere and department of the Muslim’s life. The greater
part of this Culture of Islam has been displaced from the homes and lives of most
Muslims.
Our ways of life are permeated by western influences. Not only our style of
practical life and appearance have been satanically revolutionised by the alien
culture in whose substratum we live, our thinking too has been colonized. We
consequently cast our leisure and pleasure in the mould we have purchased from the
alien culture of the kuffaar.
While the vice of emulating western ways and pleasures is an incremental process
gripping the Ummah, the most alarming development in this sphere is the fall and
subservience of even Shaikhs of Tasawwuf to the influences of alien cultures.

BRAAIVLEIS
Among the spiritually harmful, sinful an evil practices of the western kuffaar in
which people of overt Tasawwuf are indulging is the custom of ‘braaivleis’—braai
and brabble parties which are organised after Isha. The very name ‘braai’, has evil
connotations. It is a non-Muslim merrymaking party of men and women where zina,
raucous behaviour, drunkenness, music, singing, dancing and gobbling raw meat
around a mini jahannum take place.
Although these Kabaair (major sins) have not yet been incorporated in the braai
and brabble version adopted by Muslims, it remains decidedly a satanic gathering of
merrymaking. It is a purely nafsaani outing even it is in the backyard.
ALIEN CUSTOM
This alien merrymaking custom has already gained widespread acceptance in the
Muslim community. The lamentable development currently is that Ulama and people
who are supposed to be concerned with and involved in the islaah (reformation) of
the nafs, even those who are supposed to be the spiritual guides, have become the
slaves of their nafs. They too now feel that it is also their right to engage in this
nafsaani pleasure.
Bearded Molvis and Shaikhs of Tasawwuf, flaunting topis and amaamahs, striding
in long flowing kurtahs, instead of being engaged in Thikrullaah during the night or in
some constructive Deeni activity or in the bounty of sleep for which the night has
been created, or rather enjoying themselves in the company of their lawful female
consorts, have finally cast aside the outer robe of piety and Tasawwuf to indulge in
braai and brabble parties.
They have undoubtedly managed to soothe their conscience with weird and
utterly baseless interpretations to justify their organisation of and participation in
braai and brabble parties after Isha Salaat. The shocking level of moral degeneration
of the ‘sufis’ of our time has reached such an ebb that braai and brabble parties are
regarded as acts of ibaadat conducive for Islaah (reformation) of the nafs.
VICTORY
In this era this is a great victory shaitaan has achieved over the jamaat of Ulama
and Sufiya. Although true Tasawwuf is dead, there are still those who claim to follow
the Tareeqah of the Aakaabir such as Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi and
Hadhrat Masihullah (rahmatullah alayhima). The complaint we register here in
particular, is against the Sufis of our own Maslak and Tareeqah.
What relationship does braai and brabble parties of which merrymaking to satisfy
the carnal nafs is the ONLY prompting, have with Tasawwuf, with Islaah of the Nafs
and with the Maslak and Tareeqah of the Auliya? The very name, ‘braaivleis’, reeks
of a zina stench. It is a practice with its roots in zina and liquor. Eating raw meat is
merely the front for all the nafsaani filth, sin and evil of the original braaivleis party
still in vogue among non-Muslims.
DESTRUCTION
The community in general is already destroyed and lost. Now even the Mashaaikh
are treading the path of spiritual and moral ruin.
What connection do the sufi hadhraat have with these nafsaani parties and
gatherings? Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “What relationship do I have
with this dunya? Verily, my analogy with the dunya is like a horseman (travelling in
the desert. After a long and arduous journey in the heat and sand) he arrives at a tree
and rests in its shade (only to soon continue the journey).”
The typical braai and brabble party of Molvis and Sufis begin after Asr Salaat. The
fires are stoked and the contraptions set up for preparation of half-cooked or raw
meat for presentation to the participants in the fete. We remind that this naseehat is
primarily for the Molvis and the Sufis.
Only the fires are operating by the time of Maghrib Athaan, but the ‘vleis’ has not
yet been ‘braaied’ (For our foreign readers: vleis = meat, and braaied = barbecued).
During Maghrib Salaat, the minds are polluted with the preponderance of ‘braai’
wasaawis. The entire Salaat is bereft of even the outward semblance of Khushu’ and
Khudhoo’ which the Molvi and Sufi endeavour to display normally. The Salaat is
discharged defectively and even abbreviated by discarding Awwaabeen which
perhaps the Molvi and Sufi perform daily. But today, the braai and brabble function
has greater importance, or at least the nafsaani magnetism is tonight too strong to
repulse. The Deeni men thus allow themselves to remain within the sphere of the
magnetic belt of the nafs.
SHAYAATEEN
After Maghrib the time is squandered in ‘braaing’ the ‘vleis’. It is a time when the
shayaateen are out in droves searching for their prey. Wallaah! On the braai and
brabble occasion, every Molvi and Sufi participant fall prostrate in Sajdah at the feet
of their respective shayaateen appointed by Iblees to oversee their alienation from
Allah’s Thikr on the specific occasion of braai and brabble.
The entire time of Maghrib, right until Isha, is engulfed with the shaitaani and
nafsaani braai and brabble operation. By Isha time, the ‘vleis’ is still too raw for the
members of the braai party. Isha’ Salaat is haphazardly performed. While the body is
in the Musjid, the mind is clogged with braai and brabble wasaawis, and the heart is
outside the Musjid dwelling in the braai arena.
The usual quota of Nafl Salaat and the bit of extra Thikr which some Sufis/Molvis
reserve for after Isha, are curtailed and a rush is made to the braai and brabble
arena. Now commences the ingestion of the raw meat in either drunken boere style
or in animal style. Allah Ta’ala has not ordained for the Mu’min Insaan to devour
burnt raw meat in the manner of drunk people.
HUMILITY
The Mu’mineen are required by Islam and its Sunnah culture to eat with humility,
like slaves—the slaves of Allah. The thought of Mun’im-e-Haqeeqi (The True
Benefactor) and Provider of the Ni’mat of Food, should be uppermost in the mind of
the Mu’min at the time of eating. But this attitude of humility and Thikrullah is
repelled by the very hay’t-e-kathaaiyyah (form and manner) of the braai and brabble
party of the kuffaar.
Irrelevant and futile conversation is a notorious feature of ‘Muslim’ braai and
brabble parties, while wine and women are the vital accompaniments of kuffaar
braaivleis functions.
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has prohibited the Ummah from indulgence
in unnecessary worldly conversation after Isha Salaat. The Ni’mat of the Night is for
rest, ibaadat and deriving comfort within the home sanctuary. It is haraam to
squander the Night in frivolity, in idle conversation with friends, in devouring burnt
raw meat around a fire in kuffaar style, and in any acts which are alien to the Sunnah
Culture of Islam.
Can the Molvi and the Sufi saahibaan cite a basis in the Qur’aan or Sunnah for
their adoption of this merrymaking and nafsaani party? Did the Shaikh appoint the
Sufi as his khalifah for conducting braai and brabble parties after Isha for mureedeen
and others? What answer will they give to Allah Ta’ala for this spiritual zulm they
perpetrate under Deeni guise by the presentation of the worst kind of baatil ta’weel
(baseless interpretation).
We remind the Sufi hadhrat and the Molvi sahibaan of the four essentials of
Tasawwuf:
(1) Qillat-e-Kalaam (Less speech)
(2) Qillat-e-Ta’aam (Less eating)
(3) Qillat-e-Manaam (Less sleeping)
(4) Qillat-e-Ikhtilaat ma al Anaam (Less mixing with people).
All four of these primary principles of Tasawwuf are cruelly violated and cast
overboard at braai and brabble parties. Besides the Fiqhi prohibition of kuffaar-style
parties with their accompaniment of factors of hurmat, this type of nafsani
merrymaking is absolutely intolerable in the Math-hab of the Sufiiya-e-Kiraam. It is a
fatal poison for the Rooh. It destroys roohaaniyat. It creates zulmat in the baatin, and
it invites the Wrath of Allah Azza Wa Jal.
There is absolutely no affinity between Tasawwuf and merrymaking. Parties and
functions are the antithesis of Islaah. When the Sahaabah had once allowed
themselves to indulge in some laughter, the following aayat was promptly revealed
to reprimand them:
“What has the time not arrived for the Believers that their hearts become humble
with the thikr of Allah?”
When this aayat was revealed, the Sahaabah abandoned all jocularism, laughter
and the like—anything associated with causing ghaflat (obliviousness). If the happy
go-lucky, albeit of a temporary nature, of the Sahaabah was intolerable to Allah
Ta’ala, what does the Imaani conscience dictate to the Sufis and the Miolvis in the
matter of braai and brabble parties with all their concomitant evils? If the Sufi Saheb
and the Molvi Saheb ruminate with sincerity and do some soul searching, they will
not fail to discern the spiritually noxious and evil cauldron of nafsaaniyat they have
become embroiled in with their braai and brabble parties.
EATING OF THE SLAVE
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that he was a slave, hence he ate with
total humility like a slave. The Ulama hadhraat are aware of the humble stance which
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) adopted while eating his Rizq. Was their any
type of frivolity, enjoyment, merrymaking, and happiness expressed at any of the
occasions of Rasulullah’s eating? Did the mureedeen and khulafa observe any of our
Akaabir Mashaaikh indulging in frivolity and merrymaking of this type—the braai and
brabble fussaaq type?
It is of utmost importance that those who believe themselves to be men of the
Deen, men of Islaah and even Muslihs who attend to the spiritual ills of mureedeen
and who deliver lectures of naseehat to the masses, should re-examine themselves.
The spiritual rust and corrosion has desensitised their conscience and dulled the
lustre of the baatin. It is for this reason that they have become so insensitive and
spiritually impervious that haraam frivolity of haraam braai and brabble parties
appear to them from behind the haze of nafsaaniyat as ‘deeni’ and islaahi functions.
May Allah Ta’ala save us all from the deceptions of shaitaan (Talbees-e-Iblees) and
from the evil lurking in our own nafs.

BRAAIVLEIS AND STUPIDITY
Patrick Hollard, the British expert on nutrition and mental health is the founder
of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition. He is also the director of the Brain BioCentre in London. Commenting on the South African custom of braaivleis, he
said:
“Too much meat, especially burnt meat, is bad for the brain. Bad fats make
the brain and you get thicker………Bad fats are found in burnt meat, deep
fried foods and hydrogenated vegetable oils….”

braai

Why is the Majlis so harsh?

Posted on by alfaida

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???

ANSWER

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.

Was-salaam

Ilm al-Ghayb and the Kufr of Barelwis

Posted on by alfaida

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.

HONOURING BID’ATIS IS HARAAM

Posted on by alfaida

HONOURING BID’ATIS IS HARAAM

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“He who honours a man of bid’ah has aided in the demolition of Islam.”
A CONCERNED BROTHER FROM U.K. WRITES:
“I would be grateful if The Majlis could provide some valuable comment on the following Malfooz:

“Hakim al-Islam Qari Muhammad Tayyib Sahib (rahmatullahi alayhi) relates:

‘I witnessed Mawlana Thanawi (rahmatullahi ‘alayhi) differering with Mawlana Ahmad Ridha Khan marhoom in many issues, such as qiyam, ‘urs, milad etc., but whenever mentioning him in a gathering he would say “Mawlana Ahmad Ridha Khan Sahib”. Once a person in the gathering said “Ahmad Ridha”, without using the title mawlana. Hadhrat rebuked him and said angrily, “He is still a scholar, even if we differ with him. You are disrespecting his position; how is this permissible? Our difference of opinion is in its place. It is a different matter that we consider him to be wrong and do not agree with him. But what is the meaning of humiliating him and disrespecting him?”

‘The Mawlana opposed to Mawlana Thanawi (rahmatullahi ‘alayhi) was extremely disrespectful. But Mawlana Thanawi (rahmatullahi ‘alayhi) was from the people of knowledge. Whenever someone was mentioned, he considered respect to be imperative, even though it is of an open opponent. One should not lose hold of respect.’

This Malfooz is being propagated with great relish by Mudaahins (spineless, toadish psycophants and bootlickers) who have a Nafsaani inclination to a pet deviant or to some deviant group(s). Numerous websites have cited this Malfooz within a short space of time.

The term ‘respect’ can have various connotations. However, it is clear that the Mudaahins who are exploiting this Malfooz intend the meaning that is Haraam according to the Shariah. One popular modernist “Maulana” who is liberal in his praise for, and interaction with certain segments of the Ahlul Bid’ah, issued the following message to accompany this Malfooz:

“The term “Mawlana” is an honorific title and it’s used for respect. The following anecdote, in the Urdu picture, is a good exemplification of respect despite having differences.”

Rather than resorting to a variety of Ta’weels (interpretation) that can easily be made in regards to this incident that occurred in a private setting, in order to exonerate Hazrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi from the act of conferring respect to a man of Bid’ah, the Mudaahins are exploiting this Malfooz to justify transgressing a well-known ruling of the Shariah whist also attempting to implicate Hazrat Maulana Thanwi (rahmatullahi alayh) in their crime.

The Fuqaha have conveyed Ijma’ on the prohibition of conferring respect to a Mudhil (one who misguides), even if he is from Ahlus Sunnah, let alone one who is outside the fold of Ahlus Sunnah. Imaam Ghazaali (Rahmatullah alayh), one from many who could be quoted, said:

“All of them (i.e. the Salaf-us-Saaliheen) reached consensus on manifesting hatred for the oppressors and innovators, and all who disobeyed Allah with a sin that extends from himself to others because, verily the evil of the kaafir is not contagious, for verily, Muslims are aware of his kufr, hence they will not heed what he says since he does not attribute Islam to himself nor the belief of Haqq. However, the Bid’ati who calls to bid’ah and believes that he is calling to the haqq, is a cause for the deviation of people, hence his evil is contagious. Despising him, vilifying him for his bid’ah, and to inculcate aversion in people for him are of greater importance (than disparaging the kuffaar).”

Even if, for argument’s sake, no possible Ta’weel could be provided to exonerate Hazrat Maulana Thanwi, then to exploit this incident to justify transgressing a rule of the Shariah, rather than set it aside as an error, is the very essence of Hazrat-worship. (The jaahil opportunists are not worshipping Hadhrat Thanvi. In fact, they have no affinity with him. They are merely misusing Hadhrat Thanvi’s malfooth for justifying their compromise with baatil and its votaries. –The Majlis) In fact, this trend of extracting a Haraam interpretation from statements of the Ulama, which can be subject to various legitimate interpretations, in order to override the Shariah is becoming increasingly common today. Furthermore, the liberals (those suffering from the malady of compound ignorance – The Majlis) of this age have made a vile habit of scavenging for the slips and tafarrudaat (isolated eccentricities) of senior Ulama from the past. Then they employ such tafarrudaat to justify baatil and bid’ah, thus flagrantly violating even those rulings of the Shariah which have been established by the Consensus of the Fuqaha.

In response to this Malfooz, one Mufti issued the following message:

“In Muhannad, Ahmad Rida Khan is referred to as a “Muharrif” (distorter) and a “Dajjal-Makkaar” (scheming dajjal). Hazrat Thanawi was a signatory of Muhannad. (This fact alone cancels the ambiguous malfooth. It is tantamount to a retraction by Hadhrat Thanvi – Rahmatullah alayh – The Majlis)

In al-Shihaab al-Thaaqib, Hazrat Madani refers to Ahmad Rida Khan as “Mujaddid al-Takfir”, “Dajjal”, amongst other terms.

This attitude makes more sense from the perspective of expressing bugdh for Ahl al-Bida and those who call to misguidance.

“Whoever shows respect to a Saahib Bid’ah has aided in the destruction of Islam.” (i.e. whoever does this in a public way)” – (In fact, even in privacy – The Majlis) – (End of the Brother’s letter)

OUR RESPONSE

Ahmed Ridha Khan was an incorrigible Bid’ati – a destroyer of the Sunnah and a demolisher of the Deen. About such bid’atis, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “He who respects a man of bid’ah aids in the demolition (destruction) of Islam.” Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) also said: “Bughd (hatred) is for the Sake of Allah.”

When a man is involved in the elimination of the Sunnah and the structuring and introduction of Bid’ah, he is the enemy of Allah Ta’ala. Bid’atis are referred to in the Hadith as Kilaabun Naar (The Dogs of the Fire). How is it possible to abrogate this Hadith with an error or an opinion of a senior?

The instruction to have hatred for the sake of Allah Ta’ala, brings within its purview Bid’atis, and to a greater degree Bid’atis of the calibre of Ahmed Ridha Khan who was the imaam of Bid’ah, a Muharrif (an interpolater of falsehood), Dajjaal, Makkaar (Deceit), Mujaddid-e-Takfeer (Renewer/Reviver of branding Muslims kaafir), etc. These were designations conferred on him by some of our Akaabir Ulama.
Furthermore there is Ijma’ of the Fuqaha on the issue of not honouring a Bid’ati. In the light of the Ahaadith and the Ijma’, the view of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) has to be incumbently set aside as an error based on lack of information regarding the true beliefs of Ahmed Ridha Khan, or an idiosyncrasy. Even great Fuqaha sometimes display peculiar views as an effect of their tabiyat (natural disposition) which sometimes overshadows reality and rectitude. Regarding such idiosyncratic views, Allaamah Abdul Wahhaabh Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) as well as other illustrious Fuqaha, said:

“He who holds on to the nawaadir of the Ulama, verily, he has made an exit from Islam.”

Some decades ago, Maulana Manzoor No’maani (Rahmatullah alayh) had visited South Africa. He was our guest. He was famous for his debates with the Bid’atis. He personally mentioned to us:
“I went to visit Hadhrat Thanvi in Thanabovan. Hadhrat Thanvi said to me:

‘It appears to me that misinformation has reached him (referring to Ahmad Ridha) about us, hence the misunderstanding. How is it possible for him to accuse us of so much falsehood despite being an Aalim?’

From this statement, it is clear that Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) had no clarity of the shaitaaniyat of Ahmed Ridha Khan. Maulana Manzoor No’maani then responded as follows:
“Hadhrat! It is not an issue of misunderstanding. The fact is that Allah Ta’ala has made maskh of his aql. Hadhrat Thanvi then did not comment further.”

Maskh means disfigurement. In other words, Ridha Khan’s were convoluted to the extent of totally blinding him of the Haqq and understanding baatil to be haqq.

On account of this deviate’s profession of takfeer and slander of great Auliya, his intelligence suffered from the pangs of satanic convolution. Thus, his ability of distinguishing between Haqq and baatil, Sunnah and bid’ah was extinguished His deliberate lies and mutilation of the texts of our Akaabireen to cloak it with his fabricated theories of kufr, clearly reveals his dajjaaliyat. Whatever rubbish he had attributed to the Ulama of Deoband, and on which hallucinated basis he had branded these Auliya and Ulama as ‘kaafir’, was glaringly false. There is not an iota of truth in what he had claimed.

The spineless molvis of today who labour to strike up haraam dalliances with the Qabar Pujaaris and with every group of deviates of whatever kufr persuasion they may be, despite their academic and spiritual bankruptcy, are fully aware of the fact that the mujaddid of shaitaani bid’ah, Ridha Khan, had branded all of the Ulama of Deoband, Akaabir as well as Asaaghir, as kaafir. This alone conspicuously evidences the divine disfigurement of his brains and the ruin of his heart. A wicked transmogrification of his intelligence was effected by his inherent Satanism.

Now what do these spineless juhhaal expect from the Ulama-e-Haqq? Do they expect us to elevate and propel the jaahil Ridha Khan into the loftiest spatial and celestial heights on the basis of Hadhrat Thanvi’s error of judgment? If Hadhrat Thanvi advised a person to prefix the name of the mudhil agent of Iblees with the honorific title of ‘Maulana’, it never ever justifies respecting and honouring the devil when Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had categorically prohibited the conference of accolades to those who are designated as Kilaabun Naar. The Arsh of Allah Azza Wa Jal shudders and the plot to demolish Islam is set in motion when a bid’ati is praised or honoured. Said our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam):

“He who honours a man of Bid’ah, aids in the demolition of Islam.”

These moron, spineless cranks who are seeking to extravasate capital from Hadhrat Thanvi’s error, are enemies of the Sunnah, hence they seek to honour morons and deviates who conspire to undermine the Deen, and the way of achieving this satanic objective urinated into their brains by the devil is to the Ulama-e-Haqq a target for criticism. These Ulama are the bulwarks of Allah’s Deen. They should understand that the errors of the Ulama regardless of their lofty status, never constitute Shar’i daleel. The Sunnah is not scaled on the personal preference or attitude of an Aalim even if his soul happens to flutter around the Arsh. The Haqq is measured and ascertained on the Standard and Scale of the Qur’aan, the Sunnah and the Dalaa-il which the Aimmah Mujtahideen formulated on the basis of these two primary sources of the Shariah.

Maulana Manzoor No’maani (Rahmatullah alayh) was well aware of the intricacies of the shenanigans of these Bid’atis and of Ridha Khan. On the other hand, Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) lacked such information which confirms the true evil bid’ati status of Ridha, hence his mild approach. Hadhrat Maulana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Hadhrat Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani and the many other senior Ulama of Deoband were more aware of the personality of the bid’ati dajjaal, hence they named and branded him with the epithets which were most deserving of him. The spineless molvis and deviates who are at pains to collaborate with bid’atis, heretics and zindeeqs seek justification for their haraam and miserable attitude on the basis of an error of Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh). They cast themselves into deliberate blindness regarding the beliefs of kufr, bid’ah and shirk of these Qabar Pujaaris – they pretend to be unaware of the notoriety of their rotten characters and their factory of takfeer – they overlook all the Satanism of the fraud, Ridha Khan, but they deem it appropriate to criticize and malign those who uphold the Sunnah.

The moron spineless molvis are stupidly using the personal idiosyncratic preference, in fact error, of Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) to scuttle the Ijma’ of the Ummah on the prohibition of honouring/praising a man of bid’ah. For these morons, Allaamah Sha’raani sounded an adequate warning: “He who grabs hold (as daleel) of the nawaadir of the Ulama, verily has made an exit from Islam.”

Even if we have to assume that Hadhrat Thanvi had in fact held the view of addressing the Bid’ati with a title of respect, it will be haraam to make taqleed of such a glaring error. All Ulama, regardless of their lofty status, even Aimmah Mujtahideen err. It is haraam to make taqleed of their errors. The Qur’aan Majeed explicitly forbids this practice of stupid ‘taqleed’ by means of which Bani Israaeel scuttled the Tauraah with corrupt fatwas of their Ulama.

At one stage, Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) used to attend the Meelaad functions of the Bid’atis in Kanpur. He would only give a bayaan of the Seerat and leave. When Hadhrat Gangohi (Rahmatullah alayh) was informed of this, he wrote a long letter explaining the grievous error of attending the function of the Bid’atis. In several letters to and fro, Hadhrat Thanvi accepted his error and abandoned attending such functions.

There are many issues on which Hadhrat Thanvi had erred and for which he had issued retractions. The juhala molvis of our time who are traitors to the Deen and who spinelessly participate in all functions of bid’ah, fisq and fujoor, search for the errors of the seniors, which they stupidly and satanically use as ‘daleel’ for their haraam views and bid’ah activities. They will ignore the Ijma’ of the Fuqaha and cling to the error like a dog clings to bone to deceive themselves and mislead others.

It is haraam to cite Hadhrat Maulana Thanvi’s error to scuttle the direct command of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) on which is based the Ijmaa’ of the Fuqaha. When all the Fuqaha and the Ahaadith prohibit honouring and respecting a man of bid’ah, then it is contumacy bordering on kufr to attempt to cancel this Ijma’ on the basis of an isolated view or an error of a senior. Thus, the view expressed by Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) in the Malfooth cited by you, has no validity. It is haraam to refer to the Bid’ati Dajjaal with a title of honour. It has to be incumbently set aside.

12 Jamaadiyith Thaani 1440 – 18 February 2019