R I D A W I ~ P A P E R S

ABU HASAN
The Killer Mistake
A critique of Nuh Kellers Iman, Kufr and Takfr

































T H E K I L L E R M I S T A K E
































































The Killer Mistake


by
Abu Hasan



Acknowledgements
Shaykh Asrar Rashid, Shaykh Naveed Jameel
Abu Nibras, Aqdas, Aqib Qdir, Khalid, Noori, Harun
and all others who contributed to this book

The image on the cover is a stylised clip from
a 600 year old manuscript of Kitb al-Shif



Copyright Ridawi Press
Muarram 1435/November 2013
Version 1.25 (interim updates)

First Version released on 22
nd
October 2013

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

The author can be contacted at:
[email protected]



Please include the name of the book in the subject of your mail for specific queries or comments.
Permission is hereby granted to reproduce or utilise this material in any form or by any means,
electronic or otherwise, as long as the content remains unchanged. This book is available as a
free PDF on the Ridawi Press website; download the latest version from: www.ridawipress.org.

Permission is also granted to print this book for free distribution or for sale. We, at Ridawi
Press acknowledge that it costs money to print and distribute books, and it may therefore be
necessary for publishers to recover this cost by selling it at a reasonable price. Ridawi Press
does not benefit financially from the sale of these books, nor solicits any royalties. Permission
is also granted to publishers to reprint it in their own name provided the following notice is
included in the colophon: Reprinted by permission (royalty-free) of Ridawi Press.
CONTENTS




Preface
I. Overview of Iman, Kufr and Takfir 4
II. Apostasy and Takfir 8
III. Blasphemy and Islamic Law 22
IV. Fallacies in the Framework 41
V. Kellers List: Six Disputed Issues 65
VI. The Apologist 92
VII. Vindicating Alahazrat 123
VIII. Husam al-Haramayn and Muhannad 134
IX. Obiter Dicta 149
Conclusion 156
Appendix A. Brief Biography of Imam Ahmed Rida Khan 158
Appendix B. Dramatis Person 161
Appendix C. Offensive Passages in Deobandi Books 163
Appendix D. Some More Exhibits 182
Appendix E. Extract from Shif: Things Deemed Disbelief 192
Appendix F. Extract from Ashbh: On Apostasy 195
Appendix G Extract from Shif: Seven Categories 200
Appendix H. Glossary 212
Bibliography 215
Transliteration Table 220
About the Author 222















1




PREFACE

Praise be to Allh who bestowed insight to His elect slaves who are accomplished in knowledge and
steadfast upon tawd. He has given them guidance and inspired them to bear unseen witness to His
Glory and Greatness and has opened their hearts for the light of faith to enter; and by His Divine Grace,
He has cleansed their hearts from doubt and hesitation, malady and malice towards religion. I praise
and glorify my Lord, and bear witness that there is no God except Allh, and our master, Muammad
is His most beloved slave and messenger. Salutations and blessings be upon him, his companions, his
family and his pious followers.
In early 2007, Nuh Ha Mim Keller
1
published an article Iman, Kufr and Takfir on his website Shadhili
Tariqah.
2
Keller has a considerable influence among English speaking Muslims and is reputed as an
author and translator. His translation of the Shfi fiqh manual Reliance of the Traveler,
3
is noteworthy
and well received. He has translated other texts and written articles, which can be found (along with
audio clips of some of his opinions) on another website.
4
I had a favourable opinion of Keller prior to
this article; and even after its publication, we gave him the benefit of doubt and attributed this to a
misunderstanding, and that he was probably misinformed. We rejected his views, but we did not refute
him immediately.
It was a restrained reaction. I had composed a rough sketch in the following months and left it there.
While his mistakes were apparent, I hoped (or wished) that he would have another look and retract his
article, or at least write a follow-up correcting some glaring errors. But, that never happened. His further
assertion that falsehood is not essentially impossible
5
for Allh tl was a confession of sorts and
stifled any lingering hope of remediation and refutation became inevitable. Thereafter, a group of Sunni
lam in the UK tried to meet Keller and offered to clarify their position which was met with apathy
and according to those who met him, he was adamant and unwilling to listen.
6

Friends were repeatedly requesting me to write a rejoinder, and I had to reconsider my initial
apprehension and began composing a response, beseeching and trusting the aid of Allh tl. Also, the
absence of any response would cause Kellers accusations to gain credibility, and with the passage of
time, this may even become an accepted position; if it remains unchallenged, it may also pose a difficulty
for future generations of Ahl as-Sunnah.
7
We do not know the real intention of the author: whether these
mistakes were inadvertent or deliberate; whether it was a sincere attempt to find a resolution to a long-
standing dispute, or just another exercise to exonerate one group and vilify the other.

1
The original article was published on his website http://shadhilitariqa.com in 2007 and remained thus ever since.
2
Here is the shortened URL to the article http://tinyurl.com/2rz9lt.
3
The original Arabic is by Amed ibn al-Naqb al-Mir [d.709/1367] mdat al-Slik wa ddat al-Nsik
4
http://masud.co.uk
5
Note that essentially impossible or intrinsically impossible is the translation of a technical term, mul dht. Keller has
said that he does not believe that it is mul dht, and he considers falsehood mul ra or contingently impossible for
Allh tl. This heretical idea was refuted in a separate paper, The Truth About a Lie, first released in June 2010 and
subsequently revised in October 2010; a third revision is expected soon in-shaAllh.
6
Shaykh Naveed Jameel has also mentioned correspondence of Sunni lam and the reply by Nuh Keller.
7
One common objection in the future could be: If it was wrong, then why did his contemporaries not refute it at that time?
2

Whatever the case, Kellers article is merely a composite of Deobandi apologia of the past hundred years,
and everything else revolves around that objective to absolve Deobandis and frame Alahazrat, as we
shall see, in-shAllh.
One may ask, why spend so much time and effort to exonerate a scholar from the previous century? The
answer is, because Alahazrat was a central figure, an authority and the imm of Sunnis at a time when
Muslims in the subcontinent were being split in dozens of sects. He is the representative of the group
and its foremost leader: he is the jamh!
8
Even otherwise, it is a praiseworthy deed to vindicate a
Muslim when he is falsely accused and slandered; as mentioned in a adth narrated by Ab Darda :
He who defends the honour of his brother, Allh tl will vouchsafe his face from fire on the day of Judgement
9

This is also not without a precedent. Imm Ibn skir is a famous adth scholar and historian of the
sixth century.
10
He was a prolific author and many of his books are multi-volume works. Imm Dhahabi,
lists some of the; in addition to scores of short works. His Tarikh is well-known, but he is more famous
for m in his Siyar thus:
11
Trkh Dimashq in 16,000 pages,
12
Muwfaqt in 1440 pages, wl Mlik in
1000 pagesTabyn Kadhib al-Muftar, in which he refutes false accusations against Imm Abul asan al-
Ashr. Many lam have written books defending previous scholars, like Suy in Tanbh al-Ghab f
Tasfiyati ibn rab and Ibn bidn in Sall al-usm al-Hind li Nurati Sayyidin Khlid al-Naqshband.
We follow in the footsteps of illustrious men to defend Sunni scholars, though I am neither worthy nor
comparable to a fraction of a thousandth part of those great men who have trodden on this path.

If you are not like them, then imitate them Indeed, imitating noble folk is a path to success

It should be noted that by 2012, there were at least six works in English refuting Keller.
13
I have glanced
through them and a number of points I had already listed in my draft are also found therein. Similarities
are coincidental
14
and I have not consciously copied from these works. I find it necessary to mention
this to acknowledge prior efforts, and to avoid any accusation of plagiarism.
Acknowledgements are due to Abu Nibras, Noori and Aqdas for critical reviews and proofreading my
drafts; additionally, Ab Nibras worked on the graphics, brother Noori prepared the bibliography and
made suggestions to improve the readability of certain passages; Aqdas followed the progress of the
book diligently throughout. Shaykh Asrar Rashid and Shaykh Naveed Jameel [both from UK] kindly
consented to review the final draft and made valuable suggestions and corrections. Yet, I am solely
responsible for any mistake or error that may have remained unnoticed. Readers are requested to mail
us suggestions or corrections, which will be incorporated in the next version, in-shAllh.

8
In Mina al-Raw al-Azhar of l al-Qr: Even if there remains only one [upright] scholar, who lives atop a mountain, yet, he
is the jamh; because he represents and stands by the principles of the jamh, then it is, as if he is himself the jamh.
9
Tirmidh, #1938.
10
Abul Qsim l ibn asan Ibn skir al-Dimashq (499-571 AH), a prominent Ashr-Shfi imm.
11
Siyar Alm al-Nubal, Vol.12, Pg.671, # 5295.
12
According to Dhahabi, a juz is twenty pages perhaps this is why, the juz of the Qurn (printed in the Middle-East) is
usually 20 pages. Dhahab has said that the book is 800 juz and I have computed the number of pages for all works mentioned
above. The modern printed version of Trkh Dimashq is approximately 40,000 pages (80 volumes of approximately 500 pages
each).
13
The following six refutations can be found online:
1. A Just Response to the Biased Author by Shaykh Faizan al-Mustaf.
2. Explaining the Correct Methodology of Imam Subki in Takfir by Shaykh Monawwar Ateeq.
3. A Rejoinder on Contextualizing the Hadiths Quoted by Shaykh Nuh also by Shaykh Monawwar Ateeq.
4. The Voice of Truth by Mariam Dastagir.
5. A Critique of Nuh Keller by an anonymous poster Shadilli on Sunniport.
6. The Fallacy of mn, Kufr and Takfir a lengthy talk by Shaykh Asrar Rashid in Coventry on January 3
rd
2011.
14
All of us derive from the same sources and anyone analysing these mistakes will arrive at the same conclusions.
3

Notes:
1. Alahazrat is Barelwi
15
, because he is from Bareilly; just as Imm Muammad ibn Isml is Bukhr
and Imm Muslim is Qushayri; and like Ghazal, Nawaw, Shadhil, Kf or Baghdd.
2. We are not a sect separate from Ahl as-Sunnah. Our enemies have pejoratively coined the term
Barelvi in their futile attempt to malign true Sunnis; but just like Ashr or Mturd, Barelwi has
now become an identifier of true Sunnis in the subcontinent.
For years, Deobandis referred to their scholars as lam e Deoband to maintain their distinction, in
contrast to the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah, who have always referred to themselves and their elders
as lam e Ahl e Sunnat. The press established in Bareilly was Matb e Ahl e Sunnat; the school in
Bareilly was named Madrasah e Ahl e Sunnat. In our age, the only group
16
of Sunnis in the
subcontinent, that is compatible with Sufis and Kalm scholars all over the world are either among
the students of Alahazrat or his admirers and are therefore, known as Barelwis. Even lay people use
Sunni and Barelwi interchangeably in the subcontinent.
3. Citations from Kellers article will be highlighted thus:
In comparison, no Deobandi scholar of note, to the authors knowledge, has yet made takfir of Barelwis.
4. All other citations shall be in blue and referenced in footnotes:
Whosoever doubts in the kufr of a person who insults the Prophet , and that such an [insulting] person deserves to
be punished, is an infidel himself.
5. Alahazrat: Imm Amed Ri Khn al-Baraylawi is known as Alahazrat in the subcontinent; in the
previous century, it was a honorific to address very senior scholars or high noblemen. In recent
times, it has become synonymous with Imm Amed Ri and hence it is used throughout the
book. A brief biography of the imm, Who is Alahazrat? was released by Ridawi Press recently.
6. Kellers article was printed immediately after it was published; in October 2010, a second copy was
made, upon which this critique is based.
7. The twin chapters on apostasy and blasphemy are included for an introduction, and to raise
awareness about these issues it was never intended, nor assumes to be the ultimate resource on
the two topics.






15
Various spellings used for this word as Barelwi, Barelvi, Baraylawi etc. Some people deliberately mis-spell it as Brelwi, Brelvi
or Bralwi.
16
Or those Sunnis in the south, such as Sunnis from Kerala may not be students of Alahazrat, but consider him an imm, and
have immense respect and admiration for him.
4

I. OVERVIEW OF THE ARTICLE
Iman, Kufr, and Takfir is a lengthy article, generously peppered with subtle innuendos and fallacies. It
is not easy to refute it as a monolithic piece, as insinuations are interweaved with valid statements.
Therefore, this requires a two-pronged approach:
1. Pointing out the authors mistake in misquoting, quoting out of context, or drawing erroneous
conclusions and
2. Presenting quotes, adth and rulings in their proper context.
Certainly, both are related; but an approach that tries to address them together may result in one aspect
overwhelming the other, and each diminishing the gravity of the other. My intention from the beginning
has also been to clarify concepts the author ostentatiously set out to explain in the first place. It is
necessary therefore, to break down the article in topics and sections to examine each part separately.
Major and minor headings marked by the author himself are as follows:


Oneself
a. Things That Everyone Knows
b. Things Not Everyone Knows
c. Things Disagreed Upon by Ulema
Others
a. The Enormity of Charging a Muslim with Unbelief
b. The True Measure of Unbelief
The Legal Criteria For Unbelief
a. Words That Entail Leaving Islam
b. The Fallacy of Hearsay Evidence
c. The Fallacy of Imputed Intentionality; Intentional and Unintentional Insult
d. The Barelwi-Deobandi Conflict on the Indian Subcontinent
e. The Six Disputed Aqida Issues
f. The Imputed Insult
g. Ahmad Reza and the Prophets Knowledge of the Unseen
h. What Khall Ahmad Said; A Discussion of Khall Ahmads Evidence
i. The Words of Ashraf Ali Thanwi
j. Conclusions
k. The Fallacy of Takfir by Association



5

For the purpose of our analysis, this article (and the topics above) can be regrouped according to
themes in the subject matter and addressed accordingly. The article can be broadly decomposed thus:
1. The issue of takfir; principles, practice and advice to Muslims from reckless takfir.
2. On blasphemy of the Prophet .
3. Fatwa on insulting the Prophet ; intended and unintended insults and examples Keller
cites to prove his point that unless one intends to revile, saying anything blasphemous does
not make one a kfir.
4. Kellers fallacies: Fallacy of Hearsay Evidence and Fallacy of Imputed Intentionality, which
Keller illustrates by citing the Sunni-Deobandi Conflict, or what the author calls, the fatwa
wars.
5. The Six Disputed Issues between Sunnis and Deobandis according to Keller.
6. Deobandi Apologia: two lengthy paragraphs to justify Deobandi positions, which
knowledgeable people from the subcontinent will readily recognise as a rehash of century
old Deobandi propaganda.
7. Slander of Alahazrat Imm Amed Ri Khn and character assassination in the major
section which forms the essence of the article either by direct criticism, or as an undertone.
After describing essential concepts in the first two chapters, we will follow the structure of the original
article in its analysis. Some of the aforementioned points are discussed in dedicated chapters and the
rest are mentioned somewhere in between. Kellers mistakes are so bad, that it is hard to resist the
temptation to write a line-by-line refutation.
Iman, Kufr, and Takfir (IKT) starts promisingly and appears to be an attempt to clarify an important
issue
17
and to advise Muslims to be careful when accusing others of disbelief. This is a praiseworthy
objective in itself and is direly needed in our times. In the first part, the author tries to explain the issue
of takfir, the dangers of takfir, the grave warnings against unwarranted takfir and so on. The author
cites well-known authorities, adth and verses of the Qurn to illustrate his argument; and having
framed the narrative thus, he proceeds to state his viewpoint.
A framing narrative is a literary device, used by writers for the purpose of preparing the readers
mindset, and subsequently to influence attitudes towards characters or the story itself. The author
discusses a concept or an idea, and when he introduces the protagonists eventually, the reader is
prepared for correlating people with ideas or situations, using the information provided in the opening
sections of the article or book. This is not entirely wrong; actually, it may be quite necessary in lengthy
dissertations. But, when the idea or concept is explained in the manner of half-truths and insinuations,
the reader is sure to arrive at wrong conclusions or readily agree with the conclusions drawn by the
author. In such a situation, this becomes a legerdemain, by which the author tries to appear unbiased
and objective, even though he ploughs towards a set agenda.
Another key aspect of this article is latent orientalism. It may be incorrect and unfair to term the author
as an orientalist, but unfortunately, the tone in which he speaks, reeks of orientalist attitudes:
But at the outset one can say that so far as the West was concerned during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,
an assumption had been made that the Orient and everything in it was, if not patently inferior to, then in need of
corrective study by the West.
18

One of the obvious examples:
Knowledge of the above principle could have probably prevented much of the fatwa wars that took place
around the turn of the last century in India between Hanafi Muslims of the Barelwi and Deobandi schools.

17
That of takfir, as the title proclaims.
18
Edward Said, Orientalism, Third Edition, Penguin.
6

In other words, Alahazrat did not have knowledge of the above principle. Since Keller has described
many issues [and citations] before arriving at the principle in question, the impression a reader
19
gets,
is that Alahazrat was not aware of all those issues. Consequently, an overwhelming number of scholars
and common people in the subcontinent [following Alahazrat] make the same mistake, until Keller
teaches them basic principles of takfir. One may object that the statement is general here, and Alahazrat
is specifically not mentioned; but the author himself puts that doubt to rest:
In comparison, no Deobandi scholar of note, to the authors knowledge, has yet made takfir of Barelwis.
It was Alahazrat who did takfir; and since the Deobandis did not do takfir,
20
they are not included in this
sweeping generalisation of lack of knowledge of the takfir principle. I will return to this again later in
the book; this is, but one example of the authors attitude towards Sunni scholars from the subcontinent.
This is also similar to the typical ignorgance
21
of average Americans, concerning the Palestine-Israel
issue: they have no clue about the situation on the ground, and their primary source of information is
the biased US media; and with this information, they rebuke Palestinians as habitual terrorists and are
dismayed as to why Palestinians cannot live with peace-loving, humane and democratic Israel:
In comparison, no Israeli, to the authors knowledge, has yet attacked unarmed Palestinians.
Coming back to the article, let us assume that Kellers objective was indeed to warn people from takfir
and clarify what constitutes as an insult. A responsible scholar should describe the perils in blasphemy
adequately along with articulating his own position on takfir. One of the outcomes of the article should
have been a clear and unambiguous warning against insulting the Prophet or diminishing his exalted
rank. This is particularly important in our age when even men of learning are ignorant of etiquette and
the care with which one should mention or address the Prophet . Therefore it is said, that one who is
not aware of [the state of] people in his times is an ignoramus.
22
I present two examples of how scholars
underscore the gravity and the dangers of disrespecting the Prophet .
Even though he argues arguing against a stricter ruling on the punishment of such people, on refusal to
accept the repentance of a blasphemer, Imm Ibn bidn still says in his Tanbih:
23

The reason for writing this book, is to clarify a few objections on an issue mentioned in qd al-Durriyah f Tanq
al-Fatw al-midiyyah. The issue was about the ruling concerning an accursed wretch, who doffed the bonds
of religion from his neck by speaking with an unrestrained tongue referring to the Liegelord of all Messengers and
the Beloved of the Lord of the Worlds. Therein, I mentioned a ruling based on what I considered as a stronger
proof from texts that I had perused; a ruling, which was influenced by piety and righteousness; and far removed from
bigotry and abject hatred. I mentioned my inclination towards the ruling that the repentance [of such a wretch] would
be accepted and that he shall be spared capital punishment, if he reverted to Islm; even though, my heart would
not be soothed, nor would it find solace until he was exterminated and put to the sword. However, there is no scope
to issue a ruling on the basis of ones own feeling,
24
[particularly] in the presence of clear rulings from scriptural texts.
Imm Subk, in his Sayf al-Masll, concerning the same subject says:
25

Know, that even though we have preferred the position that, whosoever reverts to Islm [after having blasphemed]
and conducts himself properly and sincerely according to Islm,
26
his repentance shall be accepted and that he shall
be spared execution. This is said about a hypothetical case, and if such a condition truly exists as it is only a
possibility.

19
Particularly those who are not properly acquainted with Imm Amed Ri or his works, or do not know much about him.
20
According to the assumption of the author.
21
ignorance-arrogance.
22
qd Rasm al-Muft, Ibn bidn.
23
Tanbh al-Wulti wal ukkm, Rasyil Ibn bidn, 1/315.
24
In spite of my intense hatred of such a person, I did not issue a ruling based merely upon my reaction or feelings.
25
Sayf al-Maslul l Shtim al-Rasl, Imm Abul asan al-Subki, p213.
26
asuna islmuhu: literally, if his Islm is good, beautiful.
7

Thus, if such a thing truly occurs, and Allh tl knows [of such sincerity] then he
27
shall find salvation in the hereafter.
However, we fear about such a person who has blasphemed, that his end may be ugly we beseech Allh tl to
protect us.
Because, defying the blessed person of the Prophet is a grave matter, and the fervour
28
with which he is deemed
near Allh tl is immense; the protection and defence given to him by Allh tl is forceful and fierce. We fear
that one who falls into bad-mouthing, disrespecting, finding a flaw in the Prophet or attempting to diminish his
rank or any such thing will be utterly humiliated by Allh tl to the point that He shall not allow them to return to
faith, nor give them guidance to return.
Imm Subki concludes the discussion with a stern warning to prevent people from becoming
complacent and considering it as a trifling issue; and thereby fall into perdition. Alas for Keller! If
anybody in the future may Allh forbid utters blasphemies, and present Iman, Kufr, and Takfir as
their defence, the author will be hard pressed to answer for it. Instead of being a shield for the honour
of the Prophet , the article trivialises the issue and gives false assurance and flimsy cover for people
with unbridled tongues.
That, is not an ordinary mistake.




27
The remorseful blasphemer.
28
ghayratullhi lahu shaddah.
8

II. APOSTASY AND TAKFIR
Islm means submission.
29
In the language of sacred law, Islm is obedience, submission and abiding by
everything that was brought by our Master Muammad from his Lord the message and the guidance;
as Allh tl says:
Never, by your Lord! They will not become believers until
they make you their judge for disputes amongst them,
and do not find in themselves a demur, when you give
your verdict; and they submit to it absolutely.
30

Whosoever contradicts or disputes the submission and obedience to our master Muammad or has
a doubt or hesitates in accepting it, or does not submit to him externally or internally, is not a Muslim.
Here, we mean such things which are proven by tawtur
31
and classed as Essential Requirements of
Faith.
32
Kufr is disbelief and kfir
33
is a disbeliever. Disbelievers are of two kinds: the original disbeliever
and the apostate.
34
A person who was never a Muslim
35
is a kfir al, the original disbeliever; and one
who becomes a disbeliever after having been a believer at some point is a murtadd, an apostate.
Imm Nawaw defines apostasy thus:
Apostasy:
36
To sever the [bonds] of Islm, whether intentionally or by saying or doing something that is disbelief.
Regardless of whether such a thing was said in derision, or in denial or actual belief [in such kufr].
37
[Thus] whosoever
disbelieves in the Creator or Messengers or belies a Messenger or considers a arm acknowledged by ijm,
38
like
adultery, as all or vice-versa;
39
or rejects that deemed obligatory by ijm or vice-versa. Or intends to become a
kfir on the morrow or vacillates
40
concerning the issue in all such cases, the person becomes an apostate.
[Among] actions that cause apostasy: any deliberate action which explicitly mocks religion,
41
repudiation and
disparagement
42
of religion such as casting a copy of the Qurn in the garbage or prostrating to an idol or to the
sun. However, children, the insane
43
and those under duress are exempt from this ruling [if they utter words or commit
deeds that cause apostasy]. Apostasy committed by an inebriated person is valid, just as his Islm is valid; and the
testimony concerning apostasy is absolutely admissible...
44


29
Istislm.
30
Srah Nisa, 4:65.
31
tawtr: Reported by a multitude through multiple chains and corroborated by a massive majority and through successive
generations; such that it defies reason to question its validity.
32
al-mlmu minad dni bid arrah. bdul Ghan al-Nabls, Asrrush Sharh, p218. This is also mentioned in Tafsr al-
Kabr and other commentaries. Henceforth, Essentials.

33
Lexically, kufr means to hide or conceal; thus a person who conceals the bounties of his Lord is a kfir.
34
kufr al-al: disbelief from the outset, and kufr al-r: acquired disbelief. The former is simply termed kfir and the latter
murtadd. Original kfirs are of five kinds: Atheists who deny a Creator, the Dualists (believe in two gods, like the Magians),
Philosophers who believe in God but deny Prophets, Idolators who deny everything and those who accept everything but deny
the Prophethood of RaslAllh like sawiyyah Christians [Durr al-Mukhtr/Radd al-Mutr 4/411].
35
That is, after puberty.
36
riddah: apostasy.
37
istihz'an aw ndan aw itiqdan.
38
Unanimously agreed by an overwhelming majority.
39
Consider a universally accepted all as arm.
40
Undecided whether he will remain a Muslim or become a kfir; his faith is wavering and thus, he becomes a kfir.
41
Or things held sacred in religion.
42
jud: repudiation, ungratefulness, disbelief, rejection, disavowal etc.
43
junn: insanity; this also includes people with dementia.
44
Imm Nawaw, Minhjut libn, p501. The accused will be required to repent and the testimony of upright witnesses
admitted without further questions. [Shirwn, shiyah Tufah]. It should be noted that the para is truncated; the text further
mentions the second opinion of Shfis that testimony should be accompanied by elaboration [tafl] of what was said or done.
9

Ibn Nujaym describes the anaf position on apostasy in the following words:
The lexical meaning of murtadd is a revert. In the parlance of sharh, a person who reverts from Islm is a murtadd,
an apostate as mentioned in Fat al-Qadr. In Badyi, a person will have committed apostasy by uttering a word
deemed kufr [we seek Allhs refuge from it] after having been a believer earlier. Among conditions that are necessary
to rule apostasy is sanity: it is not valid to rule someone who has lost his mind as an apostate; nor the child who
cannot discern.
Concerning a person whose insanity is sporadic: if he utters kufr in a state of insanity, he is not an apostate; but if he
says such things in his right mind, he becomes an apostate. Similarly, apostasy is not charged upon a drunk when
inebriated; Imm Ab anfah and Imm Muammad do not consider puberty as a condition, contrary to Imm Ab
Ysuf; similarly, being a male is not a condition; however, free choice is a condition because the apostasy of a person
in duress is invalid...
45

It is easy to enter Islm, by uttering the Testimony; but one can also go out of it by uttering a word of
kufr; and this does not contradict Imm aw, when he said:
...the opinion of anaf scholars that a person shall not go out of faith except by disavowing that which made him
enter it in the first place.
46

Because, uttering kufr willingly, is disavowing the Testimony. Indeed, one word can cast a person in the
depths of hell, as mentioned in a famous hadith narrated by Ab Hurayrah , in which RaslAllh is
reported to have said:
Verily, a slave [may] utter a word that merits the pleasure of Allh tl, [and the person is] unaware of it; but still
Allh tl will raise him in rank because of it. And verily, a slave [may] utter a word that angers Allh tl, and the
person does not realise [its gravity], even though he falls into fire because of it.
47

In another narration of Bukhr:
A slave utters a word without realising its significance and slips into fire farther than the distance of the east.
48

Q y has said:
[Even if] one attests to the Godhood of Allh tl and that He is One,
49
and yet believes that He is not Living, or not
Pre-eternal, or that He is an accident, or corporeal, or claims that He has a son or a wife, or that He has a father, or
that He has come into existence from something, or something else will come out from Him, or that someone or
something else was [present] along with Him in pre-eternity - that is, other than His Person and Attributes - or that
someone else shaped the universe, or that someone else sustains it; then, such a person is a kfir by ijm of all
Muslims. So also, we consider a person who believes that the universe is pre-eternal, or that it shall abide without
annihilation or has any doubts in it.
50

Imm Fal al-Rasl explaining the generic ruling of apostasy says:
Things that negate submission, which we have mentioned earlier citing anaf sources: words and actions which
indicate disdain [for religion] such as murdering a Prophet contempt in which, is obvious or that which is in effect
belying [the Prophet] or disputing anything that is proven to have been declared by the Prophet and is considered
an Essential Article such as: resurrection, reward, the five prayers etc. In some issues, the ruling varies concerning
those being in the presence of the Prophet and those who are not.
51


45
Bar ar-Ryiq, 5/193.
46
Ibid.,p201, Cf. Jmi al-Fulayn.
47
Bukhr #6478, Muslim 1/81, Tirmidh #1983, Nasy #4105, Ibn Mjah #3939, Imm Amed in his Musnad 1/385.
48
Bukhr #6477; yn says that it could either mean the distance between the two easts, or as it is said in another adth:
distance between the east and the west.
49
wadniyyah.
50
Q y in Shif vide Mtaqad, p19.
51
Mtaqad, p209. For example, a person refusing the adqah-fir after hearing it from the Prophet will be a kfir; but a
person refusing it in later times is considered misguided and a sinner. Because the former has no other option except to obey
the Messenger of Allah after hearing it from his blessed mouth; whereas the latter only disputes the narrators and the report.
Unless of course, the latter also disputes the Prophet , in which case he shall also be ruled a kfir, nevertheless.
10

Things which are established as Essentials, proven by scripture and considered mutawtir
52
that every
commoner and scholar knows it well, such as:
Believing in the message given by the Prophet and in everything that he informed us and commanded us [to
do or to abstain].
That the Existence of Allh tl is necessary, and that He is One and Alone; and that He created everything, and
He alone deserves to be worshipped, and that He is the Lord and Sustainer, and that He has no partner, and that
He is the Only God.
That He alone is Pre-eternal; and that He alone brings contingent things
53
into existence.
He is the only Creator and He is Living, Omniscient, Omnipotent and has an Absolute Will.
The Qurn is the Speech of Allh tl; and belief in everything the Quran has informed us [such as] He Speaks,
He is All-Hearing and All-Knowing; that He sends messengers, some of whom are mentioned in the Qurn and
many others who are not mentioned.
That He revealed books [to various Prophets in addition to the Qurn] and that angels are His honourable slaves.
That He made alt, zakt, fasting and ajj obligatory.
That He shall resurrect the dead and the final hour is destined to come, and there is no doubt in its occurrence.
That He forbade usury, wine and gambling, as mentioned in the Qurn.
In all the above issues, rulings are the same for all, regardless of the person being present in the
Prophets time.
54
Books of fiqh and fatw list a number of things deemed to be kufr, and the ruling
that a person becomes kfir if he says or does certain things; and all these illustrations are based on
fundamental precepts such as slighting religion, or denying an essential article, or blasphemy.
55

Explaining the principle, repudiating ijm is kufr, Ibn bidn quotes usm Chalpi:
If the verse or mutawtr
56
adth is not absolute in its implication,
57
or if the report is itself not mutawtr; or it is
absolute in implication but therein still lingers a doubt; or the ijm is absolute and total, or not; it is the ijm of
the companions or it is not; it is not the ijm of all the companions; or it is not absolute in its implication because it
is not proven by tawtur; or its implication may be absolute, but the ijm is implicit;
58
and in all these cases, the
person denying ijm will not become a kfir.
59

The general basis for apostasy is stated by Alahazrat thus:
Jurists [fuqah] have ruled that one who rejects an absolute precept [qa] is a kfir; but theologians [mutakallimn]
specified that it is kufr only when an Essential [arr] is rejected, and this [latter] is the safest position.
60

In Radd al-Mutr:
There is no dispute concerning the disbelief of a person who opposes [or rejects] any required component of faith,
even if he prays facing our qiblah, even if he is punctual and unfailing in fulfilling obligations and doing good deeds
all his life, as explained in Shar al-Tarr...
61


52
mutawtir: something that is universally known, unanimously agreed upon and transmitted through successive generations
without anybody disputing it; something which is undeniable and indubitable.
53
Because, only the mumkin, or the contingent can exist; and mul is impossible to exist by definition.
54
Mtaqad, p210-211, paraphrased.
55
In Shar Fiqh al-Akbar, p227, Al-Qr says:
Whoever describes Allh tl in a manner not befitting His Majesty or mocks any of His Names or His commandments or rejects His promise of
reward or retribution shall be ruled a kfir.
56
Mass-transmitted and continuously narrated by successive generations; which is viewed as universal truth.
57
qa al-dallah.
58
ijm sukt.
59
Radd al-Mutr, 4/407. Quoting refutation of Bazzzi by usmuddn usayn ibn bd ar-Ramn Chalp (d. 926 AH).
60
Mustanad, Footnote #71.
61
Ibn bidn, Radd al-Mutr, Kitb al-alah; Bb al-Immah, 1/377.
11

That is about apostasy; but, how and who should decree someone an apostate? It is no different than
asking a muft about a contested issue of divorce or inheritance. It has been a common practice in
Muslim communities from early ages to seek a fatw from a reputed muft or from the office of fatw
the dr al-ift. The ruling of takfir should be no different and common people should not proclaim
someone a kfir by themselves,
62
and always seek the opinion of a qualified muft in the case of apostasy
as well; if someone utters a thing that is deemed kufr, one should write to a muft, explaining the incident
and the situation and seek a judgement. The muft is also advised to be careful and that he should not
be hasty in issuing a fatw of takfr.
It is said in Jmi al-Fulayn:
aw reports the opinion of anafs, that a person shall not go out of faith except by disavowing that which made
him enter it in the first place. Things confirmed to be apostasy will be ruled as such; and if it is indeterminate, or only
suspected to be apostasy, the ruling is to withhold [from takfr]. Because, Islm having been established cannot be
negated merely on the basis of a doubt, apart from the fact that Islm shall prevail. When such an issue is presented
to a scholar, it is necessary that he should not be hasty in declaring someone [among Muslims] as a kfir..
63

Muslims should learn about apostasy, first to save themselves and thereafter to warn others and alert
the ignorant. Learning about and identifying apostasy is not the same as decreeing someone a kfir, as
Alahazrat has said:
The well-researched position is that which we have mentioned many times: there is a [big] difference between
something being kufr and to rule someone a kfir because of it.
64

Alahazrat has discussed these topics in more detail in his Mustanad and Tamhd, among other works.
What is Takfr?
Takfr means to accuse a person or issue a ruling that he has become a kfir; takfr means to
anathematise, to excommunicate a person as an apostate. It is a serious matter and should not be taken
lightly; scholars have warned about the dangers of takfr and urged mufts to exercise utmost caution
when making takfr, as Alahazrat has explained:
Our Prophet has warned us from making takfr of those who say: l ilha ill Allh. We do not rule them kfir, as
long as we do not possess proof, as obvious and glaringly apparent as the mid-day sun; and [we shall withhold from
takfr] until the remotest possibility exists to absolve them of kufr.
65

A person may say or do something which looks as kufr to the observer, but the person did not say or do
it with that intention.
66
It is possible that the person might have not understood the meaning of the word
or the usage of the term, or meant to say something else and so forth. In all such cases, the ruling
depends upon clarification and establishing the intention of the word or deed; Imm Nabls says:
All that is found in books of fatw concerning statements classified as kufr, explained and insisted upon by various
authors that such a thing is kufr; then [in all such cases] the [ruling] is dependent on the intention of the person who
said it. If his intention was indeed that, which is a basis for the ruling of kufr, then he is a kfir; if his intention was
otherwise, then his saying will not be considered as kufr.
67

l al-Qr says in the commentary of Fiqh al-Akbar:
Scholars have mentioned that the issue of ruling someone kfir [takfr]: if there are 99 possibilities of disbelief [for a
statement] and one possibility that is not disbelief; then it is better for the muft and the judge to incline towards the
meaning that is not disbelief.
68


62
Citing the fatw of a muft is not the same as issuing fatw oneself.
63
Vide Bar ar-Ryiq, 5/201.
64
Mustanad, Footnote #357: Difference between kufr and ikfr.
65
Subn al-Subb, p80.
66
There are a few special cases, such as blasphemy where intention of the speaker is not admissible; also, intention of the
person is not admissible when the statement is explicit. See Imm Ibn bd al-Salms book on ul, Qawid al-Kubr, 2/215
on when tawl is admissible and when it is not where it is stated that explicit statements will be taken at face-value.
67
adqatun Nadiyyah, 1/304: Slighting the Sharh is Kufr.
68
Shar Fiqh al-Akbar, Objective: On Knowing what Constitutes Apostasy, p445 [Ghwuj Edition].
12

In Fatw Khulah, Jmi al-Fulayn, Mui, Fatw Hindiyyah etc., it is said:
If in a particular issue, there are [many] facets and possibilities that necessitate takfr and just one facet that prevents
takfr, it is necessary for the muft and the judge to lean towards this facet and [they] should avoid takfr; because it
is necessary to have a good opinion of a Muslim. Yes, if the intention of the person who uttered the statement was
according to the possible interpretation that prevents takfr, he certainly remains a Muslim; but if his intention was
not this meaning, then there is no point in the muft trying to interpret it favourably to avoid takfr, neither will it
benefit the accused.
69

In Bar ar-Ryiq, Tanwr al-Abr, adqah al-Nadiyyah, Tanbh al-Wult and Sall al-usm etc.:
The muft who does not rule on the apostasy of a Muslim, so long as his statement can be interpreted favourably,
has done well.
70

Keller has also rightly pointed out in his article, that one cannot take everything written in books of fiqh
and rule people kfir indiscriminately:



Qr mentions that a number of such statements are categorised as kufr in books of fiqh and fatw,
such as insulting Ab Bakr and mar or rejecting their caliphate, or claiming that it is impossible
to see Allh tl, or that the Qurn is created, etc. Yet, books of qdah stipulate that we cannot do
takfr of Ahl al-Qiblah. Explaining the reasons for this [apparent] ambiguity he writes:
The aspect of discrepancy [ishkl] here is the lack of agreement between derived rulings and the fundamental
principle which is generally accepted by theologians [mutakallimn] that we should not do takfr of Ahl al-Qiblah.
This [apparent] ambiguity can be resolved thus: [opinions] transmitted in books of fatw together with the absence
of any mention of the utterer [lack of knowledge about who said it] and the absence of any evidence for such a ruling,
is insufficient evidence [for the transmitters opinion]. Because the basis for creedal matters is absolute proof, because
anathematising a Muslim has the potential for damages and abuses, big and small; therefore we cannot rule people
kfir based on someones opinion; indeed, they have mentioned such things as kufr to forewarn and caution people.
71

Is Takfr Totally Disallowed?
At the same time, it is not difficult for a person to renege from Islm; neither does it mean that regardless
of what a person says, takfr is disallowed. l al-Qr says:
Concerning the statement, We do not do takfir of Ahl al-Qiblah, it is not absolute, as I have explained in the
commentary of Fiqh al-Akbar.
72

And in Shar Fiqh al-Akbar, he says:
Know, that by Ahl al-Qiblah, we mean those people who agree upon Essentials of faith such as: the universe is an
accident, bodies will be resurrected and gathered on Judgement day, Knowledge of Allh tl encompasses
everything the parts and the whole, and all such things. Even if a person spends his entire life in worship and doing
good deeds [together] with the belief that the universe is pre-eternal, or denies resurrection, or denies that Allh
tl has knowledge of everything, or that He does not know the specifics; such a person will not be included among
the Ahl al-Qiblah.
According to Ahl as-Sunnah, the statement: We do not do takfr of Ahl al-Qiblah means that we should not do takfr
of a person, until any indication or sign of kufr is found; or until the person has not said or done something that
necessitates takfr.
73


69
Khulatul Fatw, On Words of Apostasy: The Second Section 4/382.
70
Durr al-Mukhtr, On Apostates, 1/356.
71
Shar Fiqh al-Akbar, p229.
72
Shar al-Shif, Cf. Mtamad, 214.
73
Shar Fiqh al-Akbar, p230.
In some cases such a person is, and in some not. Many people today read an expression labelled in
books of Islamic law as kufr, and when they realize that some Muslim they know or have heard of has
an idea like it, they jump to the conclusion that he is a kafir.
13

When an essential aspect of faith is repudiated, and necessitates takfr, the muft shall issue the fatw
of kufr. Statements and situations are not always clear and objective; more often than not, such matters
fall in a grey area, open to interpretation and thus become contentious issues. Regardless, everybody
agrees that there are conditions and situations where takfr is unavoidable. When somebody knowingly
utters words that are kufr, he becomes a kfir even if he does not believe in it. l al-Qr says:
You should also know, when a person utters words of kufr knowing what they mean, [even] without professing that
belief, and says it without compulsion, and of his own free choice, such a person will be ruled kfir. This is based on
the preferred opinion of some scholars who said that faith is a composite of attestation and acceptance [tadq wal
iqrr] and by uttering such words, the person has changed acceptance to repudiation.
74

...a group of scholars have said: We do not make takfr of anybody among Ahl al-Qiblah. This negation is generic,
together with the knowledge that among people of Qiblah are the hypocrites who disbelieve in the Book, the Sunnah
and consensus with far more vehemence than Jews and Christians.
Ibn Humm says mentioning the disagreement among scholars concerning takfr of Khawrij:
In the discourse of madhhabs
75
a number of things are proscribed as kufr and takfr is [also] mentioned, but it is not
found in the speech of jurists who are mujtahids; [rather, such takfr is mostly] in the utterance of non-jurists
76
and
the opinion of those who are not jurists is inconsequential; the opinion of mujtahids is what we have mentioned
[earlier]...
77

Bbart explaining aws principle We do not make takfr of Ahl al-Qiblah...
78
says:
Following the hadith of RaslAllh : Do not make takfr of those who pray facing your qiblah. Ahl al-Qiblah
here, refers to those who pray facing the Kbah and also attest to everything that is brought by the Prophet . It is
therefore, the author has said earlier: Those who accept our qiblah will be considered as Muslims as long as they
are steadfast and acknowledge everything brought by the Prophet .
79
Which implies that the fanatical and
extremist Rfis are not included in [Ahl al-Qiblah] even if they pray facing our qiblah.
80

Takfr of Ahl al-Bidh and Ahl al-Tawl
The primary reason for dissenting sects in Islm and heresies or bidh in belief is because of wrong
interpretation of Qurnic verses and adth. Some sects however went too far in their heresies and
contradicted or rejected fundamental precepts, thereby going out of the pale of Islm. Other heretics
professed beliefs which are classified as kufr, but jurists and theologians debated whether such a person
has indeed become a kfir. This difference will be mentioned in brief, the gist of which is that we do not
make takfr of those who hold a belief termed as kufr, as long as their belief is based on textual evidence
which has been misinterpreted or misunderstood; and as long as such a belief does not contradict
essential precepts. Imm Fal al-Rasl quotes Imm Birgivi from arqah al-Muammadiyyah:
The words bidh, mubtadi, haw, ahl al-ahw, when used absolutely [usually] denote bidh or innovation in belief.
Some such heresies [bidh] are kufr and some others are not kufr but are enormities. [Such an enormity] is far more
repugnant than the biggest sin even murder or adultery; and only kufr is next to such a bidh. No excuses citing
mistake of interpretation will be admissible in this case, unlike ijtihd in extraneous actions; the opposite of this bidh
is the belief of Ahl as-Sunnah wal Jamh.
81

Citing Shar al-Maqid he says:
The ruling concerning a mubtadi is that he is despised and repudiated; refuted and ostracised; he shall be humiliated,
vehemently criticised and castigated; praying behind him is disliked.
82


74
Shar Fiqh al-Akbar, p244.
75
ahl al-madhhib.
76
Mostly followers who cite opinions of mujtahids.
77
Fat al-Qadr,6/93.
78
qdah al-Tawiyyah, #57.
79
Ibid. #54.
80
Akmaluddn Muammad al-Bbart, Shar al-awyyah, p102.
81
Imm Birgivi, arqah al-Muammadiyyah, p9 and Cf. Mtaqad, p218.
82
Prohibitively disliked in the anaf madhhab: makrh tarm.
14

Citing Imm Ghazl, he says:
In Iya, Imm Ghazl talks of two kinds of people opposed to Sunni Muslims in qdah: the kfir and the mubtadi.
After discussing kfirs, he talks of heretics [mubtadi] being two kinds: the proselytising mubtadi and the passive
mubtadi whose reticence is either voluntary or due to his being disempowered...
...concerning the mubtadi who actively promotes his bidh; if his heresy is disbelief, he shall be dealt with, far more
severely than a dhimmi
83
because he [the former] does not pay jizyah, nor will he be allowed to be categorised as a
dhimmi. But if the mubtadi is such that we do not consider him an apostate, the matter is between him and his Lord;
though obviously, it is lesser in gravity than of a kfir. However, we shall refute him [the heretic] far more strongly
than [an original] disbeliever because the kfirs mischief is not invasive; Muslims know and identify it as kufr, and will
normally, not incline towards it. But [the mubtadi] claims that his [heretical] belief is the true form of Islm. Such a
mubtadi is the cause for corrupting beliefs of people and his mischief is intrusive. Therefore it is expedient to expose
his hatred and his enmity [of Ahl as-Sunnah] and to boycott him and deplore him; to refute his heresy and to make
people aware of it so they can shun him...
84

Fakhr al-Islm reports Imm Ab Ysuf as saying:
I discussed with Ab anfah, the issue of [those who believe] the Qurn is created; and we both agreed that a person
who says that the Qurn is created, is a kfir.
85

We are dealing with three important points in this discussion.
1. Heresy may or may not be kufr;
2. When heresy is kufr, it may be due to misinterpretation of scriptures;
3. A person professing a heretical belief may not become a kfir even if the belief is kufr in itself.
The first point has been explained above and the third point is explained by Alahazrat thus:
The well-researched position is what we have mentioned many times: the difference between kufr and ikfr;
something being kufr and ruling someone a kfir because of it. It is kufr near Allh tl when belying or mocking
[religion] is established [near Allh tl] and this does not require evidence at all, let alone absolute proof or evidence
that Essential precepts [has been denied].
86

However, it is not permissible to issue a ruling of kufr [ikfr] until we have absolute proof that he has belied or mocked
the religion; and absolute evidence is not required, except in Essentials; because, one can contest non-essential
precepts and say: I do not have proof for this. But if one acknowledges the proof, and then refuses to accept it it
is [a form of] belying. In such a case, there is no reason to withhold or tarry in issuing the ruling of kufr, because the
basis for takfr is [now] clearly known...
87

This leaves us with the second point: takfr of heresies on account of misinterpretation:
And based on these two principles, there is a difference of opinion concerning the takfir of those [who err] in
interpretation. The accurate position is to abstain from takfir and to consider them as Muslims however, they shall
be censured severely and harshly reproached until they retract from their heresy.
Thus it has been from the time of the abah and Tbin concerning those who deviated on Destiny, upon the
opinions of Khawrij and the Mtazilah they were not stopped from being buried in the graveyard, nor was their
estate denied for inheritance. But they were proscribed; [and Muslims] forsook speaking to them, saluting them,
meeting with them or eating with them; [authorities] reprimanded them by having them lashed, and exiled or
imprisoned, to stem their heresies; and their leaders, who were arrogant and obstinate were executed.
88


83
A dhimmi who actively promotes his religion.
84
Cf. Mtaqad, p221.
85
Shar Fiqh al-Akbar, p41.
86
If a man mocks or belies any sacred symbol or person, the person becomes kfir near Allh tl even if we do not have
evidence to rule such a person kfir.
87
Mustanad al-Mtamad, Footnote #357, p214.
88
Mtaqad, p51.
15

It must be noted that heresies fall into different categories, and some categories are indeed kufr which
merit takfr. l al-Qr says:
When you see those who engage in vain talk about our verses.. meaning false interpretations and absurd
descriptions; then, turn away from them, until they talk about something else.
89
The implications of this verse
includes them,
90
because [meanings are] dependent on the general basis [of verses] not on etymological complexities
involving those words. Erroneous interpretations and vapid distortions can be varyingly classified as kufr/disbelief,
fisq/transgression, a sin or merely a mistake; and a mistake in this issue is neither excusable nor ignored, contrary to
mistakes in secondary
91
issues, where mistakes are not penalised rather, even mistakes merit reward in such issues.
92

Q y, in his Shif has discussed the disagreement among elder scholars concerning takfr of a
heretic whose belief or action is based on misinterpretation or misunderstood texts; he listed a number
of examples and illustrations on things that cause takfr.
93
We can summarise the positions concerning
takfr of heretics and misinterpreters as follows:


1. If a person professes a heretical belief which contradicts Essentials, he becomes a kfir and no
explanation will be entertained.
2. If a person professes a heretical belief which contradicts things for which there is absolute evidence
[dall qa], jurists and some theologians have ruled him kfir; but most theologians insisted that
such denial is not kufr and only denying Essentials causes kufr.
3. If a person says or does something which is classed as kufr, and does so based on mistaken
understanding of texts, he shall not be ruled a kfir.
4. We cannot rule them kfir by analogy or implied meanings; only explicit and incontrovertible
evidence will be required to make takfr of heretics.
5. If a heretic has become a kfir and this is established by incontrovertible evidence,
94
it is necessary
to make takfr of such a person and consider him a kfir. If one hesitates or doubts that such a person
has become a kfir, he will also become a kfir.
95

6. It is necessary to believe that Christians and Jews are kfirs; and necessary to believe that an
apostate has abandoned Islm. Anyone who doubts in this or hesitates in calling them a kfir will
also become a kfir.
Dangers of Takfr
We have mentioned earlier that RaslAllh warned us against making takfr heedlessly or needlessly.
According to a famous adth, if a person accuses his Muslim brother of kufr unjustly, he may become a
kfir himself. Therefore, it is necessary to refrain from accusing another Muslim of kufr unless there is
evidence and facts have been well-researched and ascertained. If the statement or action can be
interpreted favourably, we must withhold from takfr. Q y says quoting Imm al-aramayn:
..because making a mistake in [takfir] is a great calamity; because including a kfir or excluding a Muslim from the
community are [acts] of great significance. Other researchers have said: It is necessary to abstain from making takfr
of those who err in interpretation [ahl al-tawl] because that would make permissible [ibah] the blood of those
who pray and are monotheists, which is immensely dangerous.
96


89
Srah Anm, 6:68.

90
Philosophers and rationalists, whose far fetched and fancy interpretations are being refuted by l al-Qr here.
91
fur.
92
Shar Fiqh al-Akbar, p12.
93
tawl, muta-awwil, ahl al-tawl. See Shif, p388, Part Four Chapter Three, Taqq al-Qawl f Ikfr al-Mutaawwiln.
94
dall qti.
95
As we shall see further, this is based on denial of Essentials or specific issues such as blasphemy.
96
Shif, p388; the word is Shifa, but the name of the book has a shortened alif; Qr says that it is meant to rhyme with
Muaf.
16

If a person calls a Muslim, a kfir without any basis, it is as if he has termed Islm as kufr; thereby
denigrating religion and hence becomes a kfir.
97
In very famous adth in Bukhr and Muslim:
98

When a man calls his brother [Muslim] O Kfir, one of the
two has become
99
[a kfir]

We see this adth being quoted often, even to prevent legitimate takfr. Everybody agrees that the
adth is a warning to stay away from reckless takfr. Suppose a person makes takfr of another based
on some interpretation, even erroneous, the accuser will not become a kfir automatically because, his
takfr has a basis, regardless of the accuracy of such basis. Scholars have said that if a person calls
another Muslim as a kfir, as a form of abuse or derision, the accuser has committed sin, but will not
become a kfir. In fact, the heading of this chapter in Bukhr is: He who accuses his brother being a kfir
without any basis will take that accusation himself. Explaining this, Ibn ajar says:
Thus, he [Bukhr] has restricted it to: a person who calls another kfir without any basis.
100

It is implicit that the basis may or may not be valid; even if the basis [tawl] is invalid because of
misunderstanding or misinterpretation, the accuser will not take the ruling of kufr. yn says:
[One of the two becomes a kfir]: takfr returns to the accuser; because if his accusation is true, the accused is a
kfir; and if it is false, it will return to the accuser who will become a kfir, because he considers a believer as a kfir
and faith as kufr...
...Khab said: one of them becomes a kfir, if takfr is done without any basis. Ibn Baal said: [the accuser] takes the
sin of accusing his brother of kufr
101

Explaining the title of the topic of this adth, yn says:
If one has a basis for the takfr of another, he has a valid excuse and will not be a sinner. It is therefore, that RaslAllh
exempted mar when he accused tib ibn Baltah of being a hypocrite based on his interpretation...
102

Ibn ajar al-Haytami mentions the following adth in Ilm:
103

1. Muslim reports: When a man calls his brother a kfir, one of two has become a kfir.
2. [Muslim] in another report: Whoever calls his brother: O kfir, one of them has become [kfir]; if it is truly the
case [the accused is kfir], if not [takfir] returns to the accuser.
3. [Muslim] in another report: If a person knowingly attributes himself to another man as his father, he has
committed kufr; if a man calls another a kfir or says: Enemy of Allh, and if the accused is not so, kufr
rebounds upon the accuser.
4. We have mentioned Ab wnahs report earlier: If the person is as was accused [he is a kfir], if not, [the
accuser] will become kfir.
5. In another narration: If a man calls his brother a kfir, kufr becomes binding upon one of them.
Haytami explains:
..making takfr of his brother means that he attributes him with disbelief either as a statement such as: You are a
Kfir or as an invocation: O Kfir! or believes that he has become a kfir, similar to Khawrij who make takfr of
Muslims for committing sin.
104


97
From Imm Rfis comment Cf. Ilm, Haytam, p6.
98
a Bukhr, #6103 and #6104, Kitb al-Adab.
99
The phrase ba bihi means comes back with [Dbj, Ikml]; idiomatically it can also be translated as: one of the two goes
out of Islm or one of the two returns with kufr upon him and as Suy says: He returns with kufr.
100
Fat al-Br, 13/679.
101
mdatul Qr, 15/246.
102
Ibid., 245.
103
The following adth are found in a Muslim, 1/111, 112 and Musnad Abi wnah, #50, #53.
104
Ilm, p9.
17

Even though a number of adth mention that one of them loses his faith, there is almost a unanimous
agreement
105
among Muslim scholars that it should not be taken literally. Indeed, it is a grave sin and
the risk of losing ones own faith is also real; yet, the ruling will be similar to other adth where a certain
action is termed kufr, but interpreted as having acted like a disbeliever. For example, a adth says that
a person becomes kfir if he deliberately misses an obligatory prayer scholars said that such a person
has become closer to kufr and not a kfir.
106
Imm Ghazl explaining this has said in his Iya:
This is about a person who accuses another of kufr with full knowledge that [the accused] is a Muslim, then [the
accuser] will become a kfir; but if he accuses another presuming that he has become a kfir because of his bidh,
etc., [the accuser] is mistaken, and will not become kfir.
107

Haytami notes that some scholars have said that the adth can be taken literally and therefore the
person who accuses another of kufr unjustly will become a kfir; quoting Ibn Daqq al-d, he says:
When a person accuses another of kufr, and if it is not true, kufr will rebound upon the accuser. ra means it
rebounds; this is a grave warning to those who accuse Muslims of having become kfir, when it is not the case. This
is a great calamity, afflicting a number of scholars who differed on creedal matters and made takfr of each other...
The summary of Imm Nawaws explanation
108
of this adth: This is one of the adth scholars have
categorised as problematic, as it cannot be taken literally, because the creed of Ahl as-Sunnah is that we
do not anathematise a sinner we do not make takfr for committing sins like murder, adultery etc. So
also, when a person calls his brother [Muslim] a kfir, when he does not consider the religion of Islm
as false, he will not become a kfir. There are a number of explanations for this adth. The first is that
it refers to a person who considers it permissible to call a Muslim as kfir; the second is that the accuser
returns with the sin of calling another a kfir; the third is that it refers to Khawrij, who make takfr of
believers; the fourth is that it takes a person closer to kufr, and it is feared that a person who indulges
in takfr often may suffer a gruesome ending; the fifth is that it is not kufr in reality that returns, but
only takfr that is a person has effectively made takfr of himself.
Khawrij and Takfr
The Khawrij were foremost in making takfr and they even went to the extent of making takfr of the
companions of the Prophet . Some of them made takfr of prominent companions like Mawl l . On
the other hand, the fanatical Rfis made takfr of all companions except some, like Mawl l and
others. According to the Khawrij, a person becomes a kfir if he commits a sin which is refuted in
every book of Sunni creed and theology. Concerning Khawrij, Ibn Humm says in Fat al-Qadr:
...and these people known as Khawrij, who make permissible the blood and wealth of Muslims and enslave their
women;
109
and anathematise companions of the Messenger of Allah . The majority of jurists and adth scholars
have said that they take the ruling of rebels. However, according to Mlik, they will be forced to repent, if they do
not repent, they will be executed not as apostates, but to end their insurrection. Some adth scholars opined that
they are apostates and that they shall be dealt as apostates because of the adth: A group of people will appear
in final days, young in years and foolish minds, they speak of the Qurn,
110
but the Qurn does not go beyond
their gullets. They will renege from religion, [exiting] just as an arrow is shot from a bow. Execute them
wherever you find them
111
because, for those who slay them, there shall be a great reward on the day of
Judgement.


...Ibn al-Mundhir said I do not know anyone who agreed with adth scholars who anathematised the Khawrij,
which implies a consensus of jurists.
112


105
Keller has also mentioned this opinion in endnote #1.
106
Paraphrased from Suys Dbj, 1/82.
107
Cf. Ilm, p11. Iya.
108
Summarised from Minhj, 2/49-51.
109
By considering their husbands as apostates.
110
Lit. talk of the most righteous speech in the world, Qurn as described in the previous adth of Ab Sad [Fat al-Br].
111
This is an instruction to rulers as in all cases of punishments. Only a ruler or his authorised representative can enforce such
laws and punishments meted after due process. It is not permissible for individuals to take the law in their own hands.
112
We do not make takfr of Khawrij. Fat al-Qadr,6/93.
18

The tribulation of the original Khawrij died centuries ago and was resurrected by the Wahbs in
modern times as Keller notes:




Imm Ibn bidn writes about the Wahbs:
...as it has come to pass in our times among the followers of [ibn] bd al-Wahhb, who rose from Najd and invaded
the aramayn; they claim to follow the anbal madhhab, but they believe that only they are true Muslims, and those
who differ from their creed are polytheists. Based on this [principle of takfr] they consider killing of Ahl as-Sunnah
and their scholars as permissible; [thus they were] until their force was shattered by [the Grace of] Allh tl and
their cities were plundered, and Muslim armies triumphed over them in the year 1233 AH.
113

adth scholars considered Khawrij as kfirs because they made takfr of prominent companions and
according to the literal interpretation of adth mentioned above, takfr returns to the Khawrij.
However, the majority of scholars abstained from anathematising Khawrij because, their takfr is
based on erroneous interpretation. Indeed, if any of them denies that Ab Bakr al-iddq was a
companion or makes [absolute] takfr of companions, or considers the entire ummah to be misguided,
such a person will be ruled a kfir as he rejects a fundamental precept of religion.
Examples of Disbelief
It is disbelief to say anything that explicitly denies the Oneness of Allh tl [tawd] or that He is the
Lord and Creator worshipping anybody or anything other than Allh tl. [Kafirs are] deniers of God
like the Atheists, the Dualists like the Dniyyah, Mnniyyah, the Sabians, Christians, Magians, idol
worshippers, or Angel and Satan worshippers, those who worship the sun, the stars, fire or any of the
idol worshippers among polytheists of Arabia, India, China, Sudan; similarly the Qarmites, the Bains,
those who believe in transmigration of souls, the Rfi who believes that l is god or claims that the
Qurn is incomplete, or denies that Ab Bakr is a companion; or those who claim a son for the Lord
Almighty; or those who believe that the universe is pre-eternal or shall abide without annihilation; or
insults Allh tl or blasphemes against the Prophet .
114
Rulings concerning an apostate cover the
following major areas: punishment, repentance, boycott, marriage, funeral, burial and inheritance.
Islam will be presented to the apostate for clemency and it is not obligatory. This is what Mlik, Shfi and Amed
have said and an attempt will be made to clarify the doubts of the apostate. If he wants more time to consider, he
will be given three days [in prison] and if he repents, [he will be set free] else, he will be executed.
...according to Imm Ab anfah, it is recommended that he be left alone for three days irrespective of his asking
for time or not.
115

An apostate will be given a chance to repent;
116
if he has lingering doubts about Islm or its
commandments, they will be clarified. If he is still adamant on his kufr, he will be executed. All scholars
agree that the repentance of an apostate will be accepted except in the case of a blasphemer, where
there is a difference of opinion. The apostate will be excommunicated from the community and he
117

cannot marry a Muslim; and when he dies, according to some scholars, his inheritance will be
distributed among his Muslim inheritors; however, an apostate cannot inherit from anybody. Muslims
will refuse to greet him, speak to him and deal with him. He shall be a social outcast. If he dies, no funeral
prayers will be held for him and his corpse will not be allowed to be buried in the graveyard of Muslims.

113
Radd al-Mutr, 6/413.
114
See Appendices E and F for a more detailed listing of things that cause kufr.
115
Shar Fiqh al-Akbar, p245.
116
Some scholars said that the period is indefinite as long as there is hope for him to repent; some others said that he would
be given three days to repent, else executed. Q y says that Imm Ab anfah and others have mentioned three periods
days, weeks or months and the person is given a chance to repent. Scholars have agreed that in this period the apostate is
imprisoned but is not beaten; he shall be given food and drink, but is warned of the impending execution if he does not repent.
117
This applies to women too except that anafs exempt a female apostate from execution.
It is the fitna or strife that destroyed previous faiths, and whose fire in Islamic times was put out with
the defeat of the Kharijites, only to be revived on a wholesale scale almost a thousand years later by
Wahhabi sect of Arabia in the eighteenth century
19

We conclude this chapter with commonly mentioned precepts and provisions [masyil] in books of fiqh
and fatw concerning apostasy and takfr:
118

1. If, in a specific issue, there can be many interpretations; and all possibilities necessitate takfr,
except one interpretation which prevents takfr, it is obligatory for the muft to incline towards that
which prevents takfr. This is because we should have a good opinion of Muslims.
2. However, if the persons intention was to mean that which necessitates takfr, the mufts
consideration will not benefit him; he shall be ordered to repent and renew his marriage.
3. If someone utters a word of kufr voluntarily, in the full knowledge that it is kufr and believes it to
be kufr he has committed kufr.
4. If he does not believe in it, or if he does not know that uttering such words necessitates kufr, but yet
he uttered it knowingly most scholars ruled him a kfir and did not accept ignorance as a valid
excuse.
5. However, some scholars have said that if an ignorant person utters words that are kufr and does
not know that such words are kufr, the person will be excused for his ignorance.
119

6. If something is said unintentionally or by the slip of tongue; for example, he wanted to say: there
is no other God but Allh and he unthinkingly said: there are other Gods with Allh, or if he
wanted to say: O Allh! You are my Lord and I am your slave, but muddled it up and said: O Allh!
You are my slave and I am your Lord. In both cases, the person will not be ruled kfir.
7. Similarly, if one wanted to say: I eat stew but stumbled and said: I disbelieve, he will not be ruled
a kfir.
8. The basic response concerning an issue that is open for interpretation is that none should be ruled
kfir in such a case; because takfr is the most extreme form of reproach, and the most serious of all
crimes; and whenever there is a possibility to interpret favourably, takfr will be avoided.
9. It is necessary for a scholar to not hasten in issuing the verdict of kufr.
10. If one conceals kufr or contemplates [committing] disbelief, he becomes a kfir regardless of his
current state.
11. If one utters kufr willingly, he becomes a kfir, even if he is convinced and unperturbed about Islm
in his heart. In this case, Islm in his heart will not avail him.
120

12. If a person says If such and such a thing happens tomorrow, I will become a kfir, he becomes a
kfir from that very moment.
121

13. If one decides to become a kfir in the future, even if it is a hundred years later, he becomes a kfir
instantly.
14. If a person tells another Dont say such a thing, because it will make you a kfir and the other
replies So what? Let me become a kfir, the latter becomes a kfir because he is pleased with kufr.

118
Fatw Ttrkhniyyah 5/312; Radd al-Mutr 4/405; Bar ar-Ryiq 5/194; Fatw al-Hindiyyah; Fat al-Qadr, 6/64;
Badyi al-anyi; Binyah; Fiqh al-Islm wa Adillatuh 6/183; Fiqhu l Madhhib al-Arbah; Dhakhrah 12/13; Dusq l
Shar al-Kabr li Dardr; Tufatul Mutj 9/79; Kitb al-Fur 10/186; Iqn 4/285.
119
When such things are not from Essentials of faith; the excuse of ignorance is absolutely inadmissible in case of Essentials.
120
Movie actors, for example, do all kinds of antics and claim that Islm is in their hearts, and they are only acting and saying
something which they do not really believe in their hearts. Similarly, some people tell blasphemous jokes; and when they are
reproached, they justify their actions claiming Islm is firm in their hearts. We seek Allhs refuge from all kinds of kufr.
121
Therefore one should not debate with kafirs with the condition such as: I will become a Christian if you convince me. Such
a condition is arm, when it is said rhetorically; but if he intends to become a Christian, he becomes a kfir immediately.
20

15. If one decides to order another person to commit kufr, this person will also become a kfir.
16. If a person has disturbing thoughts or notions that are certainly kufr if he utters them, and he
dislikes such thoughts and abhors such notions these vile thoughts will not harm him. In fact this
is an strong indication of faith.
122

17. If one utters kufr to make others laugh, those who laugh will become kfir; except when it is
involuntary for example when it is very funny and one cannot help laughing. The basis here is that
one should not laugh approvingly, as approval of kufr is also kufr.
18. If one utters words of kufr citing another, it is not kufr if the citation is meant for a valid purpose
such as witness or asking for fatw, or warning Muslims of the person uttering such kufr; but if it is
said in mirth and in an approving manner, it is kufr.
19. If a preacher says something which is kufr,
123
and the community approves of it, the whole
community becomes kfir.
20. If a person is pleased with kufr himself, he becomes a kfir; however, if he is pleased with kufr of
another person, scholars have differed, some have ruled him a kfir some have not. The summary
is, if it is for a reason such as worldly benefit or jealousy etc., he is not ruled kfir; but if it is because
he approves of kufr, he becomes a kfir.
21. If one prays: May Allh tl give you death on kufr or May Allh take away your mn, it wont
make him kfir [as it could be in anger, hatred etc] unless he approves of kufr and dislikes faith.
22. If someone attributes Allh tl with things that are inappropriate, and another person approves
of it, both become kfir.
23. If one does or says something kufr under duress or threat to life or limb, he will not become a kfir
as long as Islm is firm in his heart, and he utters kufr only in fear. It is recommended though, not
to utter kufr even out of fear.
24. If a person becomes an apostate, all his previous deeds are nullified according to anafs; thus, he
will have to do a ajj once again if he has the means to do it; however, it is not necessary for him to
repeat obligatory prayers and fasts. Shfis say that his deeds will be nullified only if he dies
without repentance, and if he repents, it is not required for him to repeat his ajj.
25. After apostasy, a person will not revert to Islm if he utters the shahdah merely repeating by habit.
He will have to expressly repent from the utterance or deed that made him an apostate and explicitly
renew his faith (and disavow the cause of his apostasy).
26. An apostate is practically expelled from the community: he cannot receive zakt, he cannot marry a
Muslim; when he dies, he will neither be washed, nor prayed upon, nor buried in the Muslim
cemetery.
27. An apostate can neither inherit nor his inheritance disbursed (with varying cases and differences in
madhhabs.
28. If he cohabits with his wife without renewing his faith, such a relationship is deemed adultery and
children from such relations are considered illegitimate.

122
Waswasah: whispering of the Devil and wild thoughts are exempt as long as one does not say them aloud or act upon such
instigations.
123
Things which are obviously kufr, because things that are open for interpretation will be investigated and a verdict will be
given by scholars on such disputes.
21

29. When a person becomes an apostate man or woman, freeman or slave Islm will be presented
to them; if they accept and renew their faith, they will be released, or else they will be executed.
However, in the anaf madhhab the apostate woman will not be executed.
30. If a person becomes an apostate, repents and becomes a muslim; and then becomes an apostate
again for a number of times the majority of scholars [and anafs included] ruled that he will be
tolerated for three times and the fourth time he becomes an apostate, he will be executed forthwith
without any remission.
Advice: one should recite this du every morning and night: My Lord! I seek your refuge from
committing polytheism knowingly, and I seek your forgiveness from that which I do unknowingly.
124

124
Bukhr in Adab al-Mufrad:

22

III. BLASPHEMY AND ISLAMIC LAW
Allh tl guided us through His Messenger , and it is because of him that mankind has come out of
darkness into light. It is because of him that we are blessed in this world and in the hereafter. His
station near Allh tl is higher than we can probably imagine; he is the most beloved to Allh tl
in the creation. Allh tl commanded us to love and respect him indeed, loving the Prophet is the
basis of faith and one cannot be a complete Muslim until he loves the Prophet more than he loves his
own parents, his children and everything else in the creation.
O Messenger! Verily, We have sent you as a witness, a
bringer of glad tidings and a warner [of punishment]. So
that, [O people] you may believe in Allh and His
messenger; and that you revere him and respect him,
and that you sanctify your Lord in the morning and
evening.
125

Allh tl forbade us to hurt the Prophet ; Muslims from the time of the companions have agreed
unanimously concerning one who denigrates or disrespects the Prophet : such a person is an apostate
and shall be executed. Hurting the Prophet invites the Wrath of Allh tl:
And those who hurt the Messenger of Allh, for them is
a painful punishment
126

Verily, those who hurt Allh and His Messenger; Allh
has damned them in this world and the hereafter; and
readied for them a humiliating punishment.
127

When the Jews of Madnah used innuendos in addressing the Prophet , Muslims were forbidden to use
such words because of ugly meanings,
128
and thus disrespectful to the Prophet . Allh tl has Himself
refuted and repelled attacks upon His beloved Prophet in the Qurn and He is a sufficient Protector.
It is necessary for us to support our Prophet by every means possible expending our lives and
property to defend his honour from every debased wretch who attempts to besmirch it; the least we
can do to fulfil his right upon us is to speak out against such blasphemers, and those in power and
authority should have them executed.
Imm Subki says:
I do not have the power to avenge the accursed blasphemer myself but Allh tl knows that my heart despises
him; yet, it is not sufficient to merely consider it evil in the heart; rather, it is incumbent upon me to strive as much as
I can with my tongue and my pen. I beseech Allh tl to not reprimand me for the paucity of my response and that
He [still] grants me salvation which He grants those who forbid from evil; verily, He is Oft-Forgiving, the Pardoner.
129

Ibn Taymiyyah has said:
This is the least that we can do to fulfil his right upon us rather, Allh tl has made it obligatory upon us to
respect him , to aid his cause in every possible way and to sacrifice our lives and property at every juncture,
defending his honour from every scoundrel seeking to hurt it. Although, Allh tl has made His Messenger free
from being dependent on the creation for assistance, he tests us to differentiate who amongst us will stand up to
support him and who does not...
130


125
Srah Fat, 48:8-9
126
Srah Tawbah, 9:61.
127
Srah Azb, 33:57.
128
Obviously, when Muslims used those words, they never intended to insult the Prophet , yet they were forbidden to use
words which could also be used as innuendos; therefore, intention to insult is not a valid excuse in the case of blasphemy.
129
Imm Subk, Sayf al-Masll, p114.
130
fi Ibn Taymiyyah, rim al-Masll, p28.
23

What is Blasphemy?
Blasphemy is a special case of apostasy. Insulting, mocking or disrespecting Allh tl or His prophets;
especially, the final Prophet, our master Muammad are all forms of blasphemy. In this chapter we
discuss blasphemy against the Prophet Muammad and consequences of such blasphemy. This is a
very important topic discussed in considerable detail by Islamic jurists; prominent scholars have
written dedicated books on this topic, the summary of which can be found in Q ys statement:
Whoever insults the Prophet or criticises him or discredits him, or alleges that he had a flaw or fault in his person,
or his ancestry, or his religion, or his attributes; or poses an objection to disparage or denigrate him or attempts to
diminish his lofty stature, or slights him or speaks lightly of him, or malign him is a blasphemer.
Such a person shall be executed without any exception or without any argument whether such insults are explicit
or implied, which we shall discuss further.
Similarly, anybody who curses him, or imprecates him, or wishes him harm, or attributes things to him which do not
befit his elevated rank by way of ridiculing him or mocking him or hurls profanities at him or refers to him in obscene
language or objectionable speech, or degrades him because of the trials he underwent or hardships he had to bear;
or scorns him for certain human characteristics which are admissible for him: in all these cases [the person becomes
a blasphemer] and it is unanimously agreed by all Muslims from the time of the companions until now and thus it
shall continue.
Ab Bakr ibn al-Mundhir said: There is ijm that a blasphemer of the Prophet shall be executed; and among
those who held this opinion are Mlik ibn Anas, Layth, Amed [ibn anbal], Isq; and this is the madhhab of Shfi.
[Q y says:] This is implied from what Ab Bakr as-iddq has said; and according to [all of] them the
repentance of such a blasphemer is inadmissible. Ab anfah and his companions, [Sufyn] al-Thawr, Scholars of
Kf, Awz have also said similar to this, except that they have said that it is apostasy. Wald ibn Muslim has also
reported similarly from Mlik, abar reports the same from Ab anfah and his companions about a person who
disrespects the Prophet or dissociates from him, or belies him.
131

We shall summarise major issues, rulings and illustrations gleaned from four major books on the
subject, and important citations; however, a detailed examination of the topic is beyond the scope of
this book. The four books we shall mention are:
Kitb al-Shif, the final section by Q y al-Malik
rim al-Masll l Shtim al-Rasl by fi Ibn Taymiyyah al-anbal
132

Sayf al-Masll l man Sabb al-Rasl by Imm Taqyuddn l al-Subk al-Shfi
Tanbh al-Wult wal ukkm l Akmi Shtimi Khayr al-Anm by Ibn bidn al-anaf
Regardless of the blasphemer being a Muslim or a disbeliever, blasphemy of the Prophet is punishable
by death. There is a unanimous agreement of all Muslims from the time of the companions, that a
blasphemer should be executed. The Mliks and anbals do not accept, nor requisition repentance of
the blasphemer whereas, the Shfis and anafs
133
accept his repentance; and in case of [blasphemy
of] a disbeliever, his conversion to Islm is mandatory for repentance and to save him from the gallows.
According to some scholars, after his execution his property will be distributed among his Muslim
inheritors; others opined that it will not be distributed and will be given to the common fund of Muslims.
It should be emphasised that in all cases of punishments, only a Muslim ruler vested with the authority

131
Kitb al-Shif, p355. Part Four, Chapter One.
132
He is considered as a relied upon authority in the anbal madhhab and Deobandis/Salafis hold him in high esteem; besides,
Imm Subk commended the book even though he disagreed with some of its opinions, as he writes:
I have seen the book written by Abul bbs Amed ibn bd al-alm ibn bd al-Salm ibn Taymiyyah, which he named, As-rim al-Masll l Shtim
al-Rasl and he has described twenty-seven proofs for the execution of a blasphemer. He has described it in detail and described it well and has given
extensive proofs from tradition, viewpoints [of scholars] and implications derived from evidence [and the entire book is one volume]. However, in my
heart, I am not convinced with his opinion that execution is mandatory even after the blasphemer reverts to Islm. Yet, this is a debatable point and
if a scholar is convinced of its veracity, there is no harm in his choosing the opinion he is convinced with; the basis of leading or following [ijtihd-
taqld] is based on the strength of conviction. [Sayf al-Masll, p387].
133
There is a disagreement among anaf scholars; Bazzz and those who followed him did not accept repentance following
the anbals and Mliks; and others did not agree with Bazzz as Ibn bidn explains in Tanbh.
24

to impose sharh can administer such punishments and executions, after due process of law.
Individuals cannot and should not take the law in their own hands. It should also be noted that even
though blasphemy is a case of apostasy, certain rulings differ from general cases of apostasy such as
accepting the repentance and apostasy of womenfolk. Generally, anafs do not make it mandatory to
execute women because of apostasy, except in the case of blasphemy.
Ibn Nujaym, the anaf imm says:
The ruling is the same concerning apostasy regardless of the cause, except in a few [special] cases. The first case is
blasphemy of the Prophet . In Fat al-Qadr: Anyone who dislikes the Prophet in his heart is an apostate, and
blasphemy is worse.
134

According to anafs, he will be executed as statutory punishment
135
and his repentance is not accepted to save him
from the gallows. It is said that it is the madhhab of the Kfan scholars and Mlik. It is reported from Ab Bakr as-
iddq : It makes no difference whether someone reports that he has repented or he announces it himself, unlike
any other form of apostasy.
136

Ibn Taymiyyah says:
...as Ab Bakr as-iddq wrote: The punishment for [blaspheming] Prophets does not resemble other statutory
punishments; whosoever does it that is, commits blasphemy against Prophets if he is a Muslim, he becomes an
apostate; and if he is a disbeliever with a covenant, he becomes a warring disbeliever and a rebel. Rather, he is the
most hostile of all disbelievers.
137

Q y says:
Sann
138
said concerning blasphemy of the Prophet that it is apostasy similar to zandaqah;
139
it is because of this
statement there is a difference of opinion concerning acceptance of a blasphemers repentance and
anathematisation; and whether he should be executed on account of statutory punishment [add] or apostasy?
140

He explains that no scholar has disagreed that it is apostasy; those who said that the blasphemer is
executed as add and not as an apostate, is only when such a person is not obdurate about his statement
deemed as blasphemy.
The second opinion
141
is that [disrespect] is a proof of kufr and therefore [a blasphemer] will be executed as statutory
punishment, even if he is not ruled an apostate; except when such a person is impenitent about his statement [of
disrespect] and when he does not reject it nor discard it, such a person is [certainly a] kfir.
142



134
Because he openly shows his dislike opposed to the person who conceals it in his heart.
135
add.
136
Bar ar-Ryiq, 5/202.
137
rim, p299.
138
bd al-Salm ibn Sad al-Tannkh [160-240 AH]. the author of Mudawwanah. Another quote from his son, Muammad
ibn Sunn [202-265 AH] follows shortly, which is also shown on the cover of this book. Ibn ajar says that Sann is the
nickname of the father. [See Lisn al-Mzn, entries #3353 and #7089]. In a footnote in Sayf al-Masll, Shaykh Iyad Amed al-
Ghawj says that Sann is with a fatah according to Ibn Makki al-ql [d.501 AH] in his Tathqf al-Lisn. Dhahab says that
Sunn and Sann are both correct, and it is the name of a bird found in North-Western Africa [Siyar 12/68]. I have used
Sann predominantly, but I may ocassionaly use the other spelling, subconsciously following the copy of Shif, I usually refer
[with the commentary of Shumunn] which marks it as Sunn.
139
Zandaqah: Ibn Qarql said that a Zindq is a person who is a freethinker; who does not believe in any of the well-known
religions or well-known sects within a religion. It is also used to describe a person who rejects religion completely and religious
laws [even if he is not an atheist]. The term is also used to describe those who claim to profess Islm outwardly, but secretly
they hold beliefs that contradict Islm. Originally, it is a Persian word used to describe followers of Manichaeism and named
[Manis] book [yn e Mn] that he wrote invalidating [their religion]; it came into Arabic. [Shumunn, Muzl al-Khaf, 355 and
Qr in his commentary].
140
Shif, p356.
141
transmitted by Awz, Thawr, Imm Ab anfah and others [Khafj, Nasm ar-Riy]
142
Shif, p360.
25

One of the oft-cited passages concerning this issue is the statement of Imm Muammad ibn Sann
quoted by Q y:
Muammad ibn Sann said that scholars are in unanimous agreement that the blasphemer of the Prophet and
his denigrator is an apostate. Allhs promise of punishment for such a person is ordained. The punishment for such
a person in our nation is execution. Whosoever doubts in his apostasy and that a blasphemer will be punished has
himself become an apostate.
143

Further he says:


In Mabs, a report from thmn ibn Kinnah says: Whoever insults the Prophet among Muslims will be executed
or crucified and his repentance will not be [requisitioned nor] accepted. The ruler can choose whatever is appropriate:
whether to crucify or to execute.
...we heard Mlik say: Whoever insults the Prophet or disrespects him or denigrates shall be executed, regardless
whether such a person is Muslim or kfir and his repentance will not be accepted at any cost.
...Ibn Wahb reports from Mlik that he said: Whoever says the mantle of the Prophet was dirty, and he says this
denigrating the Prophet shall be executed.
144

Similarly, Abul asan al-Qbisi ruled a person who described the Prophet as a camel-driver and an
orphan in the care of Ab lib. Also, [Q] Ibn Ab Zayd ordered the execution of a person who
disrespected the Prophet . People were discussing the attributes of the Prophet and an ugly person
with a dishevelled beard passed by; the man said, Do you wish to know of his attributes? They were
the same as this passerby in his face and his beard. The Q did not accept his repentance and said
about the scoundrel: may he be accursed, such a thing will not issue from the heart of a believer.
Similarly, Ab Sulayman, a companion of Sann said that whosoever says that the Prophet was dark
skinned will be executed. It is necessary to note that no interpretation will be accepted in explicit insults:
Ab Sulayman reports about a person who was told: Dont you heed the right of the Messenger of Allh? The person
said: May Allh do such and such things with the Messenger of Allh, mentioning ugly things. He was told: What
are you barking about, you enemy of Allh! and the person said something worse than what he said before; and
then he said: By messenger of Allh, I was referring to the scorpion. Ab Sulayman said: I bear witness [have him
executed] and I will have a share in your reward.
145

abb ibn Rab says that it was because these are explicit words and [fancy] interpretations in explicit
insults will not be admissible. Similarly, a person who said: If I am asked and I am ignorant about it,
then [What is so remarkable?] the Prophet has also been asked [of things] and he was uninformed.
146

In Mu it is said that if one refers to a hair of the Prophet as a tiny whisker
147
has committed kufr
according to some, and others disagreed and said, he wont be ruled kfir unless he has said that
derogatively.
148
Another incident about the scholar Ibn tim al-ulayul is mentioned who was
crucified when he was disrespectful to the Prophet . In a debate, he [derogatively] referred to the
Prophet as an orphan and father-in-law of l;
149
and he claimed that the austerity and abstinence of
the Prophet was not voluntary and if he could afford better things [in food and drink] he would
have partaken of them. The jurists of Qayrawn and companions of Sann ordered the execution of
Ibrhm al-Fazry who was a talented poet and a versatile scholar. He was accused of blasphemy
against Allh tl, His prophets and also our Prophet .

143
Shif, p356.
144
Alahazrat was asked about this: After all, it would get soiled due to wordly constraints. Alahazrat thundered: Why doesnt
he say that dust has found refuge in his blessed mantle? Nevertheless, if a person says this as mere information without the
intention of denigrating the Prophet , he will not become a kfir, as is obvious.
145
Ibid.
146
the words used are jahiltu jahila, which are explicit. I have translated jahila as he was uninformed.
147
Which may sound strange in translation, but in Arabic, the diminutive would be derogative.
148
Cf. Tanbh al-Wult, p326.
149
While it is factually correct that the Prophet was orphaned and Ab lib became his guardian; and that Mawl l was the
son-in-law of the Prophet , referring to him thus is disrespectful and derisive. If a man says referring to his mother: that
woman, who is my fathers wife, it may be factually correct but a disrespectful way of addressing his mother.
26

Q Yay ibn mar tried him and [after proven guilty], he was sent to the gallows, killed by the sword
and hung upside down [as a warning to others]. When his body was being brought down from the
scaffold, it slipped and fell such that his face was turned away from the Qiblah; Takbr
150
issued from
the crowd that witnessed his hanging. Thereafter, a dog came around licking the blood of the scoundrel
and Yay ibn mar said, the Prophet has said: A dog shall not mess with the blood of a Muslim. Q
y concludes the section thus:
Habb ibn Rab al-Qaraw said: the madhhab of Mlik and his companions is that whoever uttered anything which
is derogatory to the Prophet , such a person will be executed without any pardon. Ibn ttb has said: The Book and
Sunnah necessitate that whosoever intends to give the Prophet offence or hurt him, or is derogatory to him
whether implied or explicitly howsoever little that [insult or offence] may be, it is obligatory to execute him.
If a person utters anything mentioned in this chapter, which scholars have deemed as insulting and derogatory to
the Prophet ; a person who utters these things shall be executed. No scholar has differed in this issue neither the
early nor the later ones, even though they differed [on the circumstances] to rule for execution. Similarly, I say that
anyone who impinges on his honour, or derisively says that he was a shepherd or belittles him for forgetting
something or that he suffered because of sorcery, or that he was wounded or his army was defeated [in battle, such
as Uud] or hurt by his enemies, or the hardship he endured, or the affection he had for his [blessed] women; anyone
who deliberately says all this to denigrate him shall be executed.
151

Hrn Rashd asked Imm Mlik about a person who insulted the Prophet , and mentioned that some
jurists of Iraq ruled that he should be lashed. Imm Mlik was enraged and said: O Commander of the
Faithful! Does anything remain for the ummah, after the denigration of its Prophet ? Those who
disrespect prophets shall be executed and those who insult the companions shall be lashed. Q y
wonders who these jurists of Iraq were, because prominent jurists of Iraq have ruled that such a person
shall be executed. He says that it could be an ordinary scholar who was relatively unknown or that he
was not an upright scholar; or that scholar must have said so because that punishment was prescribed
for a person who had already repented and reverted to Islm.
Scriptural Proofs for Punishment of a Blasphemer
According to the Qurn, the blasphemer of the Prophet is damned in this world and in the hereafter.
Allh tl has equated hurting the Prophet with hurting Allh tl, even though none can hurt Him;
Q y mentions the following verses in this regard:
Verily, those who hurt Allh and His Messenger; Allh
has damned them in this world and the hereafter; and
readied for them a humiliating punishment.
152

Damned they are wherever they are found, they shall
be captured and [every one] put to death.
153

May Allh destroy them, where do they rush headlong
[away from the truth]?
154

And among them are those who hurt the prophet and
they say He hears.
155

150
The cries of Allhu Akbar, God is the Greatest.
151
Shifa, p357-358. Even though historical facts, mentioning these things derisively is insulting to him and therefore
blasphemy; but if he mentions it as historical facts, he shall not be reproached [Khafj, Nasm].
152
Srah Azb, 33:57.
153
Srah Azb, 33:61.
154
Srah Munfiqn, 63:4. Ibn Kathr: How they go astray - from guidance towards evil, corruption.
155
Srah Tawbah, 9:61. Qurub: [A hypocrite said]: Verily, Muammad is all ears; he listens to everything said to him.
27

Never, by your Lord! They will not become believers until
they have made you their judge in all their disputes and
do not find objection in their hearts when you pronounce
your judgement; and [until] they submit to your
command without hesitation.
156

And those who hurt the Messenger of Allh, for them is
a painful punishment
157

If you ask them, [why they said so] they will reply, We
were jesting and were being playful. Tell them: Do you
make fun of Allh tl, His verses and His Messenger?
Do not give excuses you have disbelieved after
professing faith.
158

Exegetes have said that they became kfirs because of what they had said concerning RaslAllh .
In a adth narrated by l , RaslAllh said: Execute those who insult a prophet, and lash those
who insult my companions. In another a adth, RaslAllh commanded the execution of Kab
ibn Ashraf and said: Who will punish Kab ibn Ashraf, for he hurts Allh and His Messenger? and this
was only on account of his hurting the Messenger.
Similarly, Ab Rfi used to disparage the Prophet and was put to death. On the day of the Triumph
of Makkah, Ibn Khaal and his two slavegirls who would sing poems insulting the Prophet ; all of them
were sentenced to death.
159
Ibn Khaal, Ibn al-Zibir,
160
Ibn Abis Sar, krimah ibn Ab Jahl and a few
others were commanded to be killed, regardless of where they were found. Yet, those among the
condemned ones who became Muslims and came with repentance, RaslAllh forgave them, like Ibn
Abis Sar and others. Ibn Khaal was found hiding in the drapes of the Kbah and was killed there itself.
In another adth, a man insulted the Prophet and he said: Who will suffice me from this enemy of
mine? Khlid [ibn Wald] said, I shall and the Prophet sent Khalid who executed the
blasphemer.
161
In another narration, a blind man killed his slavegirl because she insulted the Prophet
, and when this reached the Prophet , he did not punish or ask the blind man to pay blood money.
When Ab Bakr was insulted, a man stood up in the gathering and sought permission
162
to smite the
neck of the insulter; Ab Bakr said: Sit down, execution is only in the case of a person who insults
RaslAllh . When a person killed a man who insulted mar , the then Caliph, mar ibn bd al-zz
wrote to his governors that the death penalty is given only for those who insult the Prophet because
the blood of such a person is permissible; the death penalty will not apply for insulting anyone else.
Similarly those blasphemers among the Jinn were killed by Muslim Jinns. A woman in Yemen
blasphemed against the Prophet in the time of Ab Bakr , singing poems deriding the Prophet ,
and the governor of the province had her teeth broken and her hands amputated. When this reached
Ab Bakr , he wrote: If you had not punished her already, I would have ordered you to execute her,
because blasphemy of prophets is unlike any other statutory punishment.
Ijm has been mentioned already and there are also proofs from analogy as described by Imm Subki.
That sums up the basis for execution of a blasphemer from all the four sources of legislation: kitb,
sunnah, ijm and qiys.

156
Srah Nisa, 4:65.
157
Srah Tawbah, 9:61.
158
Srah Tawbah, 9:65-66.
159
According to varying reports one or both the slavegirls repented and RaslAllh forgave them; Ibn Khaal was executed.
160
Khafj says that it is either Zabir or Zibir [Nasm al-Riy, 6/193].
161
In another narration, it is Zubayr ; or it could be two different occasions and two different scoundrels who had
blasphemed. In yet another narration, it is a woman and Khlid ibn Wald executes her.
162
This is a clear instruction that people should not take the law in their own hands; only authorities should try the person
and after evidence is produced and blasphemy established, the judgement and death penalty shall be pronounced.
28

Those the Prophet Pardoned
There are many occasions when the Prophet spared the death penalty or any other punishment for
those who hurt him. For example, when a Jewish man told the Prophet while saluting him: as-smu
laykum,
163
but he was not punished. This sentence means: Death to you, because sm means death.
On another occasion a person was dissatisfied with the distribution of the Prophet and said: this is
not for the pleasure of Allh,
164
and he was offended because of it and said, Ms was given more
offence than this and yet, he remained patient. Also, the Prophet did not sentence those hypocrites to
death who harmed him and inflicted abuse upon his esteemed person.
Q y says that it was because of the Prophets forbearance and that he tolerated the
maltreatment of disbelievers and was patient even in the face of physical harm. But this was in the initial
stages of Islm, when Muslims did not have sufficient authority and force to prevent people from
disrespecting the Prophet . Moreover, the Law was not yet established and people had not fully seen
the extent of forgiveness and forbearance of the Prophet . Suppose, these executions were carried out
in the initial stages of Islm, people would pick on these stray incidents and generalise that the Prophet
of Islm was harsh. He once said about a person who was disrespectful and a companion wanted to
execute him: People will then say that Muammad executes his companions. But when numerous
examples of his charity, his kindness and benevolence, his readiness to forgive, his patience in the face
of violence and rudeness were established over many years, the Law could be promulgated; as Imm
Mlik said: What would remain of a nation, if its Prophet is disparaged?
Therefore, Ibn Khaal was executed after Victory, and the ruling on blasphemy became strict. However,
the Prophet continued to forgive those who asked for his forgiveness, like Ibn Abis Sar, as we shall
see presently. Q y says, it was his right to forgive not anybody elses discretion after him :
He would accommodate disbelievers and hypocrites and was amicable with them; he would ignore their [slights
and offence] and would bear with their rudeness and abuse; he would be patient with harshness and
discourteousness. But that is not permissible for us we cannot forbear or be patient with those who are disrespectful
to him.
165

Hypocrites would say things disrespectful to the Prophet in secret and behind his back, but conceal
their hatred and enmity when they were among Muslims; the Prophet knew all about this and still
ignored it, even though what they were saying behind his back was patent disbelief. Scholars have
opined that it was because Islm and its laws were new and it would be some more time before penal
law would be fully enforced and regardless, as long as they concealed their hatred and derision, they
would not be punished because rulings of the Sharh are based only on what is apparent. Muammad
ibn al-Mawwz said that if the hypocrites professed their enmity in the open, the Prophet would have
punished them.
Q y says that the Jews salutation was not an explicit insult, but wishing him misfortune and an
attempt to hurt him; which counts as giving him offence, not an insult; it is therefore Imm Bukhr
captioned this adth: If a dhimmi or others say something by way of innuendo or implies disrespect to
the Prophet . It may not count as disrespect and perhaps therefore, the Prophet did not execute
him. He further adds that causing offence to him or insulting him deserves the same ruling.
However, the Jew was not punished because RaslAllh made concessions in his hope of bringing
them to Islm similar is the case of the bedouin who caused hurt to RaslAllh as he explains:
If you say: it is mentioned in a a adth that Sayyidah ishah said: He did not take revenge for wrongs to
his own self; however, if things sacred and forbidden by Allh tl [to violate] were breached, he would take action.
Know, that it does not mean he never punished those who insulted him or offended him or belied him because
this is also sacred and forbidden by Allh tl,
166
and therefore he took action. However, he did not avenge such
wrongs which were due to the boorishness [of some folk] or lack of etiquette in dealings or [harshness in] word or

163
Instead of as-salmu laykum, by eliding one letter.
164
He insinuated against the Prophet .
165
Shif, p361.
166
The honour of the Messenger is indeed sacred, and breaching it is blasphemy.
29

deed concerning his blessed person or property, which the perpetrator did not intend to hurt him, but was the
nature of the desert Arab harsh, ignorant and impertinence [that made them do so].
For example, a bedouin yanked the garment of the Prophet so vigorously that it caused a rash on his neck;
another person spoke in a very loud voice in his presence; another bedouin argued with the Prophet concerning
the sale of a horse in which Khuzaymah bore witness;
167
or the alliance of his two wives
168
and other such things
which deserve forgiveness. Some scholars have said that hurting the Prophet is absolutely forbidden; it will not be
permissible by a mub action.
Similarly, those kfirs whom RaslAllh expected to come to Islm, like the Jew who poisoned him,
or the bedouin who sought to kill him or the Jewish woman who poisoned his food were spared because
he wanted them to come to Islm.
Seven Categories of Rulings Concerning Disrespect
Q y mentions seven possibilites of statements deemed blasphemy, denigration or causing offence
to the Prophet . I have listed them below with brief illustrations; see Appendix G for a complete
translation.
1. A person says blasphemous things and he says them deliberately with the intention to hurt or
disrespect the Prophet . This is outright apostasy and it carries death penalty without amnesty.
2. A person says things deemed blasphemy; even though his intention might not be to disrespect the
Prophet nor hurt him yet, he has uttered these things deliberately and consciously; therefore,
he becomes an apostate and his punishment is death without amnesty as in the previous case.
3. A person seeks to belie his speech or the message he has brought or deny his prophethood
or being a Messenger of Allah. This is also apostasy and carries the death penalty.
4. A person utters something which is not an explicit insult and his statement is open for interpretation
and there is ambiguity whether his statement is directed towards the Prophet or toward others.
If the intention is proven to be blasphemy, he is awarded the death sentence if a favourable
interpretation can be found, he will be asked to repent and refrain from such things in the future.
5. A person does not intend to denigrate the Prophet or mention a flaw or disrespect him; but he
mentions certain mundane things that are permissible for the Prophet as an example to justify
his own cause or bolster his argument or exonerate his own self. Here too, statements will be
examined and punishment differs according to the severity of his statement; if blasphemy is proven,
the person shall be executed.
6. A person mentions blasphemies of others and mentions them by way of citation; these kind of
citations fall into four categories: wjib, mandb, makrh and arm. If a person cites blasphemous
sayings or poetry without any valid reason, the context of his citation is examined; rulings and
punishments concerning such people differ accordingly.
7. This case is different from the six above and does not entail express or implied insult; neither in
words themselves or in the meaning of such words. These are reports of certain events and adth
mentioned in books and are mentioned purely as an academic exercise. In all these cases only such
things which are permissible to attribute to RaslAllh are mentioned. However, if a person
mentions these permissible things with an intention to belittle or disparage the Prophet , he shall
be ruled as a blasphemer in one of the six categories above.

167
RaslAllh purchased a horse from a bedouin who disputed the sale thereafter. Khuzaymah gave witness in favour of
RaslAllh , who asked him: How can you bear witness when you were not present with us? He said: O Messenger of Allh!
I bore witness in your favour because I have believed in your message; and believe that you speak nothing but the truth.
RaslAllh said: Khuzaymahs witness is sufficient for anyone for or against. [Usd al-Ghbah, #1446].
168
Khafaji says that it is about the two wives who collaborated against another wife, which was mentioned in the Qurn, Srah
Tarm; the word used here, ar means mutual cooperation and mutual validation.
30

Punishment of those who insult the Prophet
It is a matter of unanimous agreement in the ummah, that a person disrespecting the Prophet or
disparaging him is an apostate and shall be executed if he/she does not repent. Whether a Muslim or a
disbeliever, whether a man or a woman the blasphemer of the Prophet is given capital punishment.
However, there is a debate among scholars concerning repentance Mlik, anbal and some anaf
169

scholars emphatically ruled that repentance will not prevent the execution of the blasphemer; that is, a
blasphemer will be executed regardless of his repentance. The majority of Shfis and anafs however
ruled that the repentance of a blasphemer is acceptable and s/he can be granted clemency. Mlik
scholars were of the opinion that execution is a statutory punishment for blasphemy and hence cannot
be waived even if the criminal repents; those who disagreed with them said that blasphemy causes a
Muslim to become an apostate and he shall be dealt with as an apostate; consequently, if an apostate
repents and converts to Islm, he is spared the death penalty. If a disbeliever commits blasphemy,
he/she is pardoned if he/she converts to Islm and disavow what they have said earlier. Ibn bidn
writes citing Imm Subki from his Sayf al-Masll:
Q y said that the entire ummah is in unanamious agreement that a Muslim who disparages or disrespects
should be executed. Ab Bakr ibn al-Mundhir said that majority of scholars have agreed that the punishment is
death for a blasphemer of the Prophet ; among those who held this opinion are Mlik ibn Anas, Layth, Amed
[ibn anbal], Isq and Shfi. Q y said: Similar is the statement of Ab anfah and his companions,
[Sufyn] Thawri, scholars of Kf and Awz.
Muammad ibn Sann has said that scholars are in unanimous agreement that the blasphemer of the Prophet
and his denigrator is an apostate. Allhs promise of punishment for such a person is ordained. The punishment
for such a person in our nation is execution. Whosoever doubts in the apostasy and punishment for the
blasphemer has himself become an apostate. Ab Sulaymn al-Khab said: I do not know any Muslim who
disagreed that it is mandatory to execute the blasphemer.
170

Criticising Ibn azm obliquely, who has an aberrant opinion, he says:
Some scholar is quoted as having said that the person will not be anathematised unless he considers blasphemy
as permissible. This is a big stumble and a great mistake no reliable scholar has ever said such a thing nor can
any valid evidence be found for such an opinion.
Execution of the Blasphemer: Apostasy or add?
The basis for the execution of a blasphemer is debated upon by scholars; whether he is executed as an
apostate, or execution is statutory punishment along with apostasy. One of the literal meanings of add
is prevention. Certain punishments are termed add because they are meant to be deterrents to
committing such sins; when the sin is proven to have been committed,
171
it is legally binding to
administer the add and impermissible for anyone to pardon because it is the right of Allh tl. It is
therefore that RaslAllh did not accept Usmahs intercession for a lady from the Makhzm tribe
who was caught stealing and told him: ..do you intercede [to seek exemption from] the punishment
ordained by Allh tl?
172
According to Mliks, punishment for blasphemy is a add and therefore,
they said that execution cannot be spared by repentance. Q y says:
The opinion of Mlik and his companions, statements of elders [salaf] and majority of scholars is that execution
of the blasphemer is a statutory punishment not [merely] for apostasy; and he shall be executed even if he
repents from his blasphemy; therefore, they have said that the repentance of a blasphemer is unacceptable.
173


169
Ibn bidn notes in Tanbh that those who wrote that the repentance of a blasphemer is unacceptable followed Bazzzs
lead; those interested in the analysis and appraisal of Bazzzs position may please refer to Tanbh al-Wult.
170
Tanbh al-Wult, Rasyil Ibn bidn 1/316.
171
Whether by testimony of others or by confession.
172
These punishments are for deterrence the add for adultery thus is to protect lineage and legitimacy of births, the add
for stealing is to protect property, the add for intoxication is to avert people losing sanity and consciousness thereby
preventing them from committing other crimes, the add for false accusation of adultery [qadhaf] is to protect honour. The
add for an apostate is death penalty if he does not revert to Islm; this is to safeguard our religion if the penalty for apostasy
was not death, then many people with weak faith would become apostates, al-ydhu billh.
173
Shif, p377.
31

Muammad ibn Sann said that a blasphemer does not automatically transfer to another religion by
committing blasphemy of the Prophet , rather he has committed an unpardonable crime and its
punishment is death; his execution will not be stayed even if he repents.
174
Among Shfis Ab Bakr al-
Farisi and Ab Bakr al-Qaffl have a similar opinion and Imm al-aramayn favoured it. However
according to Imm Subki, the madhhab of Imm Shfi which is generally followed by rulers
everywhere is that the repentance of a blasphemer is accepted [and hence spared execution after
repentance and reverting to Islm]. Shfis and anafs said that blasphemy is a form of apostasy and
therefore follows the rulings for an apostate; which means that if a blasphemer repents, he shall be
spared the death penalty.
[Imm Subki] said: This is what I know about Shfis; anafs are closer to Shfis in this respect and none among
anafs said that the repentance of a blasphemer is unacceptable. Both these groups did not discuss the issue
specifically about blasphemy; rather, this was mentioned under the topic of a dhimmi violating the covenant, and the
context was that a Muslim does not insult the Prophet . He further said: The anbals are closer to Mliks in this
issue, and it is famously known about [Imm] Amed that he did not accept the repentance of a blasphemer; even
though there is another report that he accepted it...
175

Ibn bidn, talking about the anaf position says that Q y, abar, Subk and Ibn Taymiyyah have
all mentioned invariably that Imm Ab anfahs position is that of accepting repentance of a Muslim
who has committed blasphemy; he cites Imam Ab Ysuf from his Kitb al-Kharj:
Any Muslim who disrespects the Prophet or belies him or disparages him or denigrates him had committed kufr and
disbelieved in Allh tl. His wife goes out of wedlock. If he repents [he will be spared] else, he shall be executed.
176

Imm Amed Ri says:
The ruling tawbah is not accepted holds good in Islamic lands ruled by a Muslim sovereign, so that the blasphemer
is executed even after his repentance.
177
Nevertheless, if a blasphemer sincerely repents, it is accepted near Allh
tl. The blasphemer should not make this [ruling] a basis to forsake repentance and say: If repentance is not
accepted, then why should I repent? No, this is not the case. Repentance will certainly erase kufr and make him a
Muslim and he will be saved from everlasting punishment in Hell. There is a unanimous agreement upon this as
described in Radd al-Mutr and other books.
178

Ibn bidn mentions Nutaf of Shaykh al-Islm Sughd,
179
Fatw of Muayyad Zdah, Shar al-aw,
Mun al-ukkm, Mina al-Ghaffr, Nr al-yn that the predominant opinion of scholars in the
madhhab is that a blasphemer is an apostate and shall be dealt as an apostate; which implies that he
shall be requisitioned to repent and if he does, he shall be spared execution.
I have seen in w of Zhid in which he quotes: If a person disrespects the Prophet , he becomes an apostate and
his repentance is [only valid] after he renews his faith. Some later scholars said that such a blasphemers repentance
is void and he shall be executed under add, based on the command of the Prophet , when he entered the city
after the Victory of Makkah, that those who disparaged the Prophet should be executed. However the accurate
position is that they will not be executed after renewing their faith, because the Prophet forbade l from killing
those Meccans who said l ilha illAllh Muammad RaslAllh [including] those who were already ordered to be
executed, as mentioned earlier those who disparaged the Prophet previously. This is because, disparaging or
disrespecting the Prophet is kufr which necessitates execution and renewing faith will absolve that sin of apostasy
and its mandatory punishment which is execution.
180

Ibn bidn mentions another opinion among anafs which is that of Shaykh al-Islm Abus Sd al-
md, that a blasphemer takes the ruling of a zindq; and if a zindq has already been reported to the
authorities and testimony [concerning his beliefs] has been validated, he shall be executed; his tawbah
is not accepted and it will not prevent his execution.

174
Paraphrased from Shif; see Tanbih al-Wult, p321.
175
Ibid., p323.
176
Cf. Tanbh p324.
177
As a deterrent to prevent others from committing blasphemy.
178
The Preamble to Faith, translation of Tamhid e mn, p41.
179
Shaykh al-Islm Abul asan l al-Sughd [d.461/1068].
180
Tanbh p324.
32

Ibn bidn finds this opinion self-contradictory as he analyses it in his Tanbih and his final word in this
matter is that a blasphemer will be spared the death penalty if he/she repents and renews their faith:
We cannot devise punishments and reprimands based on our own opinions; we are charged by the Prophet to act
upon the rule of law he has established if the lawmaker commands us to issue the death penalty, we do so and
if the lawmaker instructs us to forego execution, we shall desist. If we do not find explicit text in an issue, nor
confirmed opinions of our mujtahid imams, we must deliberate.
We cannot say that the love for our Prophet requires us to execute a person even if he reverts to Islm [and repents
from what issued from] his unbridled tongue. The condition for true love is in following [the Prophet ] not in
innovations. We fear that RaslAllh will be the first to question us concerning the blood of a person who is thus
executed; therefore, it is necessary for us to withhold [from ordering the execution of a repentant] when he reverts
to Islm. His Lord will hold him to account for whatever is in his heart because our Prophet accepted the Islm
of whosoever accepted it outwardly...
181

Another minor topic that is debated is: whether execution is for apostasy, or for blasphemy or for both?
Imm Subki says that in the case of a Muslim blasphemer, there are two bases for his execution: apostasy
and blasphemy; and both of them punishable by death; and execution is the statutory punishment in
both cases. Therefore the case of a Muslim blasphemer is much more serious than that of a kfir
blasphemer because the latter is held liable for one crime: that of blasphemy, not apostasy.
Repentance and Requisition of Repentance
182

It has been mentioned in various citations above that the repentance of a blasphemer is not acceptable
according to Mliks and anbals; and there is difference of opinion within the madhhab of both
Shfis and anafs.
As for the anbals, their opinion is closer to that of Mliks and Imm Ameds opinion is well-known that the
repentance of a blasphemer is not acceptable; however, there is another report that he considered it acceptable.
Anyhow, the madhhab of Imm Amed and Imm Mlik is the same.
183

Imm Subki notes that we do not have any validated report from the Prophet that he executed anyone
after reverting to Islm, and based on the adth: Islm annuls everything prior to it; and repentance
erases everything prior.
184
The preferred opinion of anafs is similar to that described by Imm Subki
according to Ibn bidn.
Imm Subki mentions three categories of disbelievers here: the original kfir, the apostate and the
blasphemer:
The original kfir who follows his religion and has been following it always.
The apostate and he is worse than the first and therefore nothing is accepted from him except Islm; in contrast
to the first kind who can [be dealt with] Jizyah or enslavement or pardon or ransom.
The blasphemer and he is the worst of the three. Because it is not his religion [to blaspheme] and he disparages
the prophets of Allh and His messengers. He plants doubts in the hearts of weak Muslims; therefore his crime is
the most heinous and therefore he will not be given the option of repentance in contrast to the second type;
because the common apostate may have a confusion [which led him to renege from faith] which could be clarified.
There is no reason [for anyone] to insult the Prophet nor any confusion about its [ruling].
Therefore it is neither mandatory nor preferable to requisition repentance and nothing prevents [the ruler]
executing him and cleansing this earth; if he repents, he has redeemed his own life. This is what I think is the reason
for the opinion that a blasphemer is abandoned, but if he repents it is accepted.
185


181
Tanbh Cf. Sayf al-Masll, p209.
182
istitbah: Giving the blasphemer an opportunity to repent; requisition for repentance from blasphemy.
183
Sayf al-Masll, p175.
184
Musnad Imm Amed, 4/199, 204; Muslim has a similar report but with a different wording.
185
Sayf al-Masll, p180; three kinds of disbelievers; notice Ibn Taymiyyah mentions three kinds of apostates as well.
33

The Original Kfir and the Apostate
The original kfir who is imprisoned as an enemy combatant will be at the discretion of the Muslim
commander; he is either executed or released or ransomed depending on the circumstances and the
situation. If he is a Jew or Christian, he may be released after accepting Jizyah or if he converts to Islm.
And if it is a woman, she will not be executed unless she is a fighting soldier. But an apostate is not dealt
similarly; he or she shall be forced to repent and revert to Islm; and no other option is possible either
they revert to Islm or they face execution. Imm Subki says:
Thus it should be apparent to you that an apostate is executed under add; and apostasy is a special form of disbelief
which is punishable by death and there is no other option for the apostate except to revert to Islm; this is unlike
any other form of kufr.
186

Differences between a Blaspheming Apostate and an Ordinary Apostate
The ruling concerning an apostate has been mentioned in the previous chapter. He shall be
requisitioned to repent and if he repents, he shall be spared the death penalty. However, concerning a
person whose apostasy is due to blasphemy of the Prophet :
Mliks and anbals did not accept the tawbah of a blaspheming apostate.
187

Shfis and anafs predominantly accepted the tawbah of a blaspheming apostate.
188

Some anaf scholars inclined towards the Mlik/anbal position and mentioned that the
blaspheming apostate cannot be spared execution even if he repents.
Another opinion is that when a Muslim commits blasphemy, he is dealt as a zindiq
189
- that is, if
a zindiq repents prior to his capture and trial, he will be pardoned; but if he is captured and he
repents thereafter, his repentance is not accepted and he will not escape the death penalty.
Blasphemy by a Dhimmi or Other Disbeliever
If a dhimmi commits blasphemy of the Prophet , the covenant he has with Muslims is voided according
to majority of scholars except Imm Ab anfah and Imm Sufyn al-Thawr who said that it does not
void their covenant. The other three madhhabs Mlik, Shfi and anbal say that a blaspheming
dhimmi gets the death penalty; but if he repents by converting to Islm, he shall be spared. According
to Ibn bidn, the following are the varying positions within madhhabs concerning repentance,
execution and pardon of a dhimmi:
1. Mliks:
a. The blaspheming dhimmi is executed if he is unrepentant; and his repentance is void as
long as he remains a kfir. Even though, Mliks do not admit the repentance of a
blasphemer and he shall be executed regardless of his repentance.
b. If the blaspheming dhimmi repents by converting to Islm, he shall escape the death
penalty according to the better known opinion of Mlik reported by Wald.

186
Sayf al-Masll, p154. Citing from Suys Ashbh, Al-Ghawj has mentioned twenty differences between an original kfir and
an apostate in his footnotes.
187
Ibn Taymiyyah mentions three categories of apostates: the apostate, the apostate who has additional crimes along with his
apostasy from Islm, and the blasphemer who becomes apostate because of it [rim, 376].
188
A further nuance concerning acceptance of repentance mentioned by Imm Subk as paraphrased by Haytami:
That which Imm Subk said about a blasphemer of our Prophet - that is, if he was well-known prior to his blasphemy as a man of dodgy beliefs [bi
fasdi qdatihi] and there is plenty of supplementary evidence that he committed this blasphemy with the intention of disparaging the Prophet ,
such a person will be executed and his repentance will not be accepted. [Ilm, p115].
Haytami says that this is Imm Subks own opinion and in which he differs from the rest of the Shfis, by his own admission;
and then mentions that his own shaykh, Imm Zakariyyah did not agree with it except in a specific case of blasphemy in which
the blasphemer accuses of adultery [qadhaf].
189
A closet heretic, whose heresy is either atheism or any such thing conflicting with fundamentals of Islm.
34

2. anbals:
a. Repentance is accepted absolutely: whether the blasphemer is a Muslim or a Kfir.
b. Repentance is unacceptable regardless of the blasphemer being a Muslim or a Kfir.
c. Repentance of a dhimmi is accepted if he converts to Islm; but repentance of a
blaspheming Muslim will be unacceptable.
3. Shfis:
a. According to Imm Shfi, if a dhimmi disparages the Prophet , he has voided his
covenant and shall be put to death; his opinion is based on the execution of Kab ibn
Ashraf.
b. The well-known opinion of most Shfi scholars is that the repentance of a blasphemer
is accepted and he shall be spared the death penalty after reverting to Islm.
4. anafs:
a. If a dhimmi commits blasphemy, he has not voided his covenant
190
and he shall be
reprimanded harshly; even though a blaspheming Muslim is put to death.
b. Shaykh Khayruddn al-Raml said in his marginalia of Bar that: just because his
covenant is not voided does not mean he will go unpunished and that he will not be
executed.
191
In other words, a dhimmi shall also be executed for blasphemy and will
escape the death penalty only if he converts to Islm.
c. Women are not executed for apostasy; however, if they disparage the Prophet , or
indulge in sorcery, they shall be executed as exceptions to the rule.
Ibn bidn says:
If you pose the objection: What is the difference between a dhimmi and a Muslim and you insist that according
to the madhhab of Ab anfah and his companions, if a Muslim blasphemer repents and reverts to Islm, he shall
not be killed?
I reply: A Muslims state is known; [blasphemy] might have occurred in a fit of rage or due to stupidity or slip of the
tongue not that he believes in it. So, when he repents and reverts to Islm, we accept him in faith. Contrast this with
a kfir, whose state suggests that he believes in such things and his utterance [disrespecting the Prophet ] is to
disparage our religion. We have mentioned earlier, that if a Muslim keeps repeating the same [blasphemous thing]
and is well-known for holding this belief and invites others to believe in it, he shall be executed. Neither is his
repentance accepted, nor is his Islm [he is] like a zindq and there is no difference between [such a] Muslim and a
dhimmi, because we are talking about someone who keeps repeating it and is known for saying such things, which
proves that he believes in it and is a manifestation of the filth inside as he spreads mischief on earth. The repentance
of such a person is only a camouflage to save his own skin; and by executing such a person, we ward off his harm
directed against RaslAllh and his ummah because those with weak faith may go astray because of him.
192

Enforcing Blasphemy Laws and Execution
Like all penal laws, enforcing blasphemy law and execution is the right of an Islamic ruler in an Islamic
state. Individuals should not take the law in their own hands.
193


190
Ibn bidn says that a Muslim is naturally inclined towards the position of other three madhhabs, but we being followers
cannot oppose our Imm only on the basis of our feelings. The reason our Imm said that the covenant is not voided is because
it is made upon the payment of Jizyah and as long as they pay Jizyah and are repressed; as said in the Qurnic verse.
Muft Abus Sd made a distinction that if the dhimmi negates the prophethood of RaslAllh , or says that he executed
Jews unjustly, the dhimmi has not violated his covenant; but if he attributes vile things like adultery or accusation of lying, he
has indeed voided the covenant. Not voiding the covenant means that by this act, the dhimmi has not become a warring
disbeliever [arb] such that his life and property are not protected anymore.
191
Which was also said by Tjuddn Subk and Ibn bidn confirms that nothing in our madhhab prevents us from executing
the blaspheming dhimmi if he does not repent or convert to Islm.
192
Tanbh, p354.
193
If an enemy combatant is killed by a Muslim, there shall be no penalty upon the Muslim.
35

The Story of Kab ibn Ashraf
Kab ibn Ashraf was a prominent Jewish leader and also a poet who would compose satirical poems
mocking the Prophet and his companions. He would exhort the polytheist Quraysh and instigate them
against Muslims. He was from the Ban Nar the tribe and settlement of Jews in Madnah. After the
victory of the Prophet at Badr, Kab was enraged and he went to Makkah singing dirges for the
polytheists killed in Badr, and instigating Meccans to go back and fight the Prophet . He would elevate
the pagan religion over Islm and openly professed his enmity to RaslAllh . When the scoundrel
returned to Madnah, RaslAllh said: O Allh! Protect me from the evil of Kab ibn Ashraf as You
Wish. Kab had earlier made a pledge to RaslAllh that he would not aid anyone against him nor
fight him ; but he broke his promise and proclaimed his enmity after his return from Makkah and he
openly mocked the Prophet .
In the adth of both Bukhr and Muslim, narrated by Jbir ibn bdullh, RaslAllh said: Who will
deal with Kab ibn Ashraf? He has hurt Allh and His Messenger. Muammad ibn Maslamah and his
companions, with the permission of the Messenger of Allah killed him thereafter. Some scholars
debated whether Ibn Ashraf was executed due to sedition or due to blasphemy, but it is unanimously
agreed that he was killed on account of blasphemy.
194
This is one of the major proofs in the Sharh for
the execution of a dhimmi who commits blasphemy.
Apostasy of two Songstresses
There were two girls who would sing poems mocking the Prophet , and he ordered them to be
executed; one of the girls whose name was Arnab or Qarbah was executed, and the other girl Fartan
was given the option to accept Islm, which she did and therefore pardoned by the Prophet and she
lived until the caliphate of Sayyidun thmn . Ibn Taymiyyah notes that by ijm it is not permissible
to execute disbelieving women only for their kufr and both Bukhr and Muslim report from Ibn mar
who said: RaslAllh saw a woman killed in one of the battles and he forbade the killing of women
and children. Further he clarifies that this amnesty is not for combatants and if she is a fighting
soldier, then she will be treated as an enemy and killed in combat, if need be; according to Imm
Shfi, she shall be tackled with the intention of self-defence.
195

The Story of Ibn Abis Sar
On the day of Victory, bdullh ibn Abis Sar was one of the six condemned to death; he came to
RaslAllh hiding behind thmn , who then pushed him in front of RaslAllh and said: O
Messenger of Allh, accept his allegiance. RaslAllh looked up and did not say anything and thmn
beseeched him three times and after the third time, he accepted the bayh and then turning to his
other companions told them: Is there not a single guided man amongst you? When you saw this person,
and I did not accept his bayh, why didnt anyone kill him? The companions replied: We did not know
O Messenger of Allh, what you were thinking; if you had signalled with your eyes, [we would have
struck him]. The Prophet told them: It is not becoming of prophet to deceive, even by his eyes.
196

bdullh ibn Sad ibn Abis Sar was among the scribes of RaslAllh . The Devil had deceived him;
he reneged from Islm and joined the polytheists of Makkah. RaslAllh condemned him to death on
the day of Victory of Makkah, so he took refuge of thmn who interceded for him and RaslAllh
forgave him. When he entered Makkah, he declared amnesty to all except the six who were named.
bdullh would say: I would manipulate him [RaslAllh ] as I wished; he would dictate something
and I would say: How about such and such? and he would say, Yes. This was because RaslAllh
would say: The Knower, the Forbearing
197
and he would say: Shall I write: The Powerful, the Wise
and RaslAllh would say: Both are correct. When Ibn Abis Sar came to the Prophet , his anger had

194
Imm Subk says that there are only three possibilities for Ibn Ashrafs case: He did not violate his covenant but was killed
for insulting the Prophet ; or he violated the covenant and he was killed for both breaching it and blasphemy, or he was killed
for being a [warring] disbeliever after violating the covenant.
195
See Srim al-Masll, p159-161.
196
By indicating with eyes or any other way. Ab Dwd narrates this via Mub ibn Sad reporting from Sad ibn Ab Waqq.
197
The Prophet would say: lmun-alm and Ibn Abis Sar would say zzun-akm.
36

not subsided; but when thmn interceded for him, the Prophet forgave him. We know from the
Prophets noble character that whenever someone sought his pardon, he pardoned them.
A similar case is mentioned in Bukhr reporting from Anas: A Christian youth accepted Islm and
became the scribe of RaslAllh for a while; thereafter, he reneged and became an apostate reverting
to Christianity. He would say: Muammad does not know anything I write for him. The wretch died
and they buried him, and the following morning his body was found expelled from his grave. The
Christians said: Muammad and his companions have done this. They have exhumed our man and
thrown him out. So they dug an even deeper grave and buried him the earth spewed him out once
again and they realised that this was not done by men so they simply cast him away.
Imm Subk says concerning these two cases that if indeed, what they claimed was true, then it must be
on account of different readings these scribes did not understand this concept and thought that they
were manipulating him . Anas ibn Zunaym al-Dayl was accused of blasphemy and RaslAllh
initially ordered his execution, but forgave him upon the intercession of Nawfal ibn Muwiyah; quoting
this incident,
198
Imm Subk says that if it is well-established, it is the strongest proof that blasphemy is
unpardonable, even after repentance and Islm unless RaslAllh himself forgave such a person
because it is only his right to forgive.
Blasphemer and Inheritance Law
Scholars differed in the case of inheritance and a blasphemer [of the Prophet ], whether he can inherit
or whether his heirs can inherit etc. l al-Qr explains the general ruling in the anaf madhhab
concerning apostates:
199

1. An apostate cannot inherit from either a Muslim, or a kfir or another apostate.
2. A Muslim can inherit from an apostate from that wealth/property that he made when he was a
Muslim; according to Imm Shfi; or all of it is annexed to the common fund of Muslims.
3. The wealth the apostate earned during his apostasy is similar to spoils and therefore taken into
the common fund of Muslims but imams Ab Ysuf and Muammad opined that even this can
be inherited by his Muslim heirs.
Q ys passage is paraphrased below concerning inheritance of a blasphemer:
200

1. The property of a Muslim blasphemer [sbb] who dies or is killed for blasphemy belongs to
Muslims similar to spoils of war and is thus placed in the common treasury of Muslims [Sann].
2. If his blasphemy is not public, then Muslim heirs of the blasphemer can inherit from it; but if it
is publicly known, his property belongs to the common fund of Muslims [Abagh].
201

3. If he is executed but he denies the testimony against him
202
his property will be inherited by
Muslim heirs [Abul asan al-Qbis].
4. If he is executed and he accepts that he has committed blasphemy and repents he shall be
deemed a Muslim and his property will be dispensed according to Islamic inheritance laws.
5. If he is executed and he accepts that he has committed blasphemy and does not repent his
property belongs to the common fund of Muslims.
6. If a kfir blasphemer is killed for blasphemy, his property is annexed to the common fund of
Muslims similar to spoils.

198
Sayf al-Masll, p328.
199
Shar al-Shif, 2/486.
200
Shar al-Shif, Qari 2/487.
201
The Q adds: He will be executed nevertheless, whether he proclaims his blasphemy in the open or he hides it without
being requisitioned for repentance.
202
Even though it is accepted in the court of law.
37

Imm Subks statement is paraphrased below for the Shfi position:
203

1. If a Muslim blasphemer [sbb] dies or is executed for blasphemy, he is treated as any other
apostate.
2. If he repents and reverts to Islm, those who accept his repentance
204
rule that he is like any
other Muslim.
3. Those who do not accept repentance, rule for execution under add; but his inheritance is like
that of any other Muslim like the inheritance of a married person executed for adultery.
4. Concerning a Kfir who is executed for blasphemy (without repentance): his property cannot
be inherited by Muslim inheritors because inheritance across people of different religions is
impermissible. However, as he has voided his covenant, his property will be annexed to the
common treasury of Muslims similar to spoils or tithes.
Intentional and Unintentional Harm
Adh means to hurt; and if it is more in intensity it is termed urr. Sabb/shatm means to insult, to
disparage. While insult and disparaging also causes hurt, the converse is not always true and hurting
does not translate to insult. Imm Subk says:
Adh or offence is of two kinds: intentional and unintentional. Misa, amnah and assn did not intend to offend
or hurt the Prophet ; therefore, they are neither ruled kfir nor liable to be executed; but Ibn Ubayy
205
intentionally
harmed and offended the Prophet , therefore he deserves to be killed however, this is the right of the Prophet
[to avenge or forgive] so he spared him.
206

Similarly, the bedouin who yanked the mantle of the Prophet and causing him physical harm it was
unintentional harm and certainly not meant to insult him. Insulting the Prophet cannot be classed in the
same category, as Q y has explained:
Even if the person proves that he has not deliberately said any of this to deride him ; or intended to insult or
disparage him whether it was ignorance that made him say such things or because he was discontented or
disgruntled, or he was inebriated, or he blurted it out without thinking or it slipped from his tongue, or because of
haughtiness or impudence, or impetuousity and recklessness; in all such cases, the ruling is the same as in the first
case that is, execution without further deliberation or any hesitation, because the excuse of ignorance [in such
cases] which cause apostasy is inadmissible, nor is the excuse of slip of the tongue, or any other excuse which I have
mentioned above, as long as the person is sane and has not lost his reason.
207

Ibn ajar al-Haytam elaborates on the above in Ilm:
[Q ys] opinion is obvious and confirms to the principles of our madhhab. Because someone is ruled kfir based
on what is observed from the outside; one cannot look at his motives or intentions, nor consider the context in which
he has said so.
However, the excuse of a person who claims that he did not know will be accepted according to the state and
conditions of his Islm.
208
His excuse will also be accepted if he claims that it was a slip of the tongue only to ward
off the death penalty even though it is not accepted in cases of divorce and manumission; because the former is the
right of Allh tl to forgive and the latter two require forgiveness of humans.
209


203
Sayf, p434.
204
That is, Shfis and anafs.
205
The leader of hypocrites in Madnah.
206
Sayf, p135. These are companions of the Prophet , but unwittingly became partners of hypocrites and joined them in the
calumny of the Sayyidah ishah . Imm Subk says that they probably did not know that the blessed wives of the Prophets
are always chaste. Regardless, they repented and RaslAllh forgave them.
207
Shif, p364.
208
Literally: to his closeness or distance to Islm. The shaykh means that if he is a recent revert, or someone who does not have
easy access to scholars, such as a child of Muslim parents in non-Islamic lands where exposure to Islm is far less and found
only in enclaves.
209
Al-Ilm bi Qawi al-Islm, Haytam, p82; also cited in the appendix of Sayf al-Masll, p591.
38

In Shar al-aghr:
{No excuse is admissible} of a blasphemer {citing ignorance} because none can be excused for committing kufr
claiming that he did not know {or in a state of inebriation} as it is forbidden {or recklessness} that is when one is
garrulous and talks without restraint. Neither is [the excuse of] slip of the tongue acceptable {or intense anger} if
one commits blasphemy in anger, he will not be excused rather he shall be executed.
210

Blasphemy of Other Prophets and Angels
Blasphemy of every prophet and angels is apostasy, and is similar to disrespecting our Prophet and
therefore carries the death penalty without requisition of repentance; there is no difference of opinion
in this matter.
211
Imm Ab anfah and his companions ruled that belying, disparaging, disrespecting,
belittling or disbelieving in any prophet of Allh is apostasy, and a person who does so shall be dealt
with as an apostate. Q y specifies that takfr is in case of [denial of] angels and prophets who are
well known; and excludes Hrt-Mrt, Khair, Luqmn and Dhul Qarnayn, on whom scholars have
differed whether they were angels or prophets. The Q says that even then, if this difference is
mentioned by a scholar, he shall be excused as a valid difference of opinion among scholars; but if a
common man argues about it, he shall be scolded and if he repeats it, he shall be reprimanded.
212

Insult and Slander of Companions
Insulting and slandering the companions of the Prophet is a great sin and it is arm; the Prophet
warned us to be careful when talking of his noble companions and he said:
Fear Allh concerning my companions. Do not make them a target [of curse and abuse]. Whoever loves them for my
sake, I love them and whosoever hates them I hate them for hating me. Whoever hurts them has hurt me and
whosoever hurts me has hurt Allh. And whoever hurts Allh, it is nigh that He shall hold him to account.
213

In another adth:
Whoever disparages my companions is accursed; the damnation of Allh tl, Angels and men is upon him. Allh
tl will not accept either his obligatory or supererogatory worship.
214

In another adth:
Do not disparage my companions; verily, in the final days, a group of people will appear who shall disparage my
companions. Do not pray upon them nor pray with them; do not marry them, do not sit with them and if they fall
sick, do not visit them.
215

abarn reports from Sayyidun l that whoever disparages prophets will be executed and he who
disparages the companions will be lashed. It is reported that there was an argument between the
companion Miqdd and baydullh ibn mar , and the latter abused him. When this reached mar
, he called for the executioner and said, I will have his tongue pulled out
216
so that no one will ever
dare to disparage a companion of the Prophet . Another companion interceded for his son but our
master mar was determined: Leave me alone. I will have his tongue cut so that anybody after me
will not dare to disrespect any companion of RaslAllh . Imm Subk says that Sayyidun mar
spared him probably upon the intervention of other companions or that Miqdd forgave him.
217


210
Shar al-aghr, 4/439; also in Sayf p591.
211
Sayf, p433.
212
Shif, p401, Quoted in rim, Sayf and Tanbh with additional comments.
213
Cf. Shif, and the adth is found in Tirmidh, Musnad Imm Amed, a ibn ibbn among others.
214
abarn narrating from Ibn bbs.
215
Kanz al-mml, 11/542, #32542; reporting from Khab and Ibn skir, narrating from Anas .
216
Literally, cut his tongue. It does not take a genius to figure out that if junior companions were rebuked for disrespecting
a senior companion it remains impermissible for the most pious scholar who came thousand years later, let alone ornery
whippersnappers of our time.
217
Sayf, p425. baydullh was a junior companion who was a small child when Allhs Messenger passed away; Miqdd is
a senior and prominent companion. He is among the foremost Muslims and among the first seven who publicly proclaimed
their faith in Makkah. He is among the fourteen whom RaslAllh described as his closest disciples: Every prophet was
39

A person indulging in calumny of the companions does not become a kfir except in some cases.
However, he is a fsiq if he disparages or scorns them; and shall be severely reprimanded by the ruler.
Imm Subk writes that it is not permissible for the ruler to pardon anyone who disparages any
companion; rather, he should have him arrested and requisitioned to repent. If he repents, he shall be
released else he shall be jailed for life until he repents. Ibn al-Mundhir has said: I do not know
anybody who mandated execution for disparaging anyone other than prophets. However, Firyb
218

ruled a person who insulted Ab Bakr as an apostate. Similarly, a group of scholars have ruled the
Rfis as apostates and it is impermissible to eat animals slaughtered by them.
219
bd al-Ramn ibn
Abz, a companion, ruled that anyone insulting Ab Bakr and mar shall be executed. The following
is a summary concerning those who insult the abah :
1. If a person disparages and curses the companions and deems it permissible to do so [unless it
is due to an error in interpretation] he is a kfir; otherwise, he is a fsiq and a heretic.
2. If one denies that Ab Bakr was a companion, such a person is a kfir by ijm.
3. Whoever accuses Sayyidah ishah of that which Allh tl has exonerated her,
220
that
person is a kfir by unanimous agreement. There is ijm on the apostasy of such a person.
4. Similarly, accusing any Mother of Believers of adultery is kufr and such a person will be executed
without requisition for repentance [as it implied blasphemy].
5. Whoever slanders or insults any member of the Prophets household [Al al-Bayt] has
committed sin and will be lashed and reprimanded severely yet, such a person will not be
ruled kfir nor executed.
6. A person who makes takfr of all the companions is an apostate.
221

7. Concerning the person who slanders, insults Ab Bakr and mar there is a difference of
opinion; many anaf scholars ruled such a person as kfir; others withheld from takfr.
222

8. If a person rejects
223
or refuses to accept that Ab Bakr and mar were caliphs and
imms of the nation, he is a kfir.
9. A person who insults any companion is a fsiq and heretic by ijm; except when he deems it
permissible and believes that cursing the companions merits reward like some shh or
believes that [all] companions were kfirs; such a person is kfir by ijm.
224

10. Some prominent adth scholars and a group of anbal scholars consider Khawrij as kfir
for renouncing l and thmn ; and those Rfis who accuse all the companions of having
become kfir.
225

Ibn bidn explaining the rationale for takfr of those who deem cursing the Shaykhayn permissible,
says that it is arm to backbite or curse and those who deem it permissible are violating a necessary

given seven close aides and disciples I was given fourteen: amzah, Jafar, Ab Bakr, mar, l, asan, usayn, Ibn Masd,
Salmn, mmr, udhayfah, Ab Dharr, Miqdd and Bill .
218
Muammad ibn Ysuf al-Firyb [d.212 AH].
219
Apart from mere disparaging of abah, Rfis have many weird beliefs which contradict necessary requirements of faith;
see Radd al-Rifah of Imm Amed Ri.

Some believe in transmigration of souls and others believe in divinity of Al al-Bayt.
220
In Srah Nr; qadhaf: accusation of adultery.
221
Like the Kuhayliyyah among the Rawafi; Q y says that those who say that the entire ummah has gone astray or make
takfr of all the companions of the Prophet , are kfirs.
222
Some scholars said that a person becomes kfir only if he believes that it is permissible to curse or insult the Shaykhayn;
and if he curses or insults them in spite of acknowledging that it is impermissible, he is a fasiq.
223
This is after the ijm has been established; there are reports that a companion or two did not accept the caliphate of Ab
Bakr, but that was prior to unanimous agreement of the best people in this ummah which includes l ibn Abi lib.
224
Ibn bidn Cf. l al-Qr, Tanbh, p367.
225
rim, Ibn Taymiyyah, p543.
40

precept;
226
secondly, there is an ijm upon this. In spite of that being a kufr in itself, we do not rule a
person kfir as long as his position is based on erroneous interpretation:
In summary: Those who are ruled kfir due to their bidh, is when that bidh opposes an absolute proof [dall qa]
where errors of interpretation are inadmissible. For example, rejecting a verse of the Qurn, or belying a prophet, or
rejecting one of the fundamental precepts [arkn] of Islm, etc. This is in contrary to those who believe that l was
more rightful of khilfah and therefore they disparage companions and accuse them of preventing l from taking
his right. The conservative position is the latter group will not be ruled kfir, even though that belief of theirs is kufr
in itself; that is, if a persons belief in it is not due to erroneous interpretation, he shall be ruled kfir.
227

After discussing the issue at length, Ibn bidn insists that the preferred position is that a person who
insults the Shaykhayn is not a kfir but a fsiq whose testimony is not accepted; the position that such
a person is kfir is a weak one and fatw is not given according to it. Amed ibn Ynus said: If a Jew
slaughters a lamb and a Rfi slaughters one, I would eat the slaughter of the Jew and I will not eat the
slaughter of the Rfi as he is an apostate. Similarly Ab Bakr ibn Haniy said: The slaughter of
Qadariyyah and Rawfi cannot be eaten just like the slaughter of an apostate even though we eat
from the slaughter of a Jew or a Christian.
Concerning a person who, along with disparaging companions also believes that l is god; or that he
was a prophet and Jibrl 7 made a mistake in delivering the message; there is no doubt in the kufr
of such a person. Indeed, there is no doubt in the kufr of a person who hesitates to consider such a
person kfir.
228




O Allh! You know that the extent of my knowledge and my understanding is only this much; and that
[I seek not to] exonerate anyone thus I have understood the tradition of your Prophet , and his
character, his forgiveness, mercy, sympathy and kindness. Every good we attain in this world or in the
hereafter is through him . We ask Allh tl for a graceful and a faithful end in wellbeing sans
hardship or grief; and also for our ancestors, parents, progeny and family members [may Allh tl
accept this] by His immense Grace and Divine Favour; indeed, He is Closer and He accepts prayer.
229





226
It is a necessary precept or arur, to consider ghbah, or backbiting as arm.
227
Tanbh, p363.
228
rim, p559.
229
Sayf al-Masll, p211. A sentence mentioning the ijtihd of the imm is omitted so this can be my prayer as well.
41

IV. FALLACIES IN THE FRAMEWORK
Al-Dnu al-naah.This religion is all about good advice. Advice for the general Muslim means, to guide them towards what is
good for them; to aid them in their religious and worldly matters by word and deed; to warn the neglectful among them and teach
the ignorant; to support the needy and cover what is exposed, to ward off harm from them and to strive for their benefit in religion
and worldly affairs.
230

---
Kellers tract begins with a very important question:



The short answer, as Keller says is indeed not necessarily. We read this in fiqh books, as Imm Amed
Ri mentions this principle often in his refutation of various heresies, because he himself avoids takfr
unless inevitable, as he prefers the safer route:
The well-researched position is that which we have mentioned many times: there is a [big] difference between
something being kufr and to rule someone a kfir because of it.
231

Ibn bidn explaining the basis of takfr of those who insult Shaykhayn says:
The conservative position is that the latter group will not be ruled kfir, even though that belief of theirs is kufr in
itself; that is, if a persons belief in it is not due to an erroneous interpretation, he shall be ruled kfir.
232

While it is necessary to warn people from takfr it is far more important to warn them about the
dangers of apostasy. Indeed, the lengthy descriptions of kufr/takfr in books of fiqh are meant to
highlight this aspect and for people to learn and save their mn. The anaf imm, Badr al-Rashid
explaining the reason for writing his book, Words that Cause Apostasy says:
I have overheard [some] among the elite, those famed as scholars, well-established,
233
lauded in gatherings and
honoured with high posts, and those well-known as teachers and mufts; [I have heard] such people utter things that
do not behoove an ornery ignoramus; nor would a lowly commoner say such things.
234

In an age like ours, where even schoolboys have an opinion in religious matters, scholars should be
responsible; giving them false assurance that it is not easy to become an apostate, encourages
effrontery:



What does he mean? Does he mean that it is very difficult to go out of Islm? Does he mean that
regardless of what one says or does, he still remains a Muslim? Haytami affirms that Shfis agree with
the following opinion:
A anaf scholar has said: Know, that whoever utters a statement of disbelief will be ruled as a kfir, even if he does
not believe that it is a statement of disbelief; no excuse of ignorance will be accepted.
235


230
Ikml al-Mlim, Q y, 1/307.
231
Mustanad, Footnote #357: Difference between kufr and ikfr.
232
Tanbh, p363.
233
inkharaa fil silk: to be entrenched and have access; intiam, dukhl. Zabd quotes his shaykh that masters like Sakkk and
Zamakhshar have used it, even though the idiom is not found in the speech of Arabs [Tj al-rs, 19/247].
234
Alf al-Kufr, Badruddn al-Rashd, p18.
235
Ilm, p109.
Is someone who has an idea that is kufr or unbelief thereby an unbeliever?
From the very simplicity of entering Islm, many Muslims assume that the criterion for leaving it, for
kufr, must be equally simple. It is not.
42

If a commoner says something ugly and he does not believe in its literal meaning; and the muft knows
that a valid explanation exists, he is yet advised to be stern with him and reprimand him:
It is reported from Ibn bbs that a person came to him asking whether there is repentance for a murderer, and he
said: There is no repentance for him. Another person asked him the same question and he said: Yes, his repentance
is valid. And then he said: I saw the intention of murder in the eyes of the first person and therefore I forbade him;
and the other person was remorseful about his sin and I did not want him to lose hope.
236




Blasphemy is excluded from this excuse. If a person insults the Prophet or disrespects him, he
becomes an apostate and his excuse of ignorance is inadmissible as we have seen earlier:
{No excuse is admissible} of a blasphemer {citing ignorance} because no one can be excused for committing kufr
claiming that he did not know...
237





We do not argue against the principle in general; however, the author prepares the reader for his
insinuation later that takfr made by Alahazrat is an emotive preference and the whole issue is a matter
of scholarly difference. One should remember that we cannot brook any difference in core principles
or the Essentials and there is an ijm that the person disrespecting the Prophet is an apostate. If
the offensive word or deed of a person is established to be true that the person has certainly said or
written things deemed blasphemy that person is an apostate. The only scope for difference would be
the debate whether such statements were explicitly blasphemous or any valid interpretation can be
found to absolve him of that charge.




By ijm, blasphemy of the Prophet , is deemed contravening Essentials and the testimony of faith.
[Hrn] Rashd asked Imm Mlik about a blasphemer who insulted the Prophet and told him that some scholars of
Iraq issued a fatw that he should be lashed; Mlik was enraged and he said: O Commander of the Faithful! What
else remains [for] the nation after its Prophet has been disparaged?
238

Haytam mentions the ijm on the apostasy of the blasphemer:
There is an ijm of this nation that a Muslim who disparages or insults the Prophent shall be executed; and those
who mentioned this ijm are Ibn al-Mundhir, Khab, Muammad ibn Sann and others
239

Citing from Mawqif and its commentary, he further says:
Whoever attests [to the truth] of the message of the Prophet and together prostrates to the sun is not a believer by
ijm because his prostration to the sun proves that it is apparent that he has not truly believed in the message; and
we rule only on what is apparent...
240


236
Ilm, p17.
237
Shar al-aghr, 4/439 vide appendix of Sayf p591.
238
Shif, p360.
239
Ilm, p112.
240
Ibid., p20.
Things Not Everyone Knows
No position upon which one scholar may disagree with another because of evidence from the Quran,
hadith, or human reason (as opposed to emotive preference) may be a criterion for faith or unfaith
(kufr), provided it is a scholarly position,
The first thing to know about declaring someone an unbeliever is that the aqida or Islamic belief of
anyone who has spoken the Testification of Faith There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the
Messenger of Allah, is legally valid until incontrovertibly proven otherwise.
43

Imm Subk says that disbelief is of two kinds: the first is borne of ignorance and rejection and the
second is due to elements that contradict the claim, in spite of accepting and attesting to the truth:
...and the kufr of the blasphemer in spite of his claim that he attests to the truth of Islm and is cognisant of its
commandments is of the latter category. There is no doubt in the kufr of such a person, regardless of his considering
[his blasphemous statement] permissible or impermissible; regardless of knowledge or ignorance. The scholar who
was reluctant [to do takfir] and did not consider it kufr unless the blasphemer deemed it permissible did not
understand the basis of takfr and the principle: denigration contradicts reverence; and reverence is the pre-condition
for faith.
241

It may appear as needless quibbling, but we shall see how the author uses these principles in his defence
of Deobandis and veers away from their original context. Concerning the adth of Usamah ibn Zayd
who killed a man after he had said l ilha ill Allh and the Prophet reproached him until



Keller explains the conclusion drawn from this adth, thus:




According to Imm Mzari and Q y, notwithstanding the reprimand, the Prophet did not impose
qi or levy blood-money because Usmah had killed him due to an erroneous interpretation. It is
also possible that the Prophet knew by revelation that the person was indeed a kfir and he had only
said the kalimah to save his skin therefore he did not impose penalties on Usmah but his reprimand
was to prevent any such occurrence in the future. And most importantly, in the words of the Q:
In it is proof that people will be dealt according to what is observed externally, because there is no way we can know
about their intentions; and none knows this except He who Knows [all] secrets.
243

Similarly, in the case of blasphemy or apostasy, the ruling is issued on what is observed externally even
if the blasphemer protests that internally, he did not have that intention:
Because someone is ruled kfir based on what is observed from the outside; it is not possble to know his motives or
intentions, nor consider the context in which he has said so. However, the excuse of a person who claims that he did
not know will be accepted according to the state and conditions of his Islm.
244




No doubt, it is an enormity when said unjustly. But, if it is said based on a valid reason and not to scorn
the persons Islm nor as calumny, the person who makes takfr of another does not automatically
become a kfir. Rampant takfr should be discouraged, but there is no harm in stating the legal ruling

241
Sayf al-Masll, p414; See Alahazrats Tamhd e mn for a detailed explanation of the fundamental principle: Reverence is
the pre-condition for faith.
242
a Muslim 1/96-97. In the lengthier version of the adth, that man was a combatant who was killing and maiming other
Muslim soldiers who approached him; when Usmah raised his sword to kill him when he had the opportunity, the man uttered
the kalimah, but Usmah brought down the sword killing him.
243
Ikml al-Mlim, Q y, 1/371.
244
Ilm, p82.
He said, Why didnt you split him open to see if his heart really said it or not?and he kept repeating
this till I wished I had not become a Muslim before that day
242

indeed it was almost absurd to believe otherwisethe Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)
sternly condemned Usama for not taking the outward sign of Islam at face value, establishing for all
time that the primary and ongoing presumption (asl) for another Muslims Islamic belief (aqida) is that
it is sound and acceptable, until there is incontestable proof that it is otherwise.
Whoever charges a believer with unbelief is as though he had killed him and,
Any man who says, O kafir to his brother, one of them deserves the name
44

that a blasphemer is a kfir. This warning should not be misused to prevent legitimate takfr such as
takfr of Qdiyns or modern libertarian groups that reject Essentials of religion.


This is true for individual cases. But if a group of people say such things or leaders of a group have
said such things, it becomes necessary for everyone who learns about it to warn others, after prominent
mufts or qs have already issued a ruling. Particularly, when such things are written in books and are
freely retold by common people, this need becomes even more pressing:


If the person who uttered [such blasphemies] is a person known to be a scholar or a teacher, [a shaykh or a muft],
or a adth scholar and narrator, or a person in authority or known to be a reliable witness, or a well-known jurist
then it is obligatory for whosoever hears [such a thing from him] to expose him and make the public aware of what
has been heard from him and to make people abhor that person...
... Similarly, if that person [who has uttered a blasphemy] is a preacher or a schoolmaster; if these be the things in
his heart, then how can he be trusted to teach the love and reverence of RaslAllh to those in his care or to his
audience? It is definitely obligatory to publicise the blasphemies of such people for the right of the Prophet and
the right of the Sharh.
245

It is necessary to tell others, that a person is a kfir if he accuses Sayyidah ishah of adultery; a person
is a kfir if he blasphemes against the Prophet ; a person who denies any verse of the Qurn is a kfir;
or a person who believes that Allh tl is corporeal is a kfir. There is no harm in common people
telling others that the Nuayrs of Syria or the Bins are kfirs; these debates are long over and
common people can tell one another to keep away from Ismls and Nuayrs.



Keller confuses problematic or complex cases which require a qs opinion with simple cases and
generalises it as judging the faith of another. We have described earlier that everything is based on the
apparent violation of fundamental articles of faith is kufr and it does not require a q to certify such
things. If a person claims that Mirz of Qdiyn is a prophet, a Muslim should right away deem him a
kfir. Similarly, a person becomes a kfir if he explicitly insults the Prophet ; the q or a muft will
be called upon only where ambiguity exists or when it is a novel thing requiring an experts review.
It is definitely obligatory to publicise the blasphemies of such people for the right of the Prophet and the right
of the sharh. If the blasphemer is not a scholar or a person of religious authority, even then defending the right of
the Prophet and guarding his honour is a religious duty...
246

Keller also confuses between add for an apostate and how Muslims should deal with an apostate:



The above restriction is only for carrying out punishments such as executions but it is the collective
responsibility of all Muslims to be watchful and boycott individuals from the community who spread
heresies or those who have become apostates; if it is nobody elses business, then people should happily
give their daughters to apostates in marriage and continue dealing with them it is nobodys business
to judge the faith in his heart.

245
Shif, p371.
246
Ibid.
In Muslim society, such a judgement is the business of the qadi or Islamic judge alone, and only because
he has to....
Ordinary Muslims other than the q are not required to judge the faith in the heart of anyone...
..ordinary Muslims may neither judge nor carry out the worldly consequences of such legal rulings
because they have no authority to do so, for Islm does not permit vigilante or mob justice.
45

Keller lists a number of motives why people do takfr:



Keller must have split open the chests of all these Muslims to decide that people should be either
hankering for fame or full of malice, envy or arrogance. But one may object that Keller is only
mentioning the motives he has not accused anyone, let alone generalise. Or didnt he?



In other words, it is necessary to have good faith of a person who is careless in his speech and even utter
blasphemies or disrespect the Messenger of Allh , leaving the q to deal with it; but if anyone dares
to criticise a blasphemer or consider blasphemy as kufr, he must either be hungry for glory and fame or
a malcontent. It is indeed an audacious suggestion, but which of the following motives prompted Keller
to write his mn, Kufr and Takfr?








If it is only the first, then by what rights does he accuse others expressly or implied that their
criticism is borne of malice, envy or arrogance? The reader must remember this, because it is the
background upon which Keller tries to paint the takfr of Deobandis. It may sound incredible to some
readers but here is an example of such an implication:



We do not know which other groups Keller had in mind; but Sunnis of the subcontinent, whom he calls
Barelwis, were definitely on the agenda.







The motives today behind careless accusations of unbelief made by Muslims are many,
(d) the most common motives discernable in our times for declaring others unbelievers are morally
repugnant, and themselves sins;
- a desire to warn or educate Muslims;
- the need to put oneself up by putting someone else down;
- thirst for fame as a scholar;
- the feeling of power through frightening those one informs;
- the thrill of their need to resort to ones knowledge to get all the details;
- the need to prove ones group is superior to anyone else;
- malice, envy, or arrogance.
Now, the temperament of Ahmad Reza Khn, with his acknowledged brilliance, doubtless played a role
in this judgement,
They culminated in a number of fatwas published by Ahmad Reza Khan Barelwi of the takfir of major
Deobandi ulema of his times,
In comparison, no Deobandi scholar of note, to the authors knowledge, has yet made takfir of Barelwis.
46

Coming back to our discussion,



This is a very important point and we do not debate its validity. In the case of Deobandis, blasphemous
statements were written by their elders and published; and even after refutation and condemnation by
scholars, those statements were and are repeated to this day; nor was there any regret or remorse on
the part of authors rather they justified those statements and those books have received multiple
editions what further publicly observable proof is required?



When a q or a muft has already issued a ruling and the case is well known and established, common
people can refer to that judgement in their dealings. Similarly, things which are explicit or implied
insults and disrespectful to the Master are kufr and one should deem such things kufr, even if one
does not make takfr deferring it to the judgement of the q, as we have described earlier.



Certainly, making takfr on issues which are not essentials of religion is sectarianism and a crime against
the ummah; but it is a religious duty to make takfr of groups that commit blasphemy against the
Prophet or insult previous prophets; for example, warning against Qdiyns, who themselves claim
to be a sect of Islm. The above rule is not absolute otherwise, rulings of takfr and tabd by major
imms should be classed as sectarianism and sinning against the Ummah.
The next section is about words that entail a person leaving Islm which we have described in detail
earlier. Here, Keller says:



Keller agrees that any of the twelve criteria listed [vide Hadiyyah] can be grounds for takfr and the
tenth criterion is blasphemy against prophets. Should we scorn a Muslim if he makes takfr of a person
who meets any of these criteria? Is it necessary for a q not to rule a person kfir even if such a person
says or does something that would meet these criteria? Is it sectarianism to consider such a person as
kfir? Is it illegal and unislamic to boycott such a person or to consider his slaughter as carrion? Is it
permissible to give ones daughter in marriage to such a person? In his rush to generalise, Keller has
sidelined legitimate reasons of takfr.



So what is wrong here?

We say that such a proof must be publicly observable because the above-mentioned hadith of Usama
ibn Zayd, according to Nawawi, attests to the well known principle of fiqh and legal methodology that
rulings are based upon outward evidence, while Allah is responsible for the inward
(b) it is not the legal obligation of the ordinary Muslim to judge anothers faith, but rather that of the
qadi, in public cases where this-worldly interests dictate that it must be legally decided;
e) to their own personal sin, factions who declare others unbelievers add the onus of sinning against
the Umma through sectarianism, the sunna of the Christians whom the Quran says Allah afflicted with
enmity and hatred for each other as punishment for forgetting their religion;
...and shows how far the loose accusations of kufr echoing back and forth on the Islamic scene today
are from the standards of Islamic law.
These legal criteria, with the foregoing parts of this essay, reveal a number of fallacies in the reckless
charges of unbelief bandied about in our times...
47

Notice that Keller subtly hints that the takfr of Deobandi elders made by Sunni scholars in the
subcontinent is excluded from the twelve criteria together with the insinuation of motives for takfr
he has listed earlier. He then proceeds to explain three examples of fallacies of takfr, which we shall
examine presently.
Our elders were far more sympathetic even to the Khawrij, who were the biggest takfrs of all time
when they said that the takfr made by Khawrij was because of erroneous interpretation. But according
to Keller, most who do takfr in our times enjoy ruling others kfir because it gives them the feeling of
power by frightening others or because they simply envy others. Such generalisations may be difficult
to prove, but Keller is confident that most people do not have good intentions at heart.


Before we analyse Kellers exposition, we remind him of this verse:
O ye who believe: why do you say that which you do not
do yourselves?
247

How many books on the Barelwi-Deobandi conflict did Keller peruse? Or did he content himself with
what others have to say? We know that he has Deobandi murds and that he meets Deobandi scholars,
but how many Sunni/Barelwi scholars did he meet and ask for clarifications on this topic? Which books
of Alahazrat did he read and how many were originals? The Prophet said: It is lying enough for a
man to repeat everything he hears.



His explanation ignores the key clause in this verse: corrupt person. Like the rest of his article, he
quotes and explains adth and verses without regard to their context or compatibility with
commentaries. If we accept the above assertion, we will have to chuck out all the lone-narrator reports
and criticism of narrators, which would be the bulk of adth literature. Imm Qurub writes:
Secondly: This verse is proof for the acceptance of lone-narrator reports, as long as that narrator is upright and
trustworthy [dl] because it stipulates verification of the news brought by a corrupt person. Because information is
a trust and [the attribute of] corruption invalidates it.
248

Ibn Kathr in his tafsr of the same verse:
A group of scholars considered this as proof for rejecting reports of an unknown narrator, due to the possibility of
his being a fsiq; but others accepted it and said: we are commanded to verify the report of a [known] fsiq, and here
we are merely unaware of the state of that narrator.
Thus, we learn that it is permissible to rely and report opinions of scholars who are accepted in the
community as upright and trustworthy, attested by other contemporary scholars. Many rulings in
madhhabs are based on lone-narrator reports from companions of imms like Shfi and Mlik; and
for many secondary and tertiary issues, the imms themselves are the only available sources for
legislation.

247
Srah aff, 61:2.
248
Tafsr al-Qurub, 49:6. Though entirely unrelated to our discussion here, Imm Qurub mentions a very fine point on the
fsiq leading congregational prayers: Ibn al-rab said: It is surprising that Imm Shfi and others considered the fsiq being
imm as permissible. When a [fsiq] cannot be trusted with a few pennies of this world, how can he be trusted with treasures
of the din?
The Fallacy of Hearsay Evidence
Accepting hearsay evidence against people is forbidden by Allah Most High, who says, O you who
believe: when a corrupt person brings you news, verify it, lest you harm people out of ignorance and
come to regret what you have done
48

Whatever Keller says about hearsay evidence is true for the case of corrupt people; when a major muft
or a scholar investigates a matter and issues a ruling which is also attested by contemporary scholars
dismissing that ruling as hearsay evidence is ignorance or insolence.


The nuance that is ignored here is, mere denial is insufficient if it is proven that the person has uttered
blasphemy or if he agrees that he has said such a thing. In which case, he will have to expressly disavow
such a thing and renew his faith. Strangely, Keller cites a concise anaf text,
249
whereas Haytams
commentary accords more clarity:
If two [men bear] witness that a person has committed apostasy and explain [what he has done] it is not sufficient if
he says: I am a Muslim. It is necessary for him to repeat the two shahadah and acknowledge that what he has done
is wrong and [expressly] disavow everything contradicting the religion of Islm.
250

The above is a commentary on Imm Nawaws Minhj, where he says that according to one opinion,
the testimony against a person accusing him of apostasy is absolutely admissible and he will be
requisitioned to repent; the second opinion requires the witnesses to clarify and explain what he has
done and in this case, if it is proven, mere denial is insufficient; disavowal is a must. Blasphemous
passages written by Deobandis were highlighted and refuted by Sunni scholars; the accused claimed
that they did not intend blasphemy despite those statements being explicit. Neither did they attempt
to alter
251
those passages, but wrote clarifications instead. Deobandis do not deny
252
that such
statements were written, they contest the intended meaning of those statements. The foremost denial
of Deobandis is in the form of Muhannad, where Khall Amed denies a number of things even though
such things exist in their books and are printed until now.



While true in itself, the statement does not mean that every criticism is because of jealousy. Deobandis
make a similar charge against Alahazrat that he was envious of Deobandis and therefore ruled them
kfir. Even when facts stare in the face that Alahazrat was far superior to anybody known as a scholar
in his time, especially in India and that he belonged to a prominent family of scholars and nobles, his
chains of authority in adth and fiqh were at par if not higher than his contemporaries, his command
of languages and the exquisite style in which he wrote, the copiousness with which he referenced
remains peerless to this day; why would he be jealous of people lesser than him? Did Imm Subki and
other scholars refute Ibn Taymiyyah, due to envy? Incidentally, that was the charge Ibn Taymiyyah also
made against his critics.




249
Mukhtaar al-Taw is one of the basic texts in the anaf madhhab; the work is from a righteous age when such issues
were rare and early authors did not elaborate on them; we find lengthier explanations in works of later scholars as a response
to the need of the times. Secondly, the work of Imm Ibn ajar al-Haytam on apostasy and takfr is considered as an
authoritative text by everybody who came after him one would expect Keller, being a Shfi, to cite from his commentary.
Even if he chose anaf texts perhaps, because he deals with anafs and takfr later in his work why not Radd al-Mutr?
250
Tufatul Mutj bi Shar al-Minhj, Ibn ajar al-Haytam, 9/95.
251
Thnaw agreed to alter his blasphemous passage in Taghyr al-nwn but without any retraction or repentance for the
blasphemous passage written previously; rather, he insisted that it was valid. The date on this letter is 18
th
afar 1342.
252
At least those who proffer explanations acknowledge that such passages exist in their books; some others deny it altogether
either out of ignorance or deception that their elders never wrote such a thing.
Moreover, if the individual then denies that he has made such a statement, he is legally considered as
having repented of it
In the world in which we live, not everyone is well-intentioned, especially towards those who are envied
for their accomplishments or possessions.
Those familiar with testimony in court know how frequently even well-intentioned eyewitnesses
contradict each other and, upon cross-examination, themselves.
49

How many people did Keller consult on the Deobandi-Barelwi issue? If he knows Urdu, then let him
state himself how many books of both Deobandis and Barelwis did he read? Did he cross-examine those
who fed him Deobandi propaganda, or was it enough to be content with hearsay evidence in this matter?



Deobandis make a similar charge against Alahazrat: that he modified writings of Deobandis to give it a
twist not intended by the authors. We will assume heedlessness and ignorance on the part of Keller than
chutzpah, when he regularly thrashes and steamrollers over simple principles of fiqh and yet speaks as
if he is above such things.



True, the dead no longer stand on our dock but if they are leaders of a faction, or such whose
statements are deemed authority for that faction, and if such statements are either heresy or kufr, it is
obligatory for scholars to refute them. Ibn Taymiyyahs heresies are refuted to this day even Keller
has refuted them in his earlier writings. If this is absolute, then Keller should boldly proclaim that
Qdiyns are Muslims and forbid Muslims from making takfr or refute Mirzs claims. Perhaps Q
y did not have a teacher of Islamic etiquette like Keller, because he has said:
If the person who uttered [such blasphemies] is a person known to be a scholar or a teacher, [a shaykh or a muft],
or a adth scholar and narrator, or a person in authority or known to be a reliable witness or a well-known jurist
then it is obligatory for whosoever hears [such a thing from him] to expose him and make the public aware of what
has been heard from him and to make people dislike such a person, to bear witness against such a person and what
he has said; it is obligatory for scholars and leaders in the Muslim community to repudiate such a person and clearly
communicate the kufr of this person and the monstrosity of his ugly speech so that Muslims are safeguarded from
the evil of such a person and the right of the Leader of Messengers is well established.
253




Once again, Keller makes up his own rules upon requirement. If a person utters or writes blasphemies
or something that causes apostasy he is a kfir and will be considered a kfir. However, if this is about
historical individuals who are accused of having said or written something and we do not have
conclusive information that they might have really said that; or if there is a probability of tampering in
their books like that of Ibn rab; or if there is a possibility of a valid meaning which is not kufr, but
the authors are not around to explain them; or if there is a possibility that they might have repented
from those heresies; in all such cases, scholars would give such a person the benefit of doubt and would
refute the kufr of such a persons saying, but abstain from making takfr. Alahazrat withheld from takfr
of Isml Dihlaw, because there was a rumour in educated circles that Isml had repented from his
heresies; therefore Alahazrat refuted Ismls statements which are undoubtedly those of Isml and
it is well established that there is no tampering in such works because his admirers defend it to this
day. In Kawkabatush Shihbiyyah after listing 70 statements which amount to kufr in the said Dihlaws
writings, Alahazrat abstains from takfr and says:
In my opinion, the state of utmost caution bids us to withhold our tongue from declaring him as kfir; and this is the
preferred and most suitable opinion.
254
Allh tl knows best.

253
Shif, p371.
254
hamre nazdk maqm e itiyt mei ikfr sey kaff-e-lisn makhz o mukhtr o munsib.
Reporters sometimes get things wrong, eliminate nuances that indicate the context, or misunderstand
the person they interview to improve the story line or reader interest, or to make things fit with
received ideas...
As for judging the belief or unbelief of a particular historical individual of the past who ostensibly died
as a Muslim, it is no ones responsibility, since the dead no longer stand in our dock.
However, when a physical individual is gone, his historical person remains in the form of his written
works, and it is this that ulema sometimes warn Muslims about when they mention the kufr of So-and-
so, intending not his person, but the historical personality that his written legacy has effectively become
50

Similarly, in Sall al-Suyf al-Hindiyyah, Izlatul r and Subn al-Subb, Alahazrat rules a number of
statements as kufr, but withholds from takfr of Isml.



This was true of a bygone age an age when means of communication were rudimentary and books
were handwritten. If, say a person in London wrote a book, another copyist in Paris could tamper with
it, without the knowledge of the author. Even in the same city or province, books could be tampered as
Keller mentions the incident of Imm Shrn. But in our time and in the past 200 years when books
have been printed in the authors lifetime, and when such works have received multiple editions; when
certain printed books were criticised by prominent scholars of that age and the authors themselves
tried to explain their own standpoint and defended what they wrote, such an excuse is far-fetched.
Would Keller dare to say that Mirz Ghulm Qdiyn should not be judged by what he wrote?






This applies only to authors whose works were copied by hand prior to the 1700s and where
conclusive evidence of the individuals authorship is absent.



The possibility of forgery is ruled out when the authors of those books acknowledge such works or
passages, explicitly or implicitly themselves; by referring to them in their other works, or defending
those passages. Tadhrun Ns of Nnotw, if al-mn of Thnaw, Barhn al-Qih of Khall Amed
are all works of respective authors and the controversial passages are never claimed to be forged. The
fatw of Gangoh, however is disputed by later Deobandis and claimed to be a forgery yet, Gangoh did
not deny it himself; his followers point out OTHER fatw to prove Gangohs actual belief, but there is
no explicit denial of Gangoh of that fatw, even though it was reproduced by his critics and publicly
decried in his own lifetime, and takfr was also made by his critics on this issue. There is not a single
statement of Gangoh that explicitly repudiates that fatw or simply says: That fatw is not mine.
Kellers point is valid though when Deobandis found it difficult to answer Sunni scholars, they forged
passages from non-existent books and a Deobandi even published a work containing a forged fatw
attributing it to Mawln Naq l Khn
255
in his Hidyatul Bariyyah, puportedly published in Lahore
and the Deobandi author made a mark of the seal of Mawln Naq indicating 1301, even though the
noble shaykh passed away in 1297. Alahazrat refuted such forgeries in his Abs e Akhrah
256




255
Mawln Naq l is Alahazrat Imm Amed Ri Khns father.
256
The translation, Closing Colloquies will be released shortly by Ridawi Press, in-shAllh.
This is legally quite a different thing from judging the author himself. Why? Because whoever surveys
something of the vast corpus of Islamic manuscripts extant realizes how many works, even some of
more important, are without rigorous authentication from their authors
Oftener, a judgement in print that a particular work has reached us through several copyists hands in
the form its author originally intended it represents the probabilistic expectation of the editor after
collating the oldest and best manuscripts available to him. The point is that if ulema throughout Islamic
history have agreed that this should not prevent Muslims from reading and benefiting from such books,
they also tell us that written works that have reached us through copyists are leagues apart from the
kind of forensic evidence demanded by Islamic law for judgements about a particular Muslims belief or
unbelief.
Aside from honest mistakes, there are intentional forgeries. Faction welcomes perfidy,
which said spurious interpolations had been added into it by enemies of Islam, Hanafi Imam Ibn Abidin
says that this also happened to the Knower of Allah [Abd al-Wahhab] al-Sharani,
51

Imam Shrn exculpated himself from such writings and repudiated them; the example is invalid in the
case of Deobandis because:
The works containing controversial passages were published by respective authors themselves
or their representatives.
There was no explicit denial
257
nor did the respective authors disown such controversial
passages or said that they were forgeries or wrongly attributed to them.
All these works have been reprinted for more than 100 years receiving multiple editions in
the respective lifetimes of the authors without any retraction of those controversial passages.
In all cases, except that of Gangohs fatw, either the authors themselves defended those
passages or their students and followers defend those passages; they do not deny that it was
written or present in that work they insist that the meaning is something else.



Like Keller notes, Imm Dhahab is only warning students to stay away from philosophical arguments
and arguing about differences of opinion of elders but that does not include condoning blasphemy.
The book Zaghal al-lm is a concise guide for a student of religion on the branches of science and caution
to aspiring scholars on the dangers of certain negative traits associated with scholars of those sciences.


Keller repeats this fancy rule in absolute terms and generalises it. How many people make takfr of
previous Muslims and on what counts? Is the witness of a number of qualified mufts admissible or
should it be considered hearsay? Mirz of Qdiyn and his blasphemies and indeed, his claim to
prophethood do they fulfil the forensic standards as described by Keller, or should they be deemed
hearsay? But wait, Keller does mention printed books:




We will not argue about the shara standard which requires registration with the LoC or British
Library, but only highlight Kellers knack of overturning any concept and use it for a contrary purpose.
Copyright is a legal device to protect an authors claim of ownership but the converse is not necessarily
true. If a copyright does not exist, it does not mean that the work does not belong to that author.
Publication was mandatory to obtain federal copyright, according to Copyright Law of 1909.
258
If a book
is published and attributed to a person, who acknowledges its authorship and does not deny it; and if
such a thing is common knowledge, such a case does not fall in the fancy hearsay category of Shaykh
Keller. However, there are two truths in Kellers above passage.

257
This may sound contradictory because Khall Amed denied some of those in his Muhannad. A more accurate statement
would be: Even though Khall Amed denied it in front of Arab scholars, he or his followers did not deny or disclaim such
statements in India, but rather defended and wrote volumes to explain what those words REALLY mean. As soon as the weather
was conducive in ijz for Wahbs, he retracted from Muhannad; such a hypocrite is celebrated as a adth exegete.
258
http://www.copyright.gov See the document Copyright Basics.
in his chapter on usul al-din or the bases of religion, of the example of his former sheikh Ibn Taymiya,
cautioning students against losing their way in the mazes of philosophical and cosmological arguments
of the ancients
Those in our day who make takfr of Muslims of previous times commit the fallacy of hearsay evidence
by ignoring both the forensic standards of Islm...
We have not mentioned the comparatively recent phenomenon of printed books...
But it should be noted that if there is any statement in an authors printed work that seems to be kufr,
it must be plainly expressed, not merely implied, for otherwise the accuser has committed another
fallacy, to which we now turn.
52

The author is culpable for statements in a book:
if his authorship is established;
and for statements which are express and unambiguous,
which he reiterates:



We have no disagreement with the above; now, Keller quotes Ibn bidn thus:



And mentions the following intermediate conclusion:



This is not absolute, and is valid only in cases of ambiguity. Keller is mixing up things, even if it is
unintentional: First, he mentions that express statements are taken face-value; second, he mentions
how to deal with ambiguous or statements open to interpretation; and third, he switches to the
intention of the speaker notice that the above statement suppresses the nuance that regardless of
intention, when explicit, express and unambiguous statements of kufr are uttered, that person becomes
an apostate and his protestation of innocence, ignorance or other-intentions are inadmissible. Imm
askaf says:
...he who utters a word of kufr lightly
259
becomes an apostate even if he does not believe in what he has uttered;
because of slighting [the religion] and therefore is similar to kufr of obstinacy.
260

Commenting on the above, Ibn bidn says:
{one who utters a word of kufr in a trifling manner} that is, when he utters it of his own volition, even if he does
not intend the meaning of those words.
...because the Lawgiver has determined certain sins to be indicative of a lack of [faith] such as the trifling manner
mentioned above; similar to a person who prostrates to an idol or throws a copy of the Qurn in garbage such a
person is a kfir, even if he attests to the truth of Islm.
He further says:
I say: It is obvious that if the indicators of mockery or slighting [religion] are found, that person will be ruled kfir;
even if he has not intended to mock or slight [the religion].
261

Kellers befuddling of this sort is rampant and after a while it becomes tedious to keep sorting this out.
For example, the same principle is quoted in Hadiyyah al-lyiyyah which Keller has quoted earlier
concerning things that cause kufr:



259
hazala: to say something in jest, jokingly, playfully; saying something lightly, frivolously or in a trifling manner.
260
Durr al-Mukhtr, 344; kufr nd: Similar to the kufr of a person who acknowledges the truth in his heart, but does not utter
the two testimonies of faith due to obduracy or deliberate opposition [Radd al-Mutr 4/407].
261
Radd al-Mutr, 4/406.
If an utterance is unambiguous and its context plain, there is normally only one possible intention.
A fatwa may not be given of the unbelief of a Muslim whose words are interpretable as having a valid
meaning, or about the unbelief of which there is a difference of scholarly opinion, even if weak.
Only when the intention entails kufr do such words take the speaker out of Islam.
9. sarcasm about any ruling of Sacred Law, or quoting a statement of unbeliefeven jokingly, without
believing itwhen ones intention is sarcasm [about religious matters];
53

Except that Keller states the opposite of what is intended in the text; my translation is given below:
Or if he disparages any ruling of Sacred Law; or utters a statement of unbelief voluntarily even jokingly, even if he
does not believe in it because of slighting religion.
262

Whether he misunderstood the Arabic or whether he knowingly manipulated it, the chaos that follows
is based on such false premises.



This may sound like a valid position of Islamic scholars but it is patent nonsense; and it is Kellers own
rule. This intention for explicit insults is a Kellerian concoction brewed in kettle logic; it is hard to
believe that Keller is not doing this deliberately.



This is contrary to the position of Islamic jurists; Q y says that the case of insulting the Prophet
is different to other cases of apostasy:
Even if the person proves that he has not deliberately said any of this to deride him ; or intended to insult or
disparage him
263

Ibn ajar al-Haytam commenting on the above says:
[Q ys] opinion is obvious and confirms to the principles of our madhhab. Because someone is ruled kfir based
on what is observed from the outside; one cannot look at his motives or intentions, nor consider the context in which
he has said so.
264



Yes, Imm Subk wrote a book of more than five-hundred pages but did Keller read it? The main
subject of this book is whether the repentance of a blasphemer is accepted or not; Shfis and anafs
accept it, anbals and Mliks do not accept it. One should bear in mind that Imm Subk does not say
that a person can commit blasphemy and remain nonchalant;
265
the debate is whether repentance is
accepted and the blasphemer shall be spared execution. Keller mentions a statement of Imm Subk and
presents it as the core principle for his argument:


We have discussed this earlier in the chapter on blasphemy; one should remember the distinction
between adh or causing hurt or offence, and shatm/sabb insulting or disparaging the Prophet .

262
Hadiyyah al-lyiyyah, p256. ikhtiyran not accidentally, or by slip of the tongue or absentmindedly but consciously.
263
Shif, p364. See Appendix G for a full translation.
264
Ilm bi Qawi al-Islm, Haytam, p82; also cited in the appendix of Sayf al-Masll, p591.
265
Imm Subk says:
[The right of Allhs Messenger is violated by the blasphemer] and before he reverts to Islm and repents, that right will not be exempted; such a
person shall be executed. However, after his [repentance] and his Islm is proven, he shall not [be executed] [Sayf p200].
Elsewhere, in the same book he says:
Whoever angers him whether by insulting him or in any such manner which we consider to be kufr, there is no doubt that such a person is executed
so long as he does not accept Islm. [Ibid, p212].
Something might be said that while outwardly offensive to Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and
give him peace), was nevertheless intended by the speaker to make a valid point, not as an insult.
The need to contextualize words to establish their intent is even more imperative in possible utterances
of kufr that insult Allah Most High or the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace).
Taqi al-Din al-Subki says in his al-Sayf al-maslul, a more than five-hundred-page work on the legal
consequences of insulting the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)
Offending however, may be either intentional or unintentional, while only if a person intends giving
offense to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) has he thereby committed kufr:
54

While the latter most certainly causes hurt; causing hurt does not necessarily mean that it is an insult.
The case of the bedouins or the companions who caused him hurt were not insults and as long as harm
was not intended, it is not kufr. Scholars make this distinction concerning those who offended the
Prophet and he forgave them, for example the person who criticised him:
...[probably] he did not deem it as an insult, rather an offence which could be forgiven..
266

Qr disagrees and insists that the Prophet certainly perceived it as criticism therefore, he said:
Woe unto you, who will do justice if I will not. Yet, the Prophet spared him because that is how he
was commanded to do at that time. Q y says that both adh/offence and sabb/insult will be
treated as the same when concerning RaslAllh . But all of this was permissible for the Messenger of
Allah to forgive, not for us, nor in our times. Also, sabb/shatm or insulting/disparaging is kufr
regardless of the intention; Imm Subk says:
The kufr of a blasphemer who claims that he attests and is aware [of the truth of Islm] is from this category.
267
There
is no doubt in the kufr [of a blasphemer] regardless of whether he deems it permissible or not; regardless of whether
he is ignorant or knowingly does so.
268

There are scores of passages in Sayf where Imm Subk mentions that the blasphemer is an apostate
and this is mentioned without any exception:
Every insult [or blasphemy] after Islm is kufr;
269

In one such passage discussing a finer point of the issue, he says:
Execution is for two reasons: The first is generic, for apostasy; and second is specific for blasphemy. Because if we
consider blasphemy specifically which is [also] kufr, it entails both meanings which we have mentioned here; that is:
the facet of kufr in itself and the facet of blasphemy in itself; because even if we consider a hypothetical case where
an insult does not merit takfr, even then [blasphemy itself] impels execution.
And immediately clarifies lest people like Keller run away with wild conclusions:
When I said: even if we consider a hypothetical case where takfr is not made due to insult, I really meant a
hypothetical case which is impossible to occur because there is no doubt that takfr is made for every case of
insult or blasphemy...
270

The subject of blasphemy is comprehensively discussed, debated and clarified; prominent scholars have
mentioned it in fatw and even written dedicated books; but Keller hacks it mercilessly and carves an
opinion which is not compatible with any madhhab. Haytami citing Q y says:
Even if the person proves that he has not deliberately said any of this to deride him ; or intended to insult or
disparage him whether it was ignorance that made him say such things or because he was discontented or
disgruntled, or he was inebriated, or he blurted it out without thinking or it slipped from his tongue, or because of
haughtiness or impudence, or impetuousity and recklessness; in all such cases, the ruling is the same as in the first
case that is, execution without further deliberation or any hesitation, because the excuse of ignorance [in such
cases] which cause apostasy is inadmissible, nor the excuse of slip of the tongue, nor any other excuse which I have
mentioned above as long as the person is sane and has not lost his reason.
Except a person in duress, who utters such things due to coercion as long as faith is undisturbed in his heart. It is
therefore, that the Andalusian scholars decreed against Ibn tim when he repudiated the zuhd of RaslAllh , as
mentioned earlier.
271

Let Keller present any scholar who has disagreed with the above summary; in fact, Haytami reiterates
in his comments after citing the above:

266
Shif, p362.
267
Which he mentions in a previous para, namely: kufr, regardless of knowledge and acceptance of Islam.
268
Sayf, p414.
269
Ibid. p187.
270
Ibid. 205 Emphasis mine.
271
Ilm, p82; Shif, p364.
55

[Q ys] opinion is obvious and confirms to the principles of our madhhab. Because someone is ruled kfir based
on what is observed from the outside; one cannot look
272
at his motives or intentions, nor consider the context in
which he has said so. However, the excuse of a person who claims that he did not know will be accepted according
to the state and conditions of his Islm.
273

His excuse will also be accepted if he claims that it was a slip of the tongue only to ward off the death penalty, even
though it is not accepted in the matter of divorce and manumission; because the former is the right of Allh tl to
forgive and the latter two require forgiveness of humans.
274

Concerning the many examples of unintentional harm adh that the Prophet endured due to
ignorance or harsh nature of certain bedouin companions, Keller generalises it for all times and for all
peoples which is an egregious blunder.



This is nonsense. If a person utters blasphemy, he shall be regarded as an apostate whether or not he
intended to offend or hurt the Prophet . This above suggestion is another false step by which he
nudges towards his main goal. This can be easily resolved by a fatw from any competent muft.
---------------
Istifta

If a person deliberately utters words which are explicit and plainly insulting to the Prophet , will the
person become a kfir or not? Will he become a kfir only if his intention is to insult the Prophet ?
---------------
Imm Subk cites the following principle from Q ys Shif:
abb ibn Rab said: Because the claim of favourable interpretation is not admissible in explicit words
275

which he further attests by saying:
All of this is cited from Q yQ, and much of it is cited earlier [as fragments]; but I thought of mentioning all
of it here, as it is appropriate in this place. All texts of Shfis, anafs and anbals agree and are concordant
276
that
[all] of this is insulting and [thus] apostasy which deserves to be punished by execution; they only differed whether
the persons repentance is accepted.
277

Kellers technique is to sneak in words slowly, one after another and build upon conjectures. When you
begin to introduce unproven premises and keep building on them, naturally, it sounds very logical, like
a journey Through the Looking Glass. He mentions the adth where youngsters among the anr said:
May Allh forgive RaslAllh ; he gives to the Quraysh and leaves us, and our swords are dripping
from their blood.



272
Obviously, it is not possible to know what is in their hearts.
273
Literally: to his closeness or distance to Islm. The shaykh means that if he is a recent revert, or someone who does not have
easy access to scholars, such as a child of Muslim parents in non-Islamic lands where exposure to Islm is far less and found
only in enclaves.
274
Ilm, p82.
275
Sayf, p407.
276
With the Mlik imm, Q ys quotes from Shif.
277
Ibid., p410.
The fallacy of imputed intentionality in such cases means to assume without decisive proof that an
offensive deed or utterance was deliberately intended to offend Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him
and give him peace) and hence legally kufr. Imam Subkis restriction of unbelief to cases of deliberate
The insult and offense offered thereby to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was plain,
but without legal consequences because it was unintentional.
56

Where is the insult? The label of insult is Kellers own because, he can manipulate this to suit his agenda.
The adth where young men from the Anar were disappointed and demurred because they did not
get a share in the spoils can be termed utmost as discontentment; Imm Ibn ajar says:
The leader/commander can favour some people and give them more than some others from the spoils of war; and
that even the rich may be given [more] for tactical reasons; and there is no blame on those who seek worldly share...
278

Notice that seeking their worldly share was not an insult; but projecting it as insult allows Keller to
generalise that it was excused because of the lack of intention to revile. The next example is also similar
where Keller mentions verse 51 of Srah Azb, where the Prophet was exempted from assigning
turns to his blessed wives, and the adth of Sayyidah ishah whom he quotes thus:



It would have been better if Keller translated the word haw in a more prudent manner; but then, Keller
is trying to prove a point and this kind of translation helps his agenda. Anyway, this statement was
neither an insult, nor a reproach Sayyidah ishah said it out of playfulness and the affection of the
Prophet allowed her that liberty. Only Keller or his followers can use this example to establish a
principle that: anything disrespectful can be said, as long as one does not intend to insult the Prophet.
This approach is worse than heretics who cite problematic adth to prove their qdah; here Keller
takes a plain adth and tries to spin a new meaning to bolster his argument. Ibn ajar says:
{I do not see, except that your Lord hastens to fulfil your wish}...that is, what pleases you.
279
Qurub said: It was
affection
280
and envy that prompted her to say this; which is similar to what she said elsewhere: I will not praise either
of you; and I will not praise anyone except Allh. Otherwise, the attribution of haw to the Prophet should not be
taken literally, because he does not speak or act upon whims. If she had said, fulfil what you please it would
have been more appropriate; yet, such an utterance is excusable for her, and because of her ardency.
281

yn under the same adth says:
{hastens to fulfil your wish} in things that you love. That is: I do not see, except that Allh tl gives you without
delay that which you desire, by revelation upon that which you like and that which pleases thee.
He then quotes Qurub [just as in Fat al-Br] and adds:
Obviously, my opinion [cited above] is far better than this.
282

adth imms clarify that this should not to be taken literally or that it should be used by anyone at all
and warn that it is impermissible to attribute him with whim or caprice. Of course, Keller is not
advocating that it is permissible to use that word; he acknowledges that it is offensive, but only
concludes that as she did not utter it to offend, it does not entail legal consequences.



It was excusable for Sayyidah ishah , and is certainly not excusable for anybody else. Sayyiduna
mar warned his daughter Sayyidah afah , not to compete with Sayyidah ishah as she was

278
See Fat al-Br, 9/464; commentary of the adth #4330 in Bukhr. Keller cites #3147, but the commentary is deferred
to this adth.
279
rika.
280
dall: is literally coquettish behaviour, but translated here as affection and playfulness in the context.
281
Fat al-Br, 11/413, adth #5113. A comment on a variant report is omitted as indicated by the ellipsis. Ghayrah, is not
negative or spiteful as jealousy may sound in English; it has more nuance to it such as self-respect, endearing, zeal for
something or being ardent.
282
mdat al-Qr, 14/64, adth #5113.
I said, I dont see but that your Lord rushes to fulfill your own whims
This last, admittedly jealous, remark was a reproach against her husband, the Messenger of Allah (Allah
bless him and give him peace), but here too, because it was a mere emotional protest that lacked the
explicit intention to demean or offend him, it entailed no legal consequences.
57

more beloved to RaslAllh and said: Do you feel safe from the Wrath of Allh for making RaslAllh
angry? Verily you will perish.
283
Scholars have clarified that either the Prophet did not deem such
words/deeds offensive, or he permitted them for a reason, or even if he was offended, he forgave those
who said/did such things as it was only his right to forgive. Only an ignoramus will generalise such
examples to establish a principle that anyone can say or do anything offensive to the Prophet , without
entailing legal consequences as long as there is no explicit intention to demean or offend him.



Remember that offence and insult are two different things. Offence, or unintentional hurt caused by the
companions occurred because they were not aware of these stipulations and prohibitions. After the
Prophet departed from this world, anyone uttering or doing something that is offensive to him or
would hurt him shall face legal consequences. In any case, what stops Keller from citing incidents of
explicit insults which the Master forgave, for instance, like that of bdullh ibn Ubayy, the leader of
hypocrites and declare that blasphemy laws are alien to Islam?
Keller then cites the incident of Dhul Khuwayarah and his offending statement to prove his
generalisation. In his legal work on blasphemy of more than five-hundred pages, mentioning the case of
Dhul Khuwayarah who said This distribution is not for the sake of Allh, Imm Subk comments:
It is necessary for those in authority
284
who came after the time of the Messenger of Allah , to avenge the right of
Allh from those who do not revert to Islm
285
and it is not permissible for them to forsake it because they do not
know [entirely] the reasons [for rulings] which the Prophet knew; and Allh tl had informed him and bestowed
special knowledge and wisdom as much as Allh willed [which was not granted to others]. Therefore, RaslAllh
did not ask Dhul Khuwayarah or others like him to repent; however, if any thing like what Dhul Khuwayarah said
transpires in our time, it is necessary for us to requisition [the blasphemer] to repent.
It is possible that he forsook mandating repentance at that time for two reasons:
Either, the Prophet was informed of the true intentions [in the hearts] of such people, and knew that they would
not repent like the hypocrites, and the Prophet was well aware of their hypocrisy and there was no benefit in
asking them to repent.
Or because such people were ignorant and newcomers to Islm and were not aware of Shara rulings, or they were
not aware that prophets are given Divine Immunity or it is obligatory to respect and revere prophets and [because
of] their exalted rank [they are] far removed from such things;
286
therefore, the Messenger did not punish them as
Allh tl has commanded him: Turn away from ignorant folk.
287
Thus, such things were not apostasy for them
but only Allh tl knows what His Messenger intended to do.
288

It is clear from Imm Subks comment that we cannot use such examples to exempt blasphemers in our
time. If a person utters an insult or says something disparaging the Prophet , that person becomes a
kfir regardless of his intention if the words are plain and explicit. Only if the words are open for
interpretation, the muft shall examine whether any valid interpretation exists and is plausible in the
context and rule accordingly. Ibn ajar al-Haytami mentions this issue:
[Scholars have said:] It is proven that he ordered the execution of those who hurt him or disparaged him; it is his
right and it is his choice [to punish or spare those who hurt him]. He chose to execute some people and forgave
some others. After his passing away, there is no way others can differentiate on what merits forgiveness, and therefore
the ruling is generic that [a person who hurts him] is executed because we do not know if he should be forgiven. It

283
Musnad al-Bazzr: Musnad mar ibn al-Khab #206. 1/319.
284
ayimmah: lit. Leaders, but in this context, rulers or their authorised representatives who can enforce law.
285
That is after blasphemy and apostasy because the only recourse is repentance and reverting to Islm, which is accepted
by Shfis and which is the main purpose of Imm Subks book, Sayf al-Masll.
286
Such as being unfair or unjust.
287
Srah Arf, 7:199.
288
Sayf, p199.
There are many similar examples of unintended offense in the sunna.
58

is not allowed for his followers [ummah] after him to forego his right, because the only permission [we are given and]
reported from him, is to punish the blasphemer.
289

Haytami cites the above from other scholars, though he does not accept this argument for refusal of
accepting the tawbah of a blasphemer; yet, he does not deny that a Muslim will certainly become an
apostate on account of insulting the Prophet . Haytami mentions the same examples which Keller does,
and says:
..and such examples are plenty and well-known. Even if he executed a Muslim on account of insulting him, this cannot
be [a valid] proof;
290
because we
291
too rule that he should be executed because of his apostasy.
292

No scholar admitted the requirement of intention for plain and explicit insults. This is also evident
from other examples of purported blasphemy, which are not explicit:
According to the principles of our madhhab, we cannot make takfr because of this unless the person said so with
an intention to belittle [the Prophet ] because it is not explicit...
293

Apparently, Keller only preaches nuances and contexts and fallacies to others he does not have to
be mindful of such things himself, and routinely throws nuances under the bulldozer. His next example
is about a man who utters a blasphemous statement unwittingly and without the intention to do so.





The adth of Muslim, and the qad mentioned here is of a different kind; qad is used to mean these
two things:
intention to say something as opposed to slip of the tongue or a spontaneous exclamation
intention to mean something
The example in the cited adth of Muslim is neither of the above. Neither did the man deliberately say:
You are my slave nor does he intends that meaning. In his ecstasy, he blurted You are my slave.
Obviously, if he meant what he said, there is no dispute that it was kufr; but according to Keller, it does
not entail consequences even if he said it deliberately, as long as the intention to revile is not present.
This difference of voluntarily saying something and inadvertently blurting out is mentioned in Mu:
One who utters words of kufr in full knowledge that they are words of kufr, and also believes in those words, he has
committed kufr; even if he does not believe in [the meaning] of those words or does not know that they are words
of kufr but has uttered them voluntarily; most scholars have ruled such a person kfir and did not admit the excuse
of being ignorant.
However, if his intention was not to utter those words of kufr, and he wanted to say something, but he said something
else unintentionally, which was kufr such as he wished to say: There is no God but Allh and he involuntarily
uttered There is God with Allh or if wished to say: Allh hath no equal but said its opposite [involuntarily], he
shall not be ruled a kfir.
294


289
Ilm, p112.
290
Haytami is arguing about accepting the repentance of a blasphemer; here he means, even if RaslAllh ordered the
execution of a Muslim for insulting him, that is not sufficient proof for not accepting his repentance the latter being the Mlik
and anbal position. See Chapter 3 for more details.
291
Shfis.
292
Ibid.
293
Ibid. p81.
294
Mu al-Burhn, 5/226. Burhnuddn bd al-zz ibn Mzah al-Bukhr (d.616 AH). Also in Majma al-Anhur, 2/502.
Truly, Allah rejoices more at the repentance of a servant when he repents to Him than one of you would
if riding his camel through a wasteland, and it wandered off, carrying away his food and water, and he
despaired of ever getting it back; so he came to a tree and lay down in its shade, without hope of ever
seeing his camel again; then, while lying there, suddenly finds it beside him and seizes its reins, so
overjoyed that he cries, O Allah, You are my slave, and I am Your lordmaking a mistake out of sheer
happiness
59

This is what Shaykh luddn also said, which was misunderstood by Keller:
Or if he disparages any ruling of Sacred Law; or utters a statement of unbelief voluntarily even jokingly, even if he
does not believe in it because of slighting religion.




This conclusion is absolute nonsense and Kellers own invention. Nowhere did Imm Subk say that
blasphemy is pardonable as long as one does not intend to revile Allh or His Messenger . In other
words, Keller says that it is permissible to say: You are my servant to Allh tl as long as you dont
intend to revile Him. No wonder another ignorant preacher said in a Youtube video that we are all
children of Allh
295
But according to Kellerian theory one should not have the intention of blasphemy
but can say whatever he/she likes; Keller has clearly mentioned this a number of times:



Anyway, coming back to this adth, Q y says:
If a person says such a thing in shock or bewilderment or distraction
296
it does not deserve censure, in-shaAllh.
Similarly, narration of such things for a valid shara purpose, such as to instruct others etc. [is not blameworthy]. But
it is not [permissible] to just narrate to agitate or for mimicry or to mention the parable retold by the Prophet for
amusement; even if one does not believe in what he repeats.
297

l al-Qr commenting on this adth:
He says so by slip of the tongue and stumbles from saying the proper statement: I am your servant and You are my
Lord {due to immense joy} this is repeated to emphasise [and indicate] the excuse and the reasons which made
him utter such a thing; because intense happiness or sorrow may sometimes cause the persons death, or shock him,
preventing him from understanding plain and simple things.
298

It is necessary to point out one more thing here. Keller says:



So what is he trying to prove? Isnt there a difference between reciting a verse that quotes: Christians
say: Jesus is the son of Allh..
299
and uttering it as a statement? Where did anyone say that quoting a
statement of kufr by way of citation is kufr? We know that Kellers logical prowess is not very stellar
but we will try to simplify things for him:
The Christians say: {Jesus is the son of Allh}
Saying only the words in the parantheses above even jokingly is kufr, even if the person does not have
the intention of unbelief. For example, no one can refer to Sayyiduna s 7 as: Son of God even
if he does not have that intention of unbelief and only wants to ingratiate himself with Christians or

295
al-ydhu billh.
296
dahshah, dhuhl.
297
Ikml al-Mlim, Q y, #2747, 8/245.
298
Mirqt al-Maft, #2333, 5/242.
299
al-ydhu billh. Verily Allh has no father, no son.
It is difficult to think of an utterance more blasphemous or offensive to Allah than the latter, had it been
intentional. But since it was not, the principle of Imam Subki necessarily applies that the person who
says such an expression without intending to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give
him peace) cannot be judged an unbeliever.
Something might be said that while outwardly offensive to Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and
give him peace), was nevertheless intended by the speaker to make a valid point, not as an insult.
The Quran itself, for example, is filled with verses quoting kafirs denying Allah and His messengers
(upon whom be peace), yet reciting such verses is certainly not kufr, unless it is accompanied with the
intention of unbelief.
60

tries to emulate them. But, we never disputed that citation of a blasphemy for a valid reason is
permissible and is not deemed as committing blasphemy oneself, as mentioned by Q y.
300

If we disputed this principle Keller probably thinks that we do not know this and therefore tries to
teach there was no need for his lengthy dissertation. He could have simply named a few books of
Alahazrat where he quotes Deobandi blasphemies and gotten over it with a smug comment: See even
Ahmad Reza also has said things Deobandis have said. Suppose Keller were a judge in an Islamic court
and a blasphemer was brought for prosecution and the blasphemer says: Indeed, I said such things but
I did not have the intention to revile in my heart. How does Keller propose to verify that? Split open his
chest, perhaps?



Which principle? That people are free to say anything and are excused as long as they do not say it with
the intention to revile Allh tl or His Messenger ? Of course, Sunni scholars did not know this
Kellerian principle; rather they followed earlier scholars:
[Q ys] opinion is obvious and confirms to the principles of our madhhab. Because someone is ruled kfir based
on what is observed from the outside; one cannot look
301
at his motives or intentions, nor consider the context in
which he has said so.
302

Which bewilderment or ecstatic joy made the Deobandis say what they said? Perhaps, it is the same
intense joy which led them to print blasphemous statements and shocking amazement that led them
to defend those statements, and continue to be defended by their followers and apologists for many
years afterward.

Before proceeding further, we must reiterate that Kellers principle of anything is permissible to utter
as long as the intention of insult is absent is the false premise upon which the rest of his argument
rests. Unfortunately, Keller attributes this to Imm Subk and it has been proven from the imms own
work that this principle is invalid.

Keller then goes for the kill:





Ignoring Kellers airbrushed history lesson for the moment, let us examine the fallacies in his statement,
which can be restated as follows:
a. Alahazrat did not know the principle: anything blasphemous can be said unless
intention of reviling is present
b. And because Alahazrat did not know this principle, he issued a number of fatw making
takfr of major Deobandi scholars
c. Alahazrat also said that anyone who does not consider them kfirs is a kfir himself
d. In comparison, no Deobandi scholar of note, has made takfr of Barelwis.

300
See Appendix G for a full translation of the Seven Cases Involving Blasphemy; the principle of citation is the sixth case.
301
Obviously, it is not possible to know what is in their hearts.
302
Haytami in Ilm cited earlier.
Knowledge of the above principle could have probably prevented much of the fatwa wars that took
place around the turn of the last century in India between Hanafi Muslims of the Barelwi and Deobandi
They culminated in a number of fatwas published by Ahmad Reza Khan Barelwi (d. 1340/1921) of the
takfir of major Deobandi ulema of his times...
...and indeed, of anyone who did not consider them kafirsfatwas which have cast their long shadows
down to our own times. In comparison, no Deobandi scholar of note, to the authors knowledge, has
yet made takfir of Barelwis.
61

In the last line, to the authors knowledge, gives the false impression that Keller must have spent
decades researching Deobandi literature and has exhaustively read their works. If it is indeed the case,
then let Keller list how many Deobandi fatw/books he has seen or heard prior to writing this article.
By this absurd comparison, Keller insinuates that Alahazrat is unjust and Deobandis are good the
former made takfr but the latter ones did not. If not, what exactly does he mean? This is similar to a
q who issues a death sentence to a murderer and whose lawyer argues that the condemned man has
not accused the q of murder [insinuating that the judge is wrong]. In reality, Deobandis committed
blasphemy of Allhs Messenger ; Alahazrat made takfr following the ijm:
Muammad ibn Sann said that scholars are in unanimous agreement that the blasphemer of the Prophet and
his denigrator is an apostate. Allhs promise of punishment for such a person is ordained. The punishment for such
a person in our nation is execution. Whosoever doubts in his apostasy and in his punishment has himself become an
apostate.
303

Of course, Keller does not know the nuance mentioned in Alahazrats fatw that whoever doubts
applies to those who are aware of the blasphemies and yet consider such blasphemers as Muslim:
One who comes to know of their blasphemies and still does not consider them kfir is also a kfir...
....Yes, if indeed there is a newcomer or someone who does not know anything [nir jhil] or someone who is unaware,
such that the sound of these blasphemies has not reached his ears and does not deem them kfir simply because
he does not know, are all excused so far that it is explained to them and they accept forthwith.
304

A simple answer to the following question rests our case: Zayd commits blasphemy, and Bakr comes
to know that Zayd has committed blasphemy. Yet Bakr does not consider Zayd as a kfir in spite of his
blasphemy; does Bakr remain a Muslim?



Absolute nonsense again; Keller should probably take a preliminary course in logic. According to Keller,
if there is a debate on an issue, by that very fact that there is a debate that issue ceases to become an
Essential precept. In other words, the issue is itself inconsequential whether or not there is a debate
on that issue makes it necessarily known to be of Islm.


Thus, if a group of people who claim to know the Qurn and adth also deny the Judgement day, by the
very fact that there is a debate/disagreement, it ceases to become an Essential precept; and therefore
not a criterion for anyones kufr or iman.
First, let us break down the statement:
1. Any issue debated back and forth between two parties of Islamic scholars
2. Both of whom know the Qurn and adth, anaf jurisprudence and the qdah of Islm
3. Is by that very fact (of being debated back and forth) not a central religious principle
4. But rather can only be something peripheral that is disagreed by lam
5. As such, it cannot be criterion for anyones kufr or iman.

303
Shif, p356.
304
Fatw ar-Riawiyyah, 21/283-284.
Now, any issue that has been debated back and forth between two parties of Islamic scholars, both of
whom know the Quran and hadith, Hanafi jurisprudence, and the aqida of Islam, is by that very fact
not a central religious principle that is necessarily known to be of the religion of Islam,
As such, it cannot be the criterion for anyones kufr or iman.
62

And analyse it :
1. Let us take the issue of calumny
305
of Sayyidah ishah and two parties of Islamic scholars:
ostensibly, the Rfi also claims to be a scholar of Qurn and adth. On what basis will Keller
preclude them from his claim of being a scholar? And because he is debating the issue, he
therefore remains well within Kellers framework of disagreement.
2. Yes, anaf fiqh is something a Rfi may not profess; but is anaf fiqh a basis for arriyt?
3. So that issue is, by the very fact of being debated back and forth not a central religious
principle.
4. But rather peripheral.
5. As such, it cannot be criterion for anyones kufr or iman.
The fallacy and circular argument in Kellers framework is obvious. Instead of fixing the arriyt as
established by ijm, and anyone who dissents shall have left the fold Keller generalises
306
that a
debate between lam renders the issue as peripheral.
The correct principle can be stated as:
1. There are core issues (arriyt) and peripheral issues.
2. Anyone denying or disputing core issues is a kfir
307
regardless of how much learned he is or
professes to be a scholar of Qurn and Sunnah (notwithstanding his proficiency in anaf fiqh).
3. Peripheral issues are debated back and forth by lam and therefore, these cannot be a criterion
for mn or kufr of anyone.
In our example earlier, calumny of Sayyidah ishah is kufr; which is an established principle. If any
scoundrel in our time indulges in calumny, and seeks to make it a peripheral issue, we will still not
hesitate to rule him kfir just because a debate has now ensued. Similarly, blasphemy of the Prophet
is apostasy. Deobandis were ruled kfir by Alahazrat on account of blasphemy and disputing arr
precepts, not because of peripheral issues. Keller wants us to believe that because there was a debate,
these were peripheral issues, and therefore takfr made by Alahazrat is invalid.



Does Keller include Imm Sunn among people who know and a multitude who followed him, and
all those who said: Anyone who doubts in the kufr of a blasphemer is a kfir himself?



How do we know that it is an unbiased look? How many Sunni scholars Barelwis, as he says did
Keller contact on this issue? How many polemical works of Sunnis did Keller read? If he cannot read
Urdu, who helped him with the information and translating Urdu texts and passages? What is the
criterion of bias? It will soon be obvious that Keller has not even bothered to investigate the history of

305
In this context, we are specifically talking of qadhaf.
306
Indeed, things debated by our elders ARE a factor in deciding whether an issue is a core-belief or a peripheral issue. But
after ijm is established and centuries later, a debate on such issues in our time is inconsequential. Debate of scholars in OUR
time is measured against the established core/peripheral criteria and indeed, the persons status as a reliable scholar or an
innovator hinges on his compatibility or lack thereof, with these criteria.
307
See Chapter 3: On Apostasy for quotes from Mtaqad and Mustanad on this matter.
Among the evidence for this, as previously noted, is that Allah has commanded us to ask those who
know well, if you know not
Despite the acrimonious charges and countercharges, an unbiased look at the polemical literature of
the Barelwis and Deobandis bears out its essentially peripheral nature in three ways:
63

the issue, let alone read the polemical literature, which he dismisses with such confidence. Notice that
Keller, the unbiased, presents charges and counter-charges as acrimonious as if they are some sort
of abuse, once again trampling the nuance that the charge upon Deobandis was blasphemy of the
Prophet ; and Deobandis retorted with attacks and insults on the person of Imm Amed Ri. I have
presented quotes of Deobandis from their own books just as Alahazrat did and perhaps, according
to Kellerian Standard of Unbiased, Appendix C is an acrimonious charge.



Keller probably presumes that scholars in the subcontinent are similar to his murids from the
subcontinent, or the few average ones he must have encountered; and thus generalises that they do not
know anything at all. Before setting the straw-man on fire, let Keller prove that any prominent
Sunni/Barelwi scholar has made takfr of Deobandis or Salafis for disagreeing with practices such as
celebration of Mawlid or seeking intercession of saints. On the other hand, we can present scores of
examples from authentic works of these deviant groups, which consider practices and fiqh differences
as polytheism and deem people indulging in such practices as polytheists. But Keller, the champion of
unbiased has not seen any takfr made by Deobandis.
308
Why, he does not even know Isml Dihlaw
or his Taqwiyatul mn, which Deobandis hold dear as faith itself.
309




This straw-man is so big that in-shaAllh we shall douse its fire in a separate chapter.



Keller deftly transforms the main point of contention to an irrelevant one, shoving it behind the thick
smoke billowing from smoldering strawmen; as if Sunni scholars have nothing better to do except make
takfr of Deobandis.
310
But wait, Keller is specific about his comments:


This too, we shall discuss later; in-shaAllah.




First, Keller insinuates that the statements of both Khall and Thnaw are presented out of context and
that he will give the proper context himself in other words Deobandi apologia which we will examine
in its appropriate place.

308
We shall see some examples in the following pages.
309
Rashid Gangohi has said in his fatw: The book Taqwiyatul mn is an excellent book and matchless in its refutation of shirk
and bidh; its proofs are entirely from the Book of Allh and adth. Keeping it with oneself and acting upon it, is faith in essence.
310
Kellers explanation of why he has used the word pretext in endnote #6 is dealt with in Obiter Dicta.
First, the fiqh differences between them, mostly about the acceptability or unacceptability of certain
practices of folk Islam in the Indian subcontinent, do not concern matters of belief to begin with
Second, none of the six main aqida issues fought over by Barelwis and Deobandis
Third, the only substantive pretext for takfr between them is an issue that illustrates the fallacy of
imputed intentionality
...namely the charge of Ahmad Reza Khan Barelwi in his Husam al-Haramayn
The Imputed Insult, to the remarks of these two scholars in context, and show how Imam Subkis
distinction between intentional and unintentional offense offers a compelling Islamic legal solution to
a debate that has become a social problem.
64

Keller again and again falsely attributes to Imm Subk, a principle which no scholar will accept. Imm
Subk himself has said it clearly elsewhere:
I have mentioned in my book Sayf al-Maslul, the principle that whosoever intends to hurt the Prophet deserves to
be executed such as bdullh ibn Ubayy and those who did not intend to hurt the Prophet , such as Mista and
amnah, do not deserve to be executed.
However, concerning insulting the Prophet , ijm is established that it is kufr; and mocking him is kufr; Allh
tl says: Tell them: Do you make fun of Allh tl, His verses and His Prophet? Do not make excuses
you have become infidels after having professed faith.
311
Rather, even if you do not mock him; Ab bayd al-
Qsim ibn Sallm ruled a person kfir for memorising half a [poetic] verse which disparaged the Prophet .
312

A little earlier in the same fatwa, he makes the distinction between sabb and adh
Concerning insult [sabb] alone, I have already mentioned [the ruling] earlier and shall discuss more shortly; and
hurting [ydh] the Prophet is a serious issue, except that it is governed by a principle.
313

But according to Keller, One can say anything, even explicit insults,
314
but is culpable only if they have
the intention to insult. We cannot say whether this is due to genuine confusion that he did not
understand it or deliberately distorts Imm Subks statement. Imm Subk was talking about adh,
not sabb and we have made the distinction earlier; Keller is exploiting the handicap in translation of
Arabic terms and forces his way forward deceptively. Let Keller show us where any Sunni scholar has
made the distinction between intentional and unintentional sabb or shatm. I quote Q y once again,
which has been cited approvingly by both Imm Subk and Imm Ibn ajar al-Haytami:
Even if the person proves that he has not deliberately said any of this to deride him ; or intended to insult or
disparage him whether it was ignorance that made him say such things or because he was discontented or
disgruntled, or he was inebriated, or he blurted it out without thinking or it slipped from his tongue, or because of
haughtiness or impudence, or impetuousity and recklessness; in all such cases, the ruling is the same as in the first
case that is, execution without further deliberation or any hesitation, because the excuse of ignorance [in such
cases] which cause apostasy is inadmissible, nor the excuse of slip of the tongue, nor any other excuse which I have
mentioned above as long as the person is sane and has not lost his reason.
Except a person in duress, who utters such things due to coercion as long as faith is undisturbed in his heart. It is
therefore, that the Andalusian scholars decreed against Ibn tim when he challenged the zuhd of RaslAllh , as
mentioned earlier.
315

Keller can either disprove this or accuse Q y and all those who followed him, including Imm
Subk and Haytami of not having understood the Kellerian Principle of Imputed Insult and failed to
make the distinction between intentional and unintentional sabb. After that, he can proceed to
illuminate the subcontinent:



But does he intend to educate common folk on the respect and reverence due to the Prophet or will
he be outraged at anyone denigrating the Prophet ? Why, it is easy; anything can be said as long as
there is no intention to revile.


311
Srah Tawbah, 9:65-66.
312
Fatw Imm Subk 2/573.
313
Ibid.
314
Recall the examples used to illustrate the Kellerian Principle like that of Dhul Khuwayarah and the example of a
blasphemous, but a spontaneous and involuntary uttering of the lost traveller; Keller presents his conclusion:
Something might be said that while outwardly offensive to Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), was nevertheless intended
by the speaker to make a valid point, not as an insult.
315
Ilm, p.82; Shif, p364.
to clarify the mistake of thinking that such differences do so in an essay I intend to write in the future,
Allah willing, on the fallacy of considering ijtihad as aqida.
65

V. KELLERS LIST: THE SIX DISPUTED ISSUES
"What giants?" said Sancho Panza.
"Those thou seest there," answered his master, "with the long arms, and some have them nearly two leagues long."
"Look, your worship," said Sancho; "what we see there are not giants but windmills, and what seem to be their arms are the sails
that turned by the wind make the millstone go."
"It is easy to see," replied Don Quixote, "that thou art not used to this business of adventures; those are giants; and if thou art
afraid, away with thee out of this and betake thyself to prayer while I engage them in fierce and unequal combat."
So saying, he gave the spur to his steed Rocinante, heedless of the cries his squire Sancho sent after him, warning him that most
certainly they were windmills and not giants he was going to attack. He, however, was so positive they were giants that he neither
heard the cries of Sancho, nor perceived, near as he was, what they were, but made at them shouting, "Fly not, cowards and vile
beings, for a single knight attacks you."
316

---
It was a full moon night, and a man was intently searching for something in a clearing. A passerby stopped and asked if the man
needed any help. I have lost a diamond ring said the man. The newcomer joined the search and after a while asked him, Where
exactly did you drop it? The man replied, Oh, the ring? I dropped it in the thicket, but it is dark over there; I am searching for it
here because it is bright here.

---
The Deobandi-Sunni dispute is more than a hundred and fifty years old; some issues are about rituals
and practices and some others are about secondary qdah issues. Deobandis and other Wahbs have
a huge list of things they deem bidh or shirk; but Sunnis make takfr only on issues related to Essentials
and cases of blasphemy. There are dozens of contentious issues between Sunnis and
Deobandis/Wahbs, but it is not clear how Keller came up with this shortlist of six issues, which he
declares: six main qdah issues fought over by Barelwis and Deobandis.
What is the basis and the source of this list?
Islm arrived in the subcontinent about a thousand years ago and until 1800s, Sunnis were undivided
in India. Many saints and scholars have graced this region, and arguably, the most famous ones in latter
times are Shaykh Amed Sirhindi, Shh bd al-aqq Dihlaw, Shh Walyullh Dihlawi and Shh bd al-
zz Dihlaw.
The family of Shh Walyullh was among the most prominent scholarly families in early 1800s. His
illustrious son Shh bd al-zz Dihlaw was a famous adth imm and a anaf jurist; he is respected
by both Sunnis and Deobandis and they consider him a reliable and an authoritative scholar. Yet, it was
his nephew,
317
Shh Isml, who dissented from the ways of common Muslims and indeed from that
of his forefathers and introduced Wahb beliefs and ideas in the subcontinent. Influenced by writings
of Muammad ibn bd al-Wahhb Najd, he wrote Taqwiyatul mn, a harsh and abusive book, which
caused a furore from the start and was the first major essay of Wahb thought in India.
318

This book was refuted by many scholars and among the foremost who refuted this fitnah were Fal al-
aqq Khayrbd, Fal al-Rasl Badyn, Muft Amed Sad Naqshband
319
and Ismls own cousins,
Shh Makhullh Dihlaw and Shh Ms Dihlaw all of them students of Shh bd al-zz. Shh
Makhullh called the book Tafwiyatul mn, or the Annihilation of Faith. Isml followed his
Tafwiyat, with even more abominable works such as Yak Rozi, and Y al-aqq.

316
Don Quixote, Chapter 8. Translated to English in 1885 by John Ormsby (1829-1895).
317
Shh Walyullh had four sons: Shh bd al-zz, Shh bd al-Qdir, Shh Rafuddn and Shh bd al-Ghan; the first two
did not have male offspring; Shh Rafuddn had six sons: Muhammad s, Muaf, Makhullh, Muammad usayn,
Muammad Ms, Muammad asan, and all six of them were scholars. Shh bd al-Ghani had one son Muammad Isml.
318
See Isml Dihlaw aur un ki Taqwiyatul mn by Shaykh Abul asan Zayd Frq Naqshband Dihlaw al-Azhar.
319
He was a prominent scholar and descendant of Imm Rabbn Mujaddid Alf al-Thn.
66

Among the major ideas espoused by Isml:
Rejection of taqld of imms
Exhortation of common people to make their own judgement from Qurn and adth
Seeking intercession of Prophets and saints is polytheism
Seeking help through intercessors (istightha, istinah, istimdd) is polytheism
Falsehood is included in Divine Power and it is possible for Allh tl to lie
That Allh tl can create billions of Muammad in an instant even now
It is heresy and ignorance to believe that the Creator does not have a direction
Everyone in the creation (including prophets) is lower than a menial cobbler in the Presence
of the Almighty
If ones thinks about the Prophet in prayer, it is worse than thinking about ones own
bullock or donkey
One should respect Prophets only as much as one would respect an elder brother
Prophets are leaders similar to village headmen being head of the village
Post-modern apologists of Isml claim that he did not reject taqld or that his books were tampered
yet without an iota of shame, those books are promoted by Deobandis. Some people may invoke Kellers
fancy rule of printed books to subvert this issue yet, Deobandi elders did not disagree with the
contents of the book or disputed the attribution to Isml. Deobandis revere, respect and follow Isml
Dihlaw and his ideas and defend his blasphemies that is the biggest bone of contention. After Isml
was killed, the tribulation had subsided for some time, until Rashid Gangoh revived it through his
school at Deoband; his fatw are full of praise for Ismls book and dismisses the rumour that Isml
had repented from some of those beliefs the rumour, which caused Alahazrat to withhold from takfr.
In his Kawkabah al-Shihbiyyah, Alahazrat mentions 70 statements of this Isml and demonstrates
the kufr of those statements; yet, he abstained from making takfr of Isml because a rumour was
afloat that Isml had repented from his heresy. However, those statement are blasphemies and
anybody who professes those beliefs shall become a kfir.
Deobandis furthered Ismls cause and in the course of defending his heresies, added blasphemies of
their own. Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah refuted them and in those cases where it was unavoidable, they
made takfr of those people. Deobandis shot back defending their elders and slandering Sunni scholars;
but they also did something which Sunnis did not do enough they reached out to Sunni scholars
outside the region and presented themselves as authentic Sunnis who dislike Wahbs and follow Sufi
traditions; and they presented their elders in an acceptable form not discussing their heresies or their
beliefs; and of course, Muhannad was always at hand to deceive the rest of the world.
320

This is the background of the conflict. Deobandis active on the Internet may dispute this summary and
vehemently disagree that they are not Wahbs but their Wahbism is evident from their books and
fatw and continued support and promotion of Isml Dihlaw, his Tafwiyatul mn and other works.
Ismls tract is certainly based on Shaykh Najdis works; Shaykh Abul asan Zayd Frq Dihlaw has
conclusively proven in his work
321
and demonstrated that whole passages are translated verbatim and
even chapter names are lifted from the Najdis book.

320
Even the faux rage against the founder of Wahbism, showed by Khall Amed in Muhannad was retracted later; which will
not spare those who attested that fable as authentic qdah of Deobandis nor do they note this retraction in newer versions.
321
Maulavi Isml Dihlaw aur Unki Taqwiyatul mn, Mawln Abul asan Zayd.
67

Issues upon which Deobandis conflict with Sunnis can be grouped broadly thus:
1. Essentials of Religion: Qsim Nnotw said that khatamun nabiyyn does not necessarily mean
that our Master is chronologically the final prophet, and if a prophet were to arrive after him, it
would not affect the finality of his prophethood; Rashid Gangoh in a fatw said that we should not
make takfr of a person who claims that Allh tl has lied [wuq e kazib ke man durust ho gaye].
Such examples are aplenty in that burnable book Taqwiyatul mn.
322

2. Blasphemy: Ashraf l Thnaw claims that the knowledge of unseen possessed by the Prophet
is similar to that possessed by animals and madmen. Khall Amed said that the expanse of the
knowledge of the world is proven for Satan by texts, and no such evidence for RaslAllh exists
and it is polytheism to prove the same knowledge for RaslAllh . Mamd al-asan in his dirge
for Gangoh committed a number of blasphemies.
3. Secondary qdah Issues: Deobandis do not accept the Prophet was given extensive knowledge
of unseen; that he was a man just like us, citing the last verse of Srah Kahf; Deobandis do not
permit istightha, and deem it shirk. Calling upon RaslAllh for help as a form of tawassul is
deemed polytheism by Deobandis following other Wahbs, even though such prayers are found in
adth. Isml claimed that RaslAllh is dead and became dust. First, Isml and then Gangoh
and his followers claim that it is possible for Allh tl to lie.
323
Isml Dihlaws books also
advocate anthropomorphic beliefs.
4. Culture of Disrespect: Mentioning the Prophet and Awliya without due respect a trend set by
Isml and his Tafwiyat. Deobandis routinely use ugly analogies to illustrate their point, thereby
exposing the filth within themselves. One famous Deobandi debater, hir Gayv compared reciting
salutation upon the Prophet in the masjid loudly, to feces in a plastic bag; the same person
asserting that Allh tl can lie, used the analogy of a young man who can commit adultery but
abstains from it. In Juhd al-Muqill, Mamd al-asan claims that it is in the Divine Power of Allh
tl do all ugly or evil things [qudrah l al-qabyi] and it is mumkin dht for Allh tl.
324

5. Scorning Practices as Bidh/Shirk: Deobandis scorn and ridicule celebration of Mawlids; or
prayers known as ftiah donating reward of good deeds to the deceased; including that of saints
known as rs. Thnaw claims that describing RaslAllh as remover of affliction is polytheism.
Deobandis deem it an act of faith to possess Tafwiyatul mn and to read it.
6. Exaggerated Praise of Deobandi Elders: Sometimes, such praise borders on blasphemy and escape
that ruling only because they claim them to be dreams. Khall Amed in his Barhn writes that in
one such dream RaslAllh was speaking in Urdu and when asked, he said that it was because of
his association with the scholars of Deoband; in another dream, RaslAllh was cooking food for
Gangoh; Mamd al-asan in his elegy to Gangoh belittles the prophets s 7and Ysuf
7 comparing them with his own master; and that Gangoh was second to RaslAllh ; he goes
on further and describes Gangoh as sustainer of the creation murabbi e khalyiq. This kind of
exaggeration reaches grotesque proportions: when a follower writes to Thnaw that he was
reciting l ilha ill Allh, Ashraf l RaslAllh in a dream and then Allahumma all l Ashraf l
in wakefulness; instead of rebuking him, Thnaw reassures him that it is a comforting event.
7. Mistakes in Translations and Fatw: Rashid Gangoh rules that it merits reward [thawb] to eat
the house crow; the verses of the Qurn are translated recklessly in Thnawis and other
translations disregarding the esteem of Allh tl or his prophets; Gangoh deems that the phrase
ramatun lil lamn, is not restricted to RaslAllh , and others such as awliya can also be
described as ramatun lil lamn.

322
See Appendix C for scans of those passages upon which Sunni scholars made takfr.
323
Alahazrat says that it is kufr according to jurists, but scholars of kalm withhold from takfr.
324
Juhd al-Muqill, p59, The Seventh Proem; also in Tadhkiratul Khall, p146, that stealing, drinking wine, ignorance and
oppression are included in Divine Power.
68

8. Hypocrisy and Self-Contradition of Deobandis: This is the defining characterstic of Deobandis
they have a book, an qdah and a fatw for all seasons. When they meet Sunni scholars outside the
subcontinent, they claim that their qdah is described in Muhannad; but in their fatw and Urdu
books, they scorn those very things as bidh or shirk.
The ugliest form of their hypocrisy is the exaggerated praise [ghuluw] of their own elders a
number of things which they scorn as polytheism or innovation when said about Prophets and
Awliya, is claimed as a praiseworthy attribute of their own elders. In an even bizzare twist, when
Deobandi mufts were asked about statements of their elders, without mentioning their names, they
ruled them kfir yet, they obstinately defend them and accuse Sunnis of being unfair if they issue
the same fatw. Self-contradiction of Deobandis is a chronic problem sometimes, a certain belief
or action is shirk; and at other times it is not; this contradiction is not only between two different
people, but in the fataw of the same person.
9. Slander of Sunni Scholars: usayn Amed Tndw wrote Shihb al-Thqib, in defence of
Deobandis, but is also a compendium of insults and imprecations against Alahazrat. Similarly,
Murtaz asan Chndpr and others wrote booklets and pamphlets attacking the person of
Alahazrat, in their attempt to divert the focus from their own flaws.
Abul asan Nadw resorted to bald-faced lies in his biographical notice on Alahazrat and Sunni
scholars who refuted the heresy of Isml Dihlaw smearing them as innovators Taq Uthman
made a similar attempt in his answer to an Arab scholar inquiring about Amed Ri Khn,
answering innocently, that Barelwis make takfr of Deobandis because they forbid polytheistic
practices.
10. Blind Support and Defence of Deobandi Elders: including their blasphemies. Even if a hundred
explicit proofs are presented, they try to find some ambiguous or obscure passage in a book and
generalise that it is the general qdah of all scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah. Manr Nmns Faysla Kun
Munazara is touted as the last word in the debate,
325
even though it is full of falsehoods and
misrepresentations similar to Kellers Iman, Kufr, and Takfir. In an attempt to exonerate their elders,
they rush recklessly where even illiterate Muslims fear to tread.
Sunni scholars make takfr of Deobandis only in the first two cases and deem them heretics and
misguided for the rest of their stultiloquence. The last case however, is pending examination: if a person
knowingly defends explicit blasphemies, then he too shall be judged as an apostate, because:
Among things that cause apostasy is ones being concordant with [and approving of] disbelief, even if it is implied;
for example, if a kfir wants to accept Islm, and asks a Muslim to instruct the testimony of faith, and if that Muslim
does not do it, or says Wait until I am done with my work or finish my sermon, [if he is a preacher]; here, it is as if
he has suggested [the kfir] to not become a Muslim...
326

Mawln Amed Sad Kam writes:
I have mentioned presently that the fundamental difference and reasons for the dispute between Deobandis and Ahl
as-Sunnah are those passages in which there is blasphemy against Allh tl and His Messenger. Deobandis say
that these statements are not disrespectful or insulting Sunnis say that the insult and denigration in them is
explicit...
327

Many statements of Deobandis fall in multiple categories above. It should be noted that we do not
include weird anecdotes of Deobandi elders, like the lewd stories narrated by Thnaw or such things
reported about Gangoh or Nnotw, mentioned in their own works; these are personal shortcomings
and only show that they were ornery people lionised by their followers.

325
In-shaAllh, I have the intention of writing a refutation of that screed in the future, Allh tl is a Sufficient Helper.
326
Ilm, p31.
327
Al-aqq al-Mubn, p15, Sayyid Amed Sad Km.
69

A detailed review of these cases is beyond the scope of this book, but the objective of mentioning them
here is to expose the preposterousness of Kellers claim that the main disputed issues are the ones
mentioned in his list. Regardless, let us examine Kellers understanding of these issues in the context of
the Deobandi-Sunni conflict; indeed, these are disputed issues, but they are not the main ones per se,
but because of the number of underlying reasons as we shall see:
Kellers List of Six Disputed Issues
Issue Kellers Assessment
1

Knowledge of Unseen of the Prophet (lm al-Ghayb)

Almost Fair
2

The Prophet is present and watching (ir Nir)

Fair Appraisal
3

The Prophets will and control (Mukhtr al-Kull)

Fair Appraisal
4

Intercession of the Prophet in this world and the next (Tawassul Shafh)

Half-Truths and Skewed
5

Possibility of falsehood in Allhs Speech (Imkn al-Kadhib)

Clueless and Ignorant
6

Whether Allh can create another like the Prophet (Imkn al-Nar)

Rushed and Muddled

1. Knowledge of the Unseen (lm al-ghayb)
Allh tl is the Knower of Unseen; His knowledge is Absolute, it is Infinite and not given by another
and He Knows by Himself [dht, ghayr mutanh, mustaqill]. However, Allh tl has given some
knowledge to His slaves as mentioned in the Qurn:
Allh does not inform of the unseen to any [of you
common folk]; however, He chooses among His
Messengers, whom He wishes [to give such
knowledge]?
328

He is the Knower of Unseen; he does not reveal His

knowledge of unseen to anyone except to His beloved
Messengers
329

And he [Prophet ] is not niggardly in informing the

unseen
330

328
Srah Al mrn, 3:179. In Tafsr Bayw: Allah tl will not give any of you the knowledge of unseen so that they can be
aware of what is in the hearts - whether disbelief or faith; however, Allah tl chooses whoever He wishes for His Message;
and sends him revelation and Divine Inspiration and gives him partial knowledge of the unseen. [ba al-mughayyabt].
329
Srah Jinn, 72:26-27.
330
Srah Takwr, 81:24. According to exegetes, ann means bakhl; miserly, stingy.
70

It is kufr to say that RaslAllh did not have knowledge of unseen absolutely; as it negates the verses
of the Qurn above and many a adth. However, disagreement over the expanse of this knowledge
of unseen is a different issue.





Whether it is deliberately said to mislead, or out of ignorance, Keller assumes that Deobandis are
forthcoming with this qdah of ilm al-ghayb and squabble only about the extent of such knowledge. The
truth is, that following Isml and Wahbs, Deobandis insist that claiming knowledge of unseen for the
Prophet is shirk and they try to suppress this distinction of absolute/autonomous and granted and only
when they are cornered will they grudgingly concede because negating it absolutely, will necessitate
denial of Qurnic verses; even then, they come up with fancy explanations and flimsy excuses.
Regardless, the qdah they teach common people and in the words they use, it is almost always without
qualification; but if any knowledgeable person challenges them, they will show an obscure or oblique
reference that indicates the distinction. Additionally, they resort to word play Knower of Unseen and
Knowledge of the Unseen. Here too, Deobandis insinuate that the main dispute is in these terms,
whereas, Alahazrat did not claim that the term Knower of Unseen is permissible for RasulAllah .
Isml Dihlaw says:
Whoever says that the Prophet of Allh or any imm or any elder knew things from the unseen, but they would not
utter it respecting the sharh, such a person is very big liar; rather, nobody knows about the unseen except Allh.
---
We learn from this adth that concerning any prophet or saint or imm or martyr, one should not have the belief
that they knew unseen rather, even about our Prophet himself nor mention this in his description.
331

Rashid Amed Gangoh says in Fatw Rashdiyyah:
A person who believes that RaslAllh had knowledge of the unseen [lm e ghayb] is polytheist absolutely, and an
apostate according to anaf imms.
---
Knowledge of unseen is a characteristic [attribute] of Allh tl; to use this word for anyone else, even with a
compatible explanation [tawl] is not free from implications of polytheism.
---
RaslAllh did not have knowledge of the unseen nor did he ever make such a claim. In the Book of Allh and in
many adth, it is mentioned that he was not a knower of the unseen. And to hold a belief that he had knowledge of
the unseen is explicit polytheism.
---
To prove lm al-ghayb for anyone other than Allh tl is explicit polytheism.
... If Zayd believes that Allh tl had given knowledge [of unseen] to him, then it is a clear mistake but not kufr; and
if he believes that he possessed that knowledge himself without being informed by Allh tl, then it is deemed to
be kufr. Therefore, in the first case, the persons being imm [in prayer] is valid; and in the second case, such a person
should not be made an imm, though one should withhold from calling him a kfir and try to explain it favourably.
332

This latter opinion of Gangoh cited above is weird if a person believes that RaslAllh had
knowledge of unseen by himself, without being granted by Allh tl, even then he should not be called
a kfir!

331
Taqwiyatul mn, p26 and p27.
332
Fatw Rashdiyyah, p228, p229, p238, p244, p241. These references are from the modern edition of the book.
How much knowledge of the unseen (ilm al-ghayb) did Allh bestow...
...while the Deobandis say he had only limitary knowledge of it.
71

Such contradictions are common in Deobandi literature; contrast this with Alahazrats lucid and
unequivocal explanation:
Yes, the claim of even a speck of knowledge for anyone without being given by Allh tl is certainly kufr. It is also
an invalid belief that the knowledge of [anyone in the] creation can encompass the knowledge of Allh tl, and is
against the opinion of most scholars. However, the knowledge about everything from the first day to the final day of
judgement that which has happened and shall happen, m kna wa m yakn is only a small fragment from the
infinite knowledge of Allh tl. This fragment is not comparable even to a billionth part of a drop of water in relation
to a billion oceans. Indeed, this part is itself a small part of the knowledge of Sayyidun Muammad . I have
described all these issues in Dawlatul Makkiyyah and other books.
333

The stance of Sunnis is clear, unambiguous and an overwhelming majority of scholars hold this opinion:
that the knowledge of the Prophet is granted by Allh tl and is not absolute or all-encompassing;
it is not complete, but only partial; it is accident and not pre-eternal; it is mumkin and not wjib. Imm
Nawaw was asked about the verse Say: No one in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen,
except Allh,
334
even though prophets have given information about what will happen on the morrow;
he replied:
It means that no one has absolute [or autonomous] knowledge, nor complete encompassing knowledge [of all things]
except Allh; as for the miracles of prophets and saints, it is because Allh tl has informed prophets and awliya
and [their knowledge] is not autonomous...
335

Alahazrat never claimed that RaslAllh was given complete knowledge of the unseen; but Abul asan
Nadw still wrote:
..and he believed that RasulAllah had complete knowledge of the unseen.
336

Obviously, if he had written the truth, scholars outside the subcontinent would not be shocked but
with this false accusation, he could easily persuade those reading his work to consider Alahazrat as a
deviant. Some of them went to Sayyid Amed Barzanji in Madnah and told him that Alahazrat deemed
the knowledge of RaslAllh to be equal to that of Allh, except for the difference of dith and
qadm;
337
which Alahazrat refuted in sim al-Muftar. Alahazrat eloquently describes the Sunni qdah:
the knowledge about everything from the first day until the final day of judgement that which has
happened and shall happen, m kna wa m yakn is only a small fragment from the infinite
knowledge of Allh tl. This fragment in comparison to Divine Knowledge is lesser than a billionth
part of a drop of water in comparison to a billion oceans.
Thnaws blasphemous statement was in this context of part knowledge
338
he said: one should
clarify whether it is complete knowledge [kull lm e ghayb] or just a little part [baz] and if it is the latter,
then what is so special about such part knowledge of the unseen for the Prophet ? Such knowledge
is possessed by animals and madmen. We shall discuss this blasphemy in more detail further, but we
mention it here to highlight Deobandi aversion for this belief.
Deobandi fatw recklessly call such a belief as kufr and shirk without making proper distinction,
339

even if proof for such things is present in adth and verses; and when confronted, they make up strange
explanations to prove their aberrant fatw and audaciously distort meanings of adth to prove their
elders right. In adth of Muslim and Bukhr, it is reported that RaslAllh informed the audience of
the m kna wa m yakn, but Isml Dihlaw says that claiming knowledge of unseen is polytheism;
which is horrifying in its implication, but still Isml Dihlaw and Gangoh are imms and Deobandis
are innocent lambs, and Keller is unprejudiced. SubnAllh!

333
Tamhd e mn, Imm Amed Ri.
334
Srah Naml, 27:65.
335
Fatw Imm Nawaw, p241.
336
Nuzhatul Khawir, 8/1180.
337
that Allhs knowledge is pre-eternal and that of RaslAllh is an accident.
338
Though his fatw was NOT an answer to either Alahazrats fatw or book.
339
This is apart from the contradictions such as Gangohis fatw in the previous page.
72

2. The Prophet is Present and Watching (ir nir)
Present and watching these two terms are used in the meaning of knowledge and beholding as
explained by Ibn bidn:
...that is, to mean: Knower who beholds according to Bazzaziyyah.
340

To believe that Allh tl is physically present everywhere is not an Islamic belief; however, if a person
calls upon Allh tl as Present and Watching, it implies knowledge, not physical presence or physical
sight and therefore, such a person will not be ruled kfir:
[If one says] O Present, O Watching, he will not be ruled kfir.
341

Keller has summarised the Sunni position well, and as usual, glosses over the Deobandi stance;
Deobandis have ruled that it is shirk and kufr to believe in this even though there are adth and verses
proving that RaslAllh beholds actions of his followers. Deobandi opinions are mentioned below in
the spirit of fairness.
Ashraf l Thnaw says listing actions that are kufr and shirk:
To call upon someone from far and to believe that they are informed [about it].
342

Rashid Amed Gangoh says concerning the salutation to the Prophet in tashahhud in prayer:
If someone believes that the Prophet hears the salutation himself, then it is kufr regardless of [the tense] whether
he says: Peace upon you or Peace upon the Prophet [as-salmu alayka or as-salamu lan nabiyy]
343

Isml Dihlaw says:
..to believe that [such an intercessor] can be present and watching [ir-nir] and prove that he has the power to
dispense in affairs [aarruf]; these things prove polytheism. Further, even if he believes that such a person
[intercessor] is lesser than Allh and His creation and His slave; in this issue there is no difference among saints and
prophets, or jinn and Devils, or ghosts and fairies. That is, whoever deals with any of them such becomes a polytheist
whether he does it with prophets, saints, shaykhs, martyrs or ghosts and fairies.
344

The above passage could be translated idiomatically to demonstrate its brashness and ignorance, but
I have tried to be as literal as possible. According to Isml, believing in ir-nir and seeking help
from intercessors is polytheism and such a person becomes a polytheist. It is this book Gangoh admires
and staunchly believes in.
Now, Keller should make it clear whether he believes in istightha, istinah or deems it polytheism; if
it is the former, he becomes a mushrik according to Ismls fatw, attested by Gangoh whom he
ardently defends. Keller should also make it clear whether or not this fatw makes polytheist of his own
shaykh, Sayyid bd al-Ramn al-Shghour. If he cannot criticise Deobandis, Keller should declare that
he too like other Wahbs and Deobandis considers this as shirk, instead of deceiving the common
public by lamenting the takfr of Wahbs in the beginning of the article, and writing elaborate fairy tales
to exonerate those self-same Wahbs:




340
Radd al-Mutr, 6/408.
341
Ibid. and also Durr al-Mukhtr, p351.
342
Bihisht Zeywar, 1/42.
343
Fatw Rashidiyyah, p99, 1323 Edition; [also p243, Dr al-Isht, Karachi Edition].
344
Tafwiyatul mn, p8.
It is the fitna or strife that destroyed previous faiths, and whose fire in Islamic times was put out with
the defeat of the Kharijites, only to be revived on a wholesale scale almost a thousand years later by
Wahhabi sect of Arabia in the eighteenth century,
73

Nowhere does Keller indicate that it was Isml and his Deobandi followers who promote Wahb
thought in the subcontinent, and scorn a number of things as polytheism and innovation which are
accepted and validated by Sunni scholars worldwide. In 1884, Mawln bd al-Sam wrote Anwr al-
Stih, proving the validity of practices such as Mawlid and donating reward to the deceased known as
ftiah, and refuted Wahb objections upon them; one such idea he refuted in the book was:
They say that it is polytheism, if one believes that RaslAllh may come to the place where Mawlid is recited;
because only Allh tl is present everywhere and He has not given this Attribute of His to anyone else.
345

He then goes on to give proofs that the Angel of Death is present in all places and by analogy it should
not be far-fetched that RaslAllh can also be present; at any rate, this belief cannot be polytheism
because there are adth that prove that the Angel of Death can be present anywhere.
It is in Mishkt: The Angel of Death is present at the headside of believer as well as a that of a disbeliever. This is a
lengthy adth; and Q Thanullh mentions in Tadhkiratul Mawt, a adth from abarn and Ibn Mandah which
says: The Angel of Death told RaslAllh , There is no house good or bad towards which I do not pay attention.
I see them day and night and recognise all, great or small, so well that even they do not know themselves...
346

He cites Durr al-Mukhtr:
We learn from these adth that [after all] the Angel of Death, is a prominent angel [can be present everywhere]; see,
even the Devil is present everywhere as mentioned in Durr al-Mukhtr in the chapter on prayer that the Devil is
present with all sons of dam, except those whom Allh safeguards; further it is written: The Devil has this power
similar to the power given to the Angel of Death.
347

And draws the following conclusion:
This could be understood by an analogy in our physical world: if a man goes wherever from the east to the west on
this earth, he will find the sun and the moon present everywhere and if he says that the same moon and the same
sun are present everywhere, according to your [Wahb] principle, such a person should become a kfir because he
has said that the moon is everywhere.
Whereas, the correct ruling is that he is neither a kfir nor a polytheist, but a proper Muslim. Similarly, when the sun
is present in all the seven continents, even though it is in the fourth heaven; the soul of the Prophet which is in the
seventh liyyn, if his blessed sight can behold the entire earth and see certain specific places where the celebration
of Mawlid is being held and similar to the rays of sun encompassing the earth, witness [all this] why should it be far-
fetched and impossible?
But Khall Amed Ambethwi did not accept this analogy and refuting the above wrote the following
abominable words which are explicitly blasphemous:
The outcome: One should ponder, that by looking at the state of Satan and the Angel of Death, [and then] proving
such encompassing knowledge of the earth
348
for the Pride of the World,
349
without any scriptural evidence
350
and
by mere fallacious analogy if this is not polytheism, then which part of faith is it? This extensiveness of knowledge
for Satan and the Angel of Death is proven by scriptural proof; where is such scriptural proof for the extensiveness of
the knowledge of the Pride of the World, thereby refuting all scriptural proofs and establish one polytheistic belief?
351

Deobandis try to explain this passage sans the original context but the fact remains that Barhn was
written to refute Anwr and quotes from both books are given; even a simple minded or an uninitiated
reader can notice that the comparison was indeed made to prove that Satan and the Angel of Death had
more knowledge than RaslAllh in this issue of being present and watching.
352


345
Anwr al-Sih, p355 in the contemporary edition, and p179 of the second edition published in 1307/1889.
346
Ibid. p356.
347
Ibid. p357, Cf. Durr al-Mukhtr.
348
lm-e-mu-e-zam.
349
fakhr-e-lam meaning RaslAllh .
350
na.
351
Barhn al-Qih, p47, Published by Hashmi Publishers in 1304.
352
Shaykh bd al-akm Sharaf in his Arabic work Min qidi Ahl al-Sunnah has explained this in detail with proofs.
74

3. The Prophets will and control (mukhtr al-kull)
Allh tl has given the Prophet a prominent rank and given him the authority to ordain anything
he wishes and the Qurn is witness to this belief. But Deobandi elders degrade and diminish the lofty
rank of the Prophet . Their high priest, Isml has compared the Prophet to be lower than a speck of
dust in the Presence of Allh even though he is the most beloved to Allh in the creation:
...it should be known with certainty, that everyone in the creation whether great or small; all of them are more
contemptible [dhall] than a menial cobbler in the Presence of Allh.
353

Isml himself has clarified in many places that great ba refers to esteemed people or
honourable people such as prophets and saints:
...it can be understood from this verse, that prophets and saints whom Allh tl has made high [ba]...all slaves,
great and ordinary [big and small] are equal; weak and helpless without any authority...in these things as well, all
slaves esteemed and common [ba/cho] are all equal, unaware and ignorant
354

Isml Dihlaw has also said in the same book:
If anyone believes that anybody in the creation has the authority to dispense in affairs [taarruf] and believes that
such [entity] is his supporter [wakl] and believes in it, then he has committed polytheism even if he does not deem
such [a person] as equal to Allh, or has any power against Him.
355

...is absolutely unjust because this proves such a great rank of such a great person for such worthless people.
356

He, whose name is Muammad or l, has no authority to do anything
357

Or if one believes about the Prophet that sharh is by his command and made lawful whatever he wished and it
would become binding upon his followers. All such things necessitate polytheism; rather, the real Sovereign is Allh
and the Prophet is only an informer.
358

Alahazrat points out that Isml, in his fanatic zeal does not even admit that such power is possible
even when granted by Allh tl:
Alas, if the wretch had only said: anyone who deems that someone has power [to do things] by himself, and dispenses
in affairs absolutely and independently is a polytheist, indeed, it would be right and truth...
359

Isml Dihlaw says:
To respect the woods around the city that is to abstain from hunting in woods or cutting its trees or pull out the
grass or graze the cattle all these things are ordained by Allh for His own worship...then to go to such places from
far away with the intention to visit them; or to illuminate such places or adorn or drape them or erect a pole in their
name, or walk backwards from such a place; to kiss their grave or fan with peacock feathers or affix a canopy over it
or kiss the threshold or stand there with hands folded or entreat them for favour or take residence in the vicinity
[mujwar] or respect the forest surrounding the places [of any prophet or ghost or fairy] or does similar things, then
such person has committed polytheism and it is known as polytheism in worship [ishrk fil bdt]
360
Here, Isml considers travelling from far off places to visit the Prophet or to respect the forest
surrounding his city, as shirk; even though a number of a adth prove that RaslAllh made
Madnah a sanctuary.
361


353
Taqwiyatul mn, p14. In Urdu, ba/cho means big/small, great/small, elder/younger, esteemed/lowly etc.
354
Ibid. p24-25.
355
Ibid. p28. That is, even if one believes that a person [nabiy or waliy] is neither equal to Allh, nor has any power against
Him, even then such a person is a polytheist if he as much as believes that he can dispense in affairs with Allhs permission.
356
Ibid. p29. dakhal is used here idiomatically to mean authority to dispense in affairs.
357
Ibid. p42. Obviously, he refers to Sayyidun RaslAllh and Mawl l.
358
Ibid. p47.
359
Kawkabatush Shihbiyyah, Fatw Ridawiyyah.
360
Tafwiyatul mn, p11.
361
See Munyah al-Labb in which Alahazrat proves that RaslAllh can make anything lawful or unlawful and Qurnic verses
clearly stipulate that such a command is binding: Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allh. [Srah Nisa 4:80].
75

4. Intercession of the Prophet in this world and the next (tawassul - shafh)
Keller downplays the poison that Isml Dihlaw poured in the subcontinent and tries to ignore the
blatantly unislamic beliefs in Ismls book, where he says:
Even kfirs in the time of Messenger of Allh did not believe that their idols were equal to Allh; they too believed
that [idols were] creation and slaves; nor did they profess that [such idols] had power against Allh. Rather, they
would call upon them and make vows and were beholden to them, they would deem [such idols] as their advocates
and intercessors this was their disbelief and polytheism. Thus, if anyone does a similar thing, even if they believe
they [intercessors] are the slaves and creation of Allh then he and Ab Jahl are equal in polytheism.
362

Elsewhere in the same book, Isml says:
Allh tl ordered him to describe his state in front of all people clearly so that the state of everyone else is known;
so, he said: I have no power, nor any knowledge of unseen. The state of my power
363
is such that I do not have any
power to benefit or harm my own self, then how can I do anything for anybody else?
364

Isml explicitly denies intercession of prophets on account of their closeness or esteem near Allh:
...that is the king accepts the intercession on account of [someone being] beloved, thinking that it is better to swallow
my anger and forgive the thief than suffer the sorrow of upsetting my beloved; this kind of intercession is not possible
for anyone and in any way in the grand court of the Almighty. If anyone thinks that someone can intercede with Allh
[because of their being beloved] such a person is also a polytheist and ignoramus [mushrik - jhil]
Even though, numerous adth proclaim the intercession of His beloved Prophet and the verse:
And soon, your Sustainer shall give you so
much that you shall be pleased
365

Ibn Kathr in the tafsr of this verse says that this refers to intercession [shafh] and Qurub in his
tafsr mentions a adth in which RasulAllah said:
Then, by Allh, I shall not be pleased as long as one amongst my followers is in fire.
Qurub also mentions a adth narrated by bdullh ibn mr
Allh tl told Jibrl: Go to Muammad and tell him: Verily Allh tl tells you: Verily, we shall make you pleased
concerning your followers and We shall not displease you.
366

Rejection of intercession is engraved in the Deobandi Constitution
367
which Rashid Gangoh advocates
to read and to keep this book on ones person is essentially faith itself.
368
Despite such explicit kufr,
Sunni scholars withheld from making takfr of such an ignoramus merely on the rumour that he had
repented and retracted from some issues; but Gangoh vehemently denies the rumour and asserts that
every issue in this book is correct; someone asked him whether the rumour was true and he replied:
In my opinion, all the issues and matters [masyil] discussed in the book are valid and correct, even though externally,
there is harshness in some issues. That he repented from some of those issues is the slander [or false accusation] of
heretics. If a person does not respect him [Isml] as an elder because of false stories that he has heard [about him],
he shall be excused; but if he holds a belief contrary to the book, he is a heretic and fsiq.
369


362
Tafwiyatul mn. p8. In other words, if anybody deems even the Prophet as an intercessor, even with the belief that he is
the slave of Allh tl and His creation such a person is an idolator and equal to Ab Jahl.
363
That is, lack thereof.
364
Ibid. p24.
365
Srah u, 93:5.
366
Cf. Tafsr Qurub from a Muslim #346, The Book of Faith.
367
Taqwiyatul mn.
368
is k rakhn aur padhn aur mal karn yn islm hai aur mjib ajr k hai; is ke rakhne ko jo bur kaht hai woh fsiq aur
bidt hai.
369
Fatw Rashdiyyah, 1/65.
76

Gangoh also said:
Taqwiyatul mn is an extremely excellent book; and has irrefutable proofs against polytheism and innovation [shirk-
bidh] and is completely in accordance with the Book of Allh and the adth. To keep it with oneself, to read it
and to act upon [its exhortations] is in essence faith itself [yn islm] and anyone who speaks ill about keeping
this book is a fsiq and a heretic. If someone, due to ignorance does not understand the beauty of this book it
should be deemed a failure of his understanding, not the error of the author. Prominent scholars and righteous
people have liked this book; if a misguided person speaks ill of this book, he is himself a misguiding heretic.
370

In another fatw:
The book Taqwiyatul mn is an extremely excellent and a truthful book; it causes strengthening and amendment of
faith and the meaning of Qurn and adth is entirely found in this book...
371

According to Gangoh, if anyone criticises this book, he becomes a heretic and is a fsiq; and the book is
beautiful and beyond reproach as if it is as inviolable as the Qurn! According to Gangoh everything
in this book is fully concordant with Qurn and adth rather all the meanings of the Qurn and adth
are found in this book, and is praised by righteous scholars.
The truth is that nobody except a Wahb will ever like it, let alone praise such a revolting book.
Gangohs love and fervour is reserved only for such an obnoxious person who describes prophets and
awliya as lowly beings, comparing them to cobblers and scavengers; and of course Kellers sympathies
are only with such faithless people; but if a self-respecting Muslim gets agitated at such insults upon his
religion and refutes these things, he may have to put up with the following insinuations by Keller:








Isml writes that if anybody seeks the intercession of creation, even it were the Prophet himself,
such a person is equal to Ab Jahl that would include Kellers shaykhs and teachers unless he has
changed his allegiance to become a staunch Deobandi and a die-hard admirer of Isml Dihlaw. Once
again, Keller makes up his own summaries where is the qualification in Ismls work? He states these
things absolutely and his blind followers follow him blindly on his march to hell. Suppose Keller with
his soft spot for blasphemers suggests that it should be interpreted favourably, the guru himself has
rejected Kellers support and trashed it with utter contempt:
It is a futile [claim] to utter a disrespectful thing expressly [hir] and then say that it means something else. There
are other occasions for conundrums and riddles; nobody talks in puns and equivoques with ones own father or the
king; such things are said to friends and buddies not father and king.
372

We would like to know why Keller is so eager to exonerate those people who would deem him a
polytheist and an idolator.



370
Fatw Rashdiyyah, 1/122.
371
Ibid. p45.
372
Tafwiyatul mn, p56.
- the need to put oneself up by putting someone else down;
- thirst for fame as a scholar;
- the feeling of power through frightening those one informs;
- the thrill of their need to resort to ones knowledge to get all the details;
- the need to prove ones group is superior to anyone else;
- malice, envy, or arrogance.
77

Keller takes a brief detour at this point:

If you are not capable of doing something, leave it : : and proceed to do something within your capacity
Incidentally, we too shall take a short detour and return for a moment to the paper, Truth About a Lie,
373

where fundamentals of kalm and basic definitions were explained. There, we quoted the opening lines
of Umm al-Barhn:
Know that these three definitions cover the rational argument:
a) wujb/wjib: necessary
b) istilah/mustal: impossible
c) jyiz/mumkin: contingent
wjib, whose non-existence is inconceivable; mustal, whose existence is inconceivable; jyiz, whose existence and
non-existence are both conceivable and possible.
374

Sans explains that rule in this context means to attest to something or to negate it. Such a rule is
due to the reasons: revealed law (sharh), habit (dah), and intellect (ql). Therefore, a ruling falls
into one of these three classes: shara, d or ql. It is important to know that the first two classes,
namely shara and d are not discussed in rational theology (kalm); in this science, we deal only
with the rational argument, that is, ukm al-ql. Imm Sans describing reasons that lead to heresies
says:
[One of the reason] is ignorance of the fundamental principles of rational rulings: that is the knowledge of what is
necessary, contingent and impossible.
375

In Wust, he says:
(an understanding) of these three terms is essential for any discussion in the science of kalm
376

He explains the above statement himself thus:
Undoubtedly, the idea
377
of these three concepts and the knowledge of the quiddity
378
of these terms, is the
fundamental principle of the science of kalm. Because, when a scholar discusses an issue, he will have to describe it
in one of these three terms, to attest or negate or derive a corollary of the issue; and if that scholar does not know
the true (definition) of these terms, he will not be able to understand what has been attested or negated (in this
science). Imm al-aramayn considered the comprehension of these three terms as fundamental intelligence, and
one who does not understand these is not counted among the discerning.
Furthermore, wjib/mustal can be intrinsic or extrinsic; when something contingent [mumkin]
becomes wjib or mustal due to an extrinsic reason, it is termed extrinsic wjib/mustal. Naturally,
mumkin cannot be sub-categorised as intrinsic or extrinsic yet, there are two descriptions for mumkin:
intrinsically possible mumkin dht and existentially possible mumkin istidd.
379


373
This paper is currently being revised to correct a number of typographical errors and formatted for clarity; however,
citations are relevant and will remain unchanged even if they are reworded.
374
Umm al-Barhn, Imm Sans.
375
Shar al-Muqaddimt, Sans. p77.
376
Shar al-Wust, p78.
377
taawwur which in this context, is to have an idea, the notion or the concept in the mind.
378
aqyiq, pl. of aqqah meaning reality of something or the quiddity of such a thing.
379
Mumkin is also known as jyiz. imkn istidd is also known as imkn al-wuq. It should be noted
Two more `aqida-related questions remain to be mentioned and to understand them, we have to return
for a moment to a previously made distinction
78

It is obvious that Keller does not properly understand basic kalm terminology and therefore makes
blunders; he doesnt differentiate between mn of Ab Lahab and his punishment:



Imm Sans says:
This wjib that is mentioned is wjib dht [intrinsically necessary]. As for wjib ra, it is that which is related to the
Divine Will of Allh tl like the punishment of Abu Jahl. Because, when we look at the innate nature of this thing
it is jyiz, possible; both the possibility of punishment and its absence are rational. However, when we look at the
Divine Will of Allh tl to punish him, as has been informed to us by the truthful and veritable Messenger blessings
of Allh tl upon him and peace this becomes necessary [wjib] and it cannot be conceived that it will not come
to be. Indeed, it is not necessary to consider something wjib dht only upon proviso; because by default and when
mentioned absolutely, wjib does not mean anything except wjib dht. And it cannot be considered wjib ra
unless it is qualified thus expressly.
380

While it is true that pardon of Ab Lahab appears to be intrinsically possible, Allh tl has however
Willed to punish him and has conveyed to us via his Divine Speech. And because of its relation to the
Will and Knowledge of Allh tl which are both Pre-eternal, pardon is mustal dht.
Anyway, does Keller know why this relatively obscure kalm issue became prominent in the
subcontinent? Why did a debate on these issues ensue? Who cast the first stone? Keller might not even
have paused to think about it and made up his own script; but do spare a look at the facts:
Isml Dihlaw wrote Taqwiyatul mn in which he claimed that Allh tl can create billions of
Muammad with single command:
The greatness of the King of kings is such that in one instant and by one command Be, if He so wishes, He can create
billions of prophets and saints and jinns and angels equal to Jibrl and Muammad .
381

1. Sunni scholars refuted that filthy book and Fal al-aqq Khayrbd was foremost in refuting
Isml; Shaykh Khayarbd was arguably the most learned scholar of rational sciences in his time
which is acknowledged even by his enemies.
382
He refuted Ismls ludicrous notion in his work:
Taqq al-Fatw bi Ibl al-Taghw and one of the arguments he made was:
If bringing into existence and creation [yjd, takwn] of someone completely similar to the Honourable Prophet ,
and in all his attributes is possible, then it would necessitate that Allh tl would utter falsehood. Because, anyone
who is completely similar in all his attributes, and equal to him would certainly be a prophet; and certainly, a new
prophet after RaslAllh would necessitate the falsehood of the Qurnic text: But he is the Messenger of Allh
and Seal of all prophets.
383
But, falsehood is a flaw and therefore intrinsically impossible for Allh tl.
384

2. Isml Dihlaw, in response questioned why should falsehood be mul for Allh tl? To prove
his point, he wrote in Yak Roz which was ostensibly written to refute Mawln Fal al-aqq:
After giving information, it is possible that Allh tl can discard it. Therefore, the saying that Creation similar to
him can exist does not fundamentally belie any text; and the negation of the Qurn [salb e Qurn] after revelation
is also a possibility.
385


380
Shar al-Muqaddimt, p77.
381
Taqwiyatul mn, p31. Notice that the yokel does not even have the proper etiquette of mentioning the Prophets name, but
still Deobandis regard him as an imm. Keller will surely not mind etiquette and adab is reserved only for other people, and
particularly blasphemers. Anybody can blaspheme against the Prophet and Keller will comfort them: Dont worry; as long as
you did not intend to insult the Prophet , you can say anything. l awla wa l quwwata ill billh.
382
Nuzhatul Khawir, bd al-ayy Lucknawi, #687, 8/1063. In his time, he was peerless in rational sciences and Arabic
language related subjects. Yet, father and son freely indulge in slandering Sunni scholars for the crime of refuting Isml
Dihlaw whom they term a righteous scholar. We seek the refuge of Allh tl, the Powerful Avenger zzun dhuntiqm.
383
Srah Azb, 33:40.
384
Taqq al-Fatw bi Ibl al-aghw. We shall discuss the issue in more detail further under the sixth issue in Kellers list.
385
Yak Rozi, p17.
Third, we saw that there is also another class of the impossible, namely things which, while not
impossible in themselves (mustahil dhati), become impossible because of Allahs eternal decision that
they are not to be, such as the iman of Abu Lahab
79

3. Further, in the same work by Isml:
We do not accept that such a falsehood is impossible [mul] for Allh tl. Because, to make any matter or
information contrary to what has occurred,
386
and to inform angels and prophets about it, is not removed from the
Divine Power of Allh tl; otherwise, it would necessitate that the power of humans is more than the Power of the
Almighty.
In other words, humans can lie and if Allh tl could not lie, it would necessitate that humans have
power which the Creator does not.
4. Further, in the same work:
They enumerate the absence of falsehood [dam e kazib] as an Attribute of Perfection [for Allh taala] and such an
absence of falsehood is considered as praise of Allh tl comparing with dumb people or inanimate objects.
387
The
Attribute of Perfection is when a person has the power to utter falsehood but owing to reasons and wisdom, he
abstains from uttering a false thing such a person deserves praise. Compare this to a person whose tongue is useless
[i.e., dumb] and who wishes to utter false speech, but has no voice; or if someone holds his mouth shut [such that he
cannot utter anything] sensible people do not deem such a person as praiseworthy. Rather, praiseworthy thing is
to [voluntarily] avoid the flaw of falsehood and not taint oneself by uttering falsehood.
388

5. Mawln Fal al-aqq continued to debate Isml until the later was silenced. But Ismls student
aydar l Tonki wrote a refutation of Taqq al-Fatw, which was refuted by Fal al-aqq in his
Imtin al-Nar.
6. Years later when Deobandi leaders defended Isml and tried to prove imkn al-kadhib as a valid
qdah, Alahazrat refuted them; but he was certainly not the first Sunni scholar to do so, nor alone
among contemporaries.
With this background, let us examine Kellers analysis of the two issues.

5. Possibility of falsehood in Allhs Speech (imkn al-kadhib)
It is intrinsically, essentially impossible for falsehood in Divine Speech; falsehood is precluded from
Divine Power. Deobandis, following their master, Isml Dihlaw claim that falsehood is included in
Divine Power; when refuted by Sunnis, they make up fancy interpretations and explanations from
fantasy land to defend this belief.


How does Keller know this? If it is because, Allh tl has informed us that He will not lie, what is the
guarantee that He will not lie in this piece of information because it is anyway, in His Power to lie?
389




If it is not intrinsically impossible for Allh tl to lie, and there is a hypothetical possibility that He can
lie, how can you prove that His saying is true?

386
Which is the definition of a lie or falsehood: to give information contrary to actual occurrence.
387
Because the dumb folk and inanimate objects cannot utter anything including falsehood; thus if falsehood is not within the
Lords Power, it is similar to the impotence of the dumb or inanimate things.
388
Ibid. p17-18.
389
Al-ydhu billh, here I am posing a question challenging the Neo-Mutazilite Nuh Kellers heretical belief.
...and indeed all Muslims, agree that Allah never lies...
He has informed us of by saying, His word is the truth (Quran 6:73), and many other Quranic verses.
80




Despite being totally ignorant about the whole issue, he wants to preach to us and teach us what he
himself does not know. This is one of the disagreements, and this spawns a number of issues in qdah
which only the taawwuf of Nuh Keller can tolerate for example, Deobandis believe that Allh tl
should have the power to do anything a human can do, otherwise, according to their logic, humans
would become more powerful than Allh. The delicate disposition of Sufis may be disturbed if we
illustrate the consequences of such claims; I do not like to do this either, but a block of wood cannot be
cleaved with a butter knife:
Humans eat, drink, defecate, marry, die according to Deobandis, if their lord did not have
power to do this, it would mean that Deobandis are more powerful than their lord.
390

Humans commit polytheism and fashion idols according to Deobandis, if their lord did not
have power to commit idolatry or prostrate to idols, his power would be lesser than that of
humans.
Keller thinks that we are quibbling about terms who will explain hir Gayvs metaphor
391
to him?


Seems, it seems. Keller does not know for sure, but he will hazard a guess, nevertheless. Notice, that he
is clueless that the whole issue goes back to Isml Dihlaw and debated even before Gangoh was born.


Even if we ignore his ineptitude in kalm terminology, we still have to ask: Is it contingently impossible
only because Allh tl has already said it in the Qurn that He is Truthful? In other words, if only He
did not mention in the Qurn that He is Truthful, He could lie in other words, falsehood is out of His
power because He has already made a commitment. Ismls argument was less absurd when he said
that the Lord can replace such verses without anybodys knowledge! al-ydhu billh.



Alahazrat Imm Amed Ri Khans usm al-aramayn was written
392
in 1323/1906. If we go by
Kellers theatrical depiction, prior to this fatw, there was no conflict in India and Muslims were united;
nobody knew the meaning of Wahbism or takfr. It was Alahazrat who divided the Muslims of India
and as Nadw said, raised the flag of takfr of all and sundry. Isml Dihlaw, Imm Fal al-aqq
Khayrbd, Imm Fal al-Rasl Badyn, Shh Makhuullh, Shaykh Amed Sad Mujaddid, Shaykh
Rashduddn are all fictitious people in fact, India missed the 19
th
century. But who has time for history
and facts?

390
In Juhd al-Muqill, Mahmud al-asan Deobandi says that to commit indecencies is within Divine Power. See Appendix C.
391
hir Gayv, a well-known Deobandi orator/debater said in a public video: If a man is able to have intercourse but does not sleep
with a woman he is not married to, will you call him an adulterer? Mere power to do does not necessitate that he does it. He continues: ...these people
[Sunnis] say that Allh speaks truth in duress [majbri] and such that even if He wishes to [lie] He cannot... He further says: ...similar to the young man
who does not fornicate, if one accuses him of not committing it because he is impotent - then this saying that he is impotent [n-mard] which is a flaw for
him. Similarly, these people [Sunnis] wish to make an impotent man [n-mard] of Allh tl and that He speaks truth in duress [majburi].
392
usm al-aramayn is a fatw extracted from another work Mustanad along with attestations of scholars of aramayn.
...while the only disagreement is whether (a) this is intrinsically impossible (mustahil dhati), or whether
(b) this is not intrinsically impossible, but only contingently impossible (mustahil aradi)
Rashid Ahmad Gangoh of the Deobandis seems to have held the latter position,
... it is nevertheless contingently impossible, since He has informed us of His truthfulness in the Quran.
Unfortunately for Muslim unity in India, Gangohs concept of the jawaz aqli or hypothetical possibility
of Gods lying was mistakenly translated into Arabic by Ahmad Reza Khan as imkan al-kadhib, which in
Arabic means the factual possibility of [Gods] lying
81

Condensed Timeline: History of the Conflict

































1278 1861
1200 AH 1785 CE
1300 AH 1882 CE
1283 1866
1240 1825
1270 1854
1272 1856
1273 1857
1265 1848
1172 1763
1193 1779
1239 1824
1308 1890
1302 1884
1307 1889
1306 1888
1290 1872
1291 1873
1297 1879
1304 1886
1310 1893
1311 1894
1309 1892
1340 1921
1323 1905
1324 1906
1326 1908
1328 1909
1329 1910
1325 1907
1313 1896
1319 1901
1320 1902
Shh Walyullh Dihlaw passes away (1114-1172/1703-1763)
Isml Dihlaw is born
Shh bd al-zz Dihlaw passes away (1159-1239/1745-1824)
Taqwiyatul mn of Isml Dihlaw is published for the first time, igniting the fire of sectarianism in India
Shaykh Fal al-aqq Khayrbd refutes Isml in Taqq al-Fatw bi Ibl al-aghw
Yak Rozi, in which Isml Dihlaw tries to prove that falsehood is included in Divine Power; Allh can lie
ir e Mustaqm of Isml Dihlaw (Purportedly co-authored by his illiterate shaykh, Sayyid Amed Barelwi)
Shh Fal al-Rasl Badyn writes Sayf al-Jabbr
Shaykh Ramatullh Kairnw (1233-1308 /1817-1890) defeats a Christian missionary in the famous debate of Agra
Mtaqad al-Muntaqad of Shh Fal al-Rasl Badyn is published
Alahazrat Imm Amed Ri Khn al-Baraylaw is born
The First War of Indian Independence; also known as Sepoy Mutiny
Shaykh Fal al-aqq Khayrbd (1212-1278/1797-1861) martyred in exile on Andaman Islands by the British
The School of Deoband is founded by Qsim Nnotw, Rashd Amed Gangoh and some others
Tadhr al-Ns by Qsim Nnotw is published
Tanbh al-Juhhl is published in which Shaykh fi Bakhsh refutes Nnotws Tadhr al-Ns
Qsim Nnotw dies
Anwr al-Sih (First Edition) published by Shaykh bd al-Sam Rmpr
Barhn al-Qih is published by Khall Amed Ambethw to refute Anwr as-Sih; attested by Rashd Gangoh
The Debate at Bahwalpur in which Shaykh Ghulm Dastagr Qasaur defeats Deobandis
Shaykh Amed asan Knpr refutes imkn kadhib in Tanzh al-Ramn n Shyibatil Kadhibi wan Nuqn
Mamd al-asan Deoband writes Juhd al-Muqill in reply to Tanzh al-Ramn
amm al-Qib li Ra-asil Muftar lallhi al-Kadhib by Sayyid Barakt Amed Tonk
jlatur Rkib f Imtinyi Kadhib al-Wjib by Muft Muammad bdullh Tonk
Second Edition of Anwr al-Sih by Mawln bd al-Sam Rmpr; includes attestations from aramayn
Alahazrat writes Subn al-Subb; decrees that belief in imkn kadhib is heresy but withholds from takfr
Taqds al-Wakl n Tawhn al-Rashdi wal Khall by Mawln Ghulm Dastagr Qasr; attestations from Makkah
Fatw of Rashd Gangoh surfaces, where he does not repudiate wuq; Sunni scholars make takfr
Bawriqul Lmih liman Arda Ifyi Anwr al-Sih by Mawln Nazr Amed Rmpr refuting Deobandis
The founding of Nadwatul lam in Lucknow; Alahazrat and other Sunni scholars attend the first conference
The second assembly of Nadwah; Sunni scholars boycott after the agenda of inclusivism is revealed
Fatw al-aramayn of Alahazrat and attestations (Deobandis are still not ruled kfir)
Ashraf l Thnaw writes if al-mn
Alahazrats annotations titled Mustanad on Mtaqad of Imm Fal ar-Rasl; Takfir of Deobandi elders
Alahazrat goes on his second ajj and obtains attestations for the fatw part from Mustanad
Rashd Gangohi dies
Alahazrat writes Dawlatul Makkiyyah and prominent scholars write endorsements for it
Returning to India, attestations of fatw published in the form of usm al-aramayn with facing Urdu translation
Muhannad purportedly written, but is not published
Alahazrat writes Tamhd e mn
The Debate at Moradabad is scheduled but Deobandis abdicate.
Framework for the debate and review of the situation is summarised by Alahazrat in Abs e Akhrah
According to Deobandi claims, Muhannad is published
Alahazrat passes away
Daf al-Talbst, Mawln Namuddn Murdbd refutes the lies and deception in Muhannad
1246 1831 Isml Dihlaw is killed in Balakot, aged 53
1264 1847 Shh Fal al-Rasl Badyn writes Bawriq al-Muammadiyyah
1307 1889
Post 1921
1300 1882 Ibl e Aghl e Qsimiyyah published by Shaykh bd al-Ghafr, including attestation of bd al-ayy Lucknaw
1325 1907
BOOKS ARE MENTIONED BY YEAR OF WRITING OR PUBLISHING AS COMMONLY KNOWN; VARIANCE IN GREGORIAN YEAR IS DUE TO CONVERSION ERROR
1290 1872 Asan Nnotw uses athar Ibn bbs to justify imkn nar and is refuted by Mawln Naq l Khn
82

It can be seen clearly in the chronology that the issue of imkn kadhib was debated years before
Alahazrat was born, and the ideas of Gangoh and his friends were well-known in aramayn and their
refutations preceded usm al-aramayn; yet Keller knows what none of us know:


The term jawz ql is a rational category, similar to wjib ql and mul ql; and the latter two terms
are classified in two major categories each. Jawz ql is also known as mumkin ql and it can be either
mumkin dht or mumkin wuq which is also known as mumkin istidd.
j discusses
393
the concept of mumkin li dhtih (contingent by nature) in Mawqif as quoted below. It
should be noted, that the dhtih (intrinsically) here is not vis--vis mumkin li ghayrih. In his marginalia
of Shar al-Mawqif, asan Chalpi says:
394

{I say, imkn dht (contingent intrinsically)...}
395
here, the specification of intrinsic for imkn dht (intrinsically
contingent) is to caution against imkn istidd;
396
not against imkn bil ghayr.
397

Jurjn explains the concept in his commentary thus:
398

so imkn dht is not meant here at all, simply because there is no mumkin bil ghayr, extrapolating [on the
categories of] wjib bil ghayr
399
or imtin bil ghayr.
400
The secret here is: that wjib bil ghayr and imtin bil ghayr
are effected upon a mumkin
401
and that which is not mustal. Because it is the mumkin that can exist or not exist;
and is equally poised concerning the essence of that thing [the contingent thing] to exist or not exist.
Siylkt
402
in his marginalia on Jurjns commentary writes:
that is if it was intrinsically contingent [imkn dht], this extraneous clause would then have an influence on the
contingent nature of that thing. And what follows is invalid because, we do not have conditional contingent
403

[mumkin li ghayrih] in describing contingent as it is in the case of necessary and impossible [wjib, imtin] which
are caused due to [presence of] an external condition or dependency; or absence thereof.
404

Moreover, it is only mumkin dht that can transform into mustal or wjib not mumkin wuq. So the
argument was all along about imkn dht but Gangohs fatw took it even further into the existential
realm. These terms are explained below and color coded to help readers uninitiated in kalm to avoid
confusion; and to make it easy for beginners to identify the terms quickly.
405



393
Mawqif, p71.
394
Shar al-Mawqif, 3/179. Marginalia by asan Chalp ibn Muammad Shh al-Fannr
395
This is the text of Shar al-Mawqif.
396
imkn istidd is also known as imkn al-wuq. Note that a thing can be contingent intrinsically does not necessarily
mean that it will come into existence; however, it can be transformed to wjib bil ghayr or mumtani bil ghayr due to an
external reason. Contingent existentially means: that if its existence is supposed, it cannot be transformed into either wjib or
mustal; whether dht or ra in either cases of existence and non-existence.
397
That is there is no thing as imkn bil ghayr.
398
Shar al-Mawqif, 3/180 ; The Third Rank; The Fourth Objective: Discussion about mumkin li dhtih.
399
wjib ra.
400
mul ra or mumtani bil ghayr.
401
that is: only a mumkin can be transformed into mustal ra/imtin bil ghayr or wjib ra/wjib bil ghayr because of
extraneous reasons. and this is because only mumkin can either exist or not-exist; when an extraneous constraint is applied, it
simply becomes impossible to exist or necessary to exist.
402
Marginalia of Abdul akm Siyalkt on Shar al-Mawqif, 3/180.
403
which is absurd because contingent itself means that its existence is dependent, and is neither necessary nor impossible.
404
that is wjib li ghayrih or mumtani li ghayrih are caused due to an external factor.
405
Color coding is only to denote the terms; there is no undertone.
Unfortunately for Muslim unity in India, Gangohis concept of the jawaz aqli or hypothetical possibility
of Gods lying was mistakenly translated into Arabic...
83







Keller confuses basic kalm terms, but still has the temerity to pass judgement on Alahazrat:


How many books has Keller written in Arabic or any subject on kalm?


Where did Alahazrat rule Gangoh a kfir for his belief in imkn al-kadhib? In which book or fatw did
Alahazrat rule Gangoh or anyone for that matter a kfir for the belief of imkn al-kadhib? Remember
Kellers holier-than-thou advice in the beginning of the article on hearsay evidence?


Either Keller knowingly and deliberately makes these false accusations against Alahazrat, or he repeats
mindlessly the lies he has received from someone else without checking or he dreams up these facts
riding on his high horse. Or perhaps:


If only Keller had heeded his own advice, it would perhaps prevent him from saying:


Which fatw is he talking about? The one mentioned in usm al-aramayn? Did Keller even read it?
Suppose, for the sake of argument, Alahazrat was mistaken were all those scholars writing lengthy
attestations also mistaken? Did they make basic inquiries to ascertain facts or blindly attested the takfr
of a number of people? Perhaps Alahazrat had bewitched them; or it did it not occur to them that
Alahazrat might have misunderstood the concept of jawaz ql which Keller has so clearly understood
even without reading any of Alahazrats books? Suppose Arab scholars trusted Alahazrat and wrote
attestations based on his Arabic translation; where were the migrant scholars from India, who were
trusted and respected in Makkah? Why did they not make the observation that Alahazrat had
misunderstood the issue in his translation of the nuance? Why did Khall Amed or his associates not
challenge him though he was present in Makkah at that time?
Whether this mistranslation was due to Ahmad Reza Khans honest misapprehension of Gangohis
position, or directly carrying into Arabic a similar Urdu phrase without understanding the resultant
nuance in Arabic...
This mistaken construing of Gangohis position in turn became the basis for Ahmad Rezas declaring
that Gangoh was a kafir,
Accepting hearsay evidence against people is forbidden by Allah Most High, who says, O you who
believe: when a corrupt person brings you news, verify it, lest you harm people out of ignorance and
come to regret what you have done (Quran 49:6).
...but rather Allah calls such a person corrupt in the above verse to repel and shock people from jumping
to conclusions without checking (al-Futuhat al-ilahiyya, 4.178).
...and giving the tragic fatwa that all who did not consider Gangohi to be a kafir themselves became
kafir. Muslims can rest easy about this fatwa because it is simply mistaken.
wajib dhati: intrinsically necessary to exist
wajib aradi: contingently necessary intrinsically mumkin but becomes wajib due to an external factor
mustahil dhati: intrinsically impossible to exist
mustahil aradi: contingently impossible instrinsically mumkin but becomes mustahil due to an external factor
imkan dhati: existence is intrinsically possible
imkan wuquyi: possibility of occurrence can NEVER become wajib or mustahil
84

Perhaps Alahazrat bribed them all and obtained their attestations as Khall Amed Ambethwi says
concerning the scholars of aramayn in his Barhn:
...the beards of most of them is lesser than a fistful; they are careless in alt; and in spite of having the power to
forbid people from evil, they do not even do it even for namesake. Most of them wear finger rings not permitted by
the sharh; breaking ranks in prayer is widespread. Concerning fatw, give them something and get them to write
anything you wish. If anybody informs them of their sins, they will rush to beat you up.
406

Yet, Khall Amed claims that the scholars of aramayn attested his Muhannad. Whether he bribed them
to write in his favour, then becomes a moot point. Anyway, let us have a look at some of those simple-
minded, scholars who were probably not as erudite as Keller, nor had the piety or sagacity to investigate
and establish facts; or perhaps they were all corrupt as accused by Khall Ambethwi:
1. Shaykh Muammad Sad BBuayl [1245-1330 AH] the Chief Muft of Shfis in Makkah
2. Shaykh Amed Abul Khayr Mirdd [1293-1335 AH]
3. Shaykh li ibn iddq Kaml [1263-1332 AH] Muft of anafs in Makkah
4. Shaykh bd al-aqq Ilhabd [1252-1333 AH] famous Indian immigrant scholar
5. Shaykh Sayyid Isml Khall, Caretaker of the Meccan Library
6. Shaykh Sayyid Ab usayn Marzq [1284-1365 AH]
7. Shaykh Muammad l ibn usayn al-Mliki [1287-1367 AH]
8. Shaykh Asd ibn Amed al-Dahhn [1280-1341 AH]
9. Shaykh Muammad Ysuf al-Afghn, teacher in the Sawlatiyyah School
10. Shaykh Sayyid Tjuddin Ilys
11. Shaykh Khall al-Kharbt
12. Shaykh bbs ibn Sayyid Muammad Rawn [1293-1346 AH]
13. Shaykh mar ibn amdn al-Maras [1292-1368 AH] who wrote TWO attestations
14. Shaykh Sayyid Amed al-Barzanj
407

15. Shaykh bd al-Qdir Tawfq Shalb al-Tarabuls
We will cite brief excerpts later, but notice that many of these scholars are famous names with towering
reputations Shaykh mar ibn amdn al-Marisi who is the shaykh of Ysn Fdn; or Shaykh Ab
usayn al-Marzq, who was famously known as Junior Ab anfah and who continued as the q
of Makkah well into the first decade of Saudi rule. These people: qs, teachers and mufts were they
all fooled by one man and in a state of stupor wrote eloquent attestations that explicitly approve of
Alahazrats fatw? Shaykh Muammad l usayn al-Mlik wrote a poem of 56 couplets praising
Alahazrat, along with the attestation of the fatw; but according to Keller, Alahazrat was misinformed,
and those scholars attesting the fatw were also not paying attention:



406
Barhn al-Qih, p18. (p19 in another edition).
407
It should be noted that he differed with Alahazrat on some specific issues of lm al-ghayb, and some of that was based on a
mistaken premise and false information given to him by enemies. Alahazrat answered those slanders in his Inja al-Bary and
annotation sim al-Muftary. This attestation is about the kufr-statements of Deobandis and there is no proof whatsoever that
he withdrew this attestation.
...based on inaccurate observation and inattention to needful logical distinctions that exculpate Gangohi
from the charge of kufr
85

Alahazrat wrote a treatise of more than hundred pages, a classy work of kalm Subn al-Subb
citing numerous sources. His mastery of kalm is evident from the fact that he was only thirty-five when
he wrote that book; and he writes in its closing section:
I seek Allhs refuge. And a thousand times: sh lillh! I certainly do not like to make takfr of these people. Even
until now, I still consider these followers
408
and modern claimants
409
as Muslims, even though there is no doubt in
their heresy and waywardness. Neither do I issue the ruling of kufr upon the leader of their sect;
410
because our
Prophet has warned us from making takfr of those who say: l ilha ill Allh. We do not rule them kfir, as long
as we do not possess proof as obvious and glaringly apparent as the mid-day sun; and [withhold from takfr] until
the remotest possibility remains to absolve them from kufr. Because Islm will certainly prevail and it cannot be
subdued. Yet, I say: Indeed and undoubtedly, according to a group of scholars, the ruling of kufr is impending upon
them due to numerous reasons.
411

Does Keller have to answer anyone on Judgement Day? It remains to be seen whether he will make any
amends for such heinous slander or follow the Deobandi lead and brush it away as a fly upon his nose.
Alahazrat reiterated his cautious stand on takfr in his Tamhd e mn:
This humble servant of Allh, may Allh forgive him described this issue in considerable detail in the closing part of
the book Subn al-Subb and there too, in just one issue of imkn kazib, in spite of demonstrating 78 reasons that
necessitate disbelief [luzm e kufr] I withheld from issuing the ruling of kufr.
412

But I strain myself needlessly. Did Keller read usm al-aramayn? Given below is the relevant portion
of the fatw:
Among such folk are the Belying Wahbs [Wahbiyyah Kadhdhabiyyah] followers of Rashd Amed al-Gangoh;
earlier he used to claim following in the footsteps of the kingpin of this group, Isml Dihlaw, that it is possible for
Allh tl to lie [imkn al-kadhib] and I refuted his ravings in a separate book named Subn al-Subb n ybi
Kadhib Maqb, and sent it to him by registered post, and I received the acknowledgement. It is eleven years now
413

[and there is no reply yet]. For the first three years, they kept proclaiming that the refutation was being written, was
already written, is already printed, is being sent to the printer...
But Allh tl will not allow to succeed, the subterfuge of the treacherous; they could neither stand against it,
nor could they defend. And now, Allh tl has made him
414
blind and his sight is now lost, though his foresight
was long lost. What hope remains for an answer now? Will a dead man come back from his grave to fight? He then
spent his days astray and in darkness; until in a fatw he explicitly wrote: and I saw it with mine own eyes in his
own hand affixed with his own stamp, which has been published many times in Bombay along with its refutation. He
said [in that fatw] concerning a person who belied Allh tl, and claimed that He has uttered falsehood [bil fil]
and clearly said that Allh tl has already uttered a lie; [Gangoh said:] to not even deem such a person a
transgressor [fsq] let alone consider him astray and leave alone that he has comitted kufr; many imms have said
what this person has said. However, utmost, he has comitted an error in interpretation.
There is no God but Allh; see the catastrophic repercussion of believing in imkn al-kadhib it led him to the belief
that factual occurrence of falsehood [in the speech of] Allh...
415

Alahazrat made takfr for the fatw of Gangoh in which he did not deem the belief Allh tl has
already factually uttered a lie as disbelief and advised that such a person is not even a fsiq. See
Appendix C for a scan and translation of the full fatw. Only after Alahazrat saw this fatw with his own
eyes did he rule Gangoh kfir.
Where is takfr on imkn dht, according to Kellers accusation and a nuance which Ahmed Reza Khan
did not understand and directly carried over the Urdu phrase in Arabic?

408
Followers of Isml Dihlaw; that is Gangoh, Ambethw and other Deobandi followers.
409
Modern claimants of the dead and buried Mtazil belief of falsehood being included in Divine Power.
410
Isml Dihlaw.
411
Subn al-Subb, First Edition, p.80; See Appendix D for the exhibit.
412
Sall al-Suyf al-Hindiyyah, 1312 AH.
413
Actually, this is an extract from his Mustanad which was written in 1320 AH and Subn al-Subb was first published in
1309 AH, hence the eleven years. Otherwise, it would be 16 years when attestations were sought in 1324 AH.
414
Gangoh.
415
usm al-aramayn, p19-21.
86

It is amply clear from the citation from usm that Alahazrat did not make takfr upon the erroneous
position of falsehood being imkn dht, but rather upon Gangohs fatw of actual occurrence:


According to Keller even believing in the factual possibility is unbelief or kufr; Alahazrat ruled Gangoh
kfir for the fatw of actual occurrence, as mentioned in the very text he ostentatiously quotes.
--------------------------------------
Istifta
1. Zayd says: When did I say that I do not believe in occurrence of falsehood in the speech of Allh
tl?
2. When Amr is informed of the above, he says: Even though Zayd has committed a mistake in the
interpretation of these verses, one should not call him a kfir or a heretic or a misguided person.
3. Amr says that rescinding punishment is a special case of falsehood; and therefore, the meaning of
occurrence of falsehood is thus valid [wuq e kizb ke man durust hogaye]
Does Zayd become a kfir? Does Amr remain a Muslim even after stating the belief that occurrence
[wuq] of falsehood in Divine Speech is valid?
--------------------------------------
If Keller thinks that Alahazrats fatw is still mistaken and that nobody ought to worry about it and it is
a non-issue to believe that falsehood HAS indeed transpired in Divine Speech, we can only say: To Allh
we belong and towards Him is our return.


The irony! But will Kellers followers heed his advice?


Keller is clueless about the facts of the issue; he did get his facts wrong, and it is clearly inadmissible for
Muslims to follow him in his mistake.

6. Whether Allh can create another like the Prophet (imkn al-nar)
It all started with Ismls book, Tafwiyatul mn; he claimed that Allh tl can create billions of
Archangel Jibrl and Muammad in a single instant:
The greatness of the King of kings is such that in one instant and by one command Be, if He so wishes, He can create
billions of prophets and saints and jinns and angels equal to Jibrl and Muammad .
416

Sunni scholars objected to this and said that it is intrinsically impossible because Allh tl has already
Willed that our Prophet is the seal of prophets and has conveyed it in the Qurn; if He were to create
another let alone billions it would mean that His Word is false; and because falsehood is intrinsically
impossible for Him, creation of another prophet equal in all attributes to RaslAllh is intrinsically

416
Taqwiyatul mn, p31.
...which in Arabic means the factual possibility of [Gods] lying (Husam al-Haramayn)a position that
neither Rashid Ahmad Gangoh nor any other Muslim holds, for it is unbelief.
So while Ahmad Reza should be regarded as sincere in his convictions, in his own eyes defending the
religion of Islam, and morally blameless, he did get his facts wrong...
... he did get his facts wrong, and it is clearly inadmissible for Muslims to follow him in his mistake, even
if made out of sincerity.
87

impossible. Isml had only claimed that it was possible for exact duplicates of the Prophet to exist he
did not claim that they existed. Years later Amr asan Sahswn said that it is futile to argue about the
mere possibility for a duplicate to exist, because there are six copies of the Seal of Prophets already in
existence. To prove his point, a tradition of Ibn bbs was mentioned:
...Seven earths;
417
and in each earth a prophet like your prophet; an dam like your dam; N like your N and
Ibrhm like your Ibrhm
418

Ibn Kathr says that Bayhaq and kim have validated the chain of narration as a. We shall not
delve into the validity of this report [athar ibn bbs] or its implications here, except that by common
agreement, it cannot be taken literally as it would contradict established qdah and undermine a
fundamental aspect of faith. This issue was hotly debated at that time and there were two main camps:
Those who said that the adth is not only a but takes the ruling of a marf adth;
419
others
criticised the report and said that even if the chain is a, it does not necessitate that the text is
validated [matn is a]; besides, some adth scholars have questioned its authenticity and some of
them have said that it is probably from a Jewish tradition.
All such [narrations] are rejected if they are not informed by the Infallible [Prophet ] or if there is no rigorously
authenticated chain leading to him. Similar is the case of the report [athar]
420
transmitted from Ibn bbs that he
said: In every earth there is creation similar to this earth; so much so that an dam like your dam, Ibrhm like your
Ibrhm... Ibn Jarr mentioned this truncated, whereas Bayhaq narrated it in full in Asma was ift. If it is proven
that it is authentically reported from Ibn bbs it will be explained that he must have taken it from Jewish tradition.
Allh tl knows best.
421

Amr asan Sahswn and Asan Nnotw
422
believed that there are six copies
423
of RaslAllh , one
in each of the six levels or six earths. Qsim Nnotw took it even further and said that even if a prophet
were to appear after RaslAllh , in this very earth it would not have any effect upon his being a final
prophet. He openly professed belief in the literal meaning of the athar, and that anyone who disbelieved
in it as a kfir, according to the pamphlet Munzarah e Ahmadiyyah.
424
When Sunni scholars refuted this
ugly belief, Qsim Nnotw wrote a short book named Tadhr al-Ns in which he claimed that the
meaning of khtam al-nabiyyin is not chronologically the last as commonly understood. In this booklet,
he makes strange claims and presents grotesque analogies; many scholars made takfr upon this.
Nnotw says:
....Hypothetically, suppose a new prophet is born after the time of the Prophet , even then there will be no effect
on the finality of the prophethood of our Master Muammad ; [comparatively] if there is [a prophet] among his
contemporaries or in another earth; or it can be assumed even on this very earth, another prophet [after his time
without affecting his finality]
425


417
Ibn Kathr in both his tafsr and Bidyah mentions an opinion that the seven earths refer to seven continents, but he also
refutes this opinion as it contradicts other reports.
418
Cf, Tafsr Ibn Kathr, under the verse 65:12 of Srah alq vide Bayhaq in Asm was ift, who said that the chain is a.
419
See Qists f Mawzinati Athar Ibn bbs, written in 1295 AH by Shaykh Muammad Thnaw, a student of Shh Isq
Dihlaw who refutes this view of multiple seals or final prophets. Even though in this same book, the author validates the
belief that a duplicate of the Prophet is intrinsically possible, but is impossible contingently. [mumkin bidh dht, mumtani
bil ghayr] I have read major portions of the book, but I could not read it fully, as it is quite lengthy 276 pages and the writing
is in old format and hence quite strenous to read. My objective of including this citation is only to prove that Alahazrat was not
the lone critic of this qdah. The shaykh also mentions his good faith in Qsim Nnotw in the end finding it incredible that
Nnotw can believe in it. For those not well acquainted with Deobandis: This Thnaw is not the same as Ashraf l Thnaw.
420
Khabar or adth is elevated [raf] to RaslAllh and athar is the saying of the companion when there is no indication in
the wording that it is narrated from RaslAllh .
421
Bidyah wan Nihyah, 1/43. The athar is mentioned by Bayhaq in Asm was ift, 389-390; kim in Mustadrak, 2/493;
both said that the chain of narration is a.
422
Asan Nnotws view was refuted in a fatw by Alahazrats father, Mawln Naq l Khn, which caused Qsim Nnotw
to write his Tadhr al-Ns as mentioned in Tanbh al-Juhhl .
423
mithl or example, similitude, similar entity etc.
424
See the preface of Tanbih al-Juhhl, which was written immediately after Qsim Nnotws Tadhr al-Ns.
425
Tadhr al-Ns, p33. See Appendix C for scanned images of these pages.
88

Deobandis try to cover this fact with fancy explanations and even outright denials, or their favourite
trick of slandering Alahazrat but Qsim Nnotws qdah was well known in his time and is
documented by many sources, including those who have no relation to Sunnis, such as Sir Syed Amed
Khn of Aligarh. This controversy reached the Noble Sanctuary and the anaf muft, bd al-Ramn
Sirj refuted this in a lengthy fatw which was attested by scholars of all the four schools and includes
people of Indian origin such as Shaykh Ramatullh Kairnw; it was printed in Egypt by ajj Mansours
publishing house in 38 pages in 1291 AH.
426
A debate between Qsim Nnotw and Shaykh Muammad
Shh was held in Delhi on the validity of the belief stated in Tadhr al-Ns, and thereafter, both parties
claimed victory. Shaykh bdul Ghafr compiled the debate in the form of Zayd says / mr says and
circulated it among scholars who attested it including Shaykh bdul ayy Lucknaw who had initially
supported Qsim Nnotw.
427
Deobandis accuse that Alahazrat strung together three different phrases
to produce a novel meaning; whereas the whole book was written to prove existence of multiple seals
or final prophets. The full name of the book is: Tadhr al-Ns min Inkri Athar Ibn bbs: Warning
to People from Rejecting the Narration of Ibn bbs. It is obvious which athar the book is talking about
and even the question mentions multiple seals. This is the second background of the issue, which Keller
probably does not even know let alone understand, but still writes with supreme confidence:



Did Keller consider that Isml has said that Allh can create billions of Muammad in one instant; and
his Deobandi followers Gangoh deems this belief as essence of faith: yn islm. And while he rambles
on, let him learn a few facts, because they add a lot of value to preaching:


Some Deobandi/Wahb leaders believed that there were six additional seals present already in the
six levels or six earths, vide the tradition of Ibn bbs. Qsim Nnotw was the champion of that
tradition and even wrote a book warning people against rejecting it.


Tut, tut. Nnotw thinks that it is a laymans understanding which means Keller is a layman who has
no proper understanding of serious religious matters. Dont shoot the messenger, either first learn the
meaning of seal properly or take your complaint to Nnotw who says:
Firstly, one should learn about the meaning of [the phrase] Seal of Prophets so that it may not pose difficulty in
comprehending the answer. Common folk [or laymen] think that RaslAllh being Seal means that the age [of his
advent] comes later than all other prophets and he is chronologically the last prophet; but people of understanding
are aware that there is no superiority in chronologically being prior or later.
428


426
Taqds al-Wakl, p30-31. Incidentally Sir Syed Ahmed Khn of Aligarh [the Naturalist zindq] mentioned this fatw in his
Tahdhb al-Akhlq, p365 and even cited excerpts. Of course, Sir Syed cites this for his own nefarious purpose to invalidate
tafsirs, but my point is about the historical fact that a fatw of Shaykh bd al-Ramn Siraj was printed as claimed in Taqds
al-Wakl. Shaykh Muammad Thnaw also mentioned it in Qists.
427
He has written a short booklet Dfi al-Wasws n Athari Ibn bbs, also mentioned in Qists. Ashraf l Thnaw has also
acknowledged this in Ift al-Yawmiyyah 5/239: When Tadhr al-Ns was written, nobody in India supported Mawln
[Qsim Nnotw] except Mawln bd al-ayy [Lucknaw].
428
Tadhr al-Ns.
The final issue, which can be analyzed according to similar considerations, is the question of whether
Allah can create another like the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). Though hypothetically
possible (jaiz aqli), for example, if Allah were to create a second universe precisely like ours in every
particular; it is contingently and effectively impossible (mustahil aradi),
...the Seal of the Prophets, whom Allah has determined that there shall be no prophet (nabi) after, or
any prophetic messenger (rasul)
...where the word khatim or seal in Arabic, when annexed (mudaf) to a series, as in the expression Seal
of the Prophets, can only mean the final member of that series through which it is complete and after
which nothing may be added. This is the only possible lexical sense of the word in the context.
89

I do not think that Keller will dare to teach Nnotw the basics of the language; nor will he deem it
necessary to investigate whether Deobandis know what they are babbling about. All his scorn is
reserved for Sunnis and Alahazrat in particular, who is fair game.


But what about Ismls claim and Nnotws assertion? Or will Keller teach Urdu to all those scholars
from Delhi, Lucknow, Rampur, Badayun and Bareilly who deemed it kufr, because they did not
understand the following phrase and its context as well as Keller does:
The greatness of the King of kings is such that in one instant and by one command Be, if He so wishes, He can create
billions of prophets and saints and jinns and angels equal to Jibrl and Muammad .
429



As I have said it many times earlier, Keller does not have any knowledge of the debate in the
subcontinent, nor knowledge of kalm to understand the issue the most comprehensive work on this
subject is that of Fal al-aqq Khayrbd titled Imtin al-Nar; but before Keller attempts to teach
kalm, logic or nuances of Arabic language to Mawln Fal al-aqq, let him know that even his
enemies acknowledged Fal al-aqqs command of these sciences.
430
If Keller insists, let him write a
refutation of the two works: Imtin al-Nar and Ibl al-Taghw. For anybody else, that would require
an ability to read Persian; but Keller can manage a refutation even without reading it. Or he can dismiss
it as simply mistaken without bothering to prove his claim.


Poor soul! He should first learn about the position of the people he defends. Qsim Nnotw insists that:
Hypothetically, suppose a new prophet is born after the time of the Prophet , even then there will be no effect on
the finality of the prophethood of our Master Muammad ; [comparatively] if there is [a prophet] among his
contemporaries or in another earth; or it can be assumed even on this very earth, another prophet [after his time
without affecting his finality].


The reference in Kellers quote is from Ismls Tafwiyat mentioned earlier and scholars have written
lengthy refutations of this utterly burnable book; apparently, none of them understood the meaning
better than Keller. Not even people like Shaykh Amed Sad Naqshband Dihlaw,
431
who approved of
Mawln Fal al-aqqs fatw and also wrote attestation to Mawln Fal al-Rasl Badyns
Mtaqad al-Muntaqad.
Perhaps they did not understand Urdu well or perhaps, Swahili or Koro was their mother tongue.

429
Tafwiyatul mn, p31.
430
Nuzhatul Khawir, #687, 8/1063.
431
Who descends from the family of the Mujaddid at the dawn of the Second Millenium, Imm Rabbn Amed al-Sirhind and
who was praised by j Imddullh Muhjir Makk, Gangohs shaykh as a waliy.
Here, as in the preceding question, both Barelwis and Deobandis agree about the actual resultthat no
one like the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) shall ever be created again
For even though the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is merely a contingent and created
human being, whom it is hypothetically possible (jaiz aqli) that Allah could create others exactly like, it
is contingently impossible (mustahil aradi) that Allah should do so...
And a duplicate of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) who was like him in
everything except prophethood would not in any meaningful sense be like him at all.
So those who say, as did some of the Deobandis, that Allahs creating a like is hypothetically possible,
[22] are correct, in the very limited sense that it is logically within Allahs almighty power to do sohad
He not already decided and declared that He never shall.
90

The argument made by Sunni scholars
432
was:
1. Allh tl is free from all flaws; it is intrinsically impossible [mul dht] for Allh tl to have
a fault or a flaw.
2. Falsehood is a flaw.
3. Therefore it is intrinsically impossible [mul dht] for Allh tl to lie.
4. If Allh tl would create another prophet exactly and in ALL attributes perfectly similar to our
Prophet , it would necessitate that Allh tl has uttered a lie
5. Because He has informed us that RaslAllh is the last prophet; as He has said: Rather, he is
the Messenger of Allh and the Seal of Prophets
433

6. We believe that it is intrinsically impossible [mul dht] for Allh to lie
7. Therefore, it is intrinsically impossible [mul dht] for an exact replica [nar] equal in all
attributes of the Prophet to exist.
8. Superficially, it would appear to people with shallow knowledge as if this claim constrains the
Power of Allh tl as if mdhAllh He cannot create another if He wishes to.
9. But it is clear for people of knowledge, that it relates to His Will and Knowledge He Willed in
pre-eternity that our Master Muammad shall be the Seal of Prophets and the final prophet
and that His prophethood is all-encompassing.
10. He conveyed His Will by His Divine Speech.
11. If He contradicts this, it would necessitate that He did not know that He would change His Will;
which would necessitate ignorance Exalted is He from such things.
12. Or if He knew that He would change His Will, informing us that RaslAllh is the Seal of all
prophets would mean that He has uttered a lie Exalted is He from such things.
13. It is intrinsically impossible for Him to be attributed with ignorance or falsehood.
14. Therefore, it is intrinsically impossible [mul dht] for an exact replica [nar] equal in all
attributes of the Prophet to exist.


We do not know about Kellers Deobandi buddies, but we would like to know which Sunni scholar has
made takfr of anyone for the above six issues unless any of them denies or negates a fundamental
aspect of religion; such as, for example, the belief that the finality of the Prophet does not mean
chronological, or that finality will not be affected by the advent of a new prophet even on this earth.
Q y has said:
...every one of them is a kfir and has belied the Prophet , because he has informed us that he is the final
prophet and there is no prophet after him. He has also informed us narrating from Revelation that he is the
final prophet and that he has been sent for all mankind. The entire nation has unanimously agreed [ijm] that
these statements
434
are literal and thus it should be understood [literally] without any metaphorical explanation or
exception. Obviously, there is no doubt in the kufr of all the aforementioned groups; absolutely, by ijm and by
revealed proofs.
435


432
See the fatw of Alahazrat which is cited later; Fatw Ridawiyyah, 29/221.
433
Srah Azb, 33:40.
434
Statements in the Qurn and adth that proclaim RaslAllh as Khtam al-Nabiyyn.
435
Shif, p393.
In any case, it is plain from the logical distinction just described that here too, the disagreement between
Barelwis and Deobandis is about something that does not affect the kufr or iman of either, and that
those who say otherwise are simply mistaken.
91

Similarly, if someone denies that the Prophet had absolutely no knowledge of unseen, is a kfir. Or if
one does not make takfr of a person who considers someone Muslim even after he states his belief that
Allh tl has uttered a lie.


There goes another strawman on a pyre. From the six they become all. Even though Kellers ignorance
is glaringly apparent in the six issues above, he sweeps everything off the table: ALL of the main qdah-
related issues, he says.

A murid of Ashraf l Thnaw narrates his tale in which he recites the testimony of faith erroneously
in his dream; and then he wakes up and tries to correct the mistake by reciting the blessing on the
Prophet , but his tongue is unable to utter the Prophets name and he keeps saying: allahumma alli
l sayyidin wa mawln ashraf li. The poor disciple in his consternation writes to Ashraf l asking
what he should do and Ashraf l consoles him: There is comfort in this incident that your shaykh
436
is
a diligent follower of the Prophet.
437

Isml Dihlaw said that it is heresy to believe that Allh tl is free from modality:
...that is transcendence of [Allh] the Exalted from time, place, direction, modality, rational composition; and
discussion of Attributes being the same [as Essence] or additional; or to prove that Allh tl can be seen without
direction or boundaries; or the existence of individual-indivisible particle [jawhar al-fard] or the non-existence of
prime-matter or hyle [hayl] and forms and nature and thought or vice-versa; or debate about destiny; or discuss
that it was necessary for the world to exist, or prove that the universe exists from eternity or such things from
discussions of rational theology [kalm] or philosophical theology are all inherently heretical beliefs if anybody
professes the aforementioned beliefs and considers them as part of religious beliefs
438

He says in Sir Mustaqm:
One day, [Allh] The Exalted, The Glorified held his [Sayyid Amed Barelwi] right hand in His Own Powerful Hand and
gave him a lofty and incredible divine thing in his hand and said: We have given you this and We shall give you
more
439

Isml Dihlaw deploring taqld:
Whoever gives preference to the saying of any imm or mujtahid [scholar] over the saying of the Messenger; and
takes their saying as proof in comparison to adth substantiates polytheism.
440

In another work, he says this even more explicitly:
Alack! How can I know that it is permissible to strictly follow [taqld] of a specific person when it is possible to find
narrations reported from the Prophet which are clear and explicit proof against the opinion of the imm [of a
specific madhhab]. If one does not leave the opinion of his imm [in such a case], there is a shadow of polytheism
[in such an act of taqld].
441



436
meaning Ashraf l himself.
437
The published magazine Al-Imdd, Safar 1336 AH.
438
Y al-aqq, p35-36.
439
ir e Mustaqm, p175.
440
Taqwiyatul mn, p42. Yet Deobandis vehemently deny that Isml was a la-madhhabi and the foremost, if not the first to
advocate that everybody should derive rulings from the Qurn and adth themselves; nobody cites imm or mujtahids
statement opposed to adth and Qurn; what appears as opposed to adth is a matter of ijtihd, where the adth is deemed
as superseded due to other adth or technical issues with that evidence such as abrogation or figurative meanings etc.
otherwise Deobandis should declare every person who misses an obligatory prayer as kfir explicitly said in the adth.
441
Tanwr al-ynayn.
Rather, all of the main aqida-related issues the Barelwis and Deobandis disagree about can be
legitimately debated and differed upon by Muslims without either side having left Islam.
92

VI. THE APOLOGIST
Two men went to a q; the first claimed that the other owed him twenty four silver coins, which the second man acknowledged.
When the q ordered the second man to pay the dues, he said: May Allh make the q more righteous. Sir, I have a donkey
and I earn four silvers every day I spent one on the donkey, I kept one for myself and two for this man until I had collected the
payable amount but this man disappeared and I used that money. If the q can retain this man for twelve days, I will collect
the twenty four silvers due and repay him.
The q imprisoned the first man until the second had collected the payable amount.
442


---
When I read the article for the first time, I thought that it was influenced by Deobandi apologia; upon
re-reading it, I realised that the article IS meant to be a Deobandi apology; Keller even invents rules to
favour Deobandi positions. In spite of utter ignorance of the issue and general cluelessness, he dismisses
everything with one stroke, discussed in the previous chapter; everything, except one pesky issue:


Why should anyone do takfr of sunnis for the blasphemous words written by Deobandi scholars? Why
the either? But first, let us go back a few pages and to inspect the framework weaved by Keller:



The above ruling is made about ambiguous passages but cannot be allowed for blasphemy as mentioned
by Haytami; Keller uses this rule for Deobandi statements to prove that they can be interpreted
favourably despite being explicit in their insult because of his intention rule:




Keller is trying to tell you that the Deobandi statements were intended to make valid points and not as
insult; by the Kellerian rule, that would absolve Deobandis so he brings up context again:



The following statement removes any lingering doubts that Deobandi apology is his main agenda:




442
Akhbr al-amq wal Mughaffaln, Chapter 13: Simpleton Qs, p110.
only one issue remains that offers either side a pretext for takfir; namely, whether some words written
by Deobandi scholars constitute insulting the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) or not
Only when the intention entails kufr do such words take the speaker out of Islam. Context is of the
utmost importance in determining this intention, and taking someones words out of context is
universally considered dishonest, doing violence to their intended meaning
The need to contextualize words to establish their intent is even more imperative in possible
utterances of kufr that insult Allah Most High or the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace).
Something might be said that while outwardly offensive to Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and
give him peace), was nevertheless intended by the speaker to make a valid point, not as an insult.
The Imputed Insult, to the remarks of these two scholars in context, and show how Imam Subkis
distinction between intentional and unintentional offense offers a compelling Islamic legal solution to
a debate that has become a social problem.
To understand what was said, and what was meant, one has to look at the context, which was various
Deobandi scholars rebuttals of Ahmad Reza Khans belief in the Prophets (Allah bless him and give him
peace) incomparably vast knowledge of the unseen.
93

In other words:
1. The two scholars Ashraf l and Khall Amed said something outwardly offensive to Allhs
messenger
2. This was said to make a valid point, not as an insult;
3. Imm Subk (according to Keller) said that when insult is not intended, it is not kufr;
4. Therefore the two scholars are not kfir and Ahmad Reza Khans takfr is erroneous which has
become a social problem.
The patent folly in this logic can be cross-checked with any competent muft; proforma of a fatw
request is included in the concluding chapter. Shown below is the chronology as imagined by Keller:


Chronology according to Keller Kellers Statements
1

Ahmed Reza Khan made claims about knowledge of
unseen his exotic prophetology


one has to look at the context, which was various Deobandi
scholars rebuttals of Ahmad Reza Khans belief in the Prophets
(Allah bless him and give him peace) incomparably vast
knowledge of the unseen.

2 Deobandi scholars misunderstood it and refuted it

Certain Deobandi ulema felt that Ahmad Reza Khan wanted to
say that the Prophets (Allah bless him and give him peace)
knowledge went beyond the relative unseen

3

Ahmed Reza Khans utterances were the reason for
the harsh passages written by Deobandi scholars


Before presenting what they said in detail, let us cast a glance
at Ahmad Reza Khans prophetology. What were their
utterances an answer to?

4
Insulting passages of Deobandi ulema were a
response to Ahmed Reza Khans Dawlah al-
Makkiyyah

Despite such unambiguous words, certain Deobandi ulema
made rebuttals of what they viewed as the grave innovation of
confusing the extent of the Prophets knowledge (Allah bless
him and give him peace)

5

Khall Amed wrote Barhn al-Qaih to refute
Ahmed Reza Khan


Thus the Deobandi scholar Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri wrote in
his al-Barahin al-qatia

6

Khall Ameds comparison of Satan and Angel of
Death in Barhn was a refutation of Ahmed Reza
Khan


That Ahmad Rezas proof of the vastness of the Prophets
knowledge (Allah bless him and give him peace) is based on a
false analogy between the Prophets merit (fadl) and his
knowledge;

7
Thnawi wrote if al-mn refuting Ahmed Reza
Khan

Aside from Thanwis artless comparison of the highest of
creation with the lowest, the very point of saying it in refutation
of Reza is not plain, in view of the latters explicit
acknowledgement that no one can equal Allahs knowledge or
possess it independently... (al-Dawla al-Makkiyya)

8

Ahmed Reza Khan wrote usm al-aramayn refuting
the above

At the latter words, the fiery pen of Ahmad Reza Khan wrote his
Husam al-Haramayn
94

People who are informed of the dispute can easily tell that Kellers chronology of events is utter
nonsense which is also apparent from the timeline shown earlier. Here are the facts once again:
1. A Sunni scholar Mawln bd al-Sam wrote Anwr al-Sih in 1302/1884, proving the
validity of mawlid and ftiah, which were being scorned by mainly Ismls followers.
2. Khall Amed wrote its refutation in 1304/1886 named Barhn al-Qaih l almi al-Anwr
al-Sih, in which the offensive passage is mentioned.
3. In 1307/1889 Alahazrat received a query concerning a statement from the book about imkn
al-kadhib which he refuted in Subn al-Subb, but as he was not aware
443
of the blasphemous
passage at that time, he had not made any takfr of Khall Amed in that book.
4. In 1319/1901 Ashraf l Thnaw writes if al-mn which contains the blasphemous passage.
5. In 1320/1902 Alahazrat publishes Mtaqad al-Muntaqad
444
with his own commentary named
Mustanad al-Mtamad; in the closing section of the book, takfr of Deobandis is mentioned.
6. In 1323/1905 Alahazrat goes for his second ajj and his fatw from Mustanad is presented to
scholars in the aramayn who attest the fatw as sound and valid. Khall Amed is also present
in aramayn that year, but he does not make any effort to refute Alahazrat.
7. In 1324/1906 Alahazrat writes Dawlatul Makkiyyah, which Keller seems to think is the source
of the conflict.
8. The extracted fatw from Mustanad along with attestations is published as usm al-aramayn
in 1325/1907 after Alahazrat returns from ajj.
Pointing out such factual errors is becoming tiresome and frankly, the repetition is embarrassing for us,
but it is unavoidable:




One has to look at the context and the history as explained earlier; not fantasies and fairy tales.
Arguably, the first person in the subcontinent to ignite the controversy concerning the knowledge of
RaslAllh was Isml Dihlaw, whose mischief preceded the school of Deoband by forty-three years;
and Isml died thirty years prior to the birth of Alahazrat. The founders of Deoband school supported
Ismls Wahb beliefs whereas Alahazrat defended the Sunni positions and refuted Wahbs.



Once again, due to ignorance or artifice, Keller tries to portray the issue as a squabble of terms. The
main issue is that Deobandis claim that knowledge of unseen is polytheism - Isml wrote:
Umm la narrates that the Messenger of Allh said: I swear by Allh I do not know; again, I swear by Allh that I
do not know even though I am the Messenger of Allh; what will happen
445
to me or to you.
Insight:
446
That is whatever Allh tl will do to his slaves whether in this world or in the grave or in the hereafter
thus, nobody knows its reality: no prophet, no saint; neither do they know their own state, nor that of others...

443
The attestation in the second edition of Anwr e Sih is for the previous edition of the book.
444
Written by an earlier scholar, Mawln Fal al-Rasl Badyn.
445
Literal translation from Ismls Urdu: How will I be treated nor how you will [be treated].
446
The letter f is for fyidah meaning: the lesson we learn from the adth just quoted. Taqwiyatul mn, p27.
To understand what was said, and what was meant, one has to look at the context, which was various
Deobandi scholars rebuttals of Ahmad Reza Khans belief
This seemed to the Deobandis to blur the distinction between Allahs knowledge and human knowledge;
or more specifically, between the knowledge of the absolute unseen and the relative unseen.
95

Khall in his Barhn with Gangohs attestation:
The Pride of the world has himself said: By Allh, I do not know what will be done to me, nor to you...(adth) Shaykh
bd al-Haq narrates that [RaslAllh said:] I do not have knowledge of what is behind the wall
447

Khall Amed lied through his teeth in his above attribution to Shaykh bd al-aqq concerning the
report: I do not have knowledge of what is behind this wall, by omitting the second half of the
statement. The shaykh has actually said in Madrij al-Nubuwwah:
At this juncture, some people raise an objection that there is a report that RaslAllh said: I am a slave and I do
not know what is behind this wall. The answer to this objection is that the statement has no basis and the report
is not authentic.
448

Ibn ajar al-sqaln says that the report is baseless,
449
and Ibn ajar al-Makki in Afal al-Qir says:
its chain of transmission is unknown.
450
Look at the darkness in the hearts of these people they bring
baseless and inauthentic adth to deny the knowledge of RaslAllh but are reluctant to accept the
mountain of evidence from the Qurn and a adth for the expanse of his knowledge. Concerning
the adth quoted by Isml from Mishkt, and repeated by Khall, l al-Qr says in his commentary:
Trpusht has said: It is not permissible to explain this adth or other such reports to mean that the Prophet was
indecisive concerning his fate or was unsure of his final state near Allh tl; because there are a adth which
are conclusive in their proof against anything reported to the contrary. How can they be explained in such manner
when he has [himself] informed us reporting from Allh tl that He shall make him attain the Extolled Station;
and that he is the most honourable, most beloved to Allh tl in the creation; and he will be the first to
intercede and the first whose intercession will be accepted; etc.
451

Concerning the Qurnic verse:
I do not know what will be done to me, nor to you
452

The jahl-murakkab is apparent of those who claim that RaslAllh is unaware of his own fate. When
this verse was revealed, the polytheists, the Jews and hypocrites became very happy and said: How can
we follow a prophet who does not know what will happen to him or to us? Verily, he has no superiority
upon us Clearly, it is the practice of polytheists and hypocrites
453
to say that RaslAllh is unaware
of what will happen to him; which Isml smugly asserted in his Tafwiyat and Gangoh applauded and
commended the author and the book as fully concordant with the Qurn and sunnah.
Exegetes have clarified that when this verse was revealed, and the infidels rejoiced, many verses were
subsequently revealed describing what will happen to RaslAllh , and what will happen to both
Muslims and kfirs. Some scholars have said that it means what will happen to me in this world that
is whether I will pass away like previous prophets or whether I will be martyred like some others and
everyone agrees that this does not mean what will happen to me in the hereafter. Some scholars say
that it is abrogated by the verse from Srah al-Fat, and some others disagreed saying that it only
contains information and information cannot be abrogated. According to them it means that no one
can obtain this information by perception or imagination idrk but in no way contradicts that Allh
tl has informed him and he has the knowledge. Imm asan al-Bar said: ...that he does not know
of his station in the hereafter? We seek Allhs refuge! He knows that he is in paradise from that time
the Covenant was taken from the prophets.
454


447
Barhn, p46.
448
Madrij al-Nubuwwah, 1/7.
449
Cf. Mawhib Laduniyyah 2/13, Maqid al-asanah #934, Kashf al-Khaf of jln, 2/175: #2175.
450
Afal al-Qir li Qurryi Umm al-Qur aka Mina al-Makkiyyah p271 under the explanation of verse #125: istawba akhbr
al-fali minhubtidu: its chain of transmission is unknown. Ibn al-Jawzi mentioned it without isnd in one of his books.
451
Mirqt al-Maft, 9/521, #5340.
452
Srah Al-Aqf, 46:9. m can be used either as interrogative or a negator.
453
Which is inanely repeated by hypocrites of our age.
454
Tafsr al-Qurub, verse 46:9.
96

The following verses clearly describe the lofty rank of RaslAllh :
So that Allh may forgive for your sake, the sins of those
past and those in the future
455

Verily, the hereafter is better for you than the present

456

It is nigh that your Lord shall raise you to the Extolled

Station
457

Kellers description is tailored to omit details that may contradict his argument. Alahazrat has said that
knowledge can be classified either by source or by pertinence. By source, it is either intrinsic or
bestowed; by pertinence, it is either absolute knowledge or categorical knowledge which are further
sub-categorised as:
absolute knowledge comprehensive and complete in every detail such that nothing is excluded
absolute knowledge but generic
categorical knowledge in detail
categorical knowledge in general




Kellers classification is intended to favourably explain the blasphemous passage of if al-mn
because this is exactly what Thnaw has also said: everybody knows something or the other which is
hidden from others, and similar is the knowledge of RaslAllh , so what is extraordinary about it?
458

As such, ghayb is relative to us the creation because nothing is hidden from Allh tl; His
knowledge is absolute lm al-mulaq and the verses that mention knowledge of unseen simply means
that it is unseen by the creation.


455
Srah Fat, 48:2.
a al-Khursn said {sins of yours past} that is, mistakes of your parents dam and awwa {and those after} sins of
your followers. [Tafsr al-Qurub]. Even though Shawkn rejects this as a far-fetched explanation, he insists that the sin
mentioned is not a sin but an action superseding a better one [tark al-awl] but not a sin for anybody else.
In Bar al-lm of Samarqand: {Allh may forgive those sins of yours past} that is, the mistake of dam {and those after}
that is, the sins of your followers.
Imm Baghaw in Mlim al-Tanzl: {those sins of yours past} that is, the mistakes of your parents dam and awwa
[forgiven] because of your munificence [bi barakatika] {and those after} the sins of your followers, because of your prayers.
So also in Tafsr of Ibn iyyah [d.546] Tafsr Khzin [d.725] and many other tafsirs.
Imm a ibn Abi Muslim [50-135] is a junior tbi and Yaya ibn Man said that he was trustworthy [thiqah] even though
Ibn ibbn said that he had a bad memory. [Tahdhb al-Kaml, Mizz, #3941; abaqt al-uff, Suy, #130 in the Fourth
Rank] Among those who narrate from him are the imms Ab anfah, Mlik, Thawr, Shbah and ammd ibn Salamah; his
narrations are found in a Muslim and the four sunan [Tahdhb of Ibn ajar, #394].
456
Srah u, 93:4.
457
Srah Isra, 17:79.
458
al-ydhu billh; this is Thnaws comment paraphrased.
The absolute unseen (al-ghayb al-mutlaq) is that which no one knows but Allah, such as when the Final
Hour will come, or the knowledge of every particular of being, unobscured by limitations of past or
future, this world or the next, time or space, or the other cognitive categories that limit and structure
human perception of reality.
The relative unseen (al-ghayb al-nisbi) is a fact of everyday life, and is merely that each individual knows
things others are unaware of, hence unseen in relation to them.
97

Alahazrats Categorisation of Knowledge in Dawlatul Makkiyah


459
Imm Rz in his tafsr has said: It is not forbidden for us to say that we have knowledge of unseen upon which, we do not
have any perceptible evidence..
I. BY SOURCE: madar
1
Dht
Self, Own
Knowledge that is ones own and not granted by another or
gained by any other external entity this kind of knowledge is
only the Divine Knowledge of Allh tl and if anybody else
claims even a speck of knowledge, howsoever infinitesimal, by
self and without Allhs grant is undoubtedly a kfir.
2
y
Bestowed, Given
Knowledge granted by Allh tl; this is specific to creation
and if anybody claims even a speck of such knowledge for Allh
tl is a kfir and polytheist because it would mean that
Allh tl has received knowledge from others, al-ydhu
billh.
II. BY PERTINENCE: muta-llaq
1
lm al-Mulaq
Absolute Knowledge
The principle of universal generalisation [adt al-mm wal
istighrq]; that absence of a single component negates the
existence of this kind of knowledge; the rule here is mjibah
kulliyyah, slibah juzyiyyah. Such as all swans are white is
disproved by the existence of a single black swan.
2
Mulaq al-lm
Knowledge (Absolutely)
Mulaq is used here as described by the scholars of ul: That
is, any component is sufficient to affirm knowledge, but it
requires proof of absence of every component to prove that it
does not exist [mjibah juzyiyyah, slibah kulliyah].


1a
lm al-Mulaq al-Tafl
Absolute Knowledge: Comprehensive, Total
All-encompassing, entire, perfect, infinite, conclusive, precise,
factual and unlimited which includes everything completely,
and every detail recursively. This belongs only to Allh; it is
impossible for anyone in the creation to encompass the
knowledge of Allh; rather the comparison of the knowledge
of everything and everyone in the creation to the knowledge
of Allh is like that of a millionth of a drop of water to that of
million oceans, but even lesser because millions of oceans
are finite and the knowledge of Allh tl is infinite.
1b

lm al-Mulaq al-Ijml
Absolute Knowledge: Generic

Generic Absolute Knowledge such as Allh tl is the
Knower of all things. We know this in general, but we do not
know every detail. Every Muslim has this knowledge and if
anyone denies this, he becomes a kfir.
2a

Mulaq al-lm al-Tafl
Knowledge (absolutely) in detail

In the case of knowledge (absolutely) of unseen, things like
paradise, hell, Judgement Day etc are known categorically.
These are all unseen, and knowledge about them is given to
even common Muslims as the verse says: They bear faith in
the unseen.
459

2b

Mulaq al-lm al-Ijml
Knowledge (absolutely) in general

Knowledge (absolutely) in general
98

Alahazrats classification is not specific to knowledge of the unseen, but nevertheless it is explained
adequately within the above categorisation. He did not specify unseen because, as we have said, it is
unseen in relation to us and not for Allh tl, and His Knowledge is lm al-mulaq.


If the unseen was apparent to the eye that would not be unseen anymore as it was witnessed
The entire creation is witnessed by Him nothing that exists can be unseen for Him
460

Mawln Muhammad al-Kittn in his book Jala al-Qulb citing Shaykh al-Akbar says:
Know that the unseen is of two kinds: [The first] unseen which cannot be known at all and is specific to aqq and
[unseen] in relation to us; from our perspective this unseen is impossible to know and nobody can learn about it.
The other is affiliated unseen: that is, something which is witnessed by one, is unseen by another; there is nothing in
existence, which is such unseen, that nobody has beheld it at the least, such a thing that exists witnesses itself and
therefore unseen to everything except its own self; moreover, there is not a thing unseen, except that it can be
witnessed in its unseen state by someone who has not witnessed it: when Allh tl wishes to make known to those
whom He pleases, He informs them by giving them the knowledge [of that unseen; and thus they know] not be mere
conjecture or guesswork.
461

Kellers selective quotation is to benefit Thnaws alibi; because he calls nisbi knowledge merely that
each individual knows what another does not.




We have seen earlier, that the founders of Deoband school Gangoh and Nnotw followed Isml
Dihlaw and defended him; thereafter, all prominent Deobandis took that route.
462
Alahazrat is in the
third generation of the controversy it is ridiculous to suggest that the Deobandi response was a
reaction to Alahazrats fatw/opinions. Keller makes many such insinuations against Alahazrat, and
we shall deal with them later, in-shAllh; we will also examine the above statement in context of
Thnaws blasphemy further in this chapter.




Topsy-turvy again it was Isml, who first claimed in Taqwiyatul mn that it was polytheism to
believe that the Prophet had knowledge of unseen; Deobandis are blind muqallids of Isml.






The second and third generation of Wahbs responded to the clarifications of Sunni scholars; and in
these responses, they uttered more blasphemies. Keller acknowledges that the responses of Deobandis
were insulting, but waters it down as lower creatures. Thnaw compared the knowledge of
RaslAllh with madmen and beasts and Khall deemed that Satan had encompassing knowledge of
the earth and RaslAllh did not possess the same; one should not forget these facts.

460
Futut al-Makkiyyah, chapter 492, 7/189.
461
Ibid., and cited by Kittn in Jala al-Qulb, 1/151.
462
Allh tl knows best if any of them disagreed.
Certain Deobandi ulema felt that Ahmad Reza Khan wanted to say that the Prophets knowledge (Allah
bless him and give him peace) went beyond the relative unseen,
They regarded this as tantamount to associating others with Allah (shirk) and a grave innovation (bida).
Their response was strident and hyperbolic, comparing the knowledge of Prophet (Allah bless him and
give him peace) to that of various lower creatures in a way that probably no Muslim had ever compared
him before, and giving the offense whose kufr or iman we are discussing in this section.
99





Their utterances were not answers to any of Alahazrats fatw or books. Keller is trying to reconstruct
fantastic history around a few morsels of facts he has picked up here and there.




The retorts were not in response to Alahazrats fatw or books Khalls book Barhn was a response
to Anwr al-Saih by Mawln bd al-Sam and Thnaws statement was in response to a question
which neither mentions Alahazrat, nor is it indicative of his opinion.




Keller then discusses a few things mainly the knowledge of five things which, according to him are
not included in the knowledge of RaslAllh , as is obvious from the quote above. Even though Keller
attempts to explain what he calls the exotic prophetology of Alahazrat, he is careful to attribute it to
Alahazrat; in undertone it means that Keller does not believe that the five things five major unseen
are included in the knowledge of RaslAllh :






He discusses a few adth, and also nudges the reader towards the impression that Deobandis also
accept all this; and immediately does a subtle switch:





This suggests that Deobandis agree to the beliefs mentioned earlier, but only object to something
beyond this, which he clarifies that Alahazrat did not profess burning two strawmen at the same time.
In reality, neither did Alahazrat claim that RaslAllh had complete knowledge in all particulars of
everything, as accused by later Deobandis; nor was the blasphemy of Deobandis in response to such a
purported belief; in fact, Thnaws blasphemous passage mentions the difference of complete and
partial and it is this part knowledge [baz] that he derogatively questions: What is so special about it?
Such knowledge is also possessed by madmen and beasts.
Secondly, Deobandis like other Wahbs claim that it is polytheism to believe that prophets were given
knowledge of unseen, as we have shown earlier Kellers beyond this is misleading and dishonest.
Keller also attempts to convince the reader that Deobandis misunderstood Alahazrats position, and
Alahazrat misunderstood Deobandi statements and hence his takfr; if Deobandis had understood
Alahazrats position properly, they might not have uttered those blasphemous statements which were
retorts borne out of puritanical zeal and Alahazrats takfr was because he did not understand the
Kellerian principle of takfr which exempts anything so long as the intention to insult is not present.
What were their utterances an answer to?
Did Ahmad Reza actually ascribe Allahs knowledge to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace),
inaugurating a bida that nothing but such retorts could extinguish?
Despite which, there are many Quranic verses that show that no one but Allah knows certain things,
not even the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), such as:
There are many similar Quranic verses, all of which Ahmad Reza Khan interpreted...
By this interpretation Ahmad Reza was able to reach an accord between verses like those above...
...were understood by Ahmad Reza Khan to mean just that:
The Deobandis impression however seems to be wrong that Ahmad Reza Khan wanted to go beyond
this and say that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) knew the particulars (juziyyat) of all
being
100






Deobandi rebuttals were not in response to Dawlah al-Makkiyyah. This treatise was written much later.





What a lame excuse! In the heat of argument, would anyone insult the Messenger of Allh and would
that be pardonable? Incidentally, a similar incident occurred long ago and the scholars of that time did
not admit the excuse of heat of the argument:
The jurists of Andalucia ruled that the scholar Ibn atim al-ulayul
463
should be executed and hanged; because
of what was witnessed about him that he denigrated the Prophet when he referred to him in the course of
a debate as an orphan and father-in-law of aydarah
464
and he claimed that the Prophets abstemiousness
[zuhd] was not voluntary and if he could afford better things, he would have eaten them and other such things..
465

Those elder scholars did not admit any excuse of in the heat of argument, but Keller wants us to believe
that the heat of argument of the Deobandis persisted for decades because none of the said Deobandis
were remorseful of such harsh utterances. Rather, they insisted that they were right and did not deem
it necessary to change these words or repent from such blasphemies. The Andalusian scholar was
executed for his blasphemy which was uttered once and Deobandis have been publishing and
defending these blasphemies repeatedly, for more than a hundred years. All in the heat of argument
which has been unrelenting ever since.





Khall Amed was not talking about knowledge absolutely and Keller is misrepresenting his position.
This is a strawman Deobandis love to burn as seen in Muhannad, where the question is posed whether
Deobandis deem Satans knowledge greater than that of RaslAllh absolutely; and Khall confidently
answers that they did not say that. The trick here is to transform it as absolutely mulaqan which,
indeed Khall Amed did not say in his Barhn. What Khall had said was that the encompassing
knowledge of the earth is proven for Satan but unproven for RaslAllh and proving the same
knowledge for RaslAllh is polytheism. Deobandis try to fool common folk in two ways:
It does not diminish the rank of RaslAllh if we say that Satan knows something which he
does not because knowledge has no correlation to superiority; and hence it is not blasphemy;
To claim that Satan had more knowledge absolutely is abhorrent and certainly kufr; we
466
did
not make this claim.


463
Toledo, the capital city of Castile-La Mancha, an autonomous community of Spain; it is famous for the setting of the novel
Don Quixote. ulayulah in Arabic, but according to Khafj the appellation is ulayil;Shumunn says that it is ulayul.
464
aydarah, meaning the cub of lion, is a nickname of Sayyidun l .
465
Kitb al-Shif, p357.
466
That is, the Deobandis.
Despite such unambiguous words, certain Deobandi ulema made rebuttals of what they viewed as the
grave innovation of confusing the extent of the Prophets knowledge (Allah bless him and give him
peace) with Allahs.
In the heat of argument, some of them met what they deemed exaggerated statements about the
Prophets knowledge (Allah bless him and give him peace) with equally exaggerated statements about
of his lack of knowledge;
...that there is no clear, unequivocal text in the Quran to support the belief that the Prophet (Allah bless
him and give him peace) has vast knowledge, though there is such evidence in regard to Satan and the
Angel of Death.
101

It is kufr to claim that anybody has more knowledge than RaslAllh , let alone the accursed Devil as
Khafj has said in his commentary of Shif:
{Know may Allh tl give guidance to us and you} to recognise the right of the Prophet and the obligations
to fulfil it {everything that is insulting to the Prophet} that is, disrespecting him {or faulted him} which is even
more generic than insult; so if anyone says: such a person is more knowledgeable than him , verily, he has faulted
him and denigrated him even if he has not insulted him {or adduced a flaw in his person} that is in his physical
appearance or in his character...
467

The citation ends with the ruling concerning such a person that, regardless of its proportion, it is
apostasy and the person is judged under the rule of blasphemy punishable by death.





Khall Amed was answering Mawln bd al-Sam and his Anwr; Alahazrat was nowhere in the
picture; Kellers description of the interaction is merely fanciful. Keller also mentions statements from
Barhn and examines the validity of those arguments, which we will not discuss here.
468







Keller acknowledges that Khall has affirmed a certain knowledge for the Devil but denied the same for
RaslAllh , but still says:



Anybody who insults or denigrates the Prophet is a kfir. Making takfr of such a scoundrel is a
religious duty and scholars have written that anyone who doubts in the kufr of a blasphemer is himself
a kfir. Notice, that Keller slightly alters the statement where Khall deemed it polytheism to believe for
RasulAllah , the same vastness which was permissible for Satan:




Even an astute reader may miss this trick and the quick switch in the above passage. Keller says that
the shirk claimed by Khall was in believing knowledge incomparably vaster than the Devils and
thereby shift the focus of comparison; whereas, what Khall said was in Kellers translation:




467
Nasm ar-Riy, Shihbuddn Khafji 4/146. Quotes in bold and parantheses are from Q ys Shif.
468
There are many refutations of Barhn, including one by the author of Anwr e Sih, in the second edition. Alahazrat
refuted this analogy in a separate work Inba al-Muaf in 1318 AH, in which he has refuted it in a more referenced and
sound manner than Kellers perfunctory response.
(1) That Ahmad Rezas proof of the vastness of the Prophets knowledge (Allah bless him and give him
peace) is based on a false analogy
This final rhetorical question, denying any evidence of the Prophets (Allah bless him and give him peace)
vast knowledge after affirming it of the Devil and the Angel of Death, was what made Ahmad Reza Khan
Barelwi say that Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri had thereby demeaned and insulted the Prophet (Allah bless
him and give him peace) and left Islam.
Because takfir is divisive and dangerous,
that believing the Prophets knowledge (Allah bless him and give him peace) to encompass the
terrestrial realm, and to be incomparably vaster than the Devils or the Angel of Deaths, constitutes an
act of shirk, and rejecting all the scriptural texts.
Such vastness [of knowledge] is established for Satan and the Angel of Death through scriptural texts.
Through what decisive scriptural text has the Pride of the Worlds vastness of knowledge been
established, that one should affirm an act of shirk by rejecting all scriptural texts?
102

Deobandis and their apologists try to portray these as two separate passages without any connection
whereas, it is the same compound sentence from Barhn in the original Urdu:
One should ponder, that by looking at the state of Satan and the Angel of Death, [and then] proving such
encompassing knowledge of the earth for the Pride of the World, without any scriptural evidence and by fallacious
analogy if this is not polytheism, then which part of faith is it? This extensiveness of knowledge for Satan and the
Angel of Death is proven by scriptural proof; where is such scriptural proof for the extensiveness of the knowledge
of the Pride of the World, thereby refuting all scriptural proofs to establish one polytheistic belief?
The thing debated by Khall here is thus:
1. Knowledge of the terresterial realm is given to Satan
2. The above is proven by scriptural proofs
3. There is no scriptural proof for SUCH knowledge for RaslAllh .
4. And proving SUCH knowledge for RaslAllh is shirk, polytheism.
This much is evident from Kellers own translation.
469
By introducing incomparably vaster, Keller
alters the meaning, which implies that Khall was talking about knowledge far more than that of
creation, and suggestive of lm mulaq of the Almighty, which is undoubtedly shirk.





How is it conclusively proven? This proceeds from the premise that RaslAllh is the most
knowledgeable in the creation and he was given the knowledge of all those past and those who come
in the future. Following from this premise, whatever knowledge you prove for Satan is included in the
vast knowledge of RaslAllh unless they have excluded Satan from creation mdhAllh.



Here also, Keller burns two strawmen: assumption that Alahazrat adduced the analogy, and secondly
the analogy was erroneous. Actually, Khalls own premise that it is based on analogy of superiority is
incorrect; the analogy in Anwr e Sih was about RaslAllh having the knowledge of everyone in
the creation and therefore, includes knowledge of Satan and Angel of Death. Keller cites the
blasphemous passage from Barhn once again, but stubbornly ignores the comparison with the Devil
and tries to shift the focus on something else. However, Keller correctly understands one of the
implications of the passage




But he still does not deem it a blasphemy, and immediately dilutes his criticism:



469
Apparently Hamza Karamali has provided the English translations of the Urdu passages as mentioned in endnote #27, but
here it is attributed to Keller following his citation.
First of all, Khalil Ahmad is correct in pointing out...
...as well as the knowledge possessed by Satan and the Angel of Death, conclusively proves that there
is no strict analogy between the two things.
To imply however that Ahmad Rezas whole argument hinges on this erroneous analogy is attacking a
straw man. Even if the analogy was adduced by Reza
Moreover, it is difficult to see how the attribute of knowledge that Khalil Ahmad ascribes to Satan and
the Angel of Death should become shirk when affirmed of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him
and give him peace): either it is a divine attribute that is shirk to ascribe to any creature, or it is not.
But even if we overlook these mistaken innuendos,
103

Khalls blasphemy was only a mistaken innuendo Imm Subk might have written a 500 page treatise
on the issue of disrespecting the Prophet , but Keller is unperturbed, because according to his own
principle, anything can be said as long as the intention to insult is not present. Otherwise, how can he
admit that Khall denied the knowledge of RaslAllh which he affirms for Satan, and not even say
anything harsh about such a comparison? It is pertinent to note that Alahazrat also pointed out the same
thing and made takifr which was attested by the scholars of aramayn.





He is even more candid and acknowledges that such a comparison would be unacceptable to Muslims,
but still does not consider it kufr. Alas, where does it leave Keller himself?






Q y said in Shif, which Imm Subk has also cited:
If a person utters anything mentioned in this chapter, which scholars have deemed as insulting and derogatory to
the Prophet , such a person who utters these things shall be executed. No scholar has differed in this issue neither
the ancients nor the later ones, even though they differed [on the circumstances] to rule for execution.
470

One should be extremely careful even when describing issues which are permissible to talk about; even
if it is in defence of RaslAllh and words should be chosen that they shouldnt sound derogatory:
...and when he discusses about the immunity [smah] accorded to him, and talks of his actions and his speech, he
should strive to find the best expression and phrase in a way
471
that is mindful of his respect as much as possible and
avoid using coarse and graceless descriptions; he should abstain from descriptions which are crude and impudent,
words such as ignorance, lies or sin. For example, if one talks about his speech, one should say: Is it permissible
for him to say anything contrary to truth, or inform something that has not occurred, by mistake..? or in a similar
manner and avoid the word lie altogether. Similarly, talking about his knowledge, one should say: Is it possible
that he did not have knowledge except what he was given or Is it possible that he did not have knowledge of some
things until it was given to him by revelation. One should not use the word ignorance because of its ugliness and
hideousness.
472

Keller has understood that Khall tried to show that the Prophets knowledge is less than the Devils:






He also acknowledges that Muslims anywhere would be repulsed by such a description:






470
Shif, p357.
471
asan al-laf wa adab al-barah; Here is Q y advising us to be careful in describing his ismah! Would they tolerate
these wretched passages which seek to diminish the rank and knowledge of RaslAllh ? Would they not consider such things
disrespectful? But Kellers taawwuf probably does not have time for such things...l awla wa l quwwata ill billh.
472
Ibid. p375.
Khalil Ahmads point as a whole, denying that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had
vast knowledge, after affirming it of the Devil and the Angel of Death, is erroneous, for at least three
reasons.
In sum, Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuris disadvantageously comparing the Prophets knowledge (Allah bless
him and give him peace) to Satans, the vilest creature in existenceregardless of the point he was
makingis something few Muslims can accept.
Whether Khalil Ahmad regarded it as a feat of ingenuity to show that because the Prophets knowledge
was less than the Devils, it was a fortiori less than Allahs, or whatever his impulse may have been, he
badly stumbled in this passage.
In any previous Islamic community, whether in Hyderabad, Kabul, Baghdad, Cairo, Fez, or Damascus
in short, practically anywhere besides the British India of his dayMuslims would have found his words
repugnant and unacceptable
104

Agreed, Keller himself does not find it repugnant, nor will he be outraged; but, why is it a scandal if
Alahazrat, or other Muslims are outraged? Here too, Keller insinuates that Muslims in British India of
his day did not find it repugnant and unacceptable, probably to sell the notion that Alahazrat was an
exception and everybody in India had accepted it without demur. In reality, Khall Amed was refuted
by many scholars prior to Alahazrat and after him nobody except the Deobandis made excuses for
such blasphemous descriptions.






It is Kellers hyperactive imagination firstly, Ashraf l Thnaws if al-mn was not a written
objection to Ahmad Reza Khn" and secondly, where did Alahazrat call the Prophet Knower of the
Unseen? In fact, he disallowed that anyone can be called lim al-ghayb, other than Allh tl.
...in my opinion and according to my research, the term Knower of Unseen can be said only with Allh tl because,
according to common parlance [rf] it implies knowledge by ones own self [dht].
...even though the Prophet was given knowledge of many unseen, and knows m kna wa m yakn, but Knower
of Unseen can be said only for Allh tl.
473

This fatw is dated 1339, but it was never the issue of Alahazrat of using this term for the Prophet ,
and indeed, if Keller or any Deobandi has proof for the contrary, let them present it there are many
short and long works of Alahazrat on this issue of Knowledge of Unseen and many fatw to peruse if
they are willing to do so. Keller manufactures facts and attributes positions to Alahazrat; and then gives
explanations, justifications and even sympathises with Alahazrats purported sayings.
It may appear profound to the unknowing, but for us, it is a cock-and-bull fable.
if al-mn was a fatw written in 1319 in response to three questions; and Zayd, to whom these ideas
are attributed in the query cannot refer to Alahazrat. The question is thus:
474

What is the opinion of [scholars who are] defenders of religion and helpers of the majestic sharh, concerning the
following statements of Zayd:
1. Prostration [sajdah] is of two types: Prostration of worship and veneration [tbbud, taim]. prostration of worship
is specific [and permissible to do] to Allh tl, and prostration of veneration is not specific to anyone therefore,
it is permissible to do sajdah to graves in veneration.
2. To do circumambulation of graves is permissible because Mawln Shh Walyullh Muaddith Dihlaw has said:
...and then to circumambulate [awf] seven times around [the grave] reciting takbir, and start from the right side
and place his cheek on the left [Intibh, p10]. This proves that making circuit and prostrating to graves, and to
kiss those graves is permissible.
3. There are two types of Knowledge of Unseen: By self [dht] and except Allh tl nobody is a Knower of Unseen
in this meaning. And [second] by means [of being informed] and in this meaning, RaslAllh was also Knower of
Unseen.
What is the status of the evidence presented by Zayd, his belief and his practice?
Alahazrat never permitted making sajdah or awf of graves even though his masterpiece on the
subject Zubdatuz Zakiyyah, is a much later work (1337) in which he wrote a lengthy refutation of such
practices. The statements of Zayd above, can never be those of Alahazrat.
Obviously, Kellers Deobandi murids Hamza Karamali and Faraz Rabbani helped their shaykh with
translations but I cannot understand why these squires did not warn their master; perhaps they too
believed that they were facing giants and were confident that their master would slay them.

473
Fatw ar-Riawiyyah, 29/405.
474
if al-mn.
The same is true of the Deobandi teacher Ashraf Ali Thanwi, who in a written objection to Ahmad Reza
Khans calling the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) Knower of the Unseen (Alim al-Ghayb),
asked whether this unseen refers to merely some of the unseen or part of it:
105

Keller mentions the blasphemous passage of Thnaws fatw in translation which has a number of
tweaks and euphemisms. We shall present both translations for comparison and a scan of the original
is included in Appendix C for third-party verification.







Our translation:
If the attribution of knowledge to his
475
blessed person by Zayd
476
is valid, then it is necessary to enquire whether
he refers to partial knowledge or complete knowledge? If this refers to a part of such knowledge of unseen,
477
then
where is the exclusiveness of RaslAllh in this?
478
Such knowledge is [posessed by] Zayd and mr;
479
rather,
children and madmen; rather, all animals and quadrupeds also possess [such knowledge]. Because, every person has
knowledge of something that is hidden from another; then, it becomes necessary to call everyone a knower of the
unseen.
480

This much is a contiguous quote; Alahazrat analysed this and refuted it in his Tamhid e mn, which is
available in English translation as Preamble to Faith. We shall not dwell on it here, but any native Urdu
speaker can see that Thnaw compared the knowledge of RaslAllh with that of madmen and
beasts not just compare, but explicitly said that RaslAllh has no exclusivity, or his knowledge is
uniquely special, and Keller deftly shifts the focus from such blasphemy; after all, he has prepared the
mindset earlier where he explained the classification of ghayb, and here he encashes upon that premise:






Recall his description earlier:





But still, how is it not insulting? For example, dogs and pigs are also living would it not be insulting to
say: What is uniquely special about Kellers life, when dogs and pigs also have such life and are living?
What is uniquely special about Kellers clothes, when madmen and kfirs also wear sweatshirts?
481

What is uniquely special about Keller eating food, when pigs and donkeys also eat food?
Those who find the above statements disrespectful, but do not accept that a similar statement said about
RaslAllh is insulting, should be ashamed of their hypocrisy.

475
The Prophet .
476
Zayd: a name used for illustration.
477
baz lm e ghaybiyyah.
478
In Urdu: uzr; and this is meant to refer to RaslAllh .
479
An idiom to say anyone; like it is said in English: Tom, Dick and Harry.
480
limul ghayb.
481
Apparently Kellers clothes are auctioned for barakah.
If it refers to but some of the unseen, then how is the Revered One [the Prophet] (Allah bless him and
give him peace) uniquely special, when such unseen knowledge is possessed by Zayd and Amr [i.e. just
anyone], indeed, by every child and madman, and even by all animals and beasts? For every individual
knows something that is hidden from another individual, so everyone should be called knower of the
unseen. . . . [And] if it refers to all of the unseen, such that not one instance of it remains unknown, then
this is incorrect because of scriptural and rational proofs
Thanwi apparently meant that the Prophets (Allah bless him and give him peace) knowledge of the
unseen was the same in kind as that any of the others mentioned, that is, the knowledge of the relative
unseen, which, as explained above, merely means that each of Allahs creatures knows something that
is unseen to others, while Allah alone has absolute knowledge of all of the unseen.
The relative unseen (al-ghayb al-nisbi) is a fact of everyday life, and is merely that each individual knows
things others are unaware of, hence unseen in relation to them.
106

Keller should recall his sermons on context and the context here can be known from the paragraphs
that follow these controversial lines; this rhetorical question is negating knowledge of unseen for the
Prophet. Thnaw says further:
And then, if Zayd makes it binding upon himself, that he shall call everyone a knower of unseen, then why does he
consider this as an exclusive attribute of prophethood? An attribute in which, there is no exclusivity for believers
not even exclusivity for humans;
482
then, how can this be an exclusive attribute of prophethood?
483

It is clear that Thnaw is not just talking about the category of nisbi knowledge, but emphasises that
such knowledge of unseen is nothing special not even exclusive to humans! In which case:
He is the Knower of Unseen; he does not reveal the
knowledge of unseen to anyone except to His beloved
Messengers
484

Will Keller and Deobandis MdhAllh call madmen and beasts as: Beloved Messengers of Allh
tl? Because:
1. Thnaw says that there is no exclusivity for prophets in such knowledge of unseen.
2. Keller claims that Thnaw is talking about the category of such unseen and notice that he has
mentioned only two categories: complete and relative [mulaq and nisbi].
3. The Qurn says that unseen is given to His beloved Messengers.
4. According to Thnaw, this knowledge is not exclusive to prophets; even animals and madmen
possess this kind of knowledge.
5. Therefore, by Thnaws own logic (then you should call everyone knower of the unseen),
animals and madmen are MdhAllh Beloved Messengers of Allh?
We ask Allh tl to forgive us.




Is it not blasphemy? Keller may not mind such things and brush them aside, but for us and indeed, the
scholars of aramayn, it is this blasphemous comparison that deserves takfr, even if he is mistaken in
his understanding of the categorisation of knowledge how can he compare RaslAllh with such
lowly things?





Apologies for repetition: Thnaws statement was not in refutation of Reza.




Unless Thnaw had knowledge of unseen, he could not have seen Dawlah of Alahazrat before writing
if al-mn, as Dawlah was written five years later. Perhaps, this fact will make things plain to Keller.

482
Thnaw has in the previous paragraph said it explicitly that even animals have similar knowledge; so it is not exclusive to
prophets, or even believers, or even humans. In other words, Thnaw says: knowledge is not a trait that can be considered as
special for prophets.
483
if al-mn, Ashraf l Thnaw, 1319 AH.
484
Srah Jinn, 72:26-27.
Aside from Thanwis artless comparison of the highest of creation with the lowest,
the very point of saying it in refutation of Reza is not plain,
...in view of the latters explicit acknowledgement... as Reza says
107






Where did Alahazrat call RaslAllh as Knower of the Unseen? Besides, Keller supports a wrong
position: it is not permissible to call anyone Knower of the Unseen except Allh tl.





Here, Keller acknowledges that Thnaws phrase could also mean in magnitude which is also
blasphemous and kufr. When he didnt balk when Khall claimed that Satan had knowledge which
RaslAllh did not have, would he hesitate here? According to Keller, this much is not enough to
consider it blasphemy or kufr.





Alahazrat did not write his usm al-aramayn upon Thnaws statement this is another example of
Kellers ignorance. He knows nothing about the issue he must have picked up a few translations, a few
names and he spins a fine yarn, always knowing better than those backward oriental folk.
In 1320, Alahazrat republished the work of Imm Fal al-Rasl Badyn, Al-Mtaqad al-Muntaqad
with corrections (errors of transcription in existing editions) and along with his own annotations titled,
Al-Mustanad al-Mtamad, which has a fatw part in the concluding section of the book about
contemporary heretics. In 1323/24, during his second ajj, he presented this part to scholars of
aramayn, who agreed with his ruling and wrote elaborate attestations. The fatw and attestations
were published together with facing Urdu translation as usm al-aramayn in 1325.





Only a Deobandi lover can have such audacity, despite such ignorance. Kellers slanderous accusation
that Alahazrat did not refer to the context of their remarks is a lie. Barhin e Qaih was already refuted
by Mawln Ghulm Dastagr Qar in his Taqds al-Wakl in 1307/08 and the scholars of aramayn
were aware of Khalls work; concerning the fatw of wuq, upon which Gangoh was ruled kfir,
Alahazrat presented the photocopy of that fatw to the scholars which is included in Appendix C.
Thnaws blasphemy was also explained with illustrations.





How could Alahazrat write in 1320, in Mustanad that all these Deobandi retorts from previous years,
some sixteen years ago, were in response to Dawlah al-Makkiyyah, which would be written four years
later in 1324? Even when the fatw of usm was presented to Meccan scholars in 1323, Dawlah was
not written Khall Amed was around, but even he was not cognisant of this critical point which only
Kellers ingenuity could fathom.
Is this what Keller teaches in his suhbahs? To pretend that you know everything even when you dont
know a thing? If he has said this in full knowledge, isnt it deception and arent these lies? And if he has
been fooled by his squires who fed him false information, where is the high standard of not accepting
make it easy to see why Reza and others called him Knower of the Unseen
and that by any measure, he possessed knowledge plainly not of the same order as that possessed by
every child and madman, and even by all animals and beasts, to use Thanwis phrase.
At the latter words, the fiery pen of Ahmad Reza Khan wrote his Husam al-Haramayn
without referring to the context of their remarks,
or what they had been written in reply to
108

hearsay that he laments on the grand plains of self-righteousness? Is this what sincere scholarship
means? To pick up a few names and few quotes and write an entirely fictitious account of the whole
thing with such confidence that a reader might be fooled into thinking that the author must have spent
years researching the issue?











Yes, those hundreds of anaf scholars who attested usm in the subcontinent were all fools and did
not know what Keller knows; those who attested Alahazrats fatw which includes anaf scholars in
aramayn, such as Shaykh Ab usayn Marzuqi, Shaykh ali Kaml, Shaykh Isml Khall and Shaykh
bd al-aqq Ilhabd, who had emigrated to Makkah and was of Indian origin.
Keller needs to learn his Shfi fiqh properly before commenting on a person like Alahazrat, whose
command of anaf fiqh is evident from his fatw; Keller cites:





And then says:





Even if he cannot understand Urdu, Keller still knows better than native Urdu speakers by merely
looking at the translation of a few passages by his Deobandi murids, which he thinks were said in the
heat of argument.





He has acknowledged that the Deobandis made crude comparisons which is kufr by ijm.





May the damnation of Allh tl be upon liars Keller, not content with slandering scholars of Islm,
proceeds to make false accusations on the pristine sharh. He tries to find excuses for blasphemers,
even after acknowledging that such words were blasphemy and acknowledges that no Muslim can
tolerate such words. Besides, scholarly opinion is only in Kellers fantasy land; similar to his
revisionist history and phantasmic unfolding of events which we have seen above. No scholar of Islm
has differed that when disrespectful words are said about RaslAllh , regardless of the intention, if
such words are uttered voluntarily and not under duress, they are deemed blasphemy and kufr; even
if the person says such things in a state of inebriation.
It is lying enough for a man to repeat everything he hears, because as Imam Nawawi observes, one
generally hears both truth and falsehood, and to repeat everything one hears without checking will
necessarily mean telling lies
His fatwa of kufr against the Deobandis, however, was a mistake.
A fatwa may not be given of the unbelief of a Muslim whose words are interpretable as having a valid
meaning, or about the unbelief of which there is a difference of scholarly opinion, even if weak
First, the Deobandis words are interpretable as having a valid meaning,
for they can be construed as making a distinction, however crudely, between Allahs knowledge of the
absolute unseen and mans knowledge of the relative unseen.
Secondly, there is a valid difference of scholarly opinion about the unbelief of such words, for even if
weak in the above Hanafi text means, according to commentator Ibn Abidin
109

Kellers following attribution to Imm Subk is untrue:





We will repeat those quotes once again from Shfi imms, unless of course, Keller knows more about
Shfi fiqh than Ibn ajar al-Haytami:
Even if the person proves that he has not deliberately said any of this to deride him ; or intended to insult or
disparage him whether it was ignorance that made him say such things or because he was discontented or
disgruntled, or he was inebriated, or he blurted it out without thinking or it slipped from his tongue, or because of
haughtiness or impudence, or impetuousity and recklessness; in all such cases, the ruling is the same as in the first
case that is, execution without further deliberation or any hesitation, because the excuse of ignorance [in such
cases] which cause apostasy is inadmissible, nor the excuse of slip of the tongue, nor any other excuse which I have
mentioned above as long as the person is sane and has not lost his reason.
Except a person in duress, who utters such things due to coercion as long as faith is undisturbed in his heart. It is
therefore, that the Andalusian scholars decreed against Ibn tim when he repudiated the zuhd of RaslAllh , as
mentioned earlier.
485

Haytami reiterates that in explicit insults, the excuse of intention to insult is inadmissible:
[Q ys] opinion is obvious and confirms to the principles of our madhhab. Because someone is ruled kfir based
on what is observed from the outside; one cannot look at his motives or intentions, nor consider the context in which
he has said so. However, the excuse of a person who claims that he did not know will be accepted according to the
state and conditions of his Islm. His excuse will also be accepted if he claims that it was a slip of the tongue only
to ward off the death penalty, even though it is not accepted in the matter of divorce and manumission; because the
former is the right of Allh tl to forgive and the latter two require forgiveness of humans.
486

Moreover, Keller is attempting to draw a favourable interpretation from explicit insults which he has
himself acknowledged when he said that such statements would not be acceptable by Muslims
anywhere. Imm Subk says concerning explicit insults:
abb ibn Rab said: Because the claim of favourable interpretation is not admissible in explicit words
487

---
All of this is cited from Q yQ, and much of it is cited earlier [as fragments]; but I thought of mentioning all
of it here, as it is appropriate in this place. All texts of Shfis, anafs and anbals agree and are concordant that
[all] of it is insult and [thus] apostasy which deserves to be punished by execution; they only differed whether the
persons repentance is accepted.
488

Imm Subk has himself clearly differentiated between sabb and adh:
I have mentioned in my book Sayf al-Maslul, the principle that whosoever intends to hurt [adh] the Prophet
deserves to be executed such as bdullh ibn Ubayy and those who did not intend to hurt the Prophet , such as
Mista and amnah, do not deserve to be executed.
However, concerning insulting [sabb] the Prophet , ijm is established that it is kufr; and mocking him is kufr;
Allh tl says: Tell them: Do you make fun of Allh tl, His verses and His Prophet? Do not make excuses
you have become infidels after having professed faith. Rather, even if you do not mock him; Ab bayd al-
Qsim ibn Sallm ruled a person kfir for memorising half a [poetic] verse which disparaged the Prophet .
489

Or will Keller repudiate these Shfi imms as well?

485
Ilm, p82; Shif, p364.
486
Ibid.
487
Sayf, p407.
488
Ibid., p410.
489
Fatw Imm Subk 2/573.
As we have seen, a difference of opinion does exist in another school, namely the position of the Shafii
Imam Subki that one must give due consideration to the intention behind that which gives offense
110







Perhaps Haytami needs instruction in Shfi fiqh by Keller, and indeed on matters of apostasy and
blasphemy even though his work Ilm is considered an authority in this subject:
[Scholars have said:] It is proven that he ordered the execution of those who hurt him or disparaged him; it is his
right and it is his choice [to punish or spare those who hurt him]. He chose to execute some people and forgave
some others. After his passing away, there is no way others can differentiate on what merits forgiveness, and therefore
the ruling is generic that [a person who hurts him] is executed because we do not know if he should be forgiven. It
is not allowed for his followers [ummah] after him to forego his right, because the only permission [we are given and]
reported from him, is to punish the blasphemer.
490

Kellers inability to understand the issue is incredible and maddenning worse than the sophomore
Salaf, who has hardly read a couple of abridged adth translations and begins to do ijtihd and
criticises positions of madhhabs.





Firstly, scholars clarify that these were not insults notwithstanding the palpable harm caused to the
Prophet. Secondly, it was the Prophets right to forgive and it is not permissible for anyone else to
forgive. We ask this question once again: What is the yardstick to judge someones intention? How will
Keller determine a blasphemers claims that he never intended to insult the Prophet ?






How will Keller explain the intentional insults that he forgave? Did he punish bdullh ibn Ubayy
despite explicit insults? Why do you not follow the Prophets example in that case? It is clear that it
was the Prophets right and his prerogative to punish or forgive nobody can forgive that right after
his passing away. Keller should properly read Shfi fiqh before suggesting anafs to adapt to it.





This is true only in Kellers wonderland; in reality, Deobandis are Wahbs, and they were only
defending their madhhab in which reverence of the Prophet is shirk as Isml has explained.






A person making such outrageous statements can be considered a waliy and a scholar and a sufi only in
our times. How can an ignoramus who does not even know the rights of the Prophet , progress on the
path to reach Allh tl?

490
Ilm, p112.
The sahih hadiths we have cited above show how strong this position of Subkis is, for the Prophet (Allah
bless him and give him peace) was in one instance reproved by an upset wife with the words I dont
see but that your Lord rushes to fulfill your own whims
...actually seized and choked by a bedouin demanding charitynone of which did he consider a
deliberate offense or kufr, because each was interpretable as an unintentional insult.
It is also noteworthy that in each of these instances, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)
with instinctive compassion and wisdom gave due consideration to the emotional states that pushed
people beyond the ordinary bounds of adab or manners with him.
The vehemence of Deobandi writers defending Islam against shirk, however misplaced, plainly affected
the way they spoke about the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace).
The above hadiths suggest that due consideration should be given to the emotions aroused by the
fatwa wars of their times, just as the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) gave consideration
to peoples emotions.
111






Again and again Keller acknowledges that the statements were unacceptable when talking about
RaslAllh , but is obstinate that it is not kufr.





Khalls teacher Gangoh read the book Barhn intently, from the beginning to the end and praised its
author;
491
why do you expect him to be offended? Ashraf l was raised in this environment of belittling
the Prophet , but Keller misses the point again. Did they retract or show remorse when their
opponents asked them? Ashraf l agreed to change one or two words in his blasphemous passage but
insisted that he was right and the change was meant only to avoid dismay of some followers and
commoners.







SubhnAllh! It is so repugnant that Keller will not tolerate such things for his own father but he will
not consider it as blasphemy of RaslAllh . This is sheer madness.
492

Of course, he does not consider it kufr because of his peculiar rule of intention.





Keller does not know the basic difference between harm and insult and it is the right of RaslAllh to
forgive whosoever he wishes; and we have no right to forgive anyone who disrespects the Prophet .
Keller should probably read the commentaries of those adth he has quoted and spare some time to
reflect on the context of those adth and read the opinions of Shfi imms.




This is the Kellers own opinion and arbitrary at that Haytami has clearly said that anyone uttering
explicit insults, voluntarily, is a blasphemer and an apostate regardless of his intention.

491
Gangoh has described it thus in his attestation of the book.
492
The quote in Arabic below means: Your love of a thing will make [you] blind and deaf. Ibn Kathr cites from Imm
Amed [#21590] and Ab Dwd [#5130] narrating from Ab Darda; Sakhw says citing [Zaynuddn] al-rq that it is not
very weak and can probably be deemed a fair [asan] report [Maqid al-asanah #381].
This does not mean that the words chosen by these writers were acceptable, even if retorting against
bida, or fighting shirk.
Looking back, one cannot help wondering why Khalil Ahmads and Ashraf Ali Thanwis own students
and teachers and friends did not ask them, before their opponents asked them:
When did any Islamic scholar ever compare the knowledge of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him
peace) to the depraved, to the mad, or to animalseven to make a point? Few Muslims would suffer
such a comparison to be made with their own father, let alone the Emissary of God (Allah bless him and
give him peace).
But while such words were indefensible breaches of proper respect, they were not kufr, because the
intention behind them was not to insult the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace),
Imputed intentionality is a fallacy because the rigorously authenticated proofs we have seen are too
clear to misunderstand
and is therefore without the legal consequences it would have had if it had been intentional.
112






Following the classical definition of propaganda, Keller repeats this ad nauseum and here gives a
catholic tinge to it a layman may misinterpret that scholars have a special privilege to say things which
common Muslims cannot because he says:





Keller is actually saying here that the blasphemies were said with the intention to prove a point and not
to insult and therefore pardonable which is ridiculous and underlines Kellers ignorance.





Keller repeats it again; and such an unreliable person summarily dismisses Alahazrats fatw.






Qsim and Rashid differed with Ahmad Reza? I am surprised why he has not mentioned the fairy tale
that Qsim, Rashid, Thnaw and Khall were all buddies in school and had a spat with Alahazrat; piqued
and remembering this playground fight, Alahazrat ruled them all kfir after he became a muft.
493

Secondly, this means that Nuh Keller agrees that there are six seals of prophets in the six earths and if
a prophet were to appear in this very earth, it would not affect the finality of our Master . Does Keller
consider Qdiyns as kfirs or not? If so, why? If they are kfirs, then why not Qsim Nnotw? Haytami
says listing things that entail belying the Messenger:
...or deems in the possibility of prophethood of anyone, after the coming of our Prophet.
494






Which is another lie; may Allhs damnation be upon liars. No Sunni scholar has said that the finality of
the Prophet is unaffected even if a new prophet were to appear on this earth no Sunni scholar has
said that it is possible for Allh tl to lie - no Sunni scholar compared the knowledge of RaslAllh
with lower beings Keller has forgotten his own preachment:





493
This is not just a hypothetical example; I have heard Deobandis tell this to me, albeit only Thnaw is mentioned in that
story as Alahazrats classmate. One such fairy tale by the Deobandi author, Khalid Mahmud was seen on Youtube, but it is now
made private by the uploader probably fearing that they will be exposed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgljl_TY-JE.
494
Tufatul Mutj, 9/87; this is also mentioned by Imm Ghazl in Iqtid as repudiating the ijm.
Khalil Ahmads and Ashraf Ali Thanwis comparisons of the Prophets knowledge (Allah bless him and
give him peace) were offensive in their wording, and certainly not of the ordinary scholarly discourse
acceptable among Muslims.
But because they were intended as scholarly discourse, to emphasize the human limitations of the
Prophets knowledge
not as an insult against the Prophettheir words did not entail the judgement of kufr that Ahmad Reza
Khan issued against them
The other aqida-related issues outlined above upon which Qasim Nanotwi and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi
differed with Ahmad Reza are things that Muslim theologians can disagree about and still remain
Muslim.
They are not fundamentals of Islam, but rather inferences drawn through ijtihad from Quranic verses
and hadiths about issues that have been historically disagreed upon by scholars greater than these.
When did any Islamic scholar ever compare the knowledge of the Prophet (Allah bless him and
give him peace) to the depraved, to the mad, or to animalseven to make a point?
113






Assuming that Keller is talking about the last page of Alahazrats fatw preceding attestations, either
Keller has not seen the original quotation or if he has indeed seen it, he is incapable of comprehending
simple passages; and if he has understood it properly, he has purposely misrepresented Alahazrats
position and indulged in lies and deception. Here is that quote from usm:
In Bazzziyyah, Durar wal Ghurar, Fatw Khayriyyah, Majma al-Anhur, Durr al-Mukhtr and other reliable books,
concerning this kind of unbelievers it is said: whoever doubts in the kufr and punishment of such a person is
himself a kfir. In Shif, it is said: we make takfr of a person who does not do takfr of those who deem beliefs other
than Islm as valid or hesitates [doubts] in considering it as kufr
495

This is robbery in broad daylight; Keller misrepresents Alahazrat in the very passage he has quoted. Is
it fair to misquote it first and then to suppress the context? Alahazrat said: this kind of kuffar and
Keller snipped it and said: Whoever does not declare kufr of an unbeliever and made it generic and
then smugly disproves that it is a generic ruling. The context of this ruling can be known by the
references Alahazrat has mentioned for the ruling; given below is the Arabic text from usm:

:
*
Keller mentions an example of a ruling to prove that it is a restricted case even though Alahazrat has
already mentioned the same, in its correct form
496
in that very quote. Very few readers of Kellers article
will ever refer usm; what most people will interpret is that Alahazrat did not realise that whoever
doubts in the kufr of such kfirs is a restricted case; and therefore it does not apply for all kfirs, as
pointed out by Keller, who presents himself as more smarter and perspicuous look at the attention
to detail of this shaykh from Kharabshahar...
Who are kuffar of this kind classed by anaf jurists as mentioned in usm? In Bazzziyyah, Durar
wal Ghurar, Fatw Khayriyyah, Durr al-Mukhtr:
Khabi said: I do not know of any Muslim who has argued against execution, when the blasphemer is a Muslim.
Sann al-Mlik said that there is a unanimous agreement among scholars that the blasphemer of the Prophet is
a kfir and he shall be executed; whoever doubts in the punishment and kufr of such a person is himself a kfir.
497

Additionally, in Fatw Khayriyyah:
We say that even if a person disrespects the Prophet in a state of inebriation, he will not be excused and will be
executed under statutory punishment.
Alahazrat is talking about blasphemers, and the ruling concerning one who insults the Prophet .





It is hard to believe that such stupid comments require refutation; even an average student of Islamic
Law may be embarrassed to say such a thing. Notice the dishonesty of Keller who cleverly omits that
such an injunction was stated in the context of someone insulting the Prophet .

495
usm al-aramayn, p31.
496
Vide Shif, on those who do not accept or doubt in the kufr of other religions.
497
Fatw Bazzziyyah, 6/322; Durar al-ukkm f Shari Ghurar al-Akm, 1/300; Fatw al-Khayriyyah, 1/109;
Durr al-Mukhtr, p345.
As for Ahmad Rezas contention on the last page of Husam al-Haramayn that whoever does not declare
the kufr of an unbeliever
that whoever does not declare the kufr of an unbelieverhere meaning the Deobandishimself
becomes an unbeliever, this is the Islamic legal ruling only in certain cases of uncontestably certain kufr...
114

Muammad ibn Sann said that scholars are in unanimous agreement that the blasphemer of the Prophet and
his denigrator is an apostate. Allhs promise of torment for such a person is ordained. The punishment for such a
person in our nation is execution. Whosoever doubts in his apostasy and that he [the blasphemer] will be
punished has himself become an apostate.
498



This is cited by numerous scholars from the time of Ibn Sann the third century until our time and
it shall continue irrespective of jhil sufis and preachers claiming otherwise.






Thus, if a person considers Qdiyns as Muslims, he remains a Muslim; perhaps Hamza Ysuf Hanson
was inspired by this Kellerian fatw and hir Jhngv may use this as proof for his love of Christians
and Jews, whom he does not consider kfirs, in full alignment with the Common Word
499
to which Keller
is also a signatory. We seek Allhs refuge from the evil of ignoramuses strutting as scholars. Qdiyns
do not deny the messengerhood of our Prophet ; and if Keller does not consider Qdiyns kfir, he
will still remain a true Muslim, a waliy and a shdhili. l awla wa l quwwata ill billh.





Hopefully, in that essay he will discuss comments of Imm Muammad ibn Sann and an
overwhelming majority of scholars, faithfully and without any distortion; and he will also address the
comments of Ghazl concerning the tawl of khtam al-nabiyyn.






These are more lies and a caricature of history. The banner of takfr was not raised by Sunnis (whom
Keller and others call Barelwis) but Isml Dihlaw, the grand imm of Wahb-Deobandi groups, who
went even further than Shaykh Najdi of Arabia and it was his book, Taqwiyatul mn which set the fire
of sectarianism in the subcontinent. It is so noxious that even a bowdlerised version of Abul asan
Nadawi could not camouflage its odiousness. Keller inanely repeats the same lies. Moreover, Alahazrat
was not the first to make takfr of these people many scholars had made takfr of the blasphemers
among Indian Wahbs. Nonetheless, Alahazrat was the most cautious in takfr, but Keller levels this
slanderous charge at him does Keller have no fear of Allh tl? Does he think that he can get away
with this slander in the presence of Al-zz al-Qahhr, al-Muntaqim al-Jabbr?

500
Keller makes such an accusation on the imm who withheld from the takfr of Isml Dihlaw, whose
book Taqwiyatul mn has such horrendous statements, that even the Devil himself may hesitate to
utter; but still, there was a rumour afloat that Isml had repented from his heresies and upon this
rumour Alahazrat withheld from takfr, as he has said in Sall al-Suyf al-Hindiyyah (1316):

498
Shif, p356.
499
Common Word is a modern initiative with a perennialist agenda. http://www.acommonword.com/
500
The oppressors shall soon know, to which place they shall be returned [Srah Shura, 26:227].
this is the Islamic legal ruling only in certain cases of uncontestably certain kufr, such as followers of
other faiths, who explicitly deny the messengerhood of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace),
not in all cases.
Imam Ghazali gives the details in his al-Iqtisad fi al-itiqad, in a passage we shall translate in the future
in an essay on the fallacy that not declaring anothers unbelief is unbelief.
To conclude, the Barelwi response to the Deobandis was probably far worse than the initial provocation,
raising for the first time in Indian history the banner of takfir of one major group of Hanafi Muslims by
another.
115

This is the ruling of fiqh scholars concerning these mendacious statements;
501
but may Allh shower countless
blessings and mercies upon our scholars for their restraint. In spite of seeing and hearing the leader of this sect
declare true Muslims as polytheists and disbelievers neither does intense anger loosen their grip of caution; nor are
they instigated by the desire for retribution; these blessed scholars
502
have reservation in ruling him kfir and assert
that there is a difference between that which necessitates kufr and that which necessarily imposes kufr.
503
It is one
thing for such statements to be classified as kufr; and an entirely different thing to consider a person who has said
that as a kfir. We shall tread with utmost caution; we shall remain silent and as long as there is a weak or even the
remotest possibility to withhold from takfr, we shall do so; we shall hesitate and fear to issue the ruling of kufr.
In Kawkabah al-Shihbiyyah, written in 1312, he says:
In my opinion, the state of utmost caution bids us to withhold our tongue from declaring him as kfir; and this is the
preferred and most suitable opinion.
504
And Allh tl knows best.
Even the Deobandi followers of Ismayil were not ruled kfir in 1307 for imkn al-kadhib:
I seek Allhs refuge and a thousand times: sh lillh! I certainly do not like to make takfr of these people. Even
until now, I still consider these followers
505
and modern claimants
506
as Muslims, even though there is no doubt in
their heresy and waywardness. Neither do I issue a ruling of kufr upon the leader of their sect, Isml Dihlaw; because
our Prophet has warned us from making takfr of those who say: l ilha ill Allh. We do not rule them kfir, as
long as we do not have proof as obvious and glaringly apparent as the mid-day sun; and [withhold from takfr]
until the remotest possibility remains to absolve them from kufr. For Islm shall prevail and it cannot be subdued.
507

In yet another treatise, Izlatul r, written in 1317:
We prefer the opinion of Kalm scholars in these matters. And thus, do not do takfr of a person as long as he does
not deny or reject any necessary aspect of religion; nor considers such a denier to be a Muslim.
Kellers traducement is nothing new; Deobandis have been doing this for ages, which was pointed out
by Alahazrat himself:
They use the only pretext that remains for them to draw a veil on the disbelief of those who insult Allh and His
Messenger ; they keep repeating this constantly in the hope that unsuspecting common folk are brainwashed into
believing that scholars of Ahlus Sunnah have this habit of making takfr needlessly and carelessly; and they must
have ruled these blasphemers as kfir in the same way. O Muslims! Where do these slanderers have proof that we
carelessly accuse them of kufr? And where can there be a proof for a figment of imagination?
508






It is safe to assume that Keller does not know Urdu; his mediocre essay indicates that he does not
understand Arabic properly, but does he need to be told what irony means? If something looks like a
crow and caws like a crow, it might be a crow.
In reality, the sad irony is that Keller blames Alahazrat and Sunnis for takfr, despite the fact that
Deobandis are Wahbs, and their elders began to make polytheists of common Muslims for practices
accepted by scholars and sufis; they diminished the stature and respect of RaslAllh to that of
common things respect him only as much as you would respect your elder brother, they said. When
Alahazrat made takfr of FOUR of their leaders, BECAUSE they committed explicit blasphemy, he has
unleashed the bidh of takfr in India.

501
of Isml Dihlaw in his books Tafwiyatul Imn et al.
502
See Mtaqad/Mustanad.
503
luzm-e-kufr and iltizm-e-kufr.
504
hamre nazdk maqm e itiyt mei ikfr sey kaff-e-lisn makhz o mukhtr... Kawkabah al-Shihbiyyah, p62.
505
Of Isml; that is Gangoh, Ambethw and other Deobandi followers.
506
Modern claimants of the dead and buried idea of imkn al-kadhib.
507
Subn al-Subb, p90; written in 1307 and was first published in 1309.
508
Tamhd e mn, 1326 AH.
The sad irony in this was that the greatest Wahhabi bida of all, takfir of fellow Muslims, was unleashed
in India by denunciations of Wahhabism.
116

One can easily decide whether Deobandis are Wahb and takfiri by answering these questions:
1. Isml Dihlaw is respected and revered by Deobandis; and his book Taqwiyatul mn is held
in great esteem Rashd Gangoh praised it and insisted that every word in that book is truth
and should be followed. Abul asan Nadawi translated it into Arabic and praised it lavishly in
the preface. Is this true or not?
2. This book claims that
a. Polytheism is widespread and very few people are true Muslims in our time.
b. It is polytheism to seek intercession from saints and prophets, including RaslAllh ,
even if one believes that they are not equal to Allh and are the slaves of Allh.
c. It is polytheism to respect graves of saints and prophets and seek blessings from them.
d. It is polytheism to believe that RaslAllh was given knowledge of the unseen, even if
one believes that RaslAllh was given this knowledge by Allh tl.
e. It is polytheism to respect the forest around the city of the Prophet and to deem it as
a sanctuary.
f. A number of things are slammed as polytheism rather, he rejects any exception, even
though such things are mentioned in the Book and sunnah.
509

We can give evidence from this book; are these quotes present in the book or not?
3. Some Deobandis doing taqiyyah like rawfi claim that the wording is harsh but the meaning
was something else; but Isml himself in the same book rejected any interpretations:
a. He said: words should be taken literally and at face value; claims of interpretations are
inadmissible.
b. He said: Qurn and adth are easy to understand for everybody and it is a folly to think
that it requires a lot of knowledge. If Qurn and adth can be understood by everybody
without interpretation of scholars, why should his book require interpretation?
4. Rashd Gangoh said that it is polytheism to believe that the Prophet can hear it when one says,
O Prophet in tashahhud. This makes takfr of numerous Awliya and Sufis. Is this present in
the fatw of Gangoh or not?
5. Has any prominent Deobandi written any book refuting Wahbs?
6. Has any prominent Deobandi written any book defending Mawlid as a praiseworthy practice
and refuted those who call it a reprehensible bidh?
7. Has any prominent Deobandi written any book defending tawassul of prophets and refuted
those who call tawassul as shirk?
8. Has any prominent Deobandi written any book defending istightha, istinah, istimdd and
refuted those who call it shirk?
9. Has any prominent Deobandi written any book or fatw defending the practice of seeking
intercession by addressing the Prophet as Ya RaslAllh?
10. When asked about those who prohibit travelling to visit RaslAllh and the intention should
be to visit the masjid, Rashd Gangoh was evasive, and said that there is a scholarly difference
of opinion and both parties are from Ahl as-Sunnah; that he himself does not have an opinion
on the matter;
510
earlier Isml had ruled that undertaking such a journey is polytheism.

509
Many scholars have refuted Tafwiyatul mn and highlighted that it would then necessitate that the Qurn and adth
teach polytheism al-ydhu billh. Also, Isml has himself acknowledged that he has called things as major polytheism [shirk
akbar] even when they are not [Arw Thalthah].
510
Fatw Rashidiyyah, 1/49-50.
117

Deobandis may follow the anaf madhhab, but they are Wahbs without any doubt additionally,
Deobandi leaders also committed blasphemy. Isml Dihlaws book is an adaptation of Ibn bd al-
Wahhbs work even if Deobandis deny it this was described by his own cousin, Shh Makhullh
Dihlaw; Mawln Abul asan Zayd Faruqi al-Dihlaw made a critical analysis of both books.
According to Mawln Zayd, an abridged version of Kitb al-Tawd was sent to Mecca and other cities
in 1221 AH; he quotes from a manuscript in his possession of that age, in his book, Isml Dihlaw and
his Taqwiyatul mn. Shh Fadl al-Rasul Badyn has also cited the same booklet in his Sayf al-Jabbr
(1260 AH). A quick comparison of topics is shown below:

Rislah Shaykh Najdi Taqwiyatul mn
Chapter One : Refuting Polytheism
has Five Sections
Chapter One: Describing Tawd and the Evil of Polytheism
has Five Sections
Section One:
The reality of polytheism; its ugliness and its categories
No. of verses cited: 7
Section One:
Refraining from polytheism
No. of verses cited: 5
Section Two:
Refutation of polytheism concerning knowledge
No. of verses cited: 6
Section Two:
Refutation of polytheism concerning knowledge
No. of verses cited: 3
Section Three:
Refutation of polytheism concerning dispensation [taarruf]
No. of verses cited: 6
Section Three:
Refutation of polytheism concerning dispensation [taarruf]
No. of verses cited: 5
Section Four:
Refutation of polytheism in worship [bdah]
No. of verses cited: 5
Section Four:
Refutation of polytheism in worship [bdah]
No. of verses cited: 6
Section Five:
Refutation of polytheism in habits [dah]
No. of verses cited: 3
Section Five:
Refutation of polytheism in habits [dah]
No. of verses cited: 6

According to Mawln Zayd,
511
Isml has used, mostly the same verses presented as evidence by
Shaykh Najdi. Even if the abridged version is unavailable, these ideas and beliefs are certainly present
in the writings of Muammad ibn bd al-Wahhb, particularly in his major work Kitb al-Tawd and
similar ideas and beliefs can be found in Tafwiyat of Isml. We have seen earlier that Rashd Amed
Gangoh considers this book as faith, in essence, and he has said about Ibn bd al-Wahhb:
Question: Who are Wahbs? What were the beliefs of bd al-Wahhb Najdi, and what was his madhhab? What
kind of a man was he? What are the differences between the beliefs of Najdi folk and Sunni-anaf folk?
Answer: The followers of Muammad ibn bd al-Wahhb are known as Wahbs. Their beliefs were excellent and
their madhhab was anbal. Although, his manner was harsh, but he and his followers are good people except
those who exceeded boundaries and who have become corrupted. The beliefs [qid] of all are the same in actions,
the differences are like that of anaf, Shfi, Mlik and anbal.
512


511
I have not seen this particular abridged edition of Kitb al-Tawd myself, to corroborate the quotes; here, I cite on the
authority of Shaykh Abul asan Zayd al-Azhari. The shaykh belongs to a famous scholarly family and a direct descendant of
Mujaddid Imm Rabbani Amed Sirhindi and the son of Shh Abul Khayr.
512
Fatw Rashdiyyah, p8.
118

Rashd Amed Gangoh deemed the beliefs of Shaykh Najdi and his followers as excellent mdah,
incidentally, the same description he has used for Isml Dihlaw and his beliefs. There is another fatw
in which Gangoh says that he does not know the beliefs of Muammad ibn bd al-Wahhb:
...I do not know the state of the beliefs of Muammad ibn bd al-Wahhb.
513

In that fatw however, he insists that one should put into practice everything that is said in Taqwiyatul
mn, after affirming that Isml never repented or retracted from any issue in the book. Khall Amed
praised Wahbs and backtracked from his comments in Muhannad conveniently after Wahbs seized
the ijz.
514
But Keller is blind to all this according to Deobandi fataw Keller and his shaykhs may
themselves become kfir, but he deems them sinless and because Alahazrat made takfr of those who
insulted RaslAllh Keller accuses him of inaugurating the bidh of takfr in India!





Reading this apology brings to mind the Bush-era White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer and his press
releases. Keller tries hard to prove that Deobandis have no relation to Wahbs, whereas everybody in
the subcontinent knows who they are; Gangoh praised the founder of Wahb heresy and his beliefs;
his own fatw are in line with Wahb beliefs as noted by Manr Nmn.
Wahb Deobandi
1 Celebration of Mawlid Bidh
Bidh
Impermissible in any form
2 Tawassul of Awliya / Prophets Bidh, Shirk
Bidh, Shirk according to elders
Modern mufts slightly differ
3 Visiting graves and seeking barakah of saints Shirk
Bidh, Forbidden and shirk according
to Isml, the big brother.
4 Visiting the Tomb of RaslAllh Bidh, Shirk
Bidh, Shirk according to Isml
Gangoh gave an equivocal answer
5
Seeking intercession for Aid
(istightha, istinah)
Shirk Shirk
6
RaslAllh was given partial knowledge of
unseen
Shirk Shirk
7
Seeking intercession of Awliya by
addressing them; as in Y usayn!
Shirk Shirk
8 Life of the Prophet in his blessed grave
Not real life; in transient state prior to
resurrection. ayt barzakhiyyah

Isml claimed that he is dead and
became dust (al-ydhu billh)

Deobandis like Thnaw claim ayat
barzakhiyah; and some later ones
agree with Sunni belief.


513
Fatw Rashdiyyah, p64.
514
Manr Nmn says [dated 2
nd
July, 1978] that Khall was influenced by propaganda, and when he learnt the truth, he
became an admirer; see p21 of Shaykh Muammad ibn bd al-Wahhb aur Hindustan ke lam. Thanks to Aqdas and the
brother on sunnaforum for the tip: http://tinyurl.com/p7bsvqo is a fatw from Deoband included here just before finalising
the draft. The truth is that Khall Amed did taqiyyah in 1325 to gain favour for his Muhannad. Manr Nmns apology is big
fat lie, because Wahbs were well-known and their grandshaykh Gangohi was already an admirer of Shaykh Najdi.
Ahmad Rezas fatwas depicted his opponents as Wahhabi sects, which his latter-day followers came
to declare all Deobandis to belong to through a sort of guilt by association.
119

Wahb Deobandi
9
Recitation of alt al-Tjiyyah etc
Dalayil al-Khayrat and other such litanies
Dalayil al-Khayrat is Shirk

alt Tajiyyah is shirk according to
Thnaw and Gangoh because it
contains the description Remover of
Affliction, for RaslAllh which
according to them is polytheism

10 Taqld of Madhhabs
They claim to be Hanbalis
But Shaykh Najdi has deplored taqld
Isml Dihlaw deplored taqld and
termed it shirk; Gangoh was tolerant
and said: they too act upon adth.
Modern Deobandis, however are
militant against l-madhhabis
11 Anthropomorphism
Shaykh Najdi was a follower of Ibn
Taymiyyah
Isml wrote that it is bidh to believe
that Allh tl is transcendent from
direction
12 Status of RaslAllh Human like any of us

Respect him only as you would
respect your elder brother.

His superiority is only as much as
superiority is due to a village headman

He is not aware of his own fate

The status of anybody in the presence
of Allh is lower than that of a cobbler

He does not have the knowledge of
the terresterial realm, but Satan does

If knowledge of unseen is attributed
to him , there is nothing special
because, such knowledge is also
possessed by madmen and beasts.

Keller burns more strawmen:





In his blind love of Deobandis, Keller has resolved to diligently avoid telling the whole truth. After
making such a big blunder attributing a false position to Imm Subk, he now translates an unrelated
fatw shoving all nuances, contexts, specific/generic cases over the cliff.
For example, if a Rfi believes that the Archangel Jibrl made a mistake in delivering the Revelation,
he is certainly a kfir; a number of such examples are found in books of fiqh. Deobandis elders were
ruled kfir for insulting statements about RasulAllah . Our lam clearly wrote that only those who do
not consider a blasphemer as a kfir, after learning about their blasphemy is also a kfir. This is ijm
and famously attributed to Sann, an imm of the righteous age; ravings of a 15
th
century convert
cannot overrule that ijm.






which is also why a Muslims membership in a particular group or sect is not legal evidence that he is a
kafir even when the tenets of the group include ideas that are kufr.
While the fallacy of guilt by association is by no means rare in our times, one the most extreme examples
is provided by the following fatwa, published in the contemporary monthly magazine Kanz al-Iman in
Delhi, India, from a work by the Barelvi muft Jalal al-Din Ahmad Amjadi
120

Keller relies on his disciple Faraz Rabbani for translation of a fatw to cite an extreme case. There are
a number of fatw even by Alahazrat on similar cases but Faraz was probably
515
tasked to fish out
an extreme case. So find he did; however, for some reason, the issue number or the month/year of that
magazine was missed in references, so it is difficult to verify the accuracy of the translation. Keller cites
two paragraphs of course, translated by Faraz:













Incidentally, a similar fatw almost all of it is identical is found in the fatw collection of Muft
Jalluddn Amed Amjadi, Fatw e Faqih e Millat, 1/434, published in 2005. The Urdu fatw in its
entirety is included in Appendix D for those who wish to compare it with Farazs translation.
It is quite possible that some lines were missed in the version Faraz has translated from, and he can set
the record right by mentioning the month/year of the magazine. Or, if he has skipped a few lines, he
should have mentioned that it is an excerpt or indicated that selected portions have been translated; or
used an ellipsis to indicate partial citation. Keller criticises that fatw (in Farazs translation) thus:








In an identical fatw, Muft Jalluddn has explained why he does not permit the marriage:
Deobandis are apostates due to the absolute kufr [kufriyyt e qaiyyah] in their books, ifz al-mn p8, Tadhr al-
Ns p3-14-128, Barhin e Qaih p51; and according to the fatw usm al-aramayn. It is absolutely impermissible
to marry an apostate. In Fatw Hindiyyah, published in Egypt, 1/282: It is not permitted for an apostate to marry
either an apostate woman, nor a Muslim woman, nor an originally disbeliever woman; similarly an apostate woman
cannot marry anyone; thus it is mentioned in Mabs.
Therefore, the Sunni with correct qdah cannot marry the daughter of a Deobandi even if she is ready to become a
Sunni because, Deobandis use such opportunities and become Sunnis outwardly, but they remain steadfast on their
madhhab; after a few days, they will convert these [newer] relatives and make them Deobandis.
Yes, if the family of the girl are also ready to become Sunni, they will be observed for 2-3 years whether they remain
on Sunni faith; when it is firmly established then one can marry [the girl]. This is similar to a drunkard who does
tawbah nobody makes him an imm immediately after his tawbah, but he shall be observed for a few days. In
Fatw Hindiyyah and Fatw Ridawiyyah 3/213: When a fsiq repents, his testimony is not accepted until a period
passes and it is evident that his repentance is indeed genuine.
The reason for his fatw is obvious from the above explanation; and only in the absence of this
justification can Keller exult in his threnody. Keller may disagree with the premise that Deobandis are
apostates, but if that premise is assumed to be true, this fatw is perfectly reasonable and not a travesty,
as Keller makes it to be, and laments that it is a social problem.

515
It is natural to assume that Faraz fished out a fatw and translated it for him, because Keller is unable to read Urdu.
In the case being asked about, the marriage of Zaid, a man of sound Sunni beliefs, to the daughter of a
Deobandi is absolutely impermissible (hargiz nahin ho sakta). If she wants to become a Sunni, then if
she and her entire household do so and it is then seen in two or three years that they are firm on the
way of Ahl al-Sunna, then it would be permitted for Zaid to marry her. Otherwise, it would not be
permitted.
It is absolutely not possible to permit marriage based on the deceptive words of someone who is legally
an apostate. Otherwise, their very faith may be lifted [taken away from them]. If they go ahead, this
would not affect Islam and the Sunna in any way. Rather, the person would be ruining his own life, and
becoming of the people of hell (jahannami ho jayen ge)
It suffices as to its worth to reflect that according to this, a Hanafi Muslim man may marry a Jewish or
Christian woman, but not a Hanafi Muslim woman from a Deobandi family, even if she rejects the
Deobandi positions upon which the Barelvis mistaken takfir of them is based. The woman is supposed
to be ineligible for marriage because of her mere association with Deobandis, and moreover remains
guilty until proven innocent.
121






It is futile to complain about the comprehension of this man who is blind to everything except one thing
that he keeps repeating as his mantra: Barelvi takfr is mistaken.





Is it fair to generalise the subcontinent on the basis of a fatw Keller is not content with describing it
as even a problem with a muft or a class of people no, it is a social problem. Those who decry mawlid,
istightha, istinah, istimdd and other practices as bidh and shirk, thereby dissenting from Ahl as-
Sunnah is not a problem; but refuting blasphemers is a social problem. In fact, there are many fatw of
the same muft on the same subject and the general consensus among Sunni scholars: if someone is
unaware of the blasphemies of Deobandi elders, he will not become an apostate. We have seen above
that we do not deem Wahbs as apostates.





The above fatw is a bad example assuming that Faraz has faithfully cited it from some magazine. In
fact, there are a number of fatw on the same topic by the same Muft Jalluddn Amjadi that
acknowledge that a person becomes kfir only if he respects blasphemers after learning about the
blasphemy of such folk. For example about a person who goes about in Tabligh Jamaat, he says:
If the aforementioned boy is certainly unaware of the blasphemies of Deobandis, but his ways are that of Wahbs
he is deemed misguided and heretic. In this case, the Nik of the girl is valid but it is not permitted for the girl to
maintain marital relations and she should obtain a divorce by any means possible.
516

It is clear that the mufts ruling is based on blasphemies of Deobandis, and ijm as cited by Ibn Sann:
Whosoever doubts in his apostasy and his punishment has himself become an apostate
Notice that he does not consider the boy as an apostate if he is unaware of those blasphemies and
deems him like other Wahbs whom he does not consider apostates either, but only misguided
heretics. Keller pointedly ignores these premises on which Sunni lam make takfr of blasphemers
because his litany of complaints becomes irrelevant. In a fatw of Mawln Amjad l, dated 1324:
If the person is indeed a Wahb and also professes those beliefs which are kufr; or deems the leaders of Wahbs as
Muslims those whom the scholars of aramayn have ruled apostates; if the person knows about and is aware of
their blasphemous statements, and still considers them as leaders and Muslims, then this person also becomes an
apostate like them.
517

Such fatw are not new; concerning marriage with deniers of destiny, l al-Qr has said:
Mlik {was consulted} concerning {marriage with a Qadariyy
518
and he said, do not marry him} this could either
mean it was disliked or forbidden which is agreed by all scholars in the case of a woman because of her weak mind
and that she would incline toward the madhhab of her husband; and it may also mean that it is invalid based on the
takfr of such a person [Qadariyy].
519


516
Fatw Fay al-Rasl, 1/616.
517
Fatw Amjadiyyah, 2/56. The author of this fatw is a disciple of Imm Ahmed Ri Khn and the author of Bahr e Shart,
the famous compendium of anaf fiqh in Urdu.
518
Those who deny destiny qadar.
519
Shar al-Shif, l al-Qr, 2/494.
It suffices as to its worth to reflect that according to this, a Hanafi Muslim man may marry a Jewish or
Christian woman, but not a Hanafi Muslim woman from a Deobandi family,
This is not a fatwa, but a social problem.
The above fatwa is but an example.
122

Notice, that marriage to a Qadariyy was disallowed on the basis of his takfr, which l al-Qr
acknowledges as a matter of ijtihd. Instead of restricting his comment to this aspect, which he has
anyway declared a mistake, Keller unjustly accuses these mufts of hatred, jealousy and other motives.
We end this chapter with a fatw
520
by Alahazrat which explains the general bases for Deobandi takfr:
Question #1: Are all scholars of Deoband certainly kfir? Those who do not consider them kfir are they kfir too?
Answer #1: Undoubtedly, they are all disbelievers. Those who are informed of their [blasphemous] statements and
still do not consider them as kfirs are also kfirs. The scholars of aramayn have unanimously said concerning them:
he who doubts in their kufr and punishment has also committed kufr.
---
Question #2: Scholars of Deoband say that our qdah is not that which is attributed to us [by Sunnis]; rather, we too
consider a person who holds such beliefs as kfir. Can this be deemed a legal excuse [lah shar]? Furthermore, they
make tawl of the statements in Taqwiyatul mn etc. and show inoffensive meanings; what is the ruling concerning
such scholars in the sharh and is it permissible to pray behind them? These people also believe in imkn kadhib [of
Allh tl] and confirm that one who does not believe in imkn kadhib is a kfir what is the ruling concerning
them? Do we have to repeat all those prayers we have prayed in their lead?
Answer #2: Allh tl has said: They swear by Allh that they have never said [blasphemies] But surely, they
have uttered words of disbelief and have become disbelievers after professing Islm.
521

This is not a legal refuge, but the devils subterfuge, and this excuse cannot be accepted. Those accursed beliefs and
statements are present in their [Deobandi] books and they remain steadfast upon them until now; and they are
reprinting them again and again these excuses are only to assuage those who are unaware. For those who know
about these things but are not scholars, they have another excuse: those statements mean something else. And if it
is a knowledgeable person, their excuses are like run away from Rangoon and reach Calcutta; when pursued there,
fly away to somewhere else. In front of scholars, their excuse is: I am ignorant in this skill [of debate]; my teachers
were also ignorant of such things and even if you convince me, I will keep saying the same thing. Those who deem
Taqwiyatul mn as a good book or those who make takfr of people who do not believe in imkn kadhib there are
more than 70 reasons which necessitate kufr on such a person which are explained in detail in Subn al-Subb,
Kawkabah al-Shihbiyyah, Kashf e Zall e Deoband: Shar al-Istimdd, etc. Prayer behind such a person is invalid and
those prayed earlier have to be repeated; if one does not repeat it, it is sin and transgression [fisq].
---
Question #3: Those people who are neither scholars themselves, nor are they graduates of Deoband, nor do they
have any relation with them or revere them as shaykhs [baat o qdat]; but they do not call them kfir only due to
their ignorance of Islamic creed [qid] nor do they themselves believe in such things that necessitate takfr. Is it
permissible to pray behind them, or should one pray separately, even if alone? Concerning the fi and imm in the
Mosque who consider Taqwiyatul mn and other such books as bad; nor do they themselves profess corrupt beliefs
but they only do not consider Deobandi scholars as kfirs and pray behind them; are these people kfir too and
should they be shunned from leading prayers?
Answer #3: This is probably about a hypothetical case which cannot be real. The blasphemous beliefs of Deobandis
are well-known; those who deny it, do so to save their skin and say: We do not know of these things. Tell them to
look into fatw which are published, so they can learn about disbelief of kfirs and safeguard yourselves from
being deceived and destroy your worship. It is obligatory to bear enmity with the enemies of RaslAllh ; if you are
steadfast on this obligation, they will say: we dont have to see any books. This is their deception. If they had the
reverence of Muammad RaslAllh in their hearts, they would have themselves stayed away from those who are
known to have disrespected him; they would be restless to investigate and ascertain the truth.
Suppose if I tell someone: there is a man waiting in ambush to murder you; if you do not believe me, come I will
show you, will he say that he is not interested in learning about it, nor will he heed any warning? These people are
a cunning sort and covertly, they are with them or simply uninterested in religious matters. It is obligatory to avoid
praying behind such people. Yes, however, if there is indeed someone who has certainly not heard of these
[blasphemies], such as a newcomer or utterly ignorant person [nir jhil] or a person unaware and because of his lack
of knowledge about [these blasphemies] does not consider them kfir they are excused until they are apprised of
these things and when explained, they accept it readily.


520
Fatw Riawiyyah, 21/283-285. Queries #145 to #149, 8 Dhil Qdah 1338.
521
Srah Tawbah, 9:74.
123

VII. VINDICATING ALAHAZRAT
Muammad ibn al-Munkadir reports from Jbir
522
that RaslAllh said: When the later ones of this
nation vilify the former ones, whoever has knowledge should demonstrate it; verily, the concealer of
knowledge on that day is similar to one who conceals that which has been revealed to Muammad .
---
Praise be to Allh who perfected this religion and made it complete; and ordained for it scholars, who are leaders to be followed;
He bestowed upon them conviction and insight, untouched by uncertainty and doubt; He granted them profound understanding
and discerning; thus they were designated to explain and elucidate, to clarify and illuminate those who are perplexed on matters
intricate, and seek a keen understanding; when the gathered clouds of falsehood began pouring after hovering above and the
bazaars of heresy were flourishing, when the Mtazils deviated from the moderate path and brazenly repudiated the true Sunni
faith; and when they attributed to the Lord Almighty which He has negated himself;
523
came the imm who was tough on heretics
and his mission was to repudiate them indeed, he was the most prominent and vehement in refutation, and was their fiercest
opponent; he wielded a pointed spear and brandished a sharp sword; and he smote their hearts, enervated their purpose and
established solid proofs in favour of Ahl as-Sunnah...
When he silenced heretics with clarifications and proofs, and they could not face him, they shot back by heaping upon him false
accusations and saying things about him which are not permissible to say about any Muslim.
524

---
When heretics could not answer, they resorted to all kinds of lies and slander and the most common
accusation was that he was hasty in takfr and that he would make takfr of anybody who did not agree
with him; Keller, not only parrots the Deobandi libel, he also adds a few new accusations which are
mostly in the form of insinuations. Alahazrat is presented as uninformed while Keller is sagacious and
erudite. Take the opening question in Kellers article:



Alahazrat answered this more than a hundred years ago and has indeed repeated in many of his fatw:
I say: The well-researched position is what we have mentioned/indicated many times: there is a [big] difference
between something that is kufr and to rule someone a kfir because of it.
525

In the opening section, Keller says:



We have seen what the final part is all about though it may not be obvious, the undertone is that Sunnis
do not know this principle of luzm and iltizm, until Keller teaches them perhaps, someone should
translate this article into Urdu for the benefit of those mufts in the subcontinent.






522
Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari, Ibn skir reports this with his chain, p42.
523
In the original: And they negated attributes to the Lord Almighty Glorified is He those attributes which He attested
Himself; and they [Mtazils] neither attested His Attributes nor the Attribute of Speech.
524
This is adapted from Ibn skirs introduction to Imm Abul asan al-Ashr in his Tabyn, p38-39 and fits Imm Amed
Ri with a slight alteration.
525
Ibid, Footnote #357, p214.
Is someone who has an idea that is kufr or unbelief thereby an unbeliever?
the final part of our answer shall focus upon two broad categories among the least known today of
extenuating circumstances that acquit Muslims of kufr,
They culminated in a number of fatwas published by Ahmad Reza Khan Barelwi of the takfir of major
Deobandi ulema of his times
124

We have already explained the reasons and history of those fatw. One should remember that
Alahazrat made takfr of only those people who wrote and published blasphemous statements.





Kellers condescending attitude is most obvious in this comment notwithstanding his own ignorance.
Ironically, knowledge would have probably prevented Keller from making such a comment. Alahazrats
mastery of Islamic sciences is evident from the numerous proofs he piles up as evidence for his
arguments, a prime example of which is in Subn al-Subb. Scholars in the subcontinent were well-
aware of principles of takfr as well as principles of blasphemy; they were well-heeled in kalm and this
is the reason why they were unfazed by hype.






It is not the pretext for takfr, but the basis of takfr. Keller should read the attestations by scholars who
also cite the same pretext when agreeing with Alahazrats takfr. Among express statements that
belittle Alahazrat is Kellers comment on Alahazrats Arabic:





Obviously, he has not seen the books of either parties which use all these terms, imkn dht, imkn
wuq, etc. The Urdu-Arabic translation expert also did not say: jawz ql of WHAT. Suppose, he had
said jawz ql of kadhib; then one would be puzzled, what is the difference between imkn and jawz?
And if both are synonyms, where is the confusion that you attribute to Alahazrat? So he translated
kadhib in the first term and left it untranslated in the second to make a commotion about the nuance;
given below are the two terms which according to Keller are two different things:
jawz ql of kadhib hypothetical possibility of Gods lying
imkn al-kadhib factual possibility of Gods lying
I cannot figure out which part of imkn means factual, perhaps, we can find in some text that whenever
imkn is mentioned absolutely, it means imkn wuq by default and not imkn dht.





This is similar to a pedlar of glass trinkets attempting to teach diamond identification to a master
diamond cutter who is famous for his skill and whose expertise is widely acknowledged and already
showcased. Keller has failed to demonstrate a grasp of the concept of jawaz wuq; in fact, he confuses
basic terms and yet accuses Alahazrat of misapprehension. Shaykh Fal al-Rasl has mentioned this in
Mtaqad, written in 1270, even before Alahazrat was born:
Similarly, it is mustal for Allh tl to be associated with falsehood and any other flaw. The Najds depart from
Muslims at this point; their leader says: Falsehood for Him Glorified is He and for him to be attributed with this
Knowledge of the above principle could have probably prevented much of the fatwa wars that took
place around the turn of the last century in India between Hanafi Muslims of the Barelwi and Deobandi
the only substantive pretext for takfir between them...
...namely the charge of Ahmad Reza Khan Barelwi
Gangohis concept of the jawaz aqli or hypothetical possibility of Gods lying was mistakenly
translated into Arabic by Ahmad Reza Khan as imkan al-kadhib, which in Arabic means the factual
possibility of [Gods] lying
Whether this mistranslation was due to Ahmad Reza Khans honest misapprehension of Gangohis
position, or directly carrying into Arabic a similar Urdu phrase without understanding the resultant
nuance in Arabic, or some other reason, is not clear.
125

flaw is not mul dht;
526
nor is it precluded from Divine Power of the Almighty, because otherwise it would
necessitate that the power of the human exceeds the power of the Sustainer..
One of his followers compounded it with further insolent tripe and uttered things that will not redeem him, but rather
deliver him to Hell; because he [went so far as to] associate Him Hallowed is He with ignorance, impotence and
all flaws and defects, profanities and ugliness and thus disgraced himself and his followers by manifold inanities...
527

Let Keller translate the seven pages
528
from Mustanad where Alahazrat eloquently explains this nuance
of imkn wuq and then demonstrate how Alahazrat has misunderstood it.
529
If he cannot, hopefully
he has the decency to retract from the slander. To get him started, I have translated two relevant
paragraphs that knock the teeth off Kellers toothless premise. If Mustanad is inaccessible
530
to Keller,
then it is futile to expect him to have even attempted to learn what is in Subn al-Subb. The least he
could have done if he was just - is to have inquired whether Alahazrat had anything to say about it.
Almost all informed Sunnis know that Subn al-Subb exists, even if they have not read it themselves;
all Keller had to do was ask.
531
A few lines from Alahazrats lengthy footnote are quoted below:
Our Mturd imams trode the middle path and said: There is no command, except that of Allh ; and actions can
be intrinsically beautiful or ugly whether the intellect perceives it or not. Yet, among [these actions] is that which is
[obviously] concordant with wisdom,
532
such as punishing the infidel and rewarding the pious; and some which
appear to be [apparently] against wisdom. Some thing may be mumkin in itself
533
but mul due to extraneous
reasons. For a thing to be governed by Divine Power, it is necessary for it to be intrinsically mumkin even if it is
impossible to occur.
534
Because everything that is mumkin dht is included in the Divine Power of Allh tl.
Therefore we say: that whose opposite can occur and is within Divine Power of Allh tl, [but] impossible to occur
because it would necessitate ignorance and falsehood, which are both essentially impossible.
535
And this is
associated with Divine Will upon which the possibility of its occurrence depends.
536
Because that which is impossible
to exist cannot be the Will of Allh tl. It is also not necessary that Divine Power should concern only with that
[mumkin] which has come into existence. Thus it is also valid that mumkin dht which has no possibility to occur is
also governed by Divine Power contrary to Divine Will; because, existence cannot oppose it and nothing can remain
[unexisting] after it has been Willed; therefore, it is impossible that Divine Will concerns that which cannot exist.
If you have understood this, [you will realise] that all that is mumkin is in the Divine Power of Allh tl regardless
of whether it is concordant with wisdom or not; and therefore, there is neither compulsion nor obligation [here].
However, it is Divine Will that governs [such that] only that which agrees with wisdom is brought into existence;
otherwise, it would necessitate foolishness which is mustal. And that which agrees with wisdom is in the realm of
that which necessarily exists.
537


526
Essentially impossible, mul bidh dht or as it is translated by Nuh Keller and others as: intrinsically impossible.
527
Mtaqad al-Muntaqad, p61.
528
Mustanad, footnote #131, pages 98-105.
529
That is, after Keller can demonstrate that he has properly understood Alahazrats argument. Hopefully, Kellers murids will
snap out of their delusion and realise that Alahazrat is not just another scholar who merely copies from older lam, but an
imm who can independently derive rulings in the absence of explicit opinions by elders in a specific issue.
530
Because Mustanad is in Arabic and Subn al-Subb is mostly Urdu, though this particular discussion has Arabic footnotes
by Alahazrat in the latter.
531
Mostly because of the complex discussion and myriad terms which sound formidable to those unacquainted with Kalm.
532
ikmah.
533
mumkin dht.
534
imtin al-wuq.
535
mul dht.
536
It is a simple concept which can be easily understood by an illustration: Ab Lahab is a kfir who will go to hell as mentioned
in the Qurn. Now, forgiveness of Ab Lahab is intrinsically possible because, he is like any other kfir. But the Divine Will of
Allh has decreed that he will go to hell, and this decree is made known by His Divine Speech. Therefore, pardon for Ab Lahab
now becomes an impossibility of occurrence [imtin wuq]; if it were otherwise, it will then necessitate:
a) Ignorance: that He did not know that He will pardon him.
b) Falsehood: He knew that He would pardon, but still deliberately stated otherwise.
And both are essentially impossible.
537
Mustanad, p100-101, footnote #131.
126

Alahazrat explains the same concept in another footnote explaining why a person becomes kfir if he
says that it is possible for another prophet to come after RaslAllh
538

That is, possibility to occur (imkn wuq); and this is kufr because it repudiates scripture and rejects an Essential
Article of Faith. If [a person] believes that it is an inherent possibility (imkn dht) there is no reason for ruling such
a person kfir rather, it is valid to assume possibility in this case. However, it is absurd that multiple final prophets
can exist; because, final by definition means that which comes last and [the attribute] cannot be shared.
This kind of know-it-all orientalism is starkly reminiscent of Edward Lanes comments on Zabd:
But in comparing large portions of it with the corresponding portions of the Lisan el-`Arab, I made the unexpected
discovery that, in most of the articles in the former, from three-fourths to about nine-tenths of the additions to the
text of the Kamoos, and in many articles the whole of those additions, existed verbatim in the Lisan el-`Arab. I cannot,
therefore, acquit the seyyid Murtada of a want of candour, and of failing to render due honour to one of the most
laborious of compilers, by not stating either that the Taj el-`Aroos was mainly derived in the first instance from the
Lisan el-`Arab (which I believe to have been the case) or that the contents of the former are mainly found in the
latter.
539

He throws in a story he heard from someone that Murtada Zabd was not its author and that Zabd
stole it; all these insinuations are to discredit Zabd, even though Lanes own lexicon is based on Zabds
work:
As the Taj el-'Aroos is the medium through which I have drawn most of the contents of my lexicon, I must morefully
state the grounds upon which I determined to make so great a use of it.
Kellers criticism of Alahazrats fatw is wrong because it is based on false and imaginary premises; and
the fact that he has not seen the fatw himself. His comments are based on hearsay evidence:








It must be noted that Alahazrat refuted this belief of imkn kadhib in his Subn al-Subb, but chose
the path of extreme caution and said:
Allh tl gives success. O Allh, we seek Your forgiveness and beseech You to protect us from heresy and kufr. Dear
brother, do you ask about the status of their belief and whether it is permissible to pray behind them? Rather you
should ask about the number of reasons cited by a group of scholars who make takfr of their leader and his followers
[in this issue of imkn kadhib]. I seek the refuge of Allh! I seek the refuge of Allh a million times I certainly do not
like to make takfr of these people; in fact, I still consider these followers and modern claimants
540
as Muslims even
though there is no doubt that they are heretics and misguided.
I do not issue the ruling of the kufr on the kingpin of this group
541
either, because our Prophet forbade us to make
takfr of those who say l ilha ill Allh, until the reason for their takfr is more apparent than the mid-day sun
and there remains no excuse to exempt them and deem them Muslims; because Islm shall prevail and cannot be
subdued However, I will certainly say this and this I say with certainty that undoubtedly, this belief necessitates
kufr for a number of reasons according to one group of scholars we seek Allhs refuge.
542


538
Mustanad, p120.
539
An Arabic-English Lexicon in Eight Parts, Edward William Lane, page xix.
540
Followers of Isml and modern claimants of that ancient heresy of imkn kadhib.
541
That is Isml Dihlaw who first raked up this dead Mtazil belief.
542
Subn al-Subb, p80, Published in 1309, written in 1307.
The fatwas deductions are wrong because its premises are based on inaccurate observation and
inattention to needful logical distinctions
This mistaken construing of Gangohis position in turn became the basis for Ahmad Rezas declaring
that Gangohi was a kafir,
127

Kellers rehashed propaganda is obvious; even though it is kufr according to one group of scholars,
Alahazrat chose the opinion of kalm scholars to withhold from takfr. Gangohs takfr was due to the
fatw of wuq. Hopefully, Keller has prepared well to answer for these slanders on Judgement day.



Keller tries to project this as Alahazrats own belief and apart from standard Sunni belief; therefore, he
repeats a similar insinuation a number of times:








Alahazrat was only presenting proofs for the standard belief of Sunni scholars. Alahazrats proofs can
also be found in Jala al-Qulb, written by Shaykh Muhammad al-Kittn, who is obviously not a
Barelwi and has quoted many Sunni lam who have held this belief prior to Alahazrat. Can
Deobandis/Keller, or any of their followers show us any fatw or opinion on lm al-ghayb of Alahazrat
which is not compatible with the book of Shaykh Muammad al-Kittn?
543
If yes, it should then be easy
to demonstrate the difference, and we invite them to show this difference. If no, then why criticise only
Alahazrat? He is not just criticised but reviled, and every effort is made to demonise and project
Alahazrat as having an eccentric or aberrant opinion, removed from the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah, as
Keller has done above. In-shAllh, we will debunk that myth and show that Alahazrat is a prominent
spokesman of Ahl as-Sunnah and thus its imm of latter times; those who oppose him are the dissenters
and misguided folk.
In summary, Imm Kittn says
544
that according to one school, as professed by Shaykh bd al-Mlik al-
Tajmouti and Abl bbs bd al-ayy al-alab, RaslAllh was given encompassing knowledge [bil
iah] and he did not leave this world, until he was given knowledge of everything; and when he was
criticised, Tajmouti presented the a adth of abarn narrated by mar that he said: I was
given the keys of everything except the five and a similar report by bdullh ibn Masd; which proves
that his knowledge encompasses everything except the five, and later he was given the five as well.
He cites Imm Suy who said:
He was given the knowledge of everything except the five; it is also said that he was given the five as well but he was
commanded to not disclose it; however the difference of opinion concerning [knowledge of the] soul is still debated...
In abarn again from Ibn mar in a marf narration:
Allh tl raised the world for me and I see it and whatever shall happen in it until Judgement day, as I see this palm
of mine.
Stating the above, Kittn says:
The final word [in the matter] is that he was given knowledge of everything before he departed this world and it is
obvious that one who denies this is either an ignoramus or a closet heretic. And then, if I can know, what is the reason
for such a denial, as this issue is not excluded from the realm of possibility?

543
Shaykh Muammad ibn Jafar al-Zamzam al-Kittn [1274-1345/1857-1957].
544
Summarised from Imm Kittns Jala al-Qulb, 1/107-112; all unmarked citations in this section are from here.
Ahmad Reza and the Prophets Knowledge of the Unseen
rebuttals of Ahmad Reza Khans belief
let us cast a glance at Ahmad Reza Khans prophetology
all of which Ahmad Reza Khan interpreted
By this interpretation Ahmad Reza was able to reach an accord
were understood by Ahmad Reza Khan to mean
Ahmad Rezas position is neither against decisive scriptural texts
128

He further says that according to the second school, such as professed by Shaykh Ab l asan al-Ys:
Encompassing knowledge of everything is only for Allh tl and if one holds a belief that such
knowledge is equal to that of Allh tl, then he is a kfir... Shaykh Kittn then mentions a few
examples and says:
And these are a number of prominent awliya who have informed about themselves that they know what has
happened and what shall happen [m kna wa m yakn] [and this was] taught by Allh tl. Is any of us bold
enough to call them something,
545
let alone make takfr of them?
Subhn Allh, if prominent awliya and scholars from centuries have this belief, and indeed explicitly
mentioned in a adth, why does Keller repeatedly refer to it as: Ahmad Rezas belief, Ahmad Rezas
esoteric prophetology? Shaykh Kittn has already said that only a jahil or a mulid will deny this. If
Keller does not deny this, why does he sound so standoffish about it why doesnt he have the courage
to say, yes Ahmad Reza said it and he is not alone the majority of Sunnis worldwide have this belief?
Shaykh Ys
546
who was a contemporary of Tajmouti
547
said in refuting the latter:
It is necessary to believe in the reverence of our Prophet , and we believe that he was given knowledge and light
and all the ranks of perfection which befit him, such that nobody in the universe has been given because he is the
best of all creation.
Ys also said, as paraphrased by Shaykh Kittn:
We are not expected to know this and even if we spend a lot of effort we will not be able to learn about its
extensiveness; and one who tries to investigate it will either fall into denigrating the lofty rank of the Chosen One of
Allh among His creation; or say something disrespectful to Allh that may sound as similitude with His creation.
Concerning the verses 187-88 of Srah Arf about knowledge of the hour:






This is not just Ahmad Reza Khn, but many other imms of Ahl as-Sunnah believed that RaslAllh
was given the knowledge of the Hour, we shall mention a few such luminaries listed by Kittn:
Here, particularly about this issue, we present the opinions of righteous scholars and Awliya of Allh who say that
RaslAllh did not depart this word until Allh tl had informed him of everything that was hidden from him or
unclear to him from the Five and the soul etc.
548

1. Citing Ibn ajar from his Fat al-Br:
Concerning the verse They ask you about the soul, Some scholars have said that this verse does not prove that
Allh tl did not inform His Prophet about the reality of the soul; rather it indicates that He informed him , but
did not permit him to tell others; and they said similarly about Knowledge of the Hour. Allh tl knows best.
2. Qasallni repeated the same thing in Irshd al-Sri.
3. In R al-Bayn under verse 42 of Srah Nzit,
He knew the time of the Hour after being informed by Allh tl
4. In a Muslim reporting from udhayfah:
RaslAllh informed me of everything that will happen until the Hour is established.
549


545
Disagreeable such as heretic, innovator etc. al-ydhu billh.
546
Ab l asan ibn Masd al-Ys [1041- 1103 AH].
547
The q of Sijilmsah, Ab Marwan bd al-Mlik Sijilms al-Tjmout, passed away in 1118 AH.
548
Jala al-Qulb, p194.
549
Muslim, #2891 Cf. Jala al-Qulb of Kittn.
There are many similar Quranic verses, all of which Ahmad Reza Khan interpreted as referring to the
earlier life of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), before Allah bestowed on him greater
knowledge, until, in the final years of his life, Allah disclosed to him everything that was and everything
that will be until Judgement Day. By this interpretation Ahmad Reza was able to reach an accord
129

5. In Khayi al-Kubr, Suy said:
Among the exclusive attributes of his , is that he was aided by awe; and he was given concise and succinct speech;
and the treasures of the earth and the knowledge of all things except Five; some have said the Five as well and
[knowledge of] the soul.
6. In the same work, elsewhere:
Some scholars are of the opinion that he was given the Five as well and the knowledge of the hour and the soul;
however, he was commanded to conceal it.
7. The gnostic bd al-Wahhb al-Shrn in Kashf al-Ghummah:
And he was give the knowledge of everything even the knowledge of the soul and the Five...
8. The gnostic bd al-Ramn ibn Muaf al-ydars;
9. In Nafat al-Qudsiyyah, bdullh al-Mrghan al-yifi said:
Research scholars have affirmed that Allh tl taught his Prophet, knowledge of the unseen including the Five
which were hitherto excepted in his final years; however, he was commanded to conceal some and allowed to
inform others of some
10. Shaykh Isml al-Nabhni;
11. Shaykh Ibrhm Laqqn in his Shar aghr of Jawharah al-Tawid:
Another group said: Rather Allh tl informed him the knowledge of the soul; but he was not commanded to
inform his followers. This is the similar difference as in the knowledge of the hour. The accurate position is what has
been said that verily, Allh tl did not take him back until he was informed of what was unclear, but he was
commanded to conceal some of these things and inform some others.
12. Ibn ajar al-Haytami in Shar Hamziyyah of Busr:
Most of the kinds of knowledge possessed by our Prophet are about the unseen; and the evidence for it is his
saying: I gained the knowledge of all before and those who come after in a famous adth. Because Allh tl gave
this specially to him...
The purpose of stating the above is only to prove that Alahazrat was neither the first, nor the only person
to have this belief. Concerning the adth of Supreme Assembly, Keller says:




Not just by Ahmad Reza Khan, but adth masters who are respected and deemed as authorities by even
Wahbs, have said the same thing. In the book Ikhtiyr al-Awl, explaining the famous adth of
Supreme Assembly:
There is evidence in this for the immense honour bestowed upon the Prophet and his superiority because of his
knowledge of what is in the heavens and the earth, and that it was disclosed to him even the debate of angels in
whether in the heavens or elsewhere, just as Ibrhm was shown the dominion of the heavens and the earth [malakt
al-samwti wal ar]. Many marf and mawqf reports confirm that he was given [the knowledge of] everything
except the keys to the Unseen Five which are exclusive to Allh .
550

This is fi Ibn Rajab,
551
the adth master praised by great adth imms such as Ibn ajar al-sqaln
and Jalluddn Suy; and whose unfinished Fat al-Br is termed as a wonder of the age.

550
Ikhtiyr al-Awl f Shar adth Ikhtim al-Mala al-Al, fi Ibn Rajab al-anbal, p40. Yes, Ibn Rajab does not include
the Five which is a valid difference of opinion among Sunni scholars as explained by both Kittn and Alahazrat.
551
Zaynuddn bd al-Ramn Ibn Rajab al-anbal [736-795 AH].
The words of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) at this tremendous event, and lo,
everything was revealed to me, and I knew, were understood by Ahmad Reza Khan to mean just that:
that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had been endowed with such vast knowledge of
the unseen that he knew even what the Supreme Assembly of archangels were speaking about.
130





Not just Ahmad Reza Barelwi, but a number of scholars have said the same thing about Khall Ameds
statements, notably Shaykh Amed Barzanji who gave two reasons for its being kufr:
First Reason: It is explicit that Iblis is more extensive in knowledge than RaslAllh ; this is explicit in denigrating
him .
Second Reason: He has deemed that to establish the extensiveness of the knowledge of RaslAllh as polytheism.
The imms of all the four madhhabs have written that whosoever denigrates RaslAllh is a kfir; and whosoever
deems as kufr, that which is certainly faith, is also a kfir.
But Keller does not mind such innuendos







Alahazrat says in Tamhid:
Such a person who says the above, does he not consider the accursed Ibls as a partner to Allh? Certainly he does;
because, if anything attributed to someone in the creation is considered as shirk, then it is shirk when attributed to
anyone else because Allh tl has no partner. If this concept when attributed to RaslAllh is considered as
shirk
552
such that there is no part of faith in it then he certainly means that it is a specific attribute that is attested
only for Allh tl. Because, that is why, one who attests this [knowledge] for the Prophet becomes a polytheist. In
which case, this person patently attests the same for Ibls and thus considers him a partner with Allh tl.
O Muslims! Is this not an insult to Allh tl and His Messenger ?
Indeed, it is an insult and an explicit insult and an explicit insult is kufr.



This is meant to be an ad-hominem comment and contributes nothing to the discussion. Certainly Imm
Amed Ris pen was fiery for heretics nay, it was an unsheathed sword and a bolt of lightning
incinerating blasphemers. If it were not for his fiery pen, blasphemers would not be making excuses for
their blasphemies, as he has said himself:
kilk e raz hai khajar e kh-khr barq-br
ad se kahdo khayr manaye na sharr kare
Razas pen is a bloodthirsty dagger showering thunderbolts
Tell the enemy not to celebrate in safety, nor indulge in mischief

It is the same pen which overflows with love and devotion when praising the Beloved . His ode of
salutation the Salm is as famous in Urdu as the Burdah is in Arabic. But when it deals with
blasphemers, it is a drawn sword and it is the zeal for the sunnah taught by our imms and they do
not tire from refuting heretics until their last breath. Ab l says that Imm Abul asan al-Ashr was
in his lap when he breathed his last, and he heard him say: May Allh damn the Mtazilah, they
distorted and falsified; they fabricate and they lie.
553


552
According to the statement of Khall Amed.
553
Tabyn Kadhib al-Muftar, p149.
was what made Ahmad Reza Khan Barelwi say that Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri had thereby demeaned
and insulted the Prophet
Moreover, it is difficult to see how the attribute of knowledge that Khall Ahmad ascribes to Satan
and the Angel of Death should become shirk when affirmed of the Messenger of Allah (Allah
bless him and give him peace): either it is a divine attribute that is shirk to ascribe to any creature,
or it is not.
But even if we overlook these mistaken innuendos,
At the latter words, the fiery pen of Ahmad Reza Khan wrote his Husam al-Haramayn
131

When Keller gets tired of false accusations, he vents his spleen:



How does Keller know of the temperament of Ahmad Reza? What does he mean by it? That Alahazrat
was outraged at blasphemy and that he shouldnt have? Or is Keller suggesting that Alahazrat had a bad
temper and when he became angry, he would make takfr of anybody who angered him? If it is the latter,
then let Keller prove how temperament had a role in this judgement. Imm Amed Ri was the epitome
of the following Quranic verse; this is what he practised and this is what he preached:
You will not find a people who have faith in Allh and the
Final Day bearing affection for those who oppose Allh
and His Messenger, even if they are their fathers or their
sons or their brothers or their relatives. It is they, upon
whose hearts He has inscribed faith and aided them with
a spirit from Him; He will make them enter gardens in
which streams flow underneath, and they shall abide in
them forever. Allh is pleased with them, and they are
pleased with Him. This is the party of Allh. Listen, indeed,
only the party of Allh is successful.
554

Keller tries to present this as an impulsive reaction of a tempermental Alahazrat, even though
Deobandis were refuted for years; but they remained adamant without bothering to retract and
ignoring any appeal to reconsider not unlike Kellers obstinate stand and insistence on his Iman, Kufr,
and Takfir, despite third-rate research that could embarrass a high-school student. About the fatw of
wuq which Khall Amed accuses of being a forgery, Alahazrat says in Tamhd e mn:
Books
555
of these people in which these statements of kufr are present have been published by them in their own
lifetimes. Some of these books have been through second reprints.
556
Scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah have been refuting
them for ages and printing those refutations. That fatw
557
in which its author unmistakably said that Allh tl has
lied, and whose original, which carries the signature and seal [of the author] is preserved to this day. Photocopies of
this fatw have been made; and the copy I had taken [along with other books of these blasphemers] to the blessed
sanctuaries to show it to scholars, is preserved in the library of Madinah until now.
This unclean fatw was published together with a refutation in the booklet Siynatun Ns in 1308 by adqatul lm
Publishers, Meerut. It was published again by Gulzr-e-asan Publishers, Bombay, in 1318 along with a more detailed
refutation. Thereafter, in 1320 it was published once again with another refutation by Tufah-e-anafiyyah Publishers,
Azmbd-Patna. The person who gave this fatw
558
died in Jumd al-khirah 1323 and remained silent until his last
breath. Neither did he deny that it was his own fatw, even though disowning this fatw was easier than disowning
a published book. Nor did he say: the meaning of my words is not what the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah describe;
rather, I meant something else. Was it an ordinary thing to be attributed with such an explicit kufr, that he did not
bother about it? A fatw by Zayd, that carries his seal is being circulated openly in his lifetime and his being in good
health and such a fatw is certainly and absolutely kufr and this is repeatedly published for years; and people
have published refutations of this fatw; and declare Zayd to be a kfir on account of this fatw; Zayd lives for fifteen
more years; and Zayd sees and hears all of this and Zayd does not publish a denial or disavowal concerning that
fatw; and keeps silent with bated breath until his breath has abated can any sane person imagine that Zayd had
denied that the fatw was his? Or that he meant something else?
And those who are alive are silent until this moment; neither can they deny that they have said such things which are
present in published books; nor can they find fancy explanations for such explicit insults. In the year 1320, all these
blasphemies were refuted together in a single publication. Thereafter, some Muslim leaders took a questionnaire
concerning these blasphemies to their kingpin.

554
Srah Mujdilah, 58:22.
555
Barhn al-Qih, if al-mn, Tadhrun Ns.
556
like Barhn al-Qih and if al-mn.
557
Alahazrats Footnote: that is, the fatw of Gangoh.
558
Rashd Amed Gangoh.
Now, the temperament of Ahmad Reza Khan, with his acknowledged brilliance, doubtless played a role
in this judgement,
132

One should hear from those present in that meeting describe his state of bewilderment and speechlessness at this
development! Even then, he could not deny that such things were written, nor could he come up with an
interpretation or explanation for such statements. He only said: I have not come here to debate, nor do I want to
debate; I am ignorant of this skill [of debate] and my teachers were also ignorant. Even if you convince me, I shall
keep saying the same thing. The questionnaire and details of this incident were printed on the 15
th
of Jumd al-
Akhrah, 1323 and were handed to the kingpin and his followers; and this is the fourth year running but the answer
is only a deafening echo of silence. Despite all this, the subterfuge of denial is like saying these people who have
insulted Allh tl and His Messengers have never been born in this world, and all of this is an outright fabrication.
How can one answer this?
May Allh tl give them some shame.
The last resort is to slander and accuse Sunni scholars and Alahazrat of reckless takfir:




Alahazrat refuted this as well in his Tamhd:
When they become helpless and powerless, and cannot find a refuge to flee; and because Allh tl has not given
them guidance to repent; and they do not refrain from uttering those blasphemies said against Allh tl and His
Messenger B; nor withdraw insults that were published, nor proclaim this withdrawal, they resort to slander...
---
To thwart the poor commoner from the path of Allh and to instigate them, and seeking to pull wool over their eyes
in broad daylight, they tell them: What is the reliability of these scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah? And what is the credibility
of their fatw? These people do takfr for petty things and their machine always keeps churning out fatw of kufr.
After all, they have declared Isml Dihlaw as kfir; Maulvi Isq and Maulvi bd al-ayy as kfir...
559

Further he says:
O Muslims! It is not difficult to settle this gossamer deception and weak strategem; just ask those who claim such
things for proof. Tell them, if you say that these people have been ruled as kfir, do you have any evidence to show
us where this has been said? Which is the book or booklet or fatw or pamphlet in which it has been thus ruled?
Yea, yea. If you have proof, then why are you holding it back? Show it to us, and if you cannot and Allh tl knows
that you cannot - then see what the Qurn says about you being liars. Your Lord Almighty says: When they cannot
produce witnesses, then it is they who are liars near Allh.
560

O Muslims! Where is the need to examine that which is proven for ages? This has happened many times; that they
have made such vociferous claims and when a Muslim has asked them for evidence, they have turned their backs and
never again shewed their faces. Yet, for the shame they have, they do not let go of the repetend stuck on their lips;
and why would they let it go? After all, a drowning man will clutch at a straw. They use the only pretext that remains
for them to draw a veil on the disbelief of those who insult Allh and His Messenger; they keep repeating this
constantly in the hope that unsuspecting common folk are brainwashed into believing that scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah
have this habit of making takfr needlessly and carelessly; and they must have ruled these blasphemers as kfir in the
same way.
561
O Muslims! Where do these slanderers have proof that we carelessly accuse them of kufr? And where
can there be a proof for a figment of imagination?
Alahazrat then presents five examples from his published books in which he withheld from takfr of
Deobandis and their elders. He then earnestly appeals to Muslims to be just and fair and remember the
day of Judgement before making or accepting such false accusations:

559
Deobandis do this even now, like Taqi Usmanis fatw mentioned earlier: He [Amed Ri] ruled Deobandi scholars as kfir
because they refuted these bidah practices.
560
Srah Nr, 24:13.
561
That is, they must have ruled them kfir without properly investigating the issue; like Keller accuses Alahazrat of making
a mistake in the fatw.
To conclude, the Barelwi response to the Deobandis was probably far worse than the initial provocation,
raising for the first time in Indian history the banner of takfir of one major group of Hanafi Muslims by
another.
133

O Muslims! I remind you of your religion and your faith; of the day of Judgement, the Prophet and the reckoning in
the presence of Al-Ramn and I ask you: Is it not shamelessness to accuse a person of making careless takfr, in
spite of such utmost caution? Is it not oppression? Is it not unjust and unfair to slander him thus?
O Muslims! These are my statements
562
that have been published for years some ten, some seventeen and nineteen
years ago; yet, the ruling of kufr concerning these blasphemers was issued only six years ago in 1320, when the book
Mtamad al-Mustanad was first published.
Be mindful of Allh and His Messenger and be judicious; these statements of caution and restraint, not only refute
the slanders but also bear witness that the person
563
who has been extremely careful in takfr did not issue the ruling
of kufr unless their kufr had become obvious and glaringly apparent as the mid-day sun. Unless he had seen
conclusive, clear, incontrovertible and compelling proof of their explicit insults, for which there is absolutely no
possibility of a favourable interpretation, he did not rule them kfir.
Kellers time-lapse picture of an implacable and impulsive scholar, whose fiery pen and temperament
caused the fitnah of takfr in India is debunked by Alahazrat himself:
Did I have friendship with them at that time, and now, we are estranged? Do we have a dispute on property now,
and previously, we did not have any? We seek Allhs refuge. A Muslims relation of love and hate, friendship and
enmity is solely for the sake of Allh tl and His Messenger . As long as these insults were not issued
564
by these
blasphemers, and as long as I had not seen or heard
565
of the blasphemies by these people concerning Allh tl
and His Messenger , I was mindful of their being Muslims, and their being people who utter the kalimah: l ilha
ill Allh. I was careful and I exercised caution; even though this necessitated kufr according to the opinion of jurists,
I preferred the opinion of kalm scholars. When I saw these statements with my own eyes which explicitly insult Allh
tl and His Messenger , there remained no option except to rule them kfir.
566

Because our imams have said: One who doubts in the kufr or punishment of such a person is a kfir himself.
567

Then, it was incumbent upon me to save myself and the faith of my Muslim brothers and was thus compelled to issue
the decree of kufr. And thus is the recompense of the tyrants.
Say: that truth hath come and falsehood has been
vanquished; and falsehood was bound to be
vanquished
568

It is this fiery pen that the Shaykh Ab usayn Marzq extolled in his endorsement to usm al-
aramayn: Shaykh Amed Ri Khn al-Baraylawi - may Allh tl give him a long life and protect
him in both worlds and safeguard his pen the unsheathed sword upon the necks of renegades may
it never lose its sheen.


562
Refraining from takfr and utmost caution.
563
Imm Amed Ri himself.
564
Alahazrats footnote: Like Thnaw, whose ugly insult of RaslAllh was published in 1319 AH. Prior to this he used to
present himsef as a Sunni and there was a time he even used to attend celebrations of Mawlid along with other Muslims.
565
Alahazrats footnote: Like Gangoh and Ambethw; because earlier, I had received that part of their passage which
mentioned their statement of falsehood being a possibility for Allh tl; I came to know of it later that he also says that the
knowledge of satan is greater than that of RaslAllh . And concerning Gangohs fatw where he says, God can be a liar and
if someone calls him a liar, he remains a Sunni and righteous Muslim; I remained silent even after seeing a printed version of
the fatw due to extreme caution and because others had published it, this was not conclusive proof on the basis of which we
could make takfr. Thereafter, I saw the original fatw with my own eyes, which is in Gangohs own hand and carries his seal
and signature; and despite this being reprinted again and again, he kept silent and did not protest, then it was established
conclusively that the fatw was his own. A similar case was that of the Qdiyni liar; unless I had seen his books myself, I did
not insist upon his takfr. As long as I had only heard that he claims to be the Mahd and that he (claims he) is similar to Jesus
, I had said in reply to a question concerning him: He seems to be a madman. Thereafter, a fatw came from Amritsar which
declared him kfir; and in which passages from his books with reference to page numbers were listed, I wrote only this much:
If these statements are present in the books of Mirz, as mentioned here, then certainly he is a kfir. See the monograph:
Su wal qb l al-Mas al-Kadhdhb, p18. Yes, when I saw his books myself, then I issued the decisive ruling that he had
become a kfir and an apostate.
566
Otherwise Alahazrat would himself be enveloped in the ruling as Murtaz asan Chndpr has acknowledged.
567
akaf, Durr al-Mukhtr, Kitb al-Jihd, On Apostacy.
568
Srah Isra, 17:81.
134

VIII. HUSAM AL-HARAMAYN AND MUHANNAD
Sufyn ibn Asad al-aram narrates: I heard RaslAllh say: How great is such deception, when you
tell something to your brother and he believes you to be truthful, but [in reality] you are lying.
569

---
Yaya ibn Man and Amed ibn anbal once prayed in a masjid of Rusafah, and a preacher narrated a lengthy adth of about
twenty pages saying: narrated to us Yay ibn Man and Amed ibn anbal... Yay and Amed both looked at each other
flabbergasted and one asked the other: Did you narrate this to him? The other said: By Allh! I have not heard of this until this
moment. Both of them kept quiet until everybody had left and Yay beckoned him to come over. The preacher came eagerly
expecting some gift and Yay asked him: Who narrated this adth to you? The man said: Amed ibn anbal and Yay ibn
Man. He replied: This is Amed ibn anbal and I am Yay ibn Man. Neither of us had ever heard of this adth, until this
moment. The man said: Are you indeed Yay? He replied: Yes. The preacher said: I had heard that Yay ibn Man was
stupid and that has been verified now. He said: How do you know that I am stupid?
The man said: You talk as if there is no other Yay ibn Man and Amed ibn anbal in the whole world I have written from
seventeen Amed ibn anbal and Yay ibn Man.
570

---
Muhannad is touted as the answer to usm al-aramayn, and is presented as the true qdah of
Deoband. The cover page of Muhannad proclaims:
The answer to Maulvi Amed Raza Khn Barelwis usm al-aramayn, given by the very scholars
of the blessed sanctuaries may Allh increase the munificence and esteem of these two sanctuaries
This blurb is absolutely misleading neither are those answers by the scholars of aramayn [who gave
attestations to usm] nor are those answers in response to usm al-aramayn.
Khall Amed Sahranpr in Makkah
According to his biographers,
571
Khall Amed went to seven Hajj; during his third ajj he was present
in Makkah when Alahazrat obtained attestations for his usm al-aramayn.
Departure Return Remarks
1 1293 -
These two ajj are prior to his own Barhn and usm al-aramayn
2 1297 -
3 1323 1324
Left for ajj in the middle of Shawwl, 1323; reached Makkah on 22
nd
Dhul Qadah;
After ajj, he left for Madnah and reached on 7 Muharram 1324.
Returned home in Shawwl 1324, after nine months.
4 1328 1329
Left Saharanpur in the middle of Dhul Qdah; reached Makkah on 6
th
Dhil ijjah 1328;
Stayed in Madnah for 22 days and returned to Saharanpur in the end of afar 1329.
5 1333 1334
Apparently returned prior to ajj the text is not clear in Zakariyahs biography whether it
is ajj of 1333 or 1334 that couldnt be completed.
6 1338 1339
Left Saharanpur on 2
nd
Shbn 1338; reached Makkah on 11
th
Raman 1338;
left Makkah immediately after ajj in the end of Muarram 1339.
7 1344 - Khall did not return thereafter and he stayed in Madnah for the rest of his life.

569
Targhb wal Tarhb, #4335, #4336; Also in Mishkt al-Mab, #4845 reporting from Ab Dwd; Qr [in Mirqt 9/81]
adds that a similar narration is found in Adab al-Mufrad of Bukhr; and also reported by Imam Amed and abarn.
570
Kitb al-Qu, Ibn al-Jawz, p304.
571
Trkh e Mashyikh e Chisht, Zakariyyah Kandhlaw, p303-304. Incidentally, the date of his fourth ajj seems to be
misprinted as 1338 instead of 1328 in this edition.
135

History of Muhannad according to Deobandis:
1. Imm Amed Ri attributed false beliefs to elders of Deoband and made takfr based on those
statements in his book usm al-aramayn. He presented this book to scholars of the two
sanctuaries and obtained their signatures.
2. The scholars of Madnah were disturbed by this takfr and they sent a list of twenty-seven
572

questions seeking clarifications to which Khall Amed responded in the form of Muhannad.
In another version:
573

3. Imm Amed Ri Khn compiled a treatise in which he cited the statements of Deobandi elders
by distorting the wording and meaning [lafi aur mnawi tarf]
4. Various strategies were employed to obtain the attestations of the scholars of aramayn; and
since those scholars were not fully aware about Deobandis or their writings, they wrote
attestations according to those citations.
5. usayn Amed Tandwi was present in Madnah at that time, but the activity of usm al-
aramayn and attestations were done in such a secret manner that escaped his notice.
6. After learning of this takfr, he apprised the scholars of aramayn about the reality; and who
compiled a list of 26 questions and sent them to Deoband for answers which were answered
by Khall Amed Ambethwi and named Muhannad.
7. These were attested by all the prominent scholars of Deoband and also from ijz, Egypt and
Syria. This Deobandi propaganda which Keller repeats faithfully:






Even though the above statement conceals an itsy-bitsy truth, it is nevertheless a bald-faced lie to claim
that attestation were withdrawn. Which scholar withdrew his attestation? Where is any statement by
any Hijazi scholar who signed usm al-aramayn that says:
We withdraw our attestation to usm al-aramayn, we were deceived
Take a look at usm, and the detailed statements that explicitly mention either Alahazrats Mustanad
or the names of Deobandi elders. We are just asking for one express statement that says Alahazrat had
deceived them and they rescind any endorsement. Those acquainted with true scholarship know the
zeal with which upright scholars safeguard their own reputation this is a matter of takfr, why didnt
any of them explicitly withdraw that takfr? Are Keller and other Deobandis telling common Muslims
that these scholars and mufts of aramayn were over-zealous when issuing takfr and were shy of
correcting that error and therefore became vague when Deobandis presented their side? It is a side
note, but Ahmad Reza Khn did not send his usm; he took it there himself.
The truth in Kellers statement is, that his tract derives from the most important apology of Deobandis.
Keller was conveying salient points of the Muhannad apology packaged as his own research:






572
Thus it is in the biographical note by Zakariyyah Kandhlaw in Mashyikh e Chisht, p321-322.
573
In the foreword to Muhannad by Mazhar usayn signed 1382 AH.
That is, scholars and mufts whose understanding of the matter derived from Ahmad Reza Khans
sending them his own Husam al-Haramayn to ask for endorsements, which a number of them gave,
then subsequently withdrew when Deobandis presented their side, some of the most salient points
of which have been conveyed in the previous section.
when Deobandis presented their side, some of the most salient points of which have been coveyed [sic]
in the previous section.
136

Even if we take the claim of Deobandis at face-value, there are only two scholars common to both usm
and Muhannad. Shaykh BBuayl and Shaykh Barzanji. According to Muhannad, Shaykh Barzanji wrote
a separate treatise named Kaml al-Tathqf wat Taqwm in which he mentioned Khall Ameds request
to evaluate his answers, which Barzanji elaborates and says that truth is wjib in both kalm laf and
kalm nafs. All the 23 attestations are for this risalah of Barzanji but Khall Amed deemed it prudent
to include it in Muhannad as attestations by induction.
We shall not evaluate Muhannad in detail in this book, but only mention a few discrepancies in the
official Deobandi story to highlight the deception though it is extremely frustrating and a difficult
battle with those who can lie and deceive with such ease. Muhannad has been debunked by Mawln
Namuddn Muradbd and Mawln Hashmat l in Urdu; it has come to our notice that English
translations of these refutations are in progress and shall be available shortly, in-shAllh.
1. According to one story the scholars of both sanctuaries compiled these questions; and
according to Zakariyyah Kandhlaw, this was the initiative of the scholars of Madnah.
2. Who are these scholars? Did Deobandis receive an anonymous letter to which they responded,
or if that questionnaire was signed by scholars, why were their names not mentioned?
3. It is quite possible that usayn Amed Tandwi, who was present in Madnah in those days must
have compiled the questions himself because the questions assume that it is a false accusation:
Did the prominent shaykh, the greatest scholar of the age [llamatuz
zamn] Mawlawi Rashd Amed Gangoh say falsehood has occurred
by Allh tl and to abstain from deeming anyone who says so a
heretic; or is this a false accusation and if it is the latter, how do you
answer to what Baraylawi claims that he has a photocopy of a fatw
by the late shaykh.
574

Wherever Gangoh, Thnaw or Deobandis are mentioned
it is with immense respect and Alahazrat is mentioned just
as Baraylawi, which clearly indicates that these
questions were posed by someone who was either a
Deobandi himself or certainly a Deobandi sympathiser.
4. If it was an Arab scholar, and he was already acquainted with Deobandi elders, why did he not
refute Alahazrat or question him at that time? If they were not acquainted with Deobandi elders,
why are they referring with deference to those whom they have already ruled kfir? If it is to
seek clarification, why the assumption of fraud on the part of Alahazrat and assumption of
innocence on the Deobandis EVEN before receiving clarifications? Does it sound neutral?
5. Furthermore, the questions have expressions that could not
be posed by Arabs. Do Arabs use such expressions as in
Question #15? How did the Arabs come to know of
Janmashtami/Kanhaiya and the comparison by Khall-
Rashd? Remember the official line of Deobandis
concerning the questionnaire the Arabs formulated the
questionnaire by themselves and sent it to Deoband.






574
Muhannad, Question #23.
137

6. Did Alahazrat mention Janmashtami/Kanhaiya in usm? If not, why did these scholars
disturbed by the takfr mention this?
7. Khall Amed was present in Makkah during the compilation and attestation of usm al-
aramayn why did he not confront Alahazrat at that time or even explain his own version of
the story? This objection is preempted by a fancy allegation: Alahazrat obtained all this in
utmost secrecy and employed stratagems to get them.
8. Suppose this allegation were true and all this was done in secret; usm al-aramayn was not
a secret anymore in 1325 as it was published and available all over the country.
9. The best option for Deobandis would have been to take usm back to ijz and state
clarifications for what is mentioned in usm, and get counter-attestations for such a work.
Instead they came up with their own questions with rambling answers, without any reference
to usm, and yet claim it to be a refutation of usm. For example:
Zayd says: Ab Bakr usurped the right of khilfah of Mawla l .
Sharaf criticises this and calls Zayd a Rfi.
When brought to a muft, Zayd does taqiyyah and says: I believe that RaslAllh is the most exalted
being in the creation and absolutely superior to all human beings. I believe that wine is arm and
fasting in Raman is obligatory. I believe that Ab Bakr was the khalifah before l .
Can this answer be deemed a refutation of Sharaf? Suppose this answer is presented to any
muft, would anyone blame Zayd for being a Rfi?
10. Suppose Khall was unaware of the activity of usm in 1323/24 when he was present in
Makkah himself; then what stopped him from confronting it and addressing usm directly on
his four further visits to ijz and ajj?
11. The questions in Muhannad are loaded and already skewed in favour of Deobandis. Instead of
asking directly whether Ashraf l or Khall said what was mentioned in usm BY QUOTING it,
the question is oblique and posed in a way that Khall can slither away with a cop-out.
12. In some answers, Khall practically denies what Deobandis and their elders have said in their
books and indeed, Khalls own writings. Thus, even if that Muhannad was attested by scholars,
it proves the Deobandi beliefs wrong and in no way is a refutation of usm al-aramayn.
13. In Question #23, Khall Amed accuses Alahazrat to be
similar to Qdiyn and that he claimed Messengership
covertly cloaked under Revivalism.
14. If the accusation made above is true, what did Khall Amed
or any of his fellow Deobandis do about it? Did they write
any refutation against Alahazrat on this issue, or if they did
not, why did they turn a blind eye for someone who
covertly claims messengership?
15. Khall Amed claims that Alahazrat was skilled in forging
seals himself; we invite them to give examples where he
has forged such seals. Why did Gangoh not deny this
fatw himself? This fatw and its refutation was published
for 15/16 years never did Gangoh deny that it was his
fatw. We have analysed it in Preamble to Faith, and the
fatw is shown in Appendix C.
16. If Khall had such a clear conscience and nothing to hide,
why did he not get attestations from Mawln bd al-aqq
Ilhabd (1252-1333), one of the most prominent scholars
of Makkah? He was of Indian origin who knew both Arabic and Urdu very well, and has attested
usm; he was also a senior khalifah of Haji Imddullh Muhjir Makk. If Khall needed
exoneration, why did he not go to him in 1328/29 as the shaykh passed away only in 1333?
138

17. Regardless, a judicious person can see that none of those who signed the original usm
withdrew their attestations. Or does Keller have a new meaning for withdrawal? What does
withdraw mean after all?
18. The acme of Khalls righteousness is that even when someone withdraws their attestation, he
will not let go. Notice that the muft of Mliks and his brother who took back their attestations
of Muhannad on a false pretext and never returned it; but Khall is not one to listen. He has a sob
story, listen:
However, our opponents did not spare any effort in their activities to oppose [us] and it is therefore that the muft
of Malikis and his brother had already given an endorsement; but due to the efforts of our opponents, they took
back the endorsement on the pretext of making it sound stronger and did not return it. Incidentally, copies [of
those endorsements] had been made and thus, here we present it to our readers:






Concerning this, we ask:
Is it prudent or righteousness to cite an endorsement that was taken back?
If the person has no qualms to take back an endorsement on false pretext, is the
endorsement of such a person of any worth?
If someone has given an endorsement and due to activity of opponents changes his
mind, and withdraws that endorsement does it not mean that the person is now
opposed to you regardless of the stimulus or his previous stand?
19. Khall made his subsequent visits in 1328, 1333, 1334 and 1338 he had ample time to get at
least one true withdrawal that explicitly names Alahazrats usm, and a statement that they
were misled and now they had understood the true meanings of those statements, they annul
the endorsement of usm. Why did Khall not do it?
20. The images shown here from Muhannad are from the earliest known edition of 1345/1926; and
it is widely believed that it is the first edition itself; if there is an older edition, or references to
this exist in Deobandi literature prior to 1345, can Deobandis please highlight it?
But Deobandis in a most ugly display of hypocrisy use Muhannad only to deceive common people and
foreign scholars; they claim that it was an answer to usm and once that objective is satisfied, they
dont bother about it or its explanations and happily keep peddling their Wahb agenda. For example,
Khall deplores Muammad ibn bd al-Wahhb, yet his shaykh Gangoh praised him and his beliefs.
Khall prances around in hoops about Mawlid but his fatw are clear that he deemed Mawlid as a
reprehensible bidh; not just the standing [qiym] but he and his blind shaykh Gangoh refuted Mawlid
as impermissible in every form.
In fact, the book Barhn al-Qih was meant to be a refutation of Anwr e Sih which was written to
prove the validity of Mawld and ftiah; but Khall simply denies everything and embraces Sunni
beliefs; if Sunni scholars attest such an answer, why would it be surprising? It also appears that Khall
has played fast and loose with some answers because, Shaykh Barzanji says that the most important
answer is about truth being wjib in both kalm laf and kalm nafs, which he has elaborated in his
own work. We ask Deobandis: do they reject imkn kazib in kalm laf or not? If yes, then what is the
brouhaha about? If no, what is Shaykh Barzanji talking about?

139

usm al-aramayn
On his second ajj, Alahazrat presented the extract from his Mustanad written in 1320, and in which is
the takfr of the following four Deobandi elders:
1. Rashd Amed Gangoh for his fatw of wuq, the photocopy of which was presented as proof.
2. Khall Amed for claiming that Satan has knowledge of the terrestial realm which RaslAllh
does not; and it is polytheism to believe such knowledge for RaslAllh , even though Satan
has such knowledge and Satans knowledge is proven by scriptural texts but there is no such
scriptural evidence for RaslAllh possessing similar knowledge.
3. Ashraf l Thnaw for saying: what is special about the knowledge of RaslAllh ; such
knowledge is possessed by madmen and beasts.
4. Qsim Nnotw for his claim that even if a prophet appears after the coming of RaslAllh ,
there will be no effect on his finality.
Those statements can be verified with the images from those books which are included in Appendix C
in this book; they can also be compared with the two passages quoted by Keller and translated by his
Deobandi disciple.
33 scholars of aramayn wrote endorsements to this fatw and one of the longest is by Shaykh Barzanji.
During this period, Alahazrat also wrote Dawlah al-Makkiyyah which also gained numerous
endorsements but none of those endorsements are included in usm and claimed to be
endorsements of usm.
One of the accusations on usm is that the scholars of the sanctuaries did not know anything about
this controversy and Alahazrat deceived them which is also mentioned on the cover page of
Muhannad, referring to Alahazrat as khdi ahl al-aramayn he who deceived the people of
aramayn. According to Deobandi versions, Alahazrat mentioned their elders alongside Qdiyn, and
the scholars of aramayn were fooled into thinking that they were all the same group and therefore
wrote endorsements amidst confusion. The truth is, that in the introduction of usm, it is clearly said
that these people are known as scholars and prominent folk who have uttered blasphemies:
[you are requested to] explicitly mention about these leaders of heretics who are named [in the fatw]: are they
indeed like [Amed Ri] has described them and his ruling concerning them is indeed correct? Or is their takfr
impermissible and [impermissible] to warn the common folk and make them abhor them?
Even if they contravene [or deny arriyt al-dn] a fundamental aspect of religion? Even if they blaspheme against
Allh tl, the Lord of the worlds and disparage His honourable Messenger? Even if they print and publish those
insolent words? Just because they are known as scholars? Is it necessary to respect them, even if they are Wahbs
and even if they insult Allh and the Chief of all Messengers as claimed by vacillating common folk?
Our Masters! Clarify this matter, to aid the religion given by our Lord Almighty and explain whether those mentioned
[in the fatw] and their statements in books such as Iyjz e Ahmedi and Izlatul Awhm of Qdiyn; the photocopy
of the fatw by Rashd Amed Gangoh; Barhn al-Qih, which is actually Gangohs but attributed to his student
Khall Amed Ambethwi and if al-mn of Ashraf l Thnaw; whose statements are highlighted by overscore.
Concerning Qsim Nnotw, he says:
And Nnotw: This is the person who was described by Muammad l Kanpuri, the convener of Nadwah as physician
of this nation [akm al-ummah]
Concerning Gangoh, he says:
Look at this person who is claimed to have a high footing in knowledge and faith; and [claimed to] have a far
extending reach in faith and gnosis; he is known among his followers as the spiritual pole [quub] and the helper of
the age [ghawth al-zamn] see how he insults Muammad RaslAllh
The point is, unlike Muhannad which indulges in character assassination, usm criticises their
positions, and Alahazrat makes it amply clear that these people are considered scholars and leaders in
the community the dhawil hayt, a refuge some modern apologists have been seeking lately.
140

Shaykh Sayyid Isml Khall says:
I say: All these sects mentioned in the question: Ghulm Amed al-Qdiyn, Rashd Amed and his followers like
Khall Ambethwi, Ashraf l and others there is no doubt in their kufr nor any scope [to excuse]; rather, there is no
doubt in the kufr of anyone who hesitates in making takfr of these people, because some of them reject the religion
completely and some others deny fundamental precepts of religion which are agreed-upon by all Muslims; thus they
do not remain in Islm either in name nor in form as it should be apparent to even the most ignorant among common
folk because what they have said is expelled from the ears; and rejected by hearts, minds and souls.
Further I also say: I was under the impression concerning these misguiding heretics, disbelieving criminals who have
become apostates, that their corrupted beliefs were based on poor understanding of the statements of our glorious
elders; but now I know for sure that these are preachers of kufr seeking to invalidate the religion of Muammad .
Shaykh amdn al-Maris wrote:
I have perused what has been written by the scholar of immense understanding, the researcher Shaykh Amed Ri
Khn, the extract from his book: Mtamad al-Mustanad, and I have found it to be profound; may Allh reward the
author as he has removed harmful things from the path of Muslims and has [fulfilled] good advice for [the sake of]
Allh and His Messenger and the imms of the religion and the common folk.
He wrote a second attestation after re-reading and re-examining the issue:
I have reviewed the epistle of the shaykh, the eminent scholar, the penetrator of perplexing issues of knowledge, and
who elucidates in most eloquent words and gives satisfactory explanation and consummate explication, Shaykh
Amed Ri Khn al-Baraylawi; the epistle he has named: Mtamad al-Mustanad, may Allh tl protect his soul and
may its magnificence abide. I have found his epistle conclusive and convincing in his refutation of those he has
mentioned therein and they are the filthy accursed Ghulm Amed al-Qdiyn, the Dajjl,
575
the liar, the
Musaylamah of end times; Rashd Amed Gangoh, Khall Amed Ambethwi and Ashraf l Thnaw these folk, if it
is proven that they have said what the shaykh has mentioned:
That is, the claim of prophethood by the Qdiyn and denigration of the Prophet by Rashd Amed, Khall Amed
and Ashraf l mentioned above there is no doubt in their kufr and that it is obligatory for those in authority to
execute them.
Shaykh Sayyid Amed al-Barzanji wrote:
Concerning the sects Amriyyah, Nadhriyyah and Qsimiyyah and their claim: If it is supposed that hypothetically in
his time, or even after his time [arrival of] a new prophet, will not have any effect on his finality... This statement
is explicit in its deeming possibility of prophethood after him; and undoubtedly, anyone who deems it possible is a
kfir by ijm of all Muslim scholars.
He writes further:
Concerning the Belying Wahbs, followers of Rashd Amed Gangoh who says that: takfr should not be made of
a person who has said that falsehood of Allh tl has occurred Glorified and Exalted is Allh from what they
attribute him. There is no doubt, here too, that one who says that lie by Allh tl has occurred is a kfir and his
kufr is known by the fundamental principle of religion. And he who does not deem him a kfir, is his partner in kufr.
Because the statement: Allh tl has lied leads to invalidation of the entire shariah ....
He writes further:
As for the proof of this heretical sect for the possibility of falsehood [tajwz al-kadhib]
576
for Allh tl Glorified
and Exalted is He from what they attribute Him that they base it on the opinion of some imms on the possibility
of rescinding punishment [tajwz of khulf fil wad] of sinners; using this evidence is invalid...
The endorsement of Shaykh Barzanji is the most elaborate, in which he explains the principles and the
reasons for why they are deemed kfir. If Keller had only read usm and its endorsements, his article
would have been shorter and perhaps closer to reality.

575
Dajjl also means a very big liar, but in religious terminology, he is what is known as the antichrist.
576
We would like to ask Keller if Shaykh al-Barzanji also did not understand the terms jawaz ql and imkn al-kadhib? Or
perhaps he too needed instruction in Arabic nuance.
141

Shaykh Barzanji continues:
Concerning the statement of the aforementioned Rashd Amed Gangoh in his book: Barhn al-Qih: Verily this
extensiveness of knowledge is proven for Satan and Angel of Death by scriptural proof; where is the scriptural proof
for such extensiveness for the knowledge of RaslAllh , such that it refutes all scriptural proofs and establishes
polytheism... This is kufr for two reasons:
First Reason: It is explicit that Ibls is more extensive in knowledge than RaslAllh ; this is explicit in denigrating
him .
Second Reason: He has deemed that to establish the extensiveness of the knowledge of RaslAllh as polytheism.
The imms of all the four madhhabs have written that whosoever denigrates RaslAllh is a kfir; and whosoever
deems as kufr, that which is certainly faith, is also a kfir.
Furthermore he says quoting Ashraf l Thnaws blasphemous passage:
The ruling concerning him is also that it is explicit kufr by ijm the disparagement of the Prophet in it is worse
than that of Rashd Amed, thus comparatively it has to be [worse] kufr.
Indeed, the shaykh also stipulates the condition:
This is the ruling concerning these sects and these individuals, if it is proven that they have uttered these filthy
statements.
All of the above quotations are from endorsements in usm. Can Keller explain how these scholars did
not know the context and where exactly is the possible confusion? If at all these scholars were unaware
first and were apprised by Deobandis later, why did they not write an explicit endorsement saying we
had said so, but we were deceived we revoke that endorsement.
Why?
There is a side story to the affair. Alahazrat had written Dawlah al-Makkiyyah at the same time and
attestations were being written for that book as well. During his audience with the Chief Muft that is
Shaykh Barzanji himself, the issue of Knowledge of the Five was debated; Shaykh Barzanji belongs to
the group of Sunni scholars who do not accept that the Five were given to RaslAllh , but in
Alahazrats Dawlah, there is proof that it was given. So, he objected and thereafter wrote a separate
epistle named Ghyatul Maml. When Deobandis saw that Shaykh Barzanji refuted Amed Ri Khn,
they pounced upon it and published it in, showing exhibits in their own books. The fallacy of
generalisation was that Shaykh Barzanji refuted Amed Ri Khn, period; therefore, Deobandis are
acquitted. However, in reality, Shaykh Barzanji repeated his takfr in Ghyatul Maml. His difference
with Alahazrat was on The Five. This issue is not fundamental and scholars have disagreed but
Alahazrat is not alone in his viewpoint; and Shaykh Muammad al-Kittn
577
has acknowledged it. After
mentioning numerous verses and traditions, he says:
After you have learnt all this, know that concerning The Five and knowledge of the soul, there are two schools of
thought [among Sunni scholars]: The first group says that RaslAllh did not have knowledge of these, nor the
means to attain them; [when he was not given these, obviously] not to mention others [were also not given].
Rather, knowledge of these is only with Allh tl and He has not informed any human, nor anyone in the creation
as it is apparent from the various proofs we have mentioned above which are explicit. This group of scholars deemed
this knowledge as specific unlike other generic forms; and restricted when mentioned in absolutes. This is the
madhhab of the majority of adth scholars and the preferred opinion of most jurists.
The second school says that RaslAllh did not leave this world until he was informed by Allh tl about these
[Five and the soul] and other than that which were hitherto unclear or concealed from him, and that he was deserving
and befitting of honour and exaltedness such as generic forms [of knowledge] which we shall discuss in the Third
Category. This is the madhhab of research scholars; and emphasised by many saints and people of distinction; and
this is the accurate position and the reality, which no judicious person will argue against; nor will anyone disagree
with it after having read this epistle except reckless or heedless folk.
578


577
Shaykh Kittani has ijazah from this very Shaykh Barzanji as noted in his Fahras.
578
Jala al-Qulb 1/191.
142

Shaykh Barzanji preferred the opinion of the first school, and hence his rejoinder Ghyatul Maml.
When Alahazrat came to know of this he wrote glosses on Dawlah refuting the objections of Ghyah:
Inba al-ayy anna Kalmahul Man Tibynun li Kulli Shayy
sim al-Muftariyy l Sayyid al-Bariyy
The second was a refutation of a false accusation that he [Imm Amed Ri Khn] believed that
knowledge of RaslAllh was equal to that of Allh, except for the difference of accident/pre-eternal,
udth/qidam. The point is, that in his epistle, Shaykh Barzanji reiterated the takfr let alone withdraw
it and the rest of the book is about his disagreement on the finer point of lm al-ghayb:
Thereafter, a scholar from India named Ahmed Ri Khn came to the City of Radiance [Madnah] and when he met
me, he informed me first about people from India, disbelievers and heretics among whom [were] Ghulm Amed
al-Qdiyn, because he claims similitude with Jesus and claims that he receives revelation and prophethood;
And among them are sects named Amriyyah, Nadhriyyah and Qsimiyyah who claim: If it is supposed
hypothetically whether in his time, or even after his time [arrival of] a new prophet, will not have any effect on his
finality...
Among them, the sect of Belying Wahbs followers of Rashd Amed Gangoh, who does not do takfr of one who
says that Allh tl has lied; and among them, Rashd Amed
579
who claims expansiveness of knowledge for Satan
but absence of the same for the Prophet ;
Among them is Ashraf l al-Thnaw, who said: If knowledge of unseen is valid for the Prophet , as claimed by
Zayd, it should be enquired what does he mean by it: Does he mean partial knowledge of unseen or complete? If he
means partial knowledge, what is the speciality for RaslAllh in this? Such knowledge of unseen is possessed by
Zayd and Amr, rather every child and madman, rather all animals and beasts [possess such knowledge].
He [Amed Ri Khn] wrote an epistle refuting them and demonstrating the invalidity of these statements in a book
Mtamad al-Mustanad; he informed me of the summary of that epistle in which he has only mentioned those
statements and refuted them in brief. He asked for an endorsement and verification for it and [I gave it]; the gist of
which is:
If it is proven that these people have indeed uttered such filthy statements, they are disbelievers and
heretics because all these [statements] are in violation of the consensus of this nation.
In the course of this [endorsement] we mentioned a few proofs refuting such statements.
Thereafter, the aforementioned Amed Ri Khn informed me that he had written an epistle in which he claims that
RaslAllh was given encompassing knowledge of everything including The Five, and it does not preclude except
the knowledge of the Person of Allh tl and His Attributes and that there is no difference between the knowledge
of the Creator Glorious is He and Exalted and the knowledge of the Prophet ...
580

If those statements are present in those books the ruling is valid. I read it a few times but nowhere did
the Shaykh mention intention. This was first published together with Shihb Thqib of usayn Amed
Tndwi by Deobandis themselves, which proves that:
1. the attestations of usm were authentic, at least that of Barzanji is corroborated.
2. he indeed ruled them kfir for those statements provided the attribution was found to be true
3. he disagreed with Alahazrat on the issue of knowledge of The Five.
4. the attestations of usm were sought openly and from prominent scholars
His doubt however, that Alahazrat believed that the knowledge of Allh and RaslAllh were equal,
is a misunderstanding Alahazrat has only mentioned the opinion of some sunni scholars such as
Shaykh Bakri, the shaykh of Mulla l al-Qr even though Alahazrat himself does not agree with it.
Anybody interested in this can read Dawlah and its commentaries.

579
Thus it is in the printed edition of Ghyatul Maml, when it should be Khall Ambethw. This could be a printers mistake
or a lapse on the part of the author, but thus it is on page 9 of the book.
580
Ghyatul Maml, p9-10. Published by AICP of the Ahbash group, based on a Lahore edition (most likely a Deobandi print).
143

With such attestation and reiteration, where is the withdrawal of Shaykh Barzanji claimed by
Deobandis? If he could write and rewrite in such a detailed manner and confirm takfr, why did he not
write two lines repudiating or revoking that takfr? Only two lines stating that he was deceived and his
takfr was based on the claim of such-and-such statement; now that he has found that to be false, he has
rescinded that takfr.
Unlike Ghayatul Maml, this purported epistle Kaml al-Tathqf wat Taqwm, has not been made
available in full Muhannad cites three excerpts and how can we trust them after a similar claim about
Ghayatul Maml has been proven false? Withal, the takfr of Deobandis made in usm was for the
blasphemous statements; only an express statement invalidating either the endorsements or refutation
of Alahazrat can be considered as a refutation of usm. In shaAllh, we shall examine the hypocrisy,
lies and deception of Muhannad in a separate paper; and we end this with just one example:




Question #21: Do you say that the remembrance of his birth is abhorred by the sharh and a reprehensible bidh,
which is forbidden? Or [say] contrary to this?
Now everybody in the subcontinent knows that Deobandis criticise celebration of Mawlid; avid
literalists can distort this: the question is talking about the actual birth of the Prophet and this has
been mentioned in the adth, etc., and the question is not talking about celebrating Mawlid per se.
However, from the viewpoint of Sunni scholars who were purportedly reviewing Muhannad, this refers
to celebration of Mawlid contrary to Wahbs who term celebrating Mawlid as a reprehensible bidh.
Khall Ameds answer to question #21:
Allh forbid! Such a thing cannot be said by any Muslim, let alone us
581
speak ill of the remembrance of his blessed
birth, rather remembrance of the dust under his shoes and the urine of his donkey [cannot be deemed] ugly, nor as
a reprehensible bidh. The remembrance of anything, howsoever little in its relation to RaslAllh , is deemed dear
and recommended [mandb] and among the loftiest praiseworthy acts [mustaabb] according to us. It is the same
for us whether such remembrance is about his blessed birth, or his urine and refuse, or his standing or sitting or
sleeping as I have clarified in my epistle named Barhn al-Qih in various places.
Concerning this [issue] are fatw of our teachers may Allh tl have mercy upon them for example, the fatw
of Mawln Amed l Muaddith al-Sahranpuri, the student of Shh Muammad Isq al-Dihlaw, who emigrated
to Makkah later on; here is a translation of that fatw which represents everyone else: The shaykh was asked about
the celebration of the Prophets birthday [majlis al-mld] and the conditions when it is permissible and when is it
impermissible; he replied:
The remembrance of the birth of our Master, RaslAllh by mentioning authentic narrations [riwyt aah]
in such free times when one is not busy in litanies and obligatory prayers; and in a manner that does not oppose
the way of the Companions and scholars of the first three centuries who have been given glad tidings of
righteousness; nor with such beliefs which are polytheistic and innovation; when such remembrance observes
etiquette and is not opposed to that of Companions which is implied by his adth: [that way] upon which I
am and my Companions are... when such remembrance is free from things frowned upon by the sharh, [such
a gathering] deserves reward and blessings on the condition that it is accompanied by pure intention and
sincere faith then, this too shall be included as a beautiful form of supererogatory dhikr and it is not limited to
any specific time. When this is the case, we do not know any Muslim will consider it impermissible by sharh or
that it is a bidh...[to the end of his fatw]
Thus it is known from the above that we do not repudiate the remembrance of his blessed birth, but refute
abominable practices which accompany it as you have seen yourself
582
in gatherings of Mawlid in India.

581
He means to say: us as in scholars and adth imms and ghawth and qutub.
582
shuftumh is the phrase used; in what appears to be a Freudian slip; the questioner is supposed to be an Arab who doesnt
know anything referring him to the Indian scene, and that he has seen it, invalidates the claim that the questions were posed
by Arab scholars who were not aware of the Deobandi situation.
144

Such gatherings where baseless and fabricated narrations are retold; men and women mix together and money is
wasted on extravagant lighting and fires; and they believe that such a gathering is obligatory and they criticise, abuse
and do takfr of those who do not attend their gatherings and other such reprehensible things frowned upon by
the sharh.
Allh forbid! We do not say that the remembrance of his blessed birth is abominable and bidh; how can anybody
expect that any Muslim will utter such a filthy statement. This too is a slander upon us by the mulids,
583
the Dajjls,
the liars may Allh tl humiliate them in land and sea; on plains and mountains.
Notice how Khall fawns over Mawlid and how he repeatedly says that he is only against munkart and
certainly not against Mawlid. Notice the number of lies he has said such as people make takfr if you
dont attend their Mawlid gathering and that they believe that Mawlid can be celebrated anytime...
In fact, the background of the Kanhaiya/Janmashtami quote that comes in the next question [#22] is
about celebrating anytime. This is on page 141 of Barhn as shown concerning standing in reverence
during Mawlid or what is known as qiym:
...or for this reason that his 7pure soul, which is
in the world of souls arrives to this world of beholding
[lam e shahdat] and the qiym, the standing is to
show respect to it this is also sheer stupidity.
Because standing up on this basis should be during
the moment of his birth now, where does such birth
occur every day repeatedly?
Thus, repeating the birthday [of the Prophet ] is
similar to the gathering
584
of hindus, celebrating the
birthday of Kanhaiya;
585
or similar to the Rafidis who
enact the story of the martyrdom of Ahl al-Bayt every
year; [we seek Allah's refuge] ma'adhAllah! This would
be identical to play-acting [sg] the birth of the
Prophet , and this ugly act is in itself worthy of
blame, forbidden and sin [lawm, arm, fisq]. Rather,
these people are worse than those communities
586

because, they do it on a specific date, and here they
have no restriction - they do these innovations whenever they like. There is no example of such a thing in the sharh,
that is to take a hypothetical basis and act upon it in reality; rather this is arm in sharh...
Deobandis are quite inventive in explanations, and I am sure there will be another peroration, with a
few choice abuses thrown at us similar to the circus in the next answer by Khall himself; non-
Deobandis can clearly see that Khalls mention of Kanhaiya was in the context of celebrating anytime
and in Answer #21, he says that there is no restriction on remembrance of the birth of the Prophet .
Khall Amed, of course has a different fairy tale to justify this deplorable comment. These are not half-
truths or cop-outs; these are brazen lies it is this tower of falsehood which is the pride of Deoband,
the triumph of Deoband and the purported refutation of usm al-Haramayn. Even if the scholars of
the aramayn would have explicitly withdrawn their endorsements based on this pack of lies, why
should it be surprising? The fact remains that none of them withdrew their endorsement. Muhannad
was attested by the crme de la crme of Deobandi scholarship; and its author is their prominent
muaddith, the author of Badhl al-Majhd...


583
mulid: a closet apostate a person with a heresy that is kufr, and who conceals it from other Muslims.
584
sg means a play, a show. sg bann means: to arrange a play for entertainment. Hindus make such tableaux and plays,
commemorating the birth of Krishna - who according to their mythology was born in a dungeon and known as Kanhaiya.
585
That is Krishna, the god of Hindus.
586
It is worse than Hindus celebrating and Rfis.
145

Deobandis may claim that Khall was talking about permissible mawlid in Muhannad and he talks about
impermissible mawlid in Barhn. Let us leave the verbose, convoluted passages of Barhn and reach
for short and straighforward fatw elsewhere. In Fatw Rashdiyyah:
Question: Gathering of mawlid,
standing up during mawlid, to burn
incense and aloe; put carpets and
benches; to fix a date and other such
things which are famous in our times: is
it permissible to celebrate mawlid in this
fashion or not? If it is permissible, what
is the proof, and the proof should be
from the four categories.
Answer: This kind of a gathering was not
present in the time of the Pride of the
World [RaslAllh] nor during the
times of companions , nor their
followers or their followers
587
and the
mujtahid imms. This was innovated six
hundred years later by a king about
whom most historians write that he was
corrupt, a transgressor [fsiq]. Therefore
this kind of a gathering is a heretical
innovation [bidh allah]. The author of Madkhal and others have written against its permissibility and many books
and fatw are being written even to this day. There is no need to look further for evidence; the sufficient proof for
its impermissibility is in the fact that nobody has celebrated it in the righteous centuries; if you want to see more
about its corruption, you can look up lengthy fatw [against it]. Allh tl knows best.
588

Khall Ameds attestation: The answer is correct.
This fatw makes no pretense or splits hairs it clearly says that it was a reprehensible innovation of a
corrupt king. The interesting part of this fatw is that Khall Amed has attested it and you have seen
his tune in Muhannad. In another fatw, which specifies celebration of mawlid without qiym.
Question: Arranging a gathering to celebrate a
mawlid without qiym, and with only authentic
narrations; is it permissible or not?
Answer: Arranging a gathering to celebrate
mawlid is impermissible in any manner; and to
invite people for a recommended action is not
allowed.
589

This is reiterated again:
Question: Is it permissible to attend a gathering
of mawlid in which only authentic narrations are
retold; where there is no frivolity, nor mention of
fabricated and false narrations?
Answer: It is not permissible, due to other
reasons.
590

Some more fatw against Mawlid are shown in the Appendices. Even if attestations exist, what is the
credibility of such a work which has lies and further retractions? The final position of Khall according
to Manr Nmn is that he retracted from anti-Wahb comments in Muhannad; which effectively
nullifies all those endorsements then why quote Muhannad and its attestations?

587
abah, tbin, tab al-tbin.
588
Fatw Rashdiyyah, p254 (new edition).
589
Ibid. p270.
590
Ibid. p271.
146

Quick Comparison of usm and Muhannad
Husam al-aramayn Muhannad
1 Description of the Book
Fatw Portion of a Book
and Endorsements
Answers to 26 Questions
and Endorsements
2 Author
Fatw by Imm Amed Ri Khn
(1272-1340 / 1856-1921)
Answers by Khall Amed Ambethwi
(1269-1346 / 1852-1927)
3 Year of Writing 21
st
Dhil ijjah 1323 18
th
Shawwl 1325
4 Endorsements 1323-1324 1328-1329
5 Year of Publication 1325
Impossible before 1329
Because of inclusion of excerpts from Sayyid
Barzanjis book signed Rab al-Awwal 1329
6 Questioner This fatw was Alahazrats initiative
Anonymous
No description or names of who put forth these
questions even though Mazhar usayn cites
usayn Madanis claim that prominent scholars of
aramayn posed these questions
7 Endorsements 33 scholars from both sanctuaries Purportedly, 6 scholars from both sanctuaries
8
Names of Endorsers
from Makkah
1. Shaykh Muammad Sad BBuayl
2. Shaykh Amed Abul Khayr Mrdd
3. Shaykh li Kaml
4. Shaykh l ibn iddq Kaml
5. Shaykh bd al-aqq Ilhabd
6. Shaykh Isml Khall
7. Shaykh Ab usayn Marzq
8. Shaykh mar ibn Ab Bakr BJunayd
9. Shaykh bid ibn usayn Mlik
10. Shaykh l ibn usayn Mlik
11. Shaykh Jaml ibn Muhammad
12. Shaykh Asd Dahhn
13. Shaykh bd al-Ramn Dahhn
14. Shaykh Ysuf Afghn
15. Shaykh Amed Makki Imdd
16. Shaykh Muammad Ysuf Khayy
17. Shaykh Muammad li BFal
18. Shaykh bd al-Karm Dghistn
19. Shaykh Sad Yamn
20. Shaykh mid Jaddw
1. Shaykh Muammad Sad BaBuayl
2. Amed Rashd Khn Nawwb al-anaf
3. Muibbuddn Muhjir Makk
4. Muammad iddq Afghn Muhjir Makk

The following two scholars apparently withdrew
their endorsement to Muhannad, according to
Khall Amed himself, but names are still included
Shaykh bid ibn usayn Mlik
Shaykh l ibn usayn Mlik
147

Husam al-aramayn Muhannad
9
Names of Endorsers
from Madnah
1. Muft Tjuddn Ilys
2. Shaykh thmn Dghistn
3. Shaykh Sayyid Amed Jazyir
4. Shaykh Khall Ibrhm Kharbt
5. Shaykh Sayyid Muammad Sad
6. Shaykh Muammad mar
7. Shaykh bbs Riwn
8. Shaykh mar ibn amdn Marisi
9. Shaykh Sayyid Muammad Ddw
10. Shaykh Muammad Ss Khiyr
11. Shaykh Sayyid Amed Barzanj
12. Shaykh Muammad Azz Wazr
13. Shaykh bd al-Qdir Tawfq Shalb
1. Shaykh Sayyid Amed Barzanj
2. Amed ibn Muammad al-Shanq Maliki

10
Endorsers from Makkah
in common
Not Applicable as this was written prior to
Muhannad.
ONLY ONE
Shaykh Muammad Sad BaBuayl
11
Endorsers from Madnah
In common
Not Applicable as this was written prior to
Muhannad.
ONLY ONE
Shaykh Sayyid Amed Barzanj
12
Scholars who withdrew
their endorsement
None of the above scholars has withdrawn any
attestation. Shaykh Barzanji criticised an opinion
on Knowledge of the Five in a separate book
Ghyatul Maml, in which he mentioned the
attestation of usm a second time, but did not
rescind it. However, numerous proofs against his
position can be found in Jala al-Qulb by
Shaykh Muammad Kittani and which is in
agreement with Dawlah al-Makkiyyah.
1. Shaykh bid ibn usayn Mlik
2. Shaykh l ibn usayn Mlik
13

Number of scholars
mentioned above
resident in either of the
two sanctuaries

All 33 scholars are well-known resident scholars;
most of them are mufts and teachers belonging
to all the four madhhabs.
Shaykh bd al-aqq Ilhabd, migrated to
Makkah in 1283; Alahazrat is 20 years younger to
him and he was the teacher of many lam in
Makkah.
Only two scholars mentioned above one in each
arm are well-known. The endorsement of two
other prominent scholars the Mlik brothers is
inadmissible because they took back the
endorsements according to Khall himself.
Amed Rashd, Muibbuddn and iddq
Afghn: all three are migrants notably absent is
Shaykh bd al-aqq Ilhabd, even though he is
a prominent khalifah of Haji Imddullh Makki.
The second endorsement from Madnah, of
Shaykh Shanqiti is obvious he attests beliefs
which Deobandis deem shirk such as the soul of
RaslAllh to be present in homes of Muslims and
standing in respect qiyam in Mawlid, etc.
14
Attestations by
Induction
All attestations are direct and meant for the fatw
of Alahazrat.
Khall Amed has included 23 endorsements for
the book of Shaykh Barzanji and claims that these
are attestations for his book by induction. Perhaps
Keller can elucidate more on Association Fallacy in
this regard.
148

Husam al-aramayn Muhannad
15
Names of Endorsers
from India
Not Applicable.
This fatw was attested only by scholars of
aramayn.
Later, Mawln Hashmat l obtained attestations
of 268 scholars in the subcontinent and published
as a separate book titled Sawrim al-Hindiyyah
but this was after the passing of Alahazrat.
Many scholars who signed are neither students of
Alahazrat, nor his disciples.
According to the author, attestations for the book
were first solicited in India and thereafter sent to
aramayn, Syria and Egypt.
Almost all Indians who endorsed it are Deobandis
themselves, including Ashraf l Thnaw, one of
the co-defendants against usm al-aramayn
and Mahmud asan Deobandi and a son of
Qsim Nnotw.
16
Direct references in the
book to those who are
being refuted
Yes, the fatw specifically names Deobandis in the
fatw; and all those quotes mentioned in the fatw
attributed to Deobandis can be independently
verified. Scans from those books are presented in
Appendix C.
In Q23, Alahazrat Imm Amed Raza Khn is
mentioned as Al-Baraylawi and this is only direct
refutation where Khall Amed claims that this
fatw was forged by Alahazrat and slanders him as
a master forger.
In this answer Khall Amed also accuses Alahazrat
to be similar to Qdiyn because, according to
Khall, Alahazrat claimed Messengership covertly
and cloaked it under being Mujaddid. We invite
Deobandis to substantiate this claim and if it is not
found anywhere, what is the status of Muhannad
and its author?
17
Direct references to the
fatw and takfr in
endorsements
Yes, almost all endorsements directly endorse
takfr some of them name the scholars of
Deoband explicitly and call them kfirs.
No endorsement by any of the four-five scholars
in aramayn mentions the takfr or the
withdrawal of such takfr.

Khall Amed claims in Muhannad that Alahazrat forged that fatw of wuq by Gangoh even though
Mawln Ghulm Dastagr had already apprised scholars of aramayn in 1307/08; that putrid fatw
and its refutation was published in India in the lifetime of the author by others and he never denied it.
Even if that fatw is denied by Deobandis, is it fair to accuse Alahazrat of forging that fatw? Did any
Deobandi accuse Alahazrat of forgery when Gangoh was alive, and if not, why not?
Deobandis published excerpts of works attributed to Alahazrats forefathers and shaykhs; when
Alahazrat challenged them to prove it, they kept silent; but shamelessly continue to publish those things.
In one such Deobandi forgery, they mentioned the date on the seal of Alahazrats father as 1301, four
years after his demise Alahazrat mentioned this in Abhs e Akhrah and confronted Thnaw, but
Thnaw ignored it the same shamelessness, the hallmark of Deoband that incites Khall Amed to
make this accusation without any proof. He made an accusation that Alahazrat claimed covert
prophethood like Qdiyn even though, it was Qsim Nnotw, whose book emboldens the Qdiyn
heresy, when Nnotw claims that even if a prophet appears after the time of RaslAllh , it wont
have any effect on the finality of his prophethood.
By Allh! If Deobandis believe in Judgement Day, let them show us any book or fatw of Alahazrat which
proves that he claimed prophethood covertly if you cannot, you have disproved the pack of lies once
again that which is named Muhannad is nothing but broken stump of a lath sword.
Contemporary Deobandis were jumping up like rabid kangaroos challenging us to show that accursed
fatw of Gangoh and we not only showed it, but also demonstrated that it is certainly Gangohs by
handwriting analysis it was this fatw upon which Sunni scholars made takfr, and they would have
not made takfr if Gangoh had only denied that the fatw was his; Gangoh had 15 years to retract or
deny that fatw, which he did not, despite public refutations but still Khall accuses Alahazrat of
forgery. We can only wait for Judgement day when the wicked will get their due recompense.

149

IX. OBITER DICTA
In this chapter, we discuss a few sidenotes left out to avoid digression from the main argument.
Sources



How many sources did Keller consult for his criticism of Alahazrats fatw? Or was it just the opinion
of his Deobandi murids and acquaintances, because it usually works? Also, does this mean that if we
quote one source, such as Imam Abul asan al-Ashr, it is unreliable?
Keller is plowing towards his eventual insinuation fed by Deobandis obviously that the scholars of
aramayn were ignorant and were deceived by the Alahazrats fatw and foolishly signed usm al-
aramayn, and then when they realised their blunder, they retracted from their folly and exonerated
Deobandis. It has been demonstrated that Keller does not read the sources he mentions.

Pretext



Keller tries to convince us that the translation of shubha is pretext even though it has strong negative
connotations and according to the dictionary:
- a fictitious reason given in order to conceal the real one
- a specious excuse; pretence
- something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object; an ostensible reason; excuse
- the misleading appearance or behavior assumed with this intention
591

Let us go back to the statement where this trap is laid:



A note is added here to explain what pretext means; shubha in this context should be translated as
misconception or misapprehension; pretext means to look for a fictitious reason to rule that person a
kfir. If Keller did not know this, he would not have clarified in a footnote, the explanation which fits the
meaning of misconception pretext is introduced here to be misused later when the trap is sprung:



Keller has already made it clear that he does not know of any Deobandi takfr and thus the pretext is
only used by Sunni scholars; the plural is used for a politically correct phrase. In an undertone, he

591
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretext.
When we hear something, or read it from a single source, we tend to accept such knowledge because
it usually works.
[6] Pretext meaning such as the existence of an apparently contradictory scriptural evidence that to
the person disagreeing seems to give grounds to do so.
and there is no pretext (shubha) for disagreement about it;[6]
Third, the only substantive pretext for takfir between them is an issue...
...only one issue remains that offers either side a pretext for takfir;
150

accuses Sunni scholars of using a pretext for making takfr that is, using a specious excuse to make
takfr as he casually mentions later:



While people do not consciously put these things together, it is framed subconsciously, and has a
considerable influence on the consequent opinion formed about the subject.

Isml Dihlaw is a Deobandi



In endnote #22, Keller cites Isml Dihlaws Deobandi notorious passage which was the spark
that set fire to the nation. Keller has no qualms about repeating such jahlah and allah, but he will
solemnly sermonise: The excellence of a mans Islam includes leaving what does not concern him.

Citation from Imm Sanss Kubr
In the endnote #20 Keller writes:





Do not be fooled by Kellers citing the name of Sanss Kubr in full; he does not seem to have read the
book at all, in fact not even the very passage he cites! He is the classic tibul layl the groper in the
dark, who doesnt know what he has picked up. If Keller has indeed read it, he has not understood it;
and if he has understood it, he has wilfully and brazenly lied to deceive common folk who may never
verify these references; simple Muslims will believe these lies based on his reputation as a sufi and a
scholar.
Imm Sans actually, stated the opposite of what Keller claims; here is a translation from page 455:
Considering the second case,
592
[implying] contradiction in His speech Glorified and Exalted is He to endorse a
liar [as truthful] is itself a lie; and falsehood is mul for Him ; because everything that He has informed is according
to His Knowledge and therefore truth and the forfeiture [of truth] would mean forfeiture of Knowledge that
necessitates it; and this is mul as you know already that it is wjib.
593

On page 456, Imm Sans reiterates:
If you say: We have seen amongst us, someone who knows [about something] can give false information about it.
We reply: our argument is about the very [act] of giving information not about words themselves, because such an
attribute for the Creator is impossible [mustal].

592
Which is information by Divine Speech that is, revelation.
593
That is among the fundamental precepts is to know that the Attribute of Knowledge is wjib and its opposite, absence of
knowledge is mul; thus if truth is absent, it would mean knowledge is absent.
...in which he condemned Thanwi, Saharanpuri, and other Deobandiswithout referring to the
context of their remarks, or what they had been written in reply toand said:
So those who say, as did some of the Deobandis, that Allahs creating a like is hypothetically
possible,[22] are correct,
In which he followed, according to Ahmad Reza, the sheikh of his sect, Ismail al-Dahlawi [d.
1246/1830] (Husam al-Haramayn (c00), 19), but which in reality other major Muslim scholastic
theologians (mutakallimun) had espoused before them, such as Imam Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Sanusi
(d. 895/1490) of the Ashari school of aqida on pages 455, 456, and 465 of his Umda ahl al-tawfiq wa
al-tasdid (c00), one of the most important reference works of the school.
151

Further on the same page:
Also, if we could attribute the Creator with falsehood, and all His Attributes are Pre-eternal [qadmah]; which would
mean that Truth is impossible [istilah] for Him even though it is established
594
that He is attributed with Truth
because Knowledge is a necessary attribute for Allh tl; thus it would necessitate [Truth as] impossible even
though you know that Truth is validated [as a necessary attribute].
595

This last paragraph above is one of the strongest proof against the Kazzabiyyah, and Keller, their post-
modern proponent. What Imm Sans says above is essentially:
1. All attributes of Allh are pre-eternal
2. If Allah tl could be attributed with falsehood,
3. It would mean falsehood is pre-eternal
4. Which would mean Truth is mul for Him
5. But you know that Truth is His Attribute
6. Ergo, it is mul to attribute Him with falsehood
Concerning page 465, it is stupidity to claim proof for imkn kadhib of Allh tl that discussion is
not about Allh tl; I have included the screenshot of that page and anybody can have it verified by
those who can read Arabic. When Keller is incapable of understanding the very passages he quotes, it is
futile to expect him to know the principles of kalm, which stipulate that whenever mustal is
mentioned without qualification, it refers to mustal dht by default.

The Fatw of Gangoh
Keller follows the propaganda of Deobandis:



Does that mean it is impossible for Gangoh to contradict this? Do you people have no shame? It is not
impossible for Allh tl to lie, but impossible for your pathetic selves?
Suppose a person has told a hundred truths, and commits one blasphemy which is proven and the
Q rules on that one blasphemy, only an idiot of a Q will exempt the accused says in his defence:
Look at the hundred truths, I have said...
The fatw of Gangoh surfaced in 1308,
596
and pointing to his other fatw is not the way to deny it; it
was publicly debated and refuted Gangoh should have denied that fatw by merely saying that it is
not my fatw in the fifteen years until his death. If he had even whispered such a statement, his
followers would have made a huge show of it; Alahazrats fatw of takfr in Mustanad was in 1320, and
Gangoh died in 1323. Why did he not say that the fatw was not his after Mustanad nor did any of his
followers accuse him of forgery in those 3 years?
We have exhibited the photograph of that original fatw in his own writing, and upon which his own
seal is affixed, in Appendix C.


594
iati ittifihi: it is correct and validated to attribute Him with Truth.
595
mdah Ahl al-Tawfq wat Tasdd, Kubr of Sans, p455.
596
It is not clear when it is written whether 1307/08; or if it is mentioned somewhere, I will update this, in-shAllh.
Gangoh explicitly states in a fatwa that whoever believes or states that Allah Most High lies is without
a doubt an accursed unbeliever who contradicts the Quran, the sunna, and the consensus of the Umma
(al-Muhannad ala al-mufannad (c00) 72).
152

Keller Emulates the Speech of Hypocrites
Keller has no shame or adab of the noble Messenger and blissfully chirps like a munafiq that the
Prophet did not know what will be done with him. If he had reverence in his heart, he would have
explained the meaning of this adth, but not Keller this sufi wont mind even if there is a potential
danger of a commoner taking it literally. In endnote #29, he says:




We have explained the adth of Bukhr earlier and when this was said, the Jews and hypocrites exulted
in it so Allh tl revealed the verses and showed His beloved where everybody shall be and that the
Prophet shall have the Extolled Station [maqm mamd]. Concerning the other two references,
which Keller does not furnish the first is a lie attributed to Shaykh bd al-aqq, by Khall and his
master Rashd as we have explained earlier. Ibn ajar al-sqaln has said that the report is baseless,
and Ibn ajar al-Makki in Afal al-Qir says: its chain of transmission is unknown.
If Keller omitted the reference deliberately in full knowledge, it is dishonesty and a lie. Or, if he genuinely
did not know the reference, it exposes the fact that he had not seen usm al-aramayn by the time he
wrote his article; yet, he has no compunction to criticise it I would strongly recommend the tafsr of
v188, Srah Al mrn,
597
if Kellers taawwuf has any place for it. Alahazrat has himself mentioned this
reference in usm on page 25 and said:
He demands scriptural proof for the knowledge of Muammad , and he is not satisfied unless that text [na] is
absolute [qa]; however, when he comes to prove the lack of his knowledge in this very discussion, on page 46,
six lines above this despicable kufr,
598
he holds on to a false adth, which has no basis in religion. And he falsely
attributes the narration to [a scholar] who actually refuted it!
[Khall says:] bd al-aqq reports [that it is narrated] from RaslAllh that he said: I do not know what is behind
this wall.
Even though, the shaykh (may Allh sanctify his secret) said in his Madrij al-Nubuwwah: If one poses an objection
here that it has been reported that RaslAllh said: I am a slave and I do not know what is behind this wall. The
answer to this objection is that the statement has no basis and the report is not authentic. Look how he uses Do
not approach prayer for his proof, and omits as long as you are drunk.
If Keller was sincere, he should have at least read the fatw in usm al-aramayn, which is hardly a
few pages,
599
before freely slandering it and pompously pointing out the lack of context etc. How did he
know about the lack of context when he has not even read it?
Keller might be genuinely ignorant about the latter two references, but his claim that examples abound
in the Qurn and sunna can be uttered only by a munafiq not even an illiterate Muslim will agree with
such an interpretation it is the disease in their hearts and symptoms of that malady is apparent in
their speech and writing, as Sayyidi Ibn yillh has said:
That which left concealed in the secret recesses of the heart will eventually become apparent and exposed
600

Ibn Ajibah says in its commentary that whatever good or bad traits reside in the heart, their effect will
be seen externally; elsewhere, he quotes from Mabith al-Aliyyah:

Proper etiquette that is externally visible is an index of the innermost secrets of a man

597

598
That is the blasphemous passage of Barhin Qih denigrating the knowledge of RaslAllh .
599
The Arabic text in the original edition is a little over twelve pages of A5 size and approximately 21 lines on each page.
600
ikam, #28.
The first hadith is found in Bukhari with the wording By Allah, I do not know, and I am the Messenger
of Allah, what shall be done with me (Bukhari (c00), 9.33: 7003). The author was unable to identify the
other two references cited here, though similar examples abound in the Quran and sunna.
153

Uttering Blasphemies Repeatedly
One of the points Keller made was that the Deobandis made those statements in the heat of argument,
but those statements were printed and defended, and long after those who said it are dead and have
become dust, those blasphemies are perpetuated by their followers. The dead may not be in our dock,
but the blasphemies are still thriving. Therefore, Ibn bidn said:
We have mentioned earlier, that if a Muslim keeps repeating the same [blasphemous thing] and is well-known for
holding this belief and invites others to believe in it, he shall be executed. Neither is his repentance accepted, nor is
his Islm [he is] like a zindq and there is no difference between [such a] Muslim and a dhimmi, because we are
talking about someone who keeps repeating it and is known for saying such things, which proves that he believes in
it and it is a manifestation of the filth within as he spreads mischief on earth. The repentance of such a person is
merely a camouflage to save his own skin; and by executing such a person, we ward off his harm directed against
RaslAllh and his ummah because those with weak faith may go astray because of him.
601


The Ignorant Sufi
bd al-Rauf Munw in his Irghm Awliya al-Shayn said citing Imm Mlik: One who takes to
taawwuf without learning fiqh properly will become a zindiq; and one who learns only fiqh without
taawwuf will become a fsiq.
602
Keller thinks that he can decide which knowledge is beneficial and
which is not; he says in endnote #26:



Even though this note is upon a citation from Alahazrats Dawlah, his circumlocution is only to prove
what Thnaw has already said in his blasphemy. What is the basis for such a claim? And how did he
arrive at this conclusion? Keller is saying this only to deny the m kna wa m yakn mentioned in the
adth by aping the Deobandis and regurgitating their ideas this he does by dispraising knowledge. If
knowing many things did not confer distinction, then why is knowledge praised in the Qurn?
Verily, he was a person of knowledge, because
of what We had taught him.
603

And [they] gave him glad tidings of a

knowledgeable boy.
604

And We taught him [a special kind of]
knowledge by Our Endowment.
605

Where did he pull that from? How does Keller know this? What if Allh tl has created some beings
on the other side of the moon and that particular rock falling down will lead to a chain of events so
how does Keller know that it concerns NO ONE except Allh? Has he been informed of this if not, why
does he say such things? Why does he not act upon the adth himself?

601
Tanbh, p354.
602
Cf. Jala al-Qulb of Sayyid Kittn, 1/38.
603
Srah Ysuf, 12:68.
604
Srah Dhriyt, 51:28.
605
Srah Kahf, 18:65. Most tafsirs say that it is knowledge of the unseen.
for although knowledge in general ennobles its possessor, knowing many things confers little distinction
upon anyone besides their Maker.
Whether a rock has fallen down on the other side of the moon, for example, concerns no one except
Allah,
154




Keller says:



There are a number of things informed by RaslAllh ; m kna wa m yakn; and Kittn mentions a
a narration where RaslAllh said: Ask me whatever you want, then according to Kellers weird
theology, it is a religious shortcoming al-ydhu billh because of such knowledge?



Keller should read books instead of making such statements; if he dislikes Alahazrat and does not want
to read his Dawlah, let him read Jala al-Qulb of Sayyid Muammad Jafar al-Kittn. If he had read the
first part of the latter book, he would have found an excellent discourse on epistemology, and he would
probably abstain from making such a stupid statements; because it is absurd unless the part is defined,
as in a billionth part for example. Then, Keller could claim:
and there would be no point or honor in Allahs bestowing more than a billionth part of His absolute knowledge of
particulars upon another.
If the part is not defined, how can one tell the difference between parts? How does Keller know that
knowledge of whether a rock has fallen down on the other side of the moon is not included in the
part? And if there are two of those parts would that become absolute knowledge and thus impossible?

Burning a Straw-Dwarf
Keller talking of the hypothetical possiblity of a duplicate of the Prophet says:




It has been discussed earlier; and we are only pointing here that the emphasised portion is Kellers false
and imaginary premise. If Deobandis had agreed to this, there would not have been the issue of imkn
kadhib at all; because this is what Sunni scholars said now that He has Willed, and declared that He
never shall, the claim of creating a billion Muammad would then be asking for the impossible
otherwise, it would necessitate that what he declared is false
606
or He did not know that He would
change His decision, which would indicate lack of knowledge.
But all these are mul dht therefore, the result that is another prophet after the coming of
RaslAllh is, by transition mul dht. Keller says that it is mul ara, but that can be pardoned
as he is ignorant of kalm.
See that? That is exactly where the controversy started, but things have a different colour in
wonderland.

606
He declared in the Qurn that RaslAllh is the last prophet.
The excellence of a mans Islam includes leaving what does not concern him
It is a religious shortcoming for a Muslim to even care about such thingswhich upon reflection, include
most particulars of created being,
and there would be no point or honor in Allahs bestowing more than a part of His absolute knowledge
of particulars upon another.
So those who say, as did some of the Deobandis, that Allahs creating a like is hypothetically
possible,[22] are correct, in the very limited sense that it is logically within Allahs almighty power to do
sohad He not already decided and declared that He never shall.
155

Alahazrats Fatw on Imkn Nar
In the below fatw, which is a brief, but an adequate answer Alahazrat does not make takfr of those
who insist on imkn nar, as long as it is not accompanied by blasphemy:
Question: Zayd says that Allh tl can create another [person] equal [and similar] to the person of the blessed
Messenger , but He will not create it because of His Divine Promise. What is the opinion of research scholars about
making Zayd an imm in prayer is it permissible or not?
Answer: The Prophet has many superlative and special attributes [fayil-khayi] which are impossible to be
shared such as:
the most superior of all prophets
the seal of prophets
the chief of prophets
the first in the creation of Allh
the most superior in the creation of Allh
the first of all intercessors
the first whose intercession will be accepted
the prophet of all prophets [nabiy al-anbiya]
If the person [mentioned in the question] was not thinking of this and was considering only the Divine Power and
that it is all-encompassing [mm e qudrat], then it should be explained to him [as above].
In spite of explanation and attempts to make him understand, he is obstinate or arrogant and insists on his own view,
he is a heretic; it is certainly not permissible to make him an imm and it is prohibitively disliked [makrh tarm]
to pray behind him; it is a sin to pray behind him and obligatory to repeat that prayer.
The above ruling holds good only when the aforementioned statement is not due to Wahbism; because Deobandis
among Wahbs have nothing left to be called as Muslims; they utter explicit blasphemies which cannot be favourably
explained [wzi n qbil e tawl tawhne] and they are kfir themselves; and at least those who do not deem them
kfir are also kfir like them on their account. Scholars of aramayn have written concerning Deobandis that whoever
doubts in the kufr of this person is also a kfir.
We seek Allhs refuge. Allh tl knows best.
607





607
Fatw Riawiyyah, 29/221.
156

CONCLUSION
O Prophet! Tell them: If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your family, the wealth that you have amassed, and the
business that you are afraid will be ruined, and dwellings that delight you; if any of these are more beloved to you than Allh and
His Messenger, or more precious than striving in the path of Allh then await the Wrath of Allah; verily, Allh does not give way
to the contumacious.
608

---
Sunnis do not make indiscriminate takfr; only those who commit blasphemy are ruled kfir.
Particularly, when they are unrepentant and when their blasphemies are published and circulated.
Trying to find nuances to exonerate someone from kufr is a noble objective, but detrimental in the case
of express and explicit insults. Most fatw concerning blasphemy are about one or two instances where
a person has uttered a disrespectful statement; but the ruling concerning them is very strict and they
are handed severe punishment. What about blasphemies that are written and published? Kellers excuse
that those statements were unintentional and hence not kufr, may sound fine for armchair academics
who are more worried about their reputation than the faith of common people.
These statements are published and vehemently justified. If those very statements are cited as
statement of belief by common people which will obviously be intentional at that time, will it remain
a blasphemy or not? If yes, should they be ruled kfir or not? If not, what about Kellers own
acknowledgement that the statements would be kufr if they were intentional? If they are ruled kfir,
because intention is now found, will there be any warning against those statements? Or will Keller
absolve the beliefs of the group even if they believe in such blasphemies?
We have quoted Mawln Sayyid Amed Km earlier, who has said:
I have mentioned presently that the fundamental difference and reasons for the dispute between Deobandis and Ahl
as-Sunnah are those passages which are insulting to Allh tl and His Messenger . Deobandis say that these
statements are not disrespectful or insulting Sunnis say that the insult and denigration in them is explicit...
609

In the same book he explains the standpoint of Sunni scholars:
Concerning Takfr, our methodology has always been that whosoever utters a statement of kufr such that it becomes
necessary to rule him kfir [iltizm kufr], we shall not hesitate to rule him a kfir regardless of what he claims to be:
Deobandi, Barelwi, person of the League or Congress,
610
Naturalist or a Nadw. In this matter, we will not differentiate
between friends or enemies because that is not the way of righteous people. This also does not mean that if a
member of the League utters kufr, we will rule the entire League as kfir or if one Nadw does something
necessitating kufr upon himself, we cannot rule all Nadws as apostates. In fact, we do not make takfr of those who
live in Deoband just because some Deobandis have uttered blasphemies.
We and our elders have said it many times and openly declared this: we do not deem people from Deoband or
Lucknow as kfir indiscriminately. Only those people who have uttered explicit blasphemies and disrespected Allh
tl and His Messenger and who did not repent from those statements, in spite of repeated warnings are ruled
kfir. Also, those who consider those blasphemies as valid and truthful statements [aqq] and deem such blasphemers
as believers, righteous folk and hail them as their leaders.
Apart from these two kinds of people, we do not make takfr of anybody who claims to be a Muslim.
It is our duty to keep refuting these blasphemies until people shun them completely. Q y has said:

608
Srah Tawbah, 9:24.
609
Al-aqq al-Mubn, p15, Sayyid Amed Sad Km.
610
This book was written in 1946 prior to partition and the shaykh refers to members of the Muslim League and Indian
Congress, two major political parties at that time there is a subtopic of supporting either parties and the ensuing confusion
which led to the creation of Pakistan. We have remained true to this methodology. Prof.Tahir Jhangv of the organisation Minhaj
al-Quran is labelled as Barelwi by opponents and his shenanigans are attributed to Sunnis, even though hir himself rejects
this label. Sunni scholars did not hesitate to refute him when he stepped out of bounds and in fact, we were the first to refute
his antics such as the deplorable kufr-conference at Wembley in 2011; see my other paper Minhaji Fata Morgana, also
published by Ridawi Press.
157

If the person who uttered [such blasphemies] is a person known to be a scholar or a teacher, [a shaykh or a muft] or
a adth scholar and narrator, or a person in authority or known to be a reliable witness or a well-known jurist then
it is obligatory for whosoever hears [such a thing from him] to expose him and make the public aware of what has
been heard from him and to make people dislike such a person, to bear witness against such a person and what he
has said; it is obligatory for scholars and leaders in the Muslim community to repudiate such a person and clearly
communicate the kufr of this person and the monstrosity of his ugly speech so that Muslims are safeguarded from
the evil of such a person and the right of the Leader of Messengers is well established. Similarly, if that person
[who has uttered a blasphemy] is a preacher or a schoolmaster; if this be the things in his heart, then how can he be
trusted to teach the love and reverence of RaslAllh to those in his care or his audience? It is definitely obligatory
to publicise the blasphemies of such people for the right of the Prophet and the right of the Sharh.
611

Kellers is a very strange case, he acknowledges that such statements are insulting but still does not
deem those who uttered them as kfir.
--------------------------------------
Istifta
1. Zayd and Amr utter statements that are outwardly insulting to the Prophet .
2. Baker acknowledges that such statements are insulting to the Prophet in the following words:
Muslims would have found his words repugnant and unacceptable.
Aside from Amr's artless comparison of the highest of creation with the lowest,
3. Baker has acknowledged that Zayds statement about the Prophet is repugnant and
unacceptable to Muslims; he also acknowledges that Amr has compared the Prophet with the
lowest in the creation.
4. Baker further clarifies that such insults are intolerable when said about ones own father:
Few Muslims would suffer such a comparison to be made with their own father, let alone the Emissary
of God .
5. Baker is known to be a scholar and is aware of books on blasphemy such as Imm Subks work.
Despite such explicit acknowledgement, Baker does not consider either Zayd or Amr as kfir.
6. According to Baker, uttering insulting statements is not sufficient for takfr; the intention to
insult the Prophet should also be present. He claims the following principle is based on Imm
Subks opinion:
Something might be said that while outwardly offensive to Allah or His messenger , was nevertheless
intended by the speaker to make a valid point, not as an insult.
7. Baker also claims that even though these are outwardly offensive to the Prophet , Zayd and
Amr did not say this to insult the Prophet ; they said such things in the heat of argument; hence
it is not kufr.
Are Zayd and Amr Muslims?
Does Baker remain a Muslim? What is the meaning of Imm Ibn Sanns statement that: whoever
doubts in the kufr of [the blasphemer] or that he shall be punished, has himself committed kufr?
Is the principle mentioned by Baker valid: that any disrespectful utterance about the Prophet is not
kufr until the intention of insulting him is also present?
--------------------------------------


611
Kitb al-Shif, p371.
158

Appendix A
BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF IMM AMED RI KHN
Imm Amed Ri Khn al-Baraylaw
d
was born in 1272 (1856) in Bareilly, a city in North India
and in a famous family of scholars; his father Mawln Naq li Khn and grandfather Ri l Khn
were prominent scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah in their time. He studied Islamic sciences in the tutelage of
his erudite father. He was a master of many sciences and particularly in anaf fiqh, he was outstanding
among his contemporaries. Even his adversaries have acknowledged that he was peerless in this
discipline.
He has many ijzahs or degrees of authorisation in anaf fiqh, and the most important
612
among them
is from the Muft of Makkah, Shaykh bd al-Ramn al-Sirj ibn bdullh al-Sirj. This chain of
transmission reaches Imm Ab anifah through twenty seven links and in a further four to the Master
of all creation, Muammad RaslAllh . He has an authorisation of adth transmission from the great
Meccan scholar, Malik al-lam, Sayyid Amed Zayn Daln al-Shfi. Imm Amed Ri is widely
known for his refutation of Wahbs, innovators and libertarian religion-reformers of the early 20
th

century of the Common Era. Alahazrat, meaning the Grand Master, was a common title of respect
613
in
the 13
th
/14
th
century Hijri. Imm Amed Ri was called as Alahazrat by his followers as he was the
major force against innovators and the leader of Sunni scholars of his time. This title became so famous,
that it has almost become a synonym for Imm Amed Ri Khn. Upon his second and eventful visit to
the Hejaz in 1323/24 AH, the scholars of the two sanctuaries in Makkah and Madinah were so impressed
by his erudition and his efforts to safeguard Ahl as-Sunnah, that prominent scholars hailed him as the
Reviver of the Religion.
614
Major scholars in (pre-partition) India agreed that all the qualities required
in a Reviver were found in him and thus he is the Mujaddid of the 14
th
century after the Prophets
migration. Imm Amed Ri referred to himself as the slave of the Prophet or bd al-Muaf in
Arabic. His skill as a jurist outshone his other abilities and even the corpus of his work is mainly fatw.
Many lengthy books that he has written are usually as a response to questions. Many of his rulings (and
more than 150 fatw as monographs) were collected, indexed and ordered by the Imm himself and
named Al-y al-Nabawiyyah fil Fatw ar-Riwiyyah, popularly known in the subcontinent as
Fatw e Razaviyyah and has been recently published in Pakistan in 30 volumes.
615

The following are his most important works:
1. Kanz al-mn: An explanatory translation of the Qurn in Urdu.
2. Mustanad al-Mtamad: A commentary on the Arabic work Al-Mtaqad al-Muntaqad by Imm
Fal al-Rasl al-Badyn [1289/1872]
3. Jadd al-Mumtr: A five volume supercommentary on Radd al-Mutr of Imm Sayyid Muammad
Amn Ibn bidn al-Shm [1252/1836] which is perhaps the most widely used and relied upon
anaf text of later times.
4. Tamhd e mn: A passionate appeal to Muslims to shun those who disrespect and insult the
Messenger of Allah and to remember that the basis of faith is love and respect of RaslAllh .
5. Fal al-Mawhib f Mana: idh aal adthu fa huwa madhhab: the context and meaning of the
saying attributed to Imm Aam: When you find a a adth, that is my madhhab.

612
According to Alahazrat himself as mentioned in the Preface of Fatw ar-Riawiyyah.
613
Similar to "His Highness," "His Majesty," "His Holiness," etc.
614
Mujaddid. It is related from tradition, that an erudite scholar will appear at the head of every century and revive the religion
and clarify doubts and fight innovation.
615
Initially, it was published in 12 volumes of approximately 800 pages each in quarto size and small sized handwritten text
and it is now published in 30 volumes; with two additional volumes for topic and word indexes. This new edition spans
approximately 22,000 pages and contains 206 monographs. Along with indexes it is now available as a 33 volume set.
159

6. Dawlah al-Makkiyyah bil Mddah al-Ghaybiyyah: A treatise on the extensiveness of the
knowledge of the Prophet which he wrote in Makkah in merely eight hours and within two days
upon the request of prominent Makkan scholars.
7. Amn wal l li Nitil Muaf bi Dfi al-Bala: A treatise in which Alahazrat proved that
Muaf is indeed a remover of affliction refuting those who deny it by quoting approximately
60 verses and more than 200 adth and opinions of scholars.
8. Dhayl al-Mudd li Asan al-Wi li db al-Du: Alahazrat wrote a commentary on his fathers
work on supplication and highlights points that are not found even in classic du manuals like Hin
al-an
616
and Adhkr.
9. Fatw al-aramayn bi Rajafi Nadwah al-Mayn: A collection of fatw refuting the Nadwah and
its conglomerate of assorted heretics: Wahabs, Rfs and Naturalists.
10. Fatw al-friqah: This is a collection of answers to 111 questions on various topics sent by Hj
Isml from South Africa
617
in three dispatches.
11. Subn al-Subb n ybi Kadhib Maqb: A masterpiece of kalm refuting the absurd belief
that falsehood is included in the Divine Power of Allh tl. Alahazrat was only 35 when he wrote
this in 1307 AH.
12. Radd ar-Rifah: Alahazrat explains that not only is inheritance to a Rafi impermissible, he
explains how the Rafi of our time is out of Islm listing their heresies and the rulings of lam
concerning Rafis down the ages. Comprehensive refutation of Rawfi.
13. Qahr al-Dayyn l Murtadd bi-Qdiyn: Mirz Ghulm of Qdiyn, rose to prominence as a
reformer, but thereafter he blasphemed against prophets and claimed to be a prophet himself. A
quick and ready guide for the blasphemies and heresies of Mirz with references from the apostates
own books.
14. Nim al-Zd li Rawm ad-d: This is an answer to a query on the pronunciation of d and its
phonology. The question is in Persian and Alahazrat has also answered it in Persian.
15. Zubdah al-Zakiyyah li Tarmi Sajdah al-Taiyyah: A treatise explaining the ruling that it is
impermissible to prostrate to graves and men with the intention of reverence; and polytheism with
the intention of worship.
16. Kifl al-Faqh al-Fhim f Akmi Qirts al-Darhim: On his second ajj, Meccan scholars asked
him ten questions concerning currency notes, which Alahazrat answered in less than two days.
17. Jal al-Na f Amkin ar-Rukha: Certain prohibited things become permissible at certain times
and certain conditions; this is known as concession or rukhah; this is a comprehensive guideline
concerning exemptions and concessions.
18. Zahr al-Bsim f urmati al-Zakh l Ban Hshim: Alahazrat explains that it is forbidden to give
Zakt or any other charity to RaslAllhs family, the Ban Hshim.
19. Barakt al-Imdd li Ahl al-Istimdd: When we seek help from Prophets and righteous people, we
do that as intercession and absolute help is from Allh tl alone. Alahazrat lists 33 adth which
prove that seeking help
618
from Awliya is permissible.

616
Imm Muammad ibn Muammad al-Jazar [751-833 AH].
617
In Butha-Buthe, Basutoland, a former British colony. Basutoland gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1966
and was renamed Kingdom of Lesotho, which is now a sovereign country as an enclave within the Republic of South Africa.
618
With the belief that they help only by Allhs leave and it is a form of intercession.
160

20. Masayil e Sam: Listening to music is forbidden, arm. Listening to recitation of chaste poems in
praise of Allh, his Messenger, exhortation toward noble deeds, praise of Awliya without
accompanying instruments is considered as permissible by sufis with conditions. This is a treatise
on the rules of listening to odes and religious poems.
21. Zull al-Anq min Bari Sabqah al-Atq: This treatise discusses the superiority of Ab Bakr
and the tafsir of the verse: wa sa-yujannabuh al-atq, and that it was revealed commending
Sayyidun Ab Bakr . It is one of Alahazrats lengthy monographs in more than 200 pages.
22. Malf: A collection of sayings of Alahazrat in various gatherings collected and compiled by his son
Mawln Muaf Ri Khn in four parts.
23. jiz al-Barayn al-Wq n Jam as-altayn: This is a comprehensive reply to a question
whether it is permissible to combine two prayers in one time due to a valid excuse. Alahazrat
explains the anaf position and proves it from adth.
24. Hd al-Kf f ukm ad-if: Imm Nawaw has said: Scholars have agreed that it is permissible
to act upon weak adth in matters of supererogatory deeds or commendations.. In this seminal
tract Alahazrat explains the principles and practice concerning weak adth citing more than sixty
adth and fiqh authorities.
25. Nahy al-Akd n as-alh Wara d al-Taqld: It is not permissible to pray behind those who
do not follow one of the four Imams. An extensive discussion and refutation of Anti-Madhhabs in
which Alahazrat quotes numerous adth.
26. Kawkabah al-Shihbiyyah f Kufriyyti Ab al-Wahbiyyah: Alahazrat listed 70 statements of
apostasy in Ismls books and proved their being kufr by adth and fiqh. Deobandis slander
Alahazrat and spread lies that he unfairly criticised Isml.
27. Ijzh al-Matnah li lamyi Bakkah wal Madnah: Alahazrat listed all his authorisations to
various lam of Makkah and Madnah. In his authorisations to prominent lam he mentions
various isnads he has from his masters.
He took the Qdir path and was initiated in that Sf order by Sayyid Al e Rasl al-Amad
619
of
Mrahra in 1294.
620
Alahazrat was an ardent lover of the Prophet which is evident from his works.
He was also a great poet and has written sublime verse in Arabic, Persian and Urdu. His verse in Urdu
and Persian is published in two parts named: adyiq e Bakhshish meaning Gardens of Salvation. Many
of his eulogies and odes are recited, and in particular, the Ode of Salutation or the Salm has achieved
unparalleled fame and acceptance among Muslims from the subcontinent. The Imm passed away at
the age
621
of 67 in 1340 (1921). May Allah tl have mercy on him and be well pleased with him.



619
Passed away in 1296/1879. The shaykh was a prominent student of the famous scholar and Mujaddid of his age Shah bd
al-zz Muaddith al-Dihlaw.
620
Alahazrat himself points this out in a biographical note on his father Mawln Naq l Khn, in the preface of his fathers
book Shar A-lam Nashra, that he (Alahazrat) received bayh and khilfah on the 5th of Jumd al-l 1294/1877 along with
his father.
621
His age according to the lunar calendar is 67 years and four months; and the solar calendar is 65 years and 4 months.
161

Appendix B
DRAMATIS PERSON
Isml Dihlaw: (1193-1246/1779-1831) was born in Muzzafarnagar district, which is in Uttar
Pradesh State of todays India. His father Shh bdul Ghan Dihlaw, the youngest son of Shh
Walyullh Dihlaw, died very young; and the orphan was brought up by his uncles, Shh bd al-zz
Dihlaw, Shh bd al-Qdir and Shh Rafiuddn. He had a rebellious streak and defied his own uncles
on issues, who were upset by the behaviour of Isml.
622
He wrote the book Taqwiyatul mn, which
not only introduced Wahb ideas in India, but also set the precedent for referring to prophets and
awliya in an insolent and irreverent manner. Isml classed the following of imms [taqld] as idolatry
and this was probably the first anti-madhhab work in India. Deobandis accuse Imm Ahmed Ri Khn
of being the flag-bearer of takfr in India, whereas it was Ismls book which made polytheists of
everyone including himself.
623
The author himself acknowledged the extremism in his book saying that
even lesser sins were labelled as polytheism and idolatry.
624
Thereafter he wrote more incendiary
works such as irt e Mustaqm and Yak Rozi rekindling the Mtazil belief that falsehood is included
in the Divine Power of Allh tl. He was refuted by prominent lam, including his own cousins; but
the foremost among them was Imm Fal al-aqq Khayrbd, who was a student of Shh bd al-zz.
Among others who refuted him were Imm Fal al-Rasl Badyn and Imm Amed Ri Khn, who
refuted his books posthumously. He was killed in Balakot, in Pakhtunkhwa province of todays Pakistan;
his followers claim he was killed by a Sikhs and a martyr and hence call him Isml shahd.
Rashid Amed Gangoh (1244-1323/1829-1905) was born in Gangoh, a town in Saharanpur district
of Uttar Pradesh, India. After his primary education in Gangoh, he went to Delhi in 1261 and studied
there under various teachers, notably under Shaykh Mamluk l. Maulvi Qsim Nnotw was also a
student of the shaykh, and thus they became friends and remained together the rest of their lives. In
Hadith, Gangoh was the student of the Muhaddith, Shah Abdu'l Ghan Dihlawi. He became a murid of
the Naqshbandi shaykh, ji Imddullh Muhjir Makk. Rashid Amed was one of the founding fathers
of the Deoband school. Fatw Rashidiyyah and Maktb e Rashdiyyah
625
are his well-known works. He
was an admirer of Isml Dihlaw and defended his heresies for example, he too believes that it is
intrinsically possible (imkn e kizb) for Allh tl to lie. He wrote a fatw that a person who says that
falsehood has transpired in the speech of Allh is not a kfir, which caused an uproar and Sunni scholars
made takfr of Gangoh because of this fatw. He also deemed every kind of Mawlid as an impermissible
bidh.
Muammad Qsim Nnotw: (1248-1297/1832-1880) was born in Nnotah, a town in Saharanpur
district, Uttar Pradesh, India. He completed his studies under Shaykh Mamlk l (d.1267 AH) and
thereafter studied adth together with his friend Rashd Amed Gangoh under Shaykh bd al-Ghan
Dihlaw (d.1295) and became a disciple of Shaykh Imddullh Muhjir Makk (d.1317 AH). He is deemed
the founder of the School of Deoband and according to Deobandi sources,
626
the school was inaugurated
on the 15
th
of Muharram, 1283 (1867). His biographers list a number of works that he has written or
annotated. One small book he wrote, Tadhrun Ns, became controversial in which he claimed:
...hypothetically, suppose a new prophet is born after the time of the Prophet , even then, there will
be no effect on the finality of the prophethood of Sayyidun Muammad ; [comparatively] if there is
[a prophet] among his contemporaries or in another earth; or if it can be supposed even on this very
earth, another prophet [after his time without affecting his finality]. Scholars ruled him kfir for this
and other such statements in the book.

622
Arw e Salsah, #73, where an exasperated uncle exclaims: We were under the impression that he had become a scholar!
623
In a bizzarre passage in the book he claimed that there was no Muslim left on earth.
624
Vide Arw e Salsah.
625
Compiled by his disciples; but the material and opinions therein are his own.
626
Bn e Deoband, Sarfaraz Khn Safdar.
162

Khall Amed Ambethwi (1269-1346/1852-1927) was born in Ambetha
627
and studied at Deoband.
He was the student of Rashd Amed Gangoh and at his behest, wrote Barhn al-Qih as a refutation
of the book Anwr e Stih of Mawln bdus Sam Rampr, a Sunni scholar who was also a disciple
of j Imddullh Muhjir Makk, Gangohs spiritual master. It is in this book that Khall Amed
Sahranpri
628
says that the knowledge of the earth for Satan is proven from documentary evidence
and there is no such evidence for such knowledge of RaslAllh . He also wrote another book in Arabic
named Muhannad where he denied a number of accusations levelled at him and other elders of
Deoband; according to later Deobandis, he retracted from criticism of Wahbs in Muhannad, after
Wahbs captured the ijz. He is famous as Sahranfr, the author of the adth commentary, Badhl
al-Majhd.
Ashraf l Thnaw
629
(1280-1362/1863-1943) graduated from Deoband in 1300 (1883) and Rashd
Amed Gangoh conferred upon him the turban;
630
Qsim Nnotawi, Mamd al-asan Deobandi and
Yqb Nnotawi were among his teachers.
631
He is famous for his translation of the Qurn in Urdu;
Bihishti Zeywar, a fiqh manual and many other works. In 1319, he wrote a fatw printed as a booklet
titled if al-mn, in which he made a statement insulting the Prophet , a statement which any native
Urdu speaker, even an illiterate, will consider as an insult; in spite of the furore, he justified his
statement as valid; even though he permitted altering the passage in Taghyr al-nwn, he was
unrepentant about his previous writing; yet, the passage is not omitted in successive editions, and which
continues to be published and defended by his followers to this day.











627
Sahranpr district, Uttar Pradesh, India.
628
He is known in the Arab world as Sahranfr, or the author Badhl al-Majhd, a commentary on the adth compendium
Sunan Ab Dawud .
629
Related to Thn-Bhawan in Saharanpur District, Uttar Pradesh, India.
630
dastr band: this is a graduation ceremony in Islamic schools; and the conferring of the turban signifies that the student is
now deemed a graduate.
631
Muammad Akbar Shh Bukhr, Akbir e lam e Deoband.
163

Appendix C
OFFENSIVE PASSAGES IN DEOBANDI WORKS
The passages by Deobandis upon which the ruling of kufr was made are given below, without further
commentary. See Preamble to Faith for a detailed analysis.
Barhn al-Qih
...rather all the claims of the author
632
will
be rejected. The Pride of the World
7has himself said: By Allh, I do not
know that which may befall me nor that
which may befall you as mentioned in the
adth. Shaykh Abdul Haq
633
reports [that
he said]: I do not even know what is
behind the wall.
634
Thus it is also written in
Bahr ar-Ryiq and other books concerning
the assembly of marriage. Thirdly, if it is
superiority that necessitates [being higher
in knowledge] then all Muslims should be
higher than Satan in knowledge even if it
is a sinner;
635
in fact the author is also
superior to Satan; so let the author prove
that he has knowledge of unseen equal to
that of Satan if not more than him, on
account of his [the author] being superior
to Satan. The author, according to his own
claim is a superior believer, a person of
perfect faith, then certainly he is superior
to Satan, and therefore he should be more
knowledgeable than Satan! We seek
Allhs refuge!
636
Such ignorance on the part of the author is surprising, and it also saddening that he utters such an
unworthy
637
statement which is far removed from knowledge and reason.
The outcome: One should ponder, that by looking at the state of Satan and the Angel of Death, [and then] proving
such encompassing knowledge of the earth
638
for the Pride of the World,
639
without any scriptural evidence
640
and
by fallacious analogy if this is not polytheism, then which part of faith is it? This extensiveness of knowledge for
Satan and the Angel of Death is proven by scriptural proof; where is such scriptural proof for the extensiveness of the
knowledge of the Pride of the World, thereby refuting all scriptural proofs, to establish one polytheistic belief?
641



632
bdus Sam Rmpr, author of Anwr e Stih.
633
bd al-aq al-Dihlaw, (958-1052/1551-1642) famous scholar and the most prominent adth master in the subcontinent
for the past 400 years. He is the author of many books including Ashitu al-Lamt, a commentary on Mishktul Mab and
Madrijun Nubuwwah, an authoritative biography of the Prophet which is very famous in the subcontinent.
634
Khall Amed misquotes and states the opposite of what Shaykh bd al-aq has said. Because, in the first volume of Madrij
the Shaykh says: Some people pose an objection on this and say that it has been mentioned in some reports that RaslAllh
said: I am a slave and I do not not know what is behind this wall. Whereas, this statement is baseless and there is no
authentic report of this kind.
635
fsiq.
636
Apparently, Khall Amed finds it abhorrent that anyone else can equal Satan in knowledge.
637
n-lyiq literally means unworthy, but in usage and idiom it means contemptible, vile, disgraceful.
638
lm-e-mu-e-zam.
639
fakhr-e-lam meaning RaslAllh .
640
na.
641
Barhn al-Qih, p47, Published by Hashmi Publishers in 1304.
164

if al-mn
If, the attribution of knowledge to his
642
blessed person by Zayd
643
is valid, then it is necessary to inquire whether
he refers to partial knowledge or complete knowledge? If this refers to a part of such knowledge of unseen,
644
then
where is the exclusiveness of RaslAllh in this?
645
Such knowledge is [posessed by] Zayd and mr;
646
rather,
children and madmen; rather, all animals and quadrupeds also possess [such knowledge].
Because, every person has knowledge of something that is hidden from another; then, it becomes necessary to call
everyone a knower of the unseen.
647
And then, if Zayd makes it binding upon himself, that he shall call everyone a
knower of unseen, then why does he consider this as an exclusive attribute of prophethood?
648
An attribute in which,
there is no exclusivity for believers not even exclusivity for humans;
649
then, how can this be an exclusive attribute
of prophethood?
650
And if one does not consider it binding, then it is necessary to explain the reason for
differentiating between a prophet and a non-prophet. And if he refers to all kinds of knowledge such that not even
a single thing remains unknown, then the invalidity of such an idea is proven by innumerable narrated
651
and rational
proofs.














642
The Prophet .
643
Zayd: a name used for illustration.
644
baz lm e ghaybiyyah.
645
In Urdu: uzr; and this is meant to refer to RaslAllh .
646
An idiom to say anyone; like it is said in English: Tom, Dick and Harry.
647
limul ghayb.
648
juml kamlt e anbiya: that is, attributes that are considered as perfect, praiseworthy, distinguishing them from non-
prophets etc.
649
Thnaw has in the previous paragraph said it explicitly that even animals have similar knowledge; so it is not exclusive to
prophets, or even believers, or even humans. In other words, Thnaw says: knowledge is not a trait that can be considered as
special for prophets.
650
Ergo, Prophets do not have knowledge of unseen. Thnaw has said earlier that madmen and animals have knowledge that
is similar to that of the Prophet . Any possible ambiguity is removed by the rhetorical question he himself asks: where is the
exclusivity takh for the Prophet?.
651
dall e naql o ql se sbit hai.
165

Fatw of Rashd Gangoh
Even though the third person has committed a mistake in the interpretation of the verses, one should not call him a
kfir or a heretic or a misguided person.
652
Because a great number of scholars and elders accept occurrence of the
repealing of the threat of punishment.
653
Thus, Maulavi Amed asan has described this in his monograph Tanzh
al-Ramn. Apart from this, those who consider that occurrence of repealing of the threat of punishment as
possible,
654
they also believe that such a repealing can occur. It is also clear that khulf-wad
655
is a specific case and
falsehood is a generic case.
656
Because falsehood means, that which is contrary to what has [really] occurred. And
that which can be contrary can be either in the case of the threat of punishment or promise of reward or any
information;
657
and all of these
658
are categories of falsehood. And the existence of the sub-category necessitates the
existence of the main class.
659
If one is a human, then certainly he will also be an animal.
660
Therefore, the meaning
of occurrence of falsehood thus becomes valid,
661
regardless of whom this concerns. Thus, based upon this, one
should not say any harsh word to the third person, because that would necessitate takfr of elder scholars.
Nevertheless, this is a weak statement. However, according to the madhab of the elders, it is not permissible for the
person with a strong evidence to consider the person with a weak evidence as a heretic. See anafs and Shfis do
not scorn each other or consider each other as a heretic on the basis of the strength of evidence. Just as the issue of
saying InShaAllah I am Mumin is mentioned in books of doctrine.
662
Therefore, it is necessary to save this third
person from being considered a heretic or a misguided person. However, it is better to explain this to him in a nice
manner. However, Power over falsehood, with the impossibility of occurrence,
663
is an agreed-upon statement; and no
one has differed upon this issue.
664

And if We so Wished, We would have given every soul its
guidance; but it has been said in my Truthful promise,
665

I shall fill Hell with men and jinn, all of them.
666

And Allh tl knows best.

Written by the lowly Rashd Amed Gangoh, may he be forgiven.

SEAL




652
magar t-ham usko kfir kahn y bidt zall nahi kahna chhiye.
653
wuq e khulf e wad.
654
mujawwizn.
655
Foregoing the threat of punishment.
656
That is, khulf-wad is a subset of kazib.
657
gh e wad, gh e wad, gh e khabar.
658
That is: if one acts contrary to carry out the threat [wad] or contrary to the promise of reward [wad] or gives information
contrary to the occurrence [khabar]; all these are kinds of falsehood.
659
wujd e na ka wujd e jins ko mustalzam hai.
660
Animal is the main class and human is a sub-category and one among kinds of animals.
661
lihz wuq e kizb ke mn durust ho gaye.
662
Upon which there is a difference between Shfis and anafs; yet they do not consider each other heretics.
663
qudrah l al-kadhib ma imtin al-wuq.
664
Which is another delusion and a false claim. No Sunni scholar has attested this belief; see Subn al-Subb and a simplified
summary in English titled: The Truth About a Lie.
665
In Tafsr Qurubi: My truthful promise that I shall punish those who disobey me.
666
Srah Sajdah, 32:13.
166































167

Tahdhr al-Ns
These are three passages in the book
667
printed in the lifetime of the author in 1291 AH and is probably
the original print edition. Alahazrat in his refutation mentioned offensive passages one after the other;
Deobandis accuse Alahazrat of creating a novel meaning of kufr by stringing together three different
sentences. The truth of the matter is that these sentences are kufr even when considered individually.
We ask the Deobandis how would they explain these statements if presented by a Qdiyn as proof for
Mirzs claim of prophethood particularly the last one.
...firstly, one should learn about the
meaning of [the phrase] Seal of Prophets so
that it may not pose difficulty in
comprehending the answer. Common folk
[or laymen] think that RaslAllh being
Seal means that the age [of his advent]
comes later than all other prophets and he
is chronologically the last prophet; but
people of understanding are aware that
there is no superiority in chronologically
being prior or later; then, how can this be
valid as praise in this context: Rather, he
is the Messenger of Allh and the Seal of
Prophets?
668


...yes, if one considers absolute, or generally
figurative [meaning], this finality will be
both chronological and by rank in general.
And if the intention is one of the two, then
that which befits Muammad is the
finality of rank, not chronological finality. If
you ask me, in my humble opinion, a
judicious person cannot reject this.


Hypothetically, suppose a new prophet is
born after the time of the Prophet , even
then there will be no effect on the finality
of the prophethood of Muammad ;
[comparitively] if there is [a prophet]
among his contemporaries or in another
earth; or if it is supposed even on this very
earth, another prophet [after his time
without affecting his finality].





667
Pages 2, 9 and 33.
668
Srah Azb, 33:40
168

Taqwiyatul mn
These exhibits are from the book printed by Iftikhr Publishers, Delhi in 1893 AH
Page 31
The greatness of the King of kings is such that in
one instant and by one command Be, if He so
wishes, He can create billions of prophets and
saints and jinns and angels equal to Jibrl and
Muammad .


Page 14
...it should be known with certainty, that everyone
in the creation whether great or small; all of them
are more contemptible [dhall] than a menial
cobbler in the Presence of Allh.


Page 8
Even kfirs in the time of Messenger of Allh did
not believe that their idols were equal to Allh; they
too believed that [idols were] creation and slaves;
nor did they profess that [such idols] had power
against Allh. Rather, they would call upon them
and make vows and were beholden to them, they
would deem [such idols] as their advocates and
intercessors this was their disbelief and
polytheism. Thus, if anyone does a similar thing,
even if they believe they [intercessors] are the
slaves and creation of Allh then he and Ab
Jahl are equal in polytheism.

Page 8
..to believe that [such an intercessor] can be
present and watching [ir-nir] and prove that
he has the power to dispense in affairs [aarruf];
these things are proof of polytheism. Further, even
if he believes that such a person [intercessor] is
lesser than Allh and His creation and His slave; in
this issue there is no difference among saints and
prophets, or jinn and Devils, or ghosts and fairies.
That is, whoever deals with any of them such
becomes a polytheist whether he does it with
prophets, saints, shaykhs, martyrs or ghosts and
fairies.



169

Page 11
..to respect the woods around the city that is to
abstain from hunting in woods or cutting its trees
or pull out the grass or graze the cattle all these
things are ordained by Allh for His own worship
...
...
then to go to such places from far away with the
intention to visit them; or to illuminate such places
or adorn or drape them or erect a pole in their
name, or walk backwards from such a place; to kiss
their grave or fan with peacock feathers or affix a
canopy over it or kiss the threshold or stand there
with hands folded or entreat them for favour or
take residence in the vicinity [mujwar] or respect
the forest surrounding the places [of any prophet
or ghost or fairy] or does similar things, then such
person has committed polytheism and it is known
as polytheism in worship [ishrk fil bdat]




Page 24
Allh tl ordered him to describe his state in front
of all people clearly so that the state of everyone
else is known; so, he said: I have no power, nor any
knowledge of unseen. The state of my power is
such that I do not have any power to benefit or
harm my own self, then how can I do anything for
anybody else?

Page 24
...it can be understood from this verse, that prophets
and saints whom Allh tl has made high [ba]


Page 25
...all slaves, great and ordinary [big and small] are
equal; weak and helpless without any authority


Page 25
...in these things as well, all slaves esteemed and
common [ba/cho] are all equal, unaware and
ignorant

170

Page 26
We learn from this adth that concerning any
prophet or saint or imm or martyr, one should
not have the belief that they knew unseen rather,
even about the Prophet himself nor mention this
in his description.



Page 27
Whoever says that the Prophet of Allh or any
Imm or any Elder knew things from the
unseen, but they would not utter it respecting
the Sharh, such a person is very big liar;
rather, nobody knows about the unseen
except Allh.
Bukhr narrates from Umm la that she said:
RaslAllh said: By Allh, I do not know; By
Allh, I do not know and I am the Messenger
of Allh what will be done to me, nor to you
Translation:
669
In Mishkt, in the Chapter of
Fear and Weeping, it is mentioned that
Bukhr mentions Umm Ala that the
Messenger of Allh said: I swear by Allh I
do not know; again, I swear by Allh that I do
not know even though I am the Messenger
of Allh; what will happen
670
to me or to you.
Insight:
671
That is whatever Allh tl will do
to his slaves whether in this world or in the
grave or in the hereafter thus, nobody knows
its reality: no prophet, no saint; neither do they
know their own state, nor that of others...


Page 28
If anyone believes that anybody in the creation has
the authority to dispense in affairs [taarruf] and
believes that such [entity] is his supporter [wakl]
and believes in it, then he has committed
polytheism even if he does not deem such [a
person] as equal to Allh, or has any power against
Him.



669
This is Ismls translation in Urdu; the previous paragraph was translated from the quoted Arabic.
670
Literal translation from Ismls Urdu: How will I be treated nor how you will [be treated].
671
The letter f is for fyidah meaning: the lesson we learn from the adth just quoted.
171

Page 29
That is, when such a Powerful like Allh exists, calling
upon weak people who can neither benefit nor harm
is absolutely unjust because this proves such a great
rank of such a great person for such worthless
people.
672


Page 42
One whose name is Muammad or l, has no
choice to do anything

Page 42
Or if one believes about the Prophet that sharh is
by his command and he made lawful whatever he
wished and it would become binding upon his
followers. All such things necessitate polytheism;
rather, the Sovereign is Allh and the Prophet is
only an informer.

Page 56
It is a futile [claim] to utter a disrespectful thing
expressly [hir] and then say that it means
something else. There are other occasions for
conundrums and riddles; nobody talks in puns and
equivoques with ones own father or the king; such
things are said to friends and buddies not ones
own fathers and kings.

Page 60
He translates a adth which ends thus (in his Urdu translation)
...worship your Lord and respect your brother.
Insight:
673
That is all humans are brothers; those
who are elder, are our elder brothers and one
should respect them like you would respect your
elder brother. And everyones Lord is Allh, so
worship Him. Thus we understand from this adth
that saints and prophets, imms and their children,
shaykhs and martyrs all the nearest slaves of Allh
are all humans and slaves and weak and our brothers; except that Allh has given them eminence, so they are our elder
brothers; and He commanded us to obey them, so we are their younger brothers.

672
Isml the cobbler, whom Deobandis consider their guru and high-priest, calls prophets and saints as worthless. Is this not
blasphemy? Will Kellers heart tremble at this how will these ashqiya come to the Pond of RasulAllah ? This is why
Alahazrat said:
zikr rokey fazl ktey naq k jyn rahey
phir kahey mardak ke hun ummat RaslAllh ki?
He prevents his mention, diminishes his rank and intently tries to find a flaw,
And still the scoundrel claims that he is a follower of RaslAllh
673
fa for fyidah.
172

Page 60
This is the worst passage of all in which he mentions the adth of Qays in which RaslAllh asked
him, Would you prostrate to my grave? but Isml added his own insight and said that he would die
and rot in his grave. mar kar mitti hona is an idiom in Urdu meaning died and became dust.
Deobandis suddenly become avid literalists here and say, what he meant was, that my body would touch
the dust but they give all kinds of far-fetched explanations for other statements in the book.

Insight: That is, I shall also die one day and became dust, then how am I worthy of prostration.




Page 63
Just like a village chief [choudhary] and the landlord [zamndr] in a village; thus it is in a similar meaning that a prophet is
leader of his nation [ummat]








173

ir e Mustaqm
This exhibit is from the book printed by Zia Publishers, Meerut in 1285 AH. This book, originally in
Persian, was written by Isml Dihlaw and claimed to be the utterings and teachings of his shaykh
Sayyid Amed Baraylaw. Apologists for Isml claim that the following passage is not Ismls own
but that of his shaykh; even though, Isml has himself claimed full responsibility for the contents of
the book:
674

It is better to think about sexual
intercourse with ones own wife, than
tempting thoughts of fornication; and to
expend ones thoughts towards ones
shaykh or similar revered individuals
even if it is the esteemed Messenger,
675

is worse many times over than being
engrossed in thinking about ones own
cow or donkey...





Y al-aqq
This is page 24 of the original Persian work published by Afal al-Mabi Press in 1800s with Yak Rozi
on its margins.
...that is transcendence of [Allh] the
Exalted from time, place, direction,
modality, rational composition; and
discussion of Attributes being the same
[as Essence] or additional; or to prove
that Allh tl can be seen without
direction or boundaries; or the existence
of individual-indivisible particle [jawhar
al-fard] or the non-existence of prime-
matter or hyle [hayl] and forms and
nature and thought or vice-versa; or
debate about destiny; or discuss that it
was necessary for the world to exist, or
prove that the universe exists from
eternity or such things from discussions
of rational theology [kalm] or
philosophical theology are all inherently
heretical beliefs if anybody professes
the aforementioned beliefs and
considers them as part of religious
beliefs




674
ir e Mustaqm, p95.
675
The original does not have the ritual blessing upon the Prophet ; also janb rislat mab clearly refers to Allhs
Messenger .
174

Yak Rozah
This exhibit is from Yak Rozah/Yak Roz of Isml Dihlaw. I have another older edition, probably from
the mid-1800s, printed on the margins of Y al-aqq, but this is preferred for readability [Note: Only
relevant portions are translated].
After giving information, it
is possible that Allh tl
can discard it. Therefore,
the saying that Creation
similar to him can exist
does not fundamentally
belie any text; and the
negation of the Qurn
[salb e Qurn] after
revelation is also a
possibility.
***
We do not accept that
such a falsehood is
impossible [mul] for
Allh tl. Because, to
make any matter or
information contrary to
what has occurred, and to
inform angels and
prophets about it, is not
removed from the Divine
Power of Allh tl;
otherwise, it would
necessitate that the power
of humans is more than
the Power of the Almighty.
***
They enumerate the
absence of falsehood
[dam e kazib] as an
Attribute of Perfection [for
Allh taala] and such an
absence of falsehood is
considered as praise of
Allh tl in comparison
to the dumb folk or
inanimate objects. The
Attribute of Perfection is
when a person has the
power to utter falsehood
but owing to reasons and
wisdom, he abstains from
uttering a false thing
such a person deserves praise. Compare this to a person whose tongue is useless [i.e., dumb] and who wishes to utter false
speech, but he has no voice; or if someone holds his mouth shut [such that he cannot utter anything] sensible people do
not deem such a person as praiseworthy. Rather, the praiseworthy thing is to [voluntarily] avoid the flaw of falsehood and
not taint oneself by uttering falsehood.


175

Juhd al-Muqill
The seventh proem: is that occurrence of despicable things and to have power to do despicable things are as
separate as the sky and the earth. The former is said to be impossible near Ahl al-Sunnah; but the latter is deemed
an accepted belief and everybody knows that for the Person of Allh, Exalted is He, such a situation will not arise that
any despicable act will have to occur; however, despicable acts [afl qabah] are included in Divine Power, similar
to other inherently possible things [mumkint dhtiyyah] according to all the righteous folk [jumlah ahl e aqq]
because if there is anything bad, it is in the occurrence of such despicable things there is nothing wrong in having
power to commit such acts.
...In summary, [for Allh tl] to do despicable things [qabyi ka udr] is inherently possible [mumkin bil dht];
this statement is valid and the madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah; however due to contingent impossibility [imtin bil
ghayr] it is not realised or the situation does not arise [naubat] for them to occur.

















There is a difference in ruling concerning flaw [naq] in Personal Attributes [ift dhtiyyah] and flaw in Actions [afl];
the former kind of a flaw is inherently impossible [mumtani bidh dht] and the latter is contingently impossible
[mumtani bil ghayr]




176

Fatw Rashidiyyah
These exhibits are from the first volume printed in Moradabad in 1323 AH:


Page 45:

The book Taqwiyatul mn is an extremely
excellent and truthful book; it causes
strengthening and amendment of faith
and the meaning of Qurn and adth is
entirely found in this book




Page 65:

In my opinion, all the issues and matters
[masyil] discussed in the book are valid and
correct, even though externally, there is
harshness in some issues. That he repented
from some of those issues is the slander [or
false accusation] of heretics. If a person does
not respect him [Isml] as an elder because
of false stories that he has heard, he shall be
excused; but if he holds a belief contrary to
the book, he is a heretic and fsiq.







Page 122:

Taqwiyatul mn is an extremely excellent
book; and has irrefutable proofs against
polytheism and innovation [shirk-bidh] and
is completely in accordance with the Book of
Allh and the adth. To keep it with oneself,
to read it and to act upon [its exhortations]
is in essence faith itself [yn islm] and
anyone who speaks ill about keeping this
book is a fsiq and a heretic. If someone,
due to ignorance does not understand the
beauty of this book, it should be deemed a
failure of his understanding, not the error of
the author. Prominent scholars and
righteous people have liked this book; if a
misguided person speaks ill of this book, he
is himself a misguiding heretic.




177

Page 99

If someone believes that the Prophet
hears the salutation himself, then it is kufr
regardless of [the tense] whether he says:
Peace upon you or Peace upon the
Prophet [as-salmu alayka or as-salamu
lan nabiyy]



Page 8

Question: Who are Wahbs? What were the
beliefs of bd al-Wahhb Najdi, and what
was his madhhab? What kind of a man was
he? What are the differences between the
beliefs of Najdi folk and Sunni-anaf folk?
Answer: The followers of Muammad ibn
bd al-Wahhb are known as Wahbs. Their
beliefs were excellent and their madhhab
was anbal. Although, his manner was harsh,
but he and his followers are good people
except those who exceeded boundaries and
who have become corrupted. The beliefs
[qid] of all are the same in actions, the
differences are like that of anaf, Shfi,
Mlik and anbal.

Page 49-50

Question: If one sets off from his home
[journeying] to Madnah Munawwarah or
Baghdad or Gangoh or Ajmer or the Shaykhs of
Kaliyar specifically to visit them: is it
permissible or not? Some people say that when
one goes to Madnah Munawwarah, his
intention should be to visit the Masjid and
should not go with the intention of visiting
[RasulAllah ]. How far is this statement of his
true; these people belong to which group or
which faith what do scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah
say in this matter?
Answer: There is a difference of opinion among
scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah on undertaking a
journey to visit elders.
676
Some have said that it
is permissible and some others have said that it
is impermissible both groups are scholars of
Ahl as-Sunnah. It is not proper to argue on this
matter; also, it is impossible for followers
[muqallids] like us to make a decision.


676
The idiom refers to Elders as in saints and prophets which is obvious in the question.
178

Fatw Rashdiyyah, On Impermissibility of Mawlid.
Page 41:
[Written] by the humble servant Rashd Amed
may Allh forgive him after salm, I say:
[Celebration of] Mawlid as it is in vogue is a
bidh; and because of accompanying dislikeable
actions, it is prohibitively dislikeable; and
standing up [qiym] is also bidh due to its being
specified ; and it is disliked to listen to the singing
of young boys as it can lead to temptation

Page 50
Rashd Amed is evasive in the below answer, because the questioner mentions Shh bd al-zz
Dihlaw celebrated both Mawlid and attended rs;
677
let Deobandis prove Mawlid and rs conducted in
the age of Rashd Amed were different from that of Shh bd al-zz. As for the reprehensible things
done by fsiq people, such as intermixing of sexes or singing, dancing and music no Sunni scholar has
permitted it; Abul asan Nadw has himself mentioned that Alahazrat condemned it.
Question: The blessed Mawlid and rs which does
not have any action contrary to the sharh; such as
those held by the master, Shh bd al-zz may
Allh have mercy on him; do you deem it
permissible or not? Did Shh sahib really celebrate
Mawlid or hold the rs?
Answer: To arrange for a gathering to celebrate
Mawlid even if it is done without any action
contrary to the sharh, but it is done as a function
and by inviting people [ihtimm, tad] therefore,
it is not right to do it in this age; the answer for rs
is also the same. Many things were permissible
[mub] in the past, but became impermissible in a
later age. The gathering for rs and Mawlid are also
like this.
How did Shh bd al-zz attend a gathering of Mawlid or rs without arrangements for people to
gather or calling them to gather on a specific day and date? Is any function in Deoband done without
arrangements or calling people to attend on a specific day and date? Such as the one in which Hindu
swamis are invited to share their wisdom? Do religious Deobandis have the courage to condemn it?
Shh bd al-zz has said replying to an objection by Mawlaw bd al-akm Punjb:
This criticism is due to critics ignorance about that which he criticises. Because, other than things which are ordained by
the sharh [as obligatory], nobody considers anything else as obligatory. Yes, visiting graves of pious Muslims [lin]
and to derive blessings [barakah] by donating reward [of good deeds] and recite the Qurn and do du; thereafter
distribute sweets or food is deemed a commendable act [amr mustasin] and considered as good by the ijm of scholars.
Appointing a day for the rs [is only] because it is a remembrance of that day when the soul crosses from this World of
Endeavour to the World of Reward [dr al-mal, dr al-thawb] otherwise, it can be done any day and will be a deed
towards success and salvation.
678

It is also clear that Rashd Ameds alibi for not permitting rs is lame.

677
rs is a gathering on the anniversary of the death of a saint, when Qurn is recited and ftiah is recited; Shh bd al-zz
permitted it and he himself attended it. Notice how Rashd Amed prevaricates and instead of a straightforward answer he
has given elsewhere where he has said: no kind of rs or Mawlid is permitted. Abul asan Nadw in his biographical notice
of Alahazrat scornfully said that he supported these festivals in India they call rs but did not deem it necessary to mention
that even bd al-zz Dihlaw attended such gatherings. In Rislah Dhabah, Shh bd al-zz refuted a contemporary mufts
objections. It is also clear from Rashd Ameds evasiveness that Shh bd al-zz attended and permitted such gatherings.
678
Zubdatun Nayi, p42. See Appendix D for a scan of this page.
179

Page 72
The questioner asks about Mawlid and that it was celebrated by Shh Waliyullh and his father Shh
bd al-Ram Dihlaw as mentioned in Durr al-Thamn; that Imm Suy said that it was commendable
[mustasin] in usn al-Maqid. In this fatw, Rashd Amed appears rather relenting but only
superficially, because he has to squirm out of a tight situation he cannot call Shh Waliyullh as an
innovator, nor can he permit Mawlid. Obviously, Rashd Amed is not straddling, because Shh bd al-
zz has mentioned that gathering is permissible and scholars have overwhelmingly said the basis of
Mawlid is to commemorate the happiness upon the birth of the Messenger

It is permissible to donate reward any day and
deserves reward there no date or time
appointed by the sharh; it is also permissible to
do it on the same day of birth or the day of
passing. Thus, if he does not consider it necessary
to do it on a certain day, but does it as he would
do on any other day; and by this act of donating
reward, he does not cause any harm to common
people, then there is no harm in it. Everybody
considers such an act permissible. The action of
Shh bd al-Ram Dihlaw was also like this, and
nobody can bring this as proof for the bidh of
our age. Moreover, that kind of giving food was
for donating reward as it only says [in the citation]:
relation with the Prophet. There is no mention of
any word that says: happiness of his birth nor
mention of gathering to remember his birth. Thus
there is no proof in it to celebrate Mawlid. Also, in
Suys time, there were no innovations [bidh]
like our age. See Barhn e Qih for a detailed
analysis of Suys Maqid. Allh tl knows best.

Page 90
The questioner asks whether Mawlid is permissible and that j Imddullh also listens to Mawlid; but
Rashd is not impressed:

See Barhn e Qih for a detailed analysis of
Mawlid gatherings; the words or actions of elder
scholars or sufi shaykhs [mashyikh] cannot be
considered a proof.
Rather only the words or actions of the Lawgiver
Hor the opinions of Mujtahid imms
are considered proof [to make anything
permissible]






180

Al-Imdd afar 1336
A disciple of Ashraf l writes to him about his utterance l ilha ill Allh, Ashraf l RaslAllh in a
dream and thereafter in wakeful state, Allahumma alli l sayyidin wa nabiyyin wa mawln
Ashraf l; and Ashraf l assures him that it only indicates that the person he turns to [meaning Ashraf
l himself] is a strict follower of the Prophets tradition.
This is in the periodical Al-Imdd, afar 1336, Page 35






























181

Tadhkiratul Khall
This book is compiled by shiq Ilh Meeruti, the following excerpt is found on page 146 of an edition
published from Sahranpr. This seems to be a first-person account of the famous debate at Bahwalpr
in 1306 AH between Sunns led by Mawln Ghulm Dastagr Qar (a Sunni scholar and senior to
Alahazrat) and Deobandis represented by Khall Amed, who brags about his proofs and debating skill
in this lengthy account of that debate, similar to his empty boasts and lies about Muhannad. If Khall was
such a proficient debater and his mastery of this topic of imkn kadhib was consummate, then why did
he not debate or refute Alahazrat Imm Amed Ri or his classic Subn al-Subb? Anyway, when
Deobandis claimed victory in that debate, Mawln Ghulm Dastagr published a notice in newspapers
challenging Deobandis to debate in front of Ramatullh Kairnw and j Imddullh in Makkah, or
do an imprecation [mubhalah] which was not taken up; thereafter, Mawln Qar went to ajj in
1307 and he translated the proceedings of the debate into Arabic, Taqds al-Wakl,
679
which was
reviewed and attested by Mawln Ramatullh Kairnw, who wrote:
For a long time now, I have been hearing things about Maulavi Rashd Amed, which were not good according to
me. I did not believe that he would have said such things and forbade Maulvi bd al-Sam, a student of mine, in
my correspondence until he came here to Makkah. I would advise him to stay away from disputes and to consider
the scholars of Deoband as his elders. But how far could the poor man forbear and how could he refrain after seeing
all those things which have now reached me I am forced to say that keeping quiet after [seeing and hearing those
things] is against religious uprightness. I used to think that Rashd was a guided person [rashd] but he turned out to
be contrary to my expectation...
In this very endorsement, he mentions that Rashd Amed did not do takfr of Mirz Qdiyn in the
beginning and called him a righteous man, even after the apostate of Qdiyn had uttered
blasphemies. Mawln Ramatullh was also well aware of the manner of Deobandis, and their guru
Rashd Amed Gangoh; therefore he said:
I know that I will be insulted and cursed openly; but when the majority of scholars and righteous men, accomplished
awliya and the Messenger of the Lord of all worlds and even the Creator Himself are not spared from their tongues
and pens, it would be pointless for me to complain.
680

Mawln Ghulm Dastagr apparently posed an objection that a slave [human] can steal, can drink wine,
can be ignorant and can oppress; according to Deobandi claim of Divine Power, would they claim that
it is also in Divine Power to do such abominable things? and in the below refutation, the Deobandi
681

asks why should it not be within Divine Power? If you say that stealing, drinking wine, being ignorant
or oppression are precluded from Divine Power, it is as if you have diminished the Power of the
Almighty and consequently, Divine Power would be lesser than power of humans. al-iydhu billh.
Stealing, drinking wine,
ignorance and oppression
to oppose this is also a
product of a lack of
understanding; because it
appears that for Ghulm
Dastagr, it is not
necessary for the Power of
God to be greater than the
power of His slaves; nor
Gods power over things
[maqdrt] greater than a
slaves power over things;
even though it is a generally accepted principle among kalm scholars that whatever is in the power of the slave [maqdr
al-bd] is also within the power of God.

679
According to the author, he started working on it in 1307 and completed it in 1308; the quotes are from the 1314 edition.
680
Taqds al-Wakl, p307 and p309.
681
It is most likely the first person account of Khall himself or paraphrased by shiq Ilh Meeruti.
182

Appendix D
MORE EXHIBITS
Khall Ambethwi accuses scholars of aramayn of corruption in Barhn al-Qih p18 .














Sir Syeds Tahdhb al-Akhlq mentions the controversy on page 365:
































183

Sir Syeds Tahdhb al-Akhlq mentions scholars who attested fatw of Shaykh bd al-Ramn Sirj on
page 368:


























Shaykh Muammad Thnaws Qists:
















184


Shaykh Muammad Thnaw mentions Shaykh bd al-Ramn Sirj on page 241 of Qists:










And on the following page, the fatw and attestation of Shaykh Ramatullh Kairnw (p242):









And a fatw on page 271 making takfr of those who believe in multiple seals or final prophets.












185


Alahazrat on page 80 of Subn al-Subb, written in 1307 and first published in 1309, withholds from
takfr on imkn al-kadhib:
I seek Allhs refuge. And a thousand
times: sh lillh! I certainly do not
like to make takfr of these people.
Even until now, I still consider these
followers
682
and modern claimants
683

as Muslims, even though there is no
doubt in their heresy and
waywardness. Neither do I issue the
ruling of kufr upon the leader of their
sect;
684
because our Prophet has
warned us from making takfr of
those who say: l ilha ill Allh.
We do not rule them kfir, as long as
we do not possess proof as obvious
and glaringly apparent as the mid-
day sun; and [withhold from takfr]
until the remotest possibility remains
to absolve them from kufr. Because
Islm will certainly prevail and it
cannot be subdued. Yet, I say: Indeed
and undoubtedly, according to a
group of scholars, the ruling of kufr
is impending upon them due to
numerous reasons.

Alahazrat on page 62 of Kawkabatush Shihbiyyah, printed in 1312, withholds takfr of Isml:

In my opinion, the state of utmost caution
bids us to withhold our tongue from
declaring him as kfir; and this is the
preferred and most suitable opinion. And
Allh tl knows best.














682
Followers of Isml Dihlaw; that is Gangoh, Ambethw and other Deobandi followers.
683
Modern claimants of the dead and buried Mtazil belief of falsehood being included in Divine Power.
684
Isml Dihlaw.
186

Alahazrat on page 19-21 of usm al-aramayn, 1325 AH:


































187

This is the fatw of Muft Jalluddn Amed Amjadi in full, Fatw Faqh e Millat, volume 1, p434-435,
printed in 2005 by Shabbir Brothers publishing house.

































188

Fatw Khayriyyah, 1/109








Fatw Bazzziyyah, 6/322






Durar al-ukkm, 1/300


Durr al-Mukhtr, p345







189

These scans are from Zubdatun Nasyi, published in 1267 AH, which contains the reply of Shh bd
al-zz Dihlaw to objections by Muft bd al-akm Punjb.
Page 17







Page 36





Page 42


















190

Scans from mdatu Ahl al-Tawfq wat Tasdd of Imm Sans also known as Shar al-Kubr of Sans,
with marginalia of Shaykh Isml al-mid.
Page 455:
Text:
685

...Considering the second case,
686
[implying] contradiction in His information Glorified and Exalted is He to endorse
a liar [as truthful] is itself a lie; and falsehood is mul for Him ; because everything that He has informed is
according to His Knowledge and therefore truth and the forfeiture [of truth] would mean forfeiture of Knowledge
that necessitates it; and this is mul as you know already that it is wjib.
687










Page 456:
If you say: We have seen amongst us, someone who knows [about something] can give false information about it.
We reply: our argument is about the very [act] of giving information not about words themselves, because such an
attribute for the Creator is impossible [mustal].
...Also, if we could attribute the Creator with falsehood, and all His Attributes are Pre-eternal [qadmah]; which
would mean that Truth is impossible [istilah] for Him even though it is established
688
that He is attributed with
Truth because Knowledge is a necessary attribute for Allh tl; thus it would necessitate [Truth as] impossible even
though you know that Truth is validated [as a necessary attribute].












Alahazrat rightly commented that Wahb/Deobandi idiots try to bring proof from those very texts in
which their refutation is present.


685
d abbreviation for na or the main text; shn is abbreviation for shar or commentary.
686
Which is being informed by Divine Speech or Revelation
687
That is among the fundamental precepts is to know that the Attribute of Knowledge is wjib and its opposite, absence of
knowledge is mul; thus if truth is absent, it would mean knowledge is absent.
688
iati ittifihi: it is correct and validated to attribute Him with Truth.
191

Page 465 of Sanss Kubr; I have left it untranslated because the falsehood mentioned here is not
about Allh tl; which proves that Keller is incapable of reading an Arabic passage but boasts of
correcting errors in manuscripts.




































if al-mn, p4 of Thnaw in which he describes life of RaslAllh in his blessed tomb as barzakhiyyah









192

Appendix E
EXTRACT FROM SHIF: THINGS DEEMED DISBELIEF
From the section: Sayings deemed disbelief, things that are debatable and differed upon and things that are not disbelief.
689


Know that investigation of this issue or clarification in this matter should be according to rulings of the
sharh and there is no scope to make decisions here based on rational thought.
The clear and obvious [decision] in this matter is that anyone who explicitly negates that Allh tl is
the Lord, the Creator, Sustainer or that He is One;
690
or [attests] worship of anyone other than Allh
tl or [others] along with Him is plain kufr. Like what the atheists say [they deny a God] and sayings
of all the sects of dualists, like the Dniyyah or Mnawiyyah
691
and those similar to them among the
Sabians, Christians, Magians and polytheists among those who worship idols or angels or Satan or the
sun, the moon, the stars, fire; or any polytheist from Arab lands, India, China, Sudan or anywhere else
whose roots are not in a revealed religion.
692
Similarly [among explicit kufr are beliefs of] the
Qarmitians,
693
Bins
694
and ayyriyyah
695
sect of Rfis, who believe in immanence and
metempsychosis.
696

Similarly, those who acknowledge that Allh tl is the One and Only God, but also believe that He is
not Living or He is not Eternal, or that He is an accident or that He is created or is anthropomorphic; or
claims that He has a son or a wife or a father or that He has come into existence from something else;
or something else shall issue from him; or something else eternal was alongside in pre-etenity other
than Him; or that someone else created the universe, or governs it, or sustains it, or has dominion over
it all of this is kufr by the unanimous agreement of all Muslims. For example, claims of [certain]
philosophers believing in two gods, astrologers and naturalists;
697
and those who claim conference with
Allh tl or going to him or ascension and conversation with him;
698
or immanence of Allh in some
persons like the claims of false Sufis, Bains, Christians, Qarmiians are all kufr [and those who profess
these beliefs are kfir] without any doubt.
Similarly, that which is absolute kufr is [belief] that the universe is pre-eternal and shall exist without
an end; or has a doubt [that it is neither eternal nor everlasting] following the madhhab of philosophers
and atheists; or believes in transmigration of souls infinitely in certain persons; or that only souls are
punished according to their purity or impurity. All those who believe such are absolutely kfir.

689
Kitb al-Shif, Volume Two: Part Four, Chapter Two. Page 391.
690
rubbiyyah wadniyyah.
691
Those who believe in two gods: light and darkness; the Dniyyah believe that god of light is living and the god of darkness
is dead; whereas the Mnawiyyah say that both are living. [Muzl al-Khaf n Alf al-Shif, fi Shumunn, d.872AH ].
692
l yarji ilal kitb; Christians are also polytheists for worshipping Jesus 7, but their [current] religion is based on a
divinely revealed book which was corrupted later; in contrast to Hindus, Buddhists and Pagan Arabs who worshipped idols
carved of their own fancies and myths.
693
Qarmah: The followers of amdan of Qarmat [d.321AH] which is itself a sub-sect of the Isml Rfiah. Among their
major doctrines is the annulment of sharh.
694
Bin one of the seven titles of Ismls: According to bd al-Qhir Jurjn [d.429AH] they are heretics and apostates who
are similar to atheists and believe in naturalism and that the universe is eternal (uncreated); they disbelieve in Messengers
and divine laws [shariy] and they incline toward permissibility of everything craved or desired by [human] nature. [Farq
bayn al-Firaq, p221].
695
Also known as Janiyyah attributing themselves to the grandson of bdullh ibn Jafar ayyr, he with two wings [dhil
janayn]; they believe that the soul of Allh [al-ydhu billh] transferred into Sayyidun dam and thereafter until bdullh
ibn Muwiyah ibn bdullh ibn Jafar.
696
ull wat tansukh: incarnation; believing in the indwelling of deity in certain persons, and the transmigration of souls.
697
Which is prevalent in our time that nature is responsible for everything that exists; and everything exits by itself without
a creator and the universe sustains by itself.
698
Other than the ascension of RaslAllh or the conversation of Sayyidun Ms 7.
193

Similarly, those who believe in one Supreme Diety, but reject prophets and prophethood entirely; or
reject only the prophethood of our Prophet ; or reject prophethood of any prophet mentioned in the
Qurn after being informed,
699
are all kfirs without a shadow of doubt, like the Brahmins
700
or Jews
701

or the Ursiyyah Christians
702
or the Ghurbiyyah
703
Rfis who claim that Sayyidun Jibrl 7 was
sent to l with the revelation; or the Qaramitians, Ismls and nbariy
704
denominations of Rfis
[all of them are kfir], along with being companions of their predecessors in other kufr
705
as well.
Similarly, those who attest in the Unity of God and accept all prophets including our Prophet , but also
believe that it is permissible for prophets to lie
706
and whatever they claimed or did not claim [falsely],
are with beneficial intent [malaah] like philosophers, some among the Bins and Rawfi, the
extremist Sufis, and the libertines. They say: the apparent rulings of sharh and most of what has been
informed by the Prophets about the past or the future or the hereafter such as resurrection, apocalypse,
paradise, hell are all figurative and metaphorical. They mentioned these things with the beneficial intent
of preaching to people, because common people could not comprehend abstract concepts and were
therefore described [by prophets] in physical terms. Such statements are invalidation of divine laws
brought by prophets and a blatant rejection of commandments and prohibitions; falsification of
prophets and planting doubts in the message brought by them. It is unanimously agreed [ijm] that all
such people are kfirs.
Similarly, if one says that our Prophet deliberately uttered a lie in delivering the message or in
anything that he has informed us; or doubts in his truthfulness or insults him or that he did not deliver
the message or is disrespectful towards him or any other prophet; or finds fault with them or hurts
them or murders a prophet or fights them or is hostile to them; such a person is a kfir by ijm.
Similarly we make takfr of those who follow the madhhab of the ancients who say that every species
of living beings has a warner and prophet among them [for instance, there is a prophet] among
monkeys, pigs and animals, worms and maggots etc; and they try to prove their belief citing the verse:
There has never been a nation without a
warner in their midst
707

Because it implies that prophets can be attributed with such character and deplorable descriptions,
which is derogatory to this exalted office [of prophethood] which is in flagrant opposition to the
unanimous agreement of Muslims rejecting such proposition and that anyone who claims thus is a liar.

699
If an ignorant person doesnt know that Sayyidun Ilys or Sayyidun Dhul Kifl or Sayyidun Dhun Nn [Ynus] are
prophets because he is unaware and denies it, he is not a kfir according to some scholars, even though some others insist that
ignorance is not an admissible excuse in doctrine and things deemed Essentials of Faith. However, after he is informed of their
mention in the Qurn and if he refuses to believe in any of them, he is a kfir without any doubt.
The names of twenty-five prophets are mentioned in qdah al-wm: Adam, Idrs, N, Hd, li, Ibrhm, L, Isml,
Isq, Yqb, Ysuf, Ayyb, Shuyb, Hrn, Ms, Yasa, Dhul Kifl, Dwd, Sulaymn, Ilys, Ynus, Zakariyyah, Yay, s
and Sayyidun Muammad. .
It is necessary to believe in all prophets and messengers and it is recommended that we should not state an exact number of
prophets; however, it is permissible to say: approximately 124,000 prophets. [Shar Fiqh al-Akbar, Shar al-qid].
700
Hindus in general do not recognise prophets or prophethood.
701
Jews deny the prophethood of Sayyidun s Hand Sayyidun Muammad 2.
702
Probably the ancient denomination of Christians, the Arians, who follow Arius of Alexandria who was the primary topic in
the First Council of Nicea, and who opposed the Trinity. Here, Q y says that even though they are Unitarians, they are
still kfirs because of the refusal to believe in our Prophet .
703
Ghurbiyyah: This sect says that the Archangel Jibrl 7 mistook Sayyidun Muammad for Mawl l and gave
him the revelation. This was, according to them, because they resembled each other so much, like a crow [ghurb] resembles
another crow. Hence, the name of their sect.
704
nbariyyah: Followers of baydullh ibn asan al-nbar.
705
Such as slandering Sayyidah ishah etc.
706
Qsim Nnotw deems certain kinds of explicit lies permissible for prophets as he says [Tafiyatul qid, p22]:
Explicit lies [darogh e ar] are also of many kinds and therefore, the ruling is not the same for all of those different kinds [of falsehood]. It is not
necessary for a prophet to be immune [mm] from every kind [of explicit falsehood].
707
Srah Fir, 35:24.
194

Similarly, we make takfr of such a person, who, even though accepts Islmic principles in their [true
form] as explained earlier, and acknowledges the prophethood of our Master , but [also] says that the
Prophet was black,
708
or passed away before he attained maturity, or that he did not live in
Makkah or Hijaz or that he was not from the Quraysh because this would contradict his known
attributes and this would imply denying him or falsification of his person .
Similarly, if one claims prophethood along with our Prophet or after him like the sawiyyah
709
sect of
Jews who say that the prophethood of RaslAllh was limited only for the Arabs or the Khurramiyyah
who claim that prophets keep coming unceasingly, like most of the Rfis who claim that l was a
partner in the prophethood of RaslAllh and after him; and every imm
710
near these people takes
the place of prophets and carries that authority; or the Bazghiyyah or Bayniyyah among these Rfis
who believe in the prophethood of Bizgh and Bayn;
711
all such people are kfir. Anyone who has
similar beliefs concerning prophethood or claims to be a prophet himself, or believes that it is
permissible to earn prophethood by cleansing the heart and attaining that lofty station; like the claims
of philosophers and extremist sufis; also, those who claim that they receive revelation even if he does
not claim to be a prophet or that he rises in the heavens and enters paradise and eats from its fruits and
embraces Houris every one of them is a kfir and has belied the Prophet , because he has informed
us that he is the final prophet and there is no prophet after him.
He has also informed us narrating from Revelation that he is the final prophet and that he has
been sent for all mankind. The entire nation has unanimously agreed [ijm] that these statements
712

are literal and thus it should be understood [literally], without any metaphorical explanation or
exception.
Obviously, there is no doubt in the kufr of all the aforementioned groups; absolutely, by ijm and by
revealed proofs.
713

Similarly, there is ijm on the takfr of any person who rejects the text of the Qurn or takes exception
to that adth upon which there is unanimous agreement that it is absolutely authentic, and
unanimously agreed that its meaning is literal; for instance, takfr of Khawrij who do not accept stoning
[of adulterers].
714

Similarly, we make takfr of a person who abstains from making takfr of all those who follow religions
other than Islm or hesitates in considering them kfir, or doubts that they are kfir, or proclaims
their religion to be valid; even if such a person professes Islm and believes in it; even if he has the belief
that all religions are false except Islm, he is still a kfir for saying that which he does not himself believe.





708
l al-Qr: It is necessary to restrict this to someone who says this as a derogatory remark; but if one says so because of his
ignorance about the attributes of the Prophet , takfr is not appropriate. Because, knowledge about the Prophet being
white [in complexion] is not absolute, nor is it an Essential of Faith. And being dark does not contradict prophethood anyway,
as a group of scholars have held that Luqmn was a prophet [and he is known to be black].
709
Followers of s ibn Isq ibn Yqb al-Abahn, who claimed that the prophethood of RaslAllh was specific only to
Arabs.
710
The twelve imams of Ahl al-Bayt.
711
Bizgh is unknown and Bayn is the son of Isml, the Indian. [l al-Qr].
712
Statements in the Qurn and adth that proclaim RaslAllh as Khtam al-Nabiyyn.
713
dall sam.
714
Whereas it is mentioned in adth of Muwa etc. [Qr].
195

Appendix F
EXTRACT FROM ASHBH: ON APOSTASY
Ashbh wan Nayir of Imm Zaynuddn ibn Ibrhm ibn Nujaym al-anaf [d.970 AH] is an important book on principles of
fiqh in the anaf madhhab organised in seven categories. Category Two: Illustrations; The Book of War: Chapter on
Apostasy
715
comprises of rulings illustrating principles of fiqh.
1. If a person salutes a dhimmi out of reverence [to his faith], he has committed kufr. If a person tells a
Magian
716
My Master with reverence, has committed kufr. [alt al-ahriyyah].
2. In ughr: Kufr is a very grave charge; I will not consider a believer as a kfir, if I can find a
narration
717
that prevents me from making takfr.
718

3. The apostasy of an inebriated person is invalid; except in the case of a person who disrespects the
Prophet , and the blasphemer will be executed without pardon. [Bazzziyyah].
4. The repentance of every kfir is admissible in this world and the hereafter, except those infidels
who blaspheme against our Prophet or any other prophets; or if he insults the two shaykhs [Ab
Bakr and mar ]
719
or one of them; or a sorcerer even if it is a woman; or a zindq if he is
captured prior to his repentance. [Yatmah]
5. Any Muslim who has become an apostate will be executed if he does not repent; however, women
are not executed;
720
those who are Muslims as concomitants
721
or children; or a person who is forced
to accept Islm
722
will not be executed.
6. A person whose Islm is proven by witnesses [one man and two women; or two men] and becomes
an apostate will be executed.
7. The punishment for apostasy is execution, if the apostate does not revert to Islm. All his previous
deeds will be [deemed] destroyed; however, when he reverts to Islm, he need not expiate [qa]
past deeds except ajj, similar to the original disbeliever who becomes a Muslim.
723
The adth an
apostate narrates from others becomes invalid; it is forbidden for others to narrate from him after
his apostasy [Walwalijiyyah].
The apostates wife goes out of wedlock, his endowments become absolutely invalid. If he dies [a
natural death as an apostate] or is executed for apostasy, he shall neither be buried in the graveyard
of Muslims or the graveyard of his community.
724
He shall be shoved in a pit like a mangy cur
because an apostate is worse than the original kfir.

715
Ibn Nujaym al-anaf, Al-Ashbh wan Nayir, 219. Notes are based on Ghamz al-yn al-Bayir, 2/189, commentary of
Ashbh by Amed ibn Muammad al-amaw [d.1098 AH].
716
Magian is mentioned as an example, it could be any kind of kfir.
717
That is, a juridical opinion which prevents me from doing takfr, even if it is the opinion of non-anaf scholars.
718
In Ghamz, these are listed as two statements.
719
Even though the author attributes this to Jawharah, it is not found therein, in spite of examining commonly available copies.
But we, anafs accept the repentance of the blasphemer of prophets unlike Mliks and anbals; then why should the
repentance of a slanderer of Shaykhayn be inadmissible? Rather, none among famous scholars has ever said so [amaw].
720
That is, if a woman becomes an apostate, she will not be executed.
721
For example, the minor whose parents became Muslims and thereafter, he becomes an adult and has not professed faith
after puberty. If such a person becomes an apostate, he will not be executed; because apostasy is reverting from attesting Islm
and here, there is no proof of Islm after puberty.
722
Who became a Muslim by coercion.
723
He/she is not required to expiate obligatory actions like prayer and fasting.
724
Suppose he converts to Christianity, al-ydhu billh, he will not be allowed burial in the Churchyard.
196

8. Faith means to attest [and believe in] the veracity of the Prophet Muammad concerning
everything brought by him ; and is deemed Essential of Faith.
9. Kufr means to belie anything that Prophet Muammad has brought and is deemed Essential of
Faith.
725
Nobody among the People of Qiblah will be deemed kfir unless they deny that which
brought them into Islm in the first place.
726

10. The summary of the opinions of anaf scholars is based on this [principle above] and there are
things that are differed upon but certainly, the fatw [of kufr] is not given in any issue where
scholars have differed upon.
11. Insulting Shaykhayn and cursing them is kufr; but if he elevates l over them, he is a heretic
[Khulah]. In Manqib of Kardar, it is said that anyone rejecting the caliphate of Ab Bakr or
mar , or hates them because of the Prophets love for them is a kfir; however, if he only loves
l more than them both, he is excused.
727

12. In Tahdhb: A person shall become an apostate if he rejects whatever is obligatory to accept, or
mocks Allh tl or the Qurn or any of the prophets.
13. The apostate shall be executed, even if he behaves like a Muslim offers prayer in congregation,
performs ajj with talbiyah.
728

14. If a person rejects [the charge of] apostasy, it is deemed his repentance. If a number of Muslims
attest to his apostasy, and he denies it he will not be prosecuted. This does not mean that righteous
people who bore witness are false rather, his denial
729
is deemed repentance and reversion [Fat
al-Qadr]. But you may object: Just a little earlier you have said that apostasy is proven by two
upright witnesses; what is the use of that clause? My answer: Two upright witnesses are required
to prove that he is an apostate; and denial [of the accused] is repentance so that legal rulings can
be established concerning an apostate, even if he repents; such as erasure of his past deeds,
annulment of endowments, his wife going out of wedlock.
15. When it is said, he will not be prosecuted this refers to an apostate whose repentance is accepted,
not about an apostate whose repentance is inadmissible, such as the blasphemer of the Prophet or
insulting Shaykhayn.
16. Scholars differed concerning the kufr of a person who believes that a Friend of Allh can travel long
distances in a very short span of time.
730

17. If a person says: I wont pray,
731
we do not make takfr unless he means to reject [the obligation].
18. It is not necessary for a person to know the name of the father of Sayyidun Muammad to profess
faith; just the name of the Prophet is sufficient.

725
Everything brought by the Prophet is truth; but not everything that we know is incontrovertibly proven. For example,
there are numerous sunnah which are proven by weak adth, or even an authentic sole-narrator adth could be interpreted
in many ways. Not accepting such a sunnah would not mean that he has rejected the Prophets word. See Imm Fal al-Rasl
Badynis explanation in the chapter on apostasy.
726
That is the shahdah and the declaration of faith.
727
amaw disagreed and said that this opinion is not consistent or reasonable.
728
The pilgrims chant: Labbayk Allahumma Labbayk! Here I am, my Lord! Here I am at your service.
729
Denial here works in case of an utterance; not in the case of people who write, publish and reprint blasphemies. In such
cases, explicit disavowal of these past blasphemies and a renewal of faith and marriage is necessary.
730
This used to be a contention in the past; but now with air travel a person is in Makkah in the morning and in China or
Africa by evening and the very premise that it is not possible, is invalid.
731
In mdiyyah: If a person says about the five obligatory prayers, I dont pray, and he means to reject the command of Allh,
he is a kfir. But if he is merely giving information [that he has this bad habit of not praying] he is not a kfir.
197

19. If a person described the attributes of Allh in front of his wife and she says: I used to suppose that
Allh tl is in the heavens, she has committed kufr.
732

20. If a person says: I am Pharoah or I am Lucifer, he will not be considered a kfir, unless he means
to say that his belief is similar to that of Pharaoh or Lucifer.
733

21. Scholars debated the kufr of a person who said as an apology: I used to be a kfir, now I am
Muslim.
734

22. If someone tells another:
735
you are a kfir and the person replies: yes, I am a kfir. The latter
has become a kfir.
23. One who considers sodomy with his wife as permissible is a kfir according to majority.
736

24. If a person steps on the Qurn in derision he is a kfir; and if a person makes fun of [religious]
knowledge or satirises [religious] scholars, he is a kfir.
737

25. If a person rejects the basis of Witr or Sacrifice
738
is a kfir. If he abandons worship disdainfully, he
is a kfir; but if he abandons prayer out of laziness or some other reason, he will not be ruled kfir.
[Mujtab]
26. If a person claims Knowledge of Unseen,
739
he becomes a kfir; so also, if he/she says: I dont know
Allh tl.
740

27. Making fun of the call to prayer [adhn] is kufr; mocking the caller is not.
28. If a trader
741
says: Kfirs and their countries [hostile to Muslims] are better than Muslims and
Muslim countries, he will not be ruled kfir, unless he means their religion is better.
29. If a person salutes [gives salm to] another and he says: It is an enormity if I reply to your
salutation, he will not be ruled kfir.

732
amaw:
That is only if she said this knowing that it is kufr; but if she was ignorant, she will not become kfir. Because the excuse of ignorance is admissible in
some cases of takfr, even though the general opinion is that of takfr (in spite of the excuse of ignorance). Secondly, this saying itself is debatable
whether it is kufr, because utmost it would attest a direction to Allh tl, and one who does so is a heretic, not an apostate. Even though this would
imply a body, it is not necessary that the person attests a body just because X implies Y, it does not mean X is Y. In Shar Shfiyyah: A slavegirl was
brought to the Prophet and her master wanted to manumit her as expiation. He asked: Where is Allh? and she pointed towards the sky; the
Prophet said: Release her, she is a Muslim.
733
firwn, ibls.
734
This is about common expressions even though it is wild. If one said to another as an apology, meaning I used to be in the
wrong before, but now I see the truth.
735
As illustration, the original uses the example of a woman. If a woman was told: you are kfir... Yet, it applies to all.
736
In Nawdir, it is mentioned that Imm Muammad: Concerning a person who considers sodomy and intercourse with a
woman during her menstrual periods as lawful the correct position is that he is not a kfir.
737
If the person kicks in derision; but if he steps on it accidentally, unknowingly or in duress, he will not become a kfir.
Similarly, if he derides a scholar for his shortcomings, he will not become a kfir but if he is ridiculed because of his affiliation
to Islamic knowledge, it is deemed mockery of religion, hence he will be deemed kfir. amaw mentions a fatw about an
amputee without both hands who writes the Qurn with his toes and says he is not a kfir because this is not done in derision.
738
That is, if he rejects that there is no basis for witr or sacrifice [uiyyah] he is a kfir because it is proven by tawtur;
however, if he does not accept the legal ruling that it is wjib [as in the anaf madhhab] he is not.
739
That is, absolute knowledge of unseen as mentioned by Imm Nawaw in his Fatw.
740
That is, if he says it as an agnostic; but if he indicates ignorance about Allh tl while believing in Him, it is not kufr.
741
Trader is mentioned to indicate that he must have travelled to lands of disbelievers and seen their customs and living
conditions.
198

30. If a person is told: Say, there is no God except Allh and he replies: I will not say so, he will not
become a kfir.
742

31. If a person tells another: Do not be conceited, it will cause your downfall because Ms 7
liked himself which caused him distress;
743
he will be asked to explain what he meant; if his
explained meaning is one of kufr, he will be ruled a kfir.
32. If a person says, My wife is more beloved to me than Allh tl and his intention is mundane love,
then he will not become kfir; but if means love as in reverence and worship, he is a kfir.
33. If a person worships an idol, he becomes a kfir, regardless of what he professes in his heart.
34. Similarly, if one makes fun of the saying of the Prophet ; or exposes his privates [when the adth
is mentioned], he becomes a kfir.
35. Similarly, if he makes the image of Sayyidun s 7 to worship him, he becomes a kfir.
36. So also if he makes an idol [for worship] he becomes a kfir.
37. Similarly, disrespecting the Qurn or mosques or any such thing which is revered in Islm, is kufr.
38. Similarly using unclean things in places where it is forbidden to use,
744
if he does it by way of
derision, he becomes a kfir.
39. If a person wears the zunnr for Jews or Christians, regardless whether he enters their places of
worship or not, he becomes a kfir.
745
If he says, I did so to make fun of them, he will be believed.
40. If anyone doubts in the veracity and truth of Prophet , or insults him, or denigrates him, or belittles
him or uses a diminutive to describe him , such a person is a kfir.
746

41. If one uses a diminutive to describe a mosque, scholars have differed whether he is a kfir; but the
correct position is, that he is not a kfir.
747

42. Similarly, if one wishes that Allh tl should not have sent the Prophet , if he says this without
enmity [he will not be a kfir].
43. If one deems a licentious person as a prophet, he becomes a kfir; because such things are
unbecoming of a prophet.
748


742
Unless he means to reject that credo and belief in Allh or monotheism, in which case there is no doubt of his kufr.
743
This is difficult to translate and may sound absurd in English. The words used are jb and halak if such words are used for
prophets, with the intention of common usage which is disrespectful, the person becomes kfir; but if he uses these words but
does not intend the disrespectful meaning, he will not be a kfir.
744
For example, blood, alcohol and urine are impure [najsah] and if one uses these to write the Qurn, it is arm if it is done
as novelty etc; but if it is done derisively or challenging religious laws, it is kufr.
745
Zunnr: girdle or a belt. If a Muslim would wear them, it is as if he is telling others: I am a Jew or Christian, which is kufr;
or if he is trying to ridicule Islm. hence the comment regardless whether he enters a synagogue or a church.
746
The word used here is taghr. amaw says: That is if one uses the diminutive form of the Prophets name or his blessed
body, the person becomes a kfir instantly. In Fatw ahriyyah, if a person says about the hair of the Prophet as a hairlet
[diminutive] he becomes a kfir if his intention is to denigrate; another group of scholars disagreed and said sometimes
diminutives are used to describe a thing or person with respect and reverence, as a figure of speech.
747
This is because of the adth narrated by Ab Hurayrah that the Prophet said: Do not call a mosque or the copy of the
Qurn with their dimunitive forms [that is, masjid as a musayjid and muaf as a muayaf].
748
That is, prophets are pure and immaculate and this person has denigrated the exalted station of prophethood.
199

44. If a person attributes immorality or indecency to prophets, such as desire or intention to commit
adultery in the case of Sayyidun Ysuf 7, the person becomes kfir because it is derogatory
to prophets; though some have said, that he doesnt become a kfir [in certain circumstances].
749

45. If a person says that prophets have not made errors during or prior to their prophethood, he
becomes a kfir because it is rejection of Qurnic verses.
750

46. If a person does not know [or acknowledge] that Sayyidun Muammad is the last of all prophets,
such a person is [certainly] not a Muslim because this tenet is an Essential of Faith.
751









749
The correct position is that he is a kfir; if a person assumed that it was possible prior to prophethood or mentions the
Qurnic verse and takes its literal meaning. Those who disagreed were being extra careful in takfr. This certainly does not
mean that anyone can say anything about prophets and cite this opinion. This opinion is restricted to such words mentioned
in the Qurn and adth, and in no manner permitted in other languages.
750
amaw:
This is problematic, because Q y and others have said that prophets are divinely protected from sin; from both small sins and enormities; both
prior to and after their prophethood; both unknowingly and deliberately. Proofs for these are found in abundance, in books of Kalm. Indeed, if the
sentence means kufr of such a person [who says prophets did not sin]; this is about common folk who only know the Qurn text and its literal meaning;
but if it is a person who knows that such words are not to be taken literally and requires interpretation, such a person will not be ruled kfir. I say, this
opinion requires further clarification because the preferred ruling is that ignorance is acceptable in the topic of ikfr-takfr and Allh tl guides on
the path of righteousness.
Someone answered it partially and said: This statement concerns a person who mentions the verse:

[Srah H, 20:121] and says,

they did not make any errors that are proven. Which would necessitate rejection of this verse; but if any person takes this verse to mean an enormous
sin [kabrah] he is a kfir. I say: Belying or rejection of the verse is only in the case of an ordinary person who does not know anything else other than
Qurn verses. We have said earlier that ignorance is an admissible excuse in takfr and Allh tl alone Knows the manifest and the hidden; but this
answer is incomplete. It appears to me that this is a spurious addition in our madhhab because it is unimaginable that anyone in our madhhab
would take this route!
It is also said that due to copyists mistake, a mm has been erased in this sentence lam yam became lam yu. That is, If a person believes that
prophets are not divinely protected from sin prior and after their prophethood - becomes a kfir because such a statement contradicts scriptural
texts and by elision of mm, it means the exact opposite. . Detailed proofs for this position is found in books of Kalm, and I have
written a book on this topic titled: Itf al-Adhkiy bi Tarri Mas-alati mah al- Anbiya. Allh tl guides towards the straight path.
751
And ignorance is not an admissible excuse to avoid takfr in the case of Essentials of Faith.
200

Appendix G
EXTRACT FROM SHIF: THE SEVEN CASES
Q y explains seven cases statements or actions considered as blasphemy. Some illustrations of these concern explicit and
intentional insults and some others are implied and unintentional. Q y mentions rulings in all these cases.
752

The Q says: [The First Case:] We have mentioned earlier that whosoever intentionally disrespects
or disparages him in whatever manner regardless of whether such description is possible or
impossible
753
such a person is executed. This is a clear-cut case and there is no reason for confusion
nor anything problematic about it.
The Second Case: is similar to the previous one in its wording and explicitness; however, the utterer
does not say it with the intention of insulting or disparaging the Prophet , nor does he believe in such
things. But he has [nevertheless] uttered blasphemies words of kufr:
that criticise him or insult him or belie him;
or attribute things to him which are forbidden to say about him or negate something which is
obligatory for him;
or attributes a flaw or fault to him such as accusing him of commiting a major sin or flattery
or cajolery when he preached to others or [when he] delivered the message, or in his
adjudication between disputing parties;
or says things that diminish the lofty rank Allh tl has bestowed upon him, or [disparages]
his noble lineage or [degrades] the extensiveness of his knowledge or his austerity;
or if a person denies things informed by him, when such reports are well-known and have
reached the level of tawtur, [if such denial is in the form of] seeking to reject his opinion;
or if a person talks about him in a rude and brusque manner, or speaks about him in vulgar and
uncouth words or any other form of abusive speech;
Even if the person proves that he has not deliberately said any of this to deride him ; or intended to
insult or disparage him whether it was ignorance that made him say such things or because he was
discontented or disgruntled, or he was inebriated, or he blurted it out without thinking or it slipped
from his tongue, or because of haughtiness or impudence, or impetuousity and recklessness; in all such
cases, the ruling is the same as in the first case that is, execution without further deliberation or any
hesitation, because the excuse of ignorance [in such cases] which cause apostasy is inadmissible, nor
the excuse of slip of the tongue, nor any other excuse which I have mentioned above as long as the
person is sane and has not lost his reason. Except a person in duress, who utters such things due to
coercion as long as faith is undisturbed in his heart. It is therefore, that the Andalusian scholars
decreed against Ibn tim when he repudiated the zuhd of RaslAllh , as mentioned earlier.
Muammad ibn Sann said concerning the blasphemy committed by prisoners,
754
that they should be
executed except in the case of such prisoners who became Christians
755
or those who were compelled
to utter blasphemies.

752
Kitb al-Shif, Volume Two: Part Four, Chapter Two. p364.
753
Khafj: things which are possible such as human errors and things which are impossible by Law [mumtani sharn] such
as falsehood because being always truthful is his miracle.
754
According to Khafj, those imprisoned by non-Muslims in hostile lands or incarcerated by disbelievers, such as Muslims in
Guantanamo Bay or Ab Ghraib in Iraq or Israeli jails in our times.
755
That is, if they commit blasphemy after becoming apostates; they will be asked to repent and let off if they repent, opposed
to a Muslim who commits blasphemy who is executed without repentance [according to Malikis]. In other versions of Shif
the sentence reads: except where the prisoner is compelled to utter blasphemy and his reluctance to do it as well as faith
being firm in his heart is known.
201

Ab Muammad ibn Ab Zayd
756
said that no one will be spared nor any excuse citing slip of the tongue
will be admissible in such cases [of blasphemy]. Similarly, Abul asan al-Qbis issued a fatw that
whoever insulted the Prophet even in a state of intoxication shall be executed, because it appears that
the person must have held such beliefs in soberness and probably says such things when he is not drunk
and this is statutory punishment [add] which is not excusable, like the case of [unjust] accusation of
adultery or murder or other add punishments as he is responsible for this himself. Because when a
person knowingly [and of his own free choice] gets drunk, in full knowledge that he may commit a crime,
is the same as a person who commits a crime intentionally. Based on this, we consider valid, the divorce
or manumission [by a drunk] and punishment in case of homicide [qi] and other punishments.
One cannot pose an objection citing the case of Sayyidun amzah when he said addressing the
Prophet , You are all the slaves of my father. The Prophet recognised that he was inebriated and
left him [without reprimanding him]. This was because wine was not forbidden at that time, and
therefore a crime committed under the influence of alcohol was not a sin; and whatever said [in such a
state] was pardonable similar to a person talking in his sleep or in a state of reduced consciousness
while using certain permissible medications.
757

The Third Case: When a person intends to belie his words
758
and seeks to falsify his message or rejects
his prophethood or messengership
759
or denies his existence or disbelieves in him does such a person
transfer to another religion by these statements or not? [The answer is:] such a person is [very much]
an apostate by ijm and he shall be executed. The statement of such a person is analysed, and if
statement is explicit and openly said, he is judged similar to an apostate. Scholars have debated whether
his repentance is requisitioned; [some have accepted it] and according to the second opinion, this
person will not be spared the death penalty, even if he repents, because of [his violating] the right of
RaslAllh .; this is in case he utters something which is disparaging such as an accusation of lying etc.
If he keeps such things clandestine and says them in private, he is similar to a zindq and will not be
spared execution according to Mlik scholars as I shall explain later; Ab anfah and his students said
that whosoever distances himself from Sayyidun Muammad or belies him is an apostate and his
blood is no more immune
760
except if he reverts. Ibn al-Qsim said, if a Muslim says that Sayyidun
Muammad is not a Prophet or that he was not sent [by Allh tl] as a Messenger or the Qurn was
not revealed to him or any such slander, shall be executed. Any Muslim who rejects or disbelieves in
RaslAllh is [akin to] an apostate
761
and similarly, one who publicly belies the Prophet is dealt
with as an apostate and is requisitioned to repent.
Similarly, if one declares himself to be a prophet and claims that he receives revelation [he is an apostate
and will be asked to revert and repent] as said by Sann.
762
Ibn al-Qsim said regardless of whether he
makes this claim discreetly or proclaims it openly. Abagh said: Such a person is an apostate as he has
disbelieved in the book of Allh tl and attributed a lie to Him.
763

Ash-hab said concerning a Jew who purports to be a prophet and claims that he was given a message
[by revelation to give] to the people or if he tells [Muslims]: There shall be a prophet after your
Prophet, he shall be asked to repent if he says such things in public if he repents, he is spared or else

756
Ibn Ab Zayd al-Qayrawn [310-386 AH] famous Mlik jurist known for his Epistle.
757
That which may cause drowsiness in Q ys time, this would be some sort of a mild narcotic, like small quantities of
opium; and in our time many drugs painkillers and antibiotics induce sleep, drowsiness and carry a warning against driving
when using such medications.
758
Khafj: If a person knowingly accuses him of telling a lie or seeks to belie him.
759
Refuses to believe that he was a prophet and a messenger of Allh. Even though this is a form of disrespect, it is different
than other kinds of insult like Jews and Christians do it will not be considered as blasphemy in our madhhab as it shall be
explained presently.
760
That is, he will be executed.
761
There is no doubt that he is an apostate; but wherever the phrase akin to an apostate similar to an apostate is used, it is
meant to indicate the ruling and the difference between an apostate, and a blaspheming apostate.
762
Khafj suggests that it is Sanns opinion.
763
Khafj: Firyah here means attributing a lie to Allh tl that He has given the claimant revelation.
202

executed. This is because he has belied the Prophet when he said: There is no prophet after me and
has lied and falsely alleged that Allh tl has made him a prophet or a messenger.
Muammad ibn Sann said: Anyone who doubts a single letter
764
that Sayyidun Muammad has
brought from Allh tal, is an obstinate kfir. And he said: The punishment for whoever belies the
Prophet , according to [the agreement of] our nation is that he shall be executed. Sanns student
Amed ibn Ab Sulaymn said: Whoever says that the Prophet was black shall be executed because
the Prophet was not black. Ab thmn al-addd said similarly: If one says that the Prophet
passed away [young] even before he had facial hair, or that he lived in Tahert
765
or denies that the
Prophet did not live in Tihmah
766
such a denier will be executed as he rejects the Prophets well-
known attributes. abb ibn Rab said, Altering his attributes [deliberately] and describing him
unlike his appearance; or denying his ___location
767
is kufr; if a person says such things openly, he is an
apostate and will be requisitioned to repent; and if he mentions this in private, he is considered a zindq
and shall be executed without any requisition for repentance.
The Fourth Case: When someone says something generic or cryptic; or ambiguous words which could
either refer to the Prophet or to someone else. Or if the meaning of what he said could be either valid
or invalid [depending on the interpretation] and therefore merits further investigation, this becomes a
perplexing topic such that mujtahid scholars find it debatable and hence the conflicting opinions and
adherent-scholars
768
are reluctant to take a stand and excuse themselves by following the opinion of
mujtahid scholars. Consequently, some are spared and some go to the gallows, depending on the
outcome of the prosecution. Such [scholars and judges] who focused on defending the honour of the
Prophet were bold in handing the death penalty; and those who focused on the gravity of shedding a
Muslims blood withheld from handing strict sentences due to ambiguity of such statements.
769

[For example] our imms differed in the case of a person who was angered by an adversary who told
him: Send blessings on the Prophet and the person blurted: May Allh never bless the person who
prayed for blessings upon him . Sann was asked about this person whether he had insulted the
Prophet or angels [because they] send blessings upon him ; and he replied No, if he has said it in
anger without thinking about the consequences and did not intend to insult the Messenger of Allah .
Ab Isq al-Barq and Abagh ibn al-Faraj said that he will not be executed because he has insulted
others
770
and not the Prophet . This is similar to Sanns opinion because he did not excuse the
person on account of anger
771
in blasphemy of the Prophet , but because the statement was ambiguous
requiring clarification and he did not have sufficient corroborative evidence for establishing
blasphemy of the Prophet or derision of angels; nor did he know the complete speech which could
provide the proper context of such a statement; rather, the situation indicates that the persons ire was
directed at the other man.
This is consistent with the reasoning of both his companions [mentioned earlier]. However, the judge
rith ibn Miskn and others opined that in such cases, the utterer will be executed. Abul asan al-
Qbis was reluctant to order the execution of a person who said: Every innkeeper is a pimp,
772
even if
he is a prophet, and he ordered the person to be imprisoned and reprimanded until he understood the

764
Khafj: That which is reported that bdullh ibn Masd denied the last two chapters of the Qurn [muwwidhatayn]
is incorrect and is commonly agreed by scholars as false. Suppose, hypothetically the report is correct, even then it would only
mean that an ijm was not established at that time but after the ijm is established, anyone who denies it is an apostate as
Muammad ibn Sann is cited later in the book [Shif].
765
Tahart, Tiaret or Tahert is a town in Algeria and is close to Tlemcen [Tilimisn] and in the time of the Prophet it used to
be an Arab settlement in Berber Northern Africa.
766
Tihmah is the Red Sea coastal plain of Arabia, and the northern part where Jeddah, Makkah etc., are located is known as
Tihmah al-ijz.
767
That he lived in Makkah and Madnah.
768
muqallid.
769
Since the statement was ambiguous, the latter group of scholars were careful and chose to err on the side of caution.
770
His statement refers to the other man with whom he has the argument, not the Prophet himself.
771
Khafj: blasphemy of the Prophet is inexcusable, even if one does it in anger.
772
qarunn, a cuckold or a person who brings men to his own wife or his daughters or sisters etc. [Khafj 6/225]
203

implication of his utterance. Such a person is asked to clarify whether he meant innkeepers of our time
and since it is known fact that there is no prophet in our time, his sentence is lighter. However, the
apparent meaning of this statement is generic that includes innkeepers in the past as well as the
present, and there are among prophets and messengers in the past who were wealthy.
773
The blood of
a Muslim is precious and we cannot hasten unless the case is amply clear; if a problematic statement is
open for interpretation, it is essential to analyse it at length and seek further clarification.
Concerning a person who said: May Allh damn the Arabs; may Allh damn the Children of Israel; may
Allh damn the children of dam and he did not intend prophets among them rather his intention
was the oppressors and tyrants among them; Ab Muammad ibn Ab Zayd al-Qayrawn is reported
to have ruled for reprimanding and disciplining such a person and punish as much is permissible for
the Sultan.
774
Similarly he issued a fatw concerning the person who said: May Allh tl damn the
person
775
who forbade intoxicants and says I dont know who forbade it. Or if a person curses the
adth: The local [trader] cannot sell to the bedouin.
776
If such a person is ignorant of the adth, he
will be reprimanded severely because on the outward, this person did not intend to blaspheme against
Allh tl or His Messenger ; rather, he referred to other common men who forbade it. Similar to this
is the speech of foolish masses; [such as a person] who abuses another and says: O son of a thousand
pigs or a hundred dogs because undoubtedly in such a large number of forefathers, there might be
prophets and quite probably this figure may end up with Sayyidun dam 7. It is necessary to
reprimand such a person and explain the stupidity of his utterance; however, if it is known [credibly]
that he indeed included the prophets in the forefathers, then he shall be executed. Similarly, if a person
tells a Hshimi:
777
may Allh tl damn the children of Hshim the scope for interpretation becomes
very narrow. If the person claims that: I intended the tyrants among them or if a person says similar
things to a descendant of the Prophet and in full knowledge that he is the descendant of the Prophet
or says ugly things about his forefathers or ancestry or his children; because it is difficult to justify an
exclusion of the Prophet while making such a generalisation. I have seen the fatw of Ab Ms ibn
Mans where he ordered the execution, if proven, of a person who told another: May Allh damn you
[and your forefathers] until dam 7.
I say:
778
our masters have differed on the issue of a person who bore witness and then said: Do you
accuse me of [false witness]? The other person replied: Even prophets have been slandered and you
are of a lesser consequence. Our shaykh Ab Isq ibn Jafar ruled for his execution owing to the
odiousness of the words he has used; but Q Ab Muammad ibn Manr refrained from executing
him because those words can be interpreted according to him that is, the second person could be
mentioning a historical fact of how the infidels slandered prophets; the Q of Cordova Ab bdullh
ibn al-ajjj ruled similarly. However, the judgement of Q Ab Muammad was far more stricter and
he ordered the person to be chained and jailed and made him to swear an oath that he had been
untruthful; and then released him.
779

I witnessed [a case dealt by] Q Ab bdullh ibn s in his tenure about a person who abused
another person named Muammad, and then kicked a dog and said: Stand up O Muammad. The

773
Thus insinuating against prophets and therefore, the ruling would be more severe. Khafj says that innkeeper is a
metaphor for a wealthy trader.
774
But not the death penalty, owing to the vagueness in the case.
775
Khafj: At the outset, this is apostasy and earns the death penalty, because intoxicants were forbidden by the lawmaker;
that is, the Prophet .
776
This is the part of a famous adth recorded in many books including the two as: nah RaslAllh n yab irun
li-bad and wa l ba irun li-bad with slight variations [Bukhr, 2158-2163]. In other narrations, it is not absolute and
has a qualifier: he cannot sell without an agent as a go-between. It is an extensively discussed issue and various explanations
have been offered; Ibn ajar mentions that the anafs qualified this as sale in times of duress and inflation where the local
trader may rip off the unknowing bedouin (or a non-local buyer) who is in need of that particular item; whereas Imm Mlik
said that it is specific for bedouins and does not include other rural areas, because they are aware of prices and the state of
trade [Fat al-Br, #2158, 5/632].
777
The Muslim progeny of Hshim, the great-grandfather of RaslAllh .
778
In the text: The Q may Allh tl give him guidance and success says
779
Qr: This is not about the original case of witness [shuhd] but related to his unjust accusation of prophets.
204

person who said this denied it, but a number of people bore witness that he certainly said so; the Q
ordered the person to be jailed and investigated whether this person spent time in the company of
agnostics and dhimmis. When it was found that the person was not inimical to Islm per se, the Q
had him lashed and then released him.
The Fifth Case: If a person does not intend to denigrate the Prophet , nor disparages him or insults
him, but his speech is indicative of it, when he mentions certain attributes of the Prophet , or certain
situation that are permissible for the Prophet in mundane matters; the person mentions these by way
of analogy, or to exonerate his own self or others, or by way of comparison with the Prophet or he
encounters an embarrasing situation;
780
he does not mention these as historical facts or an example to
follow; but rather to elevate himself or others by way of positing similitude
781
lacking respect due to
the Prophet , or by way of small talk or trying to be novel. For example, when a person says:
What if bad things are said about me, people have said bad things about the Prophet
What is [extraordinary] if I am belied; even prophets have been belied;
What is [extraordinary] if I commit a sin? Even prophets have sinned;
How can I be safe from the tongues of men when prophets and messengers were not safe from
them;
I have been patient similar to the patience of the Prominent Messengers;
782
or as patient as
Ayyb;
The Prophet was more patient and forbearing with his enemies more than I had to bear;
Like the poet Mutanabbi
783
has said:
I am among this nation, may Allh tl set them right
As unwelcome as Salih was among his community

Similar is the poetry of the profligate and reckless folk, like Marr
784
has said:
You are like Ms whom the daughter of Shuyb came to,
Except there is no beggar among either of you
785

The second line is worse and it is an explicit insult of the Prophet Ms Hbecause of [the
poets] elevating a non-prophet over him. Similarly, he has said:
If Revelation had not ceased with Muammad
We would say: Muammad
786
is akin to his father
787

He is similar to him in superiority, except that
Jibrl did not come to him with Revelation


780
Clearly, such a person does not mention the trials of the Prophet as an example to follow, but mentions it to justify his
position or rationalise the situation or to ward off criticism by citing the Prophets name.
781
Khafj exclaims: Comparison with him ? Where is Pleiades, and where is dust of the earth? ayn al-thurayya wa ayn al-
thar.
782
ulul zm.
783
Ab Tayyib al-Jf [303-345 AH] famous poet and literary figure; at one time, he claimed to be a prophet and hence the
sobriquet mutanabb. He was arrested and he repented and reverted to Islm and confined himself to composing poetry;
much later he was killed on his way to Baghdad.
784
Amed ibn bdullh Abul la al-Marr [d. 449 AH] was a famous literary figure and poet; blind from birth and accused
of zandaqah; it is said that he was inclined towards the religion of Brahmins.
785
Here he alludes to the verse where Sayyidun Ms Hsays in gratitude to the Lord Almighty: My Lord, truly, I
am in need of the good sustenance you give me. [Srah al-Qaa 28:24].
786
Khafj mentions that he was a descendant of RaslAllh ; Qr says that it was Muammad ibn Rashd al-bbs.
787
By father, he refers to RaslAllh , which according to Tilmisn is kufr as it contradicts verse 40 of Srah Azb.
205

The first part of the second line is the worst because he compares a non-prophet with the Prophet in
superiority; and the following part can possibly render two meanings;
788
the first is that it diminishes
the state of the person being praised in this distich, and the second is his being free of this attribute,
which is worse.
789
Similar is the saying of another:
790

When the Standards were raised
They fluttered vigorously amidst the wings of Jibrl
791


Another contemporary
792
has said:
He fled from paradise and dwelt in our neighbourhood
May Allh give peace to the heart of Riwn
793


assn al-Ma, an Andalusian poet said about Muammad ibn bbd al-Mtamid and his minister
Ab Bakr ibn Zaydn:
As if Ab Bakr is Ab Bakr,
assn is assn and you are Muammad
794


Even though it is burdensome for us to narrate such things, we have mentioned many examples only to
illustrate the laxity and brazenness of ignorant people and the recklessness with which they indulge in
them, considering such a grave issue as a trifling matter. They are ignorant of the dire consequences of
such utterances they deem it insignificant but near Allh tl it is enormous. Particularly in the
speech of poets, and the worst of them are Ibn Hniy al-Andalusi and Ibn Sulaymn al-Marr much of
their poetry falls into the disparaging variety and disrespect and explicit kufr which we have refuted
earlier. The reason I have mentioned them here is to provide illustrations for this [fifth] case. Even
though none of these lines not just the ones of Marr were intended to disparage prophets or angels
by those who uttered them, nevertheless they have not been mindful of the lofty station of prophetood
nor the eminence of messengership; nor respected the Chosen One or regarded his honour ; rather he
compared lesser ones to him for glory
795
and to enliven and enthrall the congregation, by using his
name; he, whom Allh tl has honoured, elevated his rank and made it obligatory to respect him
such that Allah forbade speaking loudly in his presence.
Such a person [who utters these things], even though he escapes the death penalty, still deserves to be
reprimanded and imprisoned and the punishment given to him will be according to the severity of his
speech and the ugliness of its implication, whether such things are frequent occurrences with him or
whether it was an aberration, whether the context of his utterance can be interpreted favourably and
whether he is remorseful about it. Our elders have firmly rejected such things, like [Hrn] Rashd
refuted Ab Nuws lines:
If anything from the sorcery of the Pharoah remains with you,
Then verily, [know that] the Staff of Ms is in these fecund hands!
796


788
Qr and Khafj both note that both possibilities are kufr.
789
First Meaning: Muammad [the ruler Marr is praising] would be almost like him, except that he does not have way
[that is he lacks this attribute and hence is imperfect]. Second Meaning: Muammad [the ruler of Marrs time] is almost
like him, and he does not even have Way [the attribute of Way is discounted as inconsequential].
790
Khafj: It is from the ode of the poet Zayd ibn bd al-Ramn ibn Mn al-Asyf al-Maghribi.
791
Jibrn is a variant of Jibrl; Qr says that the poet has denigrated the Archangel, and Khafj says that it might not be
disrespectful after all if the standards are considered as those from Jihad.
792
Contemporary of Q y.
793
Rizwn in Persian/Urdu, guards the door of paradise. Qr says that Riwn is the correct pronunciation [Shar Shif
2/543].
794
Here the imbecile compares the vizier to the companion Ab Bakr , himself to the Prophets poet assn and the ruler
to the Prophet . We seek Allhs refuge from such depravity.
795
Expecting it from the ruler whom he praised thus.
796
Khafj: Ab Nuws refers to Hrn Rashd, Commander of the Faithful. In 2012, hir Jhangvi of Minhajul Quran used a
similar analogy in Hyderabad, India. Referring to a local speechmaker named Kazim Pasha, he said: ...his Staff of Ms is
sufficient and will take account of such things.. Unfortunately, there was no Rashd to rebuke this impostor.
206

Rashd said: O son of an uncouth hag! Do you mock the staff of Ms 7? And he ordered him to
be kicked out of the army that very night. Among such verses criticised as either kufr or approaching
kufr is one mentioned by Qutayb where [Ab Nuws] says praising Muammad al-Amn and compares
him with the Prophet :
797

The two Ameds resemble each other so much
In appearance and in character, like [two] similar shoe laces.
798


Another criticised distich [of Ab Nuws] is:
How can you remain far from [attaining what you] hope
When the Messenger of Allh belongs to his clan
799


The right of the Messenger of Allah and his esteem is to mention others in relation to him; not to
mention the Messenger of Allh in relation with others. We have mentioned the legal ruling in such
cases and the imm of our madhhab, Mlik ibn Anas S and his companions have ruled likewise. In
Nawdir, through the report of Ibn Ab Maryam about a man who was taunted by another for his poverty
and he said: Do you taunt me for being poor? The Prophet has tended sheep.
800
Mlik said: This
person has mentioned the Prophets case in an unsuitable manner, he should be reprimanded. He also
said: If those who commit sins are rebuked, they should not say Prophets have commited errors prior
to us. mar ibn bd al-zz told a person: Find me a scribe whose father is an Arab, His scribe said:
The Prophets father was a disbeliever. mar said: Is this an example to cite? and he dismissed him
and told him: Dont you ever write for me.
801

Sann disliked the practice of saying the blessings upon the Prophet when one encounters
something which surprises him; and that it should be said only with the intention of attaining reward
and to honour the Prophet , as Allh tl has commanded us to do. Qbis was asked about someone
who told an ugly person that his face was like that of Nakr, and to another scowling person that his face
looked like angry Mlik.
802
Munkar and Nakr are two inquisitor angels who question the dead in their
graves. This could either mean that the person is frightening in looks like Nakir or that he hates the
person and degrades him; the latter is more severe and could be insulting or degrading to an angel.
Yet, this is not explicitly disparaging or degrading an angel because he is insulting the person that he
has addressed; such a person should be reprimanded, punished by lashing him and given a prison
sentence. Similar is the case about the person who used the example of the angel Mlik, that is he did
not intend to insult the angel and if he did, he would receive the death penalty.
A young man, known for his piety and righteousness was saying something and another person rebuked
him: Shut up, you are an illiterate. The young man said: Was the Prophet not among those who are not
read?
803
People rejected this statement and made takfr of the young man, which pained him and he
was genuinely remorseful and penitent. Abul asan [al-Qbisi] said: Making takfr of this person is
incorrect; however, he has made an error in his analogy. The Prophet having not learned to read and

797
Shumunn: He is the son of [Hrn] Rashd ibn al-Mahd.
798
Qr: This is explicit kufr and impossible to interpret favourably, except if he claims that by Amed he meant someone else
other than the Prophet . Instead of twoMuhammads, he said two Ahmeds to maintain the meter.
799
Qr says that nafar as in servant is modern usage, and here it is meant as clan. Instead of saying: This Amir belongs to the
family of RaslAllh he does it in reverse thereby disrespecting the Prophet.
800
Qr: The Prophet did not tend to sheep as an occupation or grazed other peoples sheep for pay; he did it of his own
accord [and as mercy to animals] this was not disreputable in the community. However, in Bukhr the word Qarr/Qr is
mentioned and debated whether it is the name of a place or whether it is a sum of money. See Fat al-Br, #2262.
801
Khafj says that it is implicit proof that the parents of the Prophet were Muslim.
802
Mlik the Angry is the guardian of hell.
803
The word used in Arabic is umm which means illiterate when referring to common people; but describes one who has not
learned to read and write from others in case of the Prophet . Haytami says that it is derived from the word umm or mother;
that is, the person is as unlettered as a newborn; or it is derived from ummah, the community, because the Arabs were mostly
illiterates like it is said in the adth reported in both Bukhr and Muslim, We are an unlettered nation; we neither make
calculations nor do we write. [Al-mdah f Shar Al-Burdah].
207

write
804
is a miracle, but such an attribute is a flaw for the young man; and it is out of ignorance that he
has used the example of the Prophet to justify his own self. However, if he repents and does istighfr
and is ashamed of his deed, he shall be acquitted because his statement is not as serious as to obligate
the death penalty.
Another such issue was raised to our shaykh, Ab Muammad Manr, by the judges of Andalus about
a person who told another who degraded him: You degrade me for my flaws? All humans, even the
Prophet is not free from imperfection. Our shaykh gave him a lengthy and rigorous prison sentence,
but some other judges of Andalus ruled for the death penalty.
The Sixth Case: When one cites or reports blasphemies of others. The context of the citation, his actual
words and situation will be taken into account for the ruling and it varies accordingly in four possible
categories:
1. Obligatory / Wjib
2. Preferrable / Nadb
3. Disliked / Makrh
4. Forbidden / arm
If a person mentions them in his testimony against a blasphemer and to inform others, and to reject and
refute such speech; and to make it known to the public so that they abhor the blasphemer and criticise
him then such a narration is required and whoever does this is praiseworthy; similarly, if he mentions
such things in a book or in a gathering to refute and quash such blasphemies or to issue a fatw related
to such utterances. This is obligatory
805
or recommended for him depending on the situation and the
state of the person who narrates and the one about whom such a narration is made.
If the person who uttered [such blasphemies] is a person known to be a scholar or a teacher, [a shaykh
or a muft], or a adth scholar and narrator, or a person in authority
806
or known to be a reliable witness
or a well-known jurist then it is obligatory for whosoever hears [such a thing from him] to expose him
and make the public aware of what has been heard from him and to make people dislike such a person,
to bear witness against such a person and what he has said; it is obligatory for scholars and leaders in
the Muslim community to repudiate such a person and clearly communicate the kufr of this person and
the monstrosity of his ugly speech so that Muslims are safeguarded from the evil of such a person and
the right of the Leader of Messengers is well established. Similarly, if that person [who has uttered a
blasphemy] is a preacher or a schoolmaster; if this be the things in his heart, then how can he be trusted
to teach the love and reverence of RaslAllh to those in his care or his audience?
It is definitely obligatory to publicise the blasphemies of such people
807
for the right of the Prophet
and the right of the Sharh. If the blasphemer is not a scholar or a person of religious authority, even
then defending the right of the Prophet and guarding his honour is a religious duty; and to support him
against those who seek to hurt him, whether in his worldly life or after his passing is a right upon every
believer. However, if one person stands to fulfil this duty
808
in the service of the Messenger, to aid the
Truth and establish the ruling, then the responsibility is waived from others and it is not obligatory on
all others anymore yet, it is recommended for others to attest this persons actions and support him
to warn against the evil of the blasphemer.
Our elders have unanimously agreed that it is necessary to document and publicise the state of a adth
narrator accused of lying then what about this man [who has blasphemed against the Nabiy ]? Ab
Muammad ibn Abi Zayd was asked about a witness who has overheard such things about Allh tl

804
Yet, he has brought such knowledge and wisdom that is greater than that of all creation put together taught by Allh tl
and no one else; kafka bil lmi fil ummiyi mjizatan :: fil jhiliyyati wat tadb fil yutumi.
805
For example, Alahazrat listed the blasphemies of Deobandi elders to refute them.
806
Such as an amr or a q the governor or the judge.
807
So that people are warned of such hypocrites and keep away from them and their sugar-coated and hollow speech.
808
Khafj: It is a communal obligation [far kifyah] not an individual obligation [far yn].
208

is it allowed for him to keep quiet? He answered that if it is hoped that his testimony will result in a
prosecution, he should bear witness. Similarly, it is necessary to bear witness in front of a governor who
follows the ruling that repentance of blasphemer is acceptable and hence spares the death penalty; in
fact it is necessary to [complain and] bear witness.
Except for these two purposes, I do not see any other reason for narrating such things. It is not
permissible to rake things concerning the honour of RaslAllh and to rinse one's mouth with obscene
mentions of RaslAllh neither for the person who mentions it, nor who repeats it it is not
permissible for either of them to utter it except for a valid shara reason. And for the purposes
mentioned above,
809
it is either obligatory or recommended [depending on the situation]. Allh tl
has mentioned the words of disbelievers which is slandering and belying His prophets; He has
mentioned this to repudiate them and to warn against their kufr and to inform of His Promise to punish
the beliers; and this is mentioned in the Holy Book which is also recited. Such examples are also found
in the authentic adth of the Prophet . Our elder scholars and those who followed them agreed that
it is permissible to narrate statements of infidels and heretics, in gatherings and in their books to
analyse and demonstrate their invalidity and clarify doubts concerning them. Even though it is reported
that Imm Amed ibn anbal was opposed to rith ibn al-Asad al-Musibi for doing so, he himself
cited such things in his refutation of Jahms and those who claimed that the Qurn is created speech.
True, citation of such things are permissible in certain situations, however statements that are insulting
to the Prophet or things that are disparaging and derogatory to his exalted station should not be
narrated by way of stories and casual chatting or just to be novel
810
or eccentric or for gossip, whether
serious or silly discussions, or mirth and jokes of clowns; and tasteless and bizzare blathering and
pointless arguments or idle talk; in all these cases, it is prohibited to mention such blasphemies, some
cases being severe and worse than others. If a person cites such things, neither with an intention, nor
aware that it is disrespectful to the Messenger , and it is also not his habit of mentioning such things,
or if what he narrates is not very ugly, or he does not justify the blasphemer he is citing or says it in a
way of commending the blasphemer or proving his speech valid then such a person will be rebuked
and will be censured against repeating such a thing again. If he has mentioned loathsome words in what
he cites,
811
he shall be severely reprimanded.
A man came to Imam Mlik and said: What is your opinion about a person who says the Qurn is
created? Mlik replied: [This person is] a kfir, execute him The person [panicked and] said: I am
quoting someone else. Imm Mlik said: But we have heard it from you. Imm Malik said so only to
reproach the person and to harshly reprimand him, because [it is a fact] that the person was not
executed. If such a narrator [of blasphemies] is accused of fabricating such quotes and [falsely]
attributing it to others; or such is his habit or it is demonstrable that he says it in an approving tone, or
is enthusiastic about it or trivialises it
812
or [is eager] to memorise such things or seek out such things
and recite poems which mock or insult the Master in all such cases, this person takes the ruling of
the blasphemer himself and his excuse that he is narrating from others will not avail him. Such a person
shall be put to the sword immediately and hastily dispatched to the pits of fire. Ab bayd Qsim ibn
Sallm said about a person who had memorised a part of a [poetic] verse which mocked the Prophet
that it was kufr.
813

Scholars who wrote about ijm have said: Muslims are unanimously agreed that it is arm to narrate
or quote speech that mocks the Prophet or to write it down, or read it,
814
or to leave it unerased when
one comes across such things. May Allh tl have mercy upon our elders, the pious and righteous folk,
who were guarded and extremely careful about their religion that they dropped such things from annals

809
Bearing witness, issuing a ruling or repudiating them.
810
Like Hamza Ysuf Hanson likes to talk about Dantes Divine Comedy or mentions it in his recommended reading list. Even
more surprising are those scholars who do not feel Hamza has committed any error and wave it away as a fly upon their noses.
811
And this is not for a purpose such as bearing witness or issuing a ruling; but in the course of idle chatting.
812
I wonder, if Hamza Ysuf were in Andalusia a thousand years ago, would the judge [most likely a Mlik] spare him from
the gallows or do istitabah? I wonder.
813
Qr: If his intention is to memorise it or publicise it.
814
To satisfy intellectual curiosities.
209

and records of battles and biographies, and abstained from narrating such things except very little; and
even then, only that which is not disgusting. The rules of citation [they followed were] according to the
categories mentioned earlier, and to show how a blasphemer invites the Wrath of Allh tl and to
arrest the slanderer. Thus, Ab bayd Qsim ibn Sallm mentioned a person who was lampooned in
Arabic poetry as merely the satirised without further details, to avoid naming him in his book, mindful
of another Muslims honour and because of his [Ibn Sallms] scrupulousness; then what about the
honour and esteem of the Master of all mankind ; should we not be more careful and responsible?
The Seventh Case: When a person mentions things that are permissible for the Prophet or is debated
among scholars whether it is permissible concerning certain human attributes. Or concerning the
trials and hardship he endured in the path of Allh tl or patience when he was harassed and
persecuted by his enemies; and the initial period of his blessed life, and the resistance and suffering
of those days. If any of these [facts] are mentioned in narration of [historical] reports or recounting the
history of Islm or to learn and teach the extent of divine immunity for prophets, then such descriptions
are outside the previously mentioned six cases because there is neither insinuation [against prophets]
and degradation nor disrespect neither in words used for description nor in the intended meaning of
those words. However, it is necessary to restrict discussing such topics in the circle of knowledgeable
folk, religious thinkers, students of religious knowledge who can benefit from such narrations; and
avoid mentioning them in front of ignoramuses, audacious folk [who are heedless of their religion] and
such people who are potential mischief-makers. Our elders did not like to teach the tafsr of Srah Ysuf
to women because it includes story of enticement and stratagem and due to their weakness of
understanding and foibles of their perception.
RaslAllh has himself mentioned his early days and that he tended to flocks of sheep said: Every
prophet has herded sheep
815
Allh tl has also mentioned this about Sayyidun Ms 7. This
individual statement does not tantamount to degradation of these esteemed personalities or
disrespecting them, unlike someone who mentions this to intentionally disparage and ridicule them.
816

Tending sheep was common among Arabs of yore and the Divine Wisdom is that prophets tended sheep
as a precursor to shepherding the nation; and Allh tl made them to train for the exalted office they
would be later honoured with which was ordained for them in pre-eternity and in His Divine
Knowledge. Similarly, Allh tl has mentioned his being an orphan and his hardship to show the
immense favour upon him and the honour He has granted His chosen servant.
817

If a person mentions this to describe the favours of Allh tl upon him , it is not degrading or
disrespectful to him; in fact, it is proof for his prophethood and his truthful claim of being the Messenger
of Allh. Because, thereafter Allh tl gave him such influence and power, that gradually all the rich
and powerful leaders of Arab tribes and those who opposed to him were [eventually] subdued or
vanquished; their treasures and dominions came under his command and this could not have
happened without Divine aid and support; and Allh tl made believers and prominent angels as his
helpers. It would not have been such an amazing feat if he were the son of a king or a commander
of armies prior to the proclamation of his prophethood, because ignoramuses
818
would then attribute
his success and his triumphs to these external means. It is therefore Hercules, in his conversation with
Ab Sufyn asked him: Is there any king among his forefathers? Ab Sufyn said: No and Hercules
819

said: If any of his forefathers were kings, we would say that he seeks the kingdom of his forefathers.

815
Qr: Narrated by Bukhr and Muslim from Jbir and Bukhr in another narration from Ab Hurayrah.
816
In which case, mentioning it thus with such intention becomes blasphemy.
817
Srah u, 93:6-7.
818
Like Abul l Mawdd said in his Tark e Islm ki Akhlq Buniyde, p17.
However, a worthless person was neither useful in the pagan times [jhiliyyah] nor useful in Islm. The Prophet achieved a resounding success in
Arabia and the effect of which was felt over a large part of the world, from the river of Sindh to the shores of Atlantic. After all, the reason for this
[success] was that he had found the finest among human resources who possessed a powerful character. If, God forbid, he were to deal with a
herd of craven, cowardly, weak-willed and untrustworthy people, would it be possible to achieve the same result?
In other words, according to Mawdd, the success of Islm was not because of the Prophet , but rather because he had found
a fine specimen of humans with a solid character. Q y has rightly termed the freethinker Mawdd as a jhil.
819
The Roman emperor in the time of RaslAllh .
210

Being orphan is one of the signs that were present in books of ancients and prophecies retold among
previous nations; thus it is mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah.
820
Ibn Dh-Yazan described this attribute
to bd al-Mualib and Bar to Ab lib. Similarly, that he did not learn to read and write [umm] is
an attribute Allh tl has mentioned in his praise; and it is a superior attribute for him on account
of the Qurn which is the greatest of his miracles; because, the knowledge and wisdom that was
revealed to him would not be possible except for a Messenger of God, [who brought all this] without
having learned to read or write, nor was he taught or instructed yet he brings such an eloquent and
astonishing book, which defies description and is beyond the capacity of humans. Thus, mentioning that
he is a ummi
821
is not disparaging him because after all, the purpose of learning to read and write is to
augment ones knowledge; thus it is an important tool and means to attain more knowledge. The ability
to read or write is not a goal in itself, [rather, the objective is to attain knowledge using these tools].
When that objective [of knowledge] is present already without any need for means and tools, they
become inconsequential. The inability to read or write is a flaw for others, because they remain ignorant
and gullible because of their illiteracy.
Glory be to Him who distinguished the Prophet from all others and what is a flaw for all others [in
not having learned to read and write] is a mark of honour for him .
822
Similarly, his life was
untouched by such an action which would have killed anyone else such as the cleaving of his bosom
and removal of a portion from his blessed heart.
823
So also is the narration of his abstinence from
worldly comforts and frugality in food, clothes, mounts; his humility and that he did his work and that
of his family himself, his austerity and withdrawal from this mundane world, and he valued the great
and small as the same temporal and ephemeral; inconstant and fickle. All these descriptions are
praiseworthy attributes and highlight his noble character as mentioned earlier. If anyone mentions
these to draw inspiration or any such purpose is commendable; but if one mentions these things to
insinuate and criticise, then he will be judged according to the previous [six] cases.
Whenever one encounters a adth concerning prophets in which such words are mentioned which are
problematic in their literal meaning, it is necessary to interpret such words favourably; also it is not
obligatory to mention such things except authentic narrations and should not narrate except which is
well established and known. May Allh tl have mercy upon Imm Mlik who disliked narration of
such reports which are ambiguous and problematic, and he said: What makes people to narrate such
things? He was told, Ibn jln narrates such reports and he dismissed with: He is not a discerning
scholar.
824
Alas! If everyone had only followed Mliks example and abstained from perpetuating such
narrations after all, most of such reports are not actionable [and are merely of academic interest].
Many of our elders [salaf] disliked narration of such reports which do not entail acting upon them. The
Prophet mentioned such things in front of native Arabs who understood his speech perfectly well,
825

who understood the context and usage of those words, whether such phrases were idioms or used
figuratively or whether those words were metaphors or used allegorically therefore it was not
problematic for them [and hence congruent with everything else].
But those who came after them were not well-versed with the language of Arabs and had non-Arab
influences in their speech and hence the misunderstanding or defect in understanding of the object of
the native-Arabic except what was in plain language; and they did not understand [some forms of]

820
Armiya in Arabic.
821
However, the translation of this term in other languages as illiterate is disrespectful; one should say unlettered or unread
or uninstructed. In 2011, an imbecile from Birmingham named Zahir Mahmood claimed that Allhs Messenger was a bedouin
and then said: it would be no exaggeration to say that many of the youngsters here could read better than RaslAllh .
822
Because he has the knowledge and perception far greater than all learned people in the universe; his knowledge is granted
by Allh tl and he was not instructed by anyone else in the creation; his teacher is Allh tl and Allh tl alone.
823
This is known as portion for the Devil; this is a portion of the heart which is vulnerable to Satans guiles and the doorway
through which he enters the hearts of humans. This was removed from his blessed heart and the doorway eliminated, and
thus divinely protecting him from the Devil.
824
faqh.
825
kalm al-rab: Native and High Arabic. It must be noted that Q y was among those masters who [then were fast
disappearing] were well-versed with high Arabic. Indeed, his exegesis of Muslim, Ikml al-Mlim and the lexicon Mashriqul
Anwr are indispensable resources for all adth scholars who came afterward who frequently resort to these works for
meanings of arcane words mentioned in adth.
211

figurative speech and metaphors and the context of revelation; they did not comprehend the subtleties
of language and therefore differed in interpretation of such words, or insisted on the literal meaning
some believed in these reports and some others disbelieved.
826
It is obligatory to abstain from narrating
such [problematic] reports which are inauthentic or weak; particularly if such reports are baseless and
fabricated. It is not permissible to utter things which are disrespectful to Allh tl or His prophets
neither should one narrate any report nor attempt to expound the meanings of such reports; rather,
leave them unsaid.
The only exception for mentioning such reports is to manifest the status of such reports. Scholars
disapproved of Ab Bakr ibn Frak for his interpretation of weak, baseless and fabricated reports or
those found in books of Jews and Christians who combine truth with falsehood. All that needs to be done
with such reports is reject them with a warning that they are weak reports instead of laboriously
attempting to clarify them after all the objective of clarification is to answer objections and rejecting
them completely is far easier and a sound approach.












826
Because they were not convinced with interpretations and literal meanings conflicted with other texts and they could not
reconcile such things.
212

Appendix H
GLOSSARY

adh Minor evil, offence or harm by word or deed; and if it is severe it will be termed
arar
ahl al-qiblah Those who pray facing the qiblah, in the direction of Makkah; that is Muslims in
general. According to Sunni scholars, Ahl al-Qiblah refers to those people who
agree upon Essentials of faith.
dall qa Absolute Evidence
arr Necessary, Essential; when mentioned with an aspect of religion, it means such a
tenet or belief which is necessary to believe in, and anyone who denies it is a kfir.
add Statutory punishment. One of the literal meanings of add is prevention. Certain
punishments are termed add because they are meant to be deterrents to
committing certain sins and specified in the sharh.
all Permissible by the sharh
arm Forbidden by the sharh
ijm Consensus of a group of scholars, or companions, or Muslims in general. ijm al-
lam, ijm as-abah, ijm al-ummah
ijtihd Literally, to strive. The ability of a scholar to independently arrive at an opinion
and derive from either primary or secondary sources of law; one who exercises
ijtihd is a mujtahid.
ikfr To rule someone kfir
lm al-mulaq Absolute and all-encompassing knowledge
imkn al-wuq Possiblity to occur
imtin al-wuq Impossible to occur, existentially impossible
istinah To seek help [usually used to mean intercession of prophets and saints]
istighthah To seek relief [usually used to mean intercession of prophets and saints]
istilah/mustal Impossiblity, Impossible
istimdd To seek help [usually used to mean intercession of prophets and saints]
jamh The congregation
jawz ql The rational category of Possibility
213

jyiz/mumkin In jurisprudence, this means permissible; but in theology, this refers to something
that can exist, possible to exist.
kfir Disbeliever
kfir al The original kfir
kufr Disbelief
kufr al-al Disbelief from the outset, original disbelief
kufr al-r Acquired disbelief, apostasy.
makrh tarm Prohibitively disliked
marf adth A adth that is elevated such that the chain reaches to the Prophet ; and the
adth indicates either the words, actions or acceptance of the Prophet .
mubtadi The heretic, innovator; a man of bidh
mul Impossible, Impossibility
mul ql The rational category of Impossibility
mul ra Intrinsically possible to exist, but becomes impossible due to extraneous reasons.
Contingently impossible.
mul dht Essentially impossible, Intrinsicially Impossible
mumkin Possible, Possibility
mumkin dht Intrinsically Possible, Intrinsic Possibility
mumkin istidd Possible to Occur, Possibility of Occurrence; also mumkin wuq, imkn wuq
mumtani bil ghayr Intrinsically Possible, but becomes impossible due to an extraneous condition
mumtani wuq Impossible to Occur, Impossibility of Occurrence
murtadd An apostate; a person who becomes a disbeliever after having been a believer at
some point is a murtadd, an apostate.
mutakallimn Kalm scholars
mutawr Something that is universally known, unanimously agreed upon and transmitted
through successive generations without anybody disputing it; something which
is undeniable and indubitable.
mulaq al-lm Knowledge, absolutely
qadhaf Slander, and also specifically as Accusation of Adultery.
214

qa al-dallah Absolute in its implication
qi Equitable Recompense, Blood-money
riddah Apostasy
sabb/shatm
dhamm: to deplore, to decry, to condemn
gha: is tanqi of lesser magnitude; that is slighting
hajw: mockery, satire
ujr: obscene speech, profanity, revile
istikhff: disdain, disregard
izra: reproach, chide, rebuke, scorn
sabb: insult, sabb is the worst form of shatm
shatm: disrespect
sukhf: banal speech
tar: to object, disapprove
tanq: is to disparage, to find flaws, fault
taghr: to diminish or to belittle
tawtur Something that is universally known, unanimously agreed upon and transmitted
through successive generations without anybody disputing it; something which
is undeniable and indubitable.
wjib Obligatory, when used in Fiqh; Necessary, when used in Kalm
wjib ra Contingently Necessary
wjib dht Intrinsically Necessary, Essentially Necessary
zandaqah, zindq A zindq is a person who is a freethinker; who does not believe in any of the well-
known religions or well-known sects within a religion. It is also used to describe
a person who rejects religion completely and religious laws [even if he is not an
atheist]. The term is also used to describe those who claim to profess Islm
outwardly, but secretly they hold beliefs that contradict Islm.





215

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Qurn al-Karm
B. Tafsr
1. Anwr al-Tanzl wa Asrr al-Tawl or Tafsr al-Bayw, Imm Ab Sad al-Bayw (d. 685 AH)
2. Bar al-lm, Abul Layth Nar ibn Muammad al-Samarqand (d. 375 AH)
3. Jmi li Akm al-Qurn or Tafsr Qurub, Imm Ab bdullh al-Qurub (d. 671 AH)
4. Kanz al-mn, Imm Amed Ri Khn - (d. 1340 AH)
5. Lubb al-Twl f Mn al-Tanzl or Tafsr Khzin, Imm l bin Muammad Al-Khzin (d. 725 AH)
6. Mlim al-Tanzl, Imm usayn ibn Masd al-Baghawi (d. 516 AH)
7. Maft al-Ghayb or Tafsr al-Kabr, Imm Fakhruddn Muammad ibn Umar ar-Rz (d. 606AH)
8. R al-Bayn, Mawln Isml aqq al-Bursw (d. 1127 AH)
9. Shar A-lam Nashra, Mawln Naq l Khn (d. 1286 AH)
10. Muarrar al-Wajz or Tafsr Ibn iyyah, Ibn iyyah (d. 546 AH)
11. Tafsr Ibn Kathr, fi Imd al-Dn Abul F ibn Umar ibn Kathr (d. 774 AH)

C. adth and Commentaries
12. Ashitul Lamt f Shar Mishkt, Shaykh bd al-aq al-Dihlaw (958-1052 AH)
13. Dbj l al-ai Muslim ibn-ajjj, Imm Jalluddn Suy (849 911 AH)
14. Fat al-Br, Imm Amad ibn Al ibn ajar al- sqaln (d. 852 AH)
15. Ikhtiyr al-Awl, bd al-Ramn ibn Rajab al-anbal (d. 795 AH)
16. Ikml al-Mlim, Abul Fal Q y ibn Ms al-Yasb al-Mlik (d. 544 AH)
17. Irshd al-Sr, Shihb al-Dn Abul bbs Amed ibn Muammad al-Qasallni (d. 923 AH)
18. Jmi Tirmidh, Imm Ab s Muammad al-Tirmidh (d.279 AH)
19. Kashf al-Khaf, Imm Isml ibn Muammad jln (d. 1162 AH)
20. Minhj al-libn, Imam Yay Ibn Sharaf al-Nawaw (d. 676 AH)
21. Mirqt al-Maft Shar Mishkt al-Mab, Mawln Al ibn Suln al-Qr (d. 1014 AH)
22. Mishkt al-Mab, Walyuddn ibn bdullh al-Tabrz - (died after 737 AH)
23. Mjam, Abul Qsim Sulaymn ibn Amed al-abarn (d. 360 AH)
24. Musnad Ab wnah, Imm Yqb ibn Isq al-Isfarayn (d. 928 AH)
25. Musnad Imm Amed, Imm Amed ibn anbal (d. 241 AH)
26. Mustadrak l as-aayn, Muammad al-kim al-Nsbri (d. 405 AH)
27. Muwa, Imm Mlik ibn Anas (d. 179 AH)
28. a al-Bukhr, Ab bdullh Muammad ibn Isml al-Bukhr (194 256 AH)
29. Sah Muslim, Imm Muslim ibn al-ajjj al-Qushayr (204 261 AH)
30. a Ibn ibbn, Imm Ab tim Muammad ibn ibbn (d. 354 AH)
31. Sunan Ab Dwd, Imm Ab Dawd Sulaymn al-Sajistn (202-275 AH)
32. Sunan Ibn Mjah, Imm Abdullh ibn Muammad ibn Mjah (207-273 AH)
33. Sunan Nasy, Imm Amad ibn Shuayb al-Nasy (d. 303 AH)
34. Targhb wal Tarhb, Imm bd al-m al-Mundhiri (581 656 AH)
35. mdatul Qr Shar Sa Bukhr, Imm Badruddn Mamd al-Ayn (d. 855 AH)
216


D. qid and Kalm
36. Alf al-Kufr, Muammad ibn Isml Badr al-Rashd (d. 768 AH)
37. Anwr e Sih Dar Bayn Mawld o Fatiah, Mawla na A bd al-Samy Rampuri (d. 1318 AH)
38. qdah al-Tawiyyah, Imm Ab Jafar al-aw (d. 323 AH)
39. Asma was ift, Ab Bakr Amad ibn usayn al-Bayhaq (d. 453/1066)
40. Daf al-Talbst, Mawln Sayyid Namuddn Murdbdi (d. 1367/1948)
41. Dawlah al-Makkiyyah bil Mddah al-Ghaybiyyah, Imm Amed Ri Khn (d.1340/1921)
42. Farq Bayn al-Firaq, Ab Manr Abd al-Qhir al-Baghdd (d.429AH)
43. Ghyat al-Maml, Sayyid Amad al-Barzanj (d. 1332 AH)
44. aqq al-Mubn, Mawln Sayyid Amed Km (d. 1986 CE)
45. shiyah Shar al-Mawqif, Abdul akm Siyalkt (died after 1275 AH)
46. usm al-aramayn l Manar al-Kufri wal Mayn, Imm Amed Ri Khn (d. 1340 AH)
47. Ibl e Aghl e Qsimiyyah, Shaykh bd al-Ghafr
48. mn, Kufr and Takfr, Nuh Ha Mim Keller
49. Isml Dihlaw aur un ki Taqwiyatul mn, Shaykh Abul asan Zayd Frq (1324 1414 AH)
50. Ilm bi Qawi al-Islm, Shaykhul Islm Abul Abbs Amed Ibn ajar al-Haytam (909-974 AH)
51. Izlatul r bi ajril Karyim n Kilbin Nr, Imm Amed Ri Khn (d. 1340 AH)
52. Jala al-Qulb, Mawln Muammad ibn Jafar al-Kittn (1274 1345 AH)
53. Jawharah al-Tawid, Burhnuddn Ibrhm al-Laqqn al-Mlik (d.1041 AH)
54. Kawkabatush Shihbiyyah f Kufriyyti Abil Wahbiyyah, Imm Amed Ri Khn (1272 1340 AH)
55. Mawqif, Imm Aududdn Abd al-Ramn al-j (d. 756 AH)
56. Min qidi Ahl al-Sunnah, Shaykh bd al-akm Sharaf Qdir (d. 2007 CE)
57. Mina al-Raw al-Azhar Shar Fiqh al-Akbar, Mull Al al-Qr (d. 1014/1605)
58. Mustanad Al-Mtamad Binyi Najt al-Abad, Imm Amed Ri Khn - (d.1340 AH)
59. Mtaqad al-Muntaqad, Shh Fal al-Rasl Badyn (d. 1289 AH)
60. Preamble to Faith, Translation by Ab asan Riaw
61. Qists f Mawzinati Athar Ibn bbs, Shaykh Muammad Thnaw
62. Sall al-Suyf al-Hindiyyah l Kufriyyati Bb al-Najdiyyah, Imm Amed Ri Khn (d. 1340 AH)
63. rim al-Masll l Shtim al-Rasl, Ab'l Abbs Amad ibn Abd al-alm Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH)
64. Sayf al-Jabbr, Shh Fal al-Rasl Badyn (d. 1289 AH)
65. Sayf al-Masll l man Sabb al-Rasl, Imm Taqyuddn Abul asan l al-Subk (683 756 AH)
66. Shar al-qid an-Nasafiyyah, Sduddn Masd Taftzn (712-793 AH)
67. Shar al-Maqid, Sduddn Masd Taftzn (712-793 AH)
68. Shar Al-Mawqif, Sayyid Sharf Al al-Jurjni (d. 816 AH)
69. Shar al-Muqaddimt, Imm Muammad ibn Ysuf al-Sans (832-895AH)
70. Shar al-awyyah, Akmaluddn Muammad al-Bbart (712 786 AH)
71. Shar al-Wust, Imm Muammad ibn Ysuf al-Sans (832-895AH)
72. Subn al-Subb n ybi Kadhib Maqb, Imm Amed Ri Khn (d. 1340)
73. Tabyn Kadhib al-Muftar, Abul Qsim l ibn asan Ibn skir (499-571 AH)
74. Taqq al-Fatw bi Ibl al-Taghw, Fal al-aqq Khayrbd (d. 1278 AH)
217

75. Tamhd e mn, Imm Amed Ri Khn (d. 1340 AH)
76. Tanbh al-Juhhl, Shaykh fi Bakhsh
77. Taqds al-Wakl n Tawhn al-Rashd wal Khall, Mawln Ghulm Dastagr Qasr (d. 1315 AH)
78. Truth About a Lie, Ab asan Riaw
79. Tufah al-Mutj, Imm Ibn ajar al-Makk (909-974 AH)
80. mdatu Ahl al-Tawfq wal Tasdd, Imm Muammad ibn Ysuf al-Sans (832-895AH)
81. Umm al-Barhn, Imm Muammad ibn Ysuf al-Sans (832-895AH)

E. Fiqh and Usl al-Fiqh
82. Ashbh wan Nayir, Imm Zaynuddn ibn Nujaym al-Mir (d.970 AH)
83. y al-Nabawiyyah fil Fatw ar-Riwiyyah, Imm Amed Ri Khn (d. 1340 AH)
84. Badyi al-anyi, Imm luddn Ab Bakr al-Ksn (d.587 AH)
85. Bar ar-Ryiq, Imm Zaynuddn ibn Ibrhm ibn Nujaym al-anaf al-Mir (d. 970 AH)
86. Binyah l al-Hidayah, Imm Badruddn Mamd al-yn (d. 855 AH)
87. Dhakhrah, Shihbuddn Amed ibn al-Qarf (d. 684 AH)
88. Durr al-Mukhtr Shar Tanwr al-Abr, Allmah luddn al-askaf (d. 1088 AH)
89. Durar al-ukkm f Shari Ghurar al-Akm, llmah Mawl Khusraw
90. Dusq l Shar al-Kabr li Abil Barakt al-Dardr, Shamsuddn Muammad al-Dusq (d. 1230 AH)
91. Fatw al-Bazzziyyah, Imm Muammad Khawrzam al-Bazzaz (d. 827 AH)
92. Fatw al-Khayriyyah, llmah Khayr al-Dn ibn Amad al-Raml (d. 1081 CE)
93. Al-Fiqhu l Madhhib al-Arbah, bd al-Ramn al-Jazr (d. 1360 AH)
94. Fat al-Qadr, Imm Kamluddin Ibn al-Humm (d. 861 AH)
95. Fatw al-Hindiyyah
96. Fatw Amjadiyyah, Muft Jalluddn Amed Amjadi
97. Fatw e Faqih e Millat, Muft Jalluddn Amed Amjadi
98. Fatw Fay al-Rasl, Muft Jalluddn Amed Amjadi
99. Fatw Imm Nawaw, Imm Nawaw (d. 676 AH)
100. Fatw Imm Subk, Imm Taqyuddn l al-Subk (d. 756 AH)
101. Fatw Khulah
102. Fatw Muayyad Zdah, Muayyad Zdah
103. Fatw Ttrkhniyyah, lim ibn la al-Indrapat al-Dihlaw (d. 786 AH)
104. Fatw ahriyyah, ahr al-Dn Ab Bakr Muammad bin Amad bin Umar al-Bukhr (d. 619 AH)
105. Fiqh al-Islm wa Adillatuh, Dr.Wahbah Zuhayli
106. Ful al-mdiyyah, Imm bd al-Ramn (d. 561 AH)
107. Ghamz al-Uyn al-Bayir Shar Al-Ashbh wan Nayir, Amed al-amaw (d. 1098 AH)
108. adqatun Nadiyyah, Imm Abd al-Ghan al-Nabls al-anaf (d. 1143/1731)
109. Hadiyyah al-lyiyyah, Imm luddin Ibn bidn (d. 1306 AH)
110. shiyah Tufah, bd al-amd al-Shirwn
111. Jmi al-Fulayn, Q Mamd ibn Isryl Ibn Samwinah (d.823 AH)
112. Kashf al-Ghummah, bd al-Wahhb al-Shrn (d. 9731565)
113. Khulatul Fatw, llmah hir Ibn Amad (d. 542 AH)
218

114. Kitb al-Fur, Muammad ibn Mufli al-Maqdis (d.763 AH)
115. Kitb Al-ujjah al Ahl al-Madnah, Imm Muammad ibn asan al-Shaybn (d. 189 AH)
116. Kitb al-Kharj, Imm Ab Ysuf Yqb ibn Ibrhm al-Ansr (d. 182/798)
117. Majm al-Anhur Shar Multaq al-Abhur, llmah Shaykh Zdah (d. 944 AH)
118. Mu al-Burhn, Burhnuddn bd al-zz ibn Mzah al-Bukhr (d.616 AH)
119. Mukhtaar al-aw, Imm Ab Jafar al-aw (d. 321 AH)
120. Nutaf, Abul asan l al-Sughd (d. 461 AH)
121. Qawid al-Kubr, Imm zzuddn bd al-zz ibn bd al-Salm (d. 660 AH)
122. Radd al-Mutr, Imm Sayyid Muammad Amn Ibn bidn al-Shm (d. 1252 AH)
123. Shar al-aghr, Burhnuddn Ibrhm al-Laqqn al-Mlik (d. 1041 AH)
124. Tanbh al-Wult wal ukkm l Akmi Shtimi Khayr al-Anm, Ibn Abidn Shm (d. 1252 AH)
125. arqah al-Muammadiyyah, Imm Birgivi (d. 981 AH)
126. qd Rasm al-Mufti, Imm Muammad Amn Ibn Abidn Shm (d. 1252 AH)
127. Zubdah al-Zakiyyah f Tarmi Sajdah al-Taiyyah, Imm Amed Ri Khn (d. 1340 AH)

F. Srah
128. Khayi al-Kubr, Imm Jalluddn Suy (d. 911 AH)
129. Kitb al-Shif bi Trfi uqq al-Muaf, Q Iy (d. 544 AH)
130. Madrij al-Nubuwwah, Shaykh Abd al-aq Muadith al-Dihlaw (d. 1052 AH)
131. Nasm ar-Riy Shar al-Shif Q Iy, Shihb al-Dn al-Khafj (d. 1069 AH)
132. Shar al-Shif Q Iy, Al ibn Suln Muammad al-Qr (d. 1014 AH)
133. Muzl al-Khaf n Alf al-Shif, fi Shumunn (d. 872 AH)

G. Taawwuf
134. Asrrush Sharh, Imm Abd al-Ghan al-Nabls al-anaf (d. 1143 AH)
135. Futut al-Makkiyyah, Shaykh al-Akbar Muiyuddn Ibn rab (d. 638 AH)
136. Futuhat al-Ilhiyyah fil Mabith al-Aliyyah, Amed ibn jbah al-asan (d. 1224 AH)
137. ikam, Tjuddn Amed ibn yillh al-Sakandar (d. 709 AH)
138. Iy'a lm al-Din, Imm Muammad Ghazl (d. 505 AH)

H. Trkh
139. Akhbr al-amq wal Mughaffaln, Imm Ibn al-Jawz (d. 597 AH)
140. Bidyah wan Nihyah, fi Abul F Isml ibn Kathr (d. 774/1373)
141. Kitb al-Qu, Ab Al Faraj Ibn al-Jawz (d. 597 AH)
142. Siyar Alm al-Nubal, Imm Shamsuddn al-Dhahab (d. 748 AH)

I. Lexicons
143. Tj al-rs, Imm Murta al-Zabd (1145-1205 AH)

G. Asma ar-Rijl
144. Lisn al-Mzn, Imm Ibn ajar al-sqaln (d. 852 AH)
219

145. abaqt al-uff, Imm Jalluddn Suy (d. 911 AH)
146. Tahdhb al-Kaml, Jaml al-Dn Abi al-ajjaj al-Mizz (654 742 AH)
147. Usdu'l Ghbah f Mrifati abah, zzuddn Ibn al-Athr al-Jazar (d. 630 AH)

H. Poetry
148. Al-mdah f Shar Al-Burdah, Ibn ajar al-Haytam (d. 974 AH)
149. adyiq e Bakhshish, Imm Amed Ri Khn (d. 1340 AH)
150. Afal al-Qir li Qurryi Umm al-Qur or Shar Hamziyyah, Ibn ajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH)

I. Miscellaneous
151. Don Quixote, Miguel de Ceraventes, Translated by John Ormsby
152. Orientalism, Edward Said
153. Tahdhb al-Akhlq, Sir Syed Ahmed Khn
154. Munyah al-Labb, Imm Amed Ri Khn
155. Zaghal al-lm, Imm Dhahabi (d. 748 AH)

J. Deobandis and their Elders
156. Akbir e lam e Deoband, Muammad Akbar Shh Bukhr
157. Al-Imdd, Magazine dated afar 1336 AH
158. Arw e Salsah, with the gloss of Ashraf l Thnaw (d. 1362 AH)
159. Barhn al-Qaih l almi Anwr al-Sih, Khall Amed Ambethw Sahranpri (d. 1346 AH)
160. Bihisht Zeywar, Ashraf l Thnaw (d. 1362 AH)
161. Ek Roz, Shh Isml Dihlaw (d. 1246 AH)
162. Fatw Rashdiyyah, Rashd Amed Gangoh (d. 1323 AH)
163. Faysla Kun Munazara, Manzur Numani (d. 1997 CE)
164. if al-mn, Ashraf l Thnaw (d. 1362 AH)
165. Ift al-Yawmiyyah, sayings of Ashraf l Thnaw (d. 1362 AH)
166. Juhd al-Muqill, Mamd al-asan Devband (d. 1339 AH)
167. Maktb e Rashdiyyah, Ashiq Ilhi Meerut
168. Muhannad, Khall Amed Ambethw Sahranpri (d. 1346 AH)
169. Nuzhatul Khawir, bd al-ayy Lucknawi /Abul asan Nadaw (d.1999 CE)
170. Shaykh Muammad ibn bd al-Wahhb aur Hindustan ke lam, Manzur Numani (d. 1997 CE)
171. Shihb al-Thqib, usayn Amed Tandwi
172. ir e Mustaqm, Shh Isml Dihlaw (d. 1246 AH)
173. Taghyr al-nwn, Ashraf l Thnaw (d. 1362 AH)
174. Tadhrun Ns, Muammad Qsim Nanotwi (d. 1297 AH)
175. Tanwr al-ynayn, Shh Isml Dihlaw (d. 1246 AH)
176. Taqwiyatul mn, Shh Isml Dihlaw (d. 1246 AH)
177. Trkh e Mashyikh e Chisht, Zakariyyah Kandhlaw
178. Y al-aqq, Shh Isml Dihlaw (d. 1246 AH)


220

TRANSLITERATION KEY
Arabic
Letter
Latin
Character
Arabic
Example
Transliteration Similar Sound
a amr amazing
b bb basket
t tj t in French trois
th thbit thing
j jasad jam
asan
similar to hose
no English equivalent
voiceless pharyngeal fricative
kh khabar
similar to Scottish loch
no english equivalent
d dr d in French dais
dh dhikr there
r rshid trilled r as in rose
z zak zebra
s sahl solid
sh shb shock
abr
pharyngeal s
no English equivalent
iya
similar to daughter
no English equivalent
ibb
pharyngeal t
no English equivalent
ill
pharyngeal z
no English equivalent
, , ,






rab
lm
mar
d
voiced pharyngeal fricative
no English equivalent
gh ghr
as in French r
rester
voiced uvular fricative
f fajr flower
q qarb
a guttural k
voiceless uvular stop
no English equivalent
k kitb kin
l libs late
m ml morning
n nr noon
h hud house
221

Arabic
Letter
Latin
Character
Arabic
Example
Transliteration Similar Sound
w wazr word
y yad yellow
i idm insight
a atam advent
bb father
sarr tree
r root
lim -
d -
d -

shsh
sh-sh

ashshams
ash-shams
-
a or a- mamr -
iy or i-y
biysa
bi-ysa
-
u or u-


lulu
su-lika
-






ab
takl
ashal
separator to distinguish between sounds
represented by letter pairs
-





a-b
tak-l
as-hal
separator to distinguish between sounds
represented by letter pairs
superscript mi
n
to indicate an elision
- ma-rib separator when elongation follows a vowel

The definite article al is not transcribed always in transliterating Arabic names for better readability, even if it is incorrect in the
original. The following rules are followed:
a. al is retained when used as an auxiliary, as in Abu Bakr al-Bayhaq and Badruddn al-yn.
b. It is omitted when used alone, as in Bayhaqi or yn.
c. It is retained when the full name of the book is transcribed, but omitted when the book is known by its popular name like
Durr al-Mukhtr.




222








ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Abu Hasan is a student of Islamic sciences and Sacred Law. anafMturd and aspirant to the Qdir
path, he is an ardent admirer and follower of Imam Ahmed Rida Khan al-Baraylawi d.
He translates bits and pieces from classical texts and simple books in the course of
his learning for his own revision and as helpful notes to beginners
like himself. Some articles can be found on www.tanwir.org
and www.ridawi.org.





223