WAHABI MENACE

Yrut

 

OBJECTION NO.1

 

 

The Deo-Bandi Molvis falsely accuse Ala’Hadrat as calling a Sahaba or Taba’ee a Kaafir.

·        quote original text of Malfooz:

Answer:  It was simple for the ignorant Wahabi to accuse the Imam for labeling a Sahaba a Kaafir.  But 40 years have passed from time of accusation that the Deo-Bandis have not as yet given any proof that Abdur Rahmaan Qaari was a Sahabi or is there any Sahabi by that name.  We ask them to present the name of any book which records any information of a Sahabi by that name.  Who was he, what period did he embrace Islam and what was his date of birth and death?

They are so blind and ignorant that they cannot read correctly, and if they manage to read, then they are surely mischievous.  They present the name of Abdur Rahmaan ibne Abdul Qaari to mislead the masses and try to prove that Abdur Rahmaan Qaari was the same person.  Abdur Rahmaan ibne Abdul Qaari and Abdur Rahmaan Qaari are two different people.  Imam ibn Atheer t and Imam Maghazi t certainly classify Abdur Rahmaan ibne Abdul Qaari as being a Taba’ee.

 

Insert Arabic

 

It is said regarding Abdur Rahmaan bin Abdul Qaari that he was born in the era of Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r.  He did not hear anything from the Nabi r nor narrate any Hadith.

Imam Waqidi regards him as a Sahabi because he was born in the sacred era of the Beloved Nabi r.  But it is apparent that he was a Taba’ee and belonged to the great Ulama of Madina Munawwara.  He had narrated Hadith from Sayyiduna Omar Al-Farooq t.  He passed away in 81 Hijri at the age of 78 years.

 

It is noted that only Imam Waqadi regards Abdur Rahmaan bin Abdul Qaari as a Sahabi while the concerns is that he was a Taba’ee and from the Ulama of Madina Munawwara 

Insert Arabic

 

Qaari Tayyaba is a famous Deo-Bandi Wahabi.  The world knows this fact.  One of his servants, Mufti Mehmood also versifies the above quotation that Abdur Rahmaan bin Abdul Qaari was a Taba’ee and not Sahabi.  He records in this Fatwa regarding him.

 

Insert Arabic

 

He is not a Sahaba according to the principles of the Muhaddith.  In fact he is classified as a Taba’ee of Medina.

Refer to his Fatwa, no 648 written on Sunday 16 August 1987.

 

Now that it is an established fact with concessions that Abdur Rahmaan bin Abdul Qaari is Taba’ee.  So the accusation of the Deo-Bandi Wahabi is absolutely false on Imam Ahmad Rida t.  In Al-Malfooz vol. 2 pg.----- , the Noble Imam refers to another Abdur Rahmaan Qaari who was a Kaafir and not to the illustrious Taba’ee.  Whose name were also Abdur Rahmaan ibne Abdul Qaari not just Abdur Rahmaan Qaari.  These Deo-Bandis have been singing a song about this fabrication for years that he was a Sahabi and Ala’Hadrat t.  Imam Ahmad Rida t had labelled him a Kaafir.  When the Ahle’Sunnah Ulama demanded proof Abdur Rahmaan Qaari being a Sahabi, they cunningly said that he was a Sahabi or Taba’ee.  However, whether Abdur Rahmaan bin Abdul Qaari be a Sahabi or Taba’ee, he can never be that Abdur Rahmaan that was referred by Imam Ahmed Rida t in his Malfooz.  This is so, because of two reasons.

 

Firstly:  The incident mentioned in Al-Malfooz was of the battle of Zaatul Qarad, that was fought in Muharram 7th Hijri.  This Abdur Rahmaan was killed in this battle.  And the other Abdur Rahmaan was a noble Taba’ee was born in 9th Hijri.  How is it possible for a person to take part in a battle two years before his birth?

Secondly:  It will be heresy to regard the first Abdur Rahmaan Qaari as a Sahabi or Taba’ee because the incidents that lead to his death were apparent and crystal clear that he was a true Kaafir and an open enemy of Allah Y and His Rasool r.  The chapter in Al-Malfooz where Imam Ahmed Rida t called him a Kaafir also mentions 

1.      This Abdur Rahmaan along with his associates came to steal the camel of the Holy Prophet r.

2.      He killed the shepherd of Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r.

3.      He stole the life stock of the Nabi r.

4.      Sayyiduna Salma bin Akwah t trailed the bandits, killed them and snatched their belongings.

5.      This that Abdur Rahmaan and Sayyiduna Abu Qatadah t had a confrontation in the past.

6.      Sayyiduna Abu Qatadah t confronted Abdur Rahmaan and killed him.

 

I invite all true Muslims to think;

a)      Can anyone who steals the camels of Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r be a Sahabi or a Taba’ee?

b)      Can anyone who fights with Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r be a Sahabi or a Taba’ee?

c)      Did Sayyiduna Salma bin Akwah t trail a Sahabi or Taba’ee?

d)      Did he snatch the belongings of a Sahaba or Taba’ee?

e)      Did Sayyiduna Abu Qatadah t kill a Sahaba or Taba’ee?

 

Anyone who has a spark of Emaan in his heart will not say that such a heretic was a Sahaba or Taba’ee.  They will certainly say that this Abdur Rahmaan was a true Kaafir, and a bitter enemy of Allah Y and His Rasool r.  This is what the great Mujaddid and Noble Imam had said in his Malfooz.  So it goes to show that the Deo-Bandi Wahabi are blinded with such great hatred for Imam Ahmed Rida t that they classify a bitter enemy of Allah Y and His Rasool r who was a true Kaafir as a Sahabi and Taba’ee!  This goes to proof that according to the Deo-Bandi Wahabi doctrines;

1.      An enemy of Allah Y and His Rasool r is a Sahaba and Taba’ee.

2.      One who raids and steals the livestock of the Beloved Nabi r is a Sahaba or Taba’ee!

3.      A murderer of the official shepherd of the Glorious Prophet of Allah r is a Sahaba or Taba’ee!

4.      One who declares war against the Beloved Habeeb r is a Sahaba or Taba’ee.

5.      The illustrious Sahaba in the company of the Beloved Rasool r that killed anyone and confiscated their belonging were also Sahaba or Taba’ee!

In view of these blasphemy’s, there is no reason for any grouse against them if they call are enemy of Allah Y and His Rasool r a Sahaba or Taba’ee.  In fact, this is what is expected of them because a dog will surely give birth to a dog and not a lion.  May Allah Y guide us in the true path of Ahle’Sunnah and save us from the deceit and Fitna of the Deo-Bandies and Wahabi. 

 

OBJECTION NO. 2

 

North winds disobedience:

 

It is clearly recorded in Zarqaani Alal Mawahib, Seerate Halabi and Madarijin Nubuwwah vol.2 pg.237 etc. about the end result of the Battle of Azaab.

 

Insert original of Madarij vol.2 pg. 237

“Ibne Mardunya in his Tafseer narrates an amazing point from Sayyiduna Ibne Abbaas t.  Who said the In the night of Ahzaab the morning breeze said to the northerly wind, “come, let us go and assist the Prophet of Allah r”.  The Northerly wind replies, “The chaste and free women do not come out at night”.  Allah Y was angry at this comment and made it impotent.

 

Allah Y states in Suratul Ahzaab,

 

Insert Arabic

I have sent such a wind and army on the disobedience that is not visible to you.

 

Almighty Allah Y states that He sent a wind on the Kuffaar and the Hadith Shareef says the same with more details.  It says that the Southerly wind said to the Northerly wind, come, lets go and assists the Prophet of Allah r.  According to the understanding of the ayah and Hadith it is understood that Allah Y ordered both, the Southerly and Northerly winds to assists His Habeeb r.  The Northerly refused and hence earned the anger of Allah Y.  If we say that Allah Y did not command the Northerly wind then what was the reason for the anger and punishment of Allah Y for it?

I would like to give a better and clearer explanation to this matter.  There are 3 important points to observe here.

1.      Allah Y did not order any due of the two winds.  The Southerly wind on its own according suggested to the Northerly wind to assist the Holy Prophet r.  If this was the case then the command of the Ayah will be incorrect.

2.      Allah Y only commanded the Southerly wind to assist and it intern requested the Northerly wind to join, but refused.  Hence it was subjected to Divine Anger and punishment.  This will be regarded as oppression and unfair.

3.       Allah Y commanded both.  The Southerly was commanded directly and the Northerly indirectly (via the Southerly). 

If refused and was subjected to Divine anger and punishment.  This point is correct and the basis of our arrangement. 

Ala’Hadrat Imam Ahmed Rida t had quoted the very same thing in Al-Malfooz vol.4 pg.--- as follows:

 

Insert Arabic

 

But the ignorant Deo-Bandi Wahabi, Qaari Tayyab and party made 3 baseless objections and accusation against the great Mujaddid of Islam.  Their objections are;

 

Firstly,  That the command of Allah Y failed on the Northerly wind.

Secondly, Imam Ahmed Rida t claims that the Northerly wind does not bring rain.

                 From which Hadith can be substantiate this?

Thirdly, There are numerous evidence from length to breath of Hindustan that the

               Northerly wind brings rain.  This lie of Ala’Hadrat t is bigger than a

               mountain.

 

I would like to comment on these objections and prove to the Ummah how ignorant and mischievous are the Deo-Bandi Wahabi.

 

As far as the first objection is concerned, I would like to draw your attention that it is a lie that they alleged that Ala’Hadrat t said that the command of Allah Y failed on the Northerly wind.  These are the words of the objector and not of the Imam. These are the words of the Deo-Bandi Wahabi, which they paste on the Imam. Actually they say that the Northerly wind disobeyed the command of Allah Y.  These fools fail to understand the difference between disobeying the command of Allah Y and Allah’s Y command failed.  There is a great difference between these statements.  What can be expected from the ancient fabricators of the Holy Quraan?

 

The failure of a command of a King proves his weakness and there is no weakness in the command if a disobedient subject refuses to obey it.  In fact it proves the might and authority of the King because he punishes the disobedient.  In the above case, it certainly proves the authority of Allah Y on the wind.  But unfortunately, according to the Wahabi Wisdom of Deoband, that which proves the absolute power Almighty Allah Y, they concocted the words and established the weakness and inability of the Sublime Lord.  We invite the readers to decide!

a)  Almighty Allah Y ordered the Shaytaan to make Sajdah to Sayyiduna Adam and he    

     refused.  This was the disobedience of the cursed Devil.  It would be gross   

     misinterpretation  that the command of Allah Y failed on the cursed Shaytaan.

b)  Allah Y ordered Man and Jinn to testify in Him and His Rasool r.  Most of them 

      refused.  The correct interpretation of this would be that most of them disobeyed.  

      It would certainly be incorrect to interpret that the command of Almighty Allah Y

      failed.

c)  Allah Y ordered the Muslim to be obedient to the laws of the Sharee’ah.  Many did

     obey and seemed.  This is certainly the fault and disobedience of the Muslim and

     and not the weakness of the command of Allah Y.

 

Similarly, Allah Y ordered the Northerly wind to destroy the enemy, but it disobeyed.

The correct interpretation of this would be that the wind disobeyed the command of Allah Y.  If one misconstrues the correct interpretation and say that the command of Allah Y failed on the Northerly wind, then this will certainly be the worst crime in the world of reasoning.

In the second objection, is it not sufficient that Imam-ul Muhaddith, Shiekh Muhaqqiq Abdul Haqq Muhaddith Dehlawi t has clearly stated that Allah Y make the wind impotent.  Impotency here certainly means that it will not bring rain.

The third objection clearly announces that the Deo-Bandi Wahabi have become so blind and deaf in the enmity of Ala’Hadrat Imam Ahmed Rida t, that they have lost all senses of understanding.  Oh Wahabi lunatics!  This incident took place in Arabia.  Ask the Arabs if ever the Northerly wind brings rain?  It is very stupid to assume similarity to the weather pattern of Hindustan to Arabia.

 

OBJECTION NO. 3

 

 

Here the Deo-Bandi Wahabi accuses the Great Imam and Mujaddid of claiming that he led the Salaatul-Janaaza while Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r followed his Imamat.  They say that Ala’Hadrat t claims that he was the Imam of the Holy Prophet of Allah r.  This is the incident that took place that is recorded in vol. 2

 

Insert Arabic

 

1.      It was first in 1351 Hijri 1932 that the Wahabies of Rangoon brought up this phony accusation.  The Ahle’ Sunnah scholars immediately reacted with a reply by publishing Sob’ha-e-Rangoon Bar Hizbe Bandaggan’e Shaytaan Mal’oon.

2.      Then the Deo-Bandies of U.P Province in India repeated the same accusation and a second refutationn was given by Jama’at Rida-e-Mustafa in 1352 Hijri 1933.

3.      Again the Deo-Bandies of Bombay lifted their heads and the Ahle’Sunnah of Bombay smashed their head in 1355/1936.

4.      This time the Deo-Bandies of Mubarakpur started this mischief and the response of the Sunni Ulema was with Al-Azaabu’sh Shadeed which again sank their boat.

5.      The fifth time the Deo-Bandi Wahabies tried to stair up this Fitna and again the righteous Sunni Ulama responded by writing Barqe Khudawandi and sealing their confirm.

 

Besides this, on numerous other occasions they tried bitterly to confuse the Muslims public about the life and works of the Great Mujaddid, Imam Ahmed Rida.  Here in South Africa, some unknown Deo-Bandi idiot published a booklet named “The Life and Faith of Moulana Ahmed Rida Khan Bareillwi” written by an immaginary Hadrat Moulana Nasru-deen Al-Qaderi.  This book has no name or address of the publishers nor is the author known in the circle of scholars.  This book too, has the typical Deo-Bandi Wahabi style of nonsensical things that they have been writing for the past 68 years.  No wonder a fictitious author’s name is given without any trace of the publishers.  It is obvious to us who the culprits are because it is the same concocted stories and comments. 

However, we would like to have the pleasure of knocking the last nail in Deo-Bandi Wahabi coffins and hope to seal it forever.

Coming back to objection 3 about the Imamat and Salaatul Janaza.  The subtitle of their fabrication reads; “The Rasool of Allah was my follower.”  Thereafter I quote the original text as it appears in the above Doe-Bandi book;

When Barkaat Ahmed passed away, and I descended into his grave, then I say this without exaggeration, I inhaled that fragrance in this grave, which I had first inhaled at the Roza Shareef of Rasool of Allah sall.  On the day that he died, the late Molvi Sayyid Amir Ahmed saw Huzoor sall on horseback in a dream.  He asked “Ya Rasool Allah sall, where art thou bound?”  The Nabi sall replied; “For the Janaza Salaah of Barkaat Ahmed.” Alhamdullillah I (Ahmed Rida Khan) myself did lead this mubarak Salaah of Janaza (Malfooz vol.2 pg. 23).

Comment; How can any Muslim tolerate such blasphemy.  Is this not disregarding the status and dignity of our Beloved Nabi sall?  How can a person stoop to such indecency?  Then at times Moulana Ahmed Rida reserved this exaggeration, just observe.

N.B. the above is a word for word record of the Deo-Bandies, which they have been barking for over 60 years.

 

Our reply to this objection is follows,

Firstly  The correct synopsis of the above quotation is that Hakeem Barkaat Ahmed was a beloved servant of sacred court of Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r.  When he passed away, the Beloved Habeeb r honoured him with a special blessing by coming to perform his Janaza Salaah and brighten the grave with His August Presence.  This is not a rare happening as there are numerous examples of such incidents where the Glorious Prophet of Allah r blesses his special servant with his Gracious Presence.  Similarly, this is one of those accusations where Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r honoured Hakeem Barkaat Ahmed. I can’t understand why this has caused a pain in stomach of the Deo-Bandi.

 

The fact of the matter is that the Deo-bandies belief that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r is dead and turned to dust.  Their Pope, Ismail Dehlawi writes in his Taqwiyatul Emaan pg.50 that the Prophet said; “One day I will also die and turn to dust”.  He gives no reference of this Hadith and how can he when there is no such statement of the Nabi r!  He shamelessly and wrongfully attributed this lie to the Glorious Prophet of Allah r to substantiate his erroneous belief.  Since the Deo-bandi Wahabi belief that the Prophet dead and turned to dust, therefore they kicked up a row when it was said that he blessed his servant at the time of his Janaza.  It warrants them to subject because they belief that it not possible for the Nabi r to visit anyone after turning to dust.  If they keep quiet, this it will be established that he is well and alive and hence discredit their belief.

 

On the contrary, we the Ahle’Sunnah wa Jamaat belief that the Beloved Habeeb r is and will be physically alive as he was in the Duniya.  Allah Y has blessed him with the power to go to any place any time as he pleases.  No one nothing can restrict his Divinely Blessed abilities.  This is no surprise or amazement to us as there is a consensus of the entire Ummah on such belief.  Shiekh Muhaqqiq Allama Imam Abdul Haqq Muhaddith Dehlawi t states in Majma’ee-Barakaat,

 

Insert Arabic.

 

The Prophet of Allah r is fully aware of the condition of his Ummah.  He assists and blesses his sincere servants and he is Haadir and Naazir.  Allama Mulla Ali Qaari Hirwi Al-Makki t states in his Shar’he Shifa.

Insert Arabic

Because the sacred Ruh of the Nabi r is present in the Houses of the Muslim

 

Now that it is established consensus of the entire Ummah that the Habeeb is physically alive in his grave as he was in this Duniya and also Hazir and Nazir.  There is no objection if the Nabi r wishes to bless a chosen servant by attending his Salaatul Janaza.  One who objects to this, is certainly ignorant and a troublemaker.

 

Ala’Hadrat Imam Ahmed Rida t was a Mujaddid and a Mujaddid is a great Aalim of Deen. His insight to matters of Deen is prolific and deep.  A Mujaddid is a special appointed servant of Allah Y whose heart is filled with Divinely Blessed knowledge (Illme Laduni).  Therefore it is said; “When an Alim speaks, he dives into the ocean of knowledge”.  Imam Ahmed Rida t never claimed that he was the Imam of the Holy Prophet of Allah r. When he was informed that the Beloved Nabi r came to the Salaatul Janaza he said; “Alhamdulillah! I performed that mubarak Salaatul Janaza”.  This statement is absolutely correct according to the beliefs of the Ahle’Sunnah wa Jamaat.  Surely the ignorant do not understand the reality of the matter.  Let me enlighten them.

Firstly  the statement of Ala’Hadrat t will only be a blasphemy if the Deo-bandi Wahabi confirm that they belief Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r is Haazir and Naazir, then how do they conclude that it is blasphemy?

Secondly  it is a belief of the Ahle’Sunnah wa Jamaat that the statues of the Beloved Habeeb is unique in all aspects.  When the Jama’at begins, any person of the world who joins the Salaah will do so as a follower (Muqtadi).  But the unique status of Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r is that if he joins the Jama’at, he will not do so as a Muqtadi, but as the Imam while the Imam will become his Muqtadi and follow him.  So the Nabi will be his Imam and he will be the Imam of the followers.

The Hadith Shareef of Al-Bukhari confirms this and Shiekh Muhaqqiq Imam Abdul Haqq Muhaddith Dehlawi t records it in his Mudarijim-Nubuwwah.  Once Sayyiduna Abu Bakr As-Siddique t was leading the Salaah and the Prophet of Allah Y arrived.  Sayyiduna Abu Bakr t intended to move back and the beloved Nabi r did not stop him, instead stood on his left and joined the Jama’at.  The words of the Hadith Shareef are:

 

Insert Arabic

Our Imam was Abu-Bakr t and Abu Bakr ‘s t Imam was Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r.

 

This Imam Shareef removes all the clouds of doubts.  Now the statement of Ala’Hadrat t in Al-Malfooz becomes crystal clear.  Ala’Hadrat t says that Imam-ul Ambiya was my Imam and I was the Imam of the congregation.  Therefore Imam Ahmed Rida t used the words “MUBARAK JANAAZA” signalling to the reason this Janaza was blessed.  Therefore he said “Alhamdullillah! I performed this Blessed Janaza” to thank Almighty Allah Y for the privilege of being a Muqtadi of Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r.  But what can be said about the mischief and hatred of the Deo-bandi Wahabi?  They are disrespectful to Allah Y and His Rasool r and therefore their hearts are sealed form understanding truth.  How can they see truth when it is said:

 

Insert Arabic

Knowledge is light (Noor) of Allah Y and the disobedient do get the Noor of Allah Y

 

 

OBJECTION NO. 4

 

This objection is on vol. 3 pg 29 of Al-Malfooz where Ala’Hadrat t discussed the subject of Hayatun Nabi r.  He was asked about the difference between the Hayaat (life) of Prophets and Awlia.  Speaking of Hayat of Prophets, he quoted Imam Sayyid Muhammad bin Abdul Baaqi Zarqaani t who said; “The wives of the Noble Prophets of Allah are presented to them in the graves and they spend the nights with them.”  This quotation caused a tremor in Deo-Band.  They Deo-bandi Wahabies again displayed what they do the best i.e. lie.  They are habitual liars and lie as easily as they breathe.  It reminds me of the Hadith Shareef concerning liars.  The Glorious Prophet of Allah r states; “When a person lies, the Devil rubs honey on the liars lips do he enjoys the taste of lying.”

The Deo-bandies records their objection under the caption “ ‘Sunni’ Bareillwi Belief” they write, “In their respected graves the Prophets spend their nights in the company of their wives (i.e.) pursuing sexual pleasures).

The “Ala’Hadrat” Ahmed Rida Khan t has confirmed this notion;

“In the graves of the Prophets, their wives are presented to them to spend their nights in their company (to fulfil their desires).  Malfoozat-e-Ala’Hadrat vol. 3 pg.32.

Dear Reader! Did you notice the dramatic deceit in the above presentation? Observe the last line of the first comment “(i.e.) pursuing sexual pleasures)”.  And the next line, “the Ala’Hadrat…has confirmed this notion.  When quoting the original text of Malfoozat, the idiots put in their comments in brackets, (i.e.) pursuing sexual pleasures)”.  The great Arif Moulana Jalaalludeen Rumi t states:

“Dirty minds always have dirty thoughts”. The crux of the matter is that the Deo-bandi Wahabi regards the Holy Prophet r as an ordinary human being like you and I.  It is their belief that the status of the Habeeb likes that of a Big brother, and as far as deeds of an individual is concerned, sometimes the followers exceed to the Prophets in their deeds.  The Deo-bandi leader and former head of Darul-Uloom Deo-band, Molvi Qaasim Nanotwi write on page 7 of his Tahzeerum-Naas, line nos. 10,11,12.

 

Insert Arabic

 

If the Prophets are superior to their followers, then it is solely due to knowledge.  But as far as practical deeds (Amal) are concerned, at times outwardly they are in par ot the Prophets, in fact even surpass the Prophets.

The father of Wahabism and the role model of Deo-band in the Indo-Pak-Sub-Continent Deo-bandi Molvi Ismail Dehlawi clarifies his belief on page 52 of his Taqmiyatul Emaan in the following words;

 

Insert Arabic

 

All humans are brothers to one another.  One who is exalted is the bigger brother and hence should be respected as a big brother.  Allah Y is the Lord of everyone and he alone is to be worshipped.  It is understood from the Hadith that Awlia, Ambiya, Imams children, Peer and Shaheed and all the intimate servants of Allah Y are all known beings and hopeless servants and our brothers.  But since Allah Y has given them statues so they are our big brothers and Allah Y has ordered us to obey them.  We are their small brothers and we should respect them as general humans and not respect them as we do for Allah Y.

The above books are very revered by the Deo-bandies and regarded as their manual of guidance.  They have published several times and referred to all the time as their code of beliefs.

It should not surprised when they regard the presenting of the wives to the Prophets in their graves as absurd because they regard the Prophets as an ordinary human being and so apply the rule of ordinary human to him.