Appendix F: Exhibits from Books of Heretics

APPENDIX F

In this section, we reproduce images of the controversial passages present in the books of heretics mentioned by the author in the text. The exihibts from Mirzā’s books are translated in the main text and references provided; additional excerpts from Deobandī works are translated here.

FROM THE WORKS OF MIRZA QĀDIYĀNĪ

Izālah e Awhām, page 533; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 3/386]

Anjām e Aātham, page 52; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 11/52]

Anjām e Aātham, page 55; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 11/55]

Dāfiý al-Balā’a, page 6; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 18/227]

Izālah e Awhām, page 688; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 3/471]

Izālah e Awhām, page 8; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 3/106]

Izālah e Awhām, page 750; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 3/504]

Izālah e Awhām, page 753; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 3/506]

Izālah e Awhām, page 629; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 3/439]

Izālah e Awhām, page 26-29; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 3/115-116]

Izālah e Awhām, page 533; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 3/386]

Arbaýīn #2, page 13; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 18/233]

Miý-yār, page 13; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 18/233]

Kashtī e Nūĥ, page 13; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 19/14]

Kashtī e Nūĥ, page 16; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 19/17]

Dāfiý al-Balā’a, page 20; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 18/240-241]

Dāfiý al-Balā’a, page 15; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 18/235]

Anjām e Ātham, page 41; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 11/41]

Kashtī e Nūĥ, page 56; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 19/60]

Iýjāz e Aĥmadī, page 13; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 19/120]

Iýjāz e Aĥmadī, page 14; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 19/121]

Iýjāz e Aĥmadī, page 24; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 19/133]

Iýjāz e Aĥmadī, page 24; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 19/133]

Iýjāz e Aĥmadī, page 13; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 19/121]

Iýjāz e Aĥmadī, page 14; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 19/121]

Kashti e Nūĥ, page 5; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 19/5]

Dāfiý al-Waswās, page 3; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 18/219-220]

Zamīmah Anjām e Aātham, page 27; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in /]

Dāfiý al-Balā’a, title page. [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 18/219]

Dāfiý al-Balā’a, page 4; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 18/220]

Anjām e Aātham, page 7; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 11/291]

Anjām e Aātham, page 7 [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 11/291-292]

Kashtī e Nūĥ, page 16; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 19/18]

Anjām e Aātham, page 6 [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 11/290]

Izālat al-Awhām, page 4; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 3/105-106]

Izālat al-Awhām, page 303; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 3/254]

Izālat al-Awhām, page 310; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 3/258]

Izālat al-Awhām, page 310-311; [Rūĥānī Khazā’in 3/258]

EXHIBITS FROM DEOBANDĪ WORKS

Iyđāĥ al-Ĥaqq

Written by Ismāýīl Dihlawī, p24, published by Afđal al-Maţābiý Press in the 1800s along with Yak Rozi on its margins.

The transcendence of [Allāh] the Exalted from time, place, direction, modality, rational composition; the discussion of Attributes being the same [as Essence] or additional; or to prove that Allāh táālā can be seen without direction or boundaries; or the existence of individual-indivisible particle [jawhar al-fard] or the nonexistence of prime-matter or hyle [hayūlā] 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 [kalām] or philosophical theology are all inherently heretical beliefs.

If anybody professes the aforementioned beliefs and considers them as part of religious beliefs

Taqwiyatu’l Īymān

Written by Ismāýīl Dihlawī. These exhibits are from the book printed in 1893 CE by Iftikhār Publishers, Delhi. Taqwiyatu’l Īymān, Page 14:

... and whoever assigned the Right of Allāh to his creation – has assigned the right of the Greatest to the lowliest. As if you would place the crown of the king on the cobbler’s head – what else can be more unjust than this? And it should be known with certainty, that everyone in the creation – whether great or small; all of them are more contemptible [dhalīl] than a menial cobbler in the Presence of Allāh.

Shown below is the most incendiary passage from the book, which led to refutations by Sunni úlamā and the Mútazilī doctrine of “Allāh táālā has power to lie..” or imkān alkadhib was revived only to justify Ismāýīl’s raving, which the Deobandī sect continues to fight for and defend to this day. On page 31 of Taqwiyatu’l Īymān:

The greatness of the King of kings [shahenshāh] 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 Jibrīl and Muĥammad ﷺ.

He equates intercession of Prophets to idolatry committed by Abū Jahl; on page 8:

Even disbelievers [kāfirs] in the time of the Messenger of Allāh did not believe that their idols were equal to Allāh; they too believed that [idols were] creation and slaves; nor did they profess that [such idols] had power against Allāh.

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 that they [i.e., intercessors] are the slaves and creation of Allāh – even then, he and Abū Jahl are equal in polytheism [or idolatry]. On the same page:

..to believe that [such an intercessor] can be ‘present and watching’ [ĥāđir-nāżir] and prove that he has the power to dispense in affairs [ţaşarruf]; these things are proof of polytheism. Further, even if he believes that such a person [intercessor] is lesser than Allāh 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 treats any of them in such a manner, becomes a polytheist – whether he does it with prophets, saints, shaykhs, martyrs or ghosts and fairies.

On 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 Allāh 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 [mujāwar] 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 [ishrāk fi’l íbādat] The first paragraph is not only a blatant rejection of the Şaĥīĥ ĥadīth, but an accusation that it is shirk!

Ismāýīl says that considering any other city as “ĥaram” or a sanctuary where hunting is forbidden is idolatry, whereas RasūlAllāh ﷺ made Madīnah a sanctuary as mentioned in Bukhārī §2129 and Muslim §1360; also see Endnote 13. This claim of Ismāýīl implies that the şaĥīĥ ĥadīth teaches us idolatry! We seek Allāh’s refuge.

On page 24:

Allāh şāĥib 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?”

On the same page 24:

...it can be understood from this verse, that prophets and saints whom Allāh táālā has made high [badaa] – the only superiority they have is that they guide towards the way of Allāh and prevent from bad ways The above argument continues to the next page, where he reduces the rank of everyone – irrespective of how great or small – to the rank of a menial cobbler.

It should be known that in the Urdu language and in the Indian context, a cobbler was a term to denote a despicable wretch, a base person and the lowest in the society. On page 25:

...In these things, great and small are all equal, helpless and powerless, and in this manner, they have no greatness either that Allāh şāĥib has given them the choice to learn about the unseen – so that they can learn about their condition whenever they want...

...In these things as well, all slaves, great or small are all equal, helpless and clueless and ignorant.

On page 27:

Whoever says that the Prophet of Allāh or any Imām or any Elder knew things from the unseen, but they would not utter it respecting the Sharīáh, such a person is a very big liar; rather, nobody knows about the unseen except Allāh.

Bukhārī narrates from Umm Álā’a that she said: RasūlAllāh ﷺ said: “By Allāh, I do not know; By Allāh, I do not know and I am the Messenger of Allāh – what will be done to me, nor to you” Translation: In Mishkāt, in the Chapter of Fear and Weeping, it is mentioned that Bukhārī mentions Umm Alā’a reporting that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: I swear by Allāh that I do not know; again, I swear by Allāh that I do not know – even though I am the Messenger of Allāh: what will happen to me or to you. Insight: That is whatever Allāh táālā 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...

This is quoting the ĥadīth out of context; while the ĥadīth is şaĥīĥ, it was said at some other time and has a background. It does not mean that the Prophet ﷺ is unaware of his state in the Hereafter – especially when Allāh táālā has promised him the Praised Station and that ‘every successive moment is better than the one that had passed’.

On page 28:

We learn from this verse that the disbelievers in the time of the Prophet ﷺ also held the opinion that there was no one equal to Allāh, nor could they oppose Him. However, they considered their idols as their intercessors – and that is why they became disbelievers [kafirs].

Thus, if anyone believes that anybody in the creation has the authority to dispense in affairs [taşarruf] and believes that such [entity] is his supporter [wakīl] and believes in it, then he becomes a disbeliever; thus, even now if anyone proves dispensing in affairs [taşarruf] for anyone in the creation and considers him a helper [wakīl] and believes in him – then polytheism is proven for such a person.

Going by Ismāýīl Dihlawī’s ravings, the Qur’ān and ĥadīth teach polytheism! Al-íyādhu billāh. Because many verses in the Qur’ān and ĥadīth tell us that Angels are appointed to dispense in affairs! Ismāýīl says, it is shirk even if you believe that they are not equal to Allāh, and that He has granted them that power.

On Page 29:

Faa [Insight:] That is, when such a Powerful [Being] like Allāh exists, calling upon weak people who can neither benefit nor harm is absolutely unjust because this establishes such a great rank of such a great person for a worthless people. Ismāýīl Dihlawī, who is in the sight of Allāh worse than a menial cobbler, and whom Deobandis consider their guru and high-priest, calls prophets and saints as worthless folk.

On page 42:

He, whose name is Muĥammad or Álī, has no authority to do anything

On page 42 again:

Or if one believes about the Prophet that sharīáh means his command – and that he would make lawful whatever he wished and it would become binding upon his followers. All these things necessitate polytheism; rather, the Sovereign is Allāh and the Prophet is only an informer. The ignorance of Ismāýīl is once again evident in the above statement.

Allāh táālā gave the Prophet ﷺ the authority to make lawful or forbid things as mentioned in the Qur’ān and şaĥīĥ hadith. The imbecile did not realise that his mad and unhinged takfirism would implicate the blessed Prophet ﷺ and accuse him of...1175 astaghfirullāh – we seek Allāh’s refuge from such a repugnant statement. See Endnote 13.

In Sūrah Aāl Ímrān 3:93, Allāh táālā says: “Every food was lawful for the Children of Isrā’yīl, except that which Isrā’yīl [Yáqūb عليه السلام] made unlawful for himself...” It is said that Sayyidunā Yáqūb عليه السلام had made camel meat forbidden for himself. Compare this with Ismāýīl’s raving.

On page 60:

He translated a ĥadīth which ends thus (in his Urdu translation) and adds his comment: “...worship your Lord and respect your brother.”

Insight: That is all humans are brothers; those who are older, are our elder brothers – and one should respect them only as you would respect your elder brother. And everyone’s Lord is Allāh, so worship Him.

Thus we understand from this ĥadīth that saints and Prophets, imāms and their children, shaykhs and martyrs – all the beloved slaves of Allāh – all are humans and weak slaves and our brothers; except that Allāh has given them eminence, so they are our elder brothers, and He commanded us to obey them, so we are their younger brothers.

On page 60:

...that we prostrate to you. So he said: “To me! Ponder, that if you were to pass by my grave would you prostrate to it?” I said “No.” He said: “Then do not do it.” Insight: That is, when one day, I too shall die and become dust [i.e. decay], then how am I deserving of being prostrated to? Prostration is due only to the Transcendent Being [i.e. Allāh] who does not die.

We also learn from this ĥadīth that one should not prostrate to the living or the dead, nor towards any grave... Look at the hypocrite’s ugly words! On one hand he denies the authority of the Prophet himself in the Sharīáh – and on the other hand he himself crafts laws and rulings according to his devilish whims. Also see Endnote 28 for a detailed explanation.

Şirāţ e Mustaqīm

This exhibit is from the book printed by Zia Publishers, Meerut in 1285 AH. This book, originally in Persian, was written by Ismāýīl Dihlawī and claimed to be the utterings and teachings of his shaykh, Sayyid Aĥmad Baraylawī.

Apologists for Ismāýīl claim that the following passage is not Ismāýīl’s own but that of his shaykh; even though, Ismāýīl has himself claimed full responsibility for all the contents of the book:1176 sd

It is better to think about sexual intercourse with one’s own wife, than tempting thoughts of fornication, and to expend one’s thoughts towards one’s shaykh or similar revered individuals – even if it is the esteemed Messenger,1177 is worse many times over than being engrossed in thinking about one’s own cow or donkey...1178

Yak Rozah

The above exhibit is from Yak Rozah/Yak Rozī of Ismāýīl Dihlawī. I have another older edition, probably from the mid-1800s, printed on the margins of Yīđāĥ al-Ĥaqq, but this is preferred for readability [Note: Only relevant portions are translated here].

After giving information, it is possible that Allāh táālā can discard it. Therefore, the saying that ‘Creation similar to him can exist’ does not fundamentally belie any text, and the revocation of the Qur’ān [salb e Qur’ān] after revelation is also a possibility.

We do not accept that such a falsehood is impossible [muĥāl] for Allāh táālā. 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 Allāh táālā; otherwise, it would necessitate that the power of humans is more than the Power of the Almighty.

They enumerate the absence of falsehood [ádam e kazib] as an Attribute of Perfection [for Allāh taala] and such an absence of falsehood is considered as praise of Allāh táālā 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.

Tahdhīr al-Nās

These are three passages from the book,1179 printed in the lifetime of the author in 1291 AH and is probably the original print edition. In his refutation, Alahazrat mentioned the 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. How can Deobandis explain these statements if presented by a Qādiyānī as proof for Mirzā’s claim of prophethood?

[Page 2]...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 RasūlAllāh ﷺ being ‘Seal’ means that the age [of his advent] comes later than that of all other prophets and he is chronologically the last prophet; but people of understanding are aware that there is no superiority in being prior or later chronologically; then, how can this be valid as praise in this context: “Rather, he is the Messenger of Allāh and the Seal of Prophets”?1180

[Page 9]...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 Muĥammad ﷺ is the finality of rank, not chronological finality. If you ask me, in my humble opinion, a judicious person cannot reject this.

[Page 33] Hypothetically, suppose a new prophet is born after the time of the Prophet ﷺ, even then there will be no effect on the ‘finality’ of the prophethood of Muĥammad ﷺ; [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 ﷺ time] without affecting his finality.

Fatwā of Rashīd Aĥmad Gangohi

Even though the third person has committed a mistake in the interpretation of the verses, one should not call him a kāfir or a heretic or a misguided person.1181 Because a great number of scholars and elders accept occurrence of the repealing of the threat of punishment.1182 Thus, Maulavi Aĥmad Ĥasan has described this in his monograph, Tanzīh al-Raĥmān.

Apart from this, those who consider that occurrence of repealing of the threat of punishment as possible,1183 they also believe that such a repealing can occur. It is also clear that khulf-waýīd1184 is a specific case and falsehood is a generic case.1185 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;1186 and all of these1187 are categories of falsehood.

And the existence of the sub-category necessitates the existence of the main class.1188 If one is a human, then certainly he will also be an animal.1189 Therefore, the meaning of occurrence of falsehood has thus become valid,1190 regardless of whom this concerns. Thus, based upon this, one should not say any harsh word to the third person, because that would necessitate takfīr of elder scholars.

Nevertheless, this is a weak statement. However, according to the mad’hab 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 Ĥanafīs and Shāfiýīs 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 Mu’min” is mentioned in books of doctrine.1191 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,1192 is an agreed-upon statement; no one has differed upon this issue.1193

And if We so Wished, We would have given every soul its guidance; but it has been said in my Truthful promise,1194 I shall fill Hell with men and jinn, all of them.1195

And Allāh táālā knows best. Written by the lowly Rashīd Aĥmad Gangohī, may he be forgiven. [Seal of Rashīd Ahmad]

Ĥifż al-Īmān

If, the attribution of knowledge to his1196 blessed person by Zayd1197 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,1198 then where is the exclusiveness of RasūlAllāh ﷺ in this?1199 Such knowledge is [posessed by] Zayd and Ámr;1200 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.1201 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?1202 An attribute in which, there is no exclusivity for believers – not even exclusivity for humans;1203 then, how can this be an exclusive attribute of prophethood?1204 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 narrated1205 and rational proofs.

Barāhīn al-Qāţiáh ...rather all the claims of the author1206 will be rejected. The Pride of the World عليه السلام has himself said: ‘By Allāh, I do not know that which may befall me nor that which may befall you’ as mentioned in the Ĥadīth.

Shaykh Abdu’l Haq1207 reports [that he said]: ‘I do not even know what is behind the wall.’1208 Thus it is also written in Bahr ar-Rāyiq 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;1209 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 Allāh’s refuge!1210 Such ignorance on the part of the author is surprising, and it also saddening that he utters such an unworthy1211 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 earth1212 for the Pride of the World,1213 without any scriptural evidence1214 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?1215