ummtaalib

Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani: True Sincerity (Ikhlaas) Only Attainable Through TasawwufThe level of Ikhlaas in deeds determines its acceptability and barakah (blessings). A great deed can become futile, and an insignificant deed can become a means of salvation, due to the level of ikhlaas in the heart. The Sahabahs (radhiyallahu anhum) attained a rank and a level of ikhlaas, which will remain unsurpassable, purely by virtue of spending a few moments in the Suhba (company) of the Best of Mankind (Allah bless him and grant him peace). This is why, according to the Hadith, the charity of a handful donated by a Sahabah, will always supersede the charity of a mountain’s worth of gold donated by anyone else. The fact that the deeds of the Sahabahs produced immeasurable barakah is undeniable when considering only the fact that an unlettered, inexperienced and ill-equipped desert tribe, triggered a tidal wave of Tawheed that engulfed half the known world, including the so-called ‘civilized’ superpowers of Rome and Persia, within thirty years – a feat unmatched in the recorded history of mankind. Shaykh Rashid Ahmad Gangohi states the reason for the superiority of the first few generations: “The spiritual strength of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was such that the most unruly disbeliever would reach the state of ihsan by just saying La Ilaha Illa Allah Muhammad Rasul Allah (There is no deity except Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah)…they were not in need of the different types of struggles (mujahadah) and spiritual exercises (riyadah). This strength existed in the Companions on account of the Prophet’s fayd (spiritual blessings), but this was less than what the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had. It was also in the Followers (Tabi’in), but this was less than what was in the Companions. It was also present in the Followers of the Followers (Atba’ al-Tabi’in) albeit it had become very weak.” The fact that the quantity of deeds performed by the Tabi’in and the Atba’ al-Tabi’in far exceeded that of the Sahabahs, compensated partially for the lack of Suhba of the Messenger . Anecdotes of the people of these generations praying continuously throughout every night and fasting every single day, for many decades, are not unusual. In a similar sense, the science of tasawwuf, and the exercises involved in it, compensate to a certain extent for the Suhba required for spiritual progress which only the early generations were blessed with, and enables one to attain a level of sincerity more acceptable to Allah. Mawlana Gangohi continues to state: “…To compensate for the shortcomings, the mashayikh developed forms of mujahadah and riyadah which remained for some time as a means (wasa’il) that were not the purpose themselves…” Just as the perfection of sciences such as Tajweed or Arabic grammar, is virtually unattainable nowadays without the exercises of Tajweed, Nahw or Sarf, supervised by a master, the perfection of sincerity (ikhlas) is virtually unattainable without pursuing the path of tasawwuf. The indispensability of tasawwuf is borne out by the fact that the vast majority of those who have brought about significant Tajdeed (revival) and preservation of the religion in whole regions, attained their perfections through this science. They include the likes of Abdul Qadir Jilani, Shihabuddin Suharwardi, Moinud Deen Chishti, Ali Muttaqi, Tahir al-Patni, Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani and Shah Waliullah. A recent example worth mentioning is the impact of the Deobandi Akabir on Islamic scholarship, in every field including Tafseer, Hadith, Fiqh, Tableegh, Jihad, and in the reformation and education of hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani re-iterates in many of his letters, the fact that the Sufi path is taken only to enhance the quality of ikhlaas: “Tariqah and Haqiqah, qualities with which the Sufis are distinguished, are both the third part of Shari’ah, i.e. they serve to complete the quality of sincerity. Hence, the purpose of acquiring them both is perfecting Shari’ah, not something other than Shari’ah.” Just as the various sciences developed after the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) to aid in the preservation of the Deen, such as Ilmul Rijaal, Fiqh, Tajweed, Nahw and Sarf, are not bid’ah, the science of tasawwuf is not a bid’ah, and its true purpose and importance has been re-iterated throughout the ages by the Muhaqqiq Sufis, many of whom were Mujaddids whose signs were clearly evident in the barakah placed in their legacy by Allah. Shaykh Zakariyyah Khandhlawi states: “The writings of the Akabir are explicit that the original purpose [of Tasawwuf] is acquiring the state of ihsan, and that the struggles and spiritual exercises that have been prescribed by the Sufis have been devised for the ailments of the hearts in the same way doctors prescribe new types of medicine for new forms of physical illnesses. In the same way there is no doubt regarding physical medicines that they may be bid’ah, to consider spiritual medicines bid’ah is ignorance. They are not the original purpose. They are special methods of remedy for particular illnesses.” Difference in Levels of IkhlaasAs with the perfection of any other aspect of life, there will naturally exist a difference in the level of Ikhlaas possessed by the one who has perfected his heart through a rigorously developed system under the mentorship of a perfected master, and the one who attempts to perfect it by himself. This difference is explicated well here by Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani: Volume 1, Letter 59 “On the whole, beliefs and practices are known from the Shar’, and sincerity (ikhlaas) which is the essence of belief and practice, is to be attained only through the suluk of the Sufis. Unless you perform the meditation leading to Allah and enter into the meditation in Allah, you are away from the reality of sincerity and unaware of the excellences of the sincere. Certainly, an ordinary Muslim acquires by his effort and struggle a kind of sincerity in some actions. But the sincerity we are talking of is sincerity in everything you say or do, and in all your movements and rests, without making any effort and struggle. This sincerity depends upon the negation of all kinds of gods, within and without, and follows upon fana’ and baqa’. By this only you attain real Wilayat (sainthood). The sincerity which is the result of effort and struggle is not a permanent thing. In order to be permanent, it has to be spontaneous and effortless. This occurs at the stage of absolute certainty. Hence whatever the Auliyah (saints) do, they do for the sake of Allah, not for themselves, because their selves have been sacrificed to Allah. They do not have to purify their motives in order to attain that sincerity; their motives have already been purified through fana’ and baqa’ in Allah. He who is still in love with his self, does whatever he does for his own sake whether he is aware of it or not. But when the love for the self disappears and is replaced by the love of Allah, whatever he does, he does for the sake of Allah, whether he deliberately attends to his intention (niyyat) or not. You need to specify your intention when you have alternatives; but when you have no alternative you do not need to specify. “This is the favour with which Allah blesses whom He likes, and Allah is most gracious.” The man whose sincerity is permanent is the mukhlas (that is, the one who has been chosen by Allah and reserved for Himself), and the one whose sincerity is not permanent and who has to strive for it, he is mukhlis (that is, the sincere). What a difference between the two! The benefit you get in matters of belief and practice by following the Sufi tariqah is that you see in vision the same truths of theology which you know by arguments, you find that the performance of the duties of the Shari’ah is extremely easy, and you feel that the sloth which Satan causes in you has completely disappeared. This is a great thing. Let us see who attains it!” Source

Sign of a Religion’s Veracity The truth and spirituality of any religion is based on the devotion and sincerity of its founder as well as the correctness, truthfulness and sincerity of its principles. If the one presenting the religion is truthful and accepted as truthful, and possesses a sublime character that is unmatched the world over, and the principles of the religion are such that they are totally flawless in the eyes of every individual of sound intellect, then that religion is accepted and worthy of being adopted. If the founder of the religion is such as that of the Rafidis and the principles are those found in Shiaism, then they are not acceptable to anyone of sound temperament. Who is the founder of Shiaism and what are Shia principles? I hereby present a brief but useful and accepted outline of Shiaism supported by a number of references. Please read attentively. The Founder of Shiaism was a Jew His name was ‘Abdullah ibn Wahb ibn Saba;[1] Al-Miqrizi has mentioned this in [Mawaiz wa al-‘Itibar bi dhikr] al-Khitat wa al-Athar. It is also mentioned in the well-known Shia book Rijal al-Kashi (an authority in the classification of narrators): “Some people of knowledge have stated that ‘Abdullah ibn Saba was a Jew who embraced Islam and claimed love for ‘Ali (peace be upon him). While still a Jew he would exaggerate his opinion regarding Yusha‘ ibn Nun, the appointed successor of Musa. During his Islam after the demise of the Prophet of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), he held the same opinion regarding ‘Ali (peace be upon him). He was the first to innovate the opinion of the imamah (infallible leadership) of ‘Ali, as well as severing all links with those who [in his opinion] opposed ‘Ali. He would expose the opponents of ‘Ali and call them unbelievers. Hence, it was due to this that the adversaries of Shias believe Shiaism to have stemmed from Jews.” [sic] Although the author of Rijal al-Kashi attributes the opinion that Shiaism stemmed from the Jews to his adversaries, the aforementioned passage accepts that [1] ‘Abdullah ibn Saba is the founder of Shiaism, [2] the imamah of Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) is considered necessary, [3] the severing of all ties with adversaries and considering them unbelievers and apostates (which are core beliefs of Shiaism), [4] and the attribution of all of the above to ‘Abdullah ibn Saba. The author has been just to mention that ‘Abdullah ibn Saba is a fundamental pillar from the founders of Shiaism but has stumbled by attributing [the Jewish connection] to their adversaries. [The author then writes an Urdu poem, the meaning of which is as follows] The lover’s foot has become entangled in beloved’s long locks, Behold, the hunter has been caught in his own trap. The objective of this booklet is to prove that ‘Abdullah ibn Saba (a covert Jew) was among the founders of Shiaism who overtly embraced Islam and to some extent succeeded in his vow to destroy Islam. Based on Ibn Saba’s fundamental teachings, approximately 80 sects emerged in this single religion. Among these sects were the Ghulat, Kaysaniyyah, Zaydiyyah, Tafdiliyyah, Imamiyyah, Mu‘tazilah, Jahamiyyah and Karramiyyah etc., all of which were offshoots of this single religion. Enmity towards the Noble Companions We shall present a few preliminary words to simplify this issue. 1. When the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was migrating to al-a-Madinah al-Munawwarah, the Quraysh of Makkah announced a reward for a hundred camels for anyone who kills or captures the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). As a result, Sayyiduna Suraqah ibn Malik (d. 24 AH) (may Allah be pleased with him)—who had not yet embraced Islam—pursued these two esteemed personalities. On seeing them he was set on his evil intention and intended to kill them. His horse, however, sank into the ground numerous times and he was unsuccessful. This entire incident is mentioned in detail in Sahih al-Bukhari (vol. 1, pg. 554). Our purpose in mentioning this short historical piece—which the Hafiz of the Maghreb Yusuf ibn ‘Abdullah, commonly known as Ibn ‘Abdul Barr al-Maliki (d. 463 AH) has mentioned in Al-Istiy‘ab (Egyptian print, vol. 2, p. 581) and Hafiz ‘Izz al-Din ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Athir (d. 630 AH) in Usd al-Ghabah fi Ma‘rifah al-Sahabah (vol. 3, p. 69)—is that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said to Suraqah ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him): “What a blessed time it will be when you will be wearing Khosrau’s bracelets…” This was a prophecy of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) granting him permission—with the order of Allah—to wear gold bracelets. The Qur’an states: “He [the Prophet] does not speak out of his own desire. It is but revelation revealed (to him)” (Surah Najm: 3-4). Thus, there remains no opportunity for objection if the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) grants someone an exemption from a command of Allah, nor does this necessitate that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is endowed with total discretion (mukhtar al-kull). It is a strange sight that this very individual whose kinsmen compelled him to leave his cherished homeland without sufficient bread to eat to his fill—and forget having a mansion he did not even have comfortable dwellings let alone warm soft bedding—promises Suraqah ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) the bracelets of Khosrau with Allah’s permission. [The author then writes an Urdu poem, the meaning of which is as follows] A bed of earth and cap of rags, This is the crown of Khosrau and the throne of Sulayman. This prophecy was fulfilled in the golden caliphate of Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and Sayyiduna Suraqah ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) was adorned with Khosrau’s bracelets in the Prophet’s masjid. Those present witnessed the spectacle of the world’s volatility. “What a blessed time it will be when you will be wearing Khosrau’s bracelets!” The wisdom behind this that comes to mind is that the Prophet’s (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement implied: O Suraqah. Today you desire to kill or capture the true Messenger of Allah for worldly gains, but what blessed a time it will be when you will be a Muslim and Allah and His Messenger’s (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) pleasure will be better for you than the world and all that it contains. You will wear the bracelets of Khosrau and this bounty will only be acquired through obedience to Allah and His Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). You will acquire faith in its complete form without compromising the world. In this incident of migration, for Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) to embark on a journey with the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him Peace) while endangering his own life was no ordinary task. Hence, exhibiting hostility towards such a saintly figure and refusing to accept his caliphate is synonymous with exhibiting enmity to Islam and the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)—may Allah protect us. What sort of service to Islam is it to harbour hatred and enmity towards the esteemed personality of Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and refuse to acknowledge his rightful caliphate in which the Prophet’s prophecy manifested itself when Khosrau’s treasures reached the Prophet’s masjid? 2. Shias believe most of the Noble Companions (may Allah be pleased with him) to be unbelievers and apostates in that besides a selected three or four the rest left Islam, we seek refuge with Allah (see the Shia book: Ihtijaj by Tabarsi, p. 48). “None from the Ummah offered allegiance (bay‘ah) [to Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him)] save ‘Ali and our four [individuals].” Meaning, according to Shias everyone willingly pledged allegiance besides five personalities. It is mentioned in [the Shia book] Hayat al-Qulub (vol. 2, p. 643): “It is narrated from Imam Baqir with a sound chain of narration that all the Companions had become apostates after the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) passed away, besides three: Salman, Abu Dharr and Miqdad.” It is also mentioned in the Shia books: Kitab al-Ikhtisas, Rawdah al-Kafi (p. 115), Rijal al-Kashi (p. 8) and Ihtijaj Tabarsi (Iranian print, p. 48): “It is narrated from Abu Ja‘far who said that all of the people (meaning the Companions) became apostates after the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) besides three: Miqdad, Abu Dharr and Salman.” It is stated in [the Shia book] Kitab al-Ikhtisas: “I heard Abu ‘Abdullah (peace be upon him) say that when the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) passed away all of his Companions became apostates except three: Salman, Abu Dharr and ‘Ammar.” Ponder over how there were one hundred and twenty four thousand Companions after the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)—as mentioned in the Shia book Majma‘ Bihar al-Anwar (p. 564)—and despite the twenty three years of the Prophet’s teachings, the outcome of the best of Ummahs was that they all became apostates after the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Even the Companions of Sayyiduna Musa (peace be upon him)—who were sorcerers and then embraced Islam—responded to Pharaoh’s threats of severe punishment of execution and the like by saying: “So decide whatever you have to decide (we will not forsake the truth)” (Surah Taha: 72). This even though they had only been blessed with a very short time in the company of Sayyiduna Musa (peace be upon him). In light of Shari‘ah principles, it is an accepted fact that the Ummah of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is the best of Ummahs. [is it the case that] the Ummah of Sayyiduna Musa (peace be upon him), which is lower in rank than the Ummah of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), never became apostates after facing and hearing of trials and tribulations, while the best Ummah became apostates in spite of spending twenty three years in the company of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and even though they were not faced with any difficulty? Is this not a direct attack on the lofty status of Prophethood? The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) taught them for so long—day and night, during expeditions and at home, in the masjid and on the battlefield. However, [is it so that] when he left the world they all became apostates? It is on account of this that the Christian historian Godfrey Higgins wrote the truth regarding the Companions in his book An Apology for the Life and Character of the Celebrated Prophet of Arabia, called Mohamed, or the Illustrious: “The Christians would do well to recollect, that the doctrines of Mohamed created a degree of enthusiasm in his followers which is to be sought in vain in the immediate followers of Jesus, and that his religion spread with rapidity unexampled in that of the Christians. In less than half a century it became triumphant in many great and flourishing empires. When Jesus was led to the cross, his followers fled, their enthusiasm forsook them, and they left him to perish and if they were forbidden to defend him, they might have remained to comfort him, patiently setting at defiance his and their persecutors. The followers of Mohamed, on the contrary, rallied round their persecuted prophet, and, risking their lives in his defence, made him triumph over all his enemies.”[2] 3. Shias slander the Companions as a whole and Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) in particular. Notice that in their gatherings they criticise Sayyiduna ‘Umar the most in comparison to other Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). Rather they fabricate many unbefitting incidents that they then attribute to him. Some are reproduced below: Sayyiduna ‘Umar kicked Sayyida Fatima causing her to miscarry and he tied a rope around the neck of Sayyiduna ‘Ali, dragging him away by force to pledge allegiance to Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them). This is mentioned in a famous book of the Shias called Jala al-‘Uyun (vol. 1, p. 152). How regretful is this? What happened to the bravery of Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) on account of which he ripped off the door of the fort of Khaybar? Where was the one who they remember with the words mushkil kusha (remover of all difficulties)? Try to correlate this fictional tale with the bravery of Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). It should also be noted that the narration that mentions that Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) ripped off the door of Khaybar that seventy men failed to do so is fabricated. See Mizan al-I‘tidal (vol. 1, p. 142 and vol. 2, p. 218) and Al-Taqrib (p. 49). Sayyiduna ‘ Umar burnt the house of Sayyida Fatima (may Allah be pleased with them). See Kitab al-Murtada (p. 45), Hadd al-Tahqiq (p. 332) and Al-Milal wa al-Nihal (vol. 1, p. 25) etc. One narration [of the Shias] mentions that Sayyiduna ‘Umar whipped Sayyida Fatima (may Allah be pleased with them) which caused her immense distress. Among other false incidents and baseless stories, the Shias believe that Sayyiduna ‘Umar was the one who instigated the issue of Fadak and the caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them). It is on account of this that some extreme individuals create effigies of Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) from flour which they then fill with honey and then strike with their swords while saying they have killed Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). They then drink the honey and say we have drank his blood. This I have heard from some well-read scholars. Shias express the harshest hatred for Sayyiduna ‘Umar, Sayyiduna Abu Bakr, Sayyiduna ‘Uthman and the Chaste Wives of the Prophet (may Allah bless them). It is stated in their renowned book Tuhfah al-‘Ulum (vol. 1, p. 20) that one should not get up off the prayer mat without cursing and expressing hatred for three of the Prophet’s companions (Sayyiduna Abu Bakr, Sayyiduna ‘Umar and Sayyiduna ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them)) and two wives. The two chaste wives are Sayyida ‘Ayshah and Sayyida Hafsah (may Allah be pleased with them). We should here contemplate why they have enmity for the Companions in general and Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) in particular. What is the cause, reason and basis of this hatred? By the end of Sayyiduna ‘Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) caliphate in 23 AH, Muslims had conquered thirty six thousand cities and forts, averaging nine cities or forts a day. Four thousand temples of idol worship were converted into masjids. The total area of land conquered by Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was 2.2 million square miles (see the footnotes of Tadhkirah al-‘Allamah al-Mashriqi, vol. 1, p. 69).[3] Among these conquered lands, Iraq and Iran are worthy of mention—the Levant (al-Sham) and Egypt etc. were also among the conquered lands. Iran, which belonged to the Zoroastrians, was conquered during the caliphate Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and Khosrau’s treasures were distributed in the Prophet’s masjid. Sayyiduna Suraqah ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) was made to wear the bracelets of Khosrau and thus the prophecy of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was realised. When these people, the Persian Zoroastrians, were captured by the Muslims and saw their kingdom fall to bits then that same fire that they worshipped exploded in their hearts. Some of the cunning ones among them hypocritically embraced Islam and expressed love for the Ahl al-Bayt (family members of the Prophet). It was under this disguise that they kept the Zoroastrian spirit alive. It is on account of this that they hold profound enmity for Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) and it is also on account of this that the majority of Shias today are found in Iraq and Iran. This is because Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) made their Iran into an Islamic state and took them as captives. Their empire, which had been established for centuries, was conquered in a flash, transforming their honour into humiliation. Shehar Bano, Khosrau’s daughter, was brought as a captive and their treasures, throne and crown, was distributed among the Companions (may Allah be pleased with him) in front of them. They witnessed all of this and sought to take revenge in the form of sweet poison by deceitfully expressing love for the Ahl al-Bayt while persistently striking Islam with damaging blows. Neither did they love Islam or Ahl al-Bayt. Their love was reserved solely for disbelief, Zoroastrianism and eliminating Islam. Love for Ahl al-Bayt was nothing but a show. It is mentioned in [the Shia book] Ihtijaj Tabrisi (p. 59) that Sayyida Fatima addressed Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with them) with the following words: “O son of Abu Talib! You have sat in hiding like a foetus (in the womb of its mother) and you have sat at home like one who has been slandered.” Is it the case—we seek refuge with Allah Most High—that Sayyiduna Fatima received guidance from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) that speaking in such a tone with her husband, the rightful imam,[4] is permissible? If this is love for Ahl al-Bayt then we are certainly free from it. [The author then writes a Farsi poem, the meaning of which is as follows] “If this is [what you call a wali], then curse upon [such a wali].” If a house is of weak foundation, then the building can never be strong. The religious rulings, creed, Qur’an and hadiths that have reached the Ummah have only come by way of the Prophet’s Companions and Chaste Wives (may Allah be pleased with them). If the ones who compiled the Qur’an and transmitted the hadiths are considered disbelievers and apostates, then such a religion—with its corrupt foundation—is not a religion but a child’s play. The religion whose founders include ‘Abdullah ibn Saba and Iranian Zoroastrians, and whose beliefs include mut‘ah (temporary marriage), the concept of bada[5] and the takfir of the Companions, is akin to what is mentioned in this [Perisan] poem: If they appoint the cat as sultan, the dog as vizier, and the mouse as treasurer, Then this system of governing will run nations into ruin. These people are the founders of all the wrongs which developed in religion. We present a few passages of history to corroborate this. “Innovations (bid‘ah) and deviances in the religion were only spread by the children of captives (i.e. Persian captives etc.) as has been narrated in hadith.” (Al-Farq fi al-Firaq by Imam ‘Abdul Qahir al-Baghdadi al-Shafi‘i, p. 101). “When Shakir, the head of the heretics, was brought before Caliph Rashid to have his head severed, Rashid asked why is it that the first things you teach your people are Shia beliefs and disbelief in pre-destiny (qadr)? He replied: As to our teaching Shiaism, we intend to slander the narrators (meaning the Companions) by way of this. So when the [authority of the] narrators has been rendered null then that which they transmit (i.e. the religion of Islam) will be nullified…” (Tarikh al-Khatib, vol. 4, p. 308). Notice the clarity by which Shakir the heretic admits that they intend to destroy Islam by accusing the Companions of disbelief and apostasy. This same point can be corroborated through the following references: Al-Isabah fi Tadhkirah al-Sahabah by Hafidh ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, p. 10. Al-Yawaqit wa al-Jawahir by ‘Abdul Wahhab Al-Sha‘rani (d. 973 AH), p. 226. Kitab Al-Mu‘tamad by Fadlullah Turpushti who was a contemporary of Shaykh Sa‘di (d. 690 AH), section 3, chapter 4. Note: The aforementioned point is the actual reason why the Shias slander the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). Nevertheless, some uneducated people of the latter times began seeing Shias as sincere lovers of Ahl al-Bayt and genuinely considered Shiaism a part of Islam. They [islam and Shiaism] are totally separate, take note. Another obvious proof that the fitnah of enmity towards the Companions (may Allah be pleased with him) was harboured by non-Arab Persians is that the man who killed Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was a Zoroastrian slave of Sayyiduna Mughirah ibn Shu‘bah (may Allah be pleased with him) called Fayruz, whose teknonym (kunyah) was Abu Lu’Lu’ (this is mentioned in books of history and in Al-Ikmal fi Asma al-Rijal, p. 602). The martyrdom of Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was a result of the plot of Hurmuzan, the king of Tustur who was taken captive to the holy city of Madinah. He hypocritically proclaimed faith but harboured disbelief in his heart (see Fayd al-Bari, vol. 3, p. 473). The one who martyred Sayyiduna ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) was an Egyptian by the name of Aswad al-Tajibi (this is more correct as mentioned in Al-Ikmal fi Asma al-Rijal, p. 602). One of the reasons they hate Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) is that he appointed Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) as Caliph after him, on account of whom Islam spread widely and greatly prospered. A Question for the Shias Shehar Bano, the daughter of Khosrau, was brought to Madinah in captivity as a slave-girl during the caliphate of Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). She was married to Sayyiduna Husayn ibn ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and bore great Imams, in particular Imam Zayn al-‘Abidin. It is mentioned in [the Shia book] Usul al-Kafi (Kitab al-Hujjah, p. 296, in the section regarding the birth of ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn):[6] “It is narrated from Abu Ja‘far (peace be upon him) who said: ‘When the daughter of Yazdegerd appeared before ‘Umar … the Commander of the Faithful[7] (peace be upon him) suggested: ‘You need not issue a ruling. Instead, just allow her to choose a Muslim man of her choice and consider her his share of booty.’ Hence, she was given a choice so she went and placed her hand on the head of Husayn (peace be upon him). The Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him) asked her: ‘What is your name?’ She replied: ‘Jahan Shah.’ The Commander of the Faithful then said: ‘But your name is Shehar Bano.’ He then addressed Husayn: ‘Oh Abu ‘Abdullah. This woman will give birth for you the best person on earth.’ She later gave birth to ‘Ali ibn Husayn…”[8] Had the caliphate of Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) been a result of usurpation and if he were an apostate then this would necessitate the booty he distributed as being unlawful and Shehar Bano would have also been unlawful. Hence, how could the imam born from this haram woman be an [infallible] imam? Is this love for Ahl al-Bayt? Please clarify, may you be rewarded. The Testimony of a Non-Muslim At this point I would like to present a quote from Mohandas Gandhi (b. 1869 CE). Please read carefully. When the Indian National Congress emerged as a power in eight provinces in 1937 CE, Gandhi needed to present his ministers with the best role model of government and for this he cited the example of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna ‘Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with them). He writes: “History tells us of Pratap and Shivaji living in the utmost simplicity. But opinions may be divided as to what they did when they had power. There is no division of opinion about the prophet, Abu Bakr and Omar. They had the riches of the world at their feet. It will be difficult to find a historical parallel to match their rigorous life. Omar would not brook the idea of his lieutenants living in distant provinces and using anything but coarse cloth and coarse flour.” (July 17, 1937 in Harijan newspaper) This testimony is not insignificant because, according to Muslims, only six or seven thousand years have passed of the world. However, according to the Hindu faith four epochs are common belief (Tarikh-i-Farishta, vol. 1, p. 3): 1. Satya Yuga – This epoch is 1,728,000 years. The average age in this epoch is 100,000 years. 2. Treta Yuga – This epoch is 1,296,000 years. The average in this epoch is 10,000 years. 3. Dwapar Yuga– This epoch is 864,000 years. The average age in this epoch is 1000 years. Hindus believe Sayyiduna Nuh (peace be upon him) lived in this epoch. 4. Kali Yuga – This epoch is 432,000 years. The average age in this epoch is 100 years. The first three epochs have certainly passed. They total 3,888,000 years. Some of the fourth epoch has also passed but we will take only the first three. Within this 3,888,000 years, Gandhi knew of the history of the Romans, the Amalekites, the Greeks, the Japanese, the Chinese, the British and his own Hindu history. Neither was he impressed by Ramchander Ji, Krishan Ji, Biyas Ji, or any of the other Rajas and Maharajas. Instead, he claims that the rule of the likes of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) cannot be found in the pages of history. Beautiful is that woman, who is declared such by her [rival] co-wife, True virtue is that which the enemy testifies to. (Arabic sayings.) Martyrdom of Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) We shall mention his death briefly as mentioned by al-Mubarrad (d. 285 AH) in his book Al-Kamil (Egyptian print, vol. 3, p. 113) and by Shaykh Muhammad al-Hadari (d. 1255 AH) in Al-Muhadarat (vol. 2, p. 122 and also on p. 193) that the Kharijites ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim, Hajjaj ibn ‘Abdullah al-Suraymi and Zadawaih, the freed slave (mawla) of the Banu ‘Amr ibn Tamim, decided in a meeting that each one of them would assassinate one of three esteemed personalities. ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim would assassinate Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) who was in Kufa, Hajjaj ibn ‘Abdullah for Sayyiduna Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) who was in Damascus, and Zadawaih would kill Sayyiduna ‘Amr ibn Al-‘As (may Allah be pleased with him) who was in Egypt. They fixed a specific night for these assassinations. Hajjaj ibn ‘Abdullah was unsuccessful in his attempt to assassinate Sayyiduna Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) and Zadawaih attacked a man called Kharijah thinking he was Sayyiduna ‘Amr (may Allah be pleased with him). On learning who he had killed he said: “I intended to kill ‘Amr but Allah intended for Kharijah.” This statement later developed into a proverb. When someone sets out for something and it turns out different to what was intended they say this (see Tarikh Ibn Khallikan by Qadi Shams al-Din Ahmad ibn Khallikan d. 681 AH). ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim wounded Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) after dawn on Friday 18th Ramadhan, 40 AH. He passed away on Sunday 21st Ramadhan. We are for Allah and unto Him do we return. Shaykh al-Hadari mentions: “He was buried in Kufa which was the capital of his caliphate.” His caliphate lasted four years and a few days short of nine months. His total age was 63 or 65 or 70 or 75 (see Al-Ikmal, p. 603). The first is the most correct. Martyrdom of Sayyiduna Husayn ibn ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was martyred on 10th Muharram, 61 AH. He had a mere eighty companions with him at the time—seventy two of whom were martyred with him. Eighty eight men of the opposition were killed in Ibn Sa‘d’s army. As to who killed Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) is not part of the subject matter here. My heart tells me to continue writing because of this [Persian] poem: The (true) wayfarers never become weary on the path, (because) Love is their path and it is also their destination. However, I shall suffice on a few points. It is as the [urdu] poet says: Bring the register of deaths so that I may also see, Whose seal it is at the top. Who killed Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him)? Was it Sayyiduna Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him)? Certainly not! It is mentioned in the [shia book] Jala al-‘Uyun (p. 422) that Sayyiduna Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) specially advised Yazid regarding Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) that he is certain that the people of Iraq (Kufa) will invite Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) and subsequently betray and abandon him. [He said]: O Yazid, if you defeat them then take their sacred status and relation to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) into consideration. Do not punish them. Do not sever the connections I built with them in my time and let them not suffer. It is stated in the Shia book Nasikh al-Tawarikh (vol. 6, p. 111) that Sayyiduna Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “My son, beware! Let it not be the case that when you are presented to Allah on the Day of Judgement you are taken to account for the blood of Husayn ibn ‘Ali…” It is stated in the same book (vol. 2, p. 780) that Sayyiduna Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “How can I stigmatise Husayn when I find no fault in him…” All three references are from prominent Shia books which prove Sayyiduna Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) was neither the killer nor did he consent to the killing and that he was not present to witness the martyrdom. Was Yazid behind the martyrdom of Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him), or did he instigate it? Take into account the following references [from Shia works]: It is mentioned in Nasikh al-Tawarikh (p. 269) that when Zuhayr ibn Qays informed Yazid of Sayyiduna Husayn’s (may Allah be pleased with him) martyrdom “Yazid instantaneously lowered his head. The shock silenced him. Thereafter, he raised his head and remarked: ‘I would have been pleased with your obedience to me without the killing of Husayn. I would certainly have pardoned him had I been with you and I would never have let him be killed.’” When Shimr Dhi al-Jushan brought the blessed head of Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) to Yazid and said fill my baggage with gold and silver, for I have killed the best of mankind, then it is mentioned in [the Shia book] Khulasah al-Masa’ib (p. 304) that “Yazid became enraged and looked at Shimr with rage and said, ‘May Allah fill your baggage with fire. Woe unto you, why did you kill him after knowing he is the best of mankind? Get out! I have no reward for you.’” It is mentioned in Jala al-‘Uyun (p. 527) that Yazid said: “Ibn Ziyad the accursed acted with haste in killing Husayn. I was never happy for his killing.” It is mentioned in Taraz Madhhab Muzaffari (p. 456) that Yazid said: “May Allah destroy Ibn Ziyad, for he killed Husayn and disgraced me in both worlds.” It is mentioned in Jala al-‘Uyun (p. 527) that Yazid said to his wife Hindah: “O Hindah, lament over the grandson of the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), the leader of the Quraysh.” According to Khulasah al-Masa’ib (p. 353), Yazid would become restless in public as well as in private and would weep over Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him).Note: Lamenting over Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) is the practice of Yazid. Shias have adopted this practice of Yazid. According to the above [shia] book (p. 392), Yazid courteously loaded the rides of the Ahl al-Bayt and bid them farewell with respect. So Who Betrayed and killed Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him)? In Rabi al-Awwal 41 AH, Sayyiduna Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) concluded a treaty with Sayyiduna Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with them) as had been prophesised by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). There is a narration in Sahih al-Bukhari (vol. 1, p. 373) that the Prophet gestured towards Sayyiduna Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) and said: “This son of mine will be a leader and perhaps Allah will make peace between two great parties of the Muslims through him.” At this point, the Shias responded to the treaty—as mentioned in [the Shia book] Jala al-‘Uyun (p. 336)—by claiming Sayyiduna Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) had humiliated them by making them slaves of the Banu Umayyah [family of Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah, may Allah be pleased with him]. The Shias would disrespectfully address Sayyiduna Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) by calling him mudhil al-mu’minin (the humiliator of the believers) and ‘ar al-mu’minin (disgrace of the believers). A Shia by the name of Sufyan ibn Abu Layla would offer salam to Sayyiduna Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) saying: “Peace be upon you O disgrace of the believers, peace be upon you O humiliator of the believers.” The Shias of Kufa wrote to Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) asking him to certainly visit Kufa and enlighten it. They assured him they would pledge allegiance to him. Those who wrote to him were Shias by the names of Sulayman ibn Sard, Musayyib ibn Nakhbah, Rifa’ah ibn Shaddad and Habib ibn Mudhahir (see the Shia books Jala al-‘Uyun, p. 43; Nasikh al-Tawarikh, vol. 6, p. 131; and Mahij al-Ahzan, p. 47-48). After the Shias wrote 12,000 letters, Sayyiduna Husayn sent his cousin Sayyiduna Muslim ibn ‘Aqil (may Allah be pleased with them) to assess the situation for him (see Jala al-‘Uyun, p. 432). On reaching Kufa, eighty thousands residents of Kufa pledged their allegiance to Sayyiduna Muslim ibn ‘Aqil (may Allah be pleased with him) (see Nasikh al-Tawarikh, p. 133). The Shias wrote to Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) stating one thousand swords are prepared to assist him (Mahij al-Ahzan, p. 55). Deceived by their approach, Sayyiduna Muslim ibn ‘Aqil (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote to Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) twenty seven days prior to being martyred inviting him to Kufa, claiming that the people there seemed ever so sympathetic. In brief, they were the ones who martyred Sayyiduna Muslim ibn ‘Aqil (may Allah be pleased with him) (Nasikh al-Tawarikh). Now the question remains as to who were the Kufan residents who wrote the letters. Were they Sunni or Shia? The Shia writer Qadi Nurullah Shostari writes in Majalis al-Mu’minin (p. 25) that no evidence is required to prove the people of Kufa were Shias. Rather, evidence is required to prove they were Sunnis. He also writes that although Imam Abu Hanifah was a Sunni, but an insignificant minority is considered virtually non-existent. When the first plan to invite Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was hatched at the house of Sulayman ibn Sard, he said: “You people are a part of his Shi‘ah [Shi’ah meaning group] and his father’s Shi‘ah (see Nasikh al-Tawarikh and Jala al-‘Uyun). When Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) reached his army camp he remarked: “What loyalty did you display to my father for me to expect loyalty from you now.” When he got to his camp none of them were by him (see Shia book: Jala al-‘Uyun, p. 312). Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) repeatedly said: “The Shias have betrayed us” (see Shia book: Khulasah al-Masa’ib, p. 49 and also Nasikh al-Tawarikh, p. 163, and Jala al-‘Uyun). Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) addressed them saying: “Woe to you O people of Kufa. Have you forgotten your letters and your pledges? It is [you] the people of Kufa who called me and these are your letters, but now you are the same people who are anxious to kill me” (see Shia books: Dhabh-i-‘Azim, p. 335; Nasikh al-Tawarikh, p. 159; and Khulasah al-Masa’ib, p. 115). Imam Zayn al-‘Abidin (may Allah be pleased with him) states: “When these people are the only ones who lament over us, who else [besides them] could have oppressed and killed our seniors?” (Nasikh al-Tawarikh, vol. 6, p. 243) Sayyida Zaynab (may Allah be pleased with her) said: “O people of Kufa. O traitors. You are the ones who killed us and you are the ones who lament over us too” (Jala al-‘Uyun). ‘Allamah Khalil al-Qazwini writes in Safi which is the commentary of Kafi that “after the imam was martyred the ones who wrote the letters [to him] confessed to having committed a heinous crime and admitted that they ought to repent (Majalis al-Mu’minin). However, what good is there in repenting after killing and instigating murder? The letters Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) received would state: “From so and so, son of so and so and all the Shias…” (see the Shia book: Nasikh al-Tawarikh etc.) He repented from oppressing after murdering me, What good is such intense remorse? (Urdu couplet.) It is mentioned in Khulasah al-Masa’ib (p. 201), Nasikh al-Tawarikh (vol. 6, p. 174) and Talkhis Murqqa‘ Karbala (p. 10) that “there was not a single Syrian or Hijazi among them [killers]; rather they were all residents of Kufa.” Till the present day, after murdering and instigating the murder of Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him), they have kept secret the identities of the killers and remain in mourning. Can unlawful blood ever be hidden by concealing it? Why are they sat around my corpse trying to hide the blood. [urdu couplet] Supplicate to Allah Most High that He grants us the ability to understand the truth and remain firm on it. All praise is for Allah, at the beginning and at the end, and exoterically and esoterically. May Allah Most High send peace and blessings on the Prophet, his family, companions and wives. The lowly servant of Allah, [shaykh] Muhammad Sarfaraz Khan Safdar [may Allah have mercy upon him]. _____________________________ According to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia ‘Abdullah ibn Saba was “a Jew of Yemen, Arabia, of the seventh century, who settled in Medina and embraced Islam. Having adversely criticized Calif Othman’s administration, he was banished from the town. Thence he went to Egypt, where he founded an antiothmanian sect, to promote the interests of Ali. On account of his learning he obtained great influence there, and formulated the doctrine that, just as every prophet had an assistant who afterward succeeded him, Mohammed’s vizier was Ali, who had therefore been kept out of the califate by deceit. Othman had no legal claim whatever to the califate; and the general dissatisfaction with his government greatly contributed to the spread of Abdallah’s teachings. Tradition relates that when Ali had assumed power, Abdallah ascribed divine honors to him by addressing him with the words, ‘Thou art Thou!’ Thereupon Ali banished him to Madain. After Ali’s assassination Abdallah is said to have taught that Ali was not dead but alive, and had never been killed; that a part of the Deity was hidden in him; and that after a certain time he would return to fill the earth with justice. Till then the divine character of Ali was to remain hidden in the imams, who temporarily filled his place. It is easy to see that the whole idea rests on that of the Messiah in combination with the legend of Elijah the prophet. The attribution of divine honors to Ali was probably but a later development, and was fostered by the circumstance that in the Koran Allah is often styled ‘Al-Ali’ (The Most High)” [sic] [translator]. [↩] HIGGINS, G., 1829. An Apology for the Life and Character of the Celebrated Prophet of Arabia, called Mohamed, or the Illustrious. 1st ed. London: Rowland Hunter. [↩] ‘Allamah Shibli Nu’mani writes: “The total area of the countries conquered by the Great Caliph was 2,251,030 square miles, extending from Makkah 1,036 miles to the north, 1,087 miles to the east and 483 miles to the south. In the west the country extended only up to Jeddah and may, therefore, be ignored. These vast territories comprised the countries of Syria, Egypt, Khozistan, both the Iraqs (Arab and Persian), Armenia, Adharbaijan, Fars, Kiram, Khurasan and Makran including parts of Baluchistan as well. Asia Minor, called Rum by the Arabs, was invaded in 20 A.H., but it cannot be reckoned as a conquest. All of these conquests were made in the reign of Omar in a little over ten years.” NU’MANI, S., 1992. Al-Farooq Omar the Great. (Z. A. Khan, Trans.). New Delhi: International Islamic Publishers. (Original translated work published in 1900). [↩] This is sarcasm being employed here by the author. [translator]. [↩] Shia dogma requires belief in a strange concept known as bada. Shias believe that at times Allah performs an action due to ignorance and then regrets this. This is what is meant by bada. An entire chapter is devoted to this belief in the widely accepted Shia book Usul al-Kafi [translator]. [↩] This is according to Shia sources and all of the references are Shia. The same story is also mentioned in the commentary of Al-Usul, entitled Al-Safi, in the chapter entitled Kitab al-Hujjah (vol. 3, part 2, p. 204-205) [translator]. [↩] The reference here is to Sayyidina ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) [translator]. [↩] He was known as Imam Zayn al-‘Abidin and the Shias believe him to be the fourth of their twelve infallible imams. It should also be noted that Usul al-Kafi is for the Shias equivalent to the Sahih al-Bukhari of the Muslims [translator]. [↩] deoband.org

"Then when there came the first of the two promises (of Divine Punishment), We sent against you servants unto Us who were most powerful in warfare. Then they penetrated the homes. Indeed it was a decree executed." (Surah Bani Israaeel, aayat 5) "When the final promise(of Divine Punishment) came, (it came) so that they could (the kuffaar) disfigure your faces and enter the Musjid (i.e.Musjidul Aqsa)as they had entered the first time, and so that they could utterly destroy whatever they overran."(Surah Bani Israaeel, aayat 8) In these Qur'aanic verses, Allah Ta'ala refers to His punishment which He had inflicted o­n the Muslims of former times. The specific community referred to in these verses is Bani Israaeel. Two occasions of punishment are mentioned here. o­n both occasions Allah Ta'ala used the kuffaar to overwhelm, punish and humiliate the Muslims. The punishments had taken the form of kuffaar atrocities-pillage, plunder, killing and humiliating the Muslims, as well as the desecration of Musjidul Aqsa The aayat specifically mentions the destruction which the kuffaar wrought to Musjidul Aqsa. Allah Ta'ala allowed the kuffaar to invade Musjiful Aqsa —to defile and violate its sanctity. The then Muslims were just as helpless as present-day Muslims. They had to suffer the punishment and humiliation without being able to offer any response and unable to defend either themselves or their holy places. ALLAH'S SERVANTS It is significant that in the aayat, the Qur'aan refers to the kuffaar who had defiled and destroyed Musjidul Aqsa and who had ravaged the Muslims of the time, as `servants unto Us'. This style of expression conveys that the kuffaar were appointed by Allah Ta'ala to inflict the punishment, atrocities and humiliation o­n o­n the Muslims who are supposed to be the true and obedient slaves and servants of Allah Ta'ala. This style of expression implies that the domination of the kuffaar over Muslims is in actual fact a manifestation of Allah's punishment. Throughout the history of the world, this has always been the case. When the Muslim Ummah had transgressed all bounds of disobedience and had firmly resolved to adopt transgression, sin and kuffaar life style as their way of life, then Allah Ta'ala unleashed His punishment which sometimes came in the form of natural disasters and sometimes in the form of kuffaar brutality and domination. THE CAUSE In this age too, Muslims have degenerated to the lowest level of fisq and fujoor (transgression and immorality). The Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has been jettisoned right out of our lives and the life style and concepts of the kuffaar have become the complete culture and code of life of Muslims. It is for this reason that Allah Ta'ala has manifested His punishment o­n us in the form of kuffaar atrocities and domination over the Ummah. He has made us the slaves of the very kuffaar whom we have appointed as our intelectual masters whose lifestyle Muslims are emulating in entirety. Therefore He has o­nce again sent His kuffaar `ibaad' (servants) to punish and disgrace us as he had done with Bani Israaeel when they had reached the point of no return in their transgression. Thus, the cause of our degradation, humiliation and of the calamities which are befalling the Ummah, is not America or the shaitaan. Rather, these events via the agency of the kuffaar are Allah's punishment. It is He Who has chosen America to punish and humiliate the Muslims. It is He Who has chosen the Yahood to inflict such terrible acts of brutality o­n Muslims. TRUTH Muslims have failed to understand this Qur'aanic truth. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has informed the Ummah in no mistaken terms that when Muslims abandon the Deen, they will be overwhelmed by the kuffaar. Hence, he o­nce told the Sahaabah that the Ummah will be at its weakest when Muslims are as numerous as the bubbles o­n the ocean. Numerically Muslims will be in a strong position, but they will be bereft of spiritual fibre and mettle. When the Sahaabah asked whether the Qur'aan will not be with the Muslims to guide them. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) replied in the affirmative and commented that they would be reciting the Qur'aan in the same way as the Yahood and Nasaara recite their scriptures. That is, recite without giving practical expression to the teachings of the Qur'aan. LOVE OF THE WORLD On another occasion Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that a time will dawn when Muslims will be like the muck brought down by floodwaters. They will be buffetted and humiliated by the kuffaar who will devour them just as people sitting around a table consume food. Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) attributed this state of degradation of the Muslims to two spiritual maladies: (1) Love for the world and (2) Fear for Maut. Fear for death is the consequence of worldly love which leads to the abandonment of Allah's Deen and to the adoption of the lifestyle, concepts and cultures of the kuffaar. In its wake comes the Divine Punishment in the form of kuffaar persecution, atrocity and domination. THE PUNISHMENT What has happened in Afghanistan and what is happening in Palestine, India and elsewhere in the world to Muslims, is Allah's punishment. It is, therefore, unintelligent as well as diversionary to make America or the shaitaan or any other kaafir force the scapegoat for our humiliation and defeat. Shaitaan has succeeded in his plot to deceive Muslims and to divert their minds from the actual cause of the Ummah's fall and disgrace. The satanic plot is to keep Muslims in their state of degeneration so that they perpetually remain the slaves of the kuffaar and follow the evil ways of kufr of the kuffaar masters. Muslims therefore look at mirages and imagine a variety of causes for their humiliation. But they remain blind to the clear cause mentioned in the Qur'aan and Ahadith. The cause is nothing but abandonment of Allah's Shariah.CRITICISMRegardless of the amount of criticism Muslims heap o­n America; regardless of the thousands of pages which are written o­n the international conspiracies of the U.S.A. and Zionism—nothing will solve the problems of the Ummah besides obedience to Allah Ta'ala and adoption of the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). THE SAME ALLAH The very same Allah -Azza Wa Jal - Who had aided the Sahaabah in all their battles against the kuffaar, exists today. The very same Allah Ta'ala Who had bestowed resounding victory and success to the Sahaabah, making them the rulers and the masters of the world, exists today. But He withheld His aid from the Muslims of Afghanistan. He is withholding His aid from Muslims in the various arenas of the world. The stark ignorance of so-called Muslim leaders and learned men who are totally blind to the reality of our situation and condition, and who miserably fail to detect the causes of our disgrace, is indeed shocking and lamentable. They have all united in a chorus of meaningless condemnation of shaitaan as if shaitaan is to be blamed for our woes and misery. They all blame America and shaitaan, but fail to see that we ourselves are to be blamed. The cause of our degenerate condition is our own corruption which has led to the domination of the kuffaar over us. DEFEAT To attribute the defeat in Afghanistan to America's airforce and superior military potency is to imply that Allah Ta'ala Who had aided the Sahaabah in all their battles, lacks the power to do the same for Muslims in this age— Nauthubillaah! This implication of kufr is tantamount to saying that Allah Ta'ala could aid o­nly in wars waged in primitive ways, not in modern and nucleur wars. People of Imaan cannot think along such lines of kufr. Where there is Allah's aid,the sophisticated military equipment and technology of the kuffaar will become ineffective. The o­nly reason for the kuffaar to be able to display military prowess is the Decree of Allah Ta'ala. The o­nly way to gain Allah's aid is to heed what the Qur'aan says: "If you aid (the Deen of) Allah, He will aid you and He will plant your feet firmly (against your enemies)." "The Majlis" Vol.15 No.1

wa'alaykumus salaam from the story you've related, yes that can happen. May Allah ta'ala protect us from every form of shirk. The purpose of these stories being related is to create a yearning to reach high stages of closeness to Allah subhaanahu wata'ala....every time I read Madinatul Awliya it makes me sigh with wonder at the the woman who desires nothing of that city which people like us would be enthralled with. Even her own brother did not realise her high status

Translated by Zameelur Rahman A Question on Seeking Help from other than Allah It is understood from this verse[1] that no one besides Allah may be asked for help, although it is mentioned in various places of the Qur’an and hadith that one should assist another, and if one is ill he should seek treatment. If this is not ultimately seeking help and seeking aid from the doctor and the medicine, then what is it? Thus, can it be explained what kind of seeking help is not permissible for other than Allah, and what kind is kufr and shirk? Answer It should be known that asking help from other than Allah is not haram absolutely. In some scenarios seeking help from other than Allah is kufr and shirk, and in some scenarios it is permissible. The regulating principle in this is that if while believing that someone besides Allah acts independently and has intrinsic power, or while believing that after divine bestowal and lordly authorisation, he gained such power and volition, he is asked for help, then without doubt, this is shirk and kufr. Or it is not believed that in bringing about the effect in this matter and in the agency of it, he is intrinsically or extrinsically independent[2] ; rather, he is not treated in the way something with intrinsic independence is [treated], but the assumption of his independence occurs to others; such seeking of help from other [than Allah] is impermissible and haram; and in some scenarios there is fear of kufr and shirk, which will become clear from the following explanation. Since in the first scenario someone besides Allah is believed to be an independent agent and intrinsically powerful, no one has any disagreement over it being shirk. The second scenario is that the [entity] other [than Allah] is not believed to be intrinsically powerful, but he is believed to be powerful by divine bestowal, that is, Allah (Exalted is He) bestowed on him power and volition in those matters outside of human capacity, and he may dispose in them however he wishes, and he may grant whoever he wishes and withhold from whoever he wishes. [This is] just as a king grants his ministers and governors some jurisdictions, and after being granted those jurisdictions, they are believed to be independent, and thereafter, the knowledge and will of the king has no involvement; in this way – protection is from Allah – Allah (Exalted is He) gave such jurisdictions to the prophets and saints, and after divine bestowal they became independent and free. The Arab idolaters would hold precisely this belief with respect to the angels and idols. [They would say:] “We do not worship them except to draw us nearer to Allah.” (Qur’an, 38:3) The idolaters did not consider them intrinsically independent. Rather, they considered them independent agents after divine bestowal, and they would say that everything they have was given to them by Allah. The Qur’an refuted this belief in various places. For example, He (Exalted is He) said: “Beside Allah, they worship those who can neither harm nor benefit them.” (Qur’an, 10:18) And He (Exalted is He) said: “Those whom you worship beside Allah do not have power to give you provision. So seek provision with Allah and worship Him.” (29:17)…The disbelievers did not believe them to have power over anything without divine bestowal. He (Exalted is He) said: “Say, ‘I possess no power to cause you any harm or bring you to a right way.’” (Qur’an, 72:21) And He (Exalted is He) said: “Say, ‘I have no power to bring a benefit or a harm to myself, except that which Allah wills.’” (Qur’an, 7:188) In these verses, intrinsic ownership and volition over benefit and harm are not negated [but extrinsic ownership is negated], because nobody claimed intrinsic ownership and volition over benefit and harm, nor can any sane person concede this for anyone besides Allah (Exalted is He), that he has intrinsic ownership of benefit and harm. Even the idolaters accept this. The original owner and creator is Allah. The third scenario is when this [entity] other [than Allah] is not believed to have intrinsic or extrinsic independence, but he is treated in the way the intrinsically independent one is treated. For example, either he or his grave is prostrated to, or a vow is taken by his name. This is also haram and shirk, but this is not creedalshirk but practical shirk. The one who commits this will be considered a perpetrator of haram. He will not come out of the fold of Allah. The fourth scenario is when in asking for help from other [than Allah], it is suggestive of the independence of this [entity] other [than Allah], like asking help from spirits. Even though this person does not believe them to be independent, nonetheless, since the idolaters ask help from the spirits believing them to be independent, this is why asking help from spirits is absolutely haram. There is no doubt over it being haram. The doubt is whether this person will come out of the fold of Islam or not? Since this action is a complete manifestation ofshirk, this is why there is strong fear of him coming out of the sphere of Islam. The summary of the discussion is that the first two scenarios are definitely kufr and shirk, and the one who commits them has come out of the fold of Islam, and the last two scenarios are definitely haram. The uncertainty is over whether this person will be considered a disbeliever and outside of the fold of Islam or not? However, if help is sought from such a being which asking help from is from the symbols of the disbelievers and idolaters, in that situation, if a mufti or jurist were to give fatwa of kufr and shirk based on the outward, just as he would for the one who ties a zunnar, and he passes a ruling of him being a disbeliever, there is no difficulty in this, since that matter is from the symbols of kufr and shirk, which is why his intention will not be taken into consideration. However, [seeking help in] ordinary matters which are included under human capacity, and are connected and joined to the world of means, and there is not even a doubt from any person of it being an independent agent, like taking help from bread to remove hunger, or taking help from water to remove thirst; such seeking of help from other than Allah is permissible, with the condition that reliance is purely on Allah and the [entity] other [than Allah] is believed to only be a means, path and a manifestation of divine aid. [This is] just as a pipe is merely a path for the water to arrive, similarly the means are a path for divine effusion, and He is the real giver. The idolater believes that it is this pipe that is giving me the water, which is why he asks for water from the pipe, and adorns the pipe. For example, the person that believes medicine to be a means and the doctor to be merely one who treats [the patient], there is nothing wrong. But if he believes the medicine to be independent in bringing about the effect, and believes the doctor to be the one who grants good health, this will becomeshirk. It should be known that the Shar‘i means also have the ruling of ordinary means. The only difference is that the nature of ordinary means as means is inferred from the normal course [of nature], and the nature of Shar‘i means as means is inferred from the Shari‘ah. Thus, in just the same way it is permissible to ask help in ordinary matters, it is permissible to seek help in Shar‘i matters. For example, it is also permissible to take help from supplication, ruqyah, patience, prayer and so on, because these matters are known from the Shari‘ah to be means [of aid]. In non-ordinary matters, even if the [entity] other [than Allah] is considered to be a manifestation of divine aid, and the real reliance is also on Allah, but since in non-ordinary matters their nature as a means is not established by the normal course [of nature], nor by Allah, and assuming it was established [on some occasions], it is not definitive or perpetual; this is why seeking help from other than Allah in non-ordinary matters will not amount to kufr and shirk, but heresy and misguidance will certainly occur. The respected Shah ‘Abd al-‘Aziz (may Allah sanctify his secret) said: At this point, it ought to be known that it is haram to seek help from other than Allah in the situation that dependence and reliance is on that [entity] other [than Allah], and that [entity] other [than Allah] is not considered [merely] a manifestation of divine aid. If [however] attention and consideration is only towards the Lord, and considering this [entity] other [than Allah] merely as a manifestation of divine aid, and by consideration of the world of means, this [entity] other [than Allah] is outwardly asked for help, it is not against gnosis and is permissible in the Shari‘ah. The revered prophets and saints also sought this type of help from other than Allah, and since attention is only towards Allah (Exalted is He), this is why it does not amount to seeking help from the [entity] other [than Allah], but is in reality seeking help from Allah (Exalted is He). (Fath al-‘Aziz, p. 8) He said in another place: Seeking and asking for help (isti‘anah) is either from those that the monotheists and polytheists both will not entertain the doubt that he is independent (mustaqill), like taking help from grains and crops to remove hunger, or taking help from water and drinks to remove thirst, or taking help from the shade of a tree to acquire comfort and rest, or taking help from medicines and herbs in order to remove an illness, or taking help from the emir and king for matters of livelihood, which in reality is an exchange for service, and is not a necessary cause of humiliation, or taking advice from doctors based on their experience and greater knowledge; in these scenarios, the assumption of independence will not occur. Thus, this type of asking for help is permissible without any dislike, because this is not in reality asking for help, but is only outwardly asking for help, and is in reality asking help from Allah (Exalted is He). Or asking help is from such things that the doubt of having independence in their agency settles in the minds of the polytheists, like seeking help from souls, or celestial and elemental spirits, or asking help from the roaming spirits (that is, those spirits that roam back and forth) like Bahwani, Shaykh Sadad and Razin Khan. This type of seeking help is the essence of shirk and is completely opposed to and detached from the pure Islamic religion. (Fath al-‘Aziz, p. 37) Ma‘arif al-Qur’an, 1: 21-5 _____________________________ Meaning, the verse, “You alone we worship, and You alone we ask for help.” (Qur’an 1:4) [↩] “Independence” in this context means an uncontested power and authority in which the one who possesses it is not dependent on Allah in each and every instance of exercising that authority (Bawadir al-Nawadir, p. 708), as the author illustrates in the example he presents of the belief of idolaters. “Intrinsic” means such authority was not granted by Allah and “extrinsic” means it was granted by Allah. [↩] deoband.org

Assalaamu 'alaykum Brother welcome. The links you posted have been removed. Advertising is not allowed. Please respect forum rules

Dealing With a Miscarriage and Burying the Foetus Answered by Ustadh Tabraze Azam Question: Assalamu alaikum, I have just found out that my baby has no heart beat and I was 9 weeks along. I will have another check up next week to see if the baby’s heart beat is 100% gone, then I will go through a procedure to take the baby out. When this happens what do I do with the fetus? Do I bury it? If so, where? Also, I wonder will we as parents be rewarded? I know I wasn’t suppose to be so upset. I only cried when I first learned that I lost the baby at the doctors office. Am I sinful for crying? Answer: Wa alaikum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh, I pray that you are well, insha’Allah. If the foetus does not have any discernible physical features, it is not named, nor does it require a funeral prayer and formal burial. [`Ala' al-Din `Abidin, al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya] Though, it would be recommended to bury the miscarried foetus if you are reasonably able to as this would be from upholding the honour granted to the human being by Allah, “We have honoured the children of Adam.” [17.70] This can be done in any place as per any local laws and regulations. Remain steadfastly patient, turn to Allah, and have a good opinion of Him. It is reported that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “The miscarried child will pester its glorious and mighty Lord for His entering its two parents into the Fire until it is told, ‘O miscarried child that pesters its Lord! Enter your father and mother into Paradise.’ Then it will drag them with its umbilical cord until it makes them enter Paradise.” [ibn Majah] See: The Loss of a Child: Seeking & Turning to Allah in Difficult Times And Allah alone gives success. wassalam, Tabraze Azam Checked & Approved by Faraz Rabbani Source

What is the Legal Status of the Blood from a Woman Who Had a Miscarriage? Answered by Ustadh Faraz A. Khan Question: Assalam alaikum, What are the details for a women when she has a miscarriage and reading salah at different stages of the pregnancy? I have heard if it is an early pregnancy (she has a miscarriage at 6 weeks) then this is not counted as Nifas rather Istihada. Is this correct? Answer: Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah, I pray this finds you in the best of health and faith. The basic rule is that if the miscarried fetus had any sort of physical development- such as hand, foot, finger, nail, or hair – then it is a baby and the blood is considered postnatal bleeding (nifas). If no physical development appears on the fetus, it is not deemed a baby. In that case, the blood that exits afterwards is deemed menstrual blood (hayd) if it lasts three full days (72 hours) and was preceded by a complete tuhr (i.e., no blood for at least fifteen days) since her last menstrual period. Otherwise, it is most likely non-menstrual discharge (istihada), but one would have to consult a scholar with specific details as it could still be menstrual blood depending on the exact scenario. [Hadiyya 'Ala'iyya; Haskafi/Ibn Abidin, al-Durr al-Mukhtar, Radd al-Muhtar] At six weeks, it is highly unlikely that the fetus was developed, making the blood either hayd or istihada depending on when she saw it. In any case, please consult a scholar with the specifics of the scenario. And Allah knows best. wassalam Faraz A. Khan Checked & Approved by Faraz Rabbani Source

Scientific studies conducted on Miswak. The Wrigley Company made a study on Miswak which was published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. The study found that mints laced with Miswak extract were 20 times more effective in killing bacteria than ordinary mints. A small testimony to this fact is that after half an hour, the mints laced with Miswak extract killed about 60% of the bacteria where as the ordinary mints managed only 3.6% In the August issue of Journal of Periodontology (2008) appeared a study conducted by Swedish researchers on Miswak. The study apparently found that suspended Miswak pieces in a petridish (medium for culturing bacteria) were able to kill bacteria that cause periodontal disease with out being in physical contact with the bacteria. The researchers suggested that Miswak might be giving antibiotics as gases trying to explain this phenomenon. A study which compares toothbrushing and using Miswak (Miswak ing!) can be seen on Pubmed (U.S National Library for Medicine Service). The study concluded that Miswak was more effective than toothbrushing in reducing plaque and gingivitis provided it was used correctly. Similar studies found on the same website and elsewhere vouch for the effectiveness of Miswak over toothbrush. A study conducted by a group of dentists at King Saud University concluded that using Miswak was at least as good as tooth brushing, if not better. There have been plenty of published studies on Miswak and infact entire books published which study its oral and systemic benefits. Now, with all those studies chucked at you, you couldn’t help but wonder why it is so effective. This can be attributed to its strong antibacterial properties. Another important aspect to consider is that its bristles are parallel to the handle rather than perpendicular which means effective cleaning between the teeth. Now, that’s one natural toothbrush cum toothpaste cum floss.

Top 10 Reasons to Turn Off Your TV Article From www.jamiat.org.za From Mark Stibich, Ph.D., Your Guide to Longevity. Turning off your television will gain you, on average, about 4 hours per day. Imagine if you took that time to exercise, give your brain a workout and develop strong relationships. Not only would you be adding years to your life, you would become more interesting, energetic, and fun. So take the plunge and try not watching TV for a week. At first it will be strange and awkward, but stick with it and soon you will love all the extra time. 1. Television Eats Your Time The average U.S. adult watches more than 4 hours of television a day. That's 25 percent of waking time spent every day. Imagine if you suddenly had 25 percent more time -- that's three extra months per year! You could get in all your exercise, cook your meals from scratch and still have time left over to write a novel. Over a lifetime, an 80-year-old person would have watched 116,800 hours of television, compared to only 98,000 hours of work. As a nation, adults watch 880 million hours of television every day or 321 billion hours per year. Whew! Imagine what could get done if we all just stopped watching TV. 2. Television makes you stressed With the average of four hours a day gone, it's no wonder everyone is feeling stressed out and overwhelmed. We put aside paying bills, finishing projects, making phone calls and cleaning our homes to watch TV. We feel overwhelmed because of all the things we should be doing (exercising, spending time with family, eating right) go undone. And when we feel overwhelmed, tired, and exhausted we don't have energy to anything but -- you guessed it -- watch TV. It is a dreadful cycle. So take a break from TV for a week and see what happens to your life. 3. Television Makes You Overweight Eating while distracted limits your ability to assess how much you have consumed. According to Eliot Blass at the University of Massachusetts, people eat between 31 and 74 percent more calories while watching TV. This could add, on average, about 300 calories extra per TV meal. Now consider that at least 40 percent of families watch TV while eating dinner. It becomes clear that TV is a big part of the obesity epidemic in the U.S. and that TV, in fact, makes you gain weight. 4. Television Makes You Uninteresting Many people have whole conversations that are recaps of TV programs, sporting events and sitcoms. When asked about their real lives, there is little or nothing to report and no stories to tell (except the TV shows they have watched). Life is too interesting and wonderful to spend your time either watching TV or recapping television to your friends. Find something interesting to do: volunteer, read, paint -- anything but watch more TV. 5. Television Ruins Your Relationships A television is turned on an average of 7 hours and 40 minutes per day in many U.S. households. With the TV on that much, there is little time for you and your significant other or children to spend time together, share experiences, and develop deeper relationships. Sitting together and watching TV does not grow a relationship. Turn that TV off and find something to do together --cooking, exercising, taking a walk, anything. 6. Television is Not Relaxation TV is the opposite of exercise. If you are watching TV you are usually sitting, reclining or lying down. You are burning as few calories as possible. All that extra food you eat while watching TV does not get burned off. Your brain goes into a lull. But you are not relaxing -- your mind is still receiving stimuli from the TV, you are processing information and reacting emotionally. Have you ever found yourself thinking about TV characters? Do you ever dream about TV shows? These are signs that the brain is working hard to process all the TV you have been watching. 7. Television Loses Opportunities If you are sitting and watching TV, nothing new or exciting is going to happen to you. New opportunities and ideas come from being out in the world, talking to people, and reading interesting things. Watching TV isolates you. Nothing is going to change in your world if you are watching TV. Turn off the TV, go out into the world, talk to people, and see what happens. 8. Television is Addictive Television can become addictive. Signs of TV addiction include: using the TV to calm down not being able to control your viewing feeling angry or disappointed in how much TV you watched feeling on edge if kept from watching feeling a loss of control while watching If the idea of giving up TV for a week is horrifying, you may be addicted to television. Luckily, TV addiction is a habit and not a physical addiction like smoking. You should be able to control it once you are aware of the problem and make a decision to change. 9. Television Makes You Buy Things By age 65, the average American has seen 2 million commercials. Your knowledge of products and brands comes from these TV commercials. Your perception of what you need also comes from these commercials. If you didn't know that your iPod could talk to your running shoes, you wouldn't feel like your current shoes are too low-tech. If you didn't know about vacuums that never lose suction, your current vacuum would seem fine. Our perception of need is determined by what we see. Need less by watching less TV. 10. Television Costs Money A basic cable package costs $43 per month and many packages cost much more than that. That comes to at least $500 a year spent on TV. For that much money you could: buy a membership to every museum or zoo in your town, get a gym membership, buy a nice bicycle, invest it every year for 10 years at 10 percent interest* and have more than $10,000. Sources: TvTurnOff.org; US Census Bureau Jamiat Comment: There isn't much left to say except that for a Muslim home the most dangerous part about the TV is that it corrodes Islamic values. All the sex, violence, bad language and rotten attitudes of characters on TV have turned generations of innocent young children into monsters which even their parents cannot recognize. And then we ask ourselves: where did we go wrong as parents? Added to that, the TV is without doubt the most powerful propaganda machine ever created by man. Want to make the masses believe in something? Show it on TV. In this way our children accept the worked ideologies of the atheists and liberals without even being concsciously aware of it!. There is only one solution – Break the TV and then throw it into the garbage bin. This may seem harsh, but there is no time left for subtleties. Get rid of that Shaytaan box immediately, and feel the goodness return to your home. * remember that this article is not written by a Muslim, hence the mention of consuming interest. This is obviously incorrect for a Muslim, as interest is Haraam. But the principle behind what the author is saying applies to Muslims as well: save your money and invest in some Halaal way.

The Virtue of Commencing Salaam It has been narrated by Abu Umamah that the Holy Prophet said, "Whoever commences Salaam is very close to Allah and His Messenger Muhammad ()" Ibn Sunni has narrated this. In Imaam Ahmad’s narration there is, "The closest to Allah, the most glorious and eminent one, from amongst all the people is the one who commences salaam." Similarly Tabrani narrates from Abu Darda, who says that we asked the Holy Prophet , "O Prophet of Allah, we meet each other, so who from amongst us should give salaam first?" The Holy Prophet replied, "The one who is the most obedient to Allah from amongst you." What is Salaam? Imam Baihaqi narrates in discontinuation from Ibne Abbas, that As-Salaam is amongst Allah’s names and also this is the greeting of the dwellers of Paradise. Imaam Bukhari in his Al-Adabul-Mufrad narrates from Hazrat Anas that the Holy Prophet said, "As-salaam is indeed a name from the names of Allah, which Allah has placed upon the Earth, therefore spread salaam amongst yourselves in abundance." The Manner of giving Salaam Abu Yala narrates from Hazrat Abu Hurairah that the Holy Prophet said, "When anyone of you decides to offer salaam he should say ‘Assalaamu Alaikum’, because Allah, the most Glorious and Eminent one is As-salaam, for this reason do not commence with anything before saying Allah’s name." The Correct Words Of Salaam Abu Tameema narrates from a Sahabi who reported, "I said ‘Alaikas Salaam (Upon you be peace) O’ Messenger of Allah." The Holy Prophet said, "Alaikas Salaam are the words of the deceased person’s salaam. When one of you meets his fellow brother, he should say Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah." Giving Salaam To The People Of A Gathering It has been narrated by Hazrat Abu Huraira that the Holy Prophet said, "If any one of you enters any gathering, he should give salaam. He should then remain seated to that extent he has in his mind, and when he decides to return, he should again give salaam. The reason being that the first salaam is not more rightful than the second, that is, he gives the first salaam and not the second." This narration has been narrated by Imaam Abu Dawood, Imaam Tirmizi and Ibne Sunni. Giving And Replying To Salaam From One Person Is Sufficient It has been narrated by Hazrat Ali that the Holy Prophet said, "The salaam of a person, from a passing group of people, will be sufficient on behalf of all the group, likewise if one person from those who are seated replies to the salaam, it will be sufficient on behalf of all the rest." Reply To A Third Person’s Salaam A person from (the tribe of) Banu Tameem narrates from his father who narrates from his paternal grandfather that he arrived in the presence of the Holy Prophet and said, "My father sends salaam upon you." The Holy Prophet replied, "Wa Alaika Wa’alaa Abeekas Salaam (Peace be upon you and your father)." Imaam Abu Dawood, Nasai and Ibn Sunni have narrated this. Similarly it has been narrated by Hazrat Aisha radiyallahu anha that the Holy Prophet said, "Jibraeel sends salaam upon you." Hazrat Aisha replied, "Wa Alaihis Salaam Wa Rahmatullahi Wabarakatuh (Peace be upon him and Allah’s mercy and blessings). You (O’ Prophet) can see things which we cannot." Similarly Imaam Bukhari and Imaam Muslim have related Abu Huraira’s narration, he says, Jibraeel the trustworthy arrived in the presence of the Noble Prophet and said, "This is Khadija, who is coming, she has with her a utensil in which there is curry (or he said food, or drink). When she arrives give, her salaam from her sustainer and myself, and give her glad tidings of a house in Paradise which will be hollow in which there will be no loud noise (din) nor weariness." Ibne Sunni has narrated this narration in more detail. It is narrated by Amr bin Wahb that Hazrat Khadija set out in search of the Holy Prophet in the upper part of Makkah Mukarrama. Hazrat Khadija had the Holy Prophet’sfood with her. Jibraeel the trustworthy met Hazrat Khadija in the form of a man and questioned her regarding the Holy Prophet . Hazrat Khadija began to tremble and thought that, probably he is from those who are out to harm the Holy Prophet . Hazrat Khadija mentioned this incident to the Holy Prophet. The Holy Prophet replied that he was Jibraeel the trustworthy. He has informed me that he has met you and he has also told me that you have food with you and that is Hees (a sweet dish). Hazrat Jibraeel the trustworthy has said, "Give salaam to Khadija from Allah the most glorious and eminent one, and give her glad tidings of a house in Paradise which will be hollow in which they will no loud noise (din) nor weariness." Hazrat Khadija said, "Allah the exalted is Himself As-Salaam (The Giver of peace) and peace comes from Him, Salaam be upon Jibraeel, he is the messenger of Allah. Salaam be upon you and salaam be upon all those who are listening but Shaytaan. O’ Prophet of Allah, what is the hollow house in Paradise wherein they will be no loud noise (din) nor weariness?" The Holy Prophet replied, "It will be a secure house made out of pearl." interislam

My abslolutely favourite from "Orchards of Love" MADINATUL AULIYAA (THE CITY OF THE AULIYAA) A buzrug narrates: “Once I saw nine Auliyaa at the Raudhah Mutahharah (The Holy Sepulcher) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). When they began leaving, I followed them. One of them turned to me and sharply enquired: ‘Where are you going?’ I responded: ‘I am accompanying you. I love you all and I have heard that a man will be with whom he loves.’ One of the group said: ‘He cannot go where we are going. Only those who are forty years of age are allowed to go there.’ Another member of the group said: ‘Let him come, perhaps Allah will grant him the fortune of going there.’ Thus I accompanied them. We traversed distance miraculously. Great distances were covered in the shortest time. Ultimately we reached a city which was built of gold and silver. The trees were extremely lush and the growth luxuriously dense. Beautiful rivers of crystal clear water were flowing. A wide variety of the most wonderful fruit grew in abundance. We entered the city and ate of the delicious fruit. I kept three apples from that city with me. None of the Auliyaa forbade me from taking the apples. As we prepared to leave, I asked them about this city. They said that it is the city of the Auliyaa of Allah (Madinatul Auliyaa). When the Auliyaa desired to visit this place, the city is miraculously brought to them. They added: ‘However, besides you to this day, no one under forty years had come to this city.’ When we reached Makkah, I gave one of the apples to a labourer. But he threw it away. My companions severely reprimanded me and told me to eat of the remaining apples whenever I felt hungry. Finally I arrived home with one apple. My sister out of happiness hugged me and said: ‘Brother, you brought a wonderful thing from your journey. Give it to me.’ I replied: ‘What wonderful thing of the world could I have found for you?’ She said: ‘ Where is that apple?’ I had hidden it, hence I asked: ‘Which apple?’ She said: ‘Why conceal it from me? You had to struggle to gain admission while I was taken there at the age of twenty years. By Allah! I was called there without my desire.’ I said: ‘Sister, what are you saying? One of the buzrugs said that besides me, no one under forty years had even entered that city. ’ She said: ‘Yes, this is the law for the Mureedeen and Ush-shaq. But the Muraad and the Mahboob are allowed to visit the city whenever they wish. But, nothing of the city pleases them. Whenever you desire, I can take you to that city.’ (Mureedeen, Ush-shaq, Muraad, Mahboob - these are classes of the Muhibbeen (lovers) of Allah Ta`ala). I said: ‘Show me the city now!’ My sister issued a command. ‘By Allah! To my astonishment, I beheld with my eyes that very same city. I saw the city inclining towards my sister. Stretching her hand towards the city, she said: ‘Now tell me where is that apple?’ The apple which I had hid above me fell on me. After this wonderful experience, I understood my insignificance. I never had the faintest idea of the lofty states of my sister.”

Miracles of the Saints By Shaykh Ahmed Ali MiraclesOfTheSaintsByShaykhAhmedAli.pdf

Sister MuslimWoman...theres many such stories concerning the special friends of Allah subhaanahu wata'ala.

A Neglected Sunna: Brushing One's Teeth and Using the Siwak (Tooth stick) In the name of Allah, the inspirer of truth. The sunna of siwak is to brush one’s teeth, as the fuqaha mention. The optimal way for this is to use a tooth stick (siwak), as this was the particular practice of the Beloved of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). Brushing one’s teeth is a confirmed sunna within ritual ablutions (wudu). As such, it is blameworthy to leave it without excuse. If one does not have anything else, one can fulfill the sunna by using one’s fingers, as has been transmitted. It is a general recommended sunna of our deen, as Abu Hanifa said. Besides the ritual ablutions, where it is a confirmed sunna, it is particularly recommended before the prayer, before reciting the Qur’an, before dhikr, upon waking, before sleep, before entering the house, when one’s breath changes or teeth yellow, before meeting others, and before studying sacred knowledge, as the fuqaha mention. Ibn Abidin says in his Radd al-Muhtar, also known as Hashiyat Ibn Abidin: 'Virtue and time of Siwak: Siwak (tooth stick) is a confirmed sunna (sunna mu’akkada) during the rinsing of the mouth, as in Jawhara, and some say before rinsing the mouth. It is [a confirmed sunna] is for the ritual ablutions (wudu) in the Hanafi school, as confirmed in the hadith reported by Ahmad [in his Musnad] that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Prayer with brushing (siwak) is seventy times more virtuous than prayer without.” However, if one forgets it (during ablutions) then it is mustahab to use it for salah, as it is mustahab to use it for removing yellow teeth and odour and reciting the Qur’an etc. [f: Ibn Abidin later confirmed that it is generally recommended before prayer, even though the confirmed sunna and promised reward is attained by all prayers performed with ritual ablutions in which one brushed one’s teeth. This is a point most Hanafis are negligent of.] Amount of Brushing: The minimum optimal brushing the upper and lower teeth is three times with three handfuls of water, (wetting the tooth stick each time). It is mentioned in Mi`raj that there is no fixed limit to brushing; rather, one should brush until one feels that the odour and yellowness of the teeth have been removed. If it is achieved in less than three time, however, it is recommended to complete three times, like in as when cleaning one’s private parts (istinja’). Holding the Tooth stick: It is recommended to hold it in your right hand. Nature of the Tooth stick: And (it is recommended that) the tooth stick be soft; straight with few knots; and a hand-span in length [f: about 25 cm]. Method of using the Tooth stick: It is mentioned in Nahr and Bahr that the sunna method of holding the tooth stick is to put the little finger at the bottom end and the thumb under its head, with the remaining fingers on the top side, as transmitted from by Ibn Mas’ud (Allah be pleased with him). One should use the siwak sideways and not vertically. It is mentioned in Hilya that one should use the siwak horizontally for the teeth and vertically for the tongue. Benefits of using the tooth stick: The benefits of the tooth stick are numerous and many books have been written on its virtues. .... In the absence of a tooth stick or teeth, a coarse cloth or the finger can be sufficed with. Types of Twigs: It is mentioned in Nahr that one can use all types of twigs except from the pomegranate and bamboo. The most preferable is the salvadora (arak) and olive. It is mentioned by Tabrani that [the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, ] “How good it is the tooth stick from the blessed olive tree. It is my tooth stick and the tooth stick of the prophets before me.” (Allama Ibn Abidin, Radd al-Muhtar, 1: 114-115) And Allah alone gives success. Faraz Rabbani & Shaykh Ilyas Patel. Source

Is this going to be a series of such stories? Great idea. Jazaakallaahu khayraa.

How Should the Hands Be Held During Supplication? Answered by Ustadh Salman Younas Question: I have seen people making dua with their hands in different positions than what I was taught and I was wondering if their is a right or wrong way to have your hands or a way that is more sound and correct. Does the position of the hands differ between schools? I was taught to put your hands together with the tips of your fingers at shoulder level while making dua because there is noor (light) that shines into your hands that you wipe on your face after completing the dua. But I have seen some people with their hands apart, about shoulder width and this doesn’t make sense to me. Answer: wa `alaykum assalam The basis when it comes to supplication (du`a) is that it is done out of a sense of humility, neediness, and debasement to Allah Most High. This is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would raise his blessed hands in supplication, teaching his community how a servant asks the Lord of the Worlds for his needs. As for the specific modality of how the hands should be raised during supplication, this is a matter of leeway and not to be made a point of argumentation. Each individual has a natural inclination towards how he stretches his hands out in need to his Creator, Allah, and so slight variations from individual to individual are not surprising. The important thing is to supplicate sincerely with one’s heart and realize who one is asking. The Prophet’s (Allah bless him and grant him peace) Supplication Regarding the way the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) supplicated, there have been specifics established in certain sound narrations. Among them: a. He (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would raise both hands, as established in countless reports narrated by the six books. b. He (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would have his palms facing the sky. One exception to this would be the prayer of rain (salat al-istisqa’) wherein the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would have the palms facing the ground. Imam Nawawi mentions that some scholars regard it as a recommended sunna to have one’s palms facing the sky in supplication when asking for the attainment of something, and to have the palms facing downward towards the ground when asking for the lifting of tribulations. c. He (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would have his hands stretched in a manner that would reveal the whiteness of his underarms. d. He (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would have his two hands at the level of his shoulders or chest. Sometimes, such as during the prayer of rain, it would be at the level of his blessed face. [ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari; Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim] Separating the Hands in Supplication As for separating the hands during supplication or joining them together, both ways are acceptable. Some scholars advise having a gap between the hands when supplicating, even if slight. [Haskafi, Durr al-Mukhtar; Ibn `Abidin, Radd al-Muhtar] To conclude, one can supplicate with the hands separated or joined together, with them at the level of the chest or the shoulders or even the face, with the arms outstretched or otherwise, and all of these modes are fine. As mentioned before, the important thing is having presence of heart, sincerity, and true neediness towards Allah in one’s supplication. And Allah knows best Wassalam Salman Checked & Approved by Faraz Rabbani Source

Asslamu aleykum, I heard that wiping your face after dua is a bidah, please provide hadith or ayah proof supporting wiping face if it is not a bidah. This is what another fatwa website: says Those who say that the face should be wiped quoted some ahaadeeth as evidence, but upon further examination they are not saheeh, and do not support one another. Answer (Fatwa: 138/D=12/K) It is a big crime to label sunnah as bid’ah (innovation). Wiping of face after dua is proved by hadith: اخرج الترمذی من حدیث عمر بن الخطاب رضی اللہ عنہ قال: کان رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم: اذا رفع یدیہ فی الدعاء لم یحطھما حتی یمسح بھما وجھہ؛ و اخرج ابو داود عن حدیث ابن عباس رضی اللہ عنھما وقال فیہ: فاذا فرغتم فامسحوا بھا وجوھکم۔ Allah (Subhana Wa Ta’ala) knows Best Darul Ifta, Darul Uloom Deoband

Can you mention a hadith where it says that we should wipe our face with hands after the dua? In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful. Answer Saaiduna Umar bin Khattab Radiallahu Anhu narrates that the Prophet of Allah Sallallahu Alahi Wasalam when he used to raise his hands in supplication he did not place them down until he wiped his face with them (Sunan Tirimizi) From the aforementioned hadith we can deduce it is established through hadith to wipe your face with the hands after supplication. Only Allah Knows Best Mohammed Tosir Miah Darul Ifta Birmingham

Question: Some people when they finish making the dua after the prayer wipe their face after they have made the dua. Is that a bida; is there any contextual evidence from the sunna for it's permissibility. sorry if that sounds too salafi like! Answer: al-Salam alaykum No, this is not a bid`ah; rather, it is an established sunna and recommended to wipe one’s face after supplicating. It is reported in authentic hadiths, such as the one Imam Tirmidhi reports, that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) use to wipe his hands over his face after completing the du`a. This is mentioned as being recommended by: Shafi`i: Imam Nawawi (Adhkar, Majmu` 4.451), and others Hanafi: (Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 3.19) Imam Shurunbulali (Shurunbulaliyya) Imam Haskafi (Durr al-Mukhtar) Imam Ibn Abidin (Radd al-Muhtar) Abu Usamah & Faraz Rabbani في الأذْكَارُ النَّوَويَّة بابُ رَفعِ اليدين في الدعاءِ ثم مَسْحِ الوَجْهِ بهماروينا في كتاب الترمذي، عن عمر بن الخطاب رضي اللّه تعالى عنه قال :كان رسولُ اللّه صلى اللّه عليه وسلم إذا رفع يديه في الدعاء لم يحطَّهما حتى يمسحَ بهما وجهَه .‏ وفي سنن الترمذي3446- حَدَّثَنَا أبو مُوسَى مُحَمَّدُ بنُ المُثَنَّى وإِبْرَاهِيمُ بنُ يعقوبَ وغيرُ واحدٍ قَالَوا أَخْبَرَنَا حمَّادُ بنُ عيسى الجُهَنيُّ عَن حنظلةَ بنِ أبي سُفْيَانَ الجمحيِّ عَن سالمِ بنِ عبدِ اللَّهِ عَن أبيهِ عَن عُمرَ بنِ الخطَّابِ قَالَ "كان رَسولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عليهِ وسلَّم إذا رفعَ يديهِ في الدُّعاءِ لمْ يحطَّهُما حتَّى يمسحَ بهمَا وجهَهُ ". قَالَ مُحَمَّدُ بنُ المُثَنَّى في حَدِيثهِ لم يردّهُمَا حتَّى يمسحَ بهما وجهَهُ ". هَذَا حَدِيثٌ غَرِيْبٌ لا نعرفُهُ إلاّ مِن حَدِيثِ حمَّادِ بنِ عيسى وقدْ تفرَّدَ بهِ وهوَ قليلُ الحديثِ وقدْ حدَّثَ عنهُ النَّاسُ، وحنظلةُ ابنُ أبي سُفْيَانَ الجُمَحِيُّ ثِقَةٌ وثَّقَهُ يَحْيَى بنُ سَعِيد القَطَّانُ .‏و في تحفة الاحوذي :قال الحافظ في بلوغ المرام : وله شواهد منها حديث ابن عباس عند أبي داود ومجموعها يقتضي أنه حديث حسن انتهى Faraz Rabbani Source

[Does Giving Bay'ah Entail Unquestionable Obedience and Belief in the Shaykh's Infallibility?] Bay’t (or Bay’ah) [LIE/SLANDER] The miserable Salafi coprocreep in whose constitution is ingrained kizb (lies and falsehood), in his baseless criticism of the Ulama of Deoband, slanders as follows: “If a mureed makes Bay’ah to a Sufi Sheikh, he cannot make Bay’ah to another Sheikh in his lifetime because it is an insult. So if one is studying something in a Deobandi Darul Uloom, then one cannot go to a Salafi institution or Arabia or the Arab lands in general, or else that would mean offence – this is what happens!” This jaahil coprocreep despite having spent some time in a Deobandi Darul Uloom, is clearly ignorant of the Minhaaj - the way, methodology and attitude of the noble Akaabireen of this illustrious Jamaat of Ulama. The claim that a mureed of a Shaikh of Tasawwuf is prohibited from making bay’t to another Shaikh for the entire duration of his lifetime is a despicable LIE. There is no such rule in the Tasawwuf of the Mashaaikh associated with Darul Uloom. On the contrary, a true Shaikh of Tasawwuf will encourage a mureed to seek the spiritual guidance of another Shaikh, if in his opinion there is no Munaasabat (compatibility/congeniality) between him and the mureed. It is a principle of Tasawwuf to which our Akaabireen rigidly adhere, that Munaasabat is a condition of Bay’t. Thus, in his kitaab, Shariat & Tasawwuf, Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah Khaan (rahmatullah alayh) states: “Experience has proven that for gaining spiritual benefit (fuyudh-e-batini), mutual munasabat (congeniality) between the Shaikh and Mureed is a natural condition. Normally benefit is dependent on affection which is the reality of natural congeniality (munasabat-e-fitri). Sometimes a Shaikh will refer a mureed to another Shaikh because of the lack of such munasabat between them. In doing so the Shaikh establishes either by deduction or kashf (inspiration from Allah Ta’ala) that the mureed has munasabat with a certain Shaikh. In this Path it is essential that munasabat exists between the Shaikh and Mureed otherwise the latter will not benefit. Such munasabat is the basis for the acquisition of benefit and passing on faidh (spiritual grace) to the mureed. Munasabat envisages that there exists between the Shaikh and Mureed compatibility and harmony to such a degree that the mureed discerns no rejection in his heart for any word or act of the Shaikh although he (the mureed) may have some mental disagreement with any word or act of the Shaikh. Nevertheless such mental disagreement will not countenance any rejection for the Shaikh in the heart of the mureed. In short, harmony and compatibility are conditional for bay’t. It is therefore essential to first inculcate munasabat. This need is imperative. In the absence of this essential condition, mujahadaat (strivings), riyadhaat (certain forms of exercises designed to subdue the nafs), muraqabaat (meditations) and mukashafaat (intuitive revelations) are all futile. In the absence of natural munasabat (tab’i munasabat), the mureed should endeavour to inculcate intellectual (aqli) munasabat, because benefit is dependent on it. In view of the overriding importance of Munaasabat, one should not enter into the Bay’t allegiance if such munaasabat is lacking.” This is an incumbent principle of Tasawwuf which Hadhrat Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) and all Muhaqqiqeen of Tasawwuf explain with clarity and which is considerably emphasized. What the Ahl-e-Bid’ah who masquerade as Shaikhs of Tasawwuf do, has no bearing on the reality and Haqq of the Tasawwuf practised by the Akaabireen of Deoband. The contention that the Mashaaikh of Deoband prohibit termination of the Bay’t relationship is manifest slander. There is no Sufi Shaikh of the Haqq who follows the Shariah and the Sunnah, who regards the termination of the bond to be an ‘insult’ as the Salafi coprocreep falsely contends. If a Shaikh believes that his Ta’leem is not benefiting a mureed, or the mureed experiences lack of munaasabat with his Shaikh, the former will and should advise, in fact, instruct, the mureed to take hold of the Mantle of another Shaikh. He will even advise the mureed of a Shaikh whom he (the first Shaikh) believes will be of benefit to the mureed. Similarly, the mureed may terminate the relationship on account of Adm-e-Munaasabat (lack of compatibility). He only has to inform his Shaikh that he is terminating the bay’t relationship. There are many examples of such mutual termination among the Mashaaikh of Tasawwuf. Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh), in particular, was extremely rigid in the observance of the principle of Munaasabat, and he would not hesitate to terminate the bay’t, and at the same time proffer advice to the mureed regarding a new Shaikh. The Salafi coprocreep’s ignorance is stark, for he confuses academic study with Tasawwuf. Adopting a Shaikh of Tasawwuf and pursuing academic studies at a Darul Uloom are two different vocations. Thus, his claim that a student who has a bay’t relationship with a Shaikh of Tasawwuf is not allowed to study at a Darul Uloom of his choice is blatantly false. Firstly, it is the Minhaaj of the senior Mashaaikh of Tasawwuf of Deoband to refrain from initiating students into the Path (Tareeqat/Tasawwuf). Once, during his student days, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) requested Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) to accept him as a mureed. Hadhrat Gangohi responded that as long as he (Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi) was engaged in the pursuit of academic knowledge, he should regard the idea of becoming a mureed to be a shaitaani waswasah. The general attitude of our Mashaaikh was to refrain from accepting students as mureeds. The discouragement to join a Salafi academic institution (madrasah) is the policy of our Ulama at our Darul Ulooms. This policy is unrelated to the Khaanqah. It is the Waajib obligation of the Asaatizah to warn their students from the dangerous pitfall and trap of Salafi institutions. It is Islamic, Waajib and entirely logical for the Asaatizah of the Darul Uloom to warn their students against Salafi snares. When it is our belief that Salafis are plodding the path of baatil; that they constitute a deviant sect; that they are coprocreeps who subscribe to the blindest form of taqleed, namely, the taqleed of a seventh century Aalim who had strayed from the Minhaaj of the Ahlus Sunnah of the Salafus Saaliheen, then it will be gross khiyaanat for us to allow our students to become ensnared in Salafi baatil which their institutions teach. It is therefore Waajib on us to endeavour to prevent our students from studying at any Salafi institution whether in Madina or elsewhere. The coprocreep alleges: “A mureed cannot question his Sufi Sheikh’s tactics /approach to his tazkiyah. The same applies to Darul Uloom culture in not all but many instances. I once challenged a teacher relating to the presence of a word…….The teacher got so upset he walked out of the class…..” Firstly, a true Shaikh whose profession is the Tazkiyah of the Nafs of his mureeds, does not have ‘tactics’. His methodology is called Ta’leem. He does not operate like stupid, immoral Salafi coprocreeps who seek refuge in anonymity, and under such cover they cowardly issue ‘brave challenges’. The Shaikh of Tasawwuf is a Roohaani (Spiritual) physician whose duty it is to diagnose the spiritual maladies of the mureed and offer prescriptions and remedies. No one questions the medical doctor. Everyone accepts his prescriptions and remedies without question. But, in the spiritual domain, the coprocreep propagates a stupid difference. Spiritual maladies, due to their intangible (spiritual) nature are more subtle and complicated than tangible (physical) diseases. Just as a patient suffering from a physical disease has no right of questioning his doctor’s prescription and remedy, so too, does he lack this right in relation to his Spiritual physician. Our Akaabireen advise people that prior to accepting a person to be their Spiritual Guide, they should first investigate and study him to ascertain if he is a Shaikh of the Haqq. Proffering this advice, Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) says in his kitaab, Shariat & Tasawwuf: “A Shaikh is one who has full knowledge and experience of spiritual ailments (amraadh-e-batinah), attributes of vice and virtue (akhlaaq-e-razeelah and akhlaaq-e-hameedah), their characteristics (khawas) and their effects (ta’theerat). He should further be able to distinguish between their similarities and he must have perfect ability in devising plans and prescriptions for the acquisition of the attributes of virtue and the elimination of the attributes of vice. He has to be aware of the progress and retrogress of these attributes. He must be well versed in the hazards of the nafs and shaitaan, the intuitive senses and feelings pertaining to the angels and the Divine Being. He must be able to distinguish these various intuitive and extra-sensory feelings and perceptions. It is therefore imperative that the Shaikh of tareeqat be one who is qualified in this knowledge, be a mujtahid in this field and possesses natural ability and inherent propensity. If he has acquired the Tareeq by a mere self-study of books on Tasawwuf or by listening from others, he will destroy the mureed whom he is attending, because he will not be in position to correctly diagnose the various states of the mureed. Shaikh Ibn Arabi (rahmatullah alayh) briefly summarises the signs of a Shaikh-e-Kamil (the perfect and qualified Shaikh) to be three: 1. Deen resembling the Deen of the Ambiya. 2. Prescribing like the physicians. 3. Management and control like that of kings. The exposition of the above summary is as follows: 1. He should possess the necessary knowledge of the Deen which he must have acquired by either academic pursuit of such knowledge or from companionship with the Ulama-e-Muhaqqiqeen. 2. He must be a deputy (Khalifah) of a Shaikh-e-Kamil attached to an authentic Silsilah. 3. He should be uprighteous and pious. 4. He derived spiritual benefit by remaining for an adequate period of time in the company of the Shaikh. Such “companionship” is either by means of correspondence or by physical presence in the association of the Shaikh. 5. The people of knowledge (i.e. the Ulama) hold him in high esteem, and refer to him. 6. The effect of his companionship (suhbat) is increase in the desire for Akhirat and Divine love as well as detestation for the love of the world. 7. The majority of his mureeds are followers of the Shariat, their conditions conforming with the demands of the Shariat. 8. He is devoid of greed and desire (for worldly gain and benefit). 9. He engages in Thikr and devotional practices. 10. He does not leave his mureeds unfettered, but reprimands them when the need arises. He treats everyone according to their respective abilities. The one in whom these attributes exist is worthy of being a Shaikh and he should be considered a wonderful alchemy. His companionship and service to him are in fact priceless treasures. Once these attributes of perfection are found in a Shaikh, One should not be concerned about kaaramat (miracles) and kashf (inspiration). It is not necessary that these states exist in the Shaikh-e-Kamil nor is it necessary that he be one who does nor himself earn his livelihood.” Again the jaahil Salafi coprocreep confuses the Madrasah with the Khaanqah. To substantiate his contention which is related to the Shaikh of Tasawwuf (the Sufi Shaikh), the coprocreep cites the episode related to the Madrasah where he was studying. The teacher who had ‘walked out of the class upset’, was not a Sufi Shaikh. To bolster his lies pertaining to the Sufi Sheikhs, the coprocreep failed to cite any incident from the lives of the Akaabir Mashaaikh of Tasawwuf associated with Darul Uloom Deoband. Secondly, the teacher (Ustaadh) who had walked out of the class must have done so on account of the insolence of the coprocreep who had not sincerely and humbly asked a question to educate himself, but had ‘challenged the teacher’. The coprocreep displayed his pride and stupid ‘expertise’ in Arabic grammar. His intention was to humiliate the Ustaadh, hence he ‘challenged’ his senior with his satanic insolence. Insolence is a salient feature of Iblees. When Allah Ta’ala questioned him about his refusal to perform Sajdah for Aadam (alayhis salaam), Shaitaan insolently and challengingly stated: “You created me from fire, and him from sand.” The coprocreep was fortunate that the Ustaadh did not deliver a few lashes with a heavy whip as a balm for his insolence. The main issue here is that the teacher’s attitude cannot be presented as substantiation for the absurd claim that a ‘mureed cannot question his Sufi Sheikh’. A mureed has all the right to question his Shaikh on issues pertaining to his Tazkiyah and Islaah. But, he has no right to become insolent like the coprocreep and seek to ‘challenge’ his Shaikh. The Khaanqah is not a place for insolent coprocreeps with the attributes of Iblees. The type of shaitaani challenge which the coprocreep made to his Ustaadh is undoubtedly “the ultimate sin of disrespect” to which he referred. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that the one who teaches you even one word of the Qur’aan is your master. You become his ‘slave’. This is the superior status of the Ustaadh over his student. Every branch of Deeni education is related to the Qur’aan Majeed. Disrespect is a very prominent trait in almost all Salafis. [LIE/SLANDER]The Salafi coprocreep voicing another slander against the Ulama of Deoband, says: “A Sheikh can never be wrong in his approach to Tazkiyah of his mureed’s heart – a mureed must have the firmest belief that his Sheikh is right. And guess what? Darul Uloom has the same mentality as well? All Islamic institutions, esp. so-called Wahhabi-salafi institutions are unacademic and they themselves are upholding all the Islamic sciences as the Salaf upheld them.” From whence did the coprocreep extract this falsehood. Who among our Akaabir said, and in which kitaab of the Akaabir of Deoband is this LIE stated? When it is our belief that even our illustrious Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen such as Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Abu Yusuf, Imaam Muhammad, etc. also erred, how is it possible to believe that our Akaabireen held the view that a sheikh of Tasawwuf can never err? When it is said ‘Ulama of Deoband’, the reference is to the illustrious Stars and Giants of all branches of Shar’i Uloom including Tasawwuf. These noble authorities of the Deen were Stars of Ilm such as Hadhrat Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi (rahmatullah alayh), Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) and Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh). The first was the Founder of Darul Uloom Deoband. Regarding the second, there is consensus of the Ulama of Deoband that He (Maulana Gangohi) was the greatest in this august Jamaat of Ulama. Hadhrat Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) was acknowledged as a Mujaddid. He was a unique expert in all fields of Shar’i Uloom. Besides these three illustrious Ulama, there were numerous great Ulama-e-Haqq of Daarul Uloom Deoband, who had emblazoned the firmament of the Shariah. The aforementioned three Akaabir Ulama and Mashaaikh of Deoband had commented regarding their noble Shaikh, Hadhrat Haaji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah alayh) that in matters of Hadith and Masaa-il, Hajee Sahib should refer to them. They had stated unambiguously that the objective of bay’t with their Shaikh was to facilitate practice (amal) on the Ahaadith and Masaa-il of the Shariah which they had acquired. They did not enter into the bay’t relationship in order to ascertain the status of the Ahaadith, etc., because that knowledge they had acquired in the Madrrasah. When Hadhrat Haji Sahib had written the treatise, Haft-e-Mas’alah which ostensibly condoned meelaad and other similar practices, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) instructed his own mureed to burn out the book, and he commented that Haaji Sahib “should refer to us” in such masaa-il. It is therefore tantamount to slander for the Salafi coprocreep to contend that according to the Ulama of Deoband the sheikh is never wrong; that he may not be questioned, etc. The following exposition of Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) debunks the falsehood which the Salafi coprocreep has attributed to the Akaabir Ulama and Mashaaikh of Deoband: “There are various reasons which induce a Mureed to search for a Shaikh other than the one who is his Shaikh. Among these reasons are: (1) The Mureed discovers that his first Shaikh does not adhere to the Shariah. The Shaikh indulges in bid’ah or always commits kabeerah (major) sins. (2) The mureed has no congeniality (munaasabat) with the first Shaikh notwithstanding the first Shaikh being a strict adherent of the Shariah and a follower of the Sunnah. (3) The demise of the first Shaikh. In this event it will suffice if the Mureed turns to another Shaikh to perfect his islaah (reformation) without him even becoming his formal mureed. The mureed may, however, also complete his islaah by another Shaikh along with entering into Bay’t with him (the Shaikh). It is vital to remember that after having accepted another Shaikh, the Mureed should never be disrespectful to his former Shaikh, neither in word or deed nor in his absence or presence. This applies even if the former Shaikh happened to stray from the Shariah. Any such disrespect will prove calamitous for the Mureed.” Thus, the charge that the Akaabir of Deoband maintain that a Shaikh is ‘always right’, and does not err, is palpably false… [OBLIGATION TO DETER STUDENTS FROM STUDYING AT SALAFI INSTITUTIONS] Undoubtedly, the Ulama of Deoband not only discourage, but warn their students against the danger of studying at Salafi educational institutions. This is a holy obligation which devolves on the Ulama. It is imperative to warn Muslims to be on their guard against the fitnah of the Salafis. The Ulama would be failing in their duty if they do not alert their students regarding the dangers of Salafi institutions… The coprocreep alleges: “Darul Ulooms have always had a culture of: ‘If you read Ibn Taimiyyah’s literature, you will be brainwashed.” There is an imperative need to prevent students and others from reading the literature of deviates. Not all students possess the requisite intellectual capacity to understand dalaa-il. Baatil can be presented in forms which are palatable to people of little understanding. The first person to prevent from reading the literature of others, was Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who prevented the Sahaabah from reading even the Taurah, much of which was extant in that age. Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) specifically prohibited Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) from reading the Taurah. That people, even Ulama, become influenced by baatil written deceptively and with appeal, is undeniable. When Greek philosophy was translated into Arabic, many Ulama fell into the trap of shaitaan. They became victims of Greek philosophy and began subscribing to explicit beliefs of kufr pertaining to the Zaat and Sifaat of Allah Azza Wa Jal. So when it is known that Ibn Taimiyyah propagated many beliefs of falsehood and deviation, then it is the Waajib obligation of the Asaatizah to prevent students from studying the literature of the deviates. As for the Ulama-e-Raasikheen (those grounded in the Ilm of the Deen), they study the literature of the Ahl-e-Baatil, and thoroughly refute their corruption. If students are prevented from reading pornographic ‘literature’, no one will have a valid objection. There should likewise be no objection when the Asaatizah prevent students from reading something worse, viz., spiritual pornography – corrupt beliefs and masaa-il propounded by deviates. Pornography ruins the moral character. But corrupt beliefs destroy Imaan… [LIE/SLANDER]The Salafi coprocreep states: “A mureed cannot even entertain the thought of another sheikh he has not bay’ah to be better than his own Sheikh……..What matters is that the reverence and respect is taken to such a high level that the Shariah or the truth no longer matters, nor does it remain the primary focus of students.” This is another despicable lie disgorged by the coprocreep. The Mashaaikh of Deoband do not teach their mureedeen what the coprocreep has claimed here. The objective of Bay’t is Islaah (Reformation) of the nafs. The Shaikh thus does not indulge in the destructive exercise of comparing other Mashaaikh with himself. He does not engage in such futile, in fact, destructive, exercises with his mureeds. A sheikh who involves his mureeds in the type of ghutha (rubbish) vomited up by the coprocreep is not a Shaikh of Tasawwuf. He is not a Murshid – a Spiritual Guide. The coprocreep has placed his own stupid interpretation to a certain ta’leem which the Mashaaikh proffer to their mureedeen, namely, that it is essential for the mureed to have implicit faith in his Shaikh and that he should believe that for his own Islaah there is no one in his knowledge who can benefit him more than the Shaikh whom he is adopting as his spiritual guide. This is a perfectly reasonable, rational principle which operates in even all mundane spheres. A person of understanding enlists the services of such a medical doctor in whom he has implicit faith, believing that he is ‘the best’ doctor to diagnose and prescribe for his sickness. If the patient believes that there is in the vicinity another better qualified/experienced doctor, it would be irrational for him to acquire the services of a practitioner whom he believes is of inferior expertise. The same applies when a person seeks legal advice from an attorney. It is not an issue of ‘best’ relative to Taqwa or Qurb-e-Ilaahi (Divine Proximity). It is ‘best’ in terms of diagnosis and prescription. Should the mureed believe that there is another better qualified Shaikh for his spiritual maladies, it would be irrational for him to be satisfied with a Shaikh of lesser expertise. An ambivalent attitude towards one’s Shaikh is indicative of adm-e-munaasabat (non-existence of compatibility). Compatibility is an essential condition for the obtainment of Islaahi benefit from the Shaikh. But the density of the sensorium of the coprocreep has confused him. He appears not to have even a hazy idea of the meaning and objective of Tasawwuf. While the purpose of this specific item of Ta’leem is designed for the spiritual benefit of the mureed, the Salafi coprocreep interprets it as being the effect of self-conceit. This is a principle termed in Tasawwuf as Wahdatul Matlab (Unity of Purpose). The episode and comments of the three Pillars of Deoband, namely, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi and Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayhim) mentioned above, adequately debunk the coprocreep’s accusation and slander of venerating the Shaikh over and above the Shariah to the extent that the Shariah is expunged from the life of the mureed. Only a stupid Salafi coprocreep, due to his insolence and contempt for the Truth would venture such slanderous accusations against the sterling Ulama and Mashaaikh of Deoband whose lives were devoted to and sacrificed for reviving and establishing the Sunnah and for the dissemination of the Deen. [LIE/SLANDER]The miserable liar further states: “If a sheikh does something questionable, the mureed cannot question the sheikh as he might be in the state of sukr, jazb, haaal, etc.” On the contrary, intelligent mureeds usually do question their sheikh, but with humility, sincerity and respect regarding any doubtful practice which they may observe in the Shaikh or which he may have done. In this regard, Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) writes in his Shariat & Tasawwuf: “If in any doubt, immediately discuss it with the Murshid.” The Mureed is entitled to question and seek an explanation. But insolence which is the effect of coprocreep vanity and pride, is never permissible. If the Shaikh is a genuine Shaikh who was genuinely in some spiritual state (haal), then on emergence from that state of ecstasy if he is informed that his utterance, etc. was in conflict with the Shariah, never will he justify it nor proffer an interpretation despite being aware that he had made the statement in a ‘different world’. He understands that no amount of logical explanation will make sense to spiritually arid people. On the contrary, he will repent in order to impress on the mureeds strict observance of the Zaahiri Shariah. On the other hand, if the statement he had uttered in a haal appears peculiar or inexplicable, but it does not conflict with the Shariah, the Shaikh will adopt silence. He will not respond since the issue is not related to the Islaah of the mureeds. When the Shaikh remains silent, the mureed should understand that there is a mystery which he (the mureed) would be unable to understand, hence the Shaikh selected silence. Furthermore, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) has clarified that if the Shaikh acts in conflict with the Shariah, the mureed should with respect terminate his bay’t. But even when terminating the allegiance and thereafter, the ex-mureed should never adopt the insolence of Salafi coprocreeps who are so self-conceited that they believe themselves superior to their Asaatizah, hence they have no qualms in issuing challenges to their Teachers. The attitude of the Mashaaikh of Deoband is succinctly stated in the following statements of the illustrious Sufi Mashaaikh: “Do not be deceived if you see a performer of supernatural feats flying in the air. Measure him on the Standard of the Shariah. That is, his observance of the limits of the Shariah (or his non-observance).” —Bayazid Bustami “All avenues besides the strict following of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are closed to mankind.” – Junaid Baghdaadi “Do not venture near to one who lays claim to a state which brings about transgression of the limits of the Shariah.” —Hadhrat Noori “Obedience to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is imperative. Such obedience is obligatory in word, deed and intention because love for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is not possible without this obedience.” – Khwaajah Naseeruddin Chirage “Whoever acquires the wealth of Wusul (Attainment of the Love of Allah Ta’ala) acquires it by virtue of following the Sunnah.” — Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi Stating the nature of Tasawwuf, Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) writes in his Shariat & Tasawwuf: “Now that the nature and reality of Tasawwuf have been made clear, it will be understood that: Kashf (inspiration and revelation) and karamat (miracles) are not necessary. It does not promise success in the worldly affairs. It does not assert that one’s work will be achieved by means of ta’weez and potions; nor does it claim that one will be successful in court cases by means of duaa. It does not promise increase in one’s earnings nor does it promise one cure from physical ailments. It does not foretell future events. It does not contend that the disciple’s (mureed’s) reformation will be achieved by the spiritual focussing (tawajjuh) of the Shaikh. Extra-normal operation is not necessary to Tasawwuf. It does not contend that the one who treads this Path will not be afflicted by even the thought of sin nor does it claim that the mureed will automatically (without effort) engage in Ibaadat. It does not promise total self-annihilation so that one is not aware even of one’s presence. It does not promise the experiencing of states of ecstasy and spiritual effulgence in Thikr and Shaghl (spiritual exercise) nor does it claim that one will see beautiful dreams and wonderful visions. All these are not the aims of Tasawwuf. The purpose is the Pleasure of Allah Ta’ala. This then, should be kept in sight.” Salafis in general, and the cowardly coprocreep who shields himself in the veil of anonymity whilst displaying the ‘courage’ of a sapling, in particular, are spiritually barren, hence their inability to understand the spiritual states of the Auliya. Even Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) during his initial stage of Wilaayat prior to Zuhoor-e-Nubuwwat (the public manifestation of Nubuwwat), experienced such states. The Hadith testifies to this fact. However, since the Salafi coprocreeps expunge Tasawwuf from Islam, they miserably fail to understand the explicit Tasawwuf of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Their gross ignorance of the meaning of Tasawwuf constrains them to believe that Tasawwuf is some queer, mystical, baatil concept which is in conflict with the Shariah. Nothing is further from the Truth. The Qur’aan and Sunnah apply great emphasis on Tazkiyah-e-Nafs (self-reformation), and this is precisely the meaning of the Tasawwuf of the Mashaaikh of Deoband. Explaining the concept of Tasawwuf, Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) states in his Shariat & Tasawwuf: “Tasawwuf in fact is the Rooh and state of perfection of the Deen. Its function is to purify the baatin (the spiritual heart) from the despicable bestial attributes of lust, calamities of the tongue, anger, malice, jealousy, love of the world, love for fame, niggardliness, greed, ostentation, vanity, deception, etc.. At the same time Tasawwuf aims to achieve the adornment of the heart with the lofty attributes of moral excellence such as repentance, perseverance, gratitude, Divine fear, hope, abstinence, Tauheed, trust, love, sincerity, truth, meditation, reckoning, etc. In this way man’s focus on Allah Ta’ala is cultivated. All the authentic principles of Tasawwuf are to be found in the Qur’aan and Ahaadith. The notion that tasawwuf is not in the Qur’aan is erroneous. Miscreant Sufis as well as spiritually barren Ulama (Ulama-e-Khushq) entertain this corrupt notion. Both groups have misunderstood the Qur’aan and Ahaadith….In conformity with their (corrupt) opinions, one group (the barren Ulama) has shunned Tasawwuf (which is an integral component of Islam), while the other group (miscreant Sufis) has shunned the Qur’aan and Ahaadith.” This, then is the Tasawwuf which our Akaabir of Deoband taught, but which the coprocreep has miserably failed to understand. The coprocreep further denigrating Tasawwuf and the Mashaaikh of Deoband mentions a story about a Buzrug who had advised three persons who were going on a journey to refrain from eating elephant’s meat. We reproduce here verbatim what the Salafi coprocreep has written in this regard: “A group of three excellent mureeds came to their sheikh who was resting on his bed (I don’t recollect his name). They were intending to go out to travel. They came to the Sheikh for some spiritual advice. The Sheikh said: “Nothing is in my mind at the moment. You may leave”. But the Mureeds insisted for just one piece of advice. The Sheikh spontaneously said: “Do not eat the meat of elephants”. The mureeds started wondering what type of Naseehah is this! But the Sheikh insisted that this is the only piece of advice in his head at the time (note: he could not say: Follow the Shariah in public and private, but he did say: Don’t eat elephant meat). So the three Mureeds set out. In the jungle, they encountered a massive storm and they lost their way. Ultimately their provisions started to run out. They were in a dire need. They were absolutely close to the brink of death. Eventually, they saw a baby elephant lying near a tree. Two of them said: “we have to slaughter and eat it or else we will die”. The third said: “Don’t contradict what our Sheikh said. The consequences will be deadly.” The other two just couldn’t hold themselves and they hunted down the baby elephant and consumed it, whereas the third stayed there, trying to prevent them. He was so tired, he lied down waiting for death by starvation, and his eyes shut slowly, until he lost sense of what was around him. The other two ate to their fill, then slept where their fellow was on the brink of dying. An hour or so later, the mother-elephant came and saw what happened to her child. She was distressed severely, She looked around and saw three humans lying down in the heat of the day. She went up to them and smelt their mouths. As for the first two, she killed them. As for the third, she somehow got him to sit on her back (after she found out he did not eat her child by smelling his mouth) and took him to some trees where there were fruits growing.” The end. This episode is not a fabrication as alleged by the coprocreep. It also does not belong to the very distant past. The Shaikh whose name the coprocreep says he cannot recollect, is Hadhrat Haaji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah alayh) who was the Shaikh of some of the greatest Ulama in the world at the time, viz. Hadhrat Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi and Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayhim). This story has been narrated by Thiqah Ulama. The reliability of the Ulama and Mashaaikh who have narrated this story is beyond reproach. They never were liars such as the corprocreep is. This coprocreep whilst being a Salafi operates like a rat, cunningly portraying himself as a ‘Hanafi’ to seduce ignorant Hanafi students and to trap them into the snares of Salafi’ism by way of his Shiah oriented doctrine of Taqiyah. Taqiyah is common to Salafis and Shiahs. The coprocreep’s claim that this naseehat ‘encourages a person to forsake the Shariah’ is baseless and is the effect of the coprocreep’s ignorance and spiritual barrenness. Far from encouraging a person from forsaking the Shariah, it commands him to observe the Shariah. The persons concerned were not on the verge of death due to starvation. The fact that the one who had refrained from consuming the meat had not died, testifies to the fact that there was no Shar’i justification for the others in the group to have killed the baby elephant to consume its meat. Furthermore, the naseehat emanating from an authentic Wali whose credibility and uprighteousness were upheld and vouched for by great Ulama of the time – Ulama of the Zaahiri Shariah – was not to be discarded or treated as an insignificant and meaningless statement. There was undoubtedly wisdom underlining it despite the Shaikh himself being unaware of it at the moment when he proffered it. Kashf and Ilhaam are realities which only Salafi coprocreeps deny. The very nature of this particular and peculiar naseehat should have conveyed to the group at the time, that there was no incumbent need for them to have killed the baby elephant since they had not reached such a situation of starvation which occasioned such a move, especially when the contemplated move was in conflict with the naseehat of a wise and uprighteous Wali of Allah Ta’ala. The errant group paid the penalty with their lives for committing two exceptionally grave errors: (1) They violated the Shariah by consuming haraam meat at a juncture when eating haraam was not justified. (2) They ignored the naseehat of a Wali of Allah Ta’ala – such a naseehat which was 100% in conformity with the Shariah. Let us expand further on this issue. Assuming the Shaikh had said: “Eat pork!”, then too it would be improper to condemn the Shaikh and to dismiss his naseehat as a stupid ranting in conflict with the Shariah. The Shaikh who is a paragon of the Shariah – the Zaahiri Shariah – and an embodiment of the Uswah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) does not talk drivel and ghutha (rubbish) as do Salafi coprocreeps. His naseehat to ‘eat pork’ should not be dismissed lightly or with disdain. There is some wisdom beneath the surface which currently may be inexplicable, but which will soon become manifest and comprehensible. Of course, pork is haraam and no one will give practical expression to the naseehat about pork. It will be set aside and a suitable interpretation proffered without condemning the Wali who is a follower of the Sunnah. The mystery will be shelved. After some time the group became entangled in such circumstances, for example they were imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay or in one of America’s torture chambers elsewhere in the world, and all food and water were denied to them. In consequence, they were reduced to dire straits of hunger which threatened them with death. Now to psychologically punish them further, the American captors knowing the Muslim aversion for pigs, presented pork to them. Some of the group who were on the point of death decided to eat the pork. One brother decided to rather die than eating pork. Then the others reminded him: “Don’t you remember that the Shaikh said: ‘Eat pork’? Now we understand the meaning of the Shaikh’s naseehat. It was meant for this occasion.” Thus, the naseehat which was apparently in conflict with the Shariah was in fact 100% in conformity with the Shariah. But spiritually barren Salafi coprocreeps do not understand because there is rijs (filth) in their brains. About such coprocreeps who condemn the Auliya of Allah Azza Wa Jal, it appears in a Hadith Qudsi: “Whoever hurts My Wali, verily, I issue to him an ultimatum of war.” The Qur’aan Majeed furthermore says about coprocreeps: “And Ar-Rahmaan afflicts rijs on those who lack Aql.” A salient feature of Salafi coprocreeps is the conspicuous lack of Aql (Intelligence) which is the consequence of spiritual aridity. There is absolutely no ‘disaster’ in the story of the elephant. It is in entirety in conformity with the Shariah. And, assuming that it was in conflict with the Shariah, it would be set aside or assigned a suitable interpretation without giving practical expression to the ostensible meaning of the naseehat. The need for interpretation in such cases is because the statement emanates from a genuine Wali of Allah Ta’ala. He is not a coprocreep. He is not an impostor. He is not a fake as all these juhhaal Salafis are. [DENSENESS OF BRAINS]In a miserable, flabby attempt to show that the naseehat of Hadhrat Haaji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah alayh) is in conflict with what Imaam Nasafi states in Sharh Aqaaid, which kitaab is a mainstay of Aqeedah instruction at our Darul Ulooms, the coprocreep says: “ …and this is where the Sufi mentality of Deoband contradicts Nasafiyyah as well when Nasafi says in Sharh Aqaaid: ‘And a slave cannot reach to a level where orders and prohibitions are absolved from him’.” The density of the coprocreep’s brains is conspicuously established by his stupid averment. There is no contradiction between the naseehat and what is mentioned in Sharh Aqaaid. Furthermore, the statement from Sharh Aqaaid quoted by the coprocreep provides proof for the belief of the Ulama and Mashaaikh of Deoband that they adhere to the Shariah, and that they refute the baatil concepts of the bid’ah Sufis. Earlier in this Refutation we have reproduced from Shariat & Tasawwuf the statements of our former Mashaaikh of Tasawwuf. Their statements clarify our adherence to the Zaahiri Shariah and the Zaahiri Sunnah. We thus are compelled to dismiss the coprocreep’s ranting as plain garbage – ghutha and rijs with which his brains are contaminated and disfigured. (Maulana A S Desai) reliablefatwas

Have the Sufis Abolished Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil? Disgorging another slander, Madkhalee says: “This is one of the reasons for the extreme deviation of the Sufis, they have abolished forbidding evil so that evil actions have become good to them.” Nothing is further from the truth than this slanderous averment. The Sufiya are paragons of virtue and beacons of guidance. Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahyi Anil Munkar [enjoining good, forbidding evil] is a lifelong obligation in which they are involved. Where, when and how did the genuine Sufis abolish Amr Bil Ma’roof? It is a blatantly false claim unsubstantiated by evidence. There is not the slightest evidence to substantiate this blatant lie uttered by al-Madkhalee. All the Auliya – the genuine Sufiya – were always active in the duty of Amr Bil Ma’roof. Their writings and statements are permeated with the theme of Amr Bil Ma’roof. The Sufiya were persecuted, imprisoned and tortured for their Amr Bil Ma’roof by kings and rulers to whom the Sufiya directed their Naseehat. What is this miscreant’s basis for contending that the Sufiya have abolished Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar? Continuing with his affirmation of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahyi Anil Munkar, the noble Sufi, Hadhrat Khwaajah Ma’soom (rahmatullah alayh) says in his Maktubaat: “Understand well that if abstention from opposing (the people of baatil) had been praiseworthy, then Amr Bil Ma’roof, Nahyi Anil Munkar would not have been among the Waajibaat of the Deen, and Allah Ta’ala would not have awarded the title, Khair-e-Ummah (the Best Ummah) to those who practise Amr and Nahyi. Praising them, the Qur’aan states: “….They command righteousness, prohibit evil and observe the limits of Allah….” Elsewhere in the Qur’aan, Allah Ta’ala says: “The Believing men and the Believing women are mutual friends. They command righteousness and prohibit evil.” The Ambiya (alayhimus salaam), the Sahaabah, Taabieen, Tab-e-Taabieen and all the Salaf-e-Saaliheen expended great effort in the execution of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahyi Anil Munkar, and they suffered horrendous torture and persecution to uphold this obligation. Whatever the Auliya (Sufiya) had acquired in the spheres of Wilaayat, Ma’rifat Muhabbat, and Qurb-e-Ilaahi was via the Ambiya. The Path of Wusool is confined to obedience to the Ambiya. All paths besides this path are deviation and the roads of the shayaateen. Therefore, whoever attempts to plod the path of Haq without obedience to the Ambiya, will never attain success. He will gain nothing besides deviation. Even if such a person acquires something (by way of supernatural feats), it will be istidraaj (satanic manipulation and influence), the consequence of which is loss and deprivation. ‘Whoever searches for a deen other than Islam, never shall it be accepted of him, and in the Aakhirah he will be from among the losers.” (Qur’aan): Hadhrat Junaid Baghdaadi (rahmatullah alayh), who is among the leaders of the Sufiya, said: “Whoever has not made hifz of the Qur’aan nor studied Hadith, he cannot become a leader in our (Sufi) Maslak (Path) because our Path is totally fettered to the Qur’aan and Sunnah.” Hadhrat Khwaajah Ahraar (rahmatullah alayh) – a prominent Sufi – said: “If all ahwaal and mawaajid are bestowed to us, but if our nature is not adorned with the Aqaaid of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, then we shall view these bestowals as nothing but corruption. On the contrary, if all corruption accumulates in us, but our nature is bestowed with the Aqaaid of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, then we have no fear.” Be just (by refraining from your baseless criticism which you level at the Sufiya)! Nubuwwat has terminated. The era of Wahi has ended. The Deen has been perfected. Divine Ni’mat has been completed. Now on the basis of which daleel and authority is it possible to set aside the ahkaam of this powerful Deen? ……..Employ intelligence. Do not become entrapped in the deception of imagination and dreams. Stay far from the path of shaitaan. Do not let slip from your hand the beautiful Sunnah of Siraatul Mustaqeem. Undoubtedly, the way of Najaat (salvation) is to follow the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam). Besides this, everything else is dangerous. It is therefore imperative to beware and abstain from such danger. Abandoning the Path of Salvation and adopting the path of danger is to become ensnared in the net of shaitaan, the accursed one, and to plunge yourself in everlasting perdition. When you will have to deal with Allah Ta’ala, when the stages of the grave and Qiyaamah will have to be traversed, then nothing besides obedience to the Ambiya will be of benefit to aid you. Yes, if ahwaal, mawaajid, kushoof and ilhaamaat are in accord with the teachings of the Ambiya, then it will be light upon light.” (The above are all extracts from the discourse of the Sufi, Khwaajah Muhammad Ma’soom, the son of Hadhrat Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani.) Continuing his discourse, Sufi Khwaajah Muhammad Ma’soom (rahmatullah alayh) says: “What is the conflict between Shariat and Tareeqat? (In other words, there is no conflict whatsoever). The Shariah has been established on the basis of such Absolute Revelation in which there is not the slightest scope for doubt and uncertainty. There is no abrogation and changing in the ahkaam of the Shariah which will endure until Qiyaamah. It is imperative for the masses and the elite to practise in accordance with the commands of the Shariat. Tareeqat has no authority to efface any of the ahkaam of the Shariat and to emancipate the people of Tareeqat from the impositions of the Shariah. Among the Aqaaid of Absolute Certitude of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah is that a person can never attain a stage which frees him from the impositions of the Shariah. Whoever subscribes to such a belief, is beyond the pale of Islam…………Yes, undoubtedly, sometimes some actions in apparent conflict with the Kitaab and Sunnah emanate from some Saalikeen… On such occasions the Saalik should hold on firmly to the Shariah with his jaws, and act in conflict with his kashf and wijdaan and in obedience to the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. At such times, the Saalik should, like Ibraaheem Khaleelullah (alayhis salaam) say: “I do not love that which disappears.”, and proclaim: “Verily, I have turned my face to Allaah…” (The Saalik, sometimes in a state of ecstacy undergoes certain spiritual experiences which are seemingly in conflict with the Shariah. But when the state of ecstacy disappears, he repents and affirms his Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. Never does he propagate his experience for public consumption. In fact, for their own benefit and the safety of the masses, they publicly renew their Imaan. This they do instead of resorting to explanation, interpretation and justification of the statements which they had made in a state of intellectual abnormality.)” Hadhrat Khwaajah Muhammad Ma’soom (rahmatullah alayh) further says in regard to Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar: “Hadhrat Shaikh Abdul Qaadir Jilaani (rahmatullah alayh) has written an entire chapter in one of his treatises on the subject of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahyi Anil Munkar. In it he has elaborated its subtleties. In this treatise he states: “Is Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar permissible or not at a time when there is almost certainty of being killed? According to us (Sufis), at such a time too, it is permissible, in fact preferable on condition that the the one who embarks on Nahyi Anil Munkar has the ability of toleration (to bear the torture). This Nahyi Anil Munkar resembles Jihaad fi sabeelillaah against the kuffaar.” Now be just! These illustrious Souls were the leaders and guides of the People of Wilaayat. They were the Sufiya-e-Kiraam. If their maslak was flattery (or to be lax in this field), then why did they emphasize so much on the obligation of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahyi Munkar?” The slander of al-Madkhali is rejected with contempt… AMR BIL MA’ROOF NAHYI ANIL MUNKARMr. Madkhalee says: “The Sufis make it obligatory for a follower to be a slave in mind and body to his shaykh, deprived of all will like a deceased person with the one washing him. Even if he sees him committing a sin or something contrary to the Sharee’ah still is not permissible for him to ask about the reason for that, if he were to do so then he would be rejected from the mercy of his shaykh and would never prosper. This is one of the reasons for the extreme deviation of the Sufis, they have abolished forbidding evil so that evil actions have become good to them, even becoming righteous deeds….” This averment is drivel, extremely misleading and plain slander of the Auliya of Allah Ta’ala. Just as obedience to the Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is obedience to Allah Ta’ala, as the Qur’aan states: “He who obeys the Rasool, verily he has obeyed Allah.”, so too, is obedience to the Warathatul Ambiya (Heirs and Representatives of the Ambiya), obedience to the Rasool and to Allah Ta’ala. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commands obedience to the Shariah of Allah Ta’ala, hence obeying him is to obey Allah Ta’ala. The Sufiya teach and command the Shariah of Allah Ta’ala, hence for the mureedeen to obey the Shaikh is tantamount to obedience to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and via him, it is obedience to Allah Azza Wa Jal. Such total obedience demand that the follower’s mind be ‘enslaved’ to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and this mental ‘enslavement’ is acquired in the post-Nubuwwat eras via mental ‘enslavement’ to the Shaikh who is the Representative of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This kind of wholehearted and mental ‘enslavement’ is commanded by Allah Ta’ala in the Qur’aan Majeed: “It is not lawful for the Mu’min nor for the Mu’minah to have any choice in any matter when Allah and his Rasool have decreed an issue. He who disobeys Allah and His Rasool, verily he has lapsed into clear deviation” (Ahzaab, aayat 36) Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) too has commanded total obedience to superiors in charge, even if the superior is a “squint-eyed black slave” Further, emphasizing the imperative importance of mental ‘enslavement’ to superiors, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “The pleasure of Rabb is in the pleasure of (your) father, and the wrath of Rabb is in the wrath of (your) father.” Similar Ahaadith are recorded regarding the wife’s obedience to her husband. Total obedience is commanded to the degree of mental ‘enslavement’. ‘As-sam’a wat Taa-ah’ (We here and we obey) is the slogan and the platitude of the Mu’mineen. Undoubtedly, the fundamental basis for the validity of this imperative attribute of mental ‘enslavement’ is conformity with the Shariah. Every Sufi implicitly subscribes to the command: “There is no obedience to makhluq (creation ,i.e. to people) in disobedience to Khaaliq (i.e. Allah, The Creator).” Let the moron Salafi produce his evidence for claiming that the Sufiya require their mureedeen to obey what is haraam, and to obey any orders of the Shaikh which may be in conflict with the Shariah. This is a heinous slander against the Auliya of Allah Ta’ala, they who are the Warathatul Ambiya in the truest and highest form after the Sahaabah. The entire ta’leem of the Sufiya is pure Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar in both the Zaahiri (exoteric) and Baatini (esoteric) dimensions of the Deen. They are meticulous in observing the Zaahiri Shariah as well as the Baatini Shariah. No one observes even the Mustahabbaat and the Aadaab of the Zaahiri A’maal so meticulously and so steadfastly as the Sufiya. Every Zaahiri act of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is accorded the highest care. There are innumerable episodes of this nature of the Sufiya. Volumes can be filled with their methodology of strict obedience to the Sunnah. The Sufiya when initiating a mureed into the Silsilah, stipulate as a precondition, rectification of the Zaahiri acts of the Shariah. Thus, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh), who was among the leading Sufiya of this era, states in his Haqeeqatut Tareeqat: “After rectification of Aqaaid (Beliefs) and A’maal-e-Zaahirah (External/physical acts), it is fardh upon every Muslim to reform his A’maal-e-Baatiniyah (the states of the nafs).” Upholding the command of Amr Bil Ma’roof by the Sufiya is quite apparent from their teachings. Hadhrat Junaid Baghdaadi (rahmatullah alayh) said: “All avenues besides the strict following of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are closed to mankind.” Hadhrat Bayazeed Bustaami (rahmatullah alayh) said: “Do not be deceived if you see a performer of supernatural feats flying in the air. Measure him on the Standard of the Shariah – how he adheres to the limits of the commands of the Shariah.” Hadhrat Nuri (rahmatullah alayh) said: “Do not venture near to one who lays claim to a state which brings about transgression of the limits of the Shariah.” Hadhrat Khwaajah Naseerudden Chiraghi Dehlawi (rahmatullah alayh) said: “Obedience to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is imperative. Such obedience is essential in word, deed and intention. Love for Allah Ta’ala is not possible without obedience to Hadhrat Muhammad Mustafa (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).” Hadhrat Khwaajah Mueenuddeen Chishti (rahmatullah alayh) said: “He who adheres to the Shariah, executing its commands and abstaining from transgression, progresses in spiritual rank, i.e. all progress is dependent on adherence to the Shariah.” Hakeemul Ummat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) said: “Whoever acquires the wealth of Wusul (i.e. attaining Divine Proximity), has acquired it by virtue of obedience to the Sunnah.” Hadhrat Ibn Ataa’ (rahmatullah alayh) said: “He who adorns himself with the aadaab of the Sunnah, his heart brightens up with the noor of Ma’rifat…There is no stage higher than the stage of obedience to the commands of Allah and the Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).” Hadhrat Hasan Basri (rahmatullah alayh), the Chief, Father and Progenitor of all the Sufiya, was once giving a discourse when the notorious tyrant Hajjaaj entered the Musjid with his soldiers and with a drawn sword in his hand. A Buzrug who was present, said to himself: “Today is Hasan’s day of trial. Will he continue with his Amr Bil Ma’roof or will he begin to flatter Hajjaaj?” Hajjaaj sat down in the gathering. Hadhrat Hasan (rahmatullah alayh) continued with his Naseehat and Amr Bil Ma’roof without the slightest change in his attitude or tone. He was totally unperturbed by the presence of Hajjaaj. He did not even look in the direction of Hajjaaj. The Buzrug said to himself: “Truly, Hasan is Hasan.” (Hasan means beautiful). At the end of the bayaan (lecture), Hajjaaj went up to Hadhrat Hasan and kissed his hands. Then he (Hajjaaj) commented: “If anyone wants to see a man, let him look at Hasan!” The fearless attitude which Hadhrat Hasan (rahmatullah alayh) displayed in his delivery of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar was the attitude of almost all the Sufiya. Many of them were imprisoned, tortured and executed precisely for upholding the command of Amr Bil Ma’roof. It is among the vilest slanders of the moron Salafis to accuse the Sufiya of having abolished Amr Bil Ma’roof. When Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) entered Basra, he attended a discourse which Hadhrat Hasan, the great Sufi, was giving in a Musjid. After listening to his bayaan, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) asked him: “Are you an Aalim or a Taalibul Ilm (a student)?” Hadhrat Hasan said: “I am nothing. However, I narrate the words of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which have reached me.” Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) commented: “This young man is qualified to give discourses.” This was the first meeting between Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Hasan Basri (rahmatullah alayh) who was not aware that the person who was interrogating him was Ameerul Mu’mineen Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). After Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) had departed, someone informed Hadhrat Hasan who he was. He immediately alighted from the mimbar and rushed out after Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). When he reached Hadhrat Ali, he said: “For Allah’s sake, teach me how to make wudhu.” A dish of water was brought and Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) physically demonstrated to Hadhrat Hasan the way in which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used to make wudhu. That spot became famous by the name Baabut Tasht (the Gate of the Dish). This was the great Sufi whom Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) had authorized to teach the Ummah. Among his mureeds were famous Sufiya such as Hadhrat Habeeb Ajmi, Hadhrat Rabiah Basriyyah and others. Shaikh Abdul Wahhaab Sha’raani (rahmatullah alayh) states in his kitaab, Tambeehul Mughtarreen: “Sayyidut Taaifah, Imaam Abul Qaasim Junaid (rahmatullah alayh) said: ‘Our kitaab, the Qur’aan, is Sayyidul Kutub. It is the most comprehensive Kitaab. Our Shariah is the best and subtlest of all Shariats, and our Tareeqah (i.e. the Tareeqah of the Sufiya) is fortified by the Kitaab and the Sunnah. Whoever has not acquired the knowledge of the Qur’aan and Hadith and who has not understood the meanings of these Two (Sources of the Shariah), following him is not valid. If you see a man sitting cross-legged in the air, do not follow him as long as you have not seen his action on the occasions of Amr (commands of the Shariah) and Nahi (prohibitions of the Shariah). If you find him obedient to all the commands of Allah Ta’ala and abstaining from all His prohibitions, then follow and obey him. If you find him deficient in observing the commands and not abstaining from the prohibitions, then refrain from him.” Allaamah Sha’raani (rahmatullah alayh) further says: “O my Brother! To rectify ibaadat in accordance with the Zaahir of the Kitaab and Sunnah is Waajib by Ijma’ (Consensus). A man who does not distinguish between haraam and makrooh is a jaahil.” “Our Shaikh, Sayyidi Ali Khawwaas (rahmatullah alayh) said: ‘The Tareeq of the Ahlut Tasawwuf has been purified according to the Kitaab and Sunnah in the same way as gold and diamonds are purified from contaminations … I say that the one who claims that the Qur’aan and Sunnah do not expound Tasawwuf is a kaathib (liar) and a muftari (fraud). His statement in this regard is clear evidence for his jahaalat (ignorance) because the Sufi is one who is an Aalim who practises with ikhlaas in terms of his Ilm (knowledge).” Rejecting the baseless criticism of the Sufiya by ignoramuses such as the Salafi morons, Allaamah Sha’raani, himself a great Sufi, states in his kitaab: “When those who followed the way of the Salf-e-Saaliheen became non-existent, the Path of the Salf was eliminated. Because of the dearth of the people of the Tareeq, some people began to believe that Tasawwuf was beyond the pale of the Shariah. I have elaborated on this subject in my kitaab, Al-Manhajul Mubeem fi Bayaani Akhlaaqil Aarifeen.” Commanding righteousness and prohibiting evil are the primary obligations of the Sufiya. There is no group who is as constant, firm and diligent in the execution of the obligation of Amr Bil Ma’roof as the Sufiya. Regarding this obligation, Hadhrat Uwais Qarni (rahmatullah alayh), the Sufi Recluse who would flee into the wilderness at the sight of human beings, said: “The Mumin’s firmness on the Haqq leaves for him no friend on earth. Whenever someone calls people to righteousness and prohibits them from evil, they vilify him with the worst kind of slanders (as Madkhalee is guilty of), and they seek to ruin his reputation.” It was the usual practice of Sufyaan Thauri (rahmatullah alayh) to command righteousness and prohibit evil whenever he would visit the marketplace. If any unbiased person in search of the truth researches the lives of the Sufiya, he will be convinced that their entire lives were devoted to the command of Amr Bil Ma’roof, and in fulfilling this obligation they had to suffer much persecution at the hands of tyrannical rulers as well as the Ulama-e-Soo’. He will understand that Madkhalee’s charge of abolition of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahyi anil Munkar, requiring mureeds to submit to sin and deviation, to obey the Shaikh even if his instructions are in conflict with the Shariah and to regard evil deeds as virtuous deeds, are calumnies of the worst kind. (Maulana A S Desai) reliablefatwas

Question What is the shari'ee status of meelaad and salami as is practised today? Answer After Allah Ta’ala, our love for Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) should be the greatest. The love, kindness and compassion that Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) showed us (his ummah) is immeasurable and unconceivable. The blood that flowed from his Mubaarak body in Taa’if, his Mubaarak tooth that became shaheed at Uhud and the tears that flowed from his Mubaarak eyes at the time of tahajjud for his ummah is well known. Love demands that we remember him, obey him and fulfill what he wanted from us every day of our lives (not just on the 12th of Rabi ul Awwal). Why should we imitate the kuffaar in earmarking one day in the year for expressing our love for Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam)? The kuffaar have reduced their parents to such a low position that they earmark one day in the year (which they call ‘mother’s day’ and ‘father’s day’) to express their love and respect. We should not reduce the position of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) by just remembering him on the 12th of Rabi ul Awwal. Meelaad i.e. celebrating the birthday of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) is an innovation in Deen. It was neither practiced in the era of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam), the Sahaabah, Taab’ieen, Tab ut-Taab’ieen nor the centuries that followed. It was only in the seventh century of Islam that king ‘Arbal’ initiated this practice. Apart from this many wrongs are found in the meelaad celebrations. Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: من أحدث في أمرنا هذا ما ليس منه فهو رد “The one who innovates a practice in our Deen, it will be rejected”. Reciting Durood upon Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) is a virtuous deed and earns one immense reward. Shariat has permitted the recitation of the Durood in all conditions without any restriction (i.e. standing, sitting, whilst lying down etc.). Hence, restricting the Durood to any condition or occasion is impermissible. The practice of Salaami prevalent nowadays does not conform to Shariat on account of the restrictions that people have brought in it as well as many other wrongs. Hereunder are some of the wrongs that are found in it: People regard it necessary to stand and recite the Salaami. People regard this method of reciting Durood (Salaami) as a Sunnat of deen. People look down at the one who does not stand during the Salaami. People regard not standing as a sign of disrespect shown to Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam). In many places, people regard Nabi (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) to be present at the place where Salaami takes place. People regard the recitation of the Salaami on special occasions as necessary. In many places, the Salaami takes place without segregation between the sexes. عن عائشة رضي الله عنها ، قالت : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : (من أحدث في أمرنا هذا ما ليس منه فهو رد (رياض الصالحين) المولود الذي شاع في هذا العصر و احدثه صوفي في عهد سلطان اربل سنة 600 ولم يكن له أصل من الشريعة الغراء (العرف الشذي مع جامع الترمذي 1/117) ومن جملة ما أحدثوه من البدع مع اعتقادهم أن ذلك من أكبر العبادات وإظهار الشعائر ما يفعلونه في شهر ربيع الأول من مولد وقد احتوى على بدع ومحرمات جملة (المدخل لابن الحاج 2/2) فتاوى محمودية 5/378-379) Answered by: Mufti Zakaria Makada Checked & Approved: Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Isipingo Beach)

Brother Arfatzafar, Assalaamu 'alaykum I have moved the article you posted to Biographies and also posted the full article. We often lose links and readers are left with an incomplete article. Hope you don't mind...Jazakallah for the excellent addition. Our Ulama from the Indian subcontinent are not appreciated enough!

Finding Comfort with OCD in Surah 2: Verse 286The whole Quran has this unbelievable way of amazing me. Its beautifully poetic verses and breath taking words just settle in my heart and mind so warmly. Though the whole Quran has the power to make me feel like everything will be okay, there is one verse that absolutely wins my heart. That verse is "On no soul doth Allah place a burden greater than it can bear" 2:286. (This verse is also repeated in 6:152, 7:42 and 65:7). I can not think of any other verse in the Quran that empowers me as much as this one does. This is a verse I often reflect on in times of stress, sadness and need. Think about it. Just repeat the words. On NO soul does Allah place a burden GREATER than it can bear. Now, tell me, what is it that we can not overcome? What test is too much to bear? What final exam, what major decision, what grief of a loved one passing away, do we not eventually overcome? The answer is simple - none. This verse really hit me at a time I needed it most. For the last couple of years, I have been suffering from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, OCD. It is a disorder that effects millions of people, and is due to a chemical imbalance in the brain. This disorder caused me to have many unnecessary thoughts. I would repeatedly replay incidents over and over in my head. The type I have is more of a mental OCD, rather than a physical type. However, I would sometimes encounter physical anxiety. For example, sometimes I felt I had to touch something a certain amount of times or repeat things. The hardest challenge was when I came to have difficulties in making wudu, the purification washing before performing a prayer. I was always under the impression that my wudu was not good enough or that I missed washing a spot. I would literally stand in front of the sink repeating my wudu until I thought I had it perfect. The same would happen with my prayers. I would pray the same prayer 3 times just to make sure it was "perfect". Little did I know that on one particularly rough day, I would be inspired. I was feeling very down because of the OCD. I just could not handle it. It is hard to explain to someone who does not have it, it is just so frustrating because it seems like an easy thing to handle, but for one who has OCD it is incredibly exhausting. So, I am standing in front of the sink, wondering to myself why it is so difficult to just be content with the things I do. I was so angry. So upset. Until the phone rang. It was my brother, calling from his college dorm. My mom picked up the phone and spoke with him. I assume she told him that I was having a rough day, so he asked to talk to me. When I got on the phone, all he said was, "Go look in the Quran in chapter 2, verse 286". So I went and picked up my Quran that he had recently bought me. I flipped through the pages until I came to the verse. Then I stared at the words and read them in my head. "On no soul does Allah place a burden greater than it can bear." I had to fight back tears. I actually felt like Allah had written those words just for me. It was that day that I really understood what those words meant. I still reflect on the words every time I need to. So I want to tell you all, my brothers and sisters, let those remarkable words settle in your hearts and minds. Always remember that there is nothing we can not overcome. Allah said so. (By the way, OCD can be controlled, please reach out to a doctor if you feel you need too. Always remember Allah is watching over you). Source