You are on page 1of 49

Black Shazia

Blue Seema did Addition after listening to tapes
Red Seema Spelling correction and addition
Green Seema needs Spelling Help

Why the Differences? (CD1 Part1)


Bismil-Laahir-Rahmaa Nir- Raheem
As-Salaatu Was-Salaamu ‘Alaieka Yaa Rasoolal-Laah -As-Salaatu Was-Salaamu Habeebal-Laah

Dear Viewers
As Salam o Alaikum! Wa Rahmatul Laahi Wa Barakaatuhu!
In the Qur’aan, e Paak, Soorah Baqaraah verse 8 Allaah [Subhanhu Wa Ta'alaa] says:
“Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in Allaah and the Last Day;" but they do not
(really) believe.”
The reason explained by Allaah Ta'alaa is that:
“In their hearts is a disease; and Allaah has increased their disease: And grievous is the penalty
they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).”
Means their views and belief are not true. Who are they? Every Muslim would like to know so
that he can remain away from them to keep his belief and deeds safe from them. Our Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) says that Banee Israeel had 72/73 sects and my
Um-mat will be divided in 73 groups and 72 groups will be burnt in Hell while only one will go
to Heaven. Companions of Hazrat Muhammad (Peace and blessing be upon him) asked who that
successful group would be. The Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace and blessing be upon him)
said this would be Naajiyah sect, the followers of me and my companions. Moreover he said that
my Ummah will not go astray but when you see them indulged in wrong doings you must hold
the largest group to be answerable. And the largest group’s name is Ahle-Sunnat Wa Jamaa’at or
Sunni group and now they are called Barelvi as well. At present everyone is called Ahle-Sunnat
Wa Jamaa’at and how we would discover who is on the right path. In our country Pakistan the
famous and matchless speaker of Islaamic world,scholar of Islaam and the Mujaddid-e-Maslak-
e-Ahle Sunnat, Khateeb-e-A’zam Maulana Muhammad Shafee Okarvi’s (Allaah have mercy on
him) son and successor the Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi wrote a book “Deoband to
Bareilly” which has been published in Urdu, English and many other languages in thousands. In
this book Maulana Kaukab Noorani has written the basic reasons of Sunni Barelvi differences
and has taken 40 references from the authentic books of Deobandi scholars. As all people don’t
read these books and in many areas these books are not available especially in foreign countries
these books are not available in Urdu. People might think that these references are not from
authentic books so Maulana Okarvi academy decided on the wishes of friends to prepare a video
documentary proof of these references to the public. We prepared this video in an evening at
Maulana Okarvi’s personal library to convey to public real facts about Ahle-Sunnat Wa Jamaa’at
to enable them to identify them and convey the basic beliefs of Deobandi group. This is the first
video and we would In shaa Allaah prepare videos about other wrong groups. To clarify we
declare that our purpose is not creating any disturbance or restlessness in society and the
preaching and publications of Naajiyah from Ahle-Sunnat Wa Jamaa’at beliefs and deeds should
not be taken as sectarianism. Rather it is an effort to show right path to the Muslims for which
every Muslim prays to God in every rakaat of the prayer. Also it is an effort to preserve the facts
from proof and document for generation to come. Hope viewers would correct themselves after
watching these videos and strengthen their relation with Maslak e Haq Ahle-Sunnat Wa Jamaa’at
the righteous and the largest group and safeguard themselves and their family from corrupting
their faith and belief.
Behold viewers here is the video:
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
Nahamadu Wa Nusali Wa Nusalimoo Ala Habeebiyal Kareem Wa Ala Alaiehi Wa Ashaabihi
Ajma’een- A’oozu Bill-Laahi Minash-shaie taa Nir –Rajeem Bismil-Laahir-Rahmaa Nir-
Raheem
Muhtaram Maulana Qaari Muhammad Jahangir Sahib Naqshbandi is here and I request him to
tell us the meaning and purpose of his visit. Jee Qaari Sahib
Qaari Muhammad Jahangir:
Bismil-Laahir-Rahmaa Nir- Raheem
As-Salaatu Was-Salaamu ‘Alaieka Yaa Rasoolal-Laah
Hazrat Sahib my request to you is that your book Deoband to Bareilly has been published and
thousands of people have read it. For the satisfaction and trust of believers of Ahle-Sunnat Wa
Jamaa’at please present the authentic books to prove your references in this video that you gave
in your book. So our basic differences with Deobandi scholars become crystal clear by
witnessing them and we will not only keep ourselves for becoming astray but it will help make
other Muslim brothers and sisters follow the right path too. Also by seeing these references with
our own eyes from the real books our doubt and suspicion will clear and it will not only enforce
our beliefs but will also erase any confusion we have in our minds. We request you to show us
the origin of the 40 references in your book as proof and to guide the generations to come.
Why the Differences? (CD1 Part2)
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
This difference is not based on trivialities but on fundamental and principle differences and is
due to the impertinence [Disrespect] shown to Muhammad-ur- Rasoolal- Laah [Sallal Laahu
‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], May Allaah Ta’alaa bless you with knowledge and good deeds. The first
reference is on page 30, Few Deobandi-Wahaabi Preaching Group’s beliefs:
REFERENCE # 1
God can tell a lie. Name of the book is Fatawaa Rasheediyah, page 19 Volume 1. Sir
please show and explain us the origin of this reference?
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:
Your purpose is that all the references I have given in my book “Deoband to Bareilly”, I should
present to the viewer the original books from where I have taken them so that people would
come to know that these are true given and not fake. The first book is Fatawaa Rasheediyah from
which I have taken reference for my book Deoband to Bareilly and you referenced it. Its title is
Fatawaa Rasheediyah Part one, dated 1363 Hijri and published by Raheemia Khutub Khanna
Urdu Bazar Book Delhi. The name of the book is Fatawaa Rasheediyah Mubawab Volume one,
you referred to its page 19.
This is the page 19, in which he wrote [Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi] “Possibility of telling lie is
that lie is in Allaah’s power” then again he writes again here, “Lie is in the power of Allaah”
then writes again “lie is in Allaah’s power.” Here again is written that lie is in the powers of
Allaah means that a lie is not out of Allaah’s powers.
In this sentence what he [Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi] is trying to say is that lie is in the power of
Allaah to further prove this the reference is given by him is that Allaah is
“Wa Huu Wa A’laa Qulli Shai’in Qadeer”
Meaning Allaah is Omnipotent”, if HE is Almighty and Al Qaadir then a lie is also part of his
Being Al Qaadir.
This is the reference of the book “Fatawaa Rasheediyah” part one published in Delhi India. They
published this book in collection with the name of “Talifaat-e-Rashhediyah” in Karachi. This is
its inner title page, “Talifaat-e-Rashhediyah with Talifaat-e-Rashhediyah” written by Rasheed
Ahmad Gangohi and is published by Islaamiat Organization, Anarkali Lahore and they have
given them high epithets. Even in this book that thing is present, first we would see list of
contents that they have arranged. Kitab ul Aqaid page18, topic is “The Attribution of Lie to
Allaah”, at page 98 same scripts is given “possibility of telling lie is that lie is in Allaah’s power”
means Allaah can tell a lie, God forbid, God forbid (Ma’aazal Laah summa Ma’aazal’ Laah) I
seek Allaah Ta'alaa’s shelter. If anyone blames me for writing this sentence from myself, I have
shown the original books from those I have taken these sentences.
If this is not enough I can further explain it with the help of third book I have “Tazkiratur
Khaleel” written by Khalil Anbethwi, published by Qasmia Publishing House Rangpur Road in
Sialkot City. Have a glimpse of its inner title as well “Tazkiratur Khaleel”, here the names of
people have written who have contributed to this book though the book is written by Aashiq
Ilaahie. It was published in 1969; see on the page 135, here it is written clearly that this is totally
confirmed that what is in the capacity of man is in the powers of Allaah. It gives meanings that
what a man can do is also in the powers of Allaah Ta'alaa. It suggests that if man has ability to
tell a lie, Allaah Ta'alaa can also tell a lie. He is proving his point by saying that if we say that a
man can do something that is not in the powers of Allaah Ta'alaa it seems that Allaah’s powers
lacks in comparison with human being. With this argument they are initiating that it is possible
that Allaah Ta'alaa can have all the flaws.
Furthermore, there is another argument in the book “Al-Jahd- ul-Muqeel” written by Maulana
Mahmud Hasan, the teacher of Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi. This is its inner title and it was
published by Madinia Publishing House Urdu Bazar Lahore, written on the topic of the problem
of Lie in Allaah Ta'alaa ’s powers and is stated as the best book by them. This book that I have
was published in Shabaan 1409 Hijri from Lahore which I have with me. On its page 41, behold
its statement that how can we rule out bad deeds from the most ancient Allaah Ta'alaa powers. It
tells that wrong doings are also in Allaah Ta'alaa powers. If I have referred that scholars of
Deobandi Wahaabi, and Tableeghi preaching groups believe that Allaah can tell a lie in my book
then I have shown you all the four books which were quoted.
Next Reference…
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE # 2

Allaah Ta'alaa has no prior knowledge about the future deeds of human beings and Allaah
Ta'alaa comes to know only when they act or they have done something … by “Tafseer
Bulghatul Haieraan” page 157, 158.
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:
This reference of Tafseer Bulghatul Haieraan that you just read I also present the book to you.
This Tafseer Bulghatul Haieraan fi Rabt e Aayat ul Qur’aan, is the name of book. Rasheed
Ahmad Gangohi’s disciple and Ghulam Khan from Rawalpindi whom he called Ghulam Ullah’s
teacher Hussain Ali from Wan Bhuchran wrote this book named Tafseer Bulghatul Haieraan fi
Rabt e Aayat ul Qur’aan, was published by Himayat e Islaam Press. Here you can see the word
Wan Bhuchran, Mianwali here. He belonged to Mianwali and issued the book from there. On
page… which is the page? Page 157??
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
Page 157 and 158
Maulana Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
This is the page 157, they say here that human being is independent to do good or not and Allaah
Ta'alaa has no prior knowledge that what they would do and Allaah Ta'alaa comes to know when
they do it. It is clearly said here that Deobandi-Wahaabe’s believe that Allaah Ta'alaa has no
prior knowledge about human beings’ actions and HE comes to know it when they actually do it.
I have given this reference too in my Book.This is the believe of Wahaabee Deobandi,Tableeghi
Beiefs [Aqeedah]
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE # 3
Knowledge of Shaitaan [Satan] and the Angel of death [Malik al Maut] is more than the holy
Prophet (Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam). (Baraaheen-e-Qaati’ah, pg 51)

Why the Differences? (CD1 Part3)
Maulana Kaukab Noorani Okarvi
This book is Baraaheen-e-Qaati'ah ala Zlam il Anwar is Saatya. This book named Baraaheen-e-
Qaati'ah was published 1365 AH by Muhammad Ishaaq the owner Kutab Khana Raheemia Zilla
Saharanpur. This book is authenticated by Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi and written by Khaleel
Ahmad Ambetwi as written here. On page 51 he writes clearly:
It should be concentrated upon that Shaietaan and Malik ul Maut’s actions prove that The Pride
of the World’s knowledge of the world to be proved with just imaginary and wrong thoughts
against the true words of Qur’aan is nothing more than Shirk. Shaitaan and Malik ul Maut’s
knowledge is proved through the words of Qur’aan and Hadees while The Prophet (Peace be
upon him) Pride of the world’s words are not proved through the words of Qur’aan and Hadees.
The clear words of Quraan and Hadees are called Nus, here he means that about Shaietaan and
Hazrat Israeel’s words are proved by Qur’aan and Hadees while there are no Qur’aan and
Hadees words for Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be upon him) so it proves that Shaietaan and Malik
ul Maut’s have authentic knowledge than The Prophet. God forbid… again God forbid. So the
reference we have given is proven through this book that is presented to you and was not given
from myself.
REFERENCE # 4
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
Allaah’ Nabee Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) has no knowledge of his end and what
is behind the wall? Baraaheen-e-Qaati'ah, page 51.
Maulana Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
This is the same book that I showed earlier, Baraaheen-e-Qaati'ah, on the same page 51 where he
proved Shaitaan and Malik al Maut’s knowledge. He himself wrote and referred to Shaiekh
Abdul Haq who has never written this thing anywhere in his book that “I had no knowledge of
what is behind the wall. Shaiekh Abdul Haq had not written this in his book. He is several times
asked to prove his reference with argument where this statement is given. If he referred to Kitaab
al Madarij but this is not written in that book. Actually he referred to Abdul Haq but wrote this
from himself that the Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam],has no knowledge of what is
behind the wall. The Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], who gave us the knowledge of
Allaah,the Prophet who gave us the knowledge of Universe and this world, how can he say that
he knows nothing what is behind the wall? I am unable to understand and comprehend how a
person can be called Allamah when he denies the knowledge of the Prophet [Sallal Laahu
‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], So believing that the Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], says he
is unable to see behind the wall is totally wrong for the reason that the book they referred has no
such statement and is totally fabricated. It proves that Deobandi Wahaabi’s have taken it from
some reference; their intention is to prove their “Point Of View” though Shaeikh Abdul Haq
although he has not written this. But they have proved their belief by writing this in their books
this is their Aqeedah that Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], says he has no knowledge
of what is behind the wall. Having this belief is absolute insolence and disrespectful and against
the saying of Qur’aan and Sunnat. We, Ahle Sunnah wal Jamma’at have no such belief
[Aqeedah] like that. I have shown you the book to which I referred in my book.
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE # 5
The amount of knowledge and the kind of knowledge of the unseen which is given by Almighty
Allaah to the holy Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam] such knowledge has also been
given to animals, lunatics and children. [Hifzul Ieemaan, pg 7]
Maulana Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
The book you referred, I have “Hifzul Ieemaan” is written by Ashraf Ali Sahib Thanvi. Shaiekh
Jan Muhammad Allaah Baksh Tajran Kutb Uloom e Mashrqi, Kashmiri Bazar Lahore in June 1934
published at Karimi Printing Press Lahore. I have its new edition too that I got from Deoband. The
book named “Hifzul Ieemaan” has this written on its page 7 that:
If we believe that Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], is given Ilm e Ghaib
[Knowledge of the Unseen] then what type of Ilm e Ghaib [Knowledge of the Unseen]does he
has? Now the question is whether he is given Baz Uloom e Ghaybia [Some Knowledge of the
Unseen] or Qul Uloom e Ghaybia [Full Knowledge of the Unseen]. If it is Baaz Uloom e Ghaybia
[Some Knowledge of the Unseen] then what is specific or Greatness of the Prophet [Sallal Laahu
‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam]? This type of knowledge is given to Zayd O Ammar [Anyone] in fact even
to Sabi Majnun, Haywaan .all human being, even to madmen and animals. This is written by
Maulana Thanvi in which what he said about Hazrat Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa
Sallam],
As everyone has some knowledge that others don’t know then everyone should be called Aalim
ul Ghaib.[Aalim of the Unseen].This is the statement written by Maulana Ahsraf Ali Thanvi.
Firstly whatever he has said about Hazrat Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], let me
explain
I will explain through my book “Haqaiq” [The Facts]. Please give me my book Haqaiq. I have
given the reference of this book as you can see here in my book Haqaiq. Whatever we write we
give its all the details in our book as I have given here.
Actually somebody asked from Maualana Thanvi that is here on this page, anyone who is interested
can see it. The question is that Zaid means anybody asks that Ilm e Ghaib has two types. Bi zaat
[By Self] means that there could be no one Aalim e Ghaib except Allaah Ta'alaa and Ba waasta
[By Help] means that the Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], is Aalim ul Ghaib. How is
this argument of Zaid? He asks two things that Bi zaat [By Himself] implies to know Ghaib
himself. Ghaib [Unseen] is the knowledge beyond senses. That Bi zaat [By Self] is the knowledge
that no one has except Allaah Ta'alaa. Ba waasta [By Help] is the knowledge that Allaah Ta'alaa
has blessed the Prophet, [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], what is this argument? He wants to
know about keeping this Aqeedah and Istidlaal about the Knowledge of Unseen which the Prophet
Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam] has.
Firstly Maulana Thanvi denies clearly writes that the word Aalim ul Ghaib [Knower of Unseen]
could not be applied to Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam]. Itlaaq is to use some specific
word for something is Itlaaq and when something is proved for something is called Hukum.
Sometimes Hukum and Itlaaq are used simultaneously but sometimes Hukum is proved true but
Itlaaq doesn’t. It is something else, one thing is hukum for something and the other is to use some
word for someone.

Why the differences? (CD1 Part4)
Maulana Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
It is forbidden to use words of Aalim ul Ghaib, and to have complete Ilm ul Ghaib is not possible
through wisdom. And that the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam],has
complete knowledge of Ghaib could not be proved through wisdom. If indirect Ilm ul Ghaib, that
Allaah has given him, is Baz means a little then Maulana Thanvi writes that it is to confer Ilm e
Ghaib on the Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], if true by anyone (Maulana Thanvi is
not admitting it) then the question is whether is it Kul Ghaib or Baz Ghaib? If it is Baz Ilm e Ghaib
and not Kul Ilm e Ghaib then it is not special with the Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam],
just like Ilm e Ghaib is given to everyone, every child, animals and even beasts are given too.
Word here used for simile. Here the knowledge of Prophet (Peace be upon him) is mentioned like
the knowledge of animals, mad and children is the worst act of disgrace towards the Holy Prophet
(peace be upon him) It is the severest act of disgrace for that Thanvi has not yet asked for
forgiveness. People used to say that he has changed the text as written in the other books. He used
words the Ghair e Ambiya instead of animals and mad but these words are not the proof of his
forgiveness. If someone says that he begged pardon then it has to prove. The people who are
fighting over this also seek forgiveness. Some people say the word ‘aisa’ means like or as much
but in both cases this word is used for simile and disgrace. This is severe insolence to mention the
knowledge of the Holy Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], like animals and Thanvi has
neither begged pardon nor changed the text and it is sheer insolence of Thanvi. God forbid for this
act of insolence and I have shown you the real text.
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE # 6
Even the thought of the holy Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam] occurring during
Namaaz is much worse than to be immersed in the thought of an ox or a donkey. (Siraat-e-
Mustaqeem, pg 86)
(But the thought of Thanvi Saahib or any other Deobandi Mullaas during Namaaz is
justified).
Maulana Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
I am showing you the book Siraat e Mustaqeem, published in 1308 AH by Maktba Mujtbai Delhi
and written by Ismail Dehlvi. Some people say that this book is not written by Ismail Dehlvi, I will
present more facts about this too. With reference to your question on page 86, it is my habit to
mark pages so I have marked these pages too. It is in Persian that is the real book. I present its
translation in the words as he himself did and I had not translated it myself. This book Siraat e
Mustaqeem published in Pakistan. If this book is not translated and written by Ismaeel Dehlvi then
why his name is written as translator and writer on the first page. If it is written by someone else
then his name should be given. It is published by Malik Siraj Ud Din and Sons publishers Lahore
in November 1956. I show you the translation of that sentence by book Siraat e Mustaqeem on
page 150. This book is translated by the people who share same belief with them.
Some darkness or perverse has different levels, means less or more. If the thought of intimacy
[making love] comes to your mind during prayers, it would be better to think about sex [intimacy]
with your wife. Shaeikh (teacher) or like other elders no matter it would be the thought of the Holy
Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], would be worse than thinking about your ox or
donkey. God forbid. Thinking about the Holy Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], (Peace
be upon him) during prayer and you involved in it is worse than thinking about your ox and donkey.
He further argues because the thought of ox and donkey are trivial and not get you involved and
the thoughts about shaiekh keeps one involved a lot for the respect he has for them. As the thought
of ox and donkey has no involvement for its triviality and abjection. The thought of something
respectful during prayers leads one to Shirk. He means that the thought of the Holy Prophet [Sallal
Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], would accompany with respect and thinking any one with respect
during prayers leads to Shirk. Now he should be asked that without taking name of the Prophet
Muhammad [Peace be upon him] there is no prayer at all. We take the name of Hazrat Muhammad
(peace be upon him) we send Salaam to him with his name intentionally and think about him with
respect.
ہتاکرب و ا تمحر و يبنلا اهيأ كيلع ملسلا
How is it possible not to think about him? Thought can come with respect or disrespect these are
the two conditions only.
Why the Difference (CD1 Part5)
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
And thinking contemptuously, with hatred and inferiority is not at all allowed for the Prophet
(Peace be upon him). It is agreed upon that it is not allowed to call the dress of the Prophet
(Peace be upon him) dirty contemptuously would deprive the person of his faith. Likewise it is
also forbidden to call the sacred shoes of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) contemptuously,
doing that would turn one to an infidel. No one dare to describe the personality or the attributes
of the Nabee (Peace be upon him) contemptuously and the thought of the Prophet (Peace be upon
him) would definitely come respectfully in the prayers. They preach that thinking about him is
worse than thinking about ox and donkey.
There are two things mentioned in this text, means they have analyzed thoughts. One that
thinking during prayers about sex with wife is better than illicit relationship. Secondly, thinking
about the Prophet [Peace be upon him] is worse than thinking about ox and donkey…. What an
act of insolence and disgrace….to avoid any misconception that we have written this statement
ourselves, I have shown you both Urdu and Persian versions of the books. To study further about
this topic my father, I and other Sunn scholars have written in their books. I am not replying here
about this otherwise give details about the issue. Hazrat Maulana Fazal e Haq Khair Abadi gave
Fatwa e Kufr against Ismaeel Dehlvi, who was his contemporary. It is also said that he sought
forgiveness and some people don’t talk about him. To read answers for this and know the details
consult books, I am just showing the reference books with actual words to prove the authenticity
of my references.
The book Taleefat e Rasheediya is written by Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi that I have shown
earlier. On page 241 of this book is given that someone questioned who had written Taqwiyatul
leemaan, Ada ul Haq and Siraat e Mustqeem? In answer Gangohi wrote Siraat e Mustaqeem and
Ismaeel Dehlvi wrote Taqwiyatul leemaan. I am presenting the witness of their greatest scholar
against those who claim that Siraat e Mustaqeem is not their book. Their printing itself advertises
that these books are written by Ismaeel Dehlvi, other than that we can prove by several
references.
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE # 7
You referred that they say:
The word Rahmatul Lil ‘Aalameen is not an exclusive attribute of the holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu
‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam). Beside holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam) other saintly
people can also be called Rahmatul Lil ‘Aalameen. (Fataawa Rasheediyah vol. 2, pg 12)
Maulana Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
Fataawa Rasheediyah written by Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi was published by Kutub Khana
Raheemia Sunehri Masjid Delhi in 1357 Hijri that I have. It was issued by Khawaja Barki press
Delhi, on its page 9 see the question asked, is the word Rahmatul Lil ‘Aalameen” specific for the
Prophet (Peace be upon him) or can be used for others too?
Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi answers that “Rahmatul Lil ‘Aalameen” is not the attribute of the
Prophet (Peace be upon him) only, other Auliyaa, Ambiya and Ulamaa e Rabbaani are also a
blessing for the world although the Prophet (Peace be upon him) is the greatest of all. So, to use
the word for others is allowed”, by Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi.
It suggests that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) is the greatest Rahmatul Lil ‘Aalameen and the
others are small Rahmatul Lil ‘Aalameen. Then they must be asked whom they call Ulamaa e
Rabbaniyeen? Do they call Ulama e Rabbaniyeen to Ahle Sunnat wa Jammaat Bareilvis or Shias
or whosoever? But they call Ulamaa e Rabbaniyeen only themselves, they mean that the Prophet
(Peace be upon him) is the great Rahmatul Lil ‘Aalameen” whereas Deobandis are small
Rahmatul Lil ‘Aalameen”. God forbid. To them Rahmatul Lil ‘Aalameen” is not the specific
attribute of the Prophet [Peace be upon him]. Is this not the denial of Qur’aan? I have shown
their book for proof so no one has misconception that I myself say it and can be seen in their
book Taleefat e Rasheediya too.
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #8
To the common people, the expression “Khaatim-un-Nabiy-yeen” means the “Last Prophet.” To
the knowledgeable people this meaning is not correct…… Even if a Prophet was born after the
holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam) it would still have no effect on the concept of
the finality of Muhammad (Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam). (Tahzeerun-Naas, pg 3 and 25)
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
It is the denial of Khatam un Nabuwat of the Prophet (Peace be upon him). The name of the book
is Tehzeerun -Nas, written by Muhammad Qasim the founder of Dar ul Uloom Deoband and
published by Mutba Qasmi Deoband. The date of publication should be given on the first page,
but it has not.
On its page 3 he clearly writes that according to general public the Prophet (Peace be upon him)
(look here he used the word “معلص" in short form though he himself forbids to avoid disgrace)
Khatum means that the Prophet (Peace be upon him)’s period is the last and he is the last of all
the Prophets. But scholars know that coming later or earlier has nothing to do with greatness then
calling the Prophet (Peace be upon him) Khaatim-un-Nabiy-yeen is not lawful. Here Nanotvi
clearly says that Khaatim-un-Nabiy-yeen does not mean the last prophet and wise people say that
it is not a matter of greatness to come earlier or later. Then how could it be right to call the
Prophet (Peace be upon him) Khaatim-un-Nabiy-yeen. Here he has clearly denied the meanings
of Khaatim-un-Nabiy-yeen as the last prophet. Ulaama e Deobandi has decided that those who
do not admit Khaatim-un-Nabiy-yeen’s meanings as the last Prophet are Kaf-fir and this is not
my view. But they don’t hold their scholar answerable though their own fatwa is that who denies
that the Khaatim-un-Nabiy-yeen meaning the last Prophet is. But don’t ask from their believer, is
it justice? Saving someone for their own relation, is it justice? It is the matter of Ieemaan and
Kuffr, honor of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and the truth of Qur’aan. Is their honor more
important than the respect of the Prophet (Peace be upon him)? I only want to tell you that
Deobandi and Wahaabi (real word was Sunni and Wahaabi) difference is
Why the Difference (CD1 Part6)
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
Deobandi and Wahaabi (real word was Sunni and Wahaabi) difference is that Deobandis are a
branch of Wahaabis and they started calling Sunnis as Bareilvi. We are Ahle Sunnat wal Jammat
and not belong to Bareili., we belong to Pakistan.Those who live in Bareili could be called
Bareilvi. But one can call us Bareilvi. for our association with Imaam e Ahle Sunnat A’ala
Hazrat Maulana Shah Ahmad Raza Fazil e Bareilvi. because we share same belief with him, it is
just for identity and not some sect, we are Ahle Sunnat wal Jammaat and this is not any sect. I
am telling you that they clearly denied this.
In this book they denied the Prophet (Peace be upon him)’s Khatm e Nabuwat on several places.
On page 25 of the same book he writes clearly:
If after the period of the Prophet [Peace be upon him] some prophet born even then cannot harm
the Khatmiat e Muhammadi. Means they accept it is possible that some prophet born by saying
suppose. Something impossible is impossible, this writer deserves to be punished and disgraced
publically. It is like to say that someone would remain alive if his throat would cut with some
dagger or Nikah shall remain intact after giving Talaaq thrice. In such cases they would bring
numerous arguments. It is clearly written here that there could come a Prophet after the Prophet
(Peace be upon him) and denied the meanings of Khaatim-un-Nabiy-yeen. Then said if born a
prophet even then it will make no difference to the Khatmiat e Muhammadi even if a prophet is
sent to the same land or some other land. They have denied the khatm e Nabuwat of the Prophet
(Peace be upon him). Which is the next page of the reference? This one was 25.
On page 13 it is written:
If for example there is any Prophet in the time of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) even then he
remains Khatum because they have taken the word Khatum in the meanings of great. Then by
saying this they share same belief with Qaidianis that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) was not
last but preeminent Prophet. So they favored Qadianis by writing this book and provided them a
chance. This is the reason that Wahaabis / Deobandis have no argument when Qaidianis come to
them. These are the three references that I read out to you from the books to prove their
authenticity.
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE # 9:
The holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam) learnt the Urdu language with the
connection of 'Ulama of Deoband. [Baraaheen-e-Qaati’ah, pg 26]
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
No doubt, it is great act of insolence. This book Baraaheen-e-Qaati’ah, I have shown earlier too,
Here on its page 26 written:
A pious man blessed to see the Prophet (Peace be upon him) in dream and noticed him speaking
Urdu asked from where you learnt Urdu as you are an Arab?
The Prophet (Peace be upon him) said since I have interacted with the Ulama e Madrasa
Deoband, I knew this language. This shows the status of that Madrasa. Just imagine that the
Prophet (Peace be upon him) knows Urdu only because of Ulama e Madrasa Deoband. Next
notice how they show the greatness of the Madrasa, what do they mean by writing this sentence.
Do they want to show the Prophet (Peace be upon him) a student of their Madrasa or Ulama e
Deoband taught Urdu to the Prophet (Peace be upon him). This is a clear insolence that I showed
you from this book. Next reference…
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE # 10:
The Prophet (Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam) should only be respected as an elder brother.
[Taqwiyatul leemaan, pg 58].

Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
This text you read is written by Ismaeel Dehlvi whom people know as Balakot ka Shaheed, who
participated in Jihaad along with Saiyyid Ahmad and people, remembers him for his Jihaad. He
has named his book “Taqwiyatul leemaan”, the one to strengthen Ieemaan, though he should
name it “Tafwiyat ul Ieemaan” by removing just one dot from ق to change it to ف meaning the
one which deprives you of faith. See his name is written with lots of epithets whom the call
shaheed. It is published by Matbu a Faiz e Aam Delhi that I have. Its year of publication is not
printed here and still available in the market. They think it important to print and distribute it all
over the world. Before giving references I would like to present the importance of this book in
their eyes. This is the same book “Taleefat e Rasheediya” by Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi, I will
present from this book how importance they give to this book named Taqwiyatul leemaan”, he
has praised this book on several places.
On page 84 he writes:
Book Taqwiyatul leemaan is a matchless for Rad e Shirk and Kuffr. Its arguments are taken from
Qur’aan and Hadees. Keeping, reading and practicing on it are just Islaam and will recompense
in the life hereafter. How highly they regard this book!! Let see he has written clearly that
Ismaeel Dehlvi is Jannati. On page 88 he writes that the book ‘Taqwiyatul leemaan” is so great
and true book that enhances and corrects Ieemaan. And the writer is favorite of Allaah Al
Kareem etc etc. He has mentioned Taqwiyatul leemaan on many places. I just showed this to
make you understand what the status of that person in their eyes is. Which reference you gave?
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
Page 58
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
Page 58, let me show you. This book has almost 70 Kuffriat. Just notice the first sentence at Page
58:
All human beings are brothers, the one who is elder should respect him like the elder brother and
God is Maalik of all of them. This Hadees tells that Auliyaa, Ambiyaa, Imaam o Imaamzada,
Peer and Shaheed are all our Allaah Almighty’s beloved but human beings and our brothers.
Allaah Kareem has blessed them greatness so they are elder brothers and we are ordered to obey
them, we are their younger and should respect them like human beings. Actually in Qur’aan it is
ordered to respect the Prophet (Peace be upon him)
Why the differences? (CD1 Part7)
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
It is in Qur’aan e Pak to respect the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and don’t call the Prophet
(Peace be upon him) like you used to call one another. They are saying that the Prophet (Peace
be upon him) is elder brother and they are younger brothers. Though the Holy Qur’aan tells that
the wives of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) are the mothers of Momineen. Is the husband of
mother called brother? They don’t get this till today. They write that the Prophet (Peace be upon
him) should be regarded as elder brother and we are younger brothers and respect him. We don’t
respect the Prophet (Peace be upon him) like Allaah Al Kareem rather we respect him like a
human being, a creation of Allaah Ta’aala. But regard him like a human being who is matchless
and no one is like him. They are regarding him like elder brother that is evident … here they
have written Auliyaa and Ambiyaa. God forgive.
Next reference…
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #11:

If Allaah [God] wishes he can create millions like the Prophet [Peace be upon him]. Book
Taqwiyatul leemaan.
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
This is the same book that is under consideration and the next reference that you asked is given
on page 30. He writes:
God Almighty has grandeur to create millions of Nabee, Wali, Jinn, Angel Jibraeel and
Muhammad in an instant just by saying KUN. Just check it is their reference, through just one
KUN he can create millions of Jibraeel and Muhammad. It is clear here that they have no
importance, greatness and superiority attached to the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him). They
have written Muhammad [Peace be upon him] only here disregard of any word of respect. There
is in the Holy Qur’aan that he is the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and Khatum un Nabeeyeen.
And if millions are created, will they all be Khatum un Nabeeyeen? It is so strange and meant to
ridicule the Holy Qur’aan only. Here this is written unambiguously in their book. Next
reference…
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE # 12
After his death, the Holy Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam] has mingled with dust.[God
[Ma’aazal Laah summa Ma’aaz Allaah] [Taqwiyatul Ieemaan, pg 59].
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
It is the same book Taqwiyatul leemaan, on its page 59 written that the Holy Prophet (Peace be
upon him) said that he would also become a part of soil after his death. It is in clear words about
the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him), this is not a sentence worth the honor of the Holy Prophet
(Peace be upon him). If I am allowed to give an example to explain what is the difference
between a part of dust after death and being dust, notice the difference of ‘Say’ and ‘Mayn’ to
understand how disrespectful they are. Is it similar in meanings to say that ‘Ismaeel Dehlvi “Say
Chari gum ho gaie” [The stick was lost by Ismaeel Dehlvi] or “Ismaeel Dehlvi may Chari gum
ho gaie”? [Ismaeel Dehlvi was lost in the stick] Perhaps they will understand the meanings by
this comparision that how disrespectful they are while writing this sentence. While the Prophet
[Peace be upon him] said that it is forbidden for the land to decompose the bodies of Ambiyaa as
they are alive. It is not allowed to call martyrs dead in the Holy Qur’aan, imagine how majestic
the Nabee is whose followers are so prestigious. But they don’t know this, I have presented the
original book of the reference to show you….
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE # 13
Nabee and Prophets are worthless. Book Taqwiyatul leemaan, page 29.
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
From the same book Taqwiyatul leemaan, page 29 they write that despite Allaah Almighty
calling those worthless people who can do no good is just injustice and like proving the worth of
worthless people in place of the great person. It is just like giving the status of great person to the
worthless. Here Allaah is called great person and all the Ambiyaa and Auliyaa are called
worthless including the Prophet [Peace be upon him]. These words are written in the same book
that I presented.
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #14:
It is not necessary for a Prophet to be free and innocent from every lie. [Tasfiyatul ‘Aqaa’id], pg
25]
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
The book Tasfiyatul ‘Aqaa’id written by Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi is published by Saiyyid
Ahmad owner Kutub Khana Aziziaa Deoband issued from Kutub Khana Aziziaa Deoband. On
its page 25 he writes his sentence:
It is wrong to think that lies as sin are against the prestige of Nabuwat and Prophets are free of all
sins. Means it is utter mistake to consider the Prophets innocent. Imagine they are denying the
innocence of the Prophets that is a part of our basic beliefs but they are denying the Prophets’
honor.
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #15:
Praise the Prophet only as a human being also do reduction even in this. [Taqwiyatul Ieemaan,
pg 35].
Book Taqwiyatul leemaan.
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
In this book Taqwiyatul leemaan page 61 he writes after mentioning the visit to the Holy Prophet
(Peace be upon him):
Be careful in praise of any elder and praise him like a human being and even praise briefly. If we
accept it as a rule then why do they have written several pages and even books in praise of
Deobandi Scholars? But why they advise to praise the Prophet (Peace be upon him) as a human
being only rather be brief. They write ‘Muhammad’ without any words of honor while write the
names of their scholars with several words of honor. They say to respect the Prophet (Peace be
upon him) like a human being and the reference is present in this book. The statement
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #16:
The statement is:
The elder [the Prophet] and the younger [all other human beings] are unaware and foolish. Book
Taqwiyatul leemaan, page 24
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
This is the same book Taqwiyatul leemaan, on its page 24 see this text:
All the human beings big and small are equal. Earlier he has told that the Prophet [Peace be upon
him] is big for he was bestowed greatness and we are small for being deprived of greatness. All
human beings are trivial [Aajiz] and unauthorized [Bay ikhtiyaar]. Moreover they have written it
clearly that all the human beings whether big or small are equally unaware and foolish. Means they
are openly and simply denying that Nabee and others are at one place equally trivial and
unauthorized and on the other place they are equally unaware and foolish. Though the Prophet
Muhammad [Peace be upon him] himself said I know what you know not and that he knows about
Allaah [Almighty] [Almighty] better than any other human beings and I fear God [Allaah]
[Almighty] as no one other does. Other than that the Holy Qur’aan is the witness of his [Faazilat]
greatness, Allaah Al Kareem Himself Praises about his Prophet’s Knowledge [Ilm] in the Holy
Qur’aan

'Wa 'Allama Kum Ma Lam Takun Ta'lam'

Translation: …'And We Taught You That Which You Did Not Know'.

Here they say equally unaware and foolish and even called the Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa
Sallam] unauthorized too. They call him first unauthorized [Bay Ikhtiyaar] and then trivial
[Aajiz].The Truth is the one who calls Nabee [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam] unaware, foolish
and unauthorized is himself foolish, ignorant and even insolent and is [Bay Adab] disrespectful
and [Gushtakh]. This reference is also present in this book.

Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE # 17:
The big creations, meaning the Prophets, and the small creations, meaning all other creations, are,
in front of the Grandeur of Allaah, more disgraced than a cobbler. (Taqwiyatul Ieemaan, pg 14)
. (Ma’aazal Laah summa Ma’aazal’ Laah) [God Forbid God Forbid for such utterances!!!] Book
Taqwiyatul leemaan, page 14.

Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi
On the page 14 of the same book Taqwiyatul leemaan, here it is written in clear words:
Whether small or big every creation is lower and [in comparisons, lesser and Zaleel] than cobbler
before the Great Majesty of Allaah Ta'alaa. (Ma’aazal Laah summa Ma’aazal’ Laah)
See this sentence here…… though clearly the Qur’aan e Paak says:
Wa Kana Indal laah Wajeehaa.
And to Allaah Ta'alaa the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is greatly magnificent.
Wa kaana Fazal al laah hie Alaikaa Azeemaa
And Allaah Ta'alaa has Bestowed Great blessings upon him.
(Ma’aazal Laah summa Ma’aazal’ Laah)They are using the word cobbler for all big and small
without any distinction. Just imagine the extent of their disrespect for Ambiyaa, Auliyaa and the
Muslims. Although Allaah Ta'alaa has bestowed honor to the descendants of Hazrat Aadam
[Alaiehis Salaam]. They have just denied the Holy Qur’aan. The word Chammar is used for
cobbler by some and others use it to show contempt for someone. And they[the Deobandi] say
meaner [Lower Zaleel] than them, even though we all know that the Muslims believe that to Allaah
Ta'alaa no one is ,more beloved and majestic [Shaan Waalay] like the Prophet (Peace be upon
him). But just check their belief [Aqeedah] how disrespectful and degrading they are, May Allaah
Ta'alaa keep us away from them and save us from this belief [aqeedah]and believer like them.
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #18:
It is permissible to call Nabee [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam Taaghoot/ Shaietaan (Ma’aazal
Laah summa Ma’aazal’ Laah) [God Forbid]. Book Bulghatul Haieraan, page 43
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi
Bulghatul Haieraan is the same book which I have shown earlier, containing the statement that
Allaah Ta'alaa has no prior knowledge of the acts of human beings. He only comes to know about
their doing afterward. Written by Husaien Ali Bacharaan Waaalay who is the student of Gangohi.
It was Published By: Himaayat-e-Islaam press Lahore, Written By: Husaien Alee]
Which is the page?

Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
Page 43
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi
Here it is written clearly after the Ayaat:
To mean this it would be permissible to call Nabee and Rasool Prophet Taaghoot [Shaietaan].
(Ma’aazal Laah summa Ma’aazal’ Laah) [God forbid God forbid] Taghoot. I am going to present
the meanings of Taghoot from their books in their own words from the writings of Deobandi
Scholars. You have seen this text on page 43 that all other than Allaah Ta'alaa are Taghoot, Book
Bulghatul Haieraan page 43. Now see the book Misbaah tul Lughaat. It’s a complete Arabic Urdu
dictionary prepared by the teacher of Darul Uloom Deoband Abu al Fazal Abdul Hafeez Baliayavi
published by Maktabaa Burhaan Urdu Bazaar Jamia Masjid Delhi. The date of publication would
also be given (1379 Hijri) 1950 by Hamdard Press Delhi. He has dedicated this to the Darul Uloom
Delhi. See here on page 488 the meanings of Al taghoot is given:
Here it is the meaning of Taghoot…..on page 488
Al-Taghoot: Is a transgressor; A leader of evil and ill doings; Shaietaan. You heard the
meanings of Taghoot, one is the leader/ chief of evil or transgressor. It is clearly written
Shaietaan here. Notice the one who uses transgressor/ leader of evils/ Shaietaan for Nabee!!! Is
he a Muslim?
Can we imagine anyone writing such dishonorable word for our Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi
Wa Sallam] Can we accept him as one with Ieemaan? Can we accept them as a Muslim how
shameful and disgracefull? These people have used such terms for Nabee [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi
Wa Sallam] then you can judge by yourself about them. Just see their belief that they consider it
permissible to use Taghoot word for Nabee [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam. Allaah Ta'alaa
keep us save from them and their belief [Aqeedah].
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #19:
A Prophet holds the same status amongst his um-mat [followers] as is held by a chaudhary
[headman] or a landlord in a village. [Taqwiyatul Ieemaan, pg 61]. [But the Deobandi Mul-laa,
Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi, is the ‘Mutaa’ul Kul’ or the overall sovereign.]
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi
This is the same book Taqwiyatul leemaan, page 61, here is clearly written:
The status of a Nabee [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam is like a chief of his ummah like the
“Chaudhary” of a village. Means they are using the word “Chaudhary” [Landlord]” to compare
and understand the greatness of Nabee [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], can any Muslim say
like this. Just imagine they are comparing the Status and Greatness of Prophet Muhammad[Sallal
Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], to “Chaudhary” of a village. Is this the respect of a person who has
Ieemaan? This is the reference by Ismaeel Dehlvi whom they think very high of and call him
Shaheed and thier Imaam [Leader], so Deobandi Wahabee’s should be called Ismaeeli’s in this
regard as they consider him as their Imaam. Gangohi regards this book in very high esteem and
says that keeping and reading this book is Great Sawaab. If keeping the book [Kitaab] e
Kufr[Infidel] gets sawaab Blessing to its keeper then Faazil e Barelvi says very rightly:
Shirk Thehray Jis Mayn Taa’zeem e Habeeb
Us Buriee Mazhab Pay Laanat Kijiye
(The religion which considers Shirk for the respect of Nabee [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam is
definitely worth curse)

Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #20:
The ones, who have names Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam or Alee, have no
authority. Nabee and Walee can do nothing, book Taqwiyatul leemaan,, page 41.
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi
There is one reference remaining, check this one. This is the book Taqwiyatul leemaan, page 41,
here clearly written:
Those who have the names of Muhammad or Alee have no authority. Here it is clearly written that
Prophet Muhammad or Hazrat Alee have no authority. Because people also call and give [Naraa]
in the name of Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], and Hazrat Alee. [May be
someone thinks that they are mentioning common people with these names but here it is specially
written about the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], because the Prophet
[Peace be upon him] is the Leader of all the Prophets and Hazrat Alee is the Leader of all the
Walee’s.
Why the differences? (CD2 Part2)
People raise slogan of ‘Yaa Alee’ and he has written it straightforwardly and openly in different
places that those who have names of Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], and Alee are
not authorized for anything. They are openly denying the authority of Ambiyaa and Auliyaa by
using extremely disrespectful language for the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa
Sallam], Ambiyaa,[The Prophet’s] Shuhadaa [The Martyrs ]and Aaima [The General Public]. This
reference is present in the book that is presented. Next reference..!
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #21:
The Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], became unconscious has lost his wits.
[Ma’aazal Laah]book Taqwiyatul leemaan, page 55.
Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi
This is from the book Taqwiyatul leemaan,, page 55, it is clearly written that the Prophet
Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], has become unconscious with fear when heard
this thing from an ignorant.
[Ma’aazal’ Laah]They are not even mindful to write Darood Shareef fully but write only Salam.
Writing such thing about the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], that he
became unconscious could be done only by such people who have no respect. It is a known fact
that we use different tone and words for our friend, father, teacher or other elders. Tone and choice
of words become different for the elders. We are taught and respect our elders… Using these kinds
of wording for Prophet Muhamamad[Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam] If this is not disrespect
than what is??. They have no regard and respect for the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi
Wa Sallam].In the Qur’aan Allaah Ta'alaa has clearly forbidden the companions of the Prophet
Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], to use the word ‘Raeana’ for the Prophet (Peace
be upon him) for the reason among others that shepherd is called ‘Raai’. Because the ‘Raena’ can
be taken in wrong meanings if pronounced differently that’s why Allaah Ta'alaa has forbidden
using this word for the Prophet (Peace be upon him) only to avoid any possibility of disrespect and
here they have clearly using wrong words. As Jews use to use this word in other meanings.
Allaah Ta’alaa has stopped the Muslim from using this word for his Beloved Rasool [Sallal Laahu
‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], out of probability of lack of respect, and here they are openly
DISRESPECTING the Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam].Can we still spare or ignore
these words these writings…Only a disrespectful person towards the Prophet (Peace be upon him)
can spare these people.
And the one who considers the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam],
Baad Az Khuda Buzurg Tu-ee, Kissa Mukhtasar
As the most respectful after God [Allaah Ta'alaa] among all the creation of God cannot tolerate
and accept this.
They have written such disgraceful utterance in their books…I have shown the origin of this
reference from the book.
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #22:
A Follower apparently excels in deeds than the Prophet [Peace be upon], book Tahzeer un-Naas,
page 5.
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
Before presenting that reference I present a reference from Taqwiyatul leemaan, page 54, it is
written that Allaah Ta'alaa possesses great magnificence and that all the Prophet’s and Auliyaa are
trivial than a speck before him. It is written here in a few lines before the previous reference that
the Prophet Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], became unconscious before
an ignorant. It is clearly said here that the Prophets and Auliyaa [The Saints] are trivial than specks
before Allaah Ta'alaa. Are we allowed to say this, it is another matter that the Prophet Muhammad
[Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], can use himself any word to Allaah Ta'alaa showing
humbleness.
Hazrat Aadam [Alaiehis Salaam] prayed to Allaah Al Kareem humbly:
Rabbana Zalamna Anfusana Wa In Lam Taghfirlana Wa Tarhamna Lana Koonanna Minal
Khasireen
Translation:
Our Lord!We have sinned against ourselves and unless You grant us
forgiveness and bestow Your mercy upon us, we shall most certainly be
lost.
On the basis of this Dua can we call Hazrat Aadam [Alaiehis Salaam] a sinner as he used for
himself, we can definitely not. We can’t use any of his word as argument while praying humbly to
Allaah Ta'alaa. And he is clearly saying that all the Prophets and Auliyaa are inferior to a speck
before Allaah Ta'alaa magnificence. Did they only get this word to express Allaah Ta'alaa’s
majesty. They have to praise the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], to
explain Allaah Ta'alaa’s majesty that Allaah Ta'alaa is so majestic that HE created a magnificent
human being like the Prophet (Peace be upon him).
It is not at all permissible to express Allaah Ta'alaa’s majesty by insulting his Prophet [Sallal Laahu
‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam]; through this they will earn only the wrath and anger of Allaah Ta'alaa. The
person who writes Nabee [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam is inferior to speck and lower than a
cobbler he himself is inferior to speck and cobbler.
The Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam],’s greatness is known to Allaah
Ta'alaa only that Allaah Ta'alaa has sent The Whole Holy Qur’aan in his honor. In the Qur’aan
Allaah Ta’alaa mentions and calls all the Ambiyaa [The Prophets] like Ohh Aadam!, Ohh Nuuh!,
Oh Ibraheem, Oh Moosaa! and calls the Beloved Prophet (Peace be upon him) with great regard
like Yaa Ayuu Har Rasool, Yaa Ayuu Han Nabee O, Yaseen, Tahaa, Yaa Ayuuhal Mudassar. If
Allaah Ta'alaa is calling his creation with so much respect despite being the creator of The Prophet
(Peace be upon him) then how much should we give respect. It’s a lesson for us as human being
Allaah Ta'alaa’s creation to be disrespectful to Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa
Sallam]. God [Allaah Kareem] keep us save from such statements.
To reply your question here is the book Tehzeer un Naas by Qasim Nanotwi the founder of Darul
Uloom Deoband. This book has been shown previously too, check its title. On its page 5 it is
written:
If Ambiyaa are distinct from their Ummat, they are distinct in knowledge only and Ummat equals
to them in deeds apparently often and even sometimes excel in deeds. It means they say that
Ambiya are only distinct in Knowledge while their companion says Shaietaan and Maalik al Maut
have more knowledge.
They are in habit of saying strange things like that. In deeds mostly Ummat equals and sometimes
even excels. Though the Prophet (Peace be upon him) says if my companions give handful oats in
the way of Allaah Ta'alaa and the one who is not my companion give gold equal to Uhad hill even
then my companion will be superior. Perhaps they would say its matter of Sawaab and not deed
then I would say could the deed of the Prophet (Peace be upon him)’s companion and other one
be equal? Then why is it a protest against Sipaah e Sihaabaa? Why is all this that other people are
not considered superior in deeds than the Prophet (Peace be upon him)’s companion? Then we
have to accept that they consider the Prophet (Peace be upon him) like themselves but even think
to supersede him in deeds. While a Muslim believes the Prophet (Peace be upon him) superior to
all in Knowledge and deeds, he is named Ahmad and Muhammad (Peace be upon him). Ahmad
means who praises Allaah Ta'alaa the most. He has been praising Allaah Ta'alaa since his birth
means before the creation of universe. His name is Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa
Sallam], Muhammad means the one who is praised again and again. His Greatness is measure by
the fact that the Creator himself praises his beloved Habeeb Prophet Prophet Muhammad [Sallal
Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam].
In my word Let me say this!!! It is possible that there would be no one to praise Allaah Ta'alaa in
the world when all the human beings would be end even then the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal
Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], would be praised by Allaah Ta'alaa
Inn Allaaha Wa Malaikatahu Yu Salluna Alan Nabee Ya Ayyuhal Lazeena Amanu Sallu Alaiehi
Wa Sallimu Taslimaa

Allaah and His angels shower blessings on the Nabee (Prophet). You who believe! Ask blessings
on him and salute him with a worthy salutation.

[Qur’aan: Al Ahzab Chapter 33]
So the Prophet Praise will remain as Allaah Ta'alaa is and shall remain forever and forever.
Why the differences? (CD2 Part3)
No beginning and end for Allaah Ta'alaa, HE has been praising the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal
Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], before the creation of anything and HE shall remain busy in his praise
when this mortal world will be no more.
They say that sometimes Ummat excels in deeds than Allaah Ta'alaa. They wanted to prove their
superiority to the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], in deeds and forgetting
that those who understand themselves better or superior to the Prophet (Peace be upon him) are
not Muslims. Anyone who consider himself/herself better than Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu
‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam],does not remain in the fold of Islaam.
You have seen this reference too.

Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #23:
Deobandi scholars have saved the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], from
slipping on Pul siraat, book Bulghatul Haieraan, page 8.
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
This is the book Bulghatul Haieraan Fi Rabt e Ayaatul Qur’aan by the disciple of Rasheed Ahmad
Gangohi and Ghulam Ahmad Khan from Rawalpindi’s teacher. The reference you gave is….
He writes that I saw the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], and met and
hugged him on the Pul siraat [the bridge over which the righteous will pass into Paradise] and
saved him from falling on Pul siraat …though writing text in Arabic and wrote the word Pul
siraat in Urdu. He interpreted the dream as he is saving the religion of the Prophet Muhammad
[Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], by saving the Prophet (Peace be upon him) from falling. But
he is clear in saying that he saved the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam],
falling from Pul siraat see his text here.
Another thing I want to explain here is that some people believe and me too that the world of
dreams is quite different from this world. There is difference in the sentences of dream and reality.
But such statements about the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], are never
said in dreams even. Sometimes people see the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa
Sallam], in dream and say many things about but none ever said anything like that the Prophet
(Peace be upon him) was falling from Pul siraat and I saved him.
The one who believes that Allaah Ta'alaa has no prior knowledge about the deeds of the people
and comes to know when the deeds are done. How can we believe in the dreams of such person
even though he tells about his good dream? Because before interpreting a dream the belief of the
person who is telling his dream is also considered. His belief [Aqeedah] is not right about the
Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], because he even writes that it is
permissible to call the Prophet (Peace be upon him) a Taghoot. How can we accept his dream
truthful? The people who say that it is a statement of the dream I want to tell that before interpreting
any dream we have to take into account the belief of the person who dreamt. Such people tells fake
dreams, what they say about the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], cannot
be considered true. Those who think about the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa
Sallam], like that are wrong whether they talk about ticket from Madinah to Lahore or say that the
Prophet (Peace be upon him) say that Dar ul Uloom Deoband belongs to him. All such dreams are
not acceptable because the people who are dreaming them are not dependable. Their condition
[Haal] is not such that we can trust them.
Next reference.

Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #24:
There is no harm in saying and it is satisfying to say Laa'llaaha il-lal Laahu Ashraf ‘Alee Rasool-
ul-Laah and Allaahum-ma Salli 'Ala Saiy-yidina Wa Nabeey-yina Ashraf ‘Alee and there is no
harm in saying so. [Risaalah Al lmdaad, pg 35] for the month of Safar 1336 A.H, and proceedings
of a Munaazirah [religious debate in Gaya] Al Furqaan, vol 3, pg 58)

Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:

This is Risaalah Al lmdaad of Month Safar al Muzzafar 1336 Hijri, published by Imdad ul Mutab
e Thana Bhawan and name of Ashraf Ali Thanvi is written here. On its page 34, 35 he writes:
One day while viewing Risaalah Hussn ul Aziz in the noon I felt sleepy, put the Risaalah down
and turned the other side. Then the thought came to my mind that I have my back towards the
Risaalah, took it and kept it on the side of my head. After some time I dreamt that I recited Kalimah
Laa'llaaha il-lal Laahu Ashraf ‘Alee Rasool-ul-Laah, taking the name of Maulana Thanvi in place
of the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], I thought of my mistake in reciting
Kalimah and wanted to recite it rightly but again took the name of Maulana Thanvi spontaneously.
Though knew this is not right kalimah. The person has sent this incident to Thanvi. When did it
for few times and saw Maulana Thanvi in front of me and due to over whelming emotions fell
down, screamed and then felt weakness. I woke up and felt too weak myself and have numbness
in body but remained thinking about Maulana Thanvi during dream and wakefulness. Then I
thought to rectify and correct my mistake of reciting Kalimah wrongly, avoiding this mistake
anymore and compensate the mistakes of reciting Kalimah since I was in the state of dream. I sat
up and started reading Darood Shareef trying to correct myself now I am fully awake and aware
and not in the state of dream. Maa’z Allaah, Sumaa Maa’z Allaah. Now in his own word he is
writing I even do not want to bring those sentences to my tongue but even then he is writing to
Thanvi.. he could not control himself and repeated these words
Laa'llaaha il-lal Laahu Ashraf ‘Alee Rasool-ul-Laah and Allaah humma Salli 'A’laa Saiy-yidinah
Wa Nabeey-yina Wa Maulana Ashraf ‘Alee You can see it clearly written here…. He himself
writes: Though I am awake yet could not resist and obliged as my tongue is not in my control. That
day remained engrossed in such thoughts and next day remained over whelmed with emotions and
tears. I have many other matters of love with Maulana, what can I say? The person wrote this in a
letter to Maulana Thanvi explaining his dream incident. Thanvi instead of advising him that this
is not permissible even in reverence or idolization and you should ask for forgiveness or forbade
him for harboring such reverence, rather he answered that there is consolation and satisfaction in
this incident. And the person you are following is a perfect follower of Sunnah, 24 Shawwal 1335
Hijri. Instead of forbidding and scolding the person he writes clearly that there is satisfaction and
consolation in the incident. He suggested that taking the name of Thanvi instead the Prophet (Peace
be upon him) in Kalimah and Darood is not a mistake but it is perfectly alright. It shows that
Thanvi considers it permissible to take his name instead the name of the Prophet Muhammad
[Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], in Kalimah.
What is he trying to say…that it is okay to read the Kalimah with the name of Thanvi Sahib..
Then…

Why the differences? (CD2 Part 4)
Check the Deobandism/ Wahabism… preaching [Mazhab] what they are saying???Instead
of scolding and forbidding him, or even explaining him with love he clearly tells him that this
incident has peace of mind. If someone else wrote and belief in this kind of preaching and writing
Deobandi scholars will issue many Fatwas [Religious Verdict] of protest but for their own matter
they all [The Deobandi Mazhab ] ignore this and remain silent. It is clearly written by Maulana
Thanvi. You can see this reference with the name of Ashraf Alee and Kalimah with Ashraf Alee’s
name.

Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #25:
Celebrating Meelaad-un-Nabee,
[Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam] [birthday of the Prophet] is like the Hindus celebrate the
birthday of their Kanaihya. [Fataawa Meelaad Shareef, pg 8 and Baraaheen-e-Qaati’ah, pg 148].
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
We have seen Baraaheen-e-Qaati’ah before, see it again. Which page?
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
Page148
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
Page 148 is here, he writes clearly:
The Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], is not born every day then why is
this birthday celebration? It is just like the birthday celebrations of Kanaihya..
They are simply saying that to celebrate Meelad Shareef by the Muslims is just like the Hindus
observe the Birth day of their Kanaihya. Someone should ask them if they don’t want to celebrate
the Meelaad why did they use such words and why compare it with the Hindu’s? They should not
celebrate Meelaad, if they do not want to they are not bound or force to celebrate. But if someone
wants to celebrate Meelaad with love then why are you stopping them from observing. Celebrating
Meelaad Shareef is the Sunnah of Allaah Ta'alaa and I have written a Risaalaa “Islaam Ki Pehli
Eid” to prove the reason for celebrating Meelaad with references from the scholars of Deoband.
Whether it is permissible to celebrate Meelaad ? What would they get who celebrate Meelaad?
This book has proofs and references from the books of Deobandi Scholars. We can’t force one to
celebrate Meelaad who does not celebrate it but it is not permissible to say like this? Is it not
disrespect and insult to say that celebrating Meelaad every day is like celebrating the birthday of
Kanaihya … I want to reply them and Question them do they not celebrate Shab e Baraa’at? In the
last ten days of the month of Ramadan there are 5 Taaq[Night of vigilance, worship, prayers]
nights on 21st, 23rd, 25th, 27th & 29st. Don’t they celebrate ‘Layal a tul Qadar / Shab e Qadar’
during Ramadan and usually and popularly people celebrate it on 27
th
of Ramadan. I want to ask
that the greatness of Lailaa tul Qadar is due to the Nazool of Qur’aan [The Deliverance of Qur;aan].
Does Nazool e Qur’aan happen every year? The answer would be no. It happened once on Lailaa
tul Qadar but it is blessed for every year and is better than thousand nights. And if the night of
Nazool e Qur’aan became blessed for the rest of life then the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad
[Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], also became special day for every year. I have presented the
reference in my books, I would present original book if it would be required as I am sitting in my
library. I have copied Maulana Thanvi’s reference in my book Islaam ki Pehli Eid’s page 23, his
small pamphlets are separate from his books as he has written a few books and his followers has
presented different chapters of his books in form of small pamphlets. In one of those pamphlets
“Jumaah K Fazaail o Ahkaam”, on its page 4 Maulana Thanvi writes with reference to Imaam
Ahmad that the night of Jumaah is the preeminent than Laila tu Qadar, the night between Thursday
and Friday. As in Islaamic calendar night comes first and day comes later on the contrary in English
calendar day comes first and night later. According to Islaamic belief Friday night is preeminent
because the Prophet (Peace be upon him) came in the sacred womb [Shikam] of his mother during
this night. Thanvi took this reference from Mishkaat Shareef [The Authentic book of Hadees]. If
the night of the Prophet (Peace be upon him)’s coming as fetus in the womb is so Important and
magnificent then how high would be the status of the day when the Prophet (Peace be upon him)
came into the world. And here he is comparing and saying that Meelaad is like celebrating the
birthday of Kanaihya. They are discarding the magnificence of the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal
Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], as they were the agents of the English who were in favors of the
Hindus. No Muslim will like to use such words for his Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi
Wa Sallam], we celebrate the Meelaad un Nabee in a way as no one else celebrates in the world
and we don’t follow Hindus in Meelaad. We celebrate this day with Ieemaan and we have nothing
to do with the [Mushrik] Hindus.

Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #26:
The holy Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam] and the Daj-jaal both are originally blessed
with life. The traits which characterize the holy Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam] are
also shared by the Daj-jaal. (Aabe Hayaat, pg l69)
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:
This is an old book even some part of it is decayed, 1936 published 1355, Matbaa Qadeemi Delhi
written by Qasim Nanotwi. Its first page is damaged and I have joined it with some other page.
See here written that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) shares his qualities with Daj-jaal.
Why the differences? (CD2 Part 4)
I am unable to understand this. Our scholars have given satisfactory answer to this. Those who
want to see its answer can see Allamah Saiyyid Ahmad Saeed Kazmi’s answer to this, the name
of his book is “Al Haq ul Mubeen.” I have shown the reference of the real book that the Prophet
Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], shares the qualities with Daj-jaal.

Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #27:
Nothing happens on the wish of the Prophet (Peace be upon him). Reference Book Taqwiyatul
leemaan,, page 56.
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:
I am sorry to say that Taqwiyatul leemaan, is the book that is being distributed all over the world
though it has almost more than 70 Kalimaat e Kufr.[Statements of Infidelity] I have seen myself
that Haajis are being distributed this book free of cost in Makkah Al Mukaramaah and Madinah
Tul Munawaraa. You have already witnessed some of its references. Now in this reference they
write:
Nothing can happen on the wish of the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], it
is clearly written on page 56. You can behold it. Just imagine the status of the Prophet (Peace be
upon him) among HIS creations and he is saying here that nothing happens on the wishes of the
Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], No Believer can accept this thing but they
have written it clearly. In its response they write that Allaah Ta'alaa wishes same like Maulana
Thanvi, I present this reference too to present the both sides of the view.
See this book “Hakeem ul Ummat” by Abdul Majeed Daryabadi, published in Lahore. He writes
on its page 47:
Allaah Ta'alaa wished what HIS favorite human being wished. Daryabadi is writing about Thanvi
and in Taqwiyatul leemaan it is written that nothing can happen on the wishes of the Prophet
Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam],. Just imagine that they have great value for
Deobandi Scholars but have no respect for the Prophet (Peace be upon him). Next Reference

Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #28:
Believe in Allaah alone, and do not believe in anyone except Him. (Taqwiyatul Ieemaan, pg 14)
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:
This is the reference of the same book “Taqwiyatul leemaan,” behold it is very clearly written that
believe in no one except Allaah Ta'alaa. Every Prophet brought the message to believe no one
except Allaah Ta'alaa. If you don’t believe in Prophets then how can you claim to believe Allaah,
it is beyond my understanding, because the Prophets say that they are Allaah Ta'alaa’s creation
and Allaah Ta'alaa sends HIS revelations to them. Until and unless one cannot believe in Risaalat,
one cannot believe in Allaah Ta'alaa as we identify Allaah Ta'alaa through the Prophet (Peace be
upon him) and before him other Ambiyaa helped to identify Allaah Ta'alaa. They say that believe
only in Allaah Ta'alaa and no one else and they have written this sentence in the book for several
times… you can see it. Next reference.

Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #29:
Before Allaah Ta'alaa all the Ambiyaa and Auliyaa are inferior like an insignificant dust worthless
speck.
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:
Perhaps I have mentioned this reference before, they have written that the Prophets and Ambiyaa
are inferior and insignificant like a speck; you can see it again on page 54 that I have explained
earlier and showing again.

Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:

REFERENCE #30:
It is permissible to call Nabee the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], your
brother, book “Baraaheen-e-Qaati'ah”, and page 3.
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:
This book “Baraaheen-e-Qaati'ah” has shown you before for some references. Review it once
again, it is written Khalil Anbethwi and Published By: Muhammad Ishaq Maalik Kutb khana
Rahimia Saharanpur in 1365 AH,
If anyone calls the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], brother for being
descendant of Hazrat Aadam [Alaiehis Salaam] then he said nothing against Qur’aan and Hadees
because we are all the descendants of Aadam [Alaiehis Salaam]. It means that the Prophet
Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], is the descendant of Hazrat Aadam like we are
the descendants of Hazrat Aadam[Alaiehis Salaam]. .. and it is permissible to call him brother for
this reason then it is not against Qur’aan and Hadees. According to this rule in my view it would
be fine to say on this basis that Khalil Anbethwi, the writer is the brother of Namrood. If he is
called the brother of Namrood then he should not mind. Pharaoh [Firaoun] is also descendant of
Aadam and Deobandi Scholars are also Banee Aadam then they should call Abu Jahal, Yazeed,
Shimr, Ibn e Ziad and Waleed Bin Mughera their brother. Why do they call Nabee their brother
only. We believe in all the verses of Qur’aan by Allaah Kareem for the respect of Prophet
Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], as Qur’aan advises us to respect him. He is the
superior being and his wives are “Ummat e Mumineen” and the Nabee is our spiritual father and
we cannot call him our brother.
And I want to ask that Hazrat Alee [Allaah have mercy on him] and Hazrat Abbas [Allaah have
mercy on him] were the cousins of the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam],
but they never called him brother. Even one Hadees tells that the cousin of the Prophet (Peace be
Upon Him) once stayed with him to see how he prays during the night. He was standing behind
the Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], and Nabee [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa
Sallam] made him stand with him twice but he went behind every time. After the Nawafil the
Prophet (Peace be upon him) asked him why you went behind every time I made you stand with
me. Hazrat Abbas [Allaah have mercy on him] answered that though you are my brother but you
are the Prophet of Allaah Kareem and I can’t stand with you. The one who is real brother is
respecting him a lot and the ones who are not justified to call him brother are calling him brother.
If we have to call him brother on the basis of Qur’aan and Hadees then it is also not correct.

Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #31:
The one who believes Nabee and Wali are human being and God’s creation even then go to them
for reference, help and presents them offerings despite being Muslim is equal to Abu Jahal in Kufr.
Reference Book “Taqwiyatul leemaan,” page 7 & 27.
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:
This book “Taqwiyatul leemaan,,” by Ismaeel Dehlvi is again under consideration. In this book he
clearly explains that Allaah Almighty has not given powers to anyone to involve in the affairs of
universe, here by word “Tasaraf” he means to change or affect someone spiritually. Leaving it
aside I answer to it shortly. I have the book “Aap beeti” in two volumes. It is an autobiography of
a Muhammad Zakria Hayat written by him. He was the leader of Tableeghi Jamaa’at and the book
is published by Maktaba Shaeikh Zakria, Mufti street Saharanpur. See it’s inside title page, this is
its first volume and it contains a full chapter with the name of “Tasarufaat.” If there are no
tasarufaat.” then why did he write a full chapter on this topic? This is not the only example, look
at this book “Tazkratul Rasheed” by Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi whom they call “Mutaa ul Qul”
and “Mutaa ul Aalim” means he is the leader of all. This is the inside title see it, even in this they
have written a complete chapter on Tasarufaat.” if tasarfat are not authorized then why they have
given these topics. See here is a complete chapter on Tasarufaat.” with the name of Tazkiyaa o
Taasarfat and there they have written that no one is authorized for Tasarufaat.”, then see there is a
heading of “Incidents of Tasarufaat.”.” Even in this book it is written that after the death of
Gangohi his Tasarufaat.” are still active in the world. For further details, see page 151 of Volume
II of this book:
He has gone from this world but his Tasarufaat.” are still active in the world. Their leader Ismail
Dehlvi said there that no one is authorized for Tasarufaat.” and here he says here and there about
Tasarufaat.” I want to show you another reference from this book. Imagine if there Tasarufaat.”
are still active in the world what would be the range of Tasarufaat.” of Ambiyaa and Auliyaa. See:
How long we explain the inner Tasarufaat.” of Imaam e Rabbani.
It is mentioned everywhere in this book that he provides comforts for hardships and provide needs.
It is fact that that there is no one to solve your problems and cater needs except Allaah Almighty
and they say that he provides relief in all troubles and cater all needs. Just imagine he is called
Mushkil Kushaa and Hajit Rawa. Moreover he writes that what Tasarufaat.” of Hazrat did after
Baie’t [oath] are beyond expression.
He further writes on page 140 that inner Tasarufaat of Imaam e Rabbani appeared so forcefully
that one cannot imagine its access. Means we cannot know its boundaries. Their leader Ismail
Dehlvi didn’t accept anyone else Tasarufaat and explain the Tasarufaat” of their Eemaam
everywhere. Check here they write that Tasarufaat over disbelievers is given to this sacred group
only. He wrote that no one has Tasaruf and he is writing here that it is given to everyone. It is his
general Tasaruf and after developing affection and being follower of him how his Tasarufaat would
benefit them is unimaginable. So everywhere Tsarufaat are mentioned. Here they have defined
Tasaruf too that it means that physical strength has Tasaruf over concrete bodies. On page 136
there is a chapter named “Tazkiyaa Tasarufaat” and their leaders deny Tsarufaat.” (Please open
Tsarufaat.” topic from this book.)
God has not empowered anyone with Tasarufaat.” in this world and I have shown you that they
have mentioned the Tasarufaat.” of Deobandi Scholars all over. They write clearly that if anyone
asks for help from any human being and present him offerings then he is equivalent with Abu Jahal
in Kufr. Means if anyone present offering in the name of Ghaus e Paak and Khawaja Ghareeb
Nawaz even then he is like Abu Jahal in Kufr. Just ponder that this person has presented all the
Muslims like Kafir. You can see the words yourself that he is equal to Abu Jahal in Kufr, presenting
offerings and making them a reference… If what he has said is right then why Allaah Al Kareem
has created Auliyaa’s and Ambiyas. You can see these words. Why Allaah Almighty has asked to
seek some resource in the Qur’aan e Pak. In Qur’aan all over is written about the Shafaa’at of the
Prophet (Peace be upon him) and here it is written that no human being can be a reference for
Shafaa’at. He opines that to believe that Ambiya and Auliyaa are not like God but human beings
created by Allaah Almighty and Allaah Al Kareem has given them the right of Shafaa’at is not
Kufr. He has not given any difference between Kaafir and Muslims. What can be said to the person
who believes this? He has not given any difference between Kaafir and believers…. Even has
repeated this time and again throughout the book and in the two pages 7 & 27 that I previously
referred:
‘The one who considers anyone able of Tasaruf or even considers him his wakeel, it is only Shirk
no matter doesn’t take him like Allaah Almighty.’
Then all the Tsarufaat.” have been proved should be admitted as shirk because they accept the
Tasaruf of their Ulaama’s but don’t accept the Tsarufaat of Ambiya. According to their Ulaama
they are not Muslims. The thing I want to explain is their double standard, one for themselves and
the other for belief and practices. I have shown you complete reference in this book.
Yes… Here we have a full chapter on Tasarufaat in this book. Here we have 970 and 971 pages
they have explained on page 971 the Tasarfaat of their Gangohi in this autobiography about the
Azaab e Qabr that was taken off. The topic is ‘AQaber K Tsarufaat’ it is the autobiography no 6
page 966 written by Shaiekh Muhammad Muhammad Zakria, the great leader of Tableeghi
Jamaa’at whom they call Shaiekh Al Hadees. Their other great leader Ismail Dehlvi says that the
one who proves Tasarufaat is Mushrik and if so then they should call Shaiekh Muhammad Zakria,
Thanvi and Gangohi a Mushrik also if they say No! Then they should admit openly that what he
wrote is wrong and was on false belief.

Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #32:

Durood Taaj is disfavored and reciting it is not permitted. (Fazaa'il-i-Durood Shareef, pg 73 and
Tazkiratur Rasheed vol. 2, pg 117).
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:
There are two points I would like to make in this context. The copy of Fazaa'il e Aamaal I have
with me was printed by Maktaba Aarifeen, Karachi. Here you can see it. Previously it was
entitled Tableegh e Nisaab., now it is known as ‘Fazaa'il e Aamaal. Let me also tell you – here I
have the old copy – that in the new edition they have removed the whole chapter of Durood
Shareef and this whole part. Therefore, the ‘Fazaa'il e Aamaal you find in the market nowadays
will be the one from which they have removed this part of Durood Shareef. Why? Because it is
written in it that God [Allaah Kareem] caused his pen to write out the words, ‘As Salat o Was
Salaam Ya Nabee Allaah, As Salaat o Was Salaam Ya Rasool Allaah,.’ That Allaah Ta'alaa
caused these words to be written through his pen as well. And so they have now changed its
name. I have the old edition which also contained this chapter about the excellences of Durood
Shareef, whereas it is missing in the edition that is available nowadays. They have removed it
both in English and Urdu
The third part of this book consists of Traditions in which warning has been given to those who
do not offer to the Holy Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], Here he clearly writes: “He
normally disliked the Durood’s, such a Taaj and Durood e Laki, that were written by others.”
This Durood-e-Taaj was recited by Hazrat Abu Al Hassan Shazli (RA) while standing in the
blessed presence of the Holy Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam]. Allamah Ahmed Saeed
Kazmi has written a whole book about this. But this gentleman says that he did not like it. The
Holy Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], likes it, but Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi Saahib.
doesn’t. And since Gangohi Saahib doesn’t like it, it should not be recited. This is no principle
and this is not the way, but I am showing you what he has written. And I probably read the same
words in Tazkra tur Rasheediyah, with reference to him.
It occurs at two places, on pages 117 and 280. Here it is. “He normally disliked other people’s
Duroods, such as Durood e Taaj and Durood e Lakhi, and he considered them contrary to the
shariah.” This is also clearly written here on page 117 of Tazkra tur Rasheediyah,, volume two,
that Gangohi Sahib did not like Durood-e-Taaj and so he forbade it recital. You can readily
understand the state of this person who so forbids the invoking of Durood Shareef and disliked
Durood-e-Taaj. He (Gangohi) disliked Darood e Taj and and Darood e Lakhi were not likely
favored by him for being written by others and he considered them against the Shariah. Same is
written in Tazkra tur Rasheediyah Volume II that Darood e Taj and Darood Lakhi were not liked
by Gangohi so should not be recited. You can imagine their Haal [Spritual Condition] and
personality who dislikes and disfavored the reading of Darood Shareef and forbid to recite them.
Next reference please…



Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #33:
Hazrat 'Alee [Radiyal Laahu 'Anhu] with his own hands bathed an elder of the Deobandis,
[Saiyyid Ahmad of Raae Bareilly] and Hazrat Faatimah [Radiyal Laahu 'Anha] herself put
clothes on him. The reference is Siraat-i-Mustaqeem,, Persian, page, 164; Urdu, page 280.
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:
I have already given a reference of Sirat-e-Mustaqim in which he so disliked the concept of
thinking about Huzoor [ Hazrat Prophet Muhammad Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], during
Salaat. This reference is from the same book, page 164 of the Persian edition, and page 280 of
the Urdu edition. I will present that in a moment.
I am sure you would want to know who the above statement refers to. It refers to Ismaeel Ahmad
Bareilvi whom they call Shaheed of Balaakot.. Just imagine how this statement blasphemes Hazrat
'Alee [Radiyal Laahu 'Anhu] and Hazrat Faatimah [Radiyal Laahu 'Anha]Here is the Persian text
whose translation I will read to you in Urdu. This is page 280 of the Urdu edition. I have shown it
before, you can see it again. It reads: “One day he saw Hazrat 'Alee [Radiyal Laahu 'Anhu] and
Hazrat Faatimah [Radiyal Laahu 'Anha] in a dream. Hazrat 'Alee [Radiyal Laahu 'Anhu] bathed
him with his own hands, and washed him thoroughly (scrubbed him properly), just as parents wash
and clean their sons. And then Hazrat Faatimah [Radiyal Laahu 'Anha] adorned him with exquisite
and expensive clothes with her own hands.” Just imagine! It is being written by a man that his
naked body was bathed by Hazrat 'Alee [Radiyal Laahu 'Anhu] and the same naked body was
clothed by Hazrat Fatima! Only these people are capable of such blasphemy. God save us. It is
clearly written that Hazrat Faatimah [Radiyal Laahu 'Anha] clothed him! Those who write such
things, do they think that it is an act of reverence? If we were to accept such things, then why
would we condemn Mirza Qaidiyaani? Did he also not say that one day Hazrat Faatimah [Radiyal
Laahu 'Anha]came and placed his head on her thigh? What then would be the difference between
Mirza Qaidiyaani and these people? They should realize the great blasphemy of which they have
been guilty. There is the Persian text. See page 164 of Siraat-i-Mustaqeem,, and here is the same
text in the Urdu edition on page 280. … God [Allaah Ta’alaa]forbid, this way there is no difference
between them and Mirza Qaidiyaani. Imagine how insolent they are? You can check the text in
book Siraat e Mustaqeem on page 164 in Persian and for Urdu text check page 280.



Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
REFERENCE #34:
All the Meelaad Shareef, Mi'raaj Shareef, Giyaarhveen Shareef, 'Urs Shareef, Khatm Shareef,
Soyem, Chehlum, Faatihah Khawani, and leesaal-e-Sawaab, are all unlawful and false innovations
and the ways of the infidels and Hindus. (Fataawa Ashrafiyah, vol 2, Page 58, Fataawa
Rasheediyah, vol 2, pages 144 and 150, and vol 3, pg 93 and 94).

Alamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
Volume?

Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
Page 150 Volume II, page 144, 93, 94 Volume III.
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
This is “Fataawa Rasheediyah,” Volume III, I have shown you its other two volumes previously.
It is published in 1391 at Kutb Khana Raheemia, Sunehri Masjid Delhi. Fataawaa of Rasheed
Ahmed Gangohi is in three volumes. What is the page no? of volume III?

Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
In volume II?
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:
In volume III?

Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
93 & 94.
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani Okarvi:
Behold… Just notice, they say:
Just imagine what they are saying!!!

This is Fataawa Rasheediyah. I have already shown you the first two volumes, this is the third. In
1351 it was printed at Kutb Khana Raheemia, Sunehri Masjid Delhi. It consists of the edicts of
Rashid Ahmad Gangohi in three volumes. Just look at what he says, Someone asked, “Is it
permissible to attend an Urs in which only the Holy Qur’aan is recited and sweets are distributed?”
Here he meant Faatihah that is recited yearly for Eesaal e-Sawaab and in which only the Holy
Qur’aan is recited and sweets are distributed, would it be permissible to attend such a gathering?
The answer was, “It is not proper to attend any Urs or Meelaad Shareef. No kind of Urs or Meelaad
is proper. (Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi).” May I ask how it was proper to celebrate the centenary of
Darul Uloom Deoband? I want to know this. And how then is it proper to commemorate the demise
of the muftis? Is there a Deobandi mufti whose death is not commemorated today? In fact, an
announcement was published in Jang newspaper on 10
th
April regarding the Barsi of Maulana
Ehtishaam ul Haq Thanvi. I happen to have that cutting, though I have not brought newspapers
cuttings here with me, or I would present them to you as well. Now Meelaad and death
anniversaries are being celebrated although they say in their preaching and writing through and
through that it is not proper. It is beyond understanding whether their belief [Aqeedah] is true or
their practices [Amal].So is it the doctrine [Fatwaa] that is faulty, or the practice? I can’t understand
how they can say one thing and do just the opposite. There is much more they have written here
and there in this book. To do such and such in the month of Rajab, to recite Faatihah while burying
the dead, it’s all written here. These edicts [Fatwaa’s] are also found in Fataawa Rasheediyah,”,
volume two, if you want to see them.
He even goes so far as to declare as Haraam the visiting of graves on the day of Urs. This is how
far he has gone. He has also again and again rejected it in other books of his. (Meelad-e-Fatihaa,
page 150). See I am once again showing you the title. This is Fataawa Rasheediyah,”, volume
two. This can also be found in Taleefaat e Rasheediyah, that has recently been published. I am
showing you the old one for a reason which I shall elaborate later on, In shaa’Allaah. It also
mentions reading of the Qur’aan by the grave, reciting the Kalima, Soyem, etc., and declares
them as unacceptable in any circumstances. Teeja, Daswan, have all been clearly declared as
misguided innovations. To recite Fa’tihaa on food or sweets is a misguided innovation, it is
clearly written. Meelaad is unlawful in every way. Thus he is rejecting the reciting of Fa’tihaa —
whose purpose is Eesaal -e-Sawaab, whether it is on the third, seventh or tenth day after a
person’s death. They declare it sometimes as unlawful, sometimes as misguided innovation and
something that leads to error and misguidance, and sometimes it is called Haraam, etc. And the
strange thing is that these people themselves practice all these things and have no qualms in
eating the food on these occasions. So this is what I want to ask them, and to inform you, that
again and again they declare something to be unlawful, but then practice it; so which is wrong,
what they have written or what they practice? One should ask them that if they hold it to be
Haraam, then why do they eat Haraam?


I will later explain my purpose for presenting the older version. See here written that reciting the
Holy Qur’aan, Kalimaah on graves and Soyem are not permissible in any case. Some, Teejaah and
Fa’tihaa on Sheerini are called Bidat e Zallalaa here. Meelaad is not at all permissible, means
Teejaah or Daswaan are not recommended though these are just names of the days when the prayer
is held for the deceased person. They are not allowing any of those calling them Bidaat e Zalaalaa
or unfair. Bidaat e Zalaalaa means something new that would lead one astray. Even at places they
write these things haraam and something else. Strange thing is they are doing these things and eat
all those things too. I want to ask from them and tell you as well that they are forbidding it now
and then and doing it too. Don’t know whether their actions are right or sayings?? If its haraam
then why do they eat haraam.
It should be noted that the Deobandi-Wahaabi-Tableeghi people who declare that celebrating
Meelaad [birth] of the holy Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam] as a wrong, unlawful and
forbidden act of apostasy, must be questioned how is it permissible and right to celebrate the
foundation-day of the Daarul 'Uloom, Deoband, and to call upon an apostate women to inaugurate
it, to celebrate the days and the death anniversaries of their Mullaas and their Muftees, to appoint
the time, the date and the place of such gatherings, to hold political and non-political
demonstrations, to establish institutions in the name of non-Allaah, to ask for financial and other
kinds of help for the propagation of non-Allaah how can this be correct and prohibited?
TRANSCRIPTION BY ATA UL MANNAN RAJA
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:
Reference 35
To eat a well-known indigenous [Native] crow is a rewarding act. (Fataawa Rasheediyah, Vol 2,
pg, 130).
(But the eating of halwah (a sweet dish) distributed on the occasion of Shab-e-Bara’at is
forbidden).
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:

This is also in volume two that I just showed you. Here you can see it in Fataawa Rasheediyah,
volume 2, page 130. It is written here that someone asked: If a person eats the native crow in a
place where people consider it to be unlawful, will such a person merit Divine reward, or will he
merit neither reward nor punishment? And the answer was: “He will merit reward.” They declare
the Halwa of Shab-e-Bar’aat to be unlawful, but the eating of the crow is held up as something
meritorious! Just look at this! It is clearly written by Gangohi Sahib on page 130 of Fataawa
Rasheediyah, volume two, that eating the crow will merit divine reward. Indeed, people who
hold the blessed Halwa of Shab-e-Baraat as Haraam, are fully deserving of such foul food. You
are also aware that the kind of food one eats will have an equal effect on his person. By the grace
of Allaah Kareem, we the Ahl-e-Sunnat wa Jamaat partake out of that what we present to the
Holy Prophet Muhammad Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam], and our spiritual elders guides,
which is in fact presented before Allaah Ta’alaa [God ]for the sake of Eesaal-e-Sawaab, and we
praises [read Naat] eulogies for the Holy Prophet Muhammad [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa
Sallam], and say sweet words. And if these people eat the crow, they will only utter that which
you have just heard.
Reference -36


To call upon the friends of Allaah [Taa’laa] even though regarding them as His creations is
infidelity. [Taqwiyatul Ieemaan, 7].
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:

I presented this reference a while ago but it has come up again. The text just came up and I read
it out. It was clearly written that even if one considers an Allaah Taa’alaa [God’s] Walee (friend)
to be a servant and creature of God [Allaah Taa’laa], even then it is not permissible to consider
him as an intercessor. He first said that Prophets and saints do not have the power to perform
miracles. And then he clearly says that if someone calls them or seeks their help or establishes a
connection with them, even as Allaah Kareem’s [God’s] creatures, this is idolatry. I have already
shown you this reference.


Reference #37.
It is forbidden to pray after the funeral prayer To supplicate after funeral prayers is not
permitted. (Fatwa of Muftee Jameel Ahmad Thanvi, Jaami’ah Ashrafiyah, Lahore)
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:


This is from a one-page poster published by Muftee Jameel Ahmad Thanvi, Jaami’ah
Ashrafiyah, , Lahore. I have this poster, but right now I only have books with me. As it happens,
people of the same creed, such as Abdul Qadir Azad who is currently the Imaam of the Shahi
Mosque, despite calling themselves Hanafis, led the funder prayer in absentia of the General Zia-
ul-Haq the former President of Pakistan, and then also offered a prayer for him. And when
President Zia-ul-Haq’s funeral prayer was offered in Islamabad, it was also led by a Deobandi,
and he too offered a prayer after the funeral prayer. They write that it is unlawful, and yet
practice it. It would seem that they have something against the dead for whom prayers should be
and are offered. All of us pray during the Salaat, “O our Lord,[Rabb] forgive me and my parents
and all the believes on the Day of Judgment.” So these people are also enemies of the dead. They
do not wish Eesaal-e-Sawaab for them.
References 38
It is permitted to take parshaad (the remnants of food presented to and idol) on the occasion of
the Hindu festivals of Holi and Deewaali.
(Fataawa Rasheediyah, vol 2, pg 130).
(But to take food distributed on the occasion of Faatihah and Niyaaz is prohibited.)
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:

Here once again we have Fataawa Rasheediyah, volume two, by Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi. I
have cited this book before; you can see it again on page 123 of the same book. Question: On
the occasion of the Hindu festival of Holi or Deewaali, they send various foods to their teachers,
leaders or servants as a gift. Is it permissible for a Muslims teacher, leader or servant to accept
such gifts and to eat such food? Answer: “It is permissible.” Gangohi Sahib says that it is
permissible. He is the same person who has declared as unlawful and Haraam the eating of
Halwa on Shab-e-Ba’raat, and the sweets of Meelaad Shareef and Urs. But now he is declaring
as lawful the eating of food distributed by Hindus on Holi and Deewaali. Now you can
understand whom they are more affiliated to. Since he lived with them, associated with them,
and loved them, that’s why he declares everything associated with them as lawful, and
everything that is associated with Allaah Kareem [God] and His Prophet [Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi
Wa Sallam] and His saints is to him unlawful. This shows where his inclinations are. It is clearly
written, “It is permissible.” A Muslim may eat the food of the Hindus, but anything that is eaten
for the Eesaal-e-Sawaab of a believer is forbidden and Haraam. You can see what this means.


REFERENCE # 39
There is no harm in eating food, if clean, prepared at the houses of cobblers and sweepers.
[Fataawa Rasheediyah, Vol 2, pg130].
(But clean and lawful permitted food distributed on the occasion of niyaaz of Giyaarhveen
Shareef is altogether prohibited.)
Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:

Again it is the same Fataawa Rasheediyah, volume two, page 130. There is some printing error
on this page. But on the top of it is written: There is no harm in eating food from the homes of
menial workers, provided the food is pure. In other words, there is harm in eating the food served
at Meelaad Shareef, even though it is pure and is prepared by a Muslims, and it is unlawful and
haraam; but there is no harm in eating the food of menial workers. This is clearly written here in
Fataawa Rasheediyah, volume two, page 30.

REFERENCE #40.
Maulana Qari Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi:

Drinking water from the sabeel (kiosk) set up by Hindus (apostates) out of the money earned
through interest is permitted.
(Fataawa Rasheediyah, Vol 3, pg 113 and 114).
(But drinking clean water from the sabeel set up during the month of Muharram for the leesaal-
e-Sawaab of Saiyyidina Imaam Husaien (Radiyal Laahu 'Anhu) with money provided by the
lawful earnings of Muslims is prohibited.) • (Ma’aazal Laah summa Ma’aazal’ Laah)

Allamah Maulana Kaukab Noorani:

We have already seen a reference form Fataawa Rasheediyah, volume three. Here is another one.
The copy I have with me is old and dilapidated. But this text can be clearly seen. You see that
they’ve already declared as lawful the eating of food cooked by menial workers, and the food
served on Holi and Dewaali, but what does he say here? Question: Describing the events of the
martyrdom on the tenth day of Muharram through verses whose origin is authentic, or some that
may not be so authentic, (this means verses that tell a true story, though there may be some that
do not meet that level of authenticity; they’re not false but just not so authentic;
In other words the one who is describing these events is describing them accurately with
references, though some of these may not be of the same level of authenticity), and setting up
stalls to distribute free food, and giving charity, and offering sweet water and milk to children,
are all these lawful? Answer: “Speaking about the martyrdom of Hazrat Imaam Hasan (Radiyal
Laahu 'Anhu) and Hazrat Imaam Husaien (Radiyal Laahu 'Anhu) in the month of Ramadan,
even if it is based on authentic traditions, or to set up stalls of free food, or offering sweet water,
or giving money for this purpose, or offering milk, all these are wrong, and unlawful, and are a
result of Tashabbuhe-Rawafis. Just look at this. The puri’s [Bread]and food of the Hindus’ Holi
and Deewaali is lawful, but here all this is unlawful and wrong. These people have already
rejected all that is attributed to the Holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam) the people of
his household [Radiyal Laahu 'Anhuma] and his companions (Radiyal Laahu 'Anhuma) and the
saints, and here he says that a gathering where nothing wrong is aid and everything that is told is
true and good, and to offer free food, water and milk is totally Haraam and wrong. But when the
Hindus offer the same things, they are lawful.
Here let me show you another thing, the question that relates to the usurer. This question is, and
you ought to listen to it attentively: If a Hindu distributes free drinking water or digs a well out
of the money he has accumulated through usury or interest money, is it lawful for Muslims to
drink water form it? Answer: “There is no harm in drinking water from such a source. (Rasheed
Ahmad Gangohi)” Is this what we call faith? Here it is in on page 114, Fataawa Rasheediyah,
volume three. On the one hand, the food distributed on the Hindus’ Holi is declared permissible,
and if an impure Hindus spends money which he has acquired through usury—and you know
how strong the injunctions against usury are in Qur’aan and Hadees, indeed it has been declared
a greater sin that incest with one’s mother—and uses that money to puts up a sabeel for Eesaal-e-
Sawaab, it is declared permissible to drink water from it; but, on the other hand, if there is
something pure on which the name of Allaah Ta’alaa [God] has been invoked with the intention
that it’s reward should reach the soul of Saiyyidinah Ghause e A’zam or Hazrat Imaam Husaien
(Radiyal Laahu 'Anhu)), that is declared wrong. What do we call this, if not enmity and bigotry
against Islaam?
These are the forty references that I have recorded in my book Deoband to Bareilly, that has
been published both in Urdu and English. Here I have tried to show you that the references are
actually there in the books that I have quoted, for people might think that I have concocted them
from myself. This is why every reference has been shown to you from the actual books. If
someone is still not satisfied, then there is nothing I can do for I have fulfilled my obligation. My
intention is not at all to be personally antagonistic towards anyone. It is a matter of the Holy
Prophet’s (Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam) honor and prestige, at whose threshold we place
our very heads. I am duty-bound by my faith to answer anyone who says anything wrong about
him. If we remain silent after hearing something false and untrue about the Holy Prophet (Sallal
Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam) then we are surely devoid of the wealth of faith, and we have no
right to call ourselves believers. A believer is one who holds the honor of the Holy Prophet
(Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam) above his own life. These books are not just here with me,
they are all available in the market.
I will also say that I have written another book called White and Black in which I have given
references of these books. This one only contains the words; the details are in this one. I have
also written in detail about our beliefs which they consider to be infidelity and idolatry, with
references form their own books in which they have declared them as true and lawful. There are
also other books of mine which you should look at. They have not been written for gain; my
purpose is that since Allaah Kareem [God] has given the faculty to speak and write, I wish to
convey to you the message of truth both though my tongue and my pen. Just as you settle your
worldly matters with reason and understanding… This dispute is not about food and such, it is
not what they have publicized. They don’t tell people that what the real dispute is about.
They say that it is a dispute about Meelaad, or Giyaarhween. People who believe that Allaah
Kareem [God] can lie, who believe that the meaning of Khatamun Nabeeyyin is not ‘the last
Prophet’, who believe that the knowledge of the unseen that Allaah Kareem [God] gave to the
Holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam) is no different from that which is given even to
animals possess, who believe that Shaietaan [Satan] has more knowledge than the Prophet
(Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam) if you wish you may consider such people to be Muslims.
Our faith is that whoever says and accepts such things comes under the same category as these
Ulamaa’s. For eighty years Ulamaa’s have been explaining these matters. If you read A’la Hazrat
Faazil-e-Barelvi’s (Allaah have mercy on him]books Hussam-ul-Haramayn and Tamheed-e-
Eemaan, they explain all these things. And now we have written these books that are easier to
understand and have also been translated into English. There are some books written by my
revered father. [Maulana Muhammad Shafee Okarvi’s (Allaah have mercy on him]In all my
books you will find references of the Deobandis. Why? Because our own people already believe,
but the purpose of presenting their own references is to show that they say one thing and practice
another. What they write they do not believe; what they believe they do not practice. People who
have no feet to stand on can hardly benefit others. This is the purpose of writing all these books.
Now I have satisfied you by showing you the actual references that I have quoted in them.
And then some of them also say, ‘These are not our books.’ Well, if they are not your books,
then why do you publish them? Their own book houses publish these books, their Ulamaa’s hold
debates defending these very lines, they distribute these books, and they earn money in the name
of these Ulamaa,s. If these are indeed not their books, then let the Ulamaa’s of the Deoband
declare it in writing: ‘The books that contain these references are not ours, we do not accept
these statements, we have nothing to do with them, we neither proclaim nor accept these
writings.’ That will be the end of the dispute. They should state that these quotations are
blasphemous and whoever believe in them is false.
But one thing to remember is that they should say they do not believe Thanvi Sahib, Gangohi
Sahib, [?] Sahib, Nanotvi Sahib to be in the right, and they should give proof for this. But if
someone says, ‘I do not believe in these writings but I do believe in those people,’ then I can
only say that to believe in an infidel as a saint is akin to destroying oneself and turning oneself
into a disbeliever and apostate. In other words, it is wrong to consider an infidel to be a Walee or
Ghaus or a righteous person. This is not merely my verdict, you find it detailed in White and
Black. I will now rest my case here. The forty references are there and nobody should have any
doubts about it.
Another thing I want to say is that two organizations were set up recently in Lahore by the name
of Anjuman Irhshaad-ul-Muslimeen and Anjuman Sianatu-ul-Muslimeen. They are not very old.
They have now started interpolating [adding] in books such as Hifzul Eemaan by Thanvi,
Taqwiyatul leemaan.by Ismaeel Dehlvi, and others. They have started changing these statements
which have invited edicts [Fatwa’s Declaration] of heresy. Perhaps they are doing so in the hope
that future generations will not have access to the older books and the new ones will be free of
such statements, and they will taunt us that we are shouting for no reason. It is with this in mind
that I have preserved the facsimiles of these old books so that no one will be able to deny them.
There are many others besides me who possess these books. Hundreds of copies were published
and they must be in existence. So this is the authentic proof that I have preserved.
I want to say to them that, having changes these statements; you have practically admitted that
they are words of infidelity, or else why do you change them? If these words were in correct in
your eyes, then why did you manipulate them? And if you have changed them, then there can be
only one conclusion, that you too believe them to be wrong and blasphemous. So instead of
changing them, repent of them. Until you repent, you will not be free from your infidelity not
matter how many books you change and transform. The edict of kufr which was given by Faazil-
e-Barelvi on these four statements has not been overturned by anyone to this day. Nor will
anyone ever be able to do so. There is only one way open to them: to repent and to proclaim:
‘We do not believe in the four who have committed this error. We neither proclaim nor accept
the mistake they have made.’ Only thus will the matter be resolved. Otherwise to go on
adamantly arguing and debating will not solve anything. My books are now being shown to you.
There are others in addition to these. If someone is still not satisfied, let them come to my library
or go to the market and see with their own eyes.
Our only prayer is that Allaah Ta’alaa may keep our faith in the Holy Prophet Muhammad Sallal
Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam) firm and intact and make us his true servants. May He keep us firm
on the true path of Ahle-Sunnat Wa Jamaa’at May He save us from these transgressors and their
transgressions, from their mischief makers and their mischievous writings. May He enable us to
walk in the footsteps of the Ahl-e-Bayt, the Companions, the Auliyaa and the path of those to
follow in whose footsteps we supplicate in every Rakaat or every prayer: “Guide us on the right
path, the path of those on whom You have bestowed Your favors, not the path of those who have
incurred Your wrath, nor those who went astray.” The people whose books I have shown you are
the ones referred to in this verse. If they want to be among those who have been favored by
Allaah Ta’laa [God], then they should adopt the true creed [Aqeedah] Belief.
Remember, no matter how many good deeds you do, if your faith [Aqeedah] is not correct, those
deeds will be of no avail. Shaietaan [Satan] worshipped Allaah Taa’laa [God] for hundreds of
thousands of years, but his belief [Aqeedah] was not correct so he was driven away from Allaah
Taa’laa’s God’s presence. The basis of salvation is not upon actions but upon faith [Aqeedah].
Preserve your faith [Aqeedah], there is no bounty greater than faith. And the life and soul of our
faith is love for the Holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam)If this love is not there then
there is nothing.
Truly did Allamah Iqbal say, “If you are loyal to Muhammad, (Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam)
then We are yours. This world in nothing, the very pen of decree is yours.” And I will end my
discourse on this verse from Hafeez Jalandhari’s Shaahnamaah, “Love for the Holy Prophet
(Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam)is the first condition of the true faith; if you fall short in this,
then all else is flawed.” May we live in his love and die in his love.
Was Salam o Alaikum! Wa Rahmatul Laahi Wa Barakaatuhu!


Viewers and listener, a while ago references were read out to you from the authentic books of the
Deoband. Now I will present before you some images from the national newspapers in which
they are seeing acting in contrast to what they have written. You have just seen a photo of Mufti
Mahmood Sahib paying homage at the shrine of Data Ganj Bakhsh Sahib (ra), and now you can
read the new clipping that there he adorned the tomb with a sheet [Chaddar]of flowers, and
distributed Halwa [Sweets]. Whereas, Ismaeel Dehlvi Sahib has written in his book Taqwiyatul
leemaan. that visiting shrines, putting flowers upon their graves, praying, and distributing sweets,
is a form of idolatry. And you have seen a similar reference in Fataawa Rasheediyah.
What is more, in this picture you can see Ihtishamul Haq Thanvi, who enjoyed great renown
among the Ulamaa of Deoband in Karachi, attending the Soyem after the death of the Aga Khan,
and reciting the Qur’aan. Whereas in the Bawadir-un-Nawadir, there is an article by Ashraf Ali
Sahib Thanvi in which he writes about what should be done to the Aga Khanis according to the
edicts of the Ulama’s of Deoband.
Now you have before you a clipping from 17
th
May 1957 issues of the Jhang newspaper and you
can see the name of Ihtishamul Haq Thanvi Sahib in the heading and his statement that the
Muslims of the world have been grieved by the demise of Aga Khan. It is further written that he
attended the Soyem, and described Aga Khan as the benefactor of Islaam. These are the same
people who have declared Soyem, Dahum, Chehlum as Hindu customs. How strange that if
Muslims gather to pray for the soul of a departed Muslim, that is labeled as idolatry and Haraam;
but when it comes to attending Qu’raan Khawaani for Aga Khanis, to attend their Soyem, to call
them benefactors of Islaam, they forget all about the Shariah. You can see all this clipping, the
name of Ihtishamul Haq Thanvi can be clearly seen and you can see clearly the words he used
for the Aga Khan.
This is not all. You will see on the day of the death of Ihtishamul Haq Thanvi Sahib— I am only
showing this to you because you have heard their quotations. So I would like to ask them, which
of the two voices is yours? What you call haraam is what you do yourself. So you are guilty of
two sins: the first sin is to call it haraam, and the second is to do it. Here you can see an ad that
appeared in the Jhang newspaper on the anniversary of his death. It says that 11
th
April is the
date of the demise of Ihtishamul Haq Sahib. Here his own son is seen reciting the Quraan at the
Soyem, or perhaps Chehlum, of Shireen Jinnah, the daughter of Qaid-e-Azam. What they call a
Hindu tradition is what they are doing here. Whether their edict was wrong or the action is
wrong, only they can answer. As the proverb goes, the elephant has a different set of teeth for
showing off and for chewing.
They say that is wrong to celebrate death anniversary and urs. Here is a cutting from Jhang
newspaper announcing that Mufti Mahmood Sahib’s first death anniversary was commemorated
in Multan. It was also celebrated in other places.
Here they are attending a conference for Eesaal-e-Sawaab of the martyrs of Balakot. If it is not
permissible to commemorate such days and anniversaries, then why did they do it? If we
celebrate the Giyarhween of Ghaus-e-Azam, we receive edicts [Fatwaa] of deviation and
innovation and idolatry, but here is another newspaper clipping of the commemoration of Mufti
Mahmood Sahib’s anniversary in Karachi, detailing the speeches and programs held on the
occasion.
All this goes to show that the Deobandi faith, Deobandi-ism is no more than a bundle of
contradictions. Here you can see and ad from Saleh Muhammad Adam Ghaziani of some
Chehlum, and Thanvi Sahib is also present. And here is a conference in memory of the martyrs
of Karbalaa, and you have also heard Gangohi Sahib’s edict [Fatwaa] in this regard.
Here is a clipping that Indra Gandhi was supposed to be present at the opening of the centenary
celebrations of Darul Uloom Deoband. One can only wonder that while on the one hand it
declares unlawful to celebrate Meelaad Shareef and to commemorate the birth of the Holy
Prophet (Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam) and it is likened to celebrating the birthday of
Kanhaiya,[Hindu god] on the other hand there we don’t see any such edict [Fatwaa] when it
comes celebrating the hundred years of Darul Uloom Deoband and inviting Indra Gandhi to
attend. All these clips relate to the same. And then there are the results of that idolatrous
woman’s visit, [indiscernible].
Here is a photo of Mufti Mahmood Sahib going to attend the celebration. Here you can also see
the speech that Indra Gandhi made on the occasion of centenary of Darul Uloom Deoband and
was printed in the newspapers. From this you can realize of what little faith means to these
people. Here you can see the opening of the centenary celebrations of Deoband.
Here you can see a photo of the people who attended the last session of the two day conferences
commemoration the death anniversary of Mufti Mahmood. They are the same people who have
declared anniversaries, Soyem and Chehlum as unlawful, idolatrous, Hindu customs, and all
manner of things. Now you can see them doing it themselves. One wishes to say to them: Look at
yourself in the mirror of the time. Either their edicts [Fatwas] should be false even in their own
eyes, otherwise their very actions show that, according to their edicts [Fatwas], they are guilty of
idolatrous and unlawful deeds.
Here you can see that the Mufti-e-Azam of the Deoband declared usury or interest money to be
lawful. Here you can see Quraan Khawaani being held for Ihtishamul Haq Thanvi Sahib in the
Jacob Line Mosque, for the sake of Eesaal-e-Sawaab, just as is done on Soyem and Dahum, etc.
Here you can read that Indra Gandhi appointed a lady Congress leader to oversee the affairs of
the Darul Uloom Deoband. This is also from Jhang newspaper. All this record has been
preserved to show them how their actions contradict their words.
They say that it is false innovation to celebrate Meelad-un-Nabee. But here you can see that they
attend gathering in the name of Seerat-un-Nabee, and even Meelad-un-Nabee. Were such Seerat
gatherings held before? Samaa and every else is being performed, but they have no edicts
[Fatwaa] for that, rather they happily attend them.
Here you can read that they are arranging twelve day gatherings from 1
st
to 12
th
of Rabi-ul-
Awwal and among those attending them are those who say that it is unlawful to celebrate the
birth of the Holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam) during these days. You are now
seeing all these names belonging to the Ulamaa of the Deoband. This is a gathering on the
occasion of Eid Meelaad-un-Nabee (Sallal Laahu ‘Alaiehi Wa Sallam) and the name of
Ihtishamul Haq Thanvi Sahib is among the participant, as is Saiyyid Razi Jaffar a well-known
Shia scholars. Here is a photo of Thanvi Sahib in Dhaka addressing a gathering of Meelaad
Shareef. This is clearly captioned below the photo.
Here we have Mateen Khateeb Sahib, who was a well-known member of the Deoband in
Karachi, addressing the gathering of Eid Meelad un-Nabee. If it is indeed unlawful and haraam
and a false innovation to celebrate Eid Meelad un-Nabee, then why do they do it? Are we
supposed to understand that if other do it they it is wrong, but if they do it themselves it is right?
If this is being faithful, then may Allaah Taa’laa [God] save us from such faith. They do not fear
Allaah Taa’laa[ God], for if they did there would not be such contradiction in their word and
deed. You can see that the caption under this photo in the Jhang newspaper clearly describes the
occasion.
Here is a cutting in which Mufti Mahmood Sahib’s is quoted as saying that it is permissible for
them to utter falsehood.
Here again you can see them celebrating Yaum-e-Husaien along with Shia Ulamaa; Thanvi
Sahib’s face is clearly visible. And you can also see ladies among the audience. Are their edicts
[Fatwaa’s] only for other people?
Here you can see leaders of the People’s Party on the occasion of a Soyem, and Thanvi Sahib is
praying alongside them. This shows that their edicts are meant for others and are not for them to
follow. As you can see here, Fa’tihaa is being recited on the occasion of a Soyem.
Again you can see this new clipping with a photo. This is also shows Thanvi Sahib. Whether it is
the occasion of Yaum-e-Husaien or Meelad-un-Nabee, whether it is arranged by the Shias or
anyone else, Thanvi Sahib is seen to participate in them. What happened to their edicts
[Fatwaa’s]at that time? And why do other Ulaama of the Deoband remain silent? Why do they
not condemn the wrong actions of their own people, and point out that Thanvi Sahib is doing
wrong by participating in a gather alongside Shia Ulamaa’s and women. This is also from Jhang
newspaper. The date is written below, it is 20
th
April 1971.
Again here you can see the occasion of a special program to commemorate 17
th
Rabi-ul-Awwal,
which was held by Shias in the Abu Turab Imaam Bargaah. Thanvi Sahib is present.
Here again you can see that Thanvi Sahib commiserating with Allama Rasheed Turabi’s son
upon his demise. The edict [ Fatwaa] says one thing, their actions say another.
Here is another clipping from Jhang newspaper where the eating of crow was declared lawful.
Sillanwali. This was also recorded by my father in his book Introduction of the Ulamaa-e-
Deoband. So let them decide if it is their edict [Fatwaa] or their practice that is at fault.