Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 69

NUR & BASHAR

Extracted from various books of: Imam Ahl al-Sunnah Allamah Sarfaraz Khan Safdar (May Allah have mercy on him)

Compiled by: Fayyaz Ahmad Khan Sawati

Translated from Urdu into English by: Muhammadullah Khalili Qasmi, Deoband

Table of Content

PREFACE
Praise belongs to Allah and the end is in favour of the God-fearing. May blessing and peace be upon the Final Prophet Muhammad, upon all his Family, Companions (Sahabah) wives and followers! Allah Most High, with His perfect power, created uncountable creatures including the jinn, angels and human being. But, the honour and status He gave to human being did not grant to any of His creatures. He created the jinn with fire, made the angels of light and created man from clay. Allah, the Lord of the universe, states in the Quran: When your Lord said to the angels, I am going to create man from clay. (38:71) 'Man' here refers to Sayyiduna Adam (may peace be upon him). At another place, Allah Most High says: Recall when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to create a human being from a ringing clay made of decayed mud. (15:28) These two verses clearly mention that Allah Most High created man i.e. Sayyiduna Adam (may peace be upon him) from clay, but he regarded man superior to the jinn and the angels as numerous Quranic verses and hadiths prove the same. Avoiding to venture in detail here, we want to quote one or two verses and hadiths to establish the earthen creature, i.e. human being is superior to the creature made of light and fire, i.e. angels and jinn. So, Allah Most High states: We have created man in the best composition. (95:4) This verse establishes that every human being from Adam (may peace be upon him) to the last man until Qiyamah (Doomsday) share this favour provided they are Muslims, otherwise the Quran itself says: They are like cattle, rather they are much more astray. (7:179) Allah Most High says at another place: And We bestowed dignity on the children of Adam. (17:70) This verse also refers to the superiority of mankind. The hadiths also clearly mentioned that mankind is superior to all creature, as this hadith of Tirmidhi says: "Abu Wada'ah reports that Al-'Abbas came to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) as if he heard any news, so the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) stood at minbar (pulpit) and said: who am I? The Companions replied: you are the Messenger of Allah, blessing of Allah be upon you. Then he said: I am Muhammad bin 'Abdullah bin Abd al-Muttalib, Allah created the creatures and placed me in the best of the creatures, then He divided them into two parts and put me in the best of them. Then, He divided them in clans and made me in the best of

4 the clans, and then He divided them in houses and made me in the best of houses and made me the best person. (Tirmidhi, 2:201, Amin Company, Delhi) This makes it amply clear that mankind is superior to all creatures. Till this point, we discussed which creature out of the jinn, angels and human being is superior, and we have proved from the Quran and Hadith that human being made of clay is better than the jinn and angels made of fire and light respectively. Now, we would like to state that the prophets (may peace be upon them) are the best of all human beings. No jinn or angel was even sent down as prophet, as Allah Most High states: Say, had there been angels (living) on the earth, walking about in peace, We would have certainly sent down an angel from the heavens as a messenger. (17:95) The verse suggests that the angels were not sent as messengers and prophets, rather human beings were sent as prophets and messengers in order to get the mankind on guidance and right path. All the prophets and messengers from Sayyiduna Adam (may peace be upon him) to Sayyiduna Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace), appeared in human form, especially our Prophet as we have already quoted the hadith of Tirmidhi. According to the teachings of the Quran, Hadith, Companions, pious Salaf, mufassirin, muhaddithin and the four Imams, we Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jamaah believe that all the prophets were human being and Sayyiduna Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) is also a human being. At the same time, we believe that he is peerless bashar (human being), we neither deny his being human nor his being nur (light). We believe in him as human being as well as nur, but by nur we mean the nur of guidance. This is our belief, as my respected uncle and teacher, Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah, Muhaddith Azam of Pakistan, Researcher of his time, Imam of asma al-rijal, Shaykh al-Quran and Hadith, Mawlana 'Allamah Muhammad Sarfaraz Safdar Khan writes in his book entitled Tanqid Matin pages 84 and 85: It is our belief and research that the leader of all messengers and Seal of the prophets, Sayyiduna Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) is bashar as well as nur; as per his genus and person he is bashar, but as per his attribute and guidance he is nur. Due to him, the dark world experienced light, the darkness of kufr and shirk was dispersed and the surface of earth was lit with the rays of iman and tawhid. Those who were wandering in the darkness of carnal desires and lusts and were falling in the deep pits of disputes and contentions, started marching ahead on the bright highway of peace and guidance. None of the Muslims can deny this reality. But, if he is considered nur in a sense that Allah forbid he is denied absolutely to be bashar and human being, then we will oppose it tooth and nail as it is against the nusus (sources of Islam). This is our belief and standpoint, and in this book we have discussed this matter in the light of ours beliefs. On the contrary, the Barelvis hold other belief which was published on the first page of their monthly magazine Hanafi Lahore, (issue of April 1964) with the title of Brief Aqaid of Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jamaah; some of which are as follows:

5 (4) Allah Most High, first of all, created the nur of the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, out of His personal (dhaati) Nur and then He created the whole world from that nur. (7) The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) in human form is the inimitable (sui generis) nur of Allah Most High. Another Barelvi scholar, Khwaja Muhammad Yar (d. 1367 AH) writes [in poems]: (a) One who is called Khuda (Allah) seems Mustafa, and one who is called slave looks like Khuda. (Diwan Muhammadi, 71) (b) Muhammad Mustafa will rise on the Day of Judgment as Taha lifting the cover of mim bright and open. He whose reality was difficult to be perceived, will rise vividly, one who is called salve will rise as qul huw Allah. Who used to chant the slogan of inni Abduh (I am His slave) every time, will rise on the Throne of Allah as inni ana Allah (I am Allah). (Diwan Muhammadi, 103) (c) O Muhammad (meaning the poet Muhammad Yar)! There is no difference between Ahmad and Ahad (One, meaning Allah); since the lovers have various types of iman. (Diwan Muhammadi, 104) (d) If Muhammad (meaning the poet Muhammad Yar) believed in Muhammad (Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace) as Khuda, then you should know that he is Muslim not a traitor. (Diwan Muhammadi, 105) (e) The feature of Muhammad is just like that of Khuda, none can remove your picture from my heart. (Diwan Muhammadi, 122) You saw what is the belief of the Barelwis about nur and bashar. We, in the second chapter of the book, have mentioned their evidences also, so that the reality of their maslak is clearly known and the difference between the claim and evidences is seen. As far as the Barelvi and Deobandi contention is concerned, there is no room to mention it in this preface, but we would like to explain it briefly in principle. A question that rises in the minds of common people, and many of them had posed us the question that both the Barelvi and Deobandi groups call themselves as Ahl alSunnah wa l-Jamaah, but they have so much differences that condemn each other as kafir as well. Which one of the two is right, and what are the differences between them? We answer it in a way that in principle the Barelwis and Deobandis disagree at two points; first is the issue of shirk and second is the issue of bidah. The scholars of Deoband regard believing in ilm al-ghayb, hadhir and nadhir, mukhtar al-kull, nur and bashar, seeking help from other than Allah, nadhr and niyaz, etc. for anyone else other than Allah as shirk in the light of the Quran, Sunnah, the teachings of the Companions, the salaf and the four Imams. While on the contrary, the Barelwis regard these as lawful. Likewise the same case is with bidah, e.g. durud and salam before Azan, supplication after funeral prayer, cementing graves, covering graves with cloth, kissing thumb in azan, calling azan on graves, celebrating mawlid alNabi (Allah bless him and give him peace), hila isqat, tija, satwan, daswan, biswan, chaliswan and other such rituals and superstitions, which the scholars of Deoband consider innovations, but the Barelwis not only consider them as lawful rather

6 regard them acts of reward. The shirk and bidah as defined by the scholars of Deoband in the light of the Quran, Sunnah and Hanafi Fiqh is not acceptable to the Barelwis, rather they misinterpret as per their wish against the Quran and Sunnah. To us, the real difference between the Barelwis and Deobandis lies in these two issues. Among these disputed issues is the issue of nur wa bashar which has been explained in many separate books by the Deobandis. This issue was dealt with in many books of Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Muhammad Sarfaraz Khan Safdar published by the Publishing Department of Madrasah Nusrat al-Ulum, but the institute could not publish any separate book on the topic as it has done on other topics, e.g. Izalah al-Rayb and Izhar al-Ghayb on ilm al-ghayb, Tabrid al-Nwazir and Tafrih al-Khwatir on the issue of hadhir and nadhir, Dil ka Surur on the issue of Mukhtar al-Kull, Guldasta Tawhid on the issue of istianah, while on refutation of innovations the books like Al-Minhaj al-Wazih (or Rah-i-Sunnat), Bab Jannat, Tanqid Matin, Hukm alDhikr bi al-Jahr, Ikhfa al-Dhikr, etc. Shaykh al-Hadith himself wrote in his book Tanqid Matin that he shall elaborate the issue of nur wa bashar in his separate treatise, but due to his teaching, preaching engagements and old age and continued illness, he could not keep up his words. Nevertheless, he mentioned this issue very clearly with detail in his book Tanqid Matin and Itmam al-Burhan; therefore he did not feel necessary to write a separate book on the topic. But, his readers kept on writing him continuously to write on the topic like other topics and he used to state that he explained the matter in detail in his books. So, the in-charge of Publishing Department asked his permission to collect the matters related to nur wa bashar scattered in his books, which he granted. As a result, I compiled this book taking extracts from different books of him. May Allah accept this humble effort of mine and make it a source of hidayah for others, Amin! May Allah Most High bless His best of creation, Muhammad, his all Family and Companions! Muhammad Fayyaz Khan Sawati Teacher, Madrasah Nusrat al-Ulum 1st Safar 1411 AH

With the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Very-Merciful

First Chapter
In the terminology of Shari'ah, nabi or rasul is a human being who was given Shariah (law) by Allah through revelation, and he was called rasul when he was ordained to preach the Shari'ah to others; since the mankind was entrusted the vicegerency of the earth; therefore it was wise to send human being for the rectification and guidance of human beings, as Allah Most High says:

Evidences from the Quran


Verse 1: Nothing prevented people from believing, when guidance came to them, except that they said, Has Allah sent a man as a messenger? (17:94) It indicates that this perception of the polytheists and infidels that a man cannot be selected for prophethood stopped them from brining faith; therefore they explicitly questioned: Has Allah sent a man as a messenger? These fools denied accepting man as prophet, but did not hesitate to regard the stones as worthy of being worshipped. As Ali bin Sultan known as Mulla Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi (d. 1041 AH) writes: They denied that Allah can give prophethood to any man, but admitted that stones are their Gods." (Sharh al-Shifa, 3:542, pub. Egypt) Allah Most High replied this argument with the following verse: Say, Had there been angels (living) on the earth, walking about in peace, We would have certainly sent down an angel from the heavens as a messenger. (17:95) i.e. since the earth is populated by human beings, so Allah Most High sent human beings as messenger for the guidance and good of the fellow humans, this was fully in their interest. Had the angels been the inhabitants of the earth, Allah would have sent down angels for their reform. Verse 2: He (Allah) said, O Iblis, what is the matter with you that you did not join those who prostrated? He said, I am not such that I should prostrate myself before a mortal whom You have created from ringing clay made of decayed mud. He said, then, get out of here, for you are an outcast, and upon you is the curse up to the Day of Judgment. (15:32-35)

8 When Allah Most High created Adam (may peace be upon him), he told the angels that he was planning to create man from ringing clay made of decayed mud. Having created him and blown soul in him, He asked them to prostrate before him. The angels complied to the commandment of Allah in unhesitant manner, but the Satan, the accursed, refused to obey the order. It proves that disdaining a human being is the concept of the accursed Satan who will be accursed by Allah till Qiyamah and he will remain rejected and discarded. While, giving high esteem to man is an angelic attitude. Accordingly, one who is pursuing an aspect of denying the virtues and merits of bashar, he is following the way of the Satan and he himself should think what his abode is. Verse 3: Say, Surely, I am but a human being like you. (18:110) Allah Most High asked the Messenger to proclaim that he was but a human being like them and he also possessed the human characteristics as they possessed. But difference between me and you is that Allah favoured me with wahy (revelation), this elevated my name and position greatly. Verse 4: Say, I proclaim the Purity of my Lord. I am nothing but human, a messenger. (17:93) The polytheists of Makkah, out of jealousy and bias, questioned the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) to bring some signs which were against the will and wisdom of Allah. In reply to this claim, He said: Say, I proclaim the Purity of my Lord. I am nothing but human, a messenger. So far, four verses from the Quran were presented which are sufficient enough to understand the matter. In next lines, we are going to present Hadiths. (Fayyaz)

Evidences from Hadith


Hadith 1: The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) stated before the Companions describing his position: I am nothing but a human being like you. (Bukhari, 1:85, Muslim, 1:213) Hadith 2: He said: O Allah! I, Muhammad, am but a human being who also gets angry. (Musnad Ahmad, 2:493) Hadith 3: He addressed the Companions at an occasion of eclipse saying: O people! I am but a human being and a messenger. (Mawarid al-Zaman, 185)

Hadith 4: After his farewell pilgrimage, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) delivered a sermon at an special occasion and said: Beware O people! I am nothing but a human being. I am about to be visited by the emissary of my Lord the Most High, and I am to respond his call. (Musnad Ahmad, 4:276, Al-Darimi 424, Muslim, 2:279, Sunan al-Kubra, 10:114)

Evidences from the Statements of the Companions


So far, we have quoted four hadiths narrated from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), thereafter we are going to quote statements of the Companions. (Fayyaz) Statements 1: Tarjuman al-Quran Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) delivered a sermon after the demise of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) in which he stated: The Messenger of Allah has certainly died and he was a human being. (Al-Darimi, p. 23) Statements 2: Sayyidah Aishah Siddiqah (may Allah be pleased with her) says that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) was a human being. ( Shamail alTirmidhi, p.24, Al-Adab al-Mufrad, p.79 by Imam al-Bukhari) Statements 3: Sayyidah Aishah Siddiqah (may Allah be pleased with her) said that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) was not more but a human being from humans. (Mawarid al-Zaman, p.525) Statements 4: Another great Companion Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Umar also called him a human being. (Talkhis al-Mustadrak, 1:108) Statements 5: Several Companions of him (Allah bless him and give him peace) belonging to Quraysh tribe, at an occasion, called him human being. (Mustadrak Hakim, 1:106) We have so far quoted fives statements of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace), while in the next lines we shall present the statements of the ulmaa, fuqaha, mufassirin, muhaddithin and sufiya. (Fayyaz)

Statements of the Ulama, Mufassirin and Muhaddithin

10 All the Muslim ulama and fuqaha (jurists) of Islamic Shari'ah have unanimously stated that all the prophets (may peace be upon them) were human beings. They express and declare it openly in clear-cut words in their books; out of which we present some. Statements 1-3: Qadi Abul Fadhl Iyaz bin Musa al-Maliki (d. 544H) writes: We have already mentioned that the Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) and other prophets and messengers (may peace be upon them) were from amongst the human beings and that his body and his physical structure was pure human and it was liable to face what human body may face like troubles, changing, pains, maladies and tasting death, but this was not to affect his status adversely. (Al-Shifa, 2:157, published in Egypt) The text, as per its meaning, is absolutely clear and unambiguous. Other scholars like (2) Ghulam Muhyi al-Din al-Birkili al-Hanafi (d. 981H) and (3) Shaykh Abd alHaq Muhaddith Dahlawi al-Hanafi (d. 1052H) also made similar statements as they said that the Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) and other prophets (may peace be upon them) were human beings. For details see: Tariqah alMuhammadiyyah, p 11, published in Egypt & Takmil al-Iman, published in Lucknow, p.37. Statement 4: Imam Muhammad bin Muhammad al-Kardari al-Hanafi (d. 827H) writes: "Since the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is a human being and every human being can be liable to defect except one whom Allah protects." ( Fatawa Bazzaziyyah, 6:311, published as notes on Fatawa Hindiyyah, Egypt) This text also suggests clearly that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is a human being, but it is a different matter that Allah Most High has granted the prophets (may peace be upon them) the lofty status of infallibility ( 'ismat) and they are infallible (masum). Statement 5: 'Allamah Jalal al-Din al-Dawwani al-Shafi'i (d. 928H) writes: " Nabi is an insan (human being) sent by Allah to the people so that he preaches what He reveals to him." (Sharh Aqaid Jalali, p.2) Bashar, adami and insan are synonyms conveying same meaning. It was explained in the text that a prophet is always a human being. Statement 6: Hafiz Ibn al-Humam, the great Hanafi researcher, writes: " Nabi is a human being sent by Allah to the people to preach what He reveals to him, while rasul also has

11 similar meaning, so (according to this meaning) there is no difference between the two." (Al-Musayarah with Al-Musamarah, 2:83, Egypt) Statement 7-9: Similar words have been mentioned in the books of 'aqaid and munazarah (beliefs and debate), e.g. by 'Allamah al-Taftazani (d. 792H) in Sharh Aqaid on pages 14 and 98, and Mulla Sadiq Ali on -Adhudiyyah page 12, and in Rashidiyyah page 5. Statement 10: Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti al-Shafi'i (d. 911H) says: The well-known definition of rasul is that it is human being who is given Shari'ah by Allah and is ordered to preach it, if he is not ordered then he is a prophet only." (Tadrib al-Rawi, p 19, Egypt) Meaning if he is asked to preach his new Shari'ah and new rulings, he is a rasul, and if he is not asked to preach new Shariah, rather to preach only previous one, then he is a nabi. Statement 11: Amir Yamani Muhammad bin Ismail (d. 1182H) writes: "According to the Islamic terms, nabi is a human being who is given Shariah (law) by Allah through wahy (revelation), when he is asked to preach it to others he is called rasul." (Subul alSalam, 1:9 Egypt) Statement 12: 'Allamah Muhammad ibn Abidin al-Shami al-Hanafi (d. 1252H) says that bashar are of three types: [1] higher rank (khawwas) as the prophets (may peace be upon them) [2] middle rank like the Companions, etc, [3] and masses and common people. ( AlShami, 1:492, Egypt) Statement 13: Imam Muhammad bin Umar al-Razi al-Shafi'i (d. 606H) writes: "Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) was a bashar." (Tafsir Kabir, 5:35, Egypt) Statement 14: Shaykh al-Akbar Muhyyi al-Din ibn al-Arabi (d. 638H) writes: "The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace), in spite of being on the high post of risalah (messengership) and khilafah (vicegerency) always said that he is a human being (bashar) like others, so his high status did not prevent him to recognize his reality." (Futuhat Makkiyah, 2:23, Egypt) I.e. though Allah bestowed him the lofty status of risalah (messengership) and khilafah (vicegerency), but he did not hesitate to admit himself as human being in open and clear words, and he did not deny it.

12 Statement 15: Mawlana Jalal al-Din Rumi (d. 672H) has mentioned a story in his Mathnawi, the summary of which is as follows. There was a child playing on a rooftop while his parents were busy in some other work (or they were having sunbath). The roof had an open gutter which drained the roof water to the street drain. Suddenly, the child fell in the gutter. As the gutter was a little ahead peeping towards the street, the parents feared lest the weak gutter should fail to carry his weight and fall killing him. When the parents approached him in order to rescue him, the child moved deeper inside the gutter out of indulgence. This increased the risk of falling down more and more. He moved back with every call of return by his parents. Finally they lost hope and thought that this little idiot boy is not listening, if the gutter gets turned, he will be killed. A wise man saw him and advised to bring another child of his age and make him sit on the roof. When he will see the little boy, he will feel attraction to him and shall come out of the gutter. The advice was followed and as soon as another boy was taken to the roof, he got out of the gutter. Thus, his life was saved and the trouble was warded off. Describing the event in his special style, Mawlana Rumi states: The prophets also were from amongst the human being, so that their fellow beings tend to him for being like them. Statement 16: Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi Mujaddid Alf al-Thani (d. 1034H) states: "O brother, Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace), in spite of his lofty status, was a bashar characterized with mortality and transience. (Letter 73, First Vol., p.177, Amritsar) I.e. neither he was qadim and wajib (immortal and infinite) nor eternal and perpetual, rather he was a mortal human being. He says at another place: "Do not you see that the prophets (may peace be upon them) are equal to other people in being bashar and all are equivalent as per their reality and person. Yes, they were high in status as per their perfect attributes. (First Vol, part 4, p.128) At another place, he writes: "However, there is a status of prophethood which cannot be accessed by an angel. The status was obtained due to the element of soil, so this is characteristic to human being." (Maktubat, First Vol. Part 4, p.123) Statement 17: 'Allamah Busiri, the renowned Sufi, says: Our utmost knowledge about him says that he is a bashar (human being). He is the most distinguished and the best, out of all of Creation. Statement 18: The renowned Egyptian scholar Shaykh Muhammad Abduh (d. 1323H) writes: "The prophets were the best among all the human beings." (Tafsir al-Manar, 7:608, Egypt) Statement 19:

13 'Allamah Muhammad bin Abdul Baqi bin Yusuf al-Zurqani al-Maliki (d. 1122H) explained to an extent that one of the blessed names of the Messenger is bashar. (Sharh Mawahib, 3:124, Egypt) Statement 20: Muhaddith Kabir, Imam Abu Hatim Muhammad bin Idris al-Imam al-Hafiz al-Kabir (d. 273H) states: "We do not see any merit greater of Abu Bakr and Umar than this that they were created out of the same clay from which the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) was created." ( Mukhtasar Tazkira al-Qurtubi by Abd al-Wahhab Sha'rani, p.26, Egypt) It is mentioned in hadiths that a man is returned to the soil from which he was born and it is narrated with tawatur that these three noblemen are buried side by side in the holy Rawdha. These short and solid references are sufficient enough for a just man, but a pile of evidences and arguments is inadequate for a stubborn and obstinate.

Statements of the Fiqh Scholars


It is to be noted that the scholars of Fiqh are those cautious group of people who regard the least desecration of the Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) as kufr and hold its guilty to be deserving of being killed, but after all they regard all the prophets (may peace be upon him), specially Sayyiduna Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) as human being and bashar in unambiguous terms. Statement 1: Imam Tahir bin Ahmad al-Hanafi (d. 542H) writes: "It is mentioned in Al-Muhit that one who blasphemes the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) or desecrates him or criticizes him in any matter of Shari'ah or his person or any of his attributes, it is permanently kufr whether blasphemer is from among his Ummah, whether he is from the Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book) or dhimmi (non-Muslim in an Islamic state) or harabi (kafir citizen of non-Muslim state), whether the blaspheme, desecration and criticism is made intentionally or unintentionally, seriously or jokingly. If he repents, his repentance will not be accepted ever, neither before Allah nor before people, he as per the pristine Shari'ah and according to the unanimous opinion of the later mujtahids and the earlier scholars, he should be killed. The ruler and his deputy should not allow any carelessness and compromise in this regard. (Khulash al-Fatawa, 4:276) See carefully this opinion of the fuqaha and then see how they regard the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) a human being and bashar. Had this word involved any slightest doubt of blaspheme and desecration, they would have not called him bashar, and at minimum they must have issued fatwas about those who call him bashar. Statement 2:

14 The fuqaha and the ulama have clarified that believing in the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) as a human being is a necessary part of the religion. If anyone, let alone denying him as a bashar, express his ignorance about the matter, he will turn kafir that he did not learn a fundamental belief, as the reliable and authentic books of the Hanafi Fiqh state: "One who says that he does not know whether the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was a human being or a jinn, he will turn kafir. (Fusul Imadiyyah, 1350, India; Fatawa Alamgiri, 2:291, Egypt) This is because acceptance of his bashariyyat is a fundamental belief and the person is unaware of it. Statement 3: 'Allamah al-Zurqani al-Maliki writes in Sharh Mawahib: "If you ask whether having knowledge of his being a bashar and an Arab is a precondition for belief ( iman) to be valid or it is fardh kifayah (obligation if performed by some will be considered for all) on parents, for example, if one teaches it to his mature son, his other partner will not be questioned about. Shaykh Wali al-Din Ahmad bin Abd al-Rahim al-Iraqi al-Hafiz ibn al-Hafiz replied that it is precondition for iman to be valid. So, if a person says: I believes in Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) as Messenger to all creation, but I do not know whether he is from amongst the bashar or angels or jinn, or he says: I do not know whether he is an Arab or 'Ajam (non-Arab), he will undoubtedly be kafir as he rejects the Quran where Allah says: He is the One who raised amidst the unlettered people a messenger from among themselves. (62:2) and nor do I say to you that I am an angel 96:50). Such a person also belies what was received by the Muslims generation to generation and it is known fully to all the classes and masses. According to me, there is no difference of opinion in this matter. (Sharh Mawahib, 2:68, Egypt) Statement 4: Allamah Sayyid Mahmud al-Alusi al-HanaFi (d. 1270H) writes: Shaykh Wali al-Din al-Iraqi was asked whether having knowledge of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) being bashar and an Arab is a condition for iman to be valid or is it fardh kifayah? So, he replied that it is necessary for iman to be valid. He further said: if a person says: I believe in Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) as Messenger to all the creation, but I do not know whether he is from amongst the bashar or angels or jinn, or he says: I do not know whether he is an Arab or Ajam, then there will no de dount in his kufr as he rejects the Quran and denies what was received by the Muslims generation after generation and was essentially known to all the classes and masses. According to me, there is no difference of opinion in this matter. If someone is ignorant and unaware of it, he should be informed of it, and if he denies it afterwards, we will declare him as kafir. (Tafsir Ruh al-Ma'ani, 4:101, Egypt) Statement 5-6:

15 Allamah Sufi Umar bin Ahmad Kharputis (d. 1299) similar statement ccan be found in Sharh Qasidah al-Burdah, p.98, Istanbul. And there is a brief mention of it in AlBahr al-Raiq, 5:121. Ponder, how clearly these senior scholars of Islam regard that unknowing the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) as bashar and Arab is kufr as it is a fundamental belief.

Proof of His Humanity from another Angle


The bashar (man) is created from clay, as it was already mentioned with the reference of the Quran and all the prophets (may peace be upon them) from Sayyiduna Adam (may peace be upon him) to Sayyiduna Muhammad, the seal of prophets (Allah bless him and give him peace) were created from clay. There is no room to doubt in the matter. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was materially made of mud. Statement 1: Mulla Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi writes: Ibn al-Jawzi narrates in his book Al-Wafa from Ka'ab al-Ahbar: When Allah Most High intended to create Sayyiduna Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace), He ordered Jibril (may peace be upon him) to bring white clay, so he descended in a group of the angels of Firdaws (highest rank in paradise) and took a handful shining white clay from the place of his grave, so it was kneaded with the water of Tasnim. (Sharh al-Shifa, 2:201, Egypt) Then after his death, he was buried in the same place which, according to our belief and the belief of majority of Muslims, is even greater in virtue than the Divine Throne. Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) had also this everlasting honour of being buried beside him. Statement 2: The Bayhaqi of his time, Qadi Sanaullah Panipati al-Hanafi (d. 1225 H), may Allah have mercy on him, writes: Ruling: It is possible that some awliya are created out of the remnant clay of some Prophets (may peace be upon them) or they are created out of the remnant clay of the Holy Messenger, (Allah bless him and give him peace). (Irshad al-Talibin, p 39) Statement 3: (The confession of Mawlvi Ahmad Rida Khan, the supreme head of the Barelwi sect) Mawlvi Ahmad Rida Khan also admits that the blessed body of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was made of clay and he was a bashar. So, at one place he narrates a hadith of Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Mas'ud from the book Al-Muttfaq wa al-Muftaraq by 'Allamah Khatib al-Baghdadi in which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) states that he and Abu Bakr and Umar were made of same clay and we shall be buried in the same. (Al-Sunniyah al-Aniqah, p 85) This hadith was also

16 mentioned by Qadi Sanaullah Panipati (may Allah have mercy on him) as well. (See Irshad al-Talibin, p.40) Khan Sahib added a margin thereon that Sayyiduna Siddiq and Sayyiduna Faruq were made of the pristine clay from which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was made of.

Establishing His Humanity from the Statements of the Barelwi Scholars


Statement 1: Khan Sahib Barelwi writes about the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) that he was bashar, but he had hundred thousand times greater and higher human body than the celestial world and thousand time more ethereal than the souls and angels. He himself says: I am not like you, in another narration he says: I do not have like your nature. Also, he said: Who among you is like me. Finally you have read the statement of Allamah Khifaji1 that his being bashar is in no contradiction with his being bright nur. (Nafy al-Fay, p.10) Statement 2: Likewise, he writes at another place that as the Ahl al-Sunnah have agreed that none from amongst the mankind is masum (infallible) except the prophets (may peace be upon them), one who considers anyone else as masum he is out of the fold of Ahl al-Sunna. (Dawam al-'Aish fi ann al-Aimma min Quraish, Vol. 1, p 27, Breilly 1339) Statement 3: The renowned Barelwi scholar Hakim Mawlvi Abul Hasanat Sayyid Muhammad Ahamd, former khatib of Jami Masjid, Wazir Khan of Lahore, writes: Question: Who is nabi and why he is sent down to the world? Answer: Nabi is a human being who is sent by Allah to guide people and who receives the divine commandment through revelation. Question: Whether all the prophets were bashar or something else? Answer: All the prophets were bashar. (Hanafi Silsilah Diniyat, 1st vol., p.15-16 published by Department of Publication in Markazi Anjuman Hizb al-Ahnaf, Lahore) The text explicitly suggests that all the prophets (may peace be upon them) were bashar not anything else. Statement 4: Let us have some texts of Mawlvi Naim al-Din Muradabadi: (1) Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) is Qurayshi whose lineage you know well that he is most highborn among you and you are well aware of his truthfulness and trustworthiness, austerity and piety, chastity and purity and high
1

Nasim al-Riyadh, 2:282

17 morals. (Hashiyah Quran, p.300, 307) Had he been nur, there would have been no question of being Arab and Qurayshi and lineage. (2) The infidels first wondered and denied that rasul is a bashar and when they observed his miracles and thought that they are beyond human power, they regarded him as magician. This claim of theirs is false and baseless, but it also involves his perfection and their admission of helplessness. (Hashiyah Quran, p.300, note 3) (3) The most excellent of the human beings, i.e. the prophets are better than the best of angels and the pious human beings are better than the common angels. It is mentioned in hadith that a Muslim is more esteemed to Allah than the angels. The reason is that the angels are born obedient, it is their instinct. They have reason but not lust; the animals have carnal desires but not reason, while man has both reason and lust. So, one who empowers his reason is better than the angels and one who empowers his lust is worse than animals. (Hashiyah Quran, p.419, note 158) Allah Most High has mentioned this in the Quran. When the prophets (may peace be upon them) approached their communities for preaching and making them hear the truth, the infidels responded: "You are no more than a human being like us. You want to prevent us from what our forefathers used to worship. So, bring us some clear authority. Their prophets said to them, we are no more than a human being like you, but Allah bestows His favour upon whom He wills from among His servants." (14:12) It was translated so by Khan Sahib Barelvi, but Mawlvi Na'imuddin writes in its notes: (4) Note 30: Know that we are really human being. He bestows his favour of prophethood and messengership and honours with such a high position. (p.371) See the complication in his mind, he is caught in lurch, neither he can swallow nor can eject. (5) (Extracted from a long paragraph) So, no ummati (Muslim) is allowed to claim to be equal to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). It should be noticed that his humanity is higher than ours and our humanity is in no way comparable to it. (p 690, note 12) Whatever was said is alright. But it admits that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was human being. He writes in the beginning of the note where he explains the verse "I am none but a human being like you" (18:110): Seemingly, I am seen, heard and there is no gender dissimilarity between us and you, so how is it possible that my words are not heard and accepted by you and there is some hindrance between you and mine. If, instead of me, there was some alien or angels, you could say that they are not seen, heard and understood by you, and the gender dissimilarity is a big hindrance, but the case is not so here. (p 690) First, he accepted the prophets (may peace be upon them) as real bashar in a roundabout way, but here he wants to hide his mis-belief with the pretext of

18 'seemingly', but at the same time there is no way out but to admit that they were bashar. They are caught in dilemma, unable to move backward or forward. (6) Mawlvi Na'imuddin has written a short treatise on beliefs entitled: Kitab al-Aqaid (first part). First it was published in his lifetime in India and now it is published in Lahore by two publishers; (1) Nuri Kutub Khana, Bazar Data Sahib, Lahore (2) Weekly Sawad-e-Azam, Lahore. The page 4 of the treatise has a title: Nubuwwat (prophethood), it reads what follows: "The pure servants of Allah who were sent by Him to guide His creature and convey His message are called nabi. The prophets are bashar who receive the wahy (revelation) from Allah Most High." Now, the scrappers of the Nuri Kutub Khana have replaced the word bashar with nur, and with this treachery they think that they have safeguarded their belief. (la Hawl wa la qauwwata illa billah) (7) It is mentioned on the page 7 of the book: Question: Whether the jinn and angels are also made nabi? Answer: No, prophets are only human beings and particularly men, no woman was ever made nabi. These clear-cut texts suggest that all the prophets (may peace be upon them) were bashar and human being, especially Sayyiduna Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace). Statement 5 Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Badayuni (and later Gujrati) writes: "Prophets are human beings; they are bashar not jinn or angel. (Ja'a al-Haq, p.164) We want to conclude this chapter with the fatwa of Pir Mehr Ali Shah Golri. (Fayyaz) Someone asked Pir Mehr Ali Shah Golri that the mufassirin have written that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was affected by magic and the last two chapters of the Quran were revealed as cure of the magic. What is the meaning of magic affecting him? It is apparently against the prestige of prophethood. Pir Sahib replied as follow: As far as the matter of magic is concerned, it is a reality and according to all the mufassirin, the revelation of the two chapters of the Quran is linked with this incident as many traditions indicate to it. But this incident entails no objection; since as other human characteristics like eating, drinking, sleeping and falling ill occurred with him being bashar, likewise being affected by witchcraft was also a human characteristic which had no relation with his prophethood. (Fatawa Mahariyyah, 1:101, published Civil and Military Press, Sadar, Rawalpindi) Further he says: And if it is not seen connected with prophethood, then it is not a improbable that a nabi also feels hurt and pained, rather it is a human characteristic. As a nabi is not exempted from other human characteristics, similarly he is not free from the worldly troubles and pains. (p.102)

19

Second Chapter
In this chapter, we shall present the responses of the arguments put by the rival sect in the light of the Quran, Hadith and the statements of mufassirin, muhaddithin, fuqaha and sufiya. (Fayyaz) Argument 1: The first argument to prove that the Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) is nur is from the Quran where Allah says: "There has come to you, from Allah, a Light (nur) and clear book. With it Allah guides those who follow His pleasure to the pathways of peace." (5:15) They say that the word nur (light) indicates to the Holy Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), and since it was mentioned with kitab using 'atf (conjunction), it means that both the clauses are opposite to each other. Thus, nur is something and kitab is something else. Answer: Here the word 'nur' means the Quran and the atf (conjunction) is for more elaboration in which the two clauses are not per se opposite to each other, rather they are different only as per the attribute. So it means that the Quran is light and it described the matter very clearly. The reason is that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was permanently mentioned just in the beginning of the verse: "O people of the Book, there has come to you Our Messenger disclosing to you much of what you have been concealing of the Book, while He overlooks much." (5:15) The later part of the verse mentions the kitab which is bright as well as clear. The other point is that in the next verse i.e. 5:16, the pronoun is singular, had the word nur and kitab meant two different things, then it would have been proper to bring dual pronoun indicating to both the things, but since the nur and kitab referred to the same thing, therefore singular pronoun was befitting. As if the context and the first and the last parts of the verse confirm that the word nur here means the Quran. Apart from this, the Quran at many places was described as nur e.g. it says: O people, a proof has come to you from your Lord, and We have sent down to you a vivid light." [4:174] At another place, Allah says: So, those who believe in him and support him, and help him and follow the light sent down with him, those are the ones who are successful." [7:157] And, Allah says at another place: "In similar way, We have revealed to you a Spirit from Our command. You did not know earlier what was the Book or what was Iman (true faith), but We have made it (the Quran) a light with which We guide whomsoever We will from among Our servants. And indeed you are guiding (people) to a straight path." [42:52] Likewise, He says: "So, believe in Allah and His Messenger, and in the light We have sent down." [64:8]

20

At all these places, the Quran was depicted as nur and this is the reason that the majority of the mufassirin have meant the Quran by nur in the verse 5:15, but some explicated the nur with the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), but these mufassirin have categorically explained his bashariyyat (humanity) at other places. So how can it mean except that he was nur along with being bashar. First Objection: Whatever we have written about the verse 5:15 (There has come to you, from Allah, a Light and clear book), it is very much clear, but the Barelwi scholar Mawlvi Ghulam Rasul Sa'idi, the author of Tawdhih al-Bayan, objects to it:, There are several places in the Holy Quran where single pronoun was referred to more than a noun alternately, but how can one understand it whose mind is affected with enmity towards the Prophet. Mawlvi Sarfaraz noticed only this place in the entire Quran. (Tawdhih al-Bayan, p.147) Answer: This explanation of the author is nonsense; since neither we have denied that single pronoun can be referred to several nouns nor that this is the only place in the entire Quran where single pronoun was referred to several nouns. As we were discussing the words nur and kitab, therefore the discussion was limited to that verse. We have mentioned it out of love towards Allah Most High and in following the Shari'ah brought by the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), while it is different thing that a squint-eyed sees this love also in the form of hatred, so how can it be remedied? Second Objection: 'Allamah Abu Sa'ud writes in the commentary of the verse mentioned above: "The pronoun was used single since either it is referred to the same thing (since the comprehensive human form of the Quranic commandment cannot be contemplated except his holy person and if any all-round text can explain his person and his attributes it must be the Quran) or that both carry same ruling (since both must be obeyed) and the pronoun is referred to both (and this is the reply which is generally given by the mufassirin and commentators at such places). Like Shaykh Abu Sa'ud, 'Allamah Abdullah ibn Umar Baydawi in Anwar al-Tanzil, 'Allamah Ismail Haqqi in Ruh al-Bayan and other scholars in their tafasir have given such answers. (Tawdhih al-Bayan, p 147) Answer: The said author did not quote the complete text of 'Allamah Abu al-Saud; since it indicates to his preferred opinion which is harmful for the said author. His complete text is as follows: Though nur and kitab refer to the same noun, but the 'atf (conjunction) was used to regard the dissimilarity of nouns as the dissimilarity of titles. It was also said that the word nur means the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the word kitab means: the Quran, while the pronoun in the next verse was used singular; since the reference is to the Quran only (which is light as well as clear book), or because both (the prophet and the book) are like one thing (as both are source of guidance and light) or the single pronoun in yahdi refers to the aforesaid matter. (Tafsir Abu al-Saud, 2:14) In this tafsir, 'Allamah Abu al-Saud, who is well-versed mufassir, has mentioned first that nur and kitab refers one single thing and the conjunction was used just to differentiate the titles. (We have explained this in Tanqid Matin, p.122: the word nur

21 refers to the Quran and the conjunction is just for explanation in which there is no difference between the two clauses of the conjunction as per their nature, rather it is only as per the attributes.) Then, again he quoted another tafsir stating, it is said which is normally used for a weak opinion. According to this tafsir, nur refers to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and kitab refers to the Quran. And then he gave reason of using the single pronoun that since nur and kitab refer to the same thing i.e. the Quran; therefore the pronoun is singular, or the pronoun is singular because both the nabi and kitab are sources of light and guidance, or the singular pronoun was used referring to the whole of whatever mentioned before. The majority of the mufassirin have meant the same which was mentioned by 'Allamah Abu al-Saud. The aforesaid opponent author should think what advantage he achieved by the tafsir of 'Allamah Abu al-Saud and what disadvantage we earned? Did 'Allamah Abu al-Saud not state all the things which we had already mentioned? Third Objection: Mawlvi Ghulam Rasul Sa'idi writes criticizing: if you insist that in case of single pronoun, the referred noun should also be singular, we suppose so, but why is it necessary to believe that in case of single referred noun the words nur and kitab refer to the Quran, why is it not possible that both the words refer to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)? Mulla Ali al-Qari in his Sharh Shifa and and 'Allama Alusi in Ruhul Ma'ani gave the same reply which we have already mentioned. (Tawdhih al-Bayan, p 148) Answer: Mulla Ali al-Qari quoted this tafsir saying "some mufassirin have tried to explain it" that kitab also may refer to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) as nur also refers to his holy self and since the person is singular and words are different; therefore the pronoun was brought singular. So, we beg to say that the aforesaid author might was told by any able and expert teacher that when the word 'badh' (some) is referred to plural it means one or two not a group of people. The question is how one can base his belief on the foundation of 'some mufassirin' by leaving aside the context of the Quran, other mutawatir evidences and the opinion of majority of the mufassirin. It is only for quoting that some mufassirin explained the verse in this way as well. What kind of service of religion is it to leave the golden principle and rule of "Allah's hand is on the group" and trailing behind the rarest and uncommon explanations. Likewise, 'Allama Alusi quoted this tafsir just as a possible explanation as he says: "it is not far away that both the words nur and kitab refer to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)." Now you should decide fairly whether any principle belief of religion can be established by such uncertain statements. If such uncertain statements do not contradict the rules and principles of religion, they can be acceptable, otherwise they need to be given proper interpretation or else they deserve to be rejected, as Lahori Qalandar says: Utha ka pheink do bahar ghali mein Throw it out in the street Fourth Objection: Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi writes under this verse: "There are various explanations; first the word nur means the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the book means the Quran, while the second explanation is that nur means Islam and kitab means the Quran. The third explanation is that both

22 the words nur and kitab mean the Quran, but this opinion is weak as 'atf (conjunction) seeks dissimilarity." Now, perhaps Mawlvi Sarfaraz might have known that the opinion which is the base of his belief is the third grade opinion and is regarded by Imam al-Razi as very weak. (Tawdhih al-Bayan, p.122) Answer: We say though Imam Razi calls it weak (not very weak) but the majority of mufassirin call it strong and better like 'Allamah Abu al-Saud whom we have quoted earlier. Moreover, Imam Razi explains nur as Islam (see: Tafsir Kabir, 2:189), why do you discard this strong tafsir? Fifth Objection: Mawlvi Ghulam Rasul Sa'idi quoted several views proving that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is nur and he wanted to give an impression to the public that all mufassirin regard him as nur while Mawlvi Sarfaraz denies it. So instead of writing their full text, their references are being quoted. See Tawdhih al-Bayan, 142 and 143, where Imam Razi, Mulla Ali al-Qari and 'Allamah Alusi mention that nur may refer to his holy self and 'Allamah Alusi says that he is nur al-anwar (light of all lights). On page 144, this tafsir is quoted by Qatadah and Zajjaj and it was regarded better tafsir, while on page 145 it is quoted from Jalalayn, Sawi and Abu al-Saud that nur refers to the Holy Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). Likewise, on page 148 it is quoted from Tafsir Baydawi, Khazin and Nasafi and on page 149 from Ruh al-Bayan that nur refers to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). On page 151, it is quoted from Imdad al-Suluk p.86, treatise AlNur, p.31 of Mawlana Thanawi and Tafsir of Mawlana Uthmani that nur may mean the Prophet himself (Allah bless him and give him peace) while kitab means the Quran. Then, on page 152 it is quoted from treatise Al-Tawassul, p.53, Shifa of Qadi Iyad p.10, and on page 154 from Mulla Ali al-Qari's Sharh Shifa 1:41 and from Tafsir Khazin, while on page 155 it is written with the reference of Tafsir Kabir that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was nur and lighted lamp, etc. Answer: All these references are genuine but none of them is against us, even all support our view. The author, by piling up the irrelevant references, has unnecessarily increased the thickness of his book just in order to demonstrate his academic ability. Which Muslim denies it? We ourselves, after quoting the tafsir of the verse "there has come to you, from Allah, a Light and clear book" (5:15) said that in view of the evidences and context nur means the Quran and the conjunction is just for more elucidation, but we have accepted the second tafsir as well, as it is written in Tanqid-i-Matin, p 124: "This is the reason that majority of mufassirin have interpreted nur as the Quran, while some of them interpreted nur as the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), but all these mufassirin openly admit at other places in their tafsir that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was a bashar and human being. So, what it means except that he was human being along with being nur, as we have mentioned in the beginning." After such a clear explanation from our end, how it is useful for the said author to present references of his being nur and how it is harmful for us! The majority of the mufassirin have interpreted nur as the Quran. If the said author is in doubt in this regard, all the books of tafsir are available and Allah willing the pen is also available and all these mufassirin belong to Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama'ah, while some of the

23 Mu'tazili mufassirin also have joined their rank in this tafsir under the Arabic grammar rules. Six Objection: Mawlvi Ghulam Rasul Sa'idi, the author of Tawdhih al-Bayan, writes that those who deny the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) as nur they are Mu'tazili, as he says: "Ruh al-Ma'ani interprets the verse as: Abu Ali Jubai said that the nur means the Quran as it enlightens and reveals the ways of guidance and belief. Al-Zamakhshari also mentioned the same thing in his tafsir." What is the belief of Al-Zamakhshari, the author of al-Kashshaf? It is written on p.28 that Al-Zamakhshari used to nickname himself as 'Abu al-Mu'tazila' (the father of the Mu'tazilah sect). Likewise, it is written on page 29 about Abu Ali Jubai that his name was Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and he was Mu'tazilite from Basra. Both these references reveal that Abu Ali Jubai and Al-Zamakhshari both were Mu'tazilah, and Ruh al-Ma'ani clarifies that these Mu'tazilah deny the Prophet being nur and confine nur only to the Quran. (Tawdhih al-Bayan, p.155-165) Answer: What Mawlvi Ghulam Rasul Saidi Barelwi says that those who deny the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) being nur are Mu'tazilah is quite baseless; since interpreting the word nur with the Quran is not a Mu'tazilite theory, rather the Ahl al-Sunnah scholars have also interpreted nur as the Quran, as Imam Nasir al-Din Abu al-Khayr Abdullah bin Umar al-Baydawi (d. 791 AH) interprets the verse "there has come a light from Allah" 5:15: "i.e. the Quran as it disperses the darkness of doubt and deviation and it is a clear miraculous book while some say that the word nur means the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace). (Tafsir Baydawi, 1:268, Egypt) This tafsir of Imam Baydawi makes two things clear; first the word nur means the Quran. Second, some scholars have interpreted nur as the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace). If interpreting nur with the Quran is the creed of the Mu'tazila, whether Imam Baidhawi also will be included in the same cult? You should plant a similar fatwa on him as well. This tafsir of Imam Baidhawi supports our stand. As far as some scholars' interpretation of nur with the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is concerned, we do not deny it absolutely, as it was already mentioned; since the mufassirin who interpreted nur with the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), they also believe that nur means 'the light of guidance' and they did not deny the Prophet being bashar. It is needless to lengthen this discussion anymore, but we want to present one or two more references. Imam Muhammad bin Yusuf known as Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi al-Gharnati (d. 754 AH) says in the tafsir of the verse 5:15: "It is said that the Quran was called nur as it disperses the darkness of polytheism and doubt or that it is clear miracle. (Tafsir alMuhit 3:448, Beirut) 'Allama Shaykh Muhammad Abduh of Egypt (d. 1323 AH = 1905 AD) also writes under the commentary of the verse 5:15: "There are three opinion abut the meaning of the word nur here; first is the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), second is Islam and third is the Quran." (Tafsir al-Manar 6:304)

24 We have presented three references explaining that nur means the Quran and this tafsir is more preferable. As far as what Sa'eedi says that interpreting nur with Quran is the creed of Mu'tazila, it is nothing short of a clear lie, as the Ahl al-Sunna mufassirin have also interpreted it as the Quran. The text of Ruh al-Ma'ani presented by him means that the verse means the Quran alone, not any thing else. 'Allama Alusi disapproves that the Mu'tazila have confined the tafsir in this meaning. And we also do not believe that no other interpretation can be made to the verse, we say that the preferable tafsir is that of meaning the Quran, as the mufassirin have interpreted the verse in different ways, as Sa'eedi Sahib has also admitted that the Mu'tazila have confined the tafsir of the verse into the Quran. (Fayyaz) Second Evidence: The second evidence of his being nur is that Imam Abdur Razzaq reported from Jabir bin Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him), he says that he said to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace): may my parents are sacrificed over you, which thing Allah Most High created first? He replied: O Jabir! Before all things Allah created the nur of your Prophet out of His nur. (Zurqani Sharh Mawahib 1:7, Nashr al-Teeb 5) This narration was presented as proof that he was nur. But, it is also not based on solid foundations. (1) The sanad (chain of narrators) of this hadith is not known. Moreover, Imam Abdur Razzaq was Shia though not extremist, but he is munfarid (narrated some peculiar things not reported by others). (Tazkirat al-Huffaz 1:331). Especially in fazayil chapter he has narrated such narrations which are not reported by anyone else, as Abu Bakr bin Ayyub al-Hanafi writes: "Ibn 'Adi said that Abdur Razzaq narrated traditions in fazayil which are not reported by anyone else." (al-Sahm alMusib 130) Moreover, 'Allama Muhammad Tahir al-Hanafi (d. 986 AH) writes: Abdur Razzaq ibn Humam turned blind in his last time, his nephew (sister's son) Ahmad bin Abdullah inserted false traditions in his book for which he is known as kadhib (liar). Qanun al-Mawdhua'at 269) i.e. some people formed this view about him due to his nephew's forgery and misdeed, otherwise personally he was authentic and reliable. (2) Musannaf Abdur Razzaq is classified in the Hadith books of third category. Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehlawi (d. 1239 AH) states: "Most of the traditions of this category are not followed by the Fiqh scholars; rather ijma' was established against matters mentioned therein. ('Ujala Nafy'a 7) But all traditions of this category are not baseless, rather most of them are so, especially ones contradicting the meaning of the Quran. Mawlana Sayed Sulaiman Nadwi (d. 1374 AH) writes about Musannaf Abdur Razzaq: Since the said book contains false traditions along with sahih traditions and his traditions are taken less reliable in fazayil chapter, therefore in principle I hesitate to accept this tradition. This hesitation is strengthened when we see that pen has been clearly mentioned in sahih ahadith to be first created. (Sirat alNabi 3:776) (3) This tradition is against the one which says that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) sated: "First thing which Allah created was pen, then he ordered

25 her to write." (Abu Dawood 2:290, Tayalsi 71, Tirmidhi 3:167 he termed it as hasan sahih gharib, al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya 1:8 he said that it was narrated by Ahamd) Hafiz Ibn Hajar 'Asqalani (d. 852 AH) writes: "Among the traditions which describe first thing created by Allah is only this hadith is reliable: First thing Allah created was pen." (al-Mawdhu'at al-Kabir 31) This sahih hadith suggests that Allah Most High first created pen of destiny. So, when the creation of pen is known to take place first, then it is needless to unreasonably mean awwaliyat idhafi (relative primacy) instead of awwaliyat haqiqi (real primacy). It should also be noted that the researcher commentators of hadith and the historians have sorted out many things like Pen, Throne, mind etc that have been classified to be first created, but they did not mention nur amongst them. What does it mean except that the hadith of nur is not reliable according to them, otherwise they would have mentioned it while mentioning the different hadiths. Yes, Mulla Ali al-Qari mentioned it in Miraqat 1:146 and Jam' al-Wasayil; but he himself explained in these books that nur means ruh (soul). (4) As his nur is mentioned to be first created, in the same way his ruh (soul) was also reported to have been created first, as Mulla Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi says: The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "The first thing Allah created was my ruh." The other souls were created with the blessing of his soul and the nur of his person." (Sharh al-Shifa 1:17, Egypt) He writes at another place: "Both the hadiths i.e. the first thing Allah created is my nur and the other hadith of ruh (soul); carry same meaning, as the souls are nuri, so it meant that the first thing Allah created amongst the souls is my ruh. (Mirqat 1:167, Imdadiya, Multan) In signifies that the hadith was narrated in two ways and nur means ruh; since ruh is also a light element and subtle substance which is absorbed in the entire body. 'Allama Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Khifaji al-Hanafi (d. 1069 AH) said: "Allah Most High created his souls before other souls and blessed it with the nice costume of prophethood. And this is meant by the words he spoke: Allah Most High created his nur before He created Adam (may peace be upon him). (Nasim al-Riyaz 1:200,201, Egypt) Perhaps, this is the reason that Hakim al-Ummat Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thnawi has described the nur Muhammadi as ruh Muhammadi. (Hashiya Nashr al-Tib 5) If this hadith is proven to be sahih as it was claimed by Shaykh Abdul Haq in Madarij alNubuwwa, then with this meaning it has no contradiction with any text of the Quran and Hadith. Therefore, there is nothing wrong to believe it. But, it is absolutely baseless and absurd to reject, on its basis, the certain and clear-cut nusus (texts f the Quran and Hadith) and deny his being human being as it was adopted by many innovators. According to our research, the issue of hazir and nazir, 'ilm ghayb and nur etc crept in the innovators from the Shias, but the authentic book of Shias i.e. Usul Kafi clearly explains that nur means ruh. The text is as follows: "Allah Most High said: I created you and Ali as nur i.e. soul without body." (Usul al-Kafi 1:147, vol 2, Lucknow)

26 This indicates that Shias also take nur as ruh. However, according to this hadith, denying the humanity of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) which is proved by nusus (definite sources) is unacceptable altogether. Note: There are other numerous words which convey the meaning of nur: for example: "the first thing Allah created was my nur", "I was made out of Allah's nur, but the believers were made of mine", when Allah created the nur of his prophet, he asked him to see to the nurs of the prophets", and "when Allah created Adam, he entrusted the nur in his back", but none of these hadiths is sashih. If anyone claims the otherwise, he will have to explain it with proof. Another hadith says that Allah took a fistful nur of His face, the hadith further says that it was the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), the entire world was created out of it. Also, he was created before his parents were created. And that he memorized the Quran before Sayyidna Jibril came to him with it. Hafiz Ibn Taimiya and Hafiz Ibn Kathir commented on the hadith that it is fabricated lie according to all those who have the knowledge of hadith. (al-Athar al-Marfu'a 273, Mawlana Abdul Hayi Lucknowi) Another hadith says Allah created me with His nur and created Abu Bakr also with it, but one of the narrators is Ahmad bin Yusuf al-Masihi. 'Allama Abul Hasan Ali bin Muhammad al-Kanani (d. in 963 AH) writes that Imam Abu Nuaim said: he is false. Imam al-Dhahabi says: He is big liar. (Tanzih al-Sharia al-Marfu'a 337) Muslims need not to pay any attention to such false and fabricated traditions and give farther interpretations to the Quranic verses and sahih and mutawatir hadiths, and Allah forbid to reject them and deserve Allah's punishment and become fuel of the Fire. First Objection: The explanation we presented in the reply of second argument from our opponent is to the point and clear. But, our opponent has targeted it also with his objections. We are quoting those objections and reply them respectively. Mawlvi Ghulam Rasul Sa'eedi writes: "We write the names of the elderly scholars of Ahl al-Sunna who have quoted the hadith of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him). Had this tradition been za'if (weak) or inapplicable these scholars would have not mentioned it in their books. For example those who referred to the hadith include: the teacher of Imam Ahmad, the teacher's teacher of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim, Imam Abdur Razzaq in his Musannaf and Imam Baihaqi in Dalayil alNubuwwa narrate the hadith as marfu' (with continuous chain to the Prophet) from Sayyidna Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) that Allah created the nur of your Prophet before any thing out of His nur. While Imam Qustalani writes in Mawahib Laduniya: when Allah Most High intended to create people and determine their livelihood, he brought about the haqiqat Muhammadiya (his existence) in the nur of His Divinity." Explaining the text, Imam Zurqani writes in Sharh Mawahib: In deed the haqiqat Muhammadiya is base of all haqiqats (existences); since it is proved by .. (some text not clear) which is exactly nur Ahmadi and was indicated by the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) in his words that Allah Most High created his nur

27 first. Amir Abdul Qadir al-Jazaeri al-Hasani writes in mawqif (standpoint) 89 of his book Mawaqif: There is no doubt that the haqiqat of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is the great mercy which has encompassed every thing. It is obviously mentioned in hadith: O Jabir! The first thing Allah created was the nur of your Prophet." Sayyid Abdul Karim Jily says in Namus-e-Azam (book of nur, first chapter): In deed Allah Most High sent Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) as biggest felicity and best ideal for all. Allah placed him at the highest rank among the creatures. Shaikh Abdullah Al-Busanwi says in first chapter of Matali' alNurani: Behold, when Allah Most High intended to introduce the manifestations of His Divinity through the demonstration of the effects of Divine Names, He first created ruh Muhammadi in comprehensive manner, as it is narrated from Sayyidna Jabir bin Abdullah (May Allah be pleased with him) that he asked the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) what Allah created first? He replied: O Jabir, it was the nur of your Prophet which Allah created out of His nur. Shaykh Abdul Haq says in Madarij al-Nubuwwa: However, first of all he came into existence, because the first thing Allah created was his nur. Likewise, he was granted nubuwwa (prophethood) as he was declared prophet when Sayyidna Adam was still in the process of creation. Apart from these scholars, Ibn Hajar al-Makki, 'Allama Farsi, 'Allama Diyar Bikri, Sayyidi Abdul Ghani Nabulsi, Imam Abul Hasan Al-Ash'ari also have mentioned such thing in their books and they have relied upon it. (Summary from Tawdhih al-Bayan 156-160) Answer: All the efforts of the author are futile. First, because the tradition evolves on the axis of Imam Abdur Razzaq's sanad, later the said author referenced Dalayil al-Nubwwa of Imam al-Baihaqi. It was his duty to quote the sanad of Imam Abdur Razzaq and Imam Baihaqi and their narrators from the books of asma al-rijal, so that our objection would have been answered that the sanad of the hadith is not known. Imam Abdur Razzaq was Shia although he was not fanatic (ghali), but he mentions many a matters singularly and is not supported by anyone else. We have written with the reference of Imam Ibn 'Adi that Abdur Razzaq has mentioned such traditions in fazayil that are not narrated by anyone else. Moreover, his nephew Ahmad bin Abdullah incorporated false traditions in his book. Shah Abdul Aziz (may Allah have mercy on him) counted the Musannaf Abdur Razzaq in third category, while the sahih narration of 'awwlu ma khalaq Allah al-qalam' [the first thing Allah created was pen] is against it. Your A'la Hadhrat himself says that proof is necessary to believe a hadith or to attribute it to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), it is unlawful to attribute hadith to him without proof. ('Irfan-e-Shari'at, part 3, p 27) It is very clear that a hadith cannot be proved without sanad and certification of its narrators. The hadith about pen mentioned by us was quoted from Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi and mentioned that it was declared sahih. So, how can this hadith which has no sanad stand before it? Khan Sahib Barelwi himself writes: Some ignorant individuals, illicit mullahs and fake sufis present baseless story or probable or similar event. They are so mindless or they project themselves so and do not understand that weak must be left before sahih, likewise muta'ayyan (certain) before muhtamal (probable), muhkam (clearcut) before mutashabih (vague). ('Irfan-eShari'at, part 1, p 26)

28 Secondly, most of the references given by the author are from the books of his Ala Hadhrat like Nafy al-Fay and Silat al-Safa etc, while in Silat al-Safa Khan Sahib attributes this hadith to Imam Abdur Razzaq as he writes: The teacher of Sayyidna Imam Ahamd bin Hanbal (may Allah be pleased with him) and the teacher's teacher of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim i.e. Hafiz al-Hadith Imam Abdur Razzaq Abu Bakr bin Humam narrated this hadith in Musannaf from Sayyidna Jabir bin Sayyidna Abdullah al-Ansari (may Allah be pleased with them). The book Musannaf Abdur Razzaq is published now. We shall be highly thankful to the author and his group to locate the hadith in Musannaf. His A'la Hadhrat himself writes in Silat al-Safa page 3: A similar hadith was narrated by Imam Baihaqi in Dalayil al-Nubuwwa. It indicates that the tradition narrated by Imam Baihaqi does not have the same words as the narration of Imam Abdur Razzaq, otherwise A'la Hadhrat would have regarded it same not similar; since Muhaddithin use such terms (like similar) in order to describe riwayah bil-ma'na (non-literal reporting), see Tadrib al-Rawi 314 etc. and since the main word of the narration is nur, therefore the context of Khan Sahib seemingly conveys that perhaps the word nur is not present in the narration of Dalayil al-Nubuwwa of al-Baihaqi. Perhaps this was the reason that Khan Sahib did not quote its words, otherwise he would not have overlooked it at such an occasion. However, the reality can only be known after observing the words of Dalayil alNubuwwa and the sanad of the hadith. Thirdly, the said author has quoted detailed and short texts of some elders which support the view that the nur of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was created first, and this strengthens the position of the hadith. He refers to 'Allama Busnawi as having said that the ruh of the Prophet was created first. But all these references are of no use since a hadith is reliable only with continuous sanad and reliable condition of the narrators. Just quoting a hadith will not make it sahih and neither it will be considered reliable and authentic, specially when it is mentioned by those who are merely sufi and saint and have no expertise in the science of scrutiny of haidth. Moreover, we have written in Tanqid Matin (p 129131) with references that nur Muhammadi means ruh Muhammadi and we concluded that nur Muhammadi is the same ruh Muhammadi. Had this hadith been sahih as it was said by Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith in Madarij al-Nubuwwa 1:1, then also it is not contradicting any ayat or hadith with this meaning; therefore it is not wrong to believe so. But based upon this hadith it is absolutely wrong and baseless to reject the clear-cut nusus and deny his being bashar and human being as some bid'atis (innovators) do. It is regretful that neither the said author has quoted out text nor does he refer to it, let alone replying it, whereas it is incumbent upon him to give reference, but what he has to do with justice and honesty? They just aim at collecting cheap applaud from their supporters and to quench their thirst of accusing the ahl haq. In short, our objection that the sanad of the hadith and reliability of the narrators is unknown remains intact, it was not yet replied. It is nothing but childish perception that you have given the reply by mentioning unrelated matters and quoting irrelevant texts and references. The referenced sanad of the hadith and verification of the narrators from the books of asma al-rijal is still in demand. Second Objection

29

Mawlvi Ghulam Rasul Sa'eedi has posed second objection that we Deobandis say that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was not created first rather pen was created, as he writes: The reply of awwaliyat idhafi (Relative Primacy) (1) Sarfaraz sahib has posed second objection to reject the hadith of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) saying that the Prophet was not the first creation, rather according to Mawdhuat Kabir pen was first created. It is mentioned in Tanqid Matin p 110 that this sahih hadith shows that the pen of destiny was first created, so it is unacceptable to give pen relative primacy instead of giving it real primacy with no reason. (2) Mawlvi sahib has silently admitted that his nur was referred as first created in Mirqat p 149 and Jam'u al-Wasayil, while the same books assert that nur refers to ruh. Mawlvi sahib knew that had he quoted the text of Mirqat the castle of Deoband would crash down, so he ate it up smartly considering it puris of Diwali. The text which he fears to quote is hereunder: "'Allama Ibn Hajar says that the narrations of first creation are different, the summary of which, as I have mentioned in Sharh Shamayil Tirmidhi, is that certainly the first creation was the nur out of which the Prophet was created, then the water and the Throne." Obviously, Mulla Ali al-Qari does not alone regard it real primacy but Ibn Hajar also asserts the same. The author of Azhar and countless ulama have categorically declared the first primacy of nur Muhammadi, as we have already quoted the references. (3) It is written in Azhar that Allah Most High wrote down the quantity of creations fifty thousand years before the birth of the heavens and the earths, while His Throne at that time was spread at water i.e. the Throne was created before the Pen was created and things were written, the Throne was brought into being and it was spread over water. (Sahih Muslim) Sayyidna Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) was asked about the verse: " while His throne was on water" (11:7), that the throne was on water and where the water was? He replied: the water was on air. (alBaihaqi) So, it was known that the pen was created after air, water and throne, and the first thing created was the nur Muhammadi, as we have explained in al-Mawrid li al-Mawlid. (4) Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlawi writes in Madarij al-Nubuwwa (2:2): behold! the first creation and the medium of creating the world and Adam was the nur of Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) as it is mentioned in sahih hadith that Allah Most High first created his nur. (In next lines he mentions that mind was also called to be first created, but the hadith is not proved according to the scholars of hadith, then he mentioned pen and concluded :) So it was known that some things were already created before pen and those were the Throne, Chair and souls, while nur Muhammadi was first of all created. So, we can say that ma kaan means the attributes and conditions of the nur and ma yakun means the matters which will appear later in the world. The author writes: see the words of Mulla Ali Qari, the author of Azhar and the indepth research of Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith and congratulate Mawlvi Sarfaraz

30 for his weak study. In his enmity towards the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) he madly proved that pen was first created while in fact it was created at fourth position. When the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) himself declared that the pen was created after the throne and water and thus it proved that nur had real primacy, so how he dared to contradict the Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) by giving pen the same position. Whether the prophetic statement is insignificant in your unruly madhhab? The door of tawba (repentance) is not still closed, we sincerely advise you to turn to the hereafter and repent to Allah, otherwise the book piles will be sufficient enough to destroy you, and the wealth accumulated out of it will be of no avail. (5) It does not go against us what Sarfaraz Sahib has written that nur means ruh as Mulla Ali Qari has stated. First, because whether it is nur or ruh, the result is the same i.e. he was first created. Secondly, it does not support his view; it would have supported him had there been difference between ruh and nur. Mulla Ali Qari says: as far as both the hadith in which he says that his nur and his ruh was created first, both have similar meaning; since ruhs (souls) are made of nur. (6) Sarfaraz Sahib writes that the researcher commentators of hadith and historians have not mentioned nur when they discussed the first created things and mentioned pen, throne, mind etc. (Tanqid 110) In response, we say that we have previously quoted the texts of Imam Abdur Razzaq, Imam Baihaqi, Imam Ahmad Qustalani, Imam Zurqani, Abdul Qadir alJazayiri, Mulla Ali al-Qari Hanafi, Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith and others. Deliberate the texts and see whether these elder imams mention nur Muhamamdi to be first created or not? It is another matter that those who are occupied by malice towards the Prophet are not able to see nur Muhammadi in the texts. (7) Sarfaraz Sahib writes objecting to the hadith of Sayyidna Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) that its sanad is unknown and Imam Abdur Razzaq was a Shia though not a staunch one. He added that Imam Abdur Razzaq mentioned many a lone traditions specially in fazayil which are not narrated by others. (summarized from Tanqid, p 108) It is not just to turn down the hadith of Imam Abdur Razzaq with mere attribution of Shiaism. Shaykh Abdul Haq says in Muqaddima of Sharh Mishkwat about the narrations of ahl al-bid'a (innovators) that according to preferred opinion, the narration of an innovator is not acceptable if it helps his thought or supports it, and it will be acceptable if it is not so. It is written with the reference of Jami' al-Usul that the imams of hadith have accepted the narrations of Khawarij, Qadaris, Rawafidh and other ahl al-bid'a. Let Imam Abdur Razzaq if he was a Shia, but Baihaqi was not so who has narrated this hadith in Dalayil al-Nubuwwa. Moreover, Imam Abdur Razzaq did not narrate it alone, rather outstanding ulama have stated that nur Muhammadi was first created; we have already quoted their texts. Therefore, Sarfaraz Sahib is wrong to say that he narrated many such traditions which are not supported from any other side. (8) Commenting the traditions of nur Muhammadi to be first created Mawlvi Sarfaraz says why Muslims should give far explanation to the Quranic verses and sahih mutawatir hadiths just for the sake of these false and fake traditions. Allah

31 forbid, why should Muslims deserve divine punishment by rejecting them and make themselves fuel of Jahannam. (Tanqid 114) Let us have a look at the group of Mawlvi Sarfaraz how much of their elite with jubba and turban have become fuel of Jahannam. The leader of Deoband Mawlvi Qasim Nanotawi writes in response to the first mahzur of the ten mahzurs: See, the ruh of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is in fact characterized with original nubuwwa while the ruhs (souls) of the other prophets depend on it; therefore he had to be advanced in time, but the spiritual createdness does not entail physical birth. If you think otherwise you must prove it and disqualify the statements like "my nur was first created". This text of the axis of Deoband establishes the following points: (1) The nur Muhammadi was first created. (2) The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is mawquf alaih (base) for all prophets, may peace be upon them. (3) His prophethood is bi al-zat (self-existent) while that of the other prophets is bi al-'rdh (dependent). The hadith (awwlu ma khalaq Allah nuri) is not only reliable, but the founder of Deoband rejected numerous Quranic verses by arguing with it, as we shall mention it in-shaAllah. Mawlvi Qasim says summarizing the proofs in Tahzir al-Naas, p 39: As far as his being prophet as intermediary and self-existent and the other prophets being as dependent on him and emanated from him, it goes back to the sense of khatimiyat (finality of prophethood) which I have elaborated in detail." Then, the author writes: It is not hidden from the scholars that one who is mawsuf bi al-'arz (characterized with dependent quality), the quality is not attached to him, rather the quality is attached to mawsuf bi al-zat (self existent or characterised with original quality), but the mawsuf bi al-'arz is given the position of mawsuf only due to the attachment of it with mawsuf bi al-zat. For example, movement is not attached with one who is aboard a ship, but he is called moving; since he is attached to ship which is link. So, this entails that the characteristic of nubuwwa is not attached to other prophets and they were called nabi as metaphor just due to their comparison with the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). Mawlvi Qasim by denying the prophethood of the prophets rejected the hundreds of the verses of the Quran. Allah Most High says in the Quran: "We make no division between any of His messengers" (3:285) 'Allama Abu al-Sa'ud said: therefore there should be made no division between the messengers in the sense of risala (messengership), not in other exclusive attributes. The said author says, now you should see the logic of the messenger of Deoband! He made differences between the risala of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and other prophets. He regarded the quality of nubuwwa as original and denied the same for others. This is based on the same claim which he sometimes expresses as mawquf 'alaih and sometime as awwal ma khalaq Allah nuri. How strange it is! Now let me question Sarfaraz Sahib if this hadith is false and fabricated, what will he comment when his ancestor believes it to be correct? Who, by sticking to such a hadith, is rejecting the texts of the Quran and sahih and mutawatir hadiths? And who invented this belief based on a false hadith? As a poet said: "he used to blame me, whereas actually the blame turned to him."

32

Would you allow me to say that Mawlvi Qasim Nanotavi was caught in the cobweb of Satan and misinterpreted the ascertained texts of the Quran and sahih mutawatir hadiths, and Allah forbid he made himself prey of Allah's punishment and made himself fuel of jahannam. Moreover, the fact is that the zilli and buruzi nabi prescribed by Qasim Sahib in Tahzir al-Nas, Mirza (Ghulam Ahmad) the accursed followed him by claiming prophethood and the Deobandis cannot get rid of this argument. If you are not satisfied, see this is Hakim al-Ummat who, according to your statement, has fallen in lower grades of jahannam by narrating false hadith. He mentioned this hadith of Sayyidna Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) and then put a note saying: "This hadith proves that nur Muhammadi was first created in real primacy; since the other things which were called first created, the hadith clearly mentions that those things were created after nur Muhammadi. " (Nashr al-Teeb, p 7) Now, see this hakim washed off all your efforts, you do not consider it real primacy in any way, but the Hakim al-Ummat of Thana Bhawan regards the real primacy as established. Now, either you admit your ignorance and kiss his feet or hurl him in jahannam after calling him ignorant and hollowed. This matter is between you and your elders. We have showed you the midway of reconciliation. (summarized, p 160-170) Answer: The said author, in all his objections, proved himself to be steeped in ignorance in whose whirlpool he kept on divagating throughout the whole book and is finding no way out. He has fulfilled the custom of his elders as well that he overlooking just like pigeon picked up incomplete texts out of original and complete ones and then started wrangling. He gave the texts self expression and thereupon began easing his conscience. Alas to such knowledge and honesty, and woe to such a research! Now, please note the answers in the same order: (1) As we have quoted the hadith of pen being first created with the reference of hadith books along with its sanad and its reliable status, this was the moral and academic obligation of the said author (and still is) to quote the hadith of nur to be first created from any authentic hadith book along with its sanad and its reliable position. But, he failed to do so and he can neither do so in-sha-Allah. So, when the hadith of pen (awwlu ma khalaq Allah al-qalam) is mentioned in hadith books and the muhaddithin have explicitly regarded it sahih, then why it should not be given first primacy rather than the unfounded hadith; since according to your A'la Hadhrat a hadith must be proved to be followed. And you and your group is unable to fulfil this criteria. You must mention the sanad through which this hadith was narrated, so that the discussion comes to an end forever. (2) We have explained in Tanqid Matin p 129, 130, 131 with the reference of Sharh al-Shifa of Mulla Ali al-Qari, Mirqat, Nasim al-Riyaz of al-Khifaji and Nashr al-Teeb p 5 that nur Muhammadi means ruh Muhammadi. And later we said: if this hadith is proved sahih as Shaykh Abdul Haq has claimed in Madarij al-Nubuwwa 1:1 then it is not contradicting with any other hadith in this sense; therefore there is no reason to reject it. Yes, it is entirely wrong and baseless to reject the ascertained and clear Islamic texts and deny the Prophet being bashar and human as some innovators do. (Tanqid Matin 131)

33

Now, tell me how after this explanation the castle of Deoband is under attack by the reference of Mirqat? Can it move any brick or clay or even plaster from its place? Rather the castle of Deoband is strengthened by such references, as the sense given by Mulla Ali Qari in Mirqat is similarly explained by Hadhrat Thanwi in Nashr alTeeb. And the contradiction in our text (as this is obvious from the text of Tanqid Matin) means that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is believed as a nur which entails to reject his humanity that is proved from the Quran and mutawatir Hadiths, this thing is contradicting. But the said author, due to lack of knowledge and because of ignorance considers that the hadith of pen is contradicting the hadith of nur and some scholars interpret one as real first and the second as relatively first. Though to us the hadith of nur is not established with reference to its sanad, as we have already elaborated but if this hadith is proved to alright, then also the word nur will mean ruh as we have explained since this will not contradict any other word of hadith and will entail no harm; because according to this explanation, he as person will be bashar and as quality will be nur. We have explained in Tanqid Matin that undoubtedly Mulla Ali Qari mentions his nur as first created and regards it as preferred, while Hafiz Ibn Hajar quotes difference of opinions but prefers the hadith of pen and regards it sahih, as we have mentioned this discussion in Tanqid Matin quoting from Mawdhu'at Kabir; therefore it is mere shamelessness to state that Hafiz Ibn Hajar and Mulla Ali Qari hold similar views. Hafiz Ibn Hajar rejects the hadith of nur technically to be included in the realm of first created things, not that he supports it, as the said author thinks due to his ignorance. Likewise, the texts of Muslim Ulama and Azhaar declare his nur as first created and many other ulama have mentioned so, but the point of dispute is what is established as first created thing according to sahih hadith? There is no dispute abut the statements and quotes of ulama. May Allah give understanding to the said author! (3) The hadith mentioned in the book Azhaar with the reference of Sahih Muslim is: "Allah wrote the destiny of the creature fifty thousand years before the heavens and the earth were created, while His Throne was resting on water." (Sahih Muslim 2:335) This sahih and marfu' hadith implies that the destiny of creatures was written fifty thousand years before the birth of heavens and earths, it no where mentions pen, maybe the pen of destiny was created long before it, but wrote it fifty thousand years before the creation of heavens and earth, as the material of earth was created before the birth of heavens and earth was spread later on. However, the hadith of Sahih Muslim does not convey any sense about pen with surety. But, it indirectly indicates that the throne and water were created before the heavens and earth, as Imam Nawawi al-Shafi'i (d. 676 AH) writes: "[while His throne was at water] i.e. before the creation of heavens and earth. And Allah knows best. (Sharh Muslim 2:335) This conclusion of the author of Azhaar i.e. the throne was created before the birth of pen and writing and the throne was spread over water as Muslim narrated, is his personal and homemade theory which is narrated by some other scholars as well even some called it "al-asah" (most reliable) while some quoted the unanimity of

34 entire Muslim scholars about the same, but the hadith of Muslim makes no mention of it. Similarly, the mawquf hadith of Sayyidna Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) proves only this extent that the water was resting on the back of air; neither this negates that pen was first created nor that it was created after the birth of the things mentioned above, as this is obvious and not hidden from any sane person. Likewise, the statement of the author in bracket (it proves that the pen was created after the air, water and throne) is wrong conclusion of him and his predecessors. This hadith does not support it. The claim made finally by the author of Azhaar "first created thing was nur Muhammadi as I have mentioned it in al-Mawrid li alMawlid is sheer hollowed claim. We require proof from a hadith which is sahih and has its sanad and which is regarded as reliable by muhaddithin that the nur Muhammadi was first created. But this is not established by the fallible statement of the author of Azhaar and never can it be. But, it is regretful that the said author and his co-maslak ulama have no sense to understand and they neither believe that claim and argument should conform to each other. There is no doubt that Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlawi while mentioning the first created things has claimed that the hadith of nur Muhammadi is sahih. But, the point of dispute between us and the ahl al-bid'a (innovators) is the hadith of nur i.e. in which hadith book it is mentioned, what is its sand and what is the status of it? A baseless narration cannot be regarded sahih only because Shaykh Abdul Haq (may Allah have mercy on him) called it so. In order to prove a hadith it is necessary to produce sanad. His next conclusions are based on the false notion that the said hadith is sahih, whereas in principle authenticity of the hadith is in no way is established. He regarded the hadith of mind being first created as dhayif with the reference of muhaqqiqin but he quoted the hadith of pen being first created and commented it with the following words: "the hadith of pen being first created is also narrated, but it means that it was created after the throne and water as it is narrated that while His throne was on water." (Madarij al-Nubuwwa 2:2) This should always be noted that no statement can be called research-oriented in comparison to a sahih hadith. When the hadith of pen being first created is sahih, then why only Sarfaraz rather every Muslim should wholeheartedly believe it out of love towards the Prophet and other statements compared to it shall be given a proper and fitting explanation, and if no explanation is possible they should be rejected; since iman demands the same. Had my humble study not been deep and extensive, I would have stick to the baseless hadith blindly and would have no access to sahih hadith. But with the exclusive grace of Allah, I had access to it, and this is the grace of Allah which He gives to whom He likes! As for the comment of the said author by neglecting the facts and riding the horse of jahl murakkab (double ignorance) "when the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) himself said that the pen was created after the throne and water, then how he (Sarfaraz) dared reject it", this is an exposition of his inner impurity and pure fabrication and accusation; since it is never narrated from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) clearly that pen was created after the throne and water. This is personal conclusion of some scholars. Can there be a Muslim who,

35 Allah forbid, dares reject the established statement of the Prophet? Can he remain Muslim by doing so? Never! Are we not, in the words of the said author, right to say that he, Allah forbid, rejects the sahih hadith of pen out of malice towards the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). How did he gather this courage? Has his unruly maslak taught him to behave in this way? Or he is bent to reject the sahih hadith of the infallible Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) in view of the fallible statements and opinions. Allah forbid! He should repent to Allah, the door of tauba is still open, otherwise the tasty dishes of soyem, chehlum and urs and the sweets of gyarahwin sharif will not deliver him from divine punishment. He then would have to regret, but regretting will be of no avail when the due time will pass by. I gained no worldly benefit or return from my books and neither I intended the same as the said author had wrongly assumed. But with Allah's grace, thousands of Muslims repented from shirk and bid'a due to my referenced and reliable books. (5) The central point of our stand is that it is wrong to believe in the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) as nur in a way that entails to negate his humanity. It amounts to reject the Quran and mutawatir Hadiths which in itself is kufr. (May Allah forbid!) If the hadith of nur being first created is proved sahih and nur implies for ruh, it is alright as this does not contradict the Quran and Hadith. We have elaborated it in Tanqid Matin which the said author drank up considering Sandal Sherbet. The theme of our claim is not that the first created is pen or nur Muhammadi. Any of the two will prove real first, the second will automatically turn relative. But, according to our knowledge, the hadith of pen is sahih and established; therefore it is not good to abandon it for the sake of fallible statements and opinions. As far as the statement of Mulla Ali Qari (may Allah have mercy on him) is concerned that ruhs (souls) are made of nur, it is alright; since ruh is defined by some scholars as soft substance diffused in the body, while in other words this soft substance is called light-made. But, this gives no advantage to the said author and neither it harms us, as it is not hidden. (6) Imam Abdur Razzaq and Imam Baihaqi are neither commentators of Hadith nor they discussed the dispute of first created things. They, according to your 'Ala Hadhrat, only quoted the hadith of nur whose credibility is disputed. Imam Qustalani and 'Allama Zurqani no doubt quote the hadith of nur and seemingly give it preference. But these two scholars are sirat writers (biographists) and the books of sirat contain every kind of hadith reliable and unreliable with no distinction and research. So, your 'Ala Hadhrat himself writes at a place about Ma'arij al-Nubuwwa: "The book contains every kind of narration; reliable and unreliable." (Ahkam Shariat 2:182) Therefore, we have bracketed it with researcher commentators of hadith and historians. Nevertheless, these scholars not only mention the primacy of nur, rather they do not overlook the secondary primacy as well, as they write: "al-Suddi narrated with numerous chains that Allah Most High did not create any thing from the creature before water. So, this hadith and the hadith of Sayyidna Jabir and Abu Razin can thus be explained that the primacy of creating pen is apart from the creation of nur Muhammadi, water and throne. While some explain that primacy of all the things mentioned above is in comparison to their category i.e. the

36 first thing among nurs (lights) which Allah created was my nur. In the same way, among the things which write, the pen was first created which wrote the destinies. While the thing which can be called 'arsh (throne) was the Throne of Allah, since 'arsh has several meaning as it is mentioned in al-Qamus. (al-Mawahib & its Commentary by al-Zurqani 1:48) This explains that Imam Ahmad Qustalani who is author and Imam Abdul Baqi who is commentator have equally described the secondary primacy and applied it practically. While, Mulla Ali Qari is one of the commentators of Hadith and a researcher too, we have made a reference to him in Tanqid Matin, p 129. Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jazayiri is a saint of sufi nature, he is not one amongst the researcher commentators of Hadith. We ourselves have referenced Shaykh Abdul Haq Dehlawi in Tanqid on page 131 that he considers the hadith as sahih. There are not only these two personalities who are commentators of hadith, rather there are numerous commentary of hadith books whose authors are researcher as well, but they do not make any mention of it. However, our words and the words of researcher commentators of hadith and historians are very clear and the said author could not present a single reference except what we have already presented. But, if Satan the accursed made someone blind with stubbornness and prejudice and he is unable to see these words, then what can we do: If an owl is unable to see in daylight, how can the disk of the sun be blamed for the same? (as says a Persian couplet) (7) A sanad is necessary in order to establish a hadith, Imam Abdullah bin Mubarak (may Allah have mercy upon him) said: "sanad is a part of religion, had there not been sanad, everyone will say what he will like." Therefore, a hadith has no value until its sanad and the credibility of its narrators is known. It is alright that a narration is not rejected merely due to tashayyu' (being Shia) and bid'a (innovation) but the narration of innovators is unacceptable which invites to practice bid'a. (Sharh Nukhbat al-Fikr 72, Tadrib al-Rawi 217, etc). The narration of an innovator who invites to bid'a is more doubtful when he singularly narrates it. Imam Abdur Razzaq is singular in this hadith. Imam Baihaqi followed him much after. So, the singularity of Imam Abdur Razzaq is not made up by the narration of Imam Baihaqi. Until there is no reliable narrator with Imam Baihaqi instead of Imam Abdur Razzaq and the hadith also has the same words which Imam Abdur Razzaq narrated, the hadith will remain munfarid singularly narrated). Likewise, its tafarrud (singularity) will not be removed if the hadith is quoted by ulama in their books, as this is clear to those who are familiar with the books of principles of hadith. The tafarrud (singularity) of a narrator will be removed only when he finds any mutabi' (supporting narrator), otherwise the tafarrud will remain as it is. Imam Ibn Khaldun (d. 808) says that Abdur Razzaq bin Humam was a famous Shia. He turned blind in his last days and used to mix the reliable and unreliable traditions. Imam 'Adi states that he narrated such hadiths in virtues (chapter) which are not supported by anyone. Also, he is attributed to tashayyu'. (Muqaddima 320, Egypt) Moreover, we have written in Tanqid Matin p 131 with the reference of well-known Shiite book Usul al-Kafi that the belief of nut about the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and Sayyidna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was introduced by the Shias. Therefore, when a Shia narrator narrated a hadith which supports his

37 belief while he narrates it singularly, then how much credible and reliable it could be? The same sense was conveyed by your 'Ala Hadhrat: (Urdu couplet) Every offspring of your pristine lineage is made of nur You are wholly nur, and your entire household is made of nur (Hadayiq Bakhshish 2:40) (8) I wish had the said author quoted the hadiths recorded in Tanqid Matin on pages 132 and 133 along with the reference which said that these hadiths are false and fake and they were narrated by liar narrators; so that the common Muslims knew which hadiths were cited as fake and false by Tanqid and what is the proof of them being false? But, the said author, following the footsteps of his elders, resorted to lying and fabrication and misguided people by devising vague phrase 2. What a regretful fabrication and lie! The readers are advised to study Tanqid Matin so that the truth is exposed. See the ignorance and thick-wittedness of the said author that we have written in Tanqid Matin p 131: if this hadith is established that nur Muhammadi is the same as the ruh Muhammadi, as Shaykh Abdul Haq (may Allah have mercy upon him) has claimed in Madarij 1:1, then it has no contradiction with any clear statement of the Quran and Hadith; therefore there is no wrong to accept it. Yes, rejecting the clearcut Quranic statements and denying his being bashar and human being, as some innovators do, is absolutely wrong and baseless. You should observe this clear statement and compare it with the objection of the said author to me after quoting the irrelevant text of Hadhrat Nanotawi, how interconnected they are? Where Hadhrat Nanotawi rejected his humanity and where he abandoned the clear statements of the Quran by rejecting his humanity? He admitted nur Muhammadi to be first created and held that the prophethood of other prophets (may Allah be pleased with them) depends on him, and he takes nur in the sense of ruh. So, in the text of Munazara Ajiba p 4, some part of which was mentioned by the said author, he equalizes the ruh Muhammadi and the nur Muhammadi. And we have also clarified that there is no wrong in giving nur the sense of ruh as it did not entail negating his humanity and neither the ascertained Islamic sources. By Allah's grace, neither the top most leader of Deoband has denied the ascertained Islamic sources nor he became the fuel of Jahannam. Yes, your sadr al-afazil must have become so by denying the ascertained Islamic sources in his words: "Those who call the prophets bashar were called kafir at numerous places in the Quran, and in fact such a word about the prophets is away from respect and is a custom of the infidels. By mentioning Hadhrat Nanotawi, you have vainly tried to relax your disordered mind. The said author extracted four points from the text of Hadhrat Nanotawi (may Allah have mercy on him), none of the same contradicts any evidence from the Quran and Hadith. Rather, Allah forbid, ascertained Islamic sources are negated by saying that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was not bashar and human being. The text of Hadhrat Nanotawi does not negate the ascertained Islamic sources in the least degree. We have already elaborated that admitting nur Muhammadi (in the
2

" Commenting the traditions of nur Muhammadi to be first created Molvi Sarfaraz says why Muslims should give far explanation to the Quranic verses and sahih mutawatir hadiths just for the sake of these false and fake traditions. Allah forbid, why should Muslims deserve divine punishment by rejecting them and make themselves fuel of Jahannam." (Tanqid)

38 sense of ruh Muhammadi) does not amount to rejecting the ascertained Islamic sources, rather it is so by denying his being bashar. This is sheer ignorance and stupidity of the said author that he thinks admitting the hadith of nur is tantamount to negating nusus (the ascertained Islamic sources), whereas the sense of ruh is proved in his own texts. The Discussion of Wasta fi al-urudh (intermediary) The said author has quoted a short text of Tahzir al-Nas p 33, but he could understand what Hadhrat Nanotawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said, rather due to ignorance and bias he regarded him rejecter of the prophethood of other prophets (may peace be upon them) except that of Sayyidna Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) and thus he deflated his heavy heart. Therefore, it seems proper to discuss this matter in detail. Hadhrat Nanotawi (may Allah have mercy on him) states that all the prophets (may peace be upon them) are true messengers from Allah, but no prophet is of the rank which he possesses. His prophethood is independent and self-existent, while that of the other prophets (may peace be upon them) is secondary and dependent on his. He is intermediary for the prophethood of other prophets (may peace be upon them). We present some extracts from his book verbatim, please follow it carefully: (1) I believe in the prophethood of other prophets, but I believe there is none equal to him. (Munazara Ajiba p 50). (2) He is characterized with independent and self-existent prophethood, while other prophets possess dependent prophethood; their prophethood was emanated from him but his was not emanated from anyone. The chain of prophethood comes to an end at him. (Tahzir al-Nas 4) (3) Mawsuf bi al-'ardh (subservient) comes to an end upon mawsuf bi al-zat (independent). As the attribute of mawsuf bi al-'ardh is derived from mawsuf bi al-zat, the attribute of mawsuf bi al-'zat which is independent and self existent is not derived from anything else. For example, if the light of earth, mountains and walls is emanated from the sun, the light of sun is not emanated from anyone (from creature). By personal quality, we meant this much only. However, if this is not characteristic to sun, so name anyone and he will become mawsuf bi al-zat and his light will be self-existent not derived and emanated from anyone else. (Tahzir al-Nas 4) (4) But obviously, most perfect will be the intermediary who will be mawsuf bi al-zat for his dependents; though he is also dependent in comparison to someone else, as mirror while reflecting light on walls is intermediary and self-existent compared to the walls, while it is dependent if compared to the sun. (Tahzir al-Nas p 15) (5) The existence of the world is not independent rather dependent. And here the self existent substance, which is necessary for every dependent, is the existence which was derived from the His Self, therefore it is called lazim zat (associated with Allah). It is called sadir awwal, wujud munbasit and nafs rahmani by the researcher sufiya. None calls this existence as 'ain zat (Allah). (Munazarah Ajiba p 7)

39 (6) However, the mawsuf bi al-zat is superior to all mawsuf bi al-'ardh whether they exist or will exist, and none possesses comprehensive and absolute superiority not shared by others. (Munazarah Ajiba p 11) (7) The prophethood of the prophets (may peace be upon them) is the reflection of his prophethood. The chain comes to an end at his prophethood and thus his religion is the abolisher of all other religions as the light of sun overcomes the other lights. (Tasfiyat al-Aqayid, p 30) (8) It must have been clear to everyone that the real source of existence is none but the Absolute Existent i.e. Allah. Who does not know about his own existence that it is dependent, not self-existent? Otherwise we have been eternal and we would have been free from the defect of mortality and dependence. And when the existence is 'arzi (dependent), all the attributes of existence would completely be 'arzi. With this discussion, the condition of the connection of world with its creator also was somehow established. And this was also proved that if someone else is called source, it is in the sense that he receives the intermediary attribute from the creator first and the others receive the same through him. But, after all a part of the attribute just like the real intermediary is common in both. (Aab-e-Hayat, p 44) (9) If you see the commentary of the verse "the Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves." [33:6] you will find it bearing witness like the midday sun that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) is the origin of the souls of the believers. And the contact and relation between the ruh of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the souls of the believers is the source which is found in intiza' (derivation) and since it is established with the facts mentioned in the previous extracts that that intiza' (derivation) can take place only between two things. So, the word intiza' itself bears witness that the ruh of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is intermediary for others; since the origin of intiza' is mawsuf bi al-zat and the same can serve as intermediary. But, to find out the mawsuf bi al-zat is no easy laymen, the middleclass minded sometimes mistake mawsuf bi al-zat as mawsuf bi al-'ardh and vice versa. It happens mostly in intiza' related to fawqiat and tahtiat (up and down). (Aab-e-Hayat, p 128) (10) So, the quality of being intermediary or source is available perfectly in Allah alone, as we have elaborated it already. For this reason, He should be considered the Real Malik (Master). In the second grade, you can take the malikiyat (mastership) of Sayyidna Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace); since he, according to all researcher scholars, is the source of all emanations and origin of the entire world. So, it indicates that the status of wasila (intermediation) for him is quite rational and an indication is sufficient for wise. This strengthens the doubt that the hadith "had you not been created I would have not created the universe" is reliable as its content seems alright. (Aab-e-Hayat, p 186) Thus, they are ten in all. These texts and extracts of Hadhrat Nanotawi clearly state that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is the source of emanation and intermediary for the prophets (may peace be upon them) and souls of the believers, rather for the entire

40 world. This was quoted by the said author with the reference of Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlawi (may Allah have mercy on him), which is as follows: "Behold, the first creature and the source of creation of the universe, the world and Sayyidna Adam is the nur of Sayyidna Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace). As it is mentioned in sahih hadith that the first thing Allah created was my nur. All the existence in the heaven and earth was created by the emanation of the pristine substance" (i.e. with the emanation of nur, not that they were made of nur as some ignorant believe. (Safdar) Madarij al-Nubuwwa 2:2 and Tawdhih al-Bayan, p 162 In short, Hadhrat Mawlana Muhammad Qasim Nanotawi (may Allah have mercy on him) by calling the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) intermediary did neither oppose any ascertained Islamic text nor any established statement of the pious salaf. Likewise, he is alright in regarding the personality of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) as mawquf 'alaih (base) for other prophets (may Allah have mercy on them) and calling his prophethood self-existent and the prophethood of other prophets as dependent in the sense which was described with the references of his books. Similarly, none of our statements are in contradiction with any text from Hadhrat Nanotawi's books, as this is not hidden from any just and wise person in view of our statements. But as far as the stubborn and prejudiced person is concerned, there is no medicine to cure his disease. Denial of the Prophethood of other Prophets, Allah Forbid! The said author, due to ignorance of a clear term of logic and following the footsteps of his elders, hurled this baseless point that when the prophethood of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is self-existent and that of other prophets is dependent, while he is intermediary for their prophethood, then it may be called that the other prophets have no prophethood, as one onboard a ship is not in fact in movement, rather it is the ship which is moving, so it can be said that the person onboard has no movement. In this way, the prophethood of the other prophets will be negated, whereas rejecting their prophethood is kufr and it leads to reject hundreds of verses from the Holy Quran. All these are based on calling him mawquf 'alaih and intermediary. (summary of Tawdhih al-Bayan, p 168-169) In reply, we beg to say that the said author himself is obsessed. In intermediary, the attribute is negated as per bi al-zat (per se) not as per bi al-'ardh. The movement for one onboard a ship is not negated, rather the movement bi al-zat is negated, while the onboard person is in movement bi al-'ardh, this movement is not negated. Therefore, negating the bi al-'ardh prophethood of other prophets is never acceptable. Yes, the bi al-zat prophethood can be negated, but this sort of prophethood is not established for them, and thus negating will not entail prohibition. Their prophethood is derived and emanated from his prophethood. However, this objection of the said author is not the production of his unaware mind, rather this was posed by Mawlana Abdul Aziz Amrohwi which is mentioned under the third mahzur of the Jawabat Mahzurat 'Ashra entitled Munazara Ajiba. So, a part of the objection is that though wasf (quality) is attributed to the dependent metaphorically but in reality it is withdrawn. Thus, it is imperative that the prophets attributed with bi al-'ardh are void of prophethood just like the mumkinat which are stripped of existence and prophethood was in fact withdrawn from them. (Munazara Ajiba, p 9)

41

Replying this question and doubt, Hadhrat Mawlana Nanotawi (may Allah have mercy on him) stated: the summary of first objection is that it entails withdrawing of independent prophethood from the other prophets. The reply is this much that it depends on the condition that other prophets possess prophethood bi al-zat (independently). If you had to object you should have proved the claim (the prophethood of the other prophets - may peace be upon them - is bi al-zat, without his medium and source. (Safdar) So, this claim was neither established nor it could be in future. Allah willing! (Munazara Ajiba, 9 11) Now, the said author and his self-nominated capable and researcher teacher should prove this claim that the prophethood of other prophets is bi al-zat with no emanation from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and no intermediation. If this is established, his objection is acceptable, otherwise it is rejected. And, Allah willing, he can never establish it. As far as he verse "we make no division between any of His messengers" and the commentary of Abu al-Sau'd is concerned, it does not go against Hadhrat Mawlana Nanotawi; since he, in the light of the verse and its commentary, makes no division in the prophethood of prophets from Sayyidna Adam (may peace be upon him) to Sayyidna Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) with regard to prophethood itself. He believes in all as prophets, but he observes the difference of some special attributes. e.g. the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) possesses the quality of prophethood bi al-zat while the other prophets possess the quality bi al-'ardh, as it is mentioned in the tafsir of 'Allama Abu al-Sa'ud. Therefore, it is far away from an aalim to falsify common Muslims by quoting the verse (2:285) and the tafsir of 'Allama Abu al-Sa'ud as the said author did. But, the ahl al-bid'a (innovators) have nothing to mind, they only require a point or doubt to get their people hate the scholars of Deoband, may Allah increase them in number: (Urdu couplet) His play of love with people is not new He is used to such play since childhood In short, neither Hadhrat Mawlana Nanotawi got caught into the satanic whirl nor he misinterpreted any Quranic verse and mutawatir hadith. This high post is assigned to your Sadr al-Afadhil who by denying the humanity of the Prophet and rejected hundreds of ascertained Islamic sources from the Quran, mutawatir Hadith and Ijma of Umma and thus became the fuel of Jahannam. May Allah protect each Muslim from the fire of Jahannam! As far as the doubt of the said author is concerned that Mawlana Nanotawi motivated Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to claim prophethood by showing him the path of zilli and buruzi prophet in Tahzir al-Nas and the Deobandi Ummat did not get rid of this Qadiyani argumentation till this day, this is his sheer ignorance and unknowingness. Let aside what the Ulama have written on the topic, I also have discussed it in Bani Darul Uloom Deoband and 'Ibarat-e-Akabir (part one) as much was necessary. If the questions raised therein are given reasonable answers by the opponents, I will reply them if I was alive, Allah willing. Otherwise, someone else would stand, as the anecdote says: there is Musa for every Pharaoh: (Urdu couplet)

42

Whom you considered your lover and whom you called faithful I am the same wretched Mumin (poet), whether you remember or not Third Objection Mawlvi Ghulam Rasul Sa'eedi writes objecting that Mawlvi Ashraf Ali Thanwi quoted this hadith of Sayyidna Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) and put a note thereon saying: "This hadith proves that nur Muhammadi was first created in real primacy; since the other things which were called first created, the hadith clearly mentions that those things were created after nur Muhammadi. " (Nashr al-Teeb, p 7) Hadhrat Thanwi & the Hadith of Nur The said author here also fell prey of jahl murakkan (double ignorance) and out of sheer unawareness uttered nonsense. The reference to Hadhrat Thanwi is of no avail to him; since we have discussed in principle about the hadith of Sayyidna Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) and quoted citations regarding its credibility as its sanad is unknown and its apparent meaning is against sahih hadiths. We did not regard it absolutely fake and false as the said author projects it out of falsification. Hadhrat Mulla Ali al-Qari (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: "if a hadith is not sahih, it does not necessary imply that it is fabricated." (Mawdhu'at Kabir, p 116) Mawlana Abdul Hayi (may Allah have mercy on him) states: a hadith which is not proved sahih does not necessarily mean that it is false." (Al-Athar al-Marfu'a, Mawlana Abdul Hayi, p 33) Secondly, after discussing the hadith of Sayyidna Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), he added a note that various wordings about him being nur are narrated. Later, he quoted some references to the hadiths and established with proof that these are false and fabricated. The said author drank up all these discussions considering it mother's milk. Thirdly, in spite of all discussions from academic and principle point of view, we wrote that if nur means ruh, then it does not contradict any ascertained Islamic source; therefore there is no wrong to have this meaning acceptable. And we referenced to Hadhrat Thanwi that he accepted this meaning and we accepted nur in this sense to be real first; since it does not go against any ascertained Islamic source. In spite of this explanation of ours, it is big lie and sheer accusation by the said author about us that we do not believe it as real first. By the grace of Allah, when the point raised by me and Hadhrat Thanwi is same and is pure academic, then what is the question of ignorance? Hadhrat Thanwi is a mountain of knowledge and cognizance, while I am one of his humble followers and students. When there is no contradiction and contention in our words, then who are you to reconcile and intermediate between us? Hadhrat Shah Abdul Aziz (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: "the person who was first created in the world of souls was he (Allah bless him and give him peace)."

43 Fourthly, we have mentioned that if he is considered nur in a sense that negates him being bashar and human being, it entails to reject the ascertained texts of the Quran and Hadith. Hadhrat Thanwi, in his numerous books, established that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is human being and bashar. Here we quote only from Nashr al-Teeb where he writes: "The fourth reason: since he in being bashar, material, elemental is just like other people and in many external matters like wealth etc he is even not equal to them" (Nashr al-Teeb, p 248, Barqi Press, Delhi) i.e. Hadhrath Thanwi did not deny his being bashar, Allah forbid. But, he quotes the hadith through an unknown sanad and gives it a meaning which was given by scholars like 'Allama Khifaji and Mulla Ali al-Qari and which is in complete harmony with the ascertained texts of the Quran and Hadith. By Allah's grace, they are inheritors of paradise, you should fear about yourself and your Sadr al-Afazil for whom you make nonsense explanations out of stubbornness and prejudice along with fabricating lie against your opponents. You are unable to understand the texts of scholars and portray yourself as embodiment of ignorance, but you are getting acclamations and appreciations from your group and winning the titles of muhaqqiq and mudaqqiq. Alas! Hadhrat Nanotawi, Hadhrat Thanwi and other elders (may Allah have mercy on them) were as if meant by 'Allama Iqbal in this couplet: These mujahid, these charismatic slaves of yours Whom you have given the divine taste The deserts and rivers are apart from their kick The mountains turn mustard out of their fear Proof No. 3: It is written in Jawahir al-Bihar 2:226: "It is narrated in the hadith of Sayyida Ayisha (may Allah be pleased with her) that she was with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) on his bed in a dark night, a needle fell on ground from her hand, so she uncovered the face of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and found it out in the light of his forehead." After narrating this hadith, Mawlvi Ghulam Rasul Sa'eedi has given references of Mulla Ali al-Qari, Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlawi, Hakim al-Umma Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (may Allah have mercy on them). Hereunder we summarize the same: Mulla Ali Qari says: "Some researchers stated that the Prophet Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) was perfectly handsome. It is established by hadiths that his light shone over walls and the walls used to reflect his luminous face like mirror. Allah Most High kept his handsomeness from the Companions; since had it been completely displayed they would not have been able to bear it. (Jam' al-Wasayil, 2:7) Shah Waliullah narrating from Shah Abdur Rahim writes: Shah Abdur Rahim said that once he was honoured with the visit of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) [in dream], he asked him: the Egyptian women cut off their fingers while seeing Sayyidna Yusuf (may peace be upon him), but no one chopped off his finger after seeing you? The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) replied: Allah Most High kept my handsomeness covered out of ghyra (sense of honour)." (Ansaf al-'Arifin, p 39)

44 Also, Mulla Ali al-Qari says: "However, the nur of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is very much apparent east and west (all over), his nur was first created. Allah Most High, in His Book, called him nur. (Mawdhu'at Kabir, 86) Hakim al-Ummah Malwana Ashraf Ali Thanwi said explaining the verse "We have sent down to you a vivid light" (4:174): it may mean the Messenger. So, it is mentioned at another place: "Allah sent down to you a reminder, a messenger" (65:11) here reminder means messenger. This also will not affect the preferred tafsir. (al-Nur, p 32) Mulla Ali al-Qari says at another place: "The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is more beautiful than the moon; since his nur is apparent in physical and external world. He combines all types of visible and invisible perfections. Rather, every thing was created out of his nur. Likewise, in the verse "Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth, the example of His light is that of a niche" (24:35), 'His light' was interpreted as 'the nur of Muhammad', so his nur is permanent which is not detached any time. While the light of the moon is borrowed; sometimes it decreases and sometimes it is snatched due to eclipse. Also, it is overshadowed in daylight. Sa'eedi (Tawdhih al-Bayan, 170, 172) Answer: The effort made by the said author is in vain. First, because the hadith of Sayyida Ayisha (may Allah be pleased with her) about needle is fake and fabricated. Hadhrat Mawlana Abdul Hayi Lucknowi writes in his book al-Athar al-Marfu'a fi alAkhbar al-Mawdhu'a about fabricated hadiths (p 167): "One of them is what the storytellers mention while mentioning the prettiness of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) that one night a needle fell from Sayyida Ayisha (may Allah be pleased with her). She searched it and did not find until the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) smiled and the light of his teeth radiated and the room was lighted. Thus, Sayyida Ayisha (may Allah be pleased with her) was able to find out her needle in the light. Though, this hadith is mentioned in Ma'arij al-Nubuwwa and other books of sirah which include reliable and unreliable hadiths, so all the hadith cannot be accepted but by a snoozer or a drowsy. But, this hadith is established neither as per narration nor as per meaning. (al-Athar al-Marfu'a fi al-Akhbar alMawdhu'a, p 275) How can such a false and fake tradition be useful for the said author which is neither established as per the meaning nor narration. Malwana Sayyid Sulaiman Nadwi (may Allah have mercy on him) states that the hadith is absolutely false. (Sirat al-Nabi 2:166) Secondly, this hadith is in opposition to the sahih hadith of Bukhari and Muslim where Sayyida Ayisha (may Allah be pleased with her) states: "I used to sleep in front of Allah's Apostle with my legs opposite to his Qibla (facing him); and whenever he prostrated, he pushed my feet and I withdrew them and whenever he stood I stretched them." 'Aisha added, "In those days there were no lamps in the houses." (Sahih Bukhari 1:56, Sahih Muslim 1:198) Imam Nawawi writes explaining the word 'masabih' i.e. lamps: She wants to put excuse that had there been lamps she could have withdrawn her legs and she did not bother him to press his legs. (Sharh Muslim 1:198)

45 'Allama al-'Aini al-Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him) quotes: "Had there been lamps, I would have withdrawn my legs when he would prostrate for sajdah and he would not need to press them." ('Umdat al-Qari 4:114) This evident hadith of Sayyida Ayisha, the mother of believers (may Allah be pleased with her) is a bright proof that the rooms used to be dark in his presence as well. And when he used to perform salah at night in darkness, he would press his hand against her legs so that she withdrew them and finds room for sajdah. According to Imam Nawawi and 'Allama 'Aini, this occurred due to absence of lamps in the houses and due to darkness he had to bother to press her legs; otherwise Sayyida Ayisha Siddiqa would have not caused him this botheration. Had there been the light of his nur, she would have withdrawn her legs. Moreover, it is not hidden from any scholar that his house sometimes had lamps. Had there been light of his nur, there would have been no need to light the lamp. (iii) The argument presented by the said author from Jam' al-Wasayil of Mulla Ali alQari (may Allah have mercy on him) is wrong; since Mulla Ali al-Qari mentioned it saying 'ala ma ruviya' i.e. "it was narrated", but who narrated it, how reliable is it, it is unknown. So what is the use of referencing to such a sanad-less and baseless hadith? You can see the daring and fabrication of the said author, he translates 'ala ma ruviya' as "it is established by hadiths" (la Hawl wa la quwwat illa bi Allah!) It is fact that the false beliefs and innovations could not be proved but by fabrication and falsification. This should also be noted that Mulla Ali al-Qari (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in Mirqat first: "Ibn Hajar says that the hadiths differ in what was first created. The summary is what I have mentioned in Sharh Shamayil al-Tirmidhi that first it was the nur from which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was created, then the water and the throne. (Mirqat 1:146) It established two things: first, he very confidently describes nur Muhammadi as first created. Secondly, he authored Jam' al-Wasayil Sharh Shamayil al-Tirmidhi before Mirqat which he references in this book. Later, he writes in Mirqat: "Then I saw in al-Dur al-Manthur a narration from Sayyidna Abdullah Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that the first thing Allah created was pen, then He ordered it to write. It asked what to write, O my Lord? He said: write the destiny from this day till what will happen in future up to qiyama. Then, He wrapped the registers and closed the pen. (Narrated by al-Baihaqi etc) It was also narrated by Hakim and he regarded it as sahih. It is narrated in al-Dur al-Manthur by Sayyidna Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him), he said I heard the Messenger of Allah saying: "The first thing Allah created was pen, then inkpot. It is also narrated that it was mind which was first created. Also, it was narrated that nur was created first of all or it was ruh that was first created. And the throne was first created. So, primacy is relative and it is per attribution. So, it will be interpreted that every thing mentioned in the hadith is attributed to its type, so pen was created before the things which write, his nur was created before all nurs (lights), otherwise it was established that the throne was created before the birth of the heavens and the earth, so the primacy will be bracketed with the condition. So, it will be interpreted in the way mentioned above. Likewise, the two hadiths i.e. the first thing Allah created is my nur and the other hadith my ruh (soul); carry same meaning, as the souls are nuri (luminous), so it meant that the first thing Allah created amongst the souls is my ruh. (Mirqat 1:167)

46 This text makes it amply clear that Mulla Ali al-Qari previously did not have the hadith of Sayyidna Ibn Abbas and Sayyidna Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with them) which say that the pen was first created. Having learned this hadith and the other hadiths of first creation, he was compelled to mean the relative primacy. Had nur been the first creation in his research, he would have stuck to his first research and he did not resort to the interpretation of relative primacy. His words "then I saw in al-Dur al-Manthur" clearly suggest that previously he was unaware of the detail; otherwise he would have already regarded the primacy as relative. (iv) How does the text of Anfas al-'Arifin supports the said author, which Muslim is denying his handsomeness and bodily perfection? But, how this handsomeness proves the light that helped to find out the needle in the darkness or that lighted the walls? Rather this narration itself goes against it; since it asserts that his handsomeness was kept under cover and it is obvious that visible nur is not hidden from the eyes of people, it can be seen by any layman. (v) The nur mentioned in Mawdhu'at Kabir is not to be meant visible, rather invisible which can be described as nur of prophethood, nur of risala (messengership) or nur of guidance and which had spread from east to west and north to south. The words "east and west" in his text clearly indicate to the same, this never refers to visible nur which is seen by everyone; since this text is preceded by these words: "but this nur is not visible". Had it been visible nur it would have been apparent and it would have not been hidden. Since these words completely go against the said author, as it is obvious, therefore he ate it up. He only quoted a part of the text and left the other part that was sufficient to unveil his deception. (vi) According to Hadhrat Thanwi (may Allah have mercy upon him), the word 'nur mubin' (vivid light 4:174) was preferably explained as the Noble Quran, as his text asserts. As, he writes the translation and commentary of the verse 4:174 in Bayan alQuran: "[We have sent down to you a clear light] which is the Noble Quran, so every thing told by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the Quran is true." Explaining the words 'nur' and 'kitab mubin' he writes in the Arabic notes: "It indicates that the word kitab is for more elaboration, the duo are different as per the attribute and are uniform as per the person; therefore bringing the later pronoun (bihi) singular was better and with this explanation, the attribution of 'hidaya' (guidance) to Allah is better that He made kitab and nur cause [of guidance]. Likewise, attribution of 'tabi'in' (explaining) in the previous verse to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) is better. But, if the nur is interpreted as 'Messenger', this beauty will not be felt. This tafsir is supported by the verse: "We sent down to you a vivid light" i.e. kitab (Book). (1:51, footnote 4, Mujtabayi Delhi) This shows that Hadhrat Thanwi also firmly explains 'nur mubin' with the Book which was revealed by Allah. Yes, just for possibility, he quotes the tafsir that nur can mean the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), but he very clearly admits that he was bashar and human being, as it was mentioned. So, calling him nur after beleiving in him as bashar means that he is nur of guidance and Allah Most High has illuminated the world with the light of tawhid and iman by giving him the light of prophethood. And thus this statement of Allah is fulfilled: "But Allah is to perfect His light, even though the disbelievers dislike it" (61:8)

47 (vii) The nur mentioned in Jam' al-Wasayil by Hadhrat Mulla Ali al-Qari is intangible nur not tangible which the said author purports; since the emanation of nur which reaches to internal and external worlds is intangible which is nur of prophethood and guidance. The sentence also strengthens it that he combines all physical and spiritual perfections. Likewise, there is no doubt that the nur mentioned in ' mathal nurihi' is the same nur of prophethood and nur of guidance. The meaning of his nur being zati was mentioned in the discussion of Hadhrat Nanotawi's text that first of all it was granted to him bi al-zat, then it was transferred to all the prophets through him. His nur was not acquired by any of the creatures; it is sole gift of Allah. The light of moon in spite of being gotten by the sun is eclipsed, but the light (nur) of his prophethood and guidance is not eclipsed with shirk and kufr and neither it is defeated by evidences and proofs. People accepted it at times when kufr was dominating the world everywhere and seemingly Muslims did not have any power in any noteworthy country of the world. The world of kufr tried its best to extinguish the nur of iman and Islam, but with Allah's grace: (Urdu couplet) The light of Allah mocks the efforts of the kufr This lofty lamp can not be extinguished by blows

48

Third Chapter
In this chapter, we shall prove by quoting sahih hadiths and statements of the muhaddithin that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had shadow. Moreover, we shall present the replies of the traditions put forward by the opponents in order to prove that he had no shadow. (Fayyaz) Proof of His Shadow Argument No. 1: Imam Hakim Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hafiz (d. 405 AH) narrates that Sayyidna Anas bin Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) stated: one night the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was praying. All of a sudden he stretched his hand and then withdrew it. We asked him: O Messenger of Allah! We saw you doing an act in salah which you did not do in past. He said: yes, Jannah was presented before me and I saw therein lofty trees the fruits of which was close at hand. So, I wanted to pick up something from it. I was asked through revelation to retreat, so I retreated. Then, Jahannam was presented before me which was between me and you, even I saw my and your shadow in its light. So, I signaled to you to move back, so I was asked through revelation: let they be in the same condition; since you accepted Islam and they also, you migrated and they too, you fought in the way of Allah and they as well, so I do not see any superiority in you except prophethood. So, I concluded that my Ummah will face trials (fitnas) after me. (Mustadrak 4:456, al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi said: this hadith is sahih) Imam al-Hakim and 'Allama Shamsuddin Abu Abdullah al-Dhahabi (d. 751 AH), the famous scholar of Hadith principles, are of the opinion that the hadith is sahih. Hafiz ibn al-Qayyim al-Hanbali (d. 751 AH) also narrated the hadith. (see Hadi alAfrah ila Bilad al-Arwah, p 16, Egypt) This sahih hadith suggests that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had shadow as the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) had. This was the reason that he saw his shadow and the shadow of the Companions in the light of the flames. Had he not had shadow, this would not have any meaning, as this is not hidden from any sensible and wise person. Objection: If, without turning to context, dark shadow is proved plainly by the word 'zil' only, then according to the hadith: "Allah will shade seven people under His shadow on a day when there will be no shadow but His" shadow will be established for Allah as well, Allah forbid. Secondly, the word 'zil' (shadow) in the hadith "I saw my shadow and your shadow therein" is not in its real sense; since the fire of Jahannam is not lighted like that of the world. As it is narrated in Mishkat (bab sifat al-nar, al-fasl al-thani) in the first hadith: "the fire of Jahannam is black and dark". The Deobandis incorporated in the hadith that he saw his and the Companions' shadow in the light of the fire, this is their academic bankruptcy; since the fire of Jahannam is dark and black, what light had to do with. Then, how strange is it that they misinterpreted the hadith for consolidating their unholy belief and by adding the word 'light' they justified the meaning of shadow. And thus by attributing words to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) which he never spoke, they, Allah forbid, made their adobe in the darkness of Jahannam.

49 However, it is established by two reasons that the word 'zil' is not in its real sense; first because he is nur and nur has no shadow. Second, because it is impossible to see shadow in Jahannam as it is black darkness and shadow appears in light. So, by these two reasons, it is definite that the word 'zil' here is metaphor and metaphorically it means a person. It is mentioned in Ma'alim al-Tanzil that zilal (plural of zil i.e. shadows) means "their persons". So, the hadith means: I saw Jahannam wherein I saw myself and yourselves, which he interpreted as his people will be tried by evils after him. As far seeing in Jahannam, it may mean that he saw the Companions near Jahannam or beside it. However, if he was supposed to be seen in Jahannam, Allah forbid, it is not degrading to him; since being in Jahannam is degrading and punishment only for the disbelievers, not for everyone; otherwise the keepers of Jahannam are also therein. Moreover, the mufassirin explain under the verse "there is none among you who does not have to arrive at it" [19:71] that all Muslims will have to pass over Jahannam, but this will be pleasant and enjoyable for them, but this passage for the infidels will be a punishment and degradation. (Tawdhih al-Bayan, p 184-5) Answer: whatever was uttered by the said author is rejected. Firstly, since there are many Arabic linguists by Allah's grace, the case may be raised to any Arabic linguist mediator. Let us see how he translates the hadith. Allah willing, no just and fair Arabic linguist will translate and interpret it except what we did i.e. Jahannam was presented before me which was between me and you until I saw my and your shadow in its light. However, if we accept the translation that he saw his and their shadow therein, then also our claim is evident and this will in no way help the said author, as it is not hidden from any knowledgeable and learned person. Secondly, Allah has no body even subtle; therefore He can have no shadow, while on contrary to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had body though subtle. As Khan Sahib of Bareily writes: "He is bashar but he had humanly body far off superior and better than the heavenly world, even much subtle than the souls and the angels." (Nafy al-Fay, p 10) It is in complete accordance with reason that body, bashar and human being have shadow, and it is established by sahih hadith as well. Therefore, actual shadow is not meant in the hadith "Allah will shade seven people under His shadow on a day when there will be no shadow but His", rather only metaphoric and it is the shadow of His Throne as the Throne has also bodily form and it has shadow. So, the narration of al-Jami' al-Saghir (2:31) consists of these words: "Allah will shade seven people under the shadow of His Throne on a day when there will be no shadow but His". This hadith was categorized as hasan. The same hadith was quoted in al-Siraj al-Munir 2:339 with the comment: it has hasan chain of narrators. This marfu' and hasan hadith proves that 'the shadow of Allah' means 'the shadow of His Throne'. In another hadith, it is mentioned that clouds will shade over them. (Mawarid al-Zam'aan, p 641) Secondly, no doubt it is not disgraceful for the keepers of Jahannam to be in Jahannam, for believers to pass over it according to one tafsir, or even for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) to enter therein for tour and sightseeing. Since this entry was not marked by punishment or torment, rather it is as tour and sightseeing, or as passing over or a part of administration. There is no hindrance as per the Shari'a and reason. But, this justification is neither needed here not it is anyhow meaningful; because the hadith itself asserts that he did not enter Jahannam, rather it was presented before him. He saw it before him and them and saw his and their shadow in its light. He asked them

50 out of kindness to move back. All these explanations indicate that he did not enter the Jahannam. Another hadith supports the same, as it is mentioned in a hadith narrated in Sahih Muslim, kitab al-kusuf (Eclipse), (that time also Jannah and Jahannam were presented before him). The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) stated: "Jahannam was brought before me, it was when you saw me moving back on account of fear lest its flames affect me. (1:298) According to the rule that some hadith elucidates the other hadith, this sahih hadith clearly established that he did not enter Jahannam. Therefore, it is futile for the said author to roam around for its explanation and justification. Thirdly, though the word 'zil' metaphorically means person, but metaphorical meaning is needed where the real meaning is impossible or hard to be meant. And this is not the case here. Then, why to tend to mean metaphor unnecessarily? This should also be noted that grammatically the pronouns indicate to persons. Here in 'zilli' (my shadow) the pronoun is for first person which indicates to person, likewise in 'zillukum' (your shadows) the pronoun is second person that also indicate to person. So, if the word 'zill' also will mean person, then the noun and pronoun both will become same which is wrong. This is the reason that this explanation was mentioned with the word 'qila' (it is said by some) which indicates to its weakness. Since here also 'zilal' is attributed to pronoun (which is hum), thus the noun and pronoun indicate to the same person. This is wean and fragile interpretation. Fourthly, the said author writes that Mawlvi Sarfaraz, due to ignorance and intellectual bankruptcy, did not see the hadith of Mishkat (bab sifat al-nar, al-fasl althani, first hadith) which says: "Jahannam is black and dark". Therefore, incorporating the 'light of fire' is intellectual bankruptcy; since the fire of Jahannam is black, what light has to do with. But all this is sheer ignorance of the said author. First, because the hadith is mentioned in Tirmidhi and having narrated the hadith Imam Tirmidhi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "Actually, this hadith of Abu Huraira is mawquf, I do not know anyone except Yahya bin Abi Bukair (narrating from Sharik) who narrated it as marfu'. (Tirmidhi 2:82) The narrator Sharik (may Allah have mercy on him), in spite of being reliable used to commit mistakes in hadiths. Imam Ibrahim bin Sayid al-Jawhari says that he committed mistakes in four hundred hadiths. Imam Razi says that he had bad memory, was very much suspicious and used to disorder the hadiths. (summary from Tahzib al-Tahzib 4:326, 327) However, this hadith is neither marfu' nor correct according to the rules of hadith. Therefore making it a base of the reply is not right. Second, Jahannam is of several categories which have fire as well as coldness. Thus, there is difference between category to category and fire to fire. The hadith is an evident evidence of the same which says: "the fire said: O my Lord! Some part of mine ate up the other part of me" (Sahih Muslim 1:224) How is it objectionable if the fire of some category is black and that of other category is bright. Also, the Quran mentions the fire with flames (111:3) The hadith of Sahih Muslim was mentioned earlier which had a word 'lafh' (flame). So, how the flames of Jahannam and its light could be denied? It is mentioned in Sirah p 54 that the word 'lahab' means: flame of fire.

51 Argument No 2: Sayyida Ayisha (may Allah be pleased with her) states that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was traveling with some of his wives. The camel of Sayyida Safiya (may Allah be pleased with her) fell ill. Sayyida Zaynab (may Allah be pleased with her) had an extra camel. He said to Zaynab: it is better if you give your extra camel to Safiya as her camel is sick. She replied: why should I give my camel to this yahudia (Jewish woman)? The improper reply angered the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and he abandoned going to her room for two three months. "She said: until I was disappointed and shifted my bed from there, while one noontime I suddenly saw the shadow of Allah's Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) coming to me." (Tabqat bin Sa'd 8:126, Beirut) The narrators of the hadith are: (1) Affan bin Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him): he is narrator of the most authentic books of hadith i.e. Sihah Sitta. Imam 'Ajli (may Allah have mercy on him) says he was reliable and firm. Imam Abu Hatim (may Allah have mercy on him) calls him reliable imam and strong-minded. 'Allama Ibn Sa'd (may Allah have mercy on him) calls him reliable, narrator of abundant hadiths and firm. Imam Ibn Kharash (may Allah have mercy on him) says that he was reliable and among good Muslims, while Muhaddith ibn Qani' (may Allah have mercy on him) calls him reliable and satisfactory. Imam Hibban counts him from amongst the reliable narrators. (Tahzib al-Tahzib 7:231, 234) (2) Hammad bin Salama (may Allah have mercy on him): al-Zahabi calls him alImam al-Hafiz and Shayk al-Islam. (Tazkirat al-Huffaz 1:189) (3) Thabit Banani (may Allah have mercy on him): he is also a central narrator of Sihah Sitta. Imam Nasai and Imam 'Ajli (may Allah have mercy on them) call him reliable. 'Allama Ibn Sa'd says that he was reliable and satisfactory. Muhaddith Ib Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him) counts him amongst the reliable ones. Tahzib al-Tahzib 3:3) (4) Shamisa (may Allah have mercy on her): Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) writes that she was acceptable narrator from amongst the third grade. There is none who criticized her. (Taqrib, p 473, Faruqi, Delhi) (5) Sayyida Ayisha Siddiqa (may Allah be pleased with her) Concisely, all the narrators of the hadith are reliable. This hadith was narrated in Musnad Ahmad and Majma' al-Zawayid, with these wordings at the end: "so, when the month of Rabi' al-Awwal began, he came to her. She says that she saw shadow and thought this is shadow of man and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) does not come to her, so who is this man? Thereupon, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) entered. (Musnad Ahmad 6:336, Majma' al-Zawayid 4:323) The narrators of Musnad Ahmad are: (1) Abdur Razzaq (al-Hafiz al-Kabir): he was counted reliable by numerous muhaddithin. (Tazkirat al-Huffaz 1:331) (2) Ja'far bin Sulaiman: Imam Ahmad calls him harmless, while Imam Ibn Ma'in calls him reliable. 'Allama Ibn Sa'dan considers him reliable and hasan al-

52 hadith. Imam Ibn Madini says that he was reliable according to him. Imam Bazzar calls him mustaqim al-hadith. (summary, Tahzib al-Tahzib 2:95-98) (3) Thabit Banani: (he was mentoned earlier) (4) Sayyida Safiya bint Huyi, may Allah be pleased with her All of the narrators of the hadith are reliable. Objection: The word 'zil' occurring in this hadith also means 'person', and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is nur and nur has no shadow. Therefore, according to us, the word 'zil' occurring in the hadith means 'person' and it is not impossible. (Tawdhih al-Bayan, p 185, 186) Answer: This reply of the said author is absolutely false. First, because the noun and pronoun are the same, while on the other hand the words of hadith narrated by Musnad Ahmad and Majma' al-Zawayid totally reject this misinterpretation, rather distortion. The hadith is as follows: "When it was Rabi' al-Awwal, he came to her. She says that she saw shadow and thought this is shadow of man and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) does not come to her, so who is this man? Thereupon, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) entered. (Musnad Ahmad 6:336, Majma' al-Zawayid 4:321) If the shadow means his self as the said author baselessly claims, then did Sayyida Zainab did not recognize him after she saw his self and she started wondering who came to her. Doubt can arise in case of shadow, but what doubt she had about his self. The last part of the hadith clarifies it more: "then, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) entered", i.e. first she saw the shadow and then he entered. While according to the tahrif (distortion) of the said author, it will mean that she first saw his self and then he entered. Are Shari'a and Hadith not been ridiculed by such nonsensical interpretations? Allah forbid! Thirdly, it is established by Quran, mutawatir Hadith and Ijma that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was bashar (human being), and shadow is inevitable for human being. Contrary to his being nur, as it is not established by any solid and strong proof that he was nur. If, according to a tafsir, he is proved to be nur, it is only an option, it is not definite. Moreover, the nur is his quality, not his self; since after all he is bashar and he surely had shadow. These sahih hadiths say that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had formal shadow. When his humanity (being bashar) is definitely established, all the requisites of humanity including shadow will automatically be established.

Rejecting Shadow is in fact a Shiite Dogma


The authentic Shiite book al-Kafi ma' al-Safi 3:152 says: "He did not have shadow". The famous Shiite scholar Khalil Qazwini elucidates it: "He did not have shadow i.e. the clouds used to intervene between him and the disc of the sun. (al-Safi, vol. 2, 2 nd edition, Lucknow) This interpretation proves that the denial of shadow by the apparent words was not even acceptable to them and thus they were forced to give it an explanation. Nevertheless, no sahih hadith proves that he was always shaded by clouds.

53

Objection: The Barelvi scholar Ghulam Rasul Sa'eedi writes that if the issue of shadow was invented by the Shias, then whether Sayyidna Usman, Sayyidna Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them), Imam Suyuti, Imam Shafi'i, Qazi 'Iyadh Maliki, 'Allama Abu al-Barakat Nasafi Hanafi, Mulla Ali Qari Hanafi, Shaykh Muhaddith Dehlawi, 'Allama Baijuri, Shihab al-Din Khifaji, Ibn Mubarak, Ibn Jawzi (may Allah have mercy on them) also were Shias. When the Muslim scholars from the age of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) up to Shah Abdul Aziz were of the opinion that he had no shadow. So, who will pay heed to your denial? And who will accept the nonsense that you regarded all the scholars from the Companions to Shah Abdul Aziz as Shia in one go. If in fact this issue was introduced by the Shias, then, do not mind, Mawlvi Gangohi will be the biggest Shia who writes: "It is established by tawatur that he had no shadow." On the other hand, Mawlvi Ashraf Ali Thanwi writes in Shukr al-Ni'ma p 20: "It is famous that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had no shadow". Or then, Mufti Aziz alRahman, the Mufti of Deoband, is Shia who writes in Aziz al-Fatawa 8:202:"Imam Suyuti narrated this hadith in Khasayis al-Kubra that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had no shadow: Hakim Tirmidhi narrates from Zakwan that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had no shadow neither in the light of sun nor moon. (Tawdhih al-Bayan, p 182-183) Answer: These scholars actually did not have the hadiths which were mentioned already about the existence of shadow. Had these hadiths been before them, they would have no say about them. They did mention that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had no shadow, this hadith finally reaches to Sayyidna Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), but it is baseless and unfounded. The hadith of Zakwan is fake and fabricated or it is mentioned with no sanad. Then, why should one base his belief on such baseless hadiths in spite of authentic and sahih hadiths. Since the hadiths which prove no shadow are unfounded, therefore Malwana Thanwi and other cautious scholars do not bother to own the responsibility of its authenticity and say that it is famous that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) no shadow. Hadhrat Mufti Aziz al-Rahman had well rejected the hadith of shadow, but the said author drank it up like mother's milk. Usul al-Kafi, which according to the Shias was signed and endorsed by Imam Mahdi and certified to be enough for his followers, we have mentioned before with its reference that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had no shadow. And we have said that the issue of shadow was first raised by the Shias. Had there not been the sahih hadiths of being shadow, we would have been at fault by opposing our elders, but when the sahih hadiths exist, why to blame us? We say that such hadiths did not reach the elders, otherwise who will dare oppose the sahih hadiths? And, since the word 'bashar' is under our discussion which had occurred at numerous places in the Quran and there are sahih and clear hadith proving his shadow; therefore all the Muslims should hold the belief that he had shadow. And those who had no access to sahih hadiths, they are excused, but those who came to know, how can they be excused?

54

Fourth Chapter
We will quote two arguments of the opponent by which they argued that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had no shadow, then their answers will follow. (Fayyaz) Argument No. 1: The Barelvi scholar Mawlvi Ghulam Rasul Sa'eedi writes that the majority of Muslims believes that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had no dark shadow; since he was nur and nur had no shadow. The proof of nur and the negation of shadow does not necessitate negation of his humanity; since shadow is not necessarily characteristic to human being rather it is necessary for dense humanity, and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give peace) was so free from human density and so subtle that he did not have dark shadow. Also, this belief is zanni (suppositious), and such matters can be based upon suppositious evidences. Muhaddith Ibn Jawzi in al-Wafa bi Ahwal al-Mustafa p 407 and with his refrecne Mulla Ali Qari in Jam' al-Wasayil 1:176 and Imam Munawi in Sharh Shamayil 'ala Hamish Jam' al-Wasayil 1:46 and 1:176, write: "It is narrated that Sayyidna Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) stated: The Prophet (Allah bless him and give peace) did not have shadow. He did not stand in sun but his brightness dominated that of the sun and he did not face the moon but his light overcame the light of the moon." Thereafter, they said: 'Allama Nabhani writes in Wasyil al-Wusul that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give peace) was nur and no shadow of him appeared in sun and moonlight. Sayyidi Muhammad bin Qasim Jasus writes in Fawayid Jalila Sharh Shamayil Muhammadiya 1:36: "Ibn Mubarak and Ibn Jawzi narrated from Sayyidna Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) did not have shadow. He did not stand in sun but his brightness dominated that of the sun and he did not face the moon but his light overcame the light of the moon; therefore he did not have shadow." Ibn Saba' mentions in Shifa and Qadhi 'Iyadh as well that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had no shadow neither in sun nor in moonlight; the reason being that his shadow (which is in fact equal to his personality in status) is protected from touching the ground, soling and being trampled, or because shadow is a kind of darkness and cover for nur, while the Prophet (Allah bless him and give peace) is bright nur, so how can he have shadow, or that the sun and moon were created out of his nur and were brought about due to his existence, so how can their light make his shadow; since anything which causes existence of something may not hide it. If it is said that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is bashar as it is mentioned in the Quran, then how will he not have shadow. We will reply that his humanity is different from that of other human beings e.g. ruby is a stone, but it is different from other stones. According to Abul Hasan Shadhili, he is nur in spite of being bashar; therefore he was called nur. Shaykh Muhaqqiq says in Sharh Hamziya that it is mentioned in the hadith of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give peace) said: O Umar! Do you know who am I? I am one whom Allah Most High created first of all, it was my nur, so it prostrated before Allah and remained in the same position for seven hundred years. So, my nur was

55 first to prostrate, but I take no pride. O Umar! Do you know who am I? I am one from whose nur Allah created the Throne, He created the Chair, the Tablet and the Pen out of my nur. He created the eyesight through my nur. The mind which is inside people's head was created out of my nur. Marifa (cognizance) which is harboured in the heart of believers was given existence due to my nur, but I do not feel proud. Thus, all the lights and nurs were created with his nur, so all are derived from his nur and his nur is the origin of all. So, how can the derived light stand beside the original light. Then, how block-minded they are who do not regard shadow for other lights, but they prove the same for the original nur. Sa'eedi (summary Tawdhih al-Bayan, p 173-179) Answer: The claim made by the said author that he had no shadow was the belief of majority of Muslims is utterly unfounded. Since, when his shadow is established by sahih hadiths, how can the majority of Muslims hold such belief based on false traditions? We have mentioned the hadith of shadow in Tanqid Matin from Mustadrak Hakim and quoted that Imam Hakim and 'Allama Dhahabi, the expert of asma al-rijal, regarded it sahih. Likewise, we have quoted the hadith from Tabqat Ibn Sa'd, Musnad Ahmad and Majma' al-Zawayid and then cited their narrators and the reliable position of the hadith. The wording of the a hadith of Majma' al-Zawayid is as follows: "So, she saw his shadow and said that the shadow seems of man, whereas the Prophet (Allah bless him and give peace) does not come to her, thereupon he entered." (Majma' al-Zawayid 4:321) Imam Haithami states: "It was narrated by Ahamd, one of the narrators is Sumayya. Imam Abu Dawud and some others have narrated from her. None called him dha'if (weak). The other narrators are reliable." (4:321) The words of another hadith are as follows: "Suddenly she saw his shadow coming to her." (Majma' al-Zawayid 4:323) 'Allama Haithami says: "It was narrated by al-Tabrani in al-Awsat. One of the narrators is Sumayya. Imam Abu Dawud and some others have narrated from her. She was not criticized by anyone. The other narrators are reliable." (4:323) How can the majority of Muslims abandon these sahih hadiths; whereas there is no sahih hadith contradicting to it? These sahih hadiths are supported by another hadith of Majma' al-Zawayid which was narrated by Sayyidna Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) as marfu' hadith in the chapter of Salah Timing which is as follows: "Then, he (Sayyidna Jibril) came to me and led the Asr Salah when my shadow became equal to my height. The next day, he came and led the Zuhr Salah when the shadow became equal to me. Then the next day, he led the Asr Salah when my shadow was two fold. (al-Bazzzr) Among the narrators is Umar bin Abdur Rahman bin Usaid bin Abdur Rahman bin Zaid bin al-Khattab. Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned him and said that he heard his father saying that Abu Na'yim and Abdullah bin Nafi' narrated from him. I did not come across the introduction of Ibrahim bin Nasr, the Shaykh of al-Bazzar. The other narrators are reliable. (Majma' al-Zawayid 4:303)

56 The hadith tells that the first day, Sayyidna Jibril (may peace be upon him) led the Asr Salah when his shadow became equal to his height. The next day, he came and led the Zuhr Salah when the shadow became equal to his height. Then the next day, he led the Asr Salah when his shadow became double of his shadow. It is in harmony with the other hadith if it is read 'mithlayya' (in dual form): He led the Asr Salah when shadow became double of his height. Majma' al-Zawayid 4:303, narrated from Sayyidna Abu Sa'yid al-Khudri as marfu' hadith, it was narrated by Ahmad and by alTabrani in al-Kabir, one of the narrators is Abu Luhai'a who is dha'if (weak). If it is read 'mithli', the shadow will be equal to his height. However, the shadow is in any case established. Here, we leave the long intellectual discussion whether the time of Zuhr and Asr are common as Imam Malik and Imam Shafi' hold (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1:91) and argued with other hadiths having such contents or the time of Asr starts when the Zuhr time comes to an end as other Imams have said and argued with the hadith of Sahih Muslim 1:223 which says that the Zuhr time continues till the time of Asr. They reply the former hadith that it does not focus on fixing of time, rather proximity of time i.e. the time of Asr on first day was closer to that of Zuhr the other day, not that both the times were same. The other hadith narrated by Sahih Muslim supports it which says: "then he delayed Zuhr until it was closer to Asr". However, the hadiths proving his shadow which we provided as support are heavier than those presented by the opponents for negating his shadow. The other hadiths mentioned earlier are beside these ones. When it is clearly proved by the Quran and Hadith that he is bashar and his shadow is established by sahih hadiths, then the lame excuse of the said author that only dense humanity has shadow not the subtle humanity is just a make-believe; since in spite of his subtle humanity and being like ruby among the stones, according to sahih hadith he had shadow. Therefore, there is no room left for analogue in the face of ascertained evidences from the Quran and Hadith. In deed, in suppositious matters (zanni), the suppositious arguments are sufficient, but a belief cannot be suppositious and neither suppositious argument will suffice for the same. The said author calls it a belief. Yes, if any matter or concept is suppositious, then suppositious evidence is enough for the same. Moreover, it is also strange that established suppositious matters (like sahih hadith narrated by one chain) is paid no attention and unfounded supposition is taken as granted. How fair and just is it? However, in the light of sahih hadith, his shadow is an undeniable fact. It is another matter that a stubborn is not ready at any cost to leave his prejudice and stubbornness, as this is the lovely and favourite style of the said author and his group, so how can this disease be remedied? As far as the hadith which the said author quoted that his shadow was neither seen in sunlight nor in moonlight, we have discussed it in Tanqid Matin with due references. One of the narrators of the hadith is Abdur Rahman bin Qais Za'farani who is liar and fabricator. How the ruling of Shari'a can be rejected on the basis of such narration. It seems strange that the said author repeatedly presents the hadith of Sayyidna Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) as his proof, but he is entirely unable to quote the credibility of its sanad and narrators from the books of asma al-rijal. It is his academic and moral duty to furnish the sanad of the narration and quote the credibility of the narrators; otherwise the hadith is in no way acceptable. Likewise, it is useless to quote the texts of ulama about the nonexistence of shadow; since if he quoted the texts of ten elders, we say it is of no use

57 even if he presents thousands of such texts; since in the presence of sahih marfu' and musnad hadith, not only ten thousand even ten million and ten billion references of elders will carry no weight. It is a rule that every one can be quoted and unquoted except the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace. As for he did not have shadow since he was nur and the sun and moon were created out of his nur, then how their nur can cover him, it is nonsense. Similarly, it is weightless to say that he had no shadow so that it is not soiled and trampled, and since the shadow is a requisite of darkness and he is bright nur etc. First, when sahih hadiths established that he had no shadow, then what value these self-made mystical claims have? Secondly, he is nur in intangible sense not tangible; so it is madness to treat intangible nur in the same way. Thirdly, subservient has no such value which original has and his shadow is subject and subservient to his holy body and his self. It is also obvious in Makkah the places and pathways where he put his holy feet were necessarily trampled by disbelievers and polytheists. It is evident that the pathways were used by common men even animals, then why his shadow, which is subject to his body, was protected from trampling but the places which his feet touched were not protected from the infidels and polytheists. What is the reason? According to this self designed logic, it was appropriate that his feet did not touch the ground, so that it is not trampled by any infidel and polytheist; since the polytheists are impure. His feet should have been protected from such intangible impurity. Thus, he should have not set his feet on ground and travel always onboard. But the case is not so. It is also established that the polytheists loaded impure intestine of camel on his neck when he was performing salah in Masjid alHaram. (Sahih Bukhari 1:37) Also, it is established by hadith that once the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was performing salah, Sayyidna Jibril (may peace be upon him) came and informed him that his shoes were soiled with filth. (Abu Dawud 1:95, Musnad Darmi 218, Mawarid al-Zam'an translation 107, Mustadrak Hakim 1:260. Al-Hakim and alDhahabi say: the hadith is sahih and fulfils the conditions set by Imam Muslim, Mishkat 1:73) Obviously, the shoes were soiled with dirt only because he walked over impurity (in compulsion or unconsciously). It is strange that it not harmful when his shoes and feet walk over filth, but when the shadow falls over such thing it is denied. Similarly, it makes no point for the said author that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) holds subtle and high position of bashar, or that his nur was created before the ruh, or that it prostrates before Allah Most High, or that his nur is original and the other nurs are derivative; since according to sahih hadith he had shadow and no other hadith (of different meaning) is proved by sanad, so how can such narrations be counted. Even if they are accepted, then also it is of no use for the said author; since his nur (in the sense of ruh) is the origin because of being first created, but it is intangible nur which causes light ( ma'rifa) in the hearts of believers, not tangible nur. How unfortunate and stone-hearted are those who deny his shadow by denying the sahih hadiths and prefer the fallible statements. Argument No. 2: Iman Jalaluddin Suyuti (d. 911 AH) writes: "Hakim Tirmidhi narrated from the chain of Abdur Rahman bin Qais Za'farani, from Abdul Malik bin Abdullah bin al-Walid, from Sayyidna Zakwan that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) had shadow neither in sunlight nor moonlight. (Khasayis al-Kubra 1:71)

58

This narration proves that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had no shadow and when he did not have shadow he was not bashar. Answer: This hadith is not acceptable and reliable. First, because one of its narrators is Abdur Rahman bin Qais Za'farani, he is called liar by Imam Abdur Rahman bin Mahdi. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal says: his hadith is weak, he is abandoned. Imam Abu Zur'a calls him kadhdhab (big liar). Imam Muslim bin al-Hajjaj says that his hadiths are unacceptable. Imam Abu Ali says he used to fabricate hadiths. Imam Nasai calls him as matruk al-hadith (one whose hadiths are abandoned), while Imam Saji says that he was dha'if (weak). (Tarikh Baghdad 10:251252) All these comments are reported by Hafiz Ibn Hajar 'Asqalani in Tahdhib alTahdhib. He added that according to Imam 'Adi, most of his hadiths are not supported by other reliable narrators and Hakim Abu Ahmad says that his hadiths were forsaken, while Imam Abu Na'im Asfahai says that he was nothing. (Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 6:259) Secondly, Mulla Ali Qari says: "Hakim Tirmidhi narrated this hadith in Nawadir alUsul from Abdur Rahman bin Qais, who is criticised. Abdur Rahman narrated it from Abdul Malik bin Abdullah bin Walid, who is unknown. (Sharh al-Shifa 2:282, Egypt) So along with a fabricator narrator, this hadith was narrated by a majhul (unknown) narrator too. Thirdly, Zakwan is a Tabi'i, he did not directly meet the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). Had it been any derivative (far'i) issue, it would have been treated so, but since it is a matter of belief; therefore how one can accept baseless narrations compared to Quranic verses and sahih hadiths and how can one found his religion over them. Interesting enough, Imam Suyuti himself writes, at other place, about Abdur Rahman bin Qais al-Za'farani that he was kadhdhab (big liar) and wadhdha' (fabricator). (Manahil al-Safa fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Shifa, p 7) This narration was mentioned in Nawadir al-Usul which was written by Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Ali al-Hussein (d. 255 AH). Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehlawi states: "Most of the hadiths mentioned in Nawadir al-Usul are unreliable. Objection: As far as non-existence of shadow is concerned, according to Ahl alSunna wa al-Jama'at the preferable opinion is that he did not have shadow and since this is a zanni belief; therefore zanni arguments will suffice to prove it. But, the point raised by Mawlvi Sarfaraz attributing to Ahl al-Sunna that when he did not have shadow, he was not a bashar is a heinous example of mere fabrication and lie. The books of Ahl al-Sunna are teeming with the proofs and researches of his humanity. We had already mentioned the text of Sadr al-Afadhil. But, it is not the belief of Ahl al-Sunna which the Deobandis believe about him being bashar like common individual. We believe that he was a matchless human being and had no peer as per his perfect attributes and qualities. But, as for this argument that admitting his humanity will certainly require that he had no shadow, it is nothing but bullheadedness and ignorance; since his humanity cannot be analogised to that of other common people. First, since his holy self combines humanity as well nur in perfect proportions and nur has no shadow. Second, shadow is the darkness of a

59 place which occurs by intervening of kathif (solid/dense) substance in between the light. The humanity of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is free from kathafat (density) and it is so subtle that it passes through nur and thus no shadow appears. Sarfarz Sahib quoted the hadith of Zakwan and said that it is not reliable. Answer: (1) In deed no weak hadith can be presented to establish a definite belief, but zanni argumnes can suffice to porve a zanni belief. Therefore, this hadith will surely be accepted in this chapter. (2) Proving a belief is something and supporting it is something else; the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is nur as per the Quran and nur has no shadow; so as support the hadith is no doubt acceptable. (3) It is the unanimous belief of nearly the entire Ummah that he had no shadow. As well, the experts of hadith principles regarded popularity of a hadith as a proof of its credibility. (4) Imam Suyuti reported the hadith in Khasayis al-Kubra and provided the necessary proof that the hadith is acceptable to him. The lofty position he hold in Hadith sciences is equally accepted by opponents and exponents. (5) If you hate the hadith, no matter, but you should accept the hadith of al-Wafa narrated by Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them). And if not, then there is another hadith of Sayyidna Usman (may Allah be pleased with him) reported in Tafsir Madarik 'ala Hamish al-Khazin 3:322, he said: Allah did not let his shadow at ground lest anyone should put his feet over it. It is not Zakwan's personal statement that you could reject it on the ground that he did not directly meet the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and mursal hadith is not acceptable to the Hanafis of Deoband. It is the statement of Sayyidna Usman (may Allah be pleased with him) who used to accompany the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) in and out of station, who had the crown of "ma ana 'alaihi wa ashabi" (what I and my Companions follow), who holds the flag of "ashabi ka al-nujum" (my Companions are like stars) and who has the honour of "'alaikum bi sunnati" (you should hold fast my way). It is the statement of such a Companion whose statement is equal to hadith. Moreover, it became like marfu' hadith when it was presented in the court of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). If you do not accept Sayyidna Usmani (may Allah be pleased with him) then Mawlvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, the leader of Deoband, writes in Imdad al-Suluk p 86: "It is established by tawatur that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) did not have shadow and obviously every thing except nur has shadow." Sayyidna Usman might be unacceptable to you, but the statement of Deoband's parameter must be acceptable for you. Now, say what you comment? A matter established through tawatur is zanni or qat'i (definite)? How unjust it is, if we acknowledge it as zanni we are nothing short of kafir, mushrik and bid'ati, and when your Gangohi labels it with tawatur and definite, he remains as Shaykh. What is the technique which changes shirk and bid'at to tawhid and Sunna? What is the talisman from which you protect your mawlvis from the fatwas of shirk and bid'at. The Jews left worshipping their scholars and rabbis, but when will you stop doing so? It is written in al-Mawahib al-Ladunniya Sharh Shamayil Muhammadiya p 30: Ibn alMubarak and Ibn Jawzi (may Allah have mercy on them) narrate that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had no shadow. While it is written in Zurqani 4:240: "Ibn al-Mubarak and Ibn Jawzi (may Allah have mercy on them) narrated from Sayyidna Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) had no shadow, he did

60 not stand in sun but his nur dominated the sun." This is not a mursal hadith like that of Zakwan, rather muttasil hadith of Sayyidna Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) and it was narrated by a critic of Hadith like Ibn al-Jawzi, who regarded many good hadiths as false and fake. So, having doubt in such hadith is nothing but stubbornness. The infringement and astray mentality of Mawlvi Sarfaraz can be imagined from the matter that he regarded the hadith of Zakwan as proof of the maslak of Ahl al-Sunna so that he can satisfy himself by rejecting shadow for the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace). He devised a good pretence to decrease the grandeur of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), but he was unaware that this humiliation is his own fate. The filthy hand extended to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and his ardent followers returned to him with all the filth. Qadhi 'Iyadh Maliki writes in Shifa 1:243: as for his shadow not appearing in the sunlight and moonlight, it is because he was nur. Shihab al-Din Khifaji writes its commentary in Nasim al-Riyadh 3:319: i.e. his holy latif (subtle) body did not have shadow, latif indicates that his humanity is free from kathafat (density) so subtle that he did not need light, even it caused dark shadow. He further says that Ibn al-Jawzi narrated in al-Wafa from Sayyidna Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) that he did not have shadow. All these elder scholars have based the negation of shadow on the hadith of Sayyidna Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), but Mawlvi Sarfaraz left this muttasil hadith and based it on the hadith of Zakwan so that he can weaken the point by citing the weakness of the hadith and its narrators. (Inna lillah!) While explaining the statement of Qadhi 'Iyadh "since he was nur", Mulla Ali al-Qari writes in Sharh Shifa 1:753: i.e. he was originally nur and nur has no shadow; since it has no kathafat. The same thing is mentioned in Nawadir which is as follows: "His shadow was neither visible in sunlight nor moonlight. This was narrated by Halabi from Ibn Sab'. Shaykh Abdul Haq says in Madarij al-Nubuwwa 1:21: Nur is one of the names of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and nur has no shadow. At another place in Madarij al-Nubuwwa 1:161 he writes: Sayyidna Usman (may Allah be pleased with him) said that the shadow of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) did not fall on ground lest it falls on impure land. Shah Abdul Aziz says in Tafsir Azizi part 30, p 219: His shadow did not fall at ground. (summary from Tawdhih al-Bayan 176-182) Note: It is to be noted that all references and arguments presented by the said author are taken from Khan Sahib's books like Nafy al-Fay etc. Answer: We shall try to reply in the same order. Your kind attention is required: (1) When the humanity of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is established by definite and clear proofs and his shadow is also established by sahih hadiths, then how the Ahl al-Sunna can oppose it and hold a different belief and how can this be their favourite belief? Rather, this is the belief of innovators and it befits them; since they have bitter enmity towards truth and genuine evidences. All the beliefs are qat'i (definite) and they require definite evidences. Projecting any issue, concept and ruling as 'aqida is against the norms of terms and such homemade terms may not affect the reality. Undoubtedly, there are many among the innovators who believe in him as bashar, but some also believe that he was created out of Allah's nur, and

(2) (3)

61 they call it the belief of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'at as we have quoted with reference. Then, to regard it worst example of fabrication and lie is to establish one's own ignorance and stubbornness. But, as far as the saying of the said author is concerned that the Deobandis regard him human being like common individual, this is sheer falsification and prevarication; because they believe that he was a matchless human being and had no peer as per his perfect attributes and qualities. We have already mentioned that he is superior to all in good qualities and characters, he is best of all human beings, none is equal to him in these qualities. But, in being bashar and having human qualities including shadow he is like other human beings as per the Quranic verse: "I am but a human being like you. (41:6) There is no doubt at all. As far as the words like matchless and peerless are concerned, if they mean that neither there is any match for him nor his match will be created till qiyama, it is alright. 'Allama Iqbal expressed the same meaning in this couplet: (Urdu) The face of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is such a mirror A match of which was neither thought nor available in the market But, if it means that for example if Allah wants to create his peer and match He will not be able to do so, this is the belief of innovators not that of Ahl alSunna; since they believe in the verse: "Allah is powerful to do anything". When it is established by definite sources that he was bashar as per his person and kind, and even the said author acknowledges him bashar as per kind, and nur is his quality; thus shadow is established for him as per religious sources and reason too; since it is one of the requisites of humanity and proved by sahih hadiths. It is nothing nut stubbornness to deny it. His holy body due to internal and external physical and spiritual perfection was not only subtle rather subtler, but after all it was not invisible for people like the existence of angels and jinn who are usually invisible. When his holy body was visible and could be seen by everyone, then why shadow was strange for him. Every belief is qat'i (definite) not zanni (indefinite or suppositious), the indefinite cannot affect the definite. It is written in Sharh al-'Aqayid p 101: "the zann (suppositions) have no role in the matters of belief". The narration of Zakwan negates the shadow and thus indirectly rejects his wellestablished concept of humanity, while it was narrated by narrators who are fabricators, so how it is reliable? Therefore this narration is quite unacceptable, it is in no way reliable. It sounds good to only the innovators to please their diseased hearts by such false hadiths and mostly they do so. It is their liking and the height of their knowledge. On which definite evidence your belief of non-shadow is based for which you are taking support of this false and baseless narration? First of all, you should take out the definite evidence from your baggage and then present this false hadith to strengthen it. His being nur which is proved only by one probable tafsir not definite is only as per quality not as per his person and kind. While his being bashar is definitely established and it deems shadow necessary, and it is so proved by sahih hadiths. Thus, supporting such vague and suppositious argument by false hadith is nothing but to pile up ignorance.

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

62 (8) Nearly the entire Ummah agrees that he had shadow, not the vice versa (some elders do not constitute the whole Ummah); since the entire Ummah believes in him as bashar and a bashar necessarily has shadow. The entire Ummah believes in sahih hadiths and the sahih hadiths prove that he had shadow. Whether, according to the said author, any ijma can occur against a ruling established by the Quran and Hadith? No doubt, talaqqi bi al-qubul (popularity) is acceptable to muhaddithin, but only in weak hadith not in false and fake hadiths. And here not even talaqqi (popularity) is found, rather it was rejected emphatically. Undoubtedly, Imam Suyuti (may Allah have mercy on him) was a scholar of broad learning and knowledge, but neither he is counted one among the imams of jarh and ta'dil (scrutiny of hadith) nor he sticks to sahih hadiths in his book Khasayis al-Kubra (etc). Khasayis al-Kubra is full of fake and fabricated narrations; therefore it is not imperative for hadith to be sahih or reliable just by being mentioned in his book. The opponents and exponents acknowledge him only as a man of broad learning, but not in categorizing and classifying hadith; since it is not his subject. Yes, the case is different if the hadith has a sanad and all of its narrators are reliable and the hadith is verified by other muhaddithin as well to be sahih or hasan. Imam Suyuti, in his own book al-Jami' al-Kabir, describes the criteria of hadith to be sahih and weak, this should be noted by the said author and his adherents, he says: "Every narration attributed to al-'Aqili, Ibn 'Adi, Khatib Baghdadi, Ibn Asakir, Hakim Tirmidhi and some others is weak. It is enough for a hadith to be weak to be attributed to them. (Note of al-Murah fi alMaizah 15 by 'Allama Badruddin Abu al-Barakat al-Ghazzi d. 984) And this hadith of Zakwan (narrated through Abdur Rahman Qais alZa'farani) was narrated in Khasayis al-Kubra from Hakim Tirmidhi, so what is doubt in its being weak? 'Allama Sayyid Sulaiman Nadwi (d. 1373 AH) writes that 'Allama Suyuti's Khasayis al-Kubra which was published in Hyderabad (Deccan) is the most elaborative and comprehensive book on mu'jizat (miracles). 'Allama Suyuti has piled up all kinds of events whether strong or weak, right or wrong. (Sirat al-Nabi 3:625, Lahore) (10) We want to know the sanad and narrators of the hadith of Sayyidna Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) which the said author has narrated from al-Wafa and which he wants to impose on us by calling it muttasil. We require it to be verified by the books of asma al-rijal. Is it not dijl (deception) to forcefully impose a hadith as muttasil without proof? Likewise, what is the sanad of the hadith of Madarik narrated by Sayyidna Usman (may Allah be pleased with him)? Being khalifa, the statement of Sayyidna Usman (may Allah be pleased with him) is no doubt weighty provided its credibility is established. The sanad and narrators of the hadith are unknown and the books of tafsir contain all types of sahih and weak hadiths; therefore it is no proof that they are mentioned in any tafsir book. However, this hadith is neither sahih as per its sanad nor it is reliable. It should have been considered marfu' had it been acceptable as per sanad. But, when its sanad is

(9)

63 not sahih, rather it has no sanad, then how one can forcefully impose it as marfu' and who will accept it so? As for the blame made by the said author that the Hanafis of Deobandis do not accept mursal hadith, it is sheer ignorance. The Ulama of Deoband deem mursal hadith reliable provided it has correct sanad and it is not contradicted with any sahih and hasan muttasil. But this hadith holds no such position; since on one hand this hadith narrated by Zakwan includes liar and fabricator narrator who is wholly unacceptable, while on the other hand sahih hadiths proving his shadow are available, so how to rely this hadith? (11) Since the books like Musnad Ahmad, Majma' al-Zawayid, Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd etc were scarcely available at the time of Hadhrat Gangohi (may Allah have mercy on him) and he did not know the hadiths of shadow therein. Some books mentioned the hadiths that he did not have shadow by words like ruwiya etc, therefore on the ground of its popularity they were called as mutawatir in Imdad al-Suluk. And the sense of nur, which he applies to him, applies to his adherents too and he admits his humanity very clearly and believes in him as human being. Yes, he believes that he was free from shadow of impurity and revulsion due to purification of his self. So he, in response to a query that in what sense the Prophet is like us, writes in Fatawa Rashidiya (1:12, Baqi Press, Delhi): "they are equal in being bashar itself, though he is most pure and sublime bashar." While, he says in Imdad al-Suluk: "Allah Most High asserts clearly that success is surely achieved by him who purifies himself" (87:14) i.e. he removed impurity and revulsion with the sword of mujahida (struggle) and by opposing the carnal desires. Therefore, Allah says about his beloved Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace): "There has come to you, from Allah, a Light and clear book". Light (nur) means the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). Also, Allah says: O prophet, We have sent you as a witness and as a bearer of good news and a warner, and as the one who calls (people) towards Allah with His permission, and as siraj munir (a luminous lamp). [33:45-46] munir is one who gives light. Had it been impossible to enlighten the human being the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) would not have possessed this quality; since the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is also from the descendants of Sayyidna Adam (may peace be upon him) but he purified himself and became pure nur and thus Allah Most High called him nur. It is established by mutawatir hadith that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) did not have shadow and it is obvious that all physical bodies have shadow except nur. Likewise, he purified his followers so vigorously that they also turned into nur as the books are full with their stories and charismas and they are too popular to be quoted. Allah says: "Those who believed with him, their light will run before them and to their right hands". [66:8] At another place, He said: "On the Day when you will see the believing men and the believing women, their light proceeding in front of them and to their right hands, the Day when the hypocrite men and hypocrite women will say to those who believe, wait for us, so that we may have a share from your light." [57:12-13] These two verses clearly indicate that one can attain iman and nur by following Sharia. The

64 Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: Allah Most High created me out of His nur and the believers out of my nur. He said: O Allah! Make nur in my ears, eyes and heart; rather make my whole body nur. So, had being purified as nur been possible for mankind, The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) would not have made this prayer; since praying for impossible things is prohibited. Also, Shaykh Abul Hasan Nuri (may Allah have mercy on him) was called nuri because he was seen in nur many a times and nur was seen rising from the graves of many pious men and martyrs. This nur is of their purified heart, when their selves attain high status their nur is absorbed in the body and slowly becomes part of the body and taste. Later, even if the soul leaves the body, then also the body remains fountainhead of lights as it was in their lifetime." (Imdad al-Suluk 156-157, Kutub Khana Sharf al-Rashid, Shahkot) We have quoted this long extract so that it becomes clearer that the sense in which Hadhrat Gangohi calls the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and his followers as nur, it is not tangible nur, rather intangible which is achieved by purification of heart, refinement, purity and following Sharia. So, after being nur in this sense, one remains human being, bashar and one of the children of Adam (may peace be upon him). In view of the text, if the followers of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had shadow, and definitely they had, then the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) should also have shadow; since according to Shaykh Gangohi his followers also turned into nur. Thus, shadow means the reflection of carnal impurities and filth which applies to all nuri people due to following Sharia, purifying heart and purity of nafs. Otherwise, we will have to negate the shadow of those whom he called nur, whereas it is perhaps not acceptable for the said author and his followers too. We neither called the deniers of shadow for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) as kafir and mushrik nor innovators. This is impurity of his heart that the said author attributes such lies to us for alienating people from us. By Allah's grace, we neither worshipped our clerics and monks in past nor we do so now, it is characteristic to them that they leave no aspect of the verse "they [Jews] have taken their rabbis and monks as gods beside Allah (9:31) and this is a valuable asset of them. (12) All the references made to Mawahib Ladunniya, Zurqani, Kitab al-Wafa, Shifa, Nasim al-Riyadh, Sharh Shifa of Mulla Ali al-Qari, Madarij alNubuwwa, Tafsir Azizi etc about non-existence of shadow, can be replied that the narrations of non-shadow were reported by some and it was considered mu'jiza but they did not have the sahih hadiths before their eyes. Thus, based upon the narrations of non-shadow, the elders held the view of non-shadow, whereas the narration is baseless, rather sahih and clear-cut hadiths are contradictory to it. We have presented sahih hadith proving that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had shadow, while the said author quoted references of some scholars that he had no shadow. So, instead of quoting some references in response, it seems appropriate to reply the said author in his own words. While discussing dhikr bi aljahr (loud dhikr), we responded the hadith of Sayyidna Ibn Abbas (may Allah be

65 pleased with him) that loud dhikr and takbir existed in the age of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) by quoting Imam Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) that the hadith is abrogated. We said that this statement of him is based on narrations and it is supported by respected imams, and he himself is mujtahid mutlaq. This was responded by the said author in the following words: "Let alone Imam Shafi'i, if a Companion expresses his view against the hadith of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) his personal opinion in the face of Prophetic hadith is unacceptable. Until he commented: maybe the opinion of Imam Shafi'i is sufficient for you, but where can we go except to the Prophet himself. (Dhikr bi al-Jahr, 2 nd Edition, p 125) At another place he says: As far as Imam Shafi'i's broad knowledge and piety is concerned, it is established, but when he will express any view against the sahih hadith, it will not be accepted. (Dhikr bi al-Jahr, 2nd Edition, p 107) Moreover, he writes: "Behold! When a matter is established by hadith and there is no definite evidence from Quran and Hadith against it, then acting upon the hadith is in fact required by the religion. And any person whatever elevated position of saint and scholar he may have who has his opinion in contradiction with clear-cut hadith, then leaving his personal opinion in the face of sahih hadith is hidaya and straight way of the religion. The later scholar whatever excellent and knowledgeable he may be, he cannot overtake the Companions. And when there is a rule that the statement of a Companion will be rejected in comparison to hadith, so see when the Companion's opinion is not acceptable, then what weight our opinions will carry against a hadith? (Dhikr bi al-Jahr, 2nd Edition, p 105) What else can be best fitting reply to these references of scholars which are against the sahih and explicit hadiths? The abovementioned reply was given by the said author himself: "Enough are you today to take your own account" (17:14) Undoubtedly, 'Allama Ibn al-Jawzi is a senior scholar and muhaddith and sometimes he wrongly regards sahih and hasan hadiths as false and fake, but he quoted abundant baseless hadiths without any comment in his books; therefore according to principles of Hadith, his quoting a hadith will not be considered as proof. Argument No 3: The Barelvis say that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was always shaded by clouds and thus his shadow did not touch the ground. (Tawdhih al-Bayan, p 178 & 186) This is also wrong. It is established by sahih hadith that sometimes the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) used to shade over him against severe sunlight. Had he been shaded always by cloud, the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) would not have needed to do so. As the long hadith of hijra (migration) mentioned in Bukhari says: when, along with Sayyidna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), he reached Quba in Rabi' al-Awwal on Monday in the house of Banu 'Amr bin 'Awf, those who did not see him approached Sayyidna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him): "but when the sunshine fell on Allah's Apostle and Abu

66 Bakr came forward and shaded him with his sheet, only then the people came to know Allah's Apostle (Allah bless him and give him peace)." (Sahih Bukhari, p 1:585) This sahih and explicit hadith says that the clouds did not intervene always between him and the sun; otherwise Sayyidna Abu Bakr would have not needed to shade him with his sheet in order to save him from sunlight. Objection: Mawlvi Ghulam Rasul Sa'eedi writes: the forefather of Deobandis, Shah Waliullah writes the accounts of his father Shah Abdur Rahim in Anfas al-'Arifin p 40 that one night Shah Abdur Rahim saw the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and he gave him two of his hair. Once his father showed the hair, three people denied it and thus a debate let loose: When the debate lengthened, they took the hair in sunlight, suddenly there appeared a portion of cloud whereas the sun was brightly shining and the season was not cloudy. So, one of the three did tawba and the other two said that it might be coincidence. They took them out in the sun, again they were shaded by cloud. One of the two also did tawba, but the third again cited the same excuse. They took them out in the sun thrice and the cloud appeared. Thus, the third one also resorted to tawba. Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehlawi (may Allah have mercy on him) says in Tafsir Azizi (part 30, p 219): "The clouds used to shade him in summer in sunlight". This subject can be discussed in length, but since you attach much importance to Shah Waliullah and Shah Abdul Aziz (may Allah have mercy on them); therefore we presented their references. Now you should think coolly whether Shah Waliullah and Shah Abdul Aziz, the author of Tuhfa Ithna 'Ash'ariya turned Shia by calling shadow of cloud for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) or they are still Sunni. If they became Shia, then why you argue blindly with their texts, if they are still Sunni, so can you revoke your statement that the issue of cloud's shadow was invented by Shias? (Tawdhih al-Bayan 186-187) Answer: It is troublesome that the said author is unable to comprehend plain words. We never said that a man turns Shia by believing regular shadow of cloud for him, we only said that regular shadow of cloud is not established, rather the hadith of Bukhari negates constancy. This is the reason that the Shia scholar 'Allama Qazwini is also not satisfied by the hadith of non-shadow narrated in al-Kafi and he is compelled to give it another explanation. We do not deny that sometimes as mu'jiza the clouds used to shade him, rather we believe in it, as it is mentioned in Bukhari: "I raised my head and saw a thing like a cloud over me, so I looked and found Jibril therein." (Bukhari 1:458) It was moral and academic duty of the said author to give a proper reply of the hadith of Bukhari or give a reasonable explanation to it, but he failed and was too nervous to produce the same. Though it is not necessary, but we are presenting some more sahih hadiths which clarify a bit more that the clouds did not shade him regularly: (1) Sayyidna Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) says: we took part in the war of Najd with the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), it was siesta

67 time while he was in a field with abundant grooves, so he descended under the shadow of a tree to take rest. (Bukhari 2:593) (2) In the long hadith of hijra, Sayyidna Abu Bakr mentioned: we saw a rock in the way and approached it, there was some shadow under it. I spread a cloak that I had with me for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). (Bukhari 1:557) Obviously, had the clouds shaded him regularly, there was no need to look for shadow of rock and take rest under it. (3) "The Prophet was at Al-Ji'irrana shaded with a cloth sheet while wahy was being revealed to him. (Bukhari 1:208, 2:620) This hadith also conveys the same sense very clearly. However, these explicit hadiths from Sahih Bukhari disclose that the clouds did not shade him always. If the clouds can repeatedly appear to shade his hair, then why the clouds did not always appear to shade him from sun and why Sayyidna Abu Bakr and other Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) needed to spread sheet to shade him from the heat of sun. What kind of religious service is it to leave sahih hadiths and found the religion on the baseless statements and opinions of fallible people? No doubt, we can present their opinion, but at a place where no enlightenment is found from the Quran and Hadith or where their texts explain the Quran and Hadith. We did not quote their texts intentionally opposite to the Quran and Hadith and neither had we deemed it lawful. However if sometimes, out of mu'jiza, his hair was shaded by clouds, then how it proves that the clouds shaded him regularly? More Narrations of Shading of Clouds and Angels along with their Answers So far we presented the answers to the arguments posed by Ghulam Rasul Sa'eedi Barelvi. Here, we want to quote some narrations, which prove the shading of clouds and angels along with necessary criticism so that people are well aware of the reality. (1) There is a long hadith in Mustadrak 2:616, Sirat Ibn Hisham1:181 which says that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) during his trip to Syria with his uncle Abu Talib was grazing camels while he was shaded by a cloud. Imam Hakim who was tending to Shiite thought regards it sahih on the parameter of Bukhari and Muslim, but 'Allama Dhahbi, expert of Hadith and Imam of Ahl alSunna wa al-Jamaa says: "I say that the hadith is fake and some part of it is absolutely false. (Talkhis al-Mustadrak, 2:215) Ibn Hisham narrates this hadith from Muhammad bin Ishaq who was a big liar and fabricator. So, how such narrations can be relied upon compared to those sahih and explicit hadiths that are mentioned in Sahih Bukhari. 'Allama Qustalani and 'Allama Zurqani have harmonized the narrations of shading of clouds and angels with the narrations of shading sheet in this way. First 'Allama Qustalani quoted the hadith of shading of Sayyida Abu Bakr over the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) which we mentioned with the reference of Bukhari, then he said: "It is obvious that he felt sunlight, but as for the hadiths related to shading of cloud and angel they were related to a time before his prophethood, as it

68 is clear, so there is no contradiction. (Mawahib Ladunniya with Sharh al-Zurqani 1:351) However, this effort was needless; since harmonizing is needed at a place where both the hadiths are equally sahih as per the sanad, but here the case is not so. The narrations of Bukhari are perfectly reliable, while one of the other narrations is fake according to Imam Dhahbi and the second and third were narrated by liar narrators like Waqidi and Muhammad bin Ishaq. So, there is no need to harmonize between them. The hadith of Bukhari which proves shading of cloud is a miracle which took place once not regularly, whereas we differ in the matter of regular shading. (2) When the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) lived with Sayyida Halima (may Allah be pleased with her), his foster sister saw cloud shading him, it moved where he moved and halted where he halted. (Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd 1:7) But, one of the narrators is Waqidi whose hadith is abandoned (matruk) according to Imam Bukhari. Imam Ahmad, Imam Ibn al-Mubarak, Imam Ibn Numair, Imam Ismail Zakariya have forsaken his hadiths. Imam Ahmad called him kadhdhab (big liar). (Tahzib al-Tahzib 9:364) Imam Shafi'i says: the books of Waqidi are full of lies. (Tahzib al-Tahzib 9:366) Imam Bundar says that he did not see a liar bigger than him. Imam Ishaq bin Rahwaih says: he used to fabricate hadith. (Tahzib al-Tahzib 9:367) Imam Nasai says that Waqidi is one from amongst those who are known in fabricating hadith against the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). (Tahzib al-Tahzib 9:366) (3) The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) set on a journey to Syria with Mysara, the slave of Sayyida Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her). Mysara saw two angels shading over him in the sever midday heat while he was riding a camel. (Dalayil al-Nubuwwa f Abu Nu'aim Isfahani 134) But this hadith was narrated by the same Muhammad bin Waqidi. (See Dalayil al-Nubuwwa 131) (4) It is mentioned in Mawahib Ladunniya with Sharh al-Zurqani 1:199, Khasayis alKubra of Suyuti 1:91: "Sayyida Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) saw him riding a camel while two angels shaded him. Imam Suyuti quoted it with the reference of Abu Nu'aim which consists of Waqidi as narrator. 'Allama Zurqani also refers it to Waqidi. (Sharh Mawahib of Zurqani 1:197) Thus, this hadith refers to Waqidi from all sides. This hadith was mentioned in Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Asakir etc, but all these chains go back to Waqidi. (Sirat al-Nabi 3:657, Sayyid Sulaiman Nadwi) However, no narration of regular shading of angels and clouds is reliable. The only sahih and reliable narration is of Bukhari which was mentioned earlier and which occurred only once and that too as miracle. Now, the readers should themselves decide whether it is in compliance with the spirit of Islam to believe the sahih hadiths which clearly mentioned his shadow or is it a religious service and love of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) to rely on the narration of a fabricator and liar and other similar baseless narrations, especially when the condition of their sanad is also known? Whether the sahih hadiths of Bukhari which clearly mention shading of rock, tree and cloth are reliable or the baseless narration of shading of angel and cloud narrated by a liar and fabricator like Waqidi? Whether accepting such groundless narrations does not befit the following couplet:

69 The reality was lost amid nonsense The Ummah was lost in baseless traditions May Allah bless and give peace to His best of creation Sayyidna Muhammad, to his Family, his Companions, Wives and followers to the Day of Judgement. Muhammad Fayyaz Khan Sawati Madrasah Nusratul Uloom 8 Rabi al-Awwal 1411 AH