ibn Adam Deobandi insults the Prophet ﷺ

Here he says that the controversial video was mistakenly published and pushes the typical "it's a nuance" angle. Some people posited that the video's subsequent deletion showed a realisation on his part that he was incorrect. This statement shows that this is not the case.

Message posted on our YouTube community page:https://t.co/Fk2WTZF8SR pic.twitter.com/0fiHwS08QD

— Darul Iftaa UK (@DarulIftaa) July 4, 2023

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxHeQmVPvE8EGBmcCrxHLOBT79rI5j98zu

 

Comment by Shaykh Abdul Aziz Suraqah al-Amriki:



Comment by Shaykh Mostafa Azzam al-Masri:





This is Mufti Zameelur Rahman trying to critique Shaykh Asrar Rashid’s book:


https://youtu.be/lfFoQjWeJUM

 

jazak Allah khayr for pointing it out. it was on my mind but slipped at the time of posting

devbandis are shameless dirty dogs

zameel you are a shameless dirty dog - and i'm consciously saying it on the day of Arafah. may Allah give you what you deserve

ibn adam is a shameless dirty dog. he brings in a lamborghini as a means of transport to water down the donkey comment and the filth spewed by their dogs whom they call akabir

the filthy dog zameel brings in the work livestock only to water down the mention of donkeys and livestock

likewise the dirty dog zameel said "come into contact with soil" for "mitti mein milne wala hun"

it's neither correct in figurative translation nor literal

any urdu scholar or jahil alike knows the idiom "mitti mein milna" has seriously negative connotations; even literally the translation will be "mix with soil" not "come into contact"

 

Even he uses the word "livestock" instead of donkey and cow, which is but an indirect confession of how bad the choice of words were.

 

As salaamu alaykum all

I've tried to research the Barelwi and Deobandi dispute for some time and don't really want to get into it without even knowing Urdu/Farsi/Arabic.

Although the comparison with a donkey should've never have been made, is it fair to say that if sarf al himma occurs of rasoolAllah ﷺ, this could lead to shirk? that seems to be what the deobandis are explaining the statement with. Br. Abu Hasan responded to me on his recent twitter thread but I think he was talking about the mere thought of rasoolAllah ﷺ in salah, which is fine of course.


jazakAllah khayr

 

jazak Allah khayr for bringing this to my attention. It was not my claim that the reason for the passage being blasphemous is the usage of the word Khayal in both instances. Rather, it was to refute the argument being put forward by deobandis that:

It's good that Zameel has atleast acknowledged that Sirat-e-Mustaqim does indeed mention the above, in relation to a specific type of thought:

 

Zameel, and his followers on Twitter have been alleging that since the blasphemous text appears in the second chapter which was written by Abd al-Hayy, that absolves Ismail from any charge. They have picked this argument from Nu'mani's book written in defense of Ismail. Firstly, unlike the partisan and blind followers of Deobandi Aqabir, we're always ready to treat everyone with a fair and objective standard. If Takfir can be averted due to a legitimate plausible excuse, our Ulama have always done that. But, there is big difference between averting Takfir and absolving someone completely of any blame.

My response to Zameel's claim:

1. Firstly, the introduction of Sirat-e-Mustaqim doesn't say that Abd al-Hayy was the author of chapter 2 and 3. It merely states that some of the pages have been collected by Abd al-Hayy and were added in chapter 2 and 3. The blasphemous text may or may not have been initially penned by Ismail. This is also acknowledged by Deobandi Polemicist (and Imam e Ahl e Sunnat, according to Zameel's blog) Sarfaraz Safdar in his book Ibarat-e-Akabir:
   
   
   
2. Ismail states that Abd al-Hayy had penned those additional pages after hearing it from their Pir Sayyid Ahmad Rae-Barelwi. He explains the reason behind going beyond Rae-Barelwi's verbatim words was because, unlike the scholars trained in traditional sciences (uloom e rasmiya), Rae-barelwi's style was bereft of that and instead drank from the Muhammadan spirit. (It's common for Taymis to bypass the transitional scholarship and refer themselves as Muhammadi, in opposition to Hanafi, Maliki, Chishti, Qadiri etc.). Hence, he saw it important to explain Rae-Barelwi's utterances, as per the scholarly terminologies, since the people have become used to the latter. Hence, whatever was published in Sirat-e-Mustaqim, should be understood as Ismail's explanation of Sayyid Rae-Barelwi's teachings
   
   
3. The crux of the matter remains that Ismail consciously made those additions. Hence, it's a red herring to talk about who was the original contributor to the said passage. Ismail was the one who finally compiled the book and presented it to Rae-Barelwi for his approval and removing any part that was not in line with his teachings.
   
   
4. Zameel & co. can't absolve Ismail from his crime of including that blasphemous passage. We are not merely shooting the messenger (Ismail) as he has himself categorically affirmed his support for the message (Rae-Barelwi's utterances) by saying that he benefited greatly from the latter and decided to compile it for the benefit of common muslims.

You can find further details on pts 2, 3 and 4 in the introduction of Sirat-e-Mustaqim:

 

jazak Allah khayr brother @Ibn Rida Safdar , can you or @abu Hasan also address this allegation by zameel



apparently according to zameel, ismail dehlvi didn't say it and that Gibril Haddad also is "satisfied" to absolve ismail of the crime of saying it (apparently not on the evil of the statement itself)

plus, zameel has further responses to @Ibn Rida Safdar comments in a second update on the same day



@zameel, of course you're reading this thread. so do you also concur with ibn adam's statement that thanawi said it (or regurgitated it perhaps)? also why defend it so much if your buddy ismail didn't even say it in the first place?

 

After the uproar against Ibn Adam Kawthari's (IAK) atrocious defense of that blasphemous passage, a lot of the Deobandis on twitter and elsewhere have been regurgitating the old arguments made by Manzur Nu'mani. The latter had tried to argue that:

• Nowhere is it mentioned in Sirat-e-Mustaqim that- "the *thought* of the Prophet ﷺ in Salah is worse than being engrossed in the thought of one's cow or donkey".
• Rather, the discussion is about Sarf-e-Himmat in relation to a Shaykh or Prophet ﷺ which is a Sufi practice of being “emptying the heart of thoughts (including the thought of Allah), and the shaykh or the Prophet ﷺ is kept in focus in order to gain spiritual benefit from him.
• Hence, the comparison is between stray thoughts about cows and donkeys vs Sarf-e-Himmat about Shaykh Prophet ﷺ

The entire thesis is based on the supposed fundamental difference between a thought vs Sarf-e-Himmat. This argument is being repeated by:

• Zameel's blog (here): "this passage from Sirat e Mustaqim does not absolutely consider mere “thought” about the prophets a deficiency in Salah....The section in question from the last paragraph is targeted at the people of tasawwuf who may think performing the particular Sufi practices in Salah is a good thing"
  
  
  
• Twitter threads (here & here) lifting from Nu'mani's book or the aforementioned article:
  
  

Perhaps, they haven't paid attention to the complete passage. I have highlighted the passage in red where it talks about cows and donkeys; and have highlighted it in yellow where it talks about a Shaykh or Prophet ﷺ. The word Khayal (thought) is used in both cases:

 

on this issue in ismayil's book: "that the thought of a shaykh or such esteemable person, even if it is the person of the honourable Prophet ﷺ himself , in salat is many times worse than being engrossed in the thought of one's own cow or donkey"
---
has been raked up.

— abu.hasan (@ridawipress) June 25, 2023

 

'murad' is the translation of 'yuridu' / He Wills for that to exist.

like it is said: muridu'l khayri wa'sh sharri'l qabiHi.

this should not be spinned off by stupid deobandis that "it proves Allah's Power of zulm etc." al iyadhu billah.

 

it is not an allegation. it is there in black and white (or highlighted in red). ismayil SAID it. you are now spinning stories to exonerate your taghut.

 

but dr. shadee should know that when the 'worst' statements are translated, printed, justified - we have to refute.
else it becomes mainstream and acceptable.

 

Thoughts on:

Refuting the Allegation that Shah Isma’il said – Allah Forbid! – that to Think of the Prophet (SAW) in Salah is Worse than Thinking of Animals

?

 

My clip saying the donkey statement would've got you executed by Malikis... It's true. They didn't play. It was my 1st exposure to this. Simultaneously I wouldn't want the worst of my statements rehashed after my death. So I won't do it to others and recmnd others cntmplate this

— Dr. Shadee Elmasry (@DrShadeeElmasry) June 23, 2023

Shadee was shown this clip here but points to the fact that the deo took the clip down as evidence that he knows he was 'mistaken'. And then same old rehash about how he can't verify the original statement. Despite the fact that he's got a video of a deo defending the statement itself.

Even if he were to take the position the original statement doesn't exist, it's acknowledged by him and others that it would be kufr. So the defence of the statement by multiple deos should lead to him at least calling out the kufr of the deos in the videos but he has no backbone- can't you verify what's in front of you in the English language?

Additionally, the defence of the statement by multiple deos would indicate the statement does indeed exist otherwise why are they defending it?

And even if it doesn't exist and they decided to defend a hypothetical statement, it would still be kufr regardless

 

This a challenge to each and every Barelvi to prove that great Mutakallim, Sufi, Allama Shah Isma'il Shaheed Rahimahullah has written,

“To think of prophet ﷺ in Salah is worse than thinking of donkeys.”

From the primary source itself.

— Ahnaaf Services (@AhnaafServices) June 24, 2023

apparently a devbandi kid thought that we didn't have the 'original source'.
i have given him the 'original source'

lets see what excuse he has now.

 

Abdur Raheem Limbada is a senior Deo scholar from DU Bury. He also defended the statement here

 

now limbada (whoever that is) will now say: shaykh fulani said it is thanawi, so it is not clear who said it.

the ibn adam fellow well say: "see? thanawi never wrote it. i told you. it was a false accusation"

if you say: but..but..someone among deobandi elders wrote it?

ibn adam: look...muhannad...