Home > Refutation > WAHABI MENACE

WAHABI MENACE

OBJECTION NO.1
The Deo-Bandi Molvis falsely accuse Ala’Hadrat as calling a Sahaba or Taba’ee a Kaafir.
· quote original text of Malfooz:

Answer: It was simple for the ignorant Wahabi to accuse the Imam for labeling a Sahaba a
Kaafir. But 40 years have passed from time of accusation that the Deo-Bandis have not as yet
given any proof that Abdur Rahmaan Qaari was a Sahabi or is there any Sahabi by that name.
We ask them to present the name of any book which records any information of a Sahabi by
that name. Who was he, what period did he embrace Islam and what was his date of birth
and death?They are so blind and ignorant that they cannot read correctly, and if they manage to
read, then they are surely mischievous. They present the name of Abdur Rahmaan ibne
Abdul Qaari to mislead the masses and try to prove that Abdur Rahmaan Qaari was the
same person. Abdur Rahmaan ibne Abdul Qaari and Abdur Rahmaan Qaari are two
different people. Imam ibn Atheer t and Imam Maghazi t certainly classify Abdur
Rahmaan ibne Abdul Qaari as being a Taba’ee.

It is said regarding Abdur Rahmaan bin Abdul Qaari that he was born in the era of

Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r. He did not hear anything from the Nabi r nor narrate any
Hadith.
Imam Waqidi regards him as a Sahabi because he was born in the sacred era of the
Beloved Nabi r. But it is apparent that he was a Taba’ee and belonged to the great
Ulama of Madina Munawwara. He had narrated Hadith from Sayyiduna Omar Al-Farooq
t. He passed away in 81 Hijri at the age of 78 years.
It is noted that only Imam Waqadi regards Abdur Rahmaan bin Abdul Qaari as a Sahabi
while the concerns is that he was a Taba’ee and from the Ulama of Madina Munawwara

Qaari Tayyaba is a famous Deo-Bandi Wahabi. The world knows this fact. One of his
servants, Mufti Mehmood also versifies the above quotation that Abdur Rahmaan bin Abdul
Qaari was a Taba’ee and not Sahabi. He records in this Fatwa regarding him.

He is not a Sahaba according to the principles of the Muhaddith. In fact he is classified as a
Taba’ee of Medina.
Refer to his Fatwa, no 648 written on Sunday 16 August 1987.
Now that it is an established fact with concessions that Abdur Rahmaan bin Abdul Qaari
is Taba’ee. So the accusation of the Deo-Bandi Wahabi is absolutely false on Imam
Ahmad Rida t. In Al-Malfooz vol. 2 pg.—– , the Noble Imam refers to another Abdur
Rahmaan Qaari who was a Kaafir and not to the illustrious Taba’ee. Whose name were
also Abdur Rahmaan ibne Abdul Qaari not just Abdur Rahmaan Qaari. These Deohttp://

Bandis have been singing a song about this fabrication for years that he was a Sahabi
and Ala’Hadrat t. Imam Ahmad Rida t had labelled him a Kaafir. When the Ahle’Sunnah
Ulama demanded proof Abdur Rahmaan Qaari being a Sahabi, they cunningly said that
he was a Sahabi or Taba’ee. However, whether Abdur Rahmaan bin Abdul Qaari be a
Sahabi or Taba’ee, he can never be that Abdur Rahmaan that was referred by Imam
Ahmed Rida t in his Malfooz. This is so, because of two reasons.
Firstly: The incident mentioned in Al-Malfooz was of the battle of Zaatul Qarad, that
was fought in Muharram 7th Hijri. This Abdur Rahmaan was killed in this battle. And
the other Abdur Rahmaan was a noble Taba’ee was born in 9th Hijri. How is it possible
for a person to take part in a battle two years before his birth?
Secondly: It will be heresy to regard the first Abdur Rahmaan Qaari as a Sahabi or
Taba’ee because the incidents that lead to his death were apparent and crystal clear
that he was a true Kaafir and an open enemy of Allah Y and His Rasool r. The chapter
in Al-Malfooz where Imam Ahmed Rida t called him a Kaafir also mentions
1. This Abdur Rahmaan along with his associates came to steal the camel of the
Holy Prophet r.
2. He killed the shepherd of Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r.
3. He stole the life stock of the Nabi r.
4. Sayyiduna Salma bin Akwah t trailed the bandits, killed them and snatched their
belongings.
5. This that Abdur Rahmaan and Sayyiduna Abu Qatadah t had a confrontation in
the past.
6. Sayyiduna Abu Qatadah t confronted Abdur Rahmaan and killed him.
I invite all true Muslims to think;
a) Can anyone who steals the camels of Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r be a Sahabi or a

Taba’ee?
b) Can anyone who fights with Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r be a Sahabi or a Taba’ee?
c) Did Sayyiduna Salma bin Akwah t trail a Sahabi or Taba’ee?
d) Did he snatch the belongings of a Sahaba or Taba’ee?
e) Did Sayyiduna Abu Qatadah t kill a Sahaba or Taba’ee?
Anyone who has a spark of Emaan in his heart will not say that such a heretic was a
Sahaba or Taba’ee. They will certainly say that this Abdur Rahmaan was a true Kaafir,
and a bitter enemy of Allah Y and His Rasool r. This is what the great Mujaddid and
Noble Imam had said in his Malfooz. So it goes to show that the Deo-Bandi Wahabi are
blinded with such great hatred for Imam Ahmed Rida t that they classify a bitter enemy
of Allah Y and His Rasool r who was a true Kaafir as a Sahabi and Taba’ee! This goes to
proof that according to the Deo-Bandi Wahabi doctrines;
1. An enemy of Allah Y and His Rasool r is a Sahaba and Taba’ee.
2. One who raids and steals the livestock of the Beloved Nabi r is a Sahaba or
Taba’ee!
3. A murderer of the official shepherd of the Glorious Prophet of Allah r is a Sahaba
or Taba’ee!
4. One who declares war against the Beloved Habeeb r is a Sahaba or Taba’ee.
5. The illustrious Sahaba in the company of the Beloved Rasool r that killed anyone
and confiscated their belonging were also Sahaba or Taba’ee!
In view of these blasphemy’s, there is no reason for any grouse against them if they call are
enemy of Allah Y and His Rasool r a Sahaba or Taba’ee. In fact, this is what is expected of
them because a dog will surely give birth to a dog and not a lion. May Allah Y guide us in the
true path of Ahle’Sunnah and save us from the deceit and Fitna of the Deo-Bandies and
Wahabi.

OBJECTION NO. 2
North winds disobedience:
It is clearly recorded in Zarqaani Alal Mawahib, Seerate Halabi and Madarijin Nubuwwah vol.2
pg.237 etc. about the end result of the Battle of Azaab.
Insert original of Madarij vol.2 pg. 237
“Ibne Mardunya in his Tafseer narrates an amazing point from Sayyiduna Ibne Abbaas
t. Who said the In the night of Ahzaab the morning breeze said to the northerly wind,
“come, let us go and assist the Prophet of Allah r”. The Northerly wind replies, “The
chaste and free women do not come out at night”. Allah Y was angry at this comment
and made it impotent.
Allah Y states in Suratul Ahzaab,

I have sent such a wind and army on the disobedience that is not visible to you.
Almighty Allah Y states that He sent a wind on the Kuffaar and the Hadith Shareef says the
same with more details. It says that the Southerly wind said to the Northerly wind, come, lets
go and assists the Prophet of Allah r. According to the understanding of the ayah and Hadith
it is understood that Allah Y ordered both, the Southerly and Northerly winds to assists His
Habeeb r. The Northerly refused and hence earned the anger of Allah Y. If we say that Allah
Y did not command the Northerly wind then what was the reason for the anger and
punishment of Allah Y for it?
I would like to give a better and clearer explanation to this matter. There are 3
important points to observe here.
1. Allah Y did not order any due of the two winds. The Southerly wind on its own
according suggested to the Northerly wind to assist the Holy Prophet r. If this was
the case then the command of the Ayah will be incorrect.
2. Allah Y only commanded the Southerly wind to assist and it intern requested the
Northerly wind to join, but refused. Hence it was subjected to Divine Anger and
punishment. This will be regarded as oppression and unfair.
3. Allah Y commanded both. The Southerly was commanded directly and the
Northerly indirectly (via the Southerly).
If refused and was subjected to Divine anger and punishment. This point is correct and
the basis of our arrangement.
Ala’Hadrat Imam Ahmed Rida t had quoted the very same thing in Al-Malfooz vol.4
pg.— as follows:

But the ignorant Deo-Bandi Wahabi, Qaari Tayyab and party made 3 baseless objections and
accusation against the great Mujaddid of Islam. Their objections are;
Firstly, That the command of Allah Y failed on the Northerly wind.
Secondly, Imam Ahmed Rida t claims that the Northerly wind does not bring rain.
From which Hadith can be substantiate this?
Thirdly, There are numerous evidence from length to breath of Hindustan that the

Northerly wind brings rain. This lie of Ala’Hadrat t is bigger than a
mountain.
I would like to comment on these objections and prove to the Ummah how ignorant and
mischievous are the Deo-Bandi Wahabi.
As far as the first objection is concerned, I would like to draw your attention that it is a
lie that they alleged that Ala’Hadrat t said that the command of Allah Y failed on the
Northerly wind. These are the words of the objector and not of the Imam. These are
the words of the Deo-Bandi Wahabi, which they paste on the Imam. Actually they say
that the Northerly wind disobeyed the command of Allah Y. These fools fail to
understand the difference between disobeying the command of Allah Y and Allah’s Y
command failed. There is a great difference between these statements. What can be
expected from the ancient fabricators of the Holy Quraan?
The failure of a command of a King proves his weakness and there is no weakness in
the command if a disobedient subject refuses to obey it. In fact it proves the might and
authority of the King because he punishes the disobedient. In the above case, it
certainly proves the authority of Allah Y on the wind. But unfortunately, according to
the Wahabi Wisdom of Deoband, that which proves the absolute power Almighty Allah
Y, they concocted the words and established the weakness and inability of the Sublime
Lord. We invite the readers to decide!
a) Almighty Allah Y ordered the Shaytaan to make Sajdah to Sayyiduna Adam and
he
refused. This was the disobedience of the cursed Devil. It would be gross
misinterpretation that the command of Allah Y failed on the cursed Shaytaan.
b) Allah Y ordered Man and Jinn to testify in Him and His Rasool r. Most of them

refused. The correct interpretation of this would be that most of them disobeyed.
It would certainly be incorrect to interpret that the command of Almighty Allah Y
failed.
c) Allah Y ordered the Muslim to be obedient to the laws of the Sharee’ah. Many did
obey and seemed. This is certainly the fault and disobedience of the Muslim and
and not the weakness of the command of Allah Y.
Similarly, Allah Y ordered the Northerly wind to destroy the enemy, but it disobeyed.
The correct interpretation of this would be that the wind disobeyed the command of
Allah Y. If one misconstrues the correct interpretation and say that the command of
Allah Y failed on the Northerly wind, then this will certainly be the worst crime in the
world of reasoning.
In the second objection, is it not sufficient that Imam-ul Muhaddith, Shiekh Muhaqqiq
Abdul Haqq Muhaddith Dehlawi t has clearly stated that Allah Y make the wind
impotent. Impotency here certainly means that it will not bring rain.
The third objection clearly announces that the Deo-Bandi Wahabi have become so blind
and deaf in the enmity of Ala’Hadrat Imam Ahmed Rida t, that they have lost all senses
of understanding. Oh Wahabi lunatics! This incident took place in Arabia. Ask the
Arabs if ever the Northerly wind brings rain? It is very stupid to assume similarity to the
weather pattern of Hindustan to Arabia.

OBJECTION NO. 3

Here the Deo-Bandi Wahabi accuses the Great Imam and Mujaddid of claiming that he led the
Salaatul-Janaaza while Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r followed his Imamat. They say that Ala’Hadrat
t claims that he was the Imam of the Holy Prophet of Allah r. This is the incident that took
place that is recorded in vol. 2

1. It was first in 1351 Hijri 1932 that the Wahabies of Rangoon brought up this phony
accusation. The Ahle’ Sunnah scholars immediately reacted with a reply by publishing
Sob’ha-e-Rangoon Bar Hizbe Bandaggan’e Shaytaan Mal’oon.
2. Then the Deo-Bandies of U.P Province in India repeated the same accusation and a
second refutationn was given by Jama’at Rida-e-Mustafa in 1352 Hijri 1933.
3. Again the Deo-Bandies of Bombay lifted their heads and the Ahle’Sunnah of Bombay
smashed their head in 1355/1936.
4. This time the Deo-Bandies of Mubarakpur started this mischief and the response of the
Sunni Ulema was with Al-Azaabu’sh Shadeed which again sank their boat.
5. The fifth time the Deo-Bandi Wahabies tried to stair up this Fitna and again the
righteous Sunni Ulama responded by writing Barqe Khudawandi and sealing their confirm.
Besides this, on numerous other occasions they tried bitterly to confuse the Muslims public
about the life and works of the Great Mujaddid, Imam Ahmed Rida. Here in South Africa,
some unknown Deo-Bandi idiot published a booklet named “The Life and Faith of Moulana
Ahmed Rida Khan Bareillwi” written by an immaginary Hadrat Moulana Nasru-deen Al-Qaderi.
This book has no name or address of the publishers nor is the author known in the circle of
scholars. This book too, has the typical Deo-Bandi Wahabi style of nonsensical things that
they have been writing for the past 68 years. No wonder a fictitious author’s name is given
without any trace of the publishers. It is obvious to us who the culprits are because it is the
same concocted stories and comments.
However, we would like to have the pleasure of knocking the last nail in Deo-Bandi Wahabi
coffins and hope to seal it forever.

Coming back to objection 3 about the Imamat and Salaatul Janaza. The subtitle of their
fabrication reads; “The Rasool of Allah was my follower.” Thereafter I quote the original text
as it appears in the above Doe-Bandi book;
When Barkaat Ahmed passed away, and I descended into his grave, then I say this without
exaggeration, I inhaled that fragrance in this grave, which I had first inhaled at the Roza
Shareef of Rasool of Allah sall. On the day that he died, the late Molvi Sayyid Amir Ahmed
saw Huzoor sall on horseback in a dream. He asked “Ya Rasool Allah sall, where art thou
bound?” The Nabi sall replied; “For the Janaza Salaah of Barkaat Ahmed.” Alhamdullillah I
(Ahmed Rida Khan) myself did lead this mubarak Salaah of Janaza (Malfooz vol.2 pg. 23).
Comment; How can any Muslim tolerate such blasphemy. Is this not disregarding the status
and dignity of our Beloved Nabi sall? How can a person stoop to such indecency? Then at
times Moulana Ahmed Rida reserved this exaggeration, just observe.
N.B. the above is a word for word record of the Deo-Bandies, which they have been barking
for over 60 years.
Our reply to this objection is follows,
Firstly The correct synopsis of the above quotation is that Hakeem Barkaat Ahmed was a
beloved servant of sacred court of Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r. When he passed away, the
Beloved Habeeb r honoured him with a special blessing by coming to perform his Janaza
Salaah and brighten the grave with His August Presence. This is not a rare happening as
there are numerous examples of such incidents where the Glorious Prophet of Allah r blesses
his special servant with his Gracious Presence. Similarly, this is one of those accusations
where Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r honoured Hakeem Barkaat Ahmed. I can’t understand why this
has caused a pain in stomach of the Deo-Bandi.
The fact of the matter is that the Deo-bandies belief that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r is dead and
turned to dust. Their Pope, Ismail Dehlawi writes in his Taqwiyatul Emaan pg.50 that the
Prophet said; “One day I will also die and turn to dust”. He gives no reference of this Hadith
and how can he when there is no such statement of the Nabi r! He shamelessly and
wrongfully attributed this lie to the Glorious Prophet of Allah r to substantiate his erroneous
belief. Since the Deo-bandi Wahabi belief that the Prophet dead and turned to dust, therefore
they kicked up a row when it was said that he blessed his servant at the time of his Janaza. It
warrants them to subject because they belief that it not possible for the Nabi r to visit anyone
after turning to dust. If they keep quiet, this it will be established that he is well and alive and

hence discredit their belief.
On the contrary, we the Ahle’Sunnah wa Jamaat belief that the Beloved Habeeb r is and will
be physically alive as he was in the Duniya. Allah Y has blessed him with the power to go to
any place any time as he pleases. No one nothing can restrict his Divinely Blessed abilities.
This is no surprise or amazement to us as there is a consensus of the entire Ummah on such
belief. Shiekh Muhaqqiq Allama Imam Abdul Haqq Muhaddith Dehlawi t states in Majma’ee-
Barakaat,
.
The Prophet of Allah r is fully aware of the condition of his Ummah. He assists and
blesses his sincere servants and he is Haadir and Naazir. Allama Mulla Ali Qaari Hirwi Al-
Makki t states in his Shar’he Shifa.

Because the sacred Ruh of the Nabi r is present in the Houses of the Muslim
Now that it is established consensus of the entire Ummah that the Habeeb is physically alive in
his grave as he was in this Duniya and also Hazir and Nazir. There is no objection if the Nabi r
wishes to bless a chosen servant by attending his Salaatul Janaza. One who objects to this, is
certainly ignorant and a troublemaker.
Ala’Hadrat Imam Ahmed Rida t was a Mujaddid and a Mujaddid is a great Aalim of Deen. His
insight to matters of Deen is prolific and deep. A Mujaddid is a special appointed servant of
Allah Y whose heart is filled with Divinely Blessed knowledge (Illme Laduni). Therefore it is
said; “When an Alim speaks, he dives into the ocean of knowledge”. Imam Ahmed Rida t
never claimed that he was the Imam of the Holy Prophet of Allah r. When he was informed
that the Beloved Nabi r came to the Salaatul Janaza he said; “Alhamdulillah! I performed that
mubarak Salaatul Janaza”. This statement is absolutely correct according to the beliefs of the

Ahle’Sunnah wa Jamaat. Surely the ignorant do not understand the reality of the matter. Let
me enlighten them.
Firstly the statement of Ala’Hadrat t will only be a blasphemy if the Deo-bandi Wahabi confirm
that they belief Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r is Haazir and Naazir, then how do they conclude that
it is blasphemy?
Secondly it is a belief of the Ahle’Sunnah wa Jamaat that the statues of the Beloved Habeeb is
unique in all aspects. When the Jama’at begins, any person of the world who joins the Salaah
will do so as a follower (Muqtadi). But the unique status of Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r is that if
he joins the Jama’at, he will not do so as a Muqtadi, but as the Imam while the Imam will
become his Muqtadi and follow him. So the Nabi will be his Imam and he will be the Imam of
the followers.
The Hadith Shareef of Al-Bukhari confirms this and Shiekh Muhaqqiq Imam Abdul Haqq
Muhaddith Dehlawi t records it in his Mudarijim-Nubuwwah. Once Sayyiduna Abu Bakr As-
Siddique t was leading the Salaah and the Prophet of Allah Y arrived. Sayyiduna Abu Bakr t
intended to move back and the beloved Nabi r did not stop him, instead stood on his left and
joined the Jama’at. The words of the Hadith Shareef are:

Our Imam was Abu-Bakr t and Abu Bakr ‘s t Imam was Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r.
This Imam Shareef removes all the clouds of doubts. Now the statement of Ala’Hadrat t in Al-
Malfooz becomes crystal clear. Ala’Hadrat t says that Imam-ul Ambiya was my Imam and I
was the Imam of the congregation. Therefore Imam Ahmed Rida t used the words “MUBARAK
JANAAZA” signalling to the reason this Janaza was blessed. Therefore he said “Alhamdullillah!
I performed this Blessed Janaza” to thank Almighty Allah Y for the privilege of being a Muqtadi
of Sayyiduna Rasoolullah r. But what can be said about the mischief and hatred of the Deobandi
Wahabi? They are disrespectful to Allah Y and His Rasool r and therefore their hearts
are sealed form understanding truth. How can they see truth when it is said:

Knowledge is light (Noor) of Allah Y and the disobedient do get the Noor of Allah Y

OBJECTION NO. 4
This objection is on vol. 3 pg 29 of Al-Malfooz where Ala’Hadrat t discussed the subject of
Hayatun Nabi r. He was asked about the difference between the Hayaat (life) of Prophets and
Awlia. Speaking of Hayat of Prophets, he quoted Imam Sayyid Muhammad bin Abdul Baaqi
Zarqaani t who said; “The wives of the Noble Prophets of Allah are presented to them in the
graves and they spend the nights with them.” This quotation caused a tremor in Deo-Band.
They Deo-bandi Wahabies again displayed what they do the best i.e. lie. They are habitual
liars and lie as easily as they breathe. It reminds me of the Hadith Shareef concerning liars.
The Glorious Prophet of Allah r states; “When a person lies, the Devil rubs honey on the liars
lips do he enjoys the taste of lying.”
The Deo-bandies records their objection under the caption “ ‘Sunni’ Bareillwi Belief” they write,
“In their respected graves the Prophets spend their nights in the company of their wives (i.e.)
pursuing sexual pleasures).
The “Ala’Hadrat” Ahmed Rida Khan t has confirmed this notion;
“In the graves of the Prophets, their wives are presented to them to spend their nights in their
company (to fulfil their desires). Malfoozat-e-Ala’Hadrat vol. 3 pg.32.
Dear Reader! Did you notice the dramatic deceit in the above presentation? Observe the last
line of the first comment “(i.e.) pursuing sexual pleasures)”. And the next line, “the
Ala’Hadrat…has confirmed this notion. When quoting the original text of Malfoozat, the idiots
put in their comments in brackets, (i.e.) pursuing sexual pleasures)”. The great Arif Moulana
Jalaalludeen Rumi t states:
“Dirty minds always have dirty thoughts”. The crux of the matter is that the Deo-bandi Wahabi
regards the Holy Prophet r as an ordinary human being like you and I. It is their belief that
the status of the Habeeb likes that of a Big brother, and as far as deeds of an individual is
concerned, sometimes the followers exceed to the Prophets in their deeds. The Deo-bandi
leader and former head of Darul-Uloom Deo-band, Molvi Qaasim Nanotwi write on page 7 of
his Tahzeerum-Naas, line nos. 10,11,12.

If the Prophets are superior to their followers, then it is solely due to knowledge. But as far as
practical deeds (Amal) are concerned, at times outwardly they are in par ot the Prophets, in
fact even surpass the Prophets.
The father of Wahabism and the role model of Deo-band in the Indo-Pak-Sub-Continent Deobandi
Molvi Ismail Dehlawi clarifies his belief on page 52 of his Taqmiyatul Emaan in the
following words;

All humans are brothers to one another. One who is exalted is the bigger brother and hence
should be respected as a big brother. Allah Y is the Lord of everyone and he alone is to be
worshipped. It is understood from the Hadith that Awlia, Ambiya, Imams children, Peer and
Shaheed and all the intimate servants of Allah Y are all known beings and hopeless servants
and our brothers. But since Allah Y has given them statues so they are our big brothers and
Allah Y has ordered us to obey them. We are their small brothers and we should respect them
as general humans and not respect them as we do for Allah Y.
The above books are very revered by the Deo-bandies and regarded as their manual of
guidance. They have published several times and referred to all the time as their code of
beliefs.
It should not surprised when they regard the presenting of the wives to the Prophets in their
graves as absurd because they regard the Prophets as an ordinary human being and so apply
the rule of ordinary human to him.

Categories: Refutation
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: