Anti-Ahmadis claim that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) is a Kafir for declaring Jihad of the Sword against the British as Unislamic. They also claim that he is a British agent. With this argument, these people have declared all their scholars as British agent and Kafir. In this article, we will show not only the Sunni scholars declaring Jihad against British as Haram, but also going many steps further in proving their loyalty and servitude to the British Empire.

Jihad against British Haram

Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi

“Jihad is not obligatory for us, the Muslims of India, on the basis of the Qur’an. He who holds that it is obligatory is an opponent to the Muslims and intends to harm them!”

[al-Mahajjat al-Mu’tamana, p. 208]

Ashraf Ali Thanvi al-Deobandi

“If Allah gave us government then we will keep the British as our subjects but with utmost comfort and peace because they kept us in peace.”

[Malfoozat Hakeem-ul-Ummat, vol. 6, p. 102]

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi al-Deobandi

“The Deobandis, as described above, used the services of officials in supporting their management of the school. They made sure that they conformed in every way to a posture of loyalty.

Rashid Ahmad, for this reason, refused to accept a grant of 5,000 rupees a year from the Shah of Afghanistan for fear that a political link might be suspected.

And the school celebrated ceremonial occasions like coronations with appropriate pomp, and observed times of crises, like Queen Victoria’s last illness, with fitting prayers and messages.”

[Islamic Revival in British India, p. 154]

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan

“Since the Muslims were living in peace they could, in no case, come out for Jihad against the Government.”

[Asbab-e-Baghawat-e-Hind, p. 8]

Ottomon Khalifa, Sultan Abdul Majeed

“Rather in 1857, an order was taken from Sultan Abdul Majeed, in his capacity as a Caliph, that Muslims must not fight the British and must obey them.”

[Naqsh-e-Hayat, vol. 2, pg. 631]

Maulvi Muhammad Husayn Batalwi

Some of our Muslim brothers believe that the present misfortunes of the followers of Islam cannot be removed without the sword. It is no use acquiring worldly education. However, looking at the present condition of the Muslims, this belief appears improbable.”

“Brethren! the age of the sword is no more. Now instead of the sword it is necessary to wield the pen. How can the sword come into the hands of the Muslims when they have no hands. They have no national identity or existence. In such a useless and weak condition, to consider them as a nation is to exceed the imagination of Shaikh Chilli (a proverbial, comical figure in Urdu fiction).”

[Isha’at-as-Sunnah, vol. vi, no. 12, December 1883, p. 364]
[Book Link]

“In terms of the true meaning of jihad, Sayyid Nazir Husain of Delhi did not consider the 1857 rebellion to be Islamic legal jihad. He thought it to be faithlessness, breach of covenant, and mischief, and declared it to be a sin to take part or help in it.”

[Isha’at-as-Sunnah, vol. vi, no. 10, December 1883, p. 288]

In our Ahle-Hadith Madhab, the ruler under which we live under in peace, doing jihad is haram

[Isha’at-as-Sunnah, vol. 10, no 25, page 36]
[Book Link]
[Computerized Urdu]

ہندوستان کے تمام طبقات رعایا سے صرف یہی ایک فرقہ اہلحدیث (؟) ہے۔ جو اس سلطنت کے زیر سایہ رہنے کو بلحاظ امن و آزادی، اسلامی سلطنتوں کے زیر سایہ رہنے سے بھی بہتر جانتا ہے، کیونکہ اس فرقہ کو بجز اس سلطنت کے کسی اور سلطنت میں (اسلامی کیوں نہ ہو ) پوری آزادی حاصل نہیں ۔

Among all the subjects of India, the Ahl-al-hadith are the only sect of Muslims (?) who know living under the shadow of this empire in terms of peace and freedom is better than living under the shadow of Islamic empires, because this sect does not have full freedom in any other empire (even if it is Islamic) except in this empire.

[Isha’at-as-Sunnah, vol. 9, no. 19, 194-195]
[Computerized Urdu]

This makes sense as there was extreme bad blood between the Ahnaaf and the Ahle Hadith in India. For example, if an Ahle Hadith did Rafa Yadain in a Hanafi Mosque he could be beaten and kicked out of the mosque. Ahmad Raza Khan, who defended traditional Hanafi Orthodoxy, in India said that Wahabis are not only Kafir but also Wajib ul Qatl and that they are followers of Satan.

“The King of Turkey is a Muslim King but so far as law and order and administration are concerned (leaving aside the religious aspect) the British Government is also of no less pride for us, the Muslims more so for the people who are known as Ahl-i-Hadees, this Government is of a greater pride for peace and freedom of conscience (as compared with Turkey, Iran and Khurasan)”

[Ishatus-Sunnah, vol. VI, Shumara 10, p. 292]
[Book Link]

Maulana Muhammad Hussain Batalawi severely condemned the 1857 mutineers who rebelled against the British. He writes:

“Uninformed Muslims should examine this implication and bear it in mind, and not consider fighting with every rival faith on account of its unbelief to be legal jihad. To fight with peaceful or covenanted people most definitely cannot be legal jihad, whether national or religious, but is rebellion and sedition. The Muslims who took part in the 1857 rebellion were serious sinners, and according to the Quran and Hadith they were rebels, mischief makers and wicked *(BAGHI Aur BAD KIRDAR). Most of the ordinary people among them were like beasts. Those known as the prominent and the Ulama were unacquainted with true faith, or lacking in understanding. Knowledgable Ulema did not participate in the rebellion nor did they sign the Fatawa for Jihad.”

[Al-Iqtisad fi masa’il al-Jihad, P. 49 – Rebels are Beasts]

“To fight against this government [i.e. British rule of India] or to aid those who fight against it, even though they
be one’s Muslim brothers, is clear treachery and haram.”

[Al-Iqtisad fi masa’il al-jihad, p. 49]

Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi sent his said ruling in relation to Jihad against the British:

Moulvi Mahomed Hossein, one of the leading and most influential Mowahideens of Lahore, when asked to give his opinion as to whether it was lawful to take up arms against the British, replied that a religious war against the British Government, or any other Government which allowed perfect freedom in religious mat ters, so far from being countenanced by the Mahomedan Law of jehad, was opposed to the doctrines of Islam. In proof of his assertion, he compiled a treatise entitled ‘ Jehad,’ in which he most ably and conclusively demonstrated that jehad against a Government like the British was unlawful and equal to a rebellion against a lawful king, and those who took any part in such a war deserved to be treated as rebels.

[Interpertation of Wahabiya, pg 105-106]

Battalvi lies that he does not believe in the Mahdi and Messiah that fights the non-Muslims using the sword. As per him, Mahdi will only use heavenly signs in support of his claim as the Bukhari has the hadith that the war will be abolished at the time of the Messiah.

This contradicts the “Sunni” view which claims that the Mahdi and Messiah will have armies and fight governments using the sword and kill all disbelievers. No non-Muslim will be left alive until they are done with their mission. Everyone will either accept Islam or will be killed.

He could not put forth this belief in front of the government, so he lied to the public and wrote lengthy articles in his magazine and the English Magazine, like below:

“It is also untrue to say that the belief in the coming of Masih and Mahdi is dangerous, for the learned Muhammadans do not believe that the Promised Masih and Mahdi will propagate Islam by the sword. According to Sahih Bukhari, a book unanimously believed to be an authority by Sunnis, the promised Masih will put an end to all fighting and will propagate Islam simply by means of heavenly signs and spiritual powers. Imam Mahdi will also come at the same time and there shall be no bloodshed and no Jehad. Islam will be spread by peaceful methods. I have written a lengthy article on the subject and it is about to be published shortly, so I need not go into details here, but I may declare it most emphatically that the Muhammedan belief in the coming of Masih and Mahdi does in no way constitute a danger to the country’s peace.”

[Civil & Military Gazette (Lahore) – 19 July 1907]

Maulana Sayyid Nadhir Hussain of Delhi – Founder of Ahle Hadith in India

Maulana Sayyid Nadhir Hussain of Delhi (1805-1902) was a very prominent and influential Salafi (Ahlul Hadith) scholar in British India. Today’s Ahlul Hadith of the Indian subcontinent look up to him as a very important scholarly figure. He was the highest Ahl-i hadith theologian.He made it explicitly clear that Jihad against the British government was prohibited:

پس جب کہ شرط جہاد کی اس دیار میں معدوم ہوئی، تو جہاد کرنا یہاں سبب ہلاکت اور معصیت کا ہوگا۔

“Since the criterion of Jihad is absent from this land, to conduct Jihad here would be a means of destruction and a sin.”

[Fatawa Naziriya; v. 3, p. 275]

Nazir Husayn Delawi says this after putting four conditions of Jihad and says that there is no reason to do. Jihad in British India. Here is more context.

“Shaikh al-Kul Maulana Syed Muhammad Nazeer Hussain Muhaddis Dehlavi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: ‘So I say that in this era, none of these four conditions are present — so why would Jihad take place? It absolutely will not take place…’”

[Fatawa Nazeeriya, vol: 3, pg: 284]

ہندوستان میں اس وقت انگریزی حکومت ہے وہاں ہر مذہب والا آزادی کے ساتھ اپنے شعار مذہب کے ادا کرنے کا مجاز ہے۔ کوئی مسلمان نہ جمعہ سے روکا جاتا ہے نہ جماعت سے اور یہاں اسلامی سرزمین اور مسلمانوں کی حکومت میں ہم لوگ طواف کعبہ اور جمعہ و جماعت سے مجبور ہیں۔

At present there is British rule in India where every religious person is allowed to freely practice the tenets of their faith. No Muslim is barred from Jummah or Jamaat, yet in this Islamic land and under a Muslim government, we are prevented from Tawaaf e Kaaba and Jummah and Jamaat.

We are but helpless to say that the English Government is God’s Mercy (Khuda Ki Rehmat) for Muslims of Hindustan.

[Al Hayat Baad Al Mamat, p. 91]

It is noted about him by Muhammad Husayn Batalvi:

“In terms of the true meaning of jihad, Sayyid Nazir Husain of Delhi did not consider the1857 rebellion to be Islamic legal jihad. He thought it to be faithlessness, breach of covenant, and mischief, and declared it to be a sin to take part or help in it.”

[Ishatus-Sunna, vol. vi, no. 10, October 1883, p. 288]

“Maulavi Nuzir Husein is a leading Moulavi in Dehli who in difficult times has proved his loyalty to the British Government and in his pilgrimage to Mecca Thope any British Officer whose help or protection he may need will afford it to him as he most fully deserves it.”

(Signed) J.D.Tremlett BCS. Commissioner & Sup Delhi Division.

AUGUST 10, 1883.

[Ishatus Sunnah, vol. 6, no. 10, pg. 294]
[Al Hayat Baad Al Mamat, pg. 83]

Maulvi Nawab Sideeq Hasan Khan Bhopali – Co-founder of Ahle Hadith in India

He was an eminent Ahl-i hadith religious scholar as well as a political leader. In his book Tarjuman-i Wahhabiyyat, he wrote:

“No Muslim subject of India and the Indian states bears malice towards this great power….This book has been written to inform the British government that no Muslim subject of India and the Indian states
bears malice towards this great power.”

[Edition published in Lahore, 1895, Tarjuman-i Wahhabiyyat, p. 6]

عیسائی لوگ ہو جا دینگے تمام ہوا مضمون احادیث وغیرہ کا ان حدیثوں سے یہ بات معلوم ہوئی کہ اگر چہ حکومت اسلام کی ضعیف ہو جاوے یا جاتی رہی لکن بالکل مسلمان دنیا سے نہیں مٹین کے یہانتک کہ قیامت آجاوے اور طول و عرض دولت عیسائیوں کا بہت ہوگا اور یہ لوگ سب پر غالب اور حاکم ہو جا وینگے چنانچہ مطابق او سکے دیکھا سنا ہوجا اس دیکھا جاتا ہے پیس نکر کرنا اون لوگون کا جو اپنے حکم مذہبی سے جاہل ہیں اس امر مین کے سکوت برٹش سٹ جیا وے اور بیہ امن و امان جو آج حاصل ہے فساد کے پردہ میں جہاد کا نام لیکر اوٹھا دیا جا رے سخت نادانی و بیوقوفی کی بات ہے بہلا ان نا عاقبت اندیشون کا ہا ہوگایا اویس سید صادق کا فرمایا ہوا جسکا کہا ہوا آج ہم آنکھوں سے دیکھہ رہے ہیں۔

“Christians will dominate everywhere — this is the essence of the discussion based on Hadith. From these Hadiths, it is understood that even if Islamic rule becomes weak or disappears, Muslims will never be completely wiped out from the world until the Day of Judgment. The dominion and expanse of Christian power will be vast, and they will become dominant and rulers over all. This is exactly what we are seeing and hearing today. To incite unrest under the guise of Jihad during this peaceful and secure time — when British rule has brought stability — is sheer ignorance and foolishness. What has become of those shortsighted people? It is just as Syed Sadiq had said, and we are witnessing his words come true before our eyes.”

[Tarjuman-i Wahhabiyyat, p. 10]

“During the mutiny [of 1857], some rajas and so-called nawabs and men of means interfered in the peace and calm of India under the name of jihad, and they fanned the flames of battle till their disorder and hostility reached such a level that women and children, who cannot be killed under any law, were thoughtlessly slaughtered. … If anyone lets loose such mischief today, he would also be the same kind of trouble-maker, and from beginning to end he would stain the name of Islam.”

[Tarjaman e Wahabiyyah pages 22-26]

“In the treacherous era, those people who fought against the British government and broke their oath – that was not jihad, it was depravity.”

[Tarjaman e Wahabiyyah pages 54]

“No sect in our research is more benevolent, peace-loving, desirous of the comfort and tranquility of the public, and appreciative of a fair government than the group that calls itself Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Hadith (People of the Sunnah and Hadith), and it is not a Muqallid of any particular Madhab”

[Tarjaman e Wahabiyyah pages 58]

The Nawab of Bhopal also declared that whosoever acted against the British Raj in India, he:

One who is insincere and violates his promises is, according to his own religion, looked upon as having committed a great sin; and to what punishment is such a man to be ultimately doomed will be perfectly known on the Day of Judgment. In short, such a man is a loser in this as well as in the world to come. When the laws of Mahomed enjoin the fulfilment of our promises during the whole term of a treaty, it is incumbent upon every native Prince or Chief to observe the same till the period of its close, and faithfully carry it out without a thought of violating it.

[Interpreter of Wahabism page 39]

” The current number of the Ishaatus-sunnat contains a long leading article under the heading ‘ Wahabis,’ attempting to prove that the Wahabis of India (who in the article under notice are styled as Mowahideens) are as good and loyal subjects of the Queen as any other section of the Mahomedan community. The article in question commences by stating that the name ‘ Wahabi ‘ is regarded by the Mowahideens in the same light as that of bidati, that is> superstitious, by the Sunnis. The reasons why they regard it so are many. In the first place the word whatever be its meaning from a religious and literary point of view has long been associated with disloyalty, as the Sunnis have long laboured to impress on the rulers of the country, that Mowahideens of India, like the Wahabis of Hazara and other frontier tribes, are the enemies of order and peace, and that they hold it lawful to make jehad, or religious war, against the British Government. That the Mowahideens have cleared themselves of this most malicious and serious charge, is evident from the fact that, in 1875 Moulvi Mahomed Hossein, one of the leading and most influential Mowahideens of Lahore, when asked to give his opinion as to whether it was lawful to take up arms against the British, replied that a religious war against the British Government, or any other Government which allowed perfect freedom in religious mat ters, so far from being countenanced by the Mahomedan Law of jehad, was opposed to the doctrines of Islam. In proof of his assertion, he compiled a treatise entitled ‘ Jehad,’ in which he most ably and conclusively demonstrated that jehad against a Government like the British was unlawful and equal to a rebellion against a lawful king, and those who took any part in such a war deserved to be treated as rebels. This pamphlet he caused to be circulated among a large number of the most learned Maulvis of the Punjab and other provinces, for the purpose of eliciting their opinions on the subject and ascertaining whether the quotations made by him in support of his statements were from competent authorities or otherwise. All Maulvis, among whom the treatise in question was circulated, unanimously testified to their entire concurrence with the opinions of Maulvi Mahomed Hossein and declared his authorities to be unimpeachably trustworthy, putting down their signatures and seals on the pamphlet as a mark of concurrence with its contents.

[Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Interpreter of Wahabism, p.105-106]

“No wise, experienced, and discerning man can for a moment believe that the learned will justify jihad against the British Government, in the present state of India or think that the conditions for it exist; except those Mullas who have had no perfect knowledge of their religion and no correct information.”

[interpreter of Wahabism, p.21,86]

48 References from Tarjaman e Wahabiyyah can be found at this Link where Nawab Sideeq Hasan Khan calls the rebels “stupid”, that jihad against the British is haram, that the British give religious Freedom, and that the rebels were creators of fasad and traitors and tried to ruin the peace established by the British – The full book can be read at this link

Shah Ismail Shaheed Delawi (RH) – Respected by Deobandis, Ahle Hadith, and Ahmadis

He was the deputy of Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi, and died in a battle against the Sikhs. It is written about him:

“A man asked, ‘Why do you not give a pronouncement of jihad against the British?’ He replied: In no way is it obligatory to fight jihad against them. Firstly, we are their subjects. Secondly, they do not interfere in our performance of our religious duties. We have every kind of
freedom under their rule. In fact, if someone attacks them, Muslims must fight the attacker and let not their government be harmed a whit.” ()

[Hayyat Tayyiba, biography on Shah Ismail Shaheed by Mirza Hairat of Delhi, pg 462]

It should be remembered that Mirza Hairat of Delhi was an opponent of Promised Messiah AS and would mock him.

“This was the reason why Maulavi Ismail of Delhi, who knew the Quran and Hadith, and acted upon them, did not fight in his country India against the British, under whose peace and protection he lived, nor did he fight the states of this country. Outside this country, he fought the Sikhs who interfered in the religious practices of the Muslims, prohibiting the loud sounding of the Azan.”

[Al-Iqtisad fi masa’il al-jihad, by Maulavi Muhammad Husain Batalvi, published 1876, pp. 49–50]

Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Batalvi also writes:

Maulana Isma’eel Shaheed waged Jehad against the Sikhs on account of their intervention in the religion of Islam. He composed that particular sermon to motivate others for Jehad. He neither declared Jehad against the British Government, nor does this sermon contain any explicit, or inplicit, reference to waging Jehad against this Government. As a matter of fact, he did not consider it legitimate to wage Jehad against this Government.”

[Isha’at-us-Sunnah, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 11 dated 1886]

A leading follower of the famous Maulavi Muhammad Ismail Shaheed, he wrote:

“War is not jihad. War is called qital, and it only arises now and then. Jihad is to strive to proclaim the word of God, and this goes on for a long period. It is only your misconception that you term qital as jihad.”

[Swaaneh Ahmadi, by Maulvi Muhammad Ja’afar Thanesari, p. 108]

More references for Maulana Shah Ismail Delawi RH

Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi (d. 1831) – Respected by Ahle Hadith, Deobandis, and Ahmadis

He was a Muslim military and religious leader who fought against Sikh rule in the North West of India, and is regarded as a mujaddid of the thirteenth century Hijrah. It is recorded about him:

When he was going forth to conduct jihad against the Sikhs, a man asked him: ‘Why do you go so far to fight jihad against the Sikhs, when the British are ruling the country and they are deniers of Islam. Conduct jihad against them in every house and wrest India from them; millions of people will support and help you’

The British Government—although a disbeliever in Islam—does not treat the Muslims with any cruelty or high-handedness, nor does it prevent them from attending to their religious obligations or observing the obligatory acts of worship. I preach and propagate (the Faith) in their kingdom but they never impede or oppose it. Rather, if someone commits any excess against us, they are ready to punish him. Our real task is the propagation of Tauheed—the Unity of God—and the renaissance of the Sunnah—precepts—of the Chief of all the Messengers—which we perform without let or hindrance in this country. So why should we wage a Jehad against the British Government and, contrary to the principles of our Faith, needlessly shed blood on either side.”

[Swaaneh Ahmadi, by Maulvi Muhammad Ja’afar Thanesari, p. 71]

“The British government has granted Muslims the freedom to fulfill their religious duties.”

[Swaaneh Ahmadi, by Maulvi Muhammad Ja’afar Thanesari, p. 115]

Those who did Rebellion against British were Mushrik/Sinners/Animal

“No one has heard even to the present day that a Muwahhid (monotheist) obedient to the ordinances of Mahomed, the Koran and the Hadis, has ever violated his promise, been faithless or intent upoen violence and rebellion. All those who proved troublesome to, and rebellious against, the British officials were mukallids of the Hanafia church, and not the followers of the Hadis.”

[Interpreter of Wahabism, p.41]

Scholars getting paid by British

“The agricultural land that Allah Almighty has granted me through the government is 4 Murabba (100 acres) in size.”

[Ishaatus Sunnah, vol. 19, no. 1, 1902]

https://ia803107.us.archive.org/25/items/al-iqtesad-fi-masailil-jehad-muhammad-hussain-batalvi/al-iqtesad-fi-masailil-jehad-muhammad-hussain-batalvi.pdf

https://qutbi.amuslim.org/index.php?p=nayy%20b%20pocket%20book/jihad%20haram%20aor%20angraiz%20hukumat%20jawab/other/programm%208%20hawaly

https://qutbi.amuslim.org/index.php?p=nayy%20b%20pocket%20book/jihad%20haram%20aor%20angraiz%20hukumat%20jawab/other/programm%207%20hawaly

1) Syed Ahmad Barelvi Angraiz Dost Ya Angraiz Dushman By Inayat Ullah Chishti Chakralavi – Article

Most Sunni organizations defending Khatam un-Nabiyyin belong to the Deobandi sect. Ironically, the founder, Qasim Nanotwi, held a position on the Seal of Prophethood similar to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS), the Ahmadi or Qadiani view. Furthermore, Deobandis elevate their own scholars to prophethood, which proves they reject the Finality of Prophethood.

Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi and His Position on Khatam an-Nabiyeen

Qasim Nanotwi did not believe Seal of Prophethood refers to the Finality of Prophethood, he held that the Seal of Prophethood means Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ reached the highest level of perfection in all the qualities and ranks of prophethood. He explained that greatness is not about coming first or last, but about reaching the most complete and perfect status. For this reason, even if another prophet were to appear after him ﷺ or at the same time elsewhere, it would not affect the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ unique and superior position, because all others would still remain below him ﷺ.

Statement 1

The public imagine that Rasulullah (SAW) being Khaatam literally means that his time is after the time of all the previous prophets, and he is the Last Prophet of all. However, the people of understanding will be enlightened as to the fact that there is no excellence or virtue, in essence, of being either the ‘first’ or ‘last’. Then in what form is it correct to attribute a praiseworthy station of excellence in the verse “but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets” (33:40)?

[Tahzir An-Nas, pg. 14]

Statement 2

Rather, if, hypothetically, after the time of the Prophet (SAW) another Prophet is born, even then it will make no difference to the Khaatamiyyat-e-Muhammadi (Seal of Prophethood of Muhammad) – similarly if another Prophet is his contemporary in another Earth, or even on this Earth another Prophet is made.

[Tahzir An-Nas, pg. 63]

Statement 3

Therefore, the person who possesses this attribute, which is Khaatam as-Siffaat (Seal of Attributes), to a greater degree of manifestation, that is, there is no attribute above it or which has the possibility of being manifested and granted into the creation – Such a person, among the creation, is the Khaatam al-Maraatib (Seal of Stations), and that person is the master of all and the most superior of all.

[Intisar-ul-Islam, pg. 48]

Statement 4

There is no status above that of the Khaatam (Seal) of the stations of Prophethood. Whoever becomes (a Prophet) is subordinate to it.

[Mubahasa Shahjahanpur, pg. 25]

Deobandi Scholars on the Seal of Prophethood

Maulana Qari Muhammad Tayaib Qasmi

Maulana Qari Muhammad Tayaib who is called ‘Hakeem al-Islam’ by the Deobandis which means ‘The Wise scholar of Islam’ is the grandson of Qasim Nanotwi and he explains Seal of Prophethood in the same way.

Statement 1

The meaning of Khatme Nabuwat is not the termination of prophethood but rather consummation of prophethood i.e such a complete prophethood has been sent that there requires no need for anymore prophethood after that. This is like when you see numerous stars at night, you can also see the moon but its still night. The day has not come even with all their light. Everyone is shining and spreading light but it is still dark. But even a slightest ray of Sun hides the stars away. Now if the Sun says “I am Khatimun Noor. I seal the noor. I end all the noor”. It means that I have brought the most complete noor thus there is no need for the stars. Their noor will be incorporated within me.

So when Muhammad (S.A.W) claimed that “I am Khatimun Nabiyyin” so the Khatme Nabuwat does not mean “Ending of the prophethood” but the “Perfection of Prophethood”. That the Sun of the prophets brought a light so bright that the light of any star was not needed anymore. It will become dim. Light of all the stars will be incorporated with it. When the sun rises, it is not that the light of all the stars end. But rather it gets incorporated within the light of that sun. When Islam came, all the excellencies of the past religions got integrated within it. Islam is the compilation of all religions. This is why Quran describes its glory by saying that I have not come to deny all previous religions but to protect them. Whichever truth was in there, I took while discarded the teachings that nations have changed. So, all the virtues got compiled in Islam. So prophethood is the compilation of all the prophethoods while Islam is the compilation of all the laws (shariah) of the past.

[Youtube Video: Deobandis REJECT Finality of Prophethood!?!; Time Stamp: 0:00-1:59]

There are two key points being made from this passage. The first is that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was the last of the Prophets, but only in this sense that all the qualities and attributes of prophethood found their most perfect and complete cultivation and expression in him ﷺ. That is to say that no prophet after him ﷺ could ever add anything new or higher to the status of prophethood, because its perfection was already fully manifested in him ﷺ. So, being the “last” is less about being last in time, but about completion and perfection.

The second point being made is that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was the last of the Law bearing Prophets. This point is in harmony with the first point that is being that since the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ brought together the best qualities and teachings of all previous prophets and Islam and his ﷺ religion, integrates the truth from earlier religions while correcting the parts that were changed or corrupted by people. It means that Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ prophethood is the compilation of all earlier prophethoods while Islam is the compilation of all previous laws (shariah). Therefore, no Prophet can come after the Holy Prophet ﷺ who should abrogate his religion and not be in his Ummah.

His other statements will be presented on this matter which further reflect these same ideas:

Statement 2

And this is the status of the description of Khaatam, this attribute comes from it and returns to it. He is the Faateh (meaning first) and the Khaatam, the first one (having this attribute) and the last one. This is why we will not say that the sun is only luminous, rather it is Nur Bakshi (meaning it provides light)…we will not only say it is possessor of light but Khatam ul Anwar, as the light of all stars come from it, and in this movement of light, it goes back to it. So being Khatam ul Anwar will be the most distinguished of its qualities, and this can properly describe its particularity

[Aftab-i-Nabuwwat, pg. 80]

Statement 3

In the same way, the status of the sun of Prophethood (the Noble Messenger of Allah SAW) is not only being a Prophet, this quality is common among all Prophet. So his real particular quality is that in matters of prophetic light, he is the Murabbi of all Prophets, and the Masdar of Faydh (centre of emanation) for them, and the origin of their excellent lights. This is why he is a Prophet in real, and the other Prophets (peace be upon them) are not (Prophets) in real but became Prophets from his Faydh (emanation).

[Aftab-i-Nabuwwat, pg. 81]

Statement 4

The status of Huzur is not only being a Prophet, but also Nubuwat Bakhshi (meaning he provides Prophethood), every person who is ready for Prophethood and comes in front of him will become a Prophet. In the same manner, the light of Prophethood started from him and will return to him, and this is the description of Khatam…” For this reason, we do not simply call him (Prophet Muhammad SAW) as a Prophet but he is called Khaatam an-Nabiyyeen that all of the lights of Prophethood find their ultimate manifestation in him, making him the pinnacle of Prophethood.

[Aftab-i-Nabuwwat, pg. 82]

Shaykh Muhammad Abu Bakr Ghazipuri al-Ansari

Shaykh Muhammad Abu Bakr Ghazipuri al-Ansari defends Qasim Nanotvi statements and essentially affirms that seal of prophethood does not mean being the last in time, because being last in history has no special value on its own rather, it means he ﷺ is the one in whom prophethood reached perfection and through whom all other prophets are validated. Therefore, this perfection would not be negated if another prophet were to come after him ﷺ; rather, that prophet too would only be a prophet by bearing his stamp of approval and deriving authenticity through him.

He strove to incite people against the Imam in regards his statement that the Prophethood of Muhammad is original and the Prophethood of the other Ambiyaa stems from the effulgence of his Nubuwah. That also means that he is the Seal of the Ambiyaa, from the first of them to the last, in aspects of personality, time and place. Even if in theory there should have been a prophet after him, that would have no effect on his Finality, because his Nubüwah is vested in himself originally whilst the others stem from his effulgence. There is no doubt that that statement is correct. It is the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah. It is from Rasulullaah that the chain of Nubüwah originated. He was the Nabi from primordial times and was already then the Seal of Ambiyaa by the decree of Allaah, before even the presence of the creation, before there was time and place, before any Nabi came to the world. Sadly, the author of the booklet did not understand this subtle meaning due to his ignorance and enmity against the Deobandis. He thus spewed against ash-Shaykh an-Nänotwi what he spewed and his tongue spoke like a devil. The statement of ash-Shaykh an-Nänotwi is in fact in the same style as that Ibn Taymiyah. He presented his argument based on the Quraan and Hadith, in a style and division modern intelligence can understand. If the author of the booklet has any intelligence then he should listen very carefully to what Hujjatul Islaam wrote.

[Was Ibn Taymiah From the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah?, pg. 44]

Deobandi Prophets

Deobandi apologists such as Shaykh Usman Iqbal argue that that merely attributing exclusive prophetic qualities to an individual constitutes a violation of Khatam al-Nubuwwah:

The same thing is said by the famous Deobandi scholar Khalid Mahmud:

The belief in the finality of prophethood is not a play of words, where one merely accepts the word ‘prophet’ while continuing the reality and significance of prophethood in the name of Imamate.

Hujjat al-Hind, Hazrat Imam Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlvi, in Sharh Muwatta, writes:
“Allah’s Messenger (SAW) is the Seal of Prophethood, but the meaning of this statement is that it is not permissible for anyone to be a prophet after him. As for the meaning of prophethood—being someone sent by Allah to creation, whose obedience is obligatory, protected from sins, and free from error in what is required—this exists in the Imams after him. That person, however, would be a heretic. The majority of later scholars among the Hanafis and Shafi‘is agreed to punish anyone who follows this path.”

The conclusion of Hazrat Shah Sahib’s ruling is that anyone who holds the belief that after the Holy Prophet (SAW) there could arise in this Ummah individuals who are divinely inspired and infallible is by no means a true believer in the doctrine of the finality of prophethood, even if verbally they call the Prophet (SAW) Khatam an-Nabiyyin a thousand times.

[Abaqat, vol 1, pg. 239]

However, this is ironic, because they follow scholars who elevated themselves to such extreme levels that, by their own logic, they themselves end up defying the Finality of Prophethood.

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi: I Am Infallible

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi claimed that he was free from error:

Khan Sahib said that Hazrat Gangohi (may Allah have mercy on him) once said to Maulvi Muhammad Baiti Sahib Kandhlawi: “Look up such-and-such issue in Shami.”

The Maulvi replied, “Hazrat, that issue is not found in Shami.”

Hazrat said, “How can that be? Bring Shami.”

Shami was brought. At that time, Hazrat had already lost his eyesight. He placed two-thirds of the pages to the right and one-third to the left, and by estimation opened the book in one motion. He then said, “Look on the lower part of the page on the left.” When they looked, the issue was found exactly in that spot. Everyone was astonished.

Hazrat then said, “Allah Almighty has promised me that He will not allow anything incorrect to come out of my tongue.”

[Arwah-e-Salasa, pg. 230]

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi’s Promise of Salvation to His Followers

In this passage, it is recorded that Rashid Ahmad Gangohi reassured his followers, telling them that it had been promised to him that they would be saved and would not enter Hellfire.

A person in Gangoh used to cry a lot in the assemblies of Hazrat Gangohi (may Allah sanctify his secret), and even by nature, he was very emotional. On one occasion, Hazrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi asked him:

“Why do you cry so much? Why are you distressed?”

He replied:

“Hazrat! I fear Hell—how will the fire be bearable?”

Hazrat said:

“No, no! There is nothing to worry about. It has been promised to me that your people will not be sent to Hell.”

[Maslak Ulama-e-Deoband aur Hubb-e-Rasul, pg. 37]

He entered the highest echelon as a principal member, whose words, actions, and the state of his heart and limbs have been protected by Allah in every era. In matters of speech and bodily action, divine support and guidance were granted so that creation could be safeguarded from error and misguidance.

He repeatedly stated in his capacity as a preacher, through a skilled translator:

“Whatever comes from the tongue of Rashid Ahmad is indeed true. I swear, I am nothing, yet in this era, guidance and salvation depend upon following me.”

In matters where people, bound by reasoning and evidence, fell into disputes and could not fully distinguish between truth and falsehood, wandering in the deserts of doubt and confusion, Hazrat Imam Rabbani (may Allah sanctify his secret), through the light of his heart, kindled by the lamp of prophethood, clearly spoke the truth, clarified the correct path, and rendered decisions without requiring external corroboration.

[Tazkira-tur-Rasheed, vol 2, pg. 17]

The Second Founder of Islam: Rashid Ahmad Gangohi

After Gangohi died, his student , Mawlana Mahmud Hasan, who is also called Shaykh al-Hind by the Deobandis wrote a poem in praise of Gangohi. He writes:

A second founder of Islam has emerged in the world

[Marsiya Gangohi, pg. 5]

The Disciple of Gangohi: His Pen Moves Beyond the Arsh

Aashiq Ilahi Mirathi wrote this about Gangohi:

At the time when your opponents raised an uproar over the issue of imkān-e-kidhb and published a verdict of excommunication, in the gathering of Sāʾīn Tawakkul Shāh Sahib of Anbalā, a certain cleric mentioned Imām Rabbānī (may his sanctity be exalted) and said that he held the view of the possibility of falsehood being attributed to God.

Upon hearing this, Sāʾīn Tawakkul Shāh Sahib lowered his head, and after remaining in silent meditation for a short while, he raised his head and, in his Punjabi language, uttered these words:

‘People, what are you saying? I am seeing the pen of Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Sahib moving beyond the ʿArsh (the Throne).

[Tazkira-tur-Rasheed, vol 2, pg. 322]

Again, Deobandis must ask themselves: when an individual claims that Allah has promised him infallibility, that his followers will be spared from Hell and his followers shamelessly describe that same individual as the second founder of Islam and say his pen moves beyond the Arsh, does such a personality resemble a mere scholar, or does he bear the attributes of a prophet?

For the confused Deobandis, they should refer to the statement of Khalid Mahmud again.

Gangohi Invoked ‘Mercy of the Worlds’ Upon a Saint

In the Quran “Mercy to all mankind” (Rahmatullil ‘Alamin) is a title uniquely attributed to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ however, Gangohi permits the titles for scholars or saints:

The title Rahmatullil ‘Alamin is not exclusively a characteristic of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Other saints, prophets, and pious scholars (ulama rabbaniyyin) can also be a source of mercy for the world. Although the Prophet ﷺ is the highest among them, it is permissible to attribute this phrase to others in a figurative sense.

[Fatawa-e-Rashidiya, pg. 242]

According to the Deobandis, Imdadullah Muhajir Makki is also Mercy to all Worlds (Rahmatan Lil Aalamin):

When Hazrat Gangohi (may Allah have mercy on him) received the news of Hazrat Haji Sahib’s passing, he remained profoundly distressed for several days. The shock and sorrow were so great that it was evident even outwardly that he had such deep love for him. Hazrat Gangohi (may Allah have mercy on him) repeatedly invoked rahmatullil ‘alamin (mercy of the worlds) upon him.

[Malfoozat-e-Hakeem-ul-Ummat, vol 1, pg. 138]

Rank of Prophethood Present in Gangohi

Deobandi scholar Manazir Ahsan Gilani writes:

In Maulana Muhammad Qasim Sahib, the aspect of the rank of sainthood (wilayat) was dominant, while in Maulana Gangohi, the aspect of the rank of prophethood was (dominant).

[Sawanih Qasimi, vol 1, pg. 477]

The Prophetic Revelation of Qasim Nanotwi

Qasim Nanotwi felt as though the weight of a hundred tons of stones was weighing down upon his heart as a consequence of offering Tasbih. His pir, Haji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki reassured him by saying:

These are the emanations [faidan] of Prophesy on your heart. And this is that heaviness which the Prophet ﷺ used to feel at the time of Revelation. God shall take from you that service/tasks which is taken from Prophets

[Sawanih Qasimi; vol 1, pg. 259]

Ashraf Ali Thanwi: The Road to Salvation

Muhammad Aashiq Ilahi Meerthi elevates Ashraf Ali Thanwi to such a high status that he claims washing Thanwi’s feet and drinking the same water is a means of attaining salvation in the Hereafter. Deobandis again should ask themselves who are the real deniers of Khatam al-Nubuwwah?

His (Ashraf Ali Thanwi) excellence reached such a level that, by Allah the Most Great, washing the feet of Maulana Thanawi and drinking that water became a means of salvation in the Hereafter.

[Tazkira-tur-Rasheed, vol 1, pg. 113]

Ashraf Ali Thanwi’s Approval of a Kalima Recited in His Name

A disciple reportedly recited “La ilaha illa Allah, Ashraf Ali Rasul Allah” and a Durud invoking blessings on Ashraf Ali Thanwi, when Thanwi heard about this, he reassured the disciple and said:

There was assurance in this incident that the one to whom you return back to [Ashraf Thanwi], with the help of Allah the Exalted, is a follower of the Sunnah.

[Risala al Imdad, pg. 35]

In this case, a disciple openly recited words attributing prophethood to Thanwi, and Thanwi approved it. While condemning others for overstepping the bounds of finality of prophethood, their own scholars venerated themselves in such ways that effectively violates the finality of prophethood.

A Refutation of Deobandi Counter Arguments

Qasim Nanotwi Affirmed Chronological Finality?

Some Deobandi apologetic articles quote statements of Qasim Nanotwi to suggest he affirmed the finality of prophethood. Their main argument is that Nanotwi distinguished two main aspects of Seal of prophethood:

• Martabah (rank) – the primary meaning, referring to the superiority and exalted status of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.
• Zamānī (temporal/chronological) – the secondary, incidental meaning, referring to the Prophet ﷺ being the last in time.

Deobandi writers argue that while Nanotwi primarily argued about the rank aspect, he also affirmed the temporal finality, which differentiates him from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS), whom they claim did not accept the Zamānī aspect.

Firstly, if such was true then Nanotwi’s earlier statements would be contradicted. He explicitly said it is possible for another prophet to come without violating the Seal, and he also stated that there is no inherent virtue in Muhammad ﷺ being called the “last in time” as cited earlier.

Therefore, it would be inaccurate to claim that Nanotwi believed Allah conferred this title as a special honour especially when the verse 33:40 itself addresses the disbelievers mocking the Prophet ﷺ for having no physical progeny, affirming instead that he will have a spiritual progeny until the end of time. Thus contextually “being last in time” is not inherently meritorious just as the last caliph of the Rashidun Caliphate was not greater than the first.

Secondly, Qasim Nanotwi did not define khatamiyyat zamani as chronological finality. Rather, he defined khatamiyyat zamani to mean that Muhammad ﷺ is the last sharīʿah-bearing Prophet. In other words, Islam will not be abrogated, no new religion will be revealed, and therefore no prophet after Muhammad ﷺ can appear with a new sharīʿah or religion.

Two explicit statements from him will be presented below:

And the scholars of the People of the Sunnah (Ahle Sunnat) also explicitly state this matter, that in the era (or during the time) of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), no Prophet possessing a new law (Sharī’ah Jadīd) can appear/exist and any prophet who is contemporaneous with him saw will be follower of Mohammedan Shariah

[Tahzir An-Nas, pg. 91]

The meaning of Khatamiyyat-e-Zamaani is that after the advent of Deen-e-Muhammadiؐ , it won’t be abrogated. The knowledge of Nubuwwat has reached its apex. No other Prophet’s Religion or Knowledge is now needed for Bani Adam

[Munazarah Ajeeba, pg. 58]

Therefore, any statement in which Deobandis allege or give the impression that Qasim Nanotwi affirmed khatamiyyat zamani as chronological finality is either based on misunderstanding or deception. All such statements, when read in light of his own explicit definitions, refer to finality in the sense that Muhammad ﷺ is the last sharīʿah-bearing Prophet.

Just like Qasim Nanotwi, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) explained there are two main aspects of Khatm al-Nubuwwah:

• Martabah (rank) – All perfections of prophethood were completed in him ﷺ.
• Zamānī (temporal/chronological) – After him ﷺ, no messenger will bring a new shariah, and there is no prophet outside his community. Rather, anyone who receives divine communication now receives it through his ﷺ grace and mediation, and such a person is considered a follower of his Ummah, not an independent prophet.

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) states:

But the Holy Prophet ﷺ was given a special honor as the Seal of the Prophets: All perfections of prophethood were completed in him. After him, no messenger will bring a new shariah, and there is no prophet outside his community. Rather, anyone who receives divine communication now receives it through his grace and mediation, and such a person is considered a follower of his Ummah, not an independent prophet.

[Roohani Khazain, vol 23, Chashma Ma’rafat, pg. 380]

If both Qasim Nanotwi and Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) affirmed Khatm al-Nubuwwah in terms of both Martabah (rank/superiority) and Zamānī (temporal/chronological finality), and both defined Zamānī in identical ways, then there is effectively no difference in the core meaning of finality of prophethood between them.

Qari Muhammad Tayyab al-Deobandi: Muhammad (SAW) is NOT the Last Prophet

Misquoting Qasim Nanotwi to suggest he believed in the chronological finality of prophethood contradicts how major Deobandi scholars explained it. For example, Qari Muhammad Tayyab explicitly stated that prophethood has not ended. A transcription of his recording was cited earlier in this article, and he has also written extensively on this topic. Full details of his statements can be found in this article.

Qari Muhammad Tayyab al-Deobandi on the Seal of the Prophets and the Return of ‘Isa ﷺ

Secondly, claiming that Qasim Nanotwi defined khatamiyyat zamani as purely chronological finality contradicts how Qari Muhammad Tayyab rationalised the return of Prophet Isa (AS). He recognized that if khatamiyyat zamani meant being last in time, a contradiction would arise: Prophet Isa (AS) returning after Muhammad ﷺ would appear to challenge Muhammad ﷺ’s status as the Seal of the Prophets. Qari Muhammad Tayyab resolves this by explaining that Isa (AS) will follow the law of Muhammad ﷺ thus there is no contradiction, since the Qur’an contains all previous knowledge and the Prophet ﷺ’s character embodies the qualities of all prior prophets. This shows that Muhammad ﷺ is the ultimate perfection in prophethood, with all other prophets, including Isa (AS), subordinate to his law. Consequently, this entails that Muhammad ﷺ is the last sharīʿah-bearing prophet: no new religion will be revealed, and Islam will not be abrogated, fully aligning with Qasim Nanotwi’s and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s (AS) definition of khatamiyyat zamani.

The comprehensiveness of perfection in character that exists in the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is clearly understood from the incident wherein Siddiqah ‘A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) was asked about the prophetic character. She responded, “His character was the Qur’an” (Ahmad). In other words, all of that which exists in the Qur’an in the form of knowledge exists in the form of character and aptitude in the Prophet ﷺ … Since the Qur’an encompasses [the knowledge of] all the previous books and is a collection of the Prophet ﷺ’s character, this establishes that his character encompasses all the characteristics of the previous prophets. This is a clear proof for the Prophet ﷺ being the finality of the perfection in character and being at the highest degree of perfection in creation. Hence, it is self-evident from this that the Blessed One ﷺ in whom all the foundations of prophethood are contained and who is superior to all, only he can then be the primary one (asl) of these foundations (prophets).

A covenant was taken from the prophets to believe, follow and aid the Prophet [Muhammad] ﷺ on the basis of him being the primary prophet as is clear from the verse of the Qur’an, “When Allah took the covenant of the prophets” )3:81). The Prophet ﷺ elucidated, in light of this verse, that the previous prophets are all under the Seal of the Prophets by saying, “If Musa (peace be upon him) was alive, he would have had no option except to follow me” (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah). The upshot of this is that Musa (peace be upon him) – the resolute messenger who was given a shari’ah – had to be obeyed [by mankind] in the absence of the Seal of the Prophets, but in the presence of the Seal of the Prophets, rather than being the one who is to be obeyed, he becomes the one who obeys [the Seal of the Prophets]. This is only possible when his rank is deemed below the Seal of the Prophets’ rank, because in reality all the control and authority of the one who is subordinate (ma taht) comes from the one above (ma fawq), i.e., it is given to him by the one who is higher in authority.

[The principle is that] in the presence of the primary authority, the authority of the secondary is nonexistent. This is exactly like the prime minister saying to his [subordinate] ministers, “In my presence, none of you has full authority. Your ability to command comes into effect only in my absence.” It can be understood from this that the authority of the one below is nonexistent in the presence of the one above him, even if the rank of the one below customarily remains intact. This principle is not just restricted to this case, but rather this is the case of every primary and secondary entity in any sphere, i.e., in the presence of the primary, the secondary has no control. In the presence of the father, for example, his own son (who has his own children) would feel shy in calling himself “father” in front of him, let alone pointing to or using his right of fatherhood. This is because his fatherhood is secondary to his father’s fatherhood, and in the presence of the primary, the status of the secondary does not remain. Furthermore, for example, one would feel shy in referring to a stream as a “river” if the ocean is right in front of him, because [the reality is that] wherever a body of water exists it is directly or indirectly fed by the ocean. This is why once all these mighty rivers reach the ocean, they flow into the ocean’s flow. Their own rate of flow does not remain intact. Also, for example, stars would feel shy to refer to themselves as radiant when the sun is shining, because their primary star is in front of them. In the presence of the primary, the secondary feels shy of its own existence, let alone becoming a claimant to its [independent] existence.

In the same manner, upon the rising of the Sun of all Guidance ﷺ, it is natural and innate for all the prophets to conform to this Seal of the Prophets rather than implement their own law, i.e., rather than ruling according to their own prophethood or commanding [others] to rule by them. This is the same reality which has been made clear in the above-mentioned hadith that if a previous prophet finds himself in the period of the Seal of the Prophets, the laws of the finality of prophethood (khatm al-nubuwwah) shall apply upon him and his nation rather than his own laws … which in reality is a clear proof for the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ being primary in perfection, and all non-final prophets being secondary in [this] perfection.

Even though the above-mentioned hadith in regards to Musa (peace be upon him) portrays a hypothetical scenario but when in the period of the Prophet ﷺ, ‘Isa (or Jesus) (peace be upon him) will be made to descend from the heavens, he will [in actuality] follow the religion of the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ. In fact, it is possible that ‘Isa (peace be upon him) was raised to the heavens alive, so that he be made to descend from the heavens to the earth in the last period to make this very reality apparent, such that in the age of strife he perform renewal (tajdid) of the Shar‘iah of the Prophet ﷺ, while obeying it, with all the powers of his prophethood. Therefore, through this, the obedience of a previous prophet to the Shari’ah of the Prophet ﷺ no longer remains a matter of creed (aqidah) only, but rather a practical example will [now] be in front of all.

This practical example also establishes that this is not just in reference to a single Israelite messenger, but rather the adherence of all the Israelite prophets is established through this because ‘Isa (peace be upon him) is the final prophet of the Banu Isra’il and the last link in the chain of the Israelite prophethood (nubuwwah). If the last link of a continuous chain is pulled in one direction, the entire chain will naturally be pulled in the same direction. The ruling of the last link in the chain will be considered the ruling of the entire chain. Therefore, there is no reason to not accept this as proof for the entire chain of [Israelite] prophets to be followers of the way of the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ, after the descent of ‘Isa (peace be upon him) as a follower of the way of the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ, as he is the last link in the chain of Banu Isra’il prophets.

Especially when this is [also] in accordance with the Torah’s clarification, as has been mentioned in hadiths, that Musa (peace be upon him) supplicated, “If the likes of the ummah of Muhammad cannot be given to me then include me in it”. Therefore, the final prophet of Musa (peace be upon him)’s chain [i.e. ‘Isa, peace be upon him] will be sent as a reviver of Islam and as a follower of the Shari’ah of the Prophet ﷺ. ‘Isa (peace be upon him) will be included in the ummah of the Prophet ﷺ to fulfill the desire of Musa (peace upon him). As ‘Isa (peace be upon him) is a prophet who is the end point of the Israelites, when he becomes a member of the ummah of the Prophet ﷺ, the entirety of Israelite prophethood from Musa to ‘Isa (peace be upon them both) becomes included in the ummah of the Prophet ﷺ as followers.

Through the connection between the first and last, i.e., through making apparent the obedience to the way of the Prophet ﷺ by the very first Israelite messenger (Musa) and the very last (‘Isa), all of the Israelite messengers – who were the most superior in the world in their respective times – are as a result proven to be followers of the Prophet ﷺ. In addition to this, all the earlier prophethoods which culminated in the station of Isra’iliyyah, due to them being the predecessors to Isra’iliyyah, are included in this following of the Prophet ﷺ [as well]. Consequently, the same ruling is derived for all the prophets (peace be upon them), i.e., their prophethoods are considered secondary to the Seal of the Prophets. Through this, it becomes evident that the Prophet ﷺ is the prophet of the prophets (nabi al-anbiya’).

From this, another issue is clarified in regards to the period of the Prophet ﷺ, which is the last period, if the prophets have no option but to practice obedience to the Prophet ﷺ, then it is an open declaration that their nations also have no option but to be obedient to the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ. In fact, salvation in the Hereafter is restricted to the religion of the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ [as the Qur’an declares]:

“If anyone seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him: he will be one of the losers in the Hereafter.” (3:85)

Thus, the title of Khatam al-Nabiyyin (Seal of the Prophets) has made apparent the primary nature of the prophethood of the Seal of the Prophets ﷺ and that he is the one who is followed in the universal sense.

[Aftab-e-Nubuwwat, pg. 86-89]

Qasim Nanotwi Made an Error, and No One Is Obliged to Follow Him?

When unable to reconcile Qasim Nanotwi’s position on the Seal of Prophethood, Deobandis may claim that he simply made an error and that no one is obliged to follow him. However, according to Deobandi sources themselves, he received divine insight when explaining Khatam an-Nabiyeen. In Al-Muhannad ‘ala al-Mufannad it is written that Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi received kashf (revelation from Allah) when explaining Khatam an-Nabiyeen in his book titled Tahzīr An-Nās.

This puts the Deobandis and the admirers of the Deobandi sect in a predicament: either say they lied and Allah never gave them such revelation to write such statements, or say they are right and consequently agree that the Ahmadi position, which is identical, is not only right but their aqeedah is also informed by divine insight.

Nor will you attain the honor of his comprehensive excellence and complete merit; this subtle point is Maulana’s revelation (kashf) regarding the majesty, exalted rank, and greatness of the Prophet ﷺ.

[Al-Muhannad ‘ala al-Mufannad, pg. 42]

On top of that, Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri (the author of Al-Muhannad), a leading figure in the Deobandi school, explicitly defends the Nanotwi’s position in Al-Muhannad. When someone defends a position, they do not reject it; they affirm it. This defense, along with the attestation and certification of Al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad by 24 leading Deobandi scholars including Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Mahmud ul Hassan, and others shows that the Deobandi authorities collectively accept and uphold Qasim Nanotwi’s position, leaving no room for denial. The names of the 24 scholars can be read below:

• Shaykh al-Hind, Hadhrat Mawlana Mahmud Hasan — d. 1339 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Mir Ahmad Hasan Sahib Amrohi — d. 1330 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Mufti Aziz al-Rahman ‘Uthmani — d. 1347 AH
• Hakim al-Ummah, Hadhrat Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanwi — d. 1362 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Shah ‘Abd al-Rahim Raipuri — d. 1337 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Hakim Muhammad Hasan (brother of Shaykh al-Hind) — d. 1345 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Qudrat Allah Muradabadi
• Hadhrat Mawlana Habib al-Rahman ‘Uthmani (brother of ‘Allamah Shabbir Ahmad ‘Uthmani) — d. 1348 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Muhammad Ahmad (son of Hadhrat Nanotwi) — d. 1347 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Ghulam Rasul, teacher at Dar al-‘Ulum Deoband — d. 1337 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Muhammad Suhail — d. 1367 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana ‘Abd al-Samad
• Hadhrat Mawlana Hakim Muhammad Ishaq Nahawri Dehlawi
• Hadhrat Mawlana Riyad al-Din, Madrasah ‘Aliyah, Meerut
• Hadhrat Mawlana Mufti Kifayat Allah Dehlawi — d. 1372 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Ziya al-Haqq Dehlawi
• Hadhrat Mawlana Muhammad Qasim Dehlawi
• Hadhrat Mawlana ‘Ashiq Ilahi Meerthi — d. 1360 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Siraj Ahmad, Sardhana, Meerut
• Mawlana Qari Muhammad Ishaq, Madrasa Islamiyyah, Meerut
• Mawlana Hakim Muhammad Mustafa Bijnori
• Hadhrat Mawlana Muhammad Mas‘ud Ahmad Gangohi (son of Hadhrat Gangohi)
• Hadhrat Mawlana Muhammad Yahya Saharanpuri — d. 1334 AH
• Hadhrat Mawlana Kifayat Allah Gangohi, teacher at Mazahir al-‘Ulum Saharanpur

[Al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad (with Preface and Notes by Muhammad Ilyas Ghuman), pg. 8-10]

Not only that, Deobandi scholars today themselves state that there is an ijmāʿ among Deobandis upon the contents and beliefs outlined in Al-Muhannad ʿala al-Mufannad, and that the beliefs expressed in Al-Muhannad represent the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamāʿah. To such an extent, they maintain that whoever rejects even a single statement contained in Al-Muhannad can no longer be regarded as a Deobandi. For example, Deobandi scholar Ilyas Ghuman states:

Thus, this book (Al-Muhannad ‘ala al-Mufannad) represents the unanimous work of the Deobandi scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama‘ah, following the attestations of these senior scholars. Now, anyone who claims affiliation with the Deobandi scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama‘ah is required to accept all the views and beliefs contained in this book.

[Al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad (with Preface and Notes by Muhammad Ilyas Ghuman), pg. 12]

The same thing is said by Deobandi scholar Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianvi who very explicitly says that four generations of Deobandi scholars all agreed to and affirmed the beliefs outlined in Al-Muhannad ʿala al-Mufannad. That means four successive generations of Deobandi scholars confirmed and upheld Qasim Nanotwi’s position and now the fifth generation of their students is continuing and upholding the same beliefs:

The elders of Deoband have passed through several generations. The first generation consisted of Hazrat Nanotwi, Hazrat Gangohi, Hazrat Mawlana Muhammad Ya‘qub Nanotwi (may Allah have mercy on them), and their contemporary senior scholars.

The second generation consisted of the students of these elders, among whom were Shaykh al-Hind, Hazrat Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri, Hazrat Hakim al-Ummah Thanwi (may Allah have mercy on them), and other senior scholars.

The third generation consisted of their students, including Hazrat Mawlana Anwar Shah Kashmiri, Hazrat Mawlana Sayyid Husayn Ahmad Madani, Hazrat Mawlana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (may Allah have mercy on them), and others.

The fourth generation consisted of their students, including Mawlana Muhammad Yusuf Banuri, Hazrat Mawlana Muhammad Shafi‘ Sahib (may Allah have mercy on them), and their contemporary senior scholars.

And now the fifth generation of their students is ongoing.

Al-Muhannad ʿala al-Mufannad bears the signatures of all the senior scholars of the second generation. These same beliefs were held by the elders of the first generation, and upon these beliefs the elders of the third and fourth generations have remained in agreement. Therefore, there is consensus (ijmāʿ) among all the senior Deobandi scholars upon the beliefs recorded in Al-Muhannad. No Deobandi has any scope to deviate from them, and whoever deviates from them is not deserving of being called a Deobandi.

[Fatawa Bayyinat, vol 1, pg. 526–527]

If Deobandis truly wish to concede that Qasim Nanotwi and all the later scholars who admired, attested to, and defended his statements were mistaken, then they must also concede something far more serious: that Nanotwi and all those scholars were not merely in error, but guilty of kufr. This is because the issue at hand is not a minor fiqh disagreement rather it is a blasphemous ‘aqīdah that has been propagated for over a century.

Deobandis must remember, this is the very same belief for which Deobandis today organise Khatm-e-Nubuwwat conferences, declaring Ahmadis to be disbelievers, apostates, and outside the fold of Islam. It is the same belief for which Ahmadis have historically been persecuted, ostracised, and even killed.

If Deobandis still insist that Nanotwi’s position was merely an error, then they should at least show one Deobandi scholar who is not bound by “delusion” and has made takfīr of Qasim Nanotwi. Other than that, they should also become Barelvis, because then they have validated Ahmad Raza Khan’s fatwas against the Deobandis, in which he accused them of violating the finality of prophethood.

Qasim Nanotwi Was Only Speaking Hypothetically, Not Claiming Another Prophet Will Come?

When referring to this statement:

Rather, if, hypothetically, after the time of the Prophet (SAW) another Prophet is born, even then it will make no difference to the Khaatamiyyat-e-Muhammadi (Seal of Prophethood of Muhammad) – similarly if another Prophet is his contemporary in another Earth, or even on this Earth another Prophet is made.

[Tahzīr An-Nās, pg. 63]

Deobandis often argue that Qasim Nanotwi’s statement about another prophet appearing was purely hypothetical, and that in reality he did not believe another prophet would come. However, this is a strawman, the issue is not on whether he actually believed another prophet will come but his definition on the seal of prophethood itself. He claimed that even if another prophet were to appear, it would not contradict the finality of prophethood. From a Sunni perspective, this is a problem. If the chronological finality of prophethood is essential element to the seal of prophethood in the way as most Sunnis understand it then saying hypothetically another prophet could appear without affecting finality shows he did not believe in the chronological finality of prophethood.

To illustrate the problem, consider this analogy: saying “if God hypothetically became a Trinity, there would be no contradiction to Tawhid” is obviously erroneous, it shows the one making the hypothetical does not actually believe in monotheism. Similarly, even speaking hypothetically, Qasim Nanotwi’s statement reveals a erroneous understanding of the finality of prophethood from the Sunni perspective.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Nanotwi stated that seal of prophethood has two aspects: rank (superiority) and a temporal aspect, meaning that Islam will not be abrogated and that the Prophet ﷺ is the last law bearing prophet. Ahmadis accept both aspects and Qasim Nanotwi did not believe in the chronological finality that is to say Muhammad ﷺ was last in time. This raises an important question for Sunnis, especially those who admire the Deobandi ulema: why are Deobandis not regarded in the same way as Ahmadis and even more so when many Deobandi scholars have been elevated to the level of prophethood?

If Ahmadis are considered rejecters of the finality of prophethood, then Deobandis must be considered rejecters as well.

Claiming that the Paighami Ahmadis (Lahori Ahmadis) had been declared as disbelievers is one of the consistent accusations that have been levelled against Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad (M.A) R.A. This allegation is generally grounded in a quote of Kalmatul Fasl in which Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad R.A. stated that those who accept Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad A.S. merely as a reformer and who deny his person as the Promised Messiah cannot be considered Muslims.

یہاں مسلمانوں میں ایک ایسا گروہ بھی پیدا ہو گیا ہے جو کہتے ہیں کہ ہم مرزا صاحب کو بڑا بزرگ مانتے ہیں اور ور یہ کہ مرزا صاحب نے اسلام کی بڑی خدمت کی ہے بلکہ بعض تو یہاں تک کہنے لگ گئے ہیں کہ ہم مرزا صاحب کو اس صدی کا مجدد ماننے کے لیے تیار ہیں مگر مسیح موعود کا دعویٰ نہیں مانتے ایسے لوگ یا تو لا مذہب ہیں اور یا منافق کیونکہ یہ کس طرح ہو سکتا ہے کہ مرزا صاحب کو ایک طرف تو مجدد مان لیا جائے اور دوسری طرف انکو مسیح موعود کے دعویٰ میں مفتری علی اللہ سمجھا جاوے ظلمت اور نور جمع نہیں ہوسکتے اگر مرزا سچا ہے اور مسلمان ہے تو وہ اپنے تمام دعاوی میں صادق ہے ورنہ وہ نعوذباللہ مفتری علی اللہ اور دائرہ اسلام سے خارج ہے۔ دو ہی راہیں ہیں، یا تو مرزا صاحب کو مسیح موعود مانکر انکی بیعت میں داخل ہونا چاہئیے اور یا پھر ان کو مفتری علی اللہ قرار دیکر کافر سمجھا جاوے- تیسری راہ تو کوئی ہے نہیں۔ یہی وجہ ہے کہ حضرت مسیح موعود نے حقیقت الوحی میں لکھا ہے کہ جو مجھے نہیں مانتا وہ مجھے مفتری علی اللہ قرار دیکر کافر ٹھہرتا ہے۔
Among the Muslims here, there has arisen a group who say that, indeed, we regard Mirza Sahib as a great saintly figure, and that Mirza Sahib rendered great service to Islam. Rather, some have even gone so far as to say that we are ready to acknowledge Mirza Sahib as the Mujaddid (Reformer) of this century, yet we do not accept him as the Promised Messiah. Such people are either irreligious or hypocritical, for how can it be that on the one hand Mirza Sahib is accepted as a Mujaddid, and on the other hand, in his claim to be the Promised Messiah, he is considered an inventor of lies against Allah? Darkness and light cannot be combined. If Mirza Sahib is true and a Muslim, then he is truthful in all his claims; otherwise, God forbid, he is a fabricator against Allah and outside the pale of Islam. There are only two paths: either one must accept Mirza Sahib as the Promised Messiah and enter into his allegiance, or else declare him a fabricator against Allah and a disbeliever. There is no third way. This is precisely why the Promised Messiah wrote in Haqiqatul-Wahi that whoever does not accept me, in reality, declares me to be a fabricator against Allah.

[Kalmatul Fasl page 174]

Allegation

Critics argue that: In Kalmatul Fasl Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad R.A. mentioned the Paighamis. For this reason, he viewed Paighamis as disbelievers because they did not accept Hazrat Mirza Mirza Ghulam Ahmad A.S was the Promised Messiah.

The Reality

The accusation is baseless. Text quoted from Kalamtul Fasl did not even mention the Paighamis. What he wrote was aimed at a still other category of people, those who were respectful of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad A.S, who recognized his reformative work, and who even believed that he was a Mujaddid.

Who Were These People?

They were people who publicly acknowledged Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad A.S as a reformer of Islam but did not accept him as the Promised Messiah. Such scholars include:

Maulana Shibli Nomani
Allama Muhammad Iqbal

Clarifying the Principle

It was a straightforward principle as demonstrated by Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad R.A., Islam must believe all the claims of a divinely appointed one. Semi acceptance – the recognition of the service of a prophet or of an inquisitor, and the rejection of his own assertion, are irreconcilable with the real needs of the faith.

Conclusion

The imputation that Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad R.A. gave takfir against the Paighami Ahmadis is altogether untrue.

Opponents are trying to divide Ahmadis by misrepresenting his words. The reality, however, is evident Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad R.A. never did takfir of the Paighamis.

Deobandis, just like other ‘Sunnis’ fabricate lies against Ahmadi Muslims by claiming that we deny that Muhammad (SAW) is Khatam an-Nabiyyin or that we don’t consider the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to be the last prophet. Their only reason for lying about us is to hide the fact that their scholars have said exactly what they are alleging against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS).

Prophethood has ended

Qari Muhammad Tayyab is the grandson of Qasim Nanotwi. Qasim Nanotwi is the founder of the Deobandi sect. Qasim Nanotwi has made numerous statements where he claims that Khatam an-Nabiyyin DOES NOT mean the ‘the last Prophet’, rather, it is the understanding of the common people. In this article, we will show his grandson confirming the same belief. Note, that Qari Muhammad Tayyab is called ‘Hakeem al-Islam’ by the Deobandis which means ‘The Wise scholar of Islam’.

The Manifestations of the Light of Prophethood

When the Muhaddithīn come, the light of my Prophethood will manifest through them. When the Fuqahā come—Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shāfiʿī (rahimahumullah)—my light will shine through all of them; they will have no light of their own. When the noble Sufis appear—Junayd, Shiblī, Bayazid Bastami, etc.—their beings will carry no light except the light of my Prophethood.

From some, the light of my knowledge will appear; from others, the light of my character; from others still, the light of my zuhd and contentment. All of them will manifest my light, and my one Prophethood will be sufficient until the Day of Judgment. New mirrors will keep appearing, and that same light will keep radiating; the world will continue to be illuminated.
There is no need for a new prophethood, because all degrees of Prophethood have been perfected and completed in me. To interpret Khatam-un-Nabiyyīn as “the door of Prophethood is shut” is to mislead people. Its true meaning is the perfection and completion of Prophethood, not the severance of Prophethood or the spread of darkness.

Do not fall into the deception that Khatm-e-Nubuwwat means qataʿ-e-nubuwwat. It means kamāl-e-nubuwwat and takmīl-e-nubuwwat. O Prophet ﷺ, you are the Khatam—meaning that the ranks and stages of Prophethood end with you. After you, every reformer, muhaddith, imam, saint, martyr, and mujahid will carry only one light: your light. They are vessels, and from each vessel the perfection of your Prophethood will shine.

It is as if Allah created such a Being that from his blessings the earlier ones became Prophets, and the later ones became Saints. Sainthood and Prophethood both emanate from the same source. The Prophets of the past benefited from your Prophethood, and those who come after continue to become saints, reformers, and muhaddathīn through the perfections granted to you.

[Khutbat-e-Hakeem al-Islam, vol. 1, pg. 124]

This is just part of the sermon of Qari Muhammad Tayyab. Everyone can read the complete sermon and other statements where he expands on the same exact topic. Here is one video for the benefit of the Urdu speakers. It has English subtitles for non-Urdu speakers.

Conclusion

This leads to many questions.

1. Why are Deobandis takfiring Ahmadi Muslims when their leading scholars are publicly claiming that Khatme Nabuwat DOES NOT mean ‘termination of prophethood’?
2. Why are they not takfiring their ulema or why are their modern day ulema not takfiring their own founders? Why the hypocrisy?
3. Why are the rest of the ‘Sunnis’ silent on this issue when they are the loudest voices against Ahmadi Muslims?
4. Where are the ‘Khatme Nabuwat’ gangs who lynch non-Muslims and Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan? How are they protecting ‘Khatme Nabuwat’ when they are literally teaming up with those who are claiming Muhammad (SAW) is NOT the last prophet?

No one from amongst the ‘Sunnis’ will ever be able to answer these questions!

In our ongoing exploration of Islamic theology, our previous article established that Asharis and Maturidis have long represented the majority within the Ummah, overshadowing Salafi perspectives. This historical dominance raises a profound question: if Istigatha, seeking intercession from saints is deemed shirk (polytheism), why did it persist as a widespread practice for centuries? Drawing from Quranic warnings, prophetic traditions, and historical insights, this article examines how shirk subtly emerges through the reverence of holy figures, mirroring the deviations of Jews, Christians, and even pre-Islamic societies. We delve into the mechanisms of such innovations (biddah), the role of Mujaddids in reviving pure monotheism, and the irony of Muslims reciting verses of exclusive worship to Allah while turning to saints. Ultimately, we critique modern groups like Barelwis, Quburi Sufis, and even some Salafis for veering into associative beliefs, emphasizing the Quran’s unequivocal call to direct supplication to Allah alone.

How Does Shirk start among people? Reverence of Holy People

All the idols which were worshiped by the people of Noah were worshiped by the Arabs later on. As for the idol Wadd, it was worshiped by the tribe of Kalb at Daumat-al-Jandal; Suwa` was the idol of (the tribe of) Hudhail; Yaghouth was worshiped by (the tribe of) Murad and then by Bani Ghutaif at Al-Jurf near Saba; Ya`uq was the idol of Hamdan, and Nasr was the idol of Himyar, the branch of Dhi-al-Kala`. The names (of the idols) formerly belonged to some pious men of the people of Noah, and when they died Satan inspired their people to (prepare and place idols at the places where they used to sit, and to call those idols by their names. The people did so, but the idols were not worshiped till those people (who initiated them) had died and the origin of the idols had become obscure, whereupon people began worshiping them

 Sahih al-Bukhari 4920

In this Hadith, five holy people are mentioned, Wadd, Suwa, Yahouth, Ya;uq, and Nasr, who were holy persons among the Ummah of Nuh AS. These’s five people are actually mentioned in the Holy Qur’an as well.

{And they have said : You shall not forsake your gods, nor shall you forsake Wadd, nor Suwaa’, nor Yaghooth, nor Ya’ooq, nor Nasr.}

[Quran 71:23]

Today we can see the biggest shirk today is commited in the name of a prophet, Hadhrat Isa AS. As for Hinduism, it is speculated by Muslim Scholars that their gods might have been prophets who were idolized just like Jesus.

Muslims would become like Jews and Christians

And the Jews say, Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say, the Messiah is the son of Allah; that is what they say with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them. Allah’s curse be on them! How are they turned away!

[Quran 9:30]

You would tread the same path as was trodden by those before you inch by inch and step by step so much so that if they had entered into the hole of the lizard, you would follow them in this also. We said: Allah’s Messenger, do you mean Jews and Christians (by your words)” those before you”? He said: Who else (than those two religious groups)?

Sahih Muslim 2669a

The Barelwis and Other Quburi Sufis revere their saints so much that they believe that Allah has given certain divine qualities and powers such as being all-Hearing to them, in enssence creating Demi-gods. How is this not different from the Hindu Belief of splitting power between Gods. The Quraysh affirmed Allah but the issue is not that they denied Allah but rather they associated partners to him.

Even Salafis commit shirk because while they attack the Quburi Sufis, they also believe Allah gave Isa divine powers of creation to do make birds.

The Need for Mujaddideen contradicts seeking help from dead

If Islam is just about following the majority, why would Allah send Mujaddideen to revive the faith?

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Allah will raise for this community at the end of every hundred years the one who will renovate its religion for it.

Sunan Abi Dawud 4291

Regardless, following the Majority is not a Daleel, as the majority has been misguided in the past.

Promised Messiah AS states:

The Success of Followers Is Actually the Success of Their Master
All of these miracles and successes which took place after the demise of the Mes-senger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, through his follow-ers, and through Reformers, and which shall be attained until the Day of Resur-rection, are actually the success of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. In short, the coming of a Reformer (Mujaddid) at the head of every century clearly demonstrates that seeking help from the dead is contrary to the will of God Almighty. If help was to be sought from the dead, what need would there have been for the advent of the living? What significance would there have been in the many thousands of saints that have been born? Why would the institution of Reformers have been instituted by God? If Islam was to be handed over to the dead, then know for certain that all traces of it would have vanished already. The religion of the Jews was entrusted to the dead. What was the result? Do tell me, what did the Christians gain by worshipping the dead? They went on worshipping the dead until they themselves became dead. Neither has the spirit of life remained in their religion, nor do the followers of their reli-gion possess any signs of life. From beginning to end, these people have become a horde of the dead.

Malfuzat V. p.

Do scholars affirm Istigatha being allowed?

Barelawis claim that the common elders, saints and Sufis that are recognized by all branches and schools of ahl-us-Sunnah held the same doctrines of them, particularly concerning the issues of tawassul, istighathah, isti’anah and istimdad.

Muhammad Tahir al-Fattani al-Gujarati [d. 986 H]

Let us examine what the great Imam and Mujaddid, Muhammad Tahir al-Fattani al-Gujarati [d. 986 H] said about beseeching the Prophets and the pious for the fulfilment of needs:

كره مالك أن يقول زرنا قبره صلى الله عليه وسلم وعللوه بأن لفظ الزيارة صار مشتركا بين ما شرع وما لم يشرع فإن منهم من قصد بزيارة قبور الأنبياء والصلحاء أن يصلي عند قبورهم ويدعو عندها ويسألهم الحوائج وهذا لا يجوز عند أحد من علماء المسلمين فإن العبادة وطلب الحوائج والإستعانة حق لله وحده

“…among them is one who deliberately visits the graves of the Prophets and Pious to pray at their graves, to supplicate there and ask them for the fulfilment of needs, and this is not permissible according to any of the Ulama of the Muslims. It is only the right of Allah alone that worship, fulfilment of needs and aid be sought from.”

(Majma Bihar ul-Anwar; v.2, p.444)

Qadhi Thanaullah al-Panipati [d. 1225 H]

Likewise, Qadhi Thanaullah al-Panipati [d. 1225 H] says:

اور نہ خدا کے سوا کسی سے امداد چاہنا جائز ہے

“Neither is it allowed to seek aid [Imdad’ from anyone other than God”

فوت شدہ یا زندہ اولیا اور انبیا سے دعا مانگنا جائز نہیں

“Praying to deceased or living Saints and Prophets is not permissible”

(Irshad ut-Talibin; p.23)

He also stated:

انبیاء اور اولیاء کی قبروں کو سجدہ کرنا اور قبور کے ارد گرد طواف کرنا اور ان سے دعا مانگنا اور ان کے لۓ نذر قبول کرنا حرام ہے بلکہ یہ چیزیں کفر تک پہنچا دیتی ہیں

“Prostrating to the graves of the Prophets and Saints, circling graves, praying to them and accepting boons from them is forbidden, rather, these things lead to unbelief.”

(Mala Buddu Minhu; p.82)

Mahmud al-Alusi [d.1270 H]

Mahmud al-Alusi [d.1270 H], the well known mufassir, writes:

أن الناس ‌قد ‌أكثروا من دعاء غير الله تعالى من الأولياء الأحياء منهم والأموات وغيرهم، مثل يا سيدي فلان أغثني، وليس ذلك من التوسل المباح في شيء، واللائق بحال المؤمن عدم التفوه بذلك وأن لا يحوم حول حماه، وقد عدّه أناس من العلماء شركا

(Ruh al-Ma’ani; v.7, p.181)

‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī (1848 – 1886)

‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī (1848 – 1886), a renowned ‘ālim and muḥaddith of the 19^th century whose works are accepted amongst Deobandīs and Barelwīs, Arabs and non-Arabs, clearly and strongly refuted some extreme Barelwī beliefs.

استفتاء: ما قولكم في رجل يظن أن الأولياء يعلمون ويسمعون نداء المنادي قريبا وبعيدا ويستمده بألفاظ يقولها الحاضر للحاضر، وينذر له بالأنعام يقول: نذرت له. بينوا توجروا

هو المصوب: هذا رجل فاسد العقيدة، بل يخشى عليه الكفر فإن سماع الأولياء النداء من بعيد ليس بثابت والعلم الكلي بجميع الجزئيات في جميع الأزمان مختص بالله جل جلاله، وقد قال فى الفتاوى البزازية: من قال إن أرواح المشايخ حاضرة تعلم يكفر، انتهى. وذكر فيه أىضا أن: من تزوج بشهادة الله ورسوله يكفر لأنه ظن أن الرسول يعلم الغيب، انتهى. والنذر لغير الله حرام، ويحرم المنذور لغير الله كما بسطه فى البحر الرائق والدر المختار وغيرهما، والله أعلم. حرره الراجي عفو ربه القوي أبو الحسنات محمد عبد الحي تجاوز الله عن ذنبه الجلي والخفي – مجموعة الفتاوى، ص٣٧٨-٣٧٩

“Question: What do you say about a man who assumes that the Awliyā’ know and hear the call of a caller from near and far, and seek his assistance using words that a person uses for someone in his presence, and makes vows of animals to him, declaring that he has made a vow to him. Explain, and be rewarded.

“Answer: [Allāh] grants rectitude. This is a man of corrupt belief. In fact, it is feared he has disbelieved because the Awliyā’ hearing the call from far is not proven, and complete knowledge of all particulars in all times is specific to Allāh (Glorious is His Grandeur). It states in al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah: ‘Whoever says the souls of Mashāyikh are present and knowing has committed disbelief.’ It also states in it: ‘Whoever marries taking as witness Allāh and His Messenger, he disbelieves because he assumes the Messenger knows the Ghayb.’ Taking a vow by other than Allāh is ḥarām, and whatever a vow was made upon is ḥarām, as explained in al-Baḥr al-Rā’iq, al-Durr al-Mukhtār and other books. This was written by one hopeful of the pardon of his Master, Abu l-Ḥasanāt Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥayy, may Allāh pardon his manifest and hidden sins.”

(Majmū‘at al-Fatāwā, p. 378-9)

In another fatwa in Farsi, it states:

“Question: What do you say (may Allāh ۢMost High have mercy on you) regarding the issue that is prevalent in our lands amongst the common people that in times of calamity and dire need, they call out in asking for assistance from the prophets and saints from afar believing that they are ḥāḍir & nāẓir and that whenever they implore them they are aware, and in turn, supplicate for them in the fulfilment of these needs? Is this permissible or not? Explain, and be rewarded.

“Answer: He grants direction to what is correct: In reality, such belief in the prophets and saints being ḥāḍir and nāẓir, and at all times are aware of our calling out to them even from afar is shirk, since it entails belief in ‘ilm al-ghayb for other than Him Most High, and this belief is shirk. This is because this characteristic is from those exclusive to Allāh (Great is His Grandeur), which no other being can have partnership with Him in. It states in al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah: ‘One marries without witnesses, saying: I make Allāh, His Messenger and the Angels witness, he disbelieves, because he believes that the Messenger and Angel know the Ghayb.’ [1] Further, it states in Bazzāziyyah: ‘About this our scholars have said: Whoever says the souls of Mashāyikh are present and knowing have committed disbelief.’ And Allāh knows best. This was written by one hopeful of the pardon of his Powerful Master, Abu l-Ḥasanāt Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥayy, may Allāh pardon his manifest and hidden sins.” (ibid. p. 344-5)

In al-Āthar al-Marfū‘ah, ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī states:

“From amongst these [fabrications] is what the sermonisers mention, that the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) was given knowledge of the first and the last in full detail, and was granted knowledge of all that has transpired and all that will occur as a whole and in terms of its minutiae, and that there is no difference [in this respect] between his knowledge and the knowledge of his Creator in terms of encompassment and inclusiveness, and the only difference between them is that the knowledge of Allāh is pre-eternal and eternal by virtue of His own self without having been taught by another as distinguished from the knowledge of the Messenger as he acquired it by the teaching of his Maker. This is flowery speech and falsehood as stated by Ibn Ḥajar al-Makkī in al-Minaḥ al-Makkiyyah Sharḥ al-Qaṣīdah al-Hamziyyah and other spiritual masters. What is established from the verses of Qur’ān and the Prophetic ḥadīths is that [such] inclusiveness and encompassment and knowledge of all Ghayb is exclusive to the Revered Deity, and this characteristic has not been granted by the Revered Deity to any of creation. Yes, the knowledge of our Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is more extensive and more numerous than the knowledge of all prophets and messengers; and the teaching of his Creator to him of unseen matters in relation to His teaching to others is more complete, thus he (Allāh bless him an grant him peace) is most complete in knowledge and practice and is the master of creatures in status and virtue.” (Al-Ᾱthār al-Marfū‘ah li l-Akhbār al-Mawḍū‘ah, p. 38)

Qur’an shouts worship Allah alone

Thee alone do we worship and Thee alone do we implore for help.

Quran 1:5

Muslims recite this every day, in every rakaat, after how can someone say I must pray to a Wali or a Saint?

Or, Who answers the distressed person when he calls upon Him, and removes the evil, and makes you successors in the earth? Is there a God besides Allah? Little is it that you reflect.

Qur’an 27:63 – Surah Naml

Here Allah is explicitly saying, who do you call out in distress and is there a God besides Allah

And when My servants ask thee about Me, say: ‘I am near. I answer the prayer of the supplicant when he prays to Me. So they should hearken to Me and believe in Me, that they may follow the right way.’

Qur’an 2:187

And your Lord says: ‘Pray unto Me; I will answer your prayer. But those who are too proud to worship Me will surely enter Hell, despised.’

Qur’an 40:61

Allah wants us to pray TO HIM.

And to Allah alone belong all perfect attributes. So call on Him by these. And leave alone those who deviate from the right way with respect to His attributes. They shall be repaid for what they do.

Qur’an 7:181

You can do Waseelah of Allah through his attributes however this doesn’t mean you directly ask Saints for help.

Clear Cut Hadith on this matter

Whenever drought threatened them, `Umar bin Al-Khattab, used to ask Al-Abbas bin `Abdul Muttalib to invoke Allah for rain. He used to say, “O Allah! We used to ask our Prophet to invoke You for rain, and You would bless us with rain, and now we ask his uncle to invoke You for rain. O Allah ! Bless us with rain.”(1) And so it would rain.

 Sahih al-Bukhari 1010

When they experienced drought ‘Umar bin al-Khattab (RA) used to seek rain by asking al-‘Abbas bin ‘Abdul Muttalib (RA) to supplicate Allah for rain. He (‘Umar) would say: ‘O Allah, we used to ask our Prophet (RA) to supplicate to You for rain, and You would give us rain. We are now asking our Prophet’s uncle to supplicate to You for rain, so give us rain.” They would then be given rain. [Reported by al-Bukhari].

If Rasulullah SAW is all hearing and all seeing in the grave, the Sahaba RA should have asked him to ask for rain, but they didn’t,

“The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘Allah provides respite until, when half or two thirds of the night had passed, He says: “My slave does not ask of anyone other than Me. Whoever calls upon Me, I will answer him; whoever asks of Me, I will give him; whoever asks My forgiveness, I will forgive him,” until dawn comes.’”

Sunan Ibn Majah 1367

Mushrikeen of Quraysh had similar but slightly different beliefs from today’s Barelwis and Quburi Sufis

The way many Polytheists such as Hindus and Christianis try to claim their religions are actually monotheistic is because there is one supreme God or one original creator. The issue is you will quickly see how these Barelwis have basically the same Aqaid, as they believe Allah has given the saints powers of all seeing ,all hearing, but because Allah gave these powers ,somehow saying “Help me O Saint ” doesn’t become shirk even though they have become demi gods.

Here I am at Thy service, there is no associate with Thee. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Woe be upon them, as they also said: But one associate with Thee, you possess mastery over him, but he does not possess mastery (over you). They used to say this and circumambulate the Ka’ba.

Sahih Muslim 1185

Ibn ‘Abbas said that the polytheists used to say, “Labbaik, Thou hast no partner,” whereupon God’s messenger would say, “Woe to you ! Enough, enough; [do not add] ‘except a partner who is Thine whom Thou possessest’, when He possesses none.” They used to say this when they were going round the House.

Mishkat al-Masabih 2554

While this belief is similar to what the Barelwis believe and Barelwis do a type of shirk, but because they do not view their awliyah as gods its can not be classed as kufr Akbar

“Then why have you people started so much war and strife with your heretical brothers [Sufis] ? Those poor people also do not consider their saints to be gods, they only say that God Almighty has given them some divine powers with his permission and will, and because of the powers that they have obtained by the permission of God, they give someone a son and someone a daughter. And they are present and visible everywhere. They accept vows and offerings and grant wishes.”

[Ruhani Khazain, v. 3, p. 251-253]

Is Istigatha Kufr Akbar? Answer: No

Some Deobandis, Salafis, and Ahmadis concur that istighātha constitutes shirk; however, a significant point of divergence between Deobandis and Ahmadis on the one hand and Wahhabis on the other concerns whether istighātha amounts to kufr akbar. Wahhabis generally maintain that engaging in istighātha renders a person a disbeliever akin to Jews or Christians, thereby nullifying their nikāḥ and rendering their wealth licit. In contrast, the Ahmadi position holds that a Barelwi who practices istighātha remains a kalima-go mushrik, that is, a Muslim who has committed shirk, and thus continues to belong to the millah of Islam with full Muslim legal and social rights. This stance is grounded in several jurisprudential principles: first, Islamic law strongly cautions against takfīr unless disbelief is established with absolute certainty, as wrongful takfīr is itself a grave sin that rebounds upon the one who pronounces it; second, human beings cannot ascertain inner intentions, and the doctrine of excusable ignorance (ʿudhr bi’l-jahl) must be taken into account; and third, Barelwis and shrine-centered Sufis do not regard the awliyāʾ as divine, but rather as servants of God endowed with certain powers by Him. While Wahhabis argue that this mirrors the rationale of pre-Islamic idolaters regarding their idols, Salafis themselves acknowledge that figures such as Jesus (ʿĪsā) were granted extraordinary acts, such as creating birds from clay and reviving the dead, which are ordinarily considered exclusive to God, thereby complicating a strict equivalence between saint veneration and idolatry.

Shah Waliullah RH vs Modern Wahhabi Najdi Movement on Istigatha being Kufr Akbar/Shirk Akbar

Wahhabis would consider Deobandis, Ahmadis, and Shah Waliullah Delhvi RH as Shirk Apologists because they do not throw majority of the Ummah who does Istigatha out of the Milalh of Islam.

According to orthodox Islamic legal teachings, it is not permissible to accuse a person of being a kafir/mushrik unless one is certain (i.e., 100 % certain – it must be ma’lum min al-din bi-l-darura).If one is less than 100% certain, then it is not permissible to declare a person a kafir/mushrik. For example, it is not permissible to declare a person a kafir/mushrik if one is only 50% certain, or 70% certain or even 99% certain.In order to be 100% certain about any fiqh matter one needs a clear verse from the Quran or a clear mutawatir hadith.

Shah Wali Allah strongly condemns istighatha. He says that he thinks istighatha is haram. He also thinks it is probably kufr/shirk, but he is not 100% certain due to the absence of a clear Quranic verse or mutawatir hadith.

تفهيم – كل من ذهب إلى بلدة أجمير أو إلى قبر سالار مسعود أو ما ضاهاها لأجل حاجة يطلبها فإنه أثم إثما أكبر من القتل والزنا. ليس مثله إلا مثل من كان يعبد المصنوعات أو مثل من كان يدعو اللات والعزى إلا أنا لا نصرح بالتكفير لعدم النص من الشارع في هذا الأمر المخصوص. كل من عين حيوان الميت وطلب منه الحوائج فإنه آثم قلبه داخل في قوله تعالى ذلكم فسق

He says: “Instruction: Anyone who goes to the town of Ajmer [to the grave of Khawaja Mu’in al-Din Chishti] or to the grave of Salar Mas’ud, or to any such place, for a need he requests of them, indeed he has committed a sin more grievous than murder and adultery. His likeness is not but like those who worship the creation or like those who call on Lat and ‘Uzza [for help]. However, we do not state explicitly that he has disbelieved due to the absence of a text from the Lawgiver in this specific matter. Anyone who assigns life to the dead and requests his needs from them, ‘his heart is surely sinful’ (Qur’an, 2:283), and [this act] is included in His statement (Exalted is He), ‘that is iniquity’ (Qur’an, 5:3).”

(al-Tafhimat al-Ilahiyyah, 2:45)

Promised Messiah AS: Salafis commit shirk too

Promised Messiah AS questions why Salafis harass Quburi Sufis when they hold similar beliefs

Some people from the Muwahhideen sect, based on a verse of the Quran, believe that Jesus, the son of Mary, used to create birds of various kinds and give them life by blowing into them. Therefore, they have objected to this humble one, saying that if he claims to be a Messiah, then he should also create a bird out of clay and then bring it to life and show it to us. Because if the billions of birds that Jesus created are seen flying all over the place, then the Messiah should also have some birds that he created that still exist today.

The answer to all these false and baseless objections is that the verses in which this is written are in the category of mutashabihat (verses with ambiguous meanings). To interpret them as meaning that God Almighty had, with His will and permission, made Jesus a partner in His attributes of creation is clear blasphemy and gross infidelity. Because if God Almighty can also give His special attributes of divinity to others, then there is no difference between Him and His creation, and the whole concept of monotheism collapses. So this proves that his claim to divinity is false.

And the Muwahhideen’s excuse that they do not believe that Jesus was the creator of birds by his own power, but that their belief is that God Almighty had given him this power with His permission and will, and that He had made him a part of His creation by His will, and that it is His prerogative to make whomever He wills His Messiah, the Almighty, the One who does whatever He wills. This is pure paganism and worse than kufr (disbelief). This Muwahhideen was also asked if he could now identify which of these birds were created by God Almighty and which were the offspring of the birds that Jesus created? So he answered by his silence that he could not identify them.

It should now be clear that the belief of some Muwahhideen of this time that some of the species of birds are the creation of God Almighty and some are the creation of Jesus is a completely corrupt and pagan idea. And one who holds such a belief is undoubtedly outside the circle of Islam.

And the excuse that we do not consider Jesus to be God, but rather believe that God Almighty has given him some of His divine attributes is a very hateful and false excuse. Because if God Almighty can give His divine attributes to His servants with His permission and will, then He can undoubtedly give all His divine attributes to one servant and make him a complete God. In this case, all the religions of the idolaters will be proved true. Because if God Almighty can give the attribute of creation to a human being with His permission and will, then He can similarly make someone omniscient with His permission and will and give him such power that God Almighty like God Almighty, he is present and visible everywhere. And it is clear that if divine attributes can also be divided among the servants, then the oneness of God Almighty is false.

As many idolaters there are in the world, they do not even say that our gods are God, but in reality, like these Muwahhideen, their saying is also this that our gods have been given divine powers by God Almighty. The Lord Most High and Exalted is He, and these are only small gods. It is surprising that these people consider calling someone the Messenger of Allah a word of shirk and forbid it, but they are making a humble son of Mary a partner in divinity.

Brothers! Your religion is actually this that divinity can also be divided among the creatures, and God Almighty makes whomever He wills a partner in His attributes of creation, knowledge, omniscience, power, etc., forever. Then why have you people started so much war and strife with your heretical brothers? Those poor people also do not consider their saints to be gods, they only say that God Almighty has given them some divine powers with His permission and will, and because of the powers that they have obtained by the permission of God, they give someone a son and someone a daughter. And they are present and visible everywhere. They accept vows and offerings and grant wishes.

Now, if any seeker of truth asks this question that if such beliefs are completely false and pagan ideas, then what are the correct meanings of those verses of the Quran in which it is written that Jesus, the son of Mary, made a bird out of clay and breathed into it and it became a living bird by the command of God?

[Izala-e-Auham, pg. 251-253]

Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) again explains that the Salafīs hypocritically accept that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) performs divine actions by Allāh’s permission. At the same time, they harshly condemn Ṣūfīs for holding the same belief regarding the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) or the saints, even though Ṣūfīs also maintain that such divine miracles occur solely through Allāh’s will and permission.

It is astonishing to consider the understanding of those people who call themselves Ahl-e-Hadith and non-conformists (ghair muqallid) and claim that they prefer the paths of Tawhid. They are the same people who accuse the Hanafis of associating some saints with divine attributes and seeking their help. Yet, we have already proven that these people attribute many divine qualities to Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him), declaring him as the Creator, the Reviver of the Dead, and the Knower of the Unseen. They ascribe to him attributes that they do not regard permissible for any other human, even though the foundation of divine monotheism (Tauhid) is that God is One, without partners in His essence, His attributes, or His actions, and no other creation is like Him in being One without partners.

These are the same people who objected to the miracles that manifested through Hazrat Syed Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani (may Allah be pleased with him) and other revered saints. These self-proclaimed Monotheists (Muwahhideen) used to laugh at the notion that a ship could emerge from the river after twelve years with all the people who had drowned still alive in it. Yet now, these same people attribute miraculous qualities to the Dajjal (Antichrist) that they never deemed permissible for any saint. They used to say that invoking ‘Ya Sheikh Abdul Qadir, something for the sake of Allah,’ is disbelief (kufr), yet now they consider it permissible to attribute to the Messiah (Jesus) a form of disbelief that is even greater. They regard him as having extraordinary attributes, akin to God’s uniqueness without partners[Tohfa-e- Golarhviyyah, pg. 207-208]

Full article on this topic at this link.

Promised Messiah’s message: Do not throw Muslims out of the Millah of Islam

“Fear Allah… Muslims are already in a small number. Do not further decrease their number and thus increase that of the unbelievers”

Ruhani Khazain Vol 3. p. 422 Izālah Auhām

The warning, “Fear Allah… Muslims are already in a small number. Do not further decrease their number and thus increase that of the unbelievers” (Rūḥānī Khazā’in, vol. 3, p. 422), sets the moral framework for the entire discussion. This statement alone dismantles the Najdi mindset, whose defining feature has been the aggressive chain takfir.

Promised Messiah AS: Takfirism is a curse

Promised Messiah AS also states:

Hazrat Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus, son of Mary) also came for this very purpose, and he came at a time when the Jews, like Muslims, had divided into many sects. They had clung only to the literal words of the Torah and had abandoned its spirit and essence. Disputes had arisen over trivial matters, and due to mutual baseness and cowardice, hatred, envy, and malice had spread among these divided sects. One could not bear the sight of another, and matters reached the point of personal enmities like that between a lion and a goat. Due to differences in belief, love for one’s brothers had vanished; instead, savagery had spread, the moral condition had deteriorated to the extreme, and mutual compassion and sympathy had completely disappeared. They had become like such animals that they could no longer recognize true goodness, and the market of mutual hatred and envy had heated up. Only a few rituals and customs were considered religion.

Therefore, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) gave this Ummah the glad tidings that in the latter days, your condition will be the same. Many sects will emerge among you, and many contradictory ideas will arise. One group will consider another group infidels, just like the Jews. Even if ninety-nine reasons for Islam are present, just one reason will be considered a reason for disbelief, and they will be declared infidels. Thus, due to mutual excommunication, intense hatred, malice, and enmity will arise among you. And because of differences of opinion, malice, envy, and beastly traits will spread. That Islamic character, which desires perfect unity like a single body and is full of mutual love and sympathy, will completely disappear from among you. You will consider each other such strangers that the religious bond will be completely severed, and one group will strive to declare another infidel, just as was the condition of the Jews at the time of the advent of the Messiah, son of Mary.

And due to this internal division, hatred, envy, and enmity, you will become extremely contemptible, degraded, and weak in the eyes of other nations. And because of this inverted progress, which will reach its peak due to internal strife, you will near destruction and will intend to devour each other like worms, and you will provide opportunities for external attacks to befall you, just as happened with the Jews in that era, whose state was lost due to internal discord, and they began to live like slaves under Caesar.

Therefore, Almighty God informed through His Noble Prophet that in the latter days, your condition will be exactly the same. Your religious enmities with your own brothers will reach the extreme. You will be filled with hatred, envy, and malice. Due to this calamity, neither your worldly condition will remain good, nor your religion, nor human morals, nor God-consciousness, nor recognition of truth will remain. And you will become complete savages, oppressors, and ignorant, and that knowledge which has a good effect on hearts will not remain among you. And all this irreligiosity, godlessness, and heartlessness will first emerge in the Eastern lands, and the Dajjal (Antichrist) and Ya’juj Ma’juj (Gog and Magog) will emerge from these very lands, meaning they will manifest their power and might.

By Eastern lands is meant the land of Persia, Najd, and the land of India, because all these lands are located to the east of the land of Hijaz. And it was inevitable that, according to the prophecy of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), disbelief and its manifestations would forcefully show their face from these very places. The Dajjal would emerge from some place among these lands, and among them the Messiah would also descend, because the place that becomes the seat of disbelief and strife should be the very place appointed for establishing reform and faith. Therefore, among these Eastern lands, since the land of India has largely become the seat of disbelief, strife, hypocrisy, hatred, and malice, it is all the more deserving that the Messiah should also appear in this very country. And just as, after the emergence of Adam, the gaze of mercy first fell upon this very country, so too in the latter days, the gaze of mercy should fall upon this same country.

Ruhani Khazain Vol 3. p. 419 Izālah Auhām, Interactive Book Link

Maulānā Ḥakīm Nūrudīn RA’s argument with a Najdi Wahhabi of whether Quburi Sufis are Non-Muslim

Mawlana Nuruddin RA states:

“Once there was a Najdi acquaintance named ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. Regarding the people of Makkah, he said: ‘The people of Makkah are all polytheists.’
I said to him: ‘Say: except whom Allah wills.’
He replied: ‘By Allah, all of them without exception, entirely, are polytheists.’
Then I again said: ‘Say: except whom Allah wills.’
He replied: ‘They may be killed and their wealth may be plundered.’”

Irshādāt-e-Nūr, vol. 1 p.328

This passage records an argument by Maulana Nuruddin (ra), the first Khalifa of the Ahmadiyya Movement, against a Najdi Wahhabi who adopts an extreme takfīrī position. The Najdi asserts that all inhabitants of Makkah are mushrik, leaving no room for exception. This is significant because Makkah is historically and theologically central to Islam, and its population includes Muslims who profess the kalimah and perform Islamic rituals.

Maulana Nuruddin’s repeated response, “Say: except whom Allah wills,” is deliberate and rooted in Islamic legal and theological principles. It reflects the Qur’anic and juristic caution against issuing blanket judgments of disbelief and emphasizes that ultimate judgment belongs to Allah alone. His insistence highlights the classical Sunni principle that takfīr must be restricted, precise, and based on certainty, not sweeping generalizations.

The Najdi’s escalation from declaring universal shirk to legitimizing violence, “they may be killed and their wealth may be plundered,” exposes the practical consequences of indiscriminate takfīr. In Islamic jurisprudence, declaring a Muslim a disbeliever carries severe legal implications, including the permissibility of bloodshed and confiscation of property. By documenting this exchange, Maulana Nuruddin illustrates how doctrinal extremism can directly translate into moral and legal transgression.

The episode thus serves as a critique of Najdi-Wahhabi absolutism and a defense of the Ahmadi position that even when shirk is alleged, the individuals involved may still remain within the fold of Islam unless disbelief is established with absolute certainty. It reinforces the Ahmadi emphasis on restraint in takfīr, recognition of human fallibility in judging intentions, and rejection of vigilante violence justified through theological excess.

Mujaddideen, who did Istigatha, can not be labelled as non-Muslim

Amr ibn al-‘As reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “If a judge makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning and he is correct, he will have two rewards. If a judge makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning and he is mistaken, he will have one reward.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 7352, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1716

The Ahmadi Position is consistent with the position of the great Ulama like Imam Dhahabi RH,

Imam Dhahabi RH (d.1348) on the mistakes of past Ulama

Imam Dhahabi, who was the student of Ibn Taymiyyah RH, wrote:

ثُمَّ إِنَّ الكَبِيرَ مِنْ أَئِمَّةِ العِلْمِ إِذَا كَثُرَ صَوَابُه، وَعُلِمَ تَحَرِّيهِ لِلْحَقِّ، وَاتَّسَعَ عِلْمُهُ، وَظَهَرَ ذَكَاؤُهُ، وَعُرِفَ صَلاحُه وَوَرَعُه وَاتَّبَاعُه، يُغْفَرُ لَهُ زَللَّهُ، وَلا نُضِلَّلهُ وَنَطْرُحُهُ وَنَنسَى مَحَاسِنَه
نعم، وَلا نَقتَدِي بِهِ فِي بِدعتِه وَخَطَئِه، وَنَرْجُو لَهُ التَّوبَةَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ

“Then, if a great scholar among the imams of knowledge has many correct opinions, is known for his diligence in seeking the truth, has vast knowledge, demonstrates intelligence, and is recognized for his piety, righteousness, and adherence to the faith, his mistakes should be forgiven. We do not declare him misguided, abandon him, or forget his virtues. Yes, we do not follow him in his innovations and errors, and we hope for his

This is exactly the Ahmadiyya position!

Promised Messiah As gives the example of belief of Jesus being alive, a wrong belief, among the muslims but it was okay for them to have this beleif as 1. The messiah had not come yet 2. Hadith says that if a Mujathid makes a wrong judgment he will still get a reward

Promised Messiah AS: Past Scholar’s Mistakes and wrong rulings are forgiven

Promised Messiah as stated

I do not say that the people of this age are at fault alone for believing in the life of the Messiah. Nay, some among the people of past too were mistaken, but even in their error they remained worthy of divine reward. For it is written قَدْ يُخْطِئُ وَيُصِيبُ that is, on certain occasions a Mujtahid (A scholar of Islam who strives to come to a conclusion on religious matters on the basis of his own analytical reasoning, in light of the fundamental sources of Islam, namely, the Holy Quran, Sunnah and Hadith) ‘ errs and on other occasions he is in the right. But in both cases he receives divine reward. The fact is that this matter remained hidden from them because this is what divine will had so desired. Thus, they re-mained in ignorance and, like the People of the Cave, 2 this truth was not disclosed to them. In this context, I also received the revelation:
أمْ حَسِبْتَ أَنَّ أَصْحَبَ الْكَهْفِ وَالرَّقِيمِ كَانُوا مِنْ أَيْتِنَا عَجَبًا

Do you think that the People of the Cave and the Inscription wer a wonder among Our Signs?
Similarly, the issue relating to the life of the Messiah is a remarkable secret. The Holy Quran clearly and lucidly establishes the death of the Messiah and the Hadith also substantiate this fact. Further, the verse that was recited to deduce the same, on the day that the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, passed away also confirms this. However, despite this matter being so manifest, God Almighty concealed it, and kept it hidden for the Promised One. And so when he ap-peared, he disclosed this secret.
In His wisdom, whenever Allah Almighty so wills, He conceals a secret or unveils it. Thus, He kept this matter hidden until its appointed time, but now when the Promised One has appeared, in his hand was the key to this secret, and so he revealed it. Now, anyone who does not accept this and remains obstinate, wars with Allah Almighty.

Advent of the Messiah p. 16-17

Promised Messiah AS also states:

If the elders who have passed away did not understand the issue of Christ’s death and made a mistake, they are not to be blamed for this, because this matter was not openly explained to them, and they did not face these issues. They tried as best they could to attain taqwa [righteousness] and purity. The example of these people is like that of the Jewish jurists among the children of Israel who had passed away before the time of the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, who firmly held on to the belief that the last Prophet who was to come would be from the descendants of the Prophet Isaac and would be an Israelite. They died and went to Paradise, but when the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, appeared, the issue became clear that the last Prophet to come was from the Ishmaelites and that was how it should have been, then those of the Israelites who did not believe were declared disbelievers and accursed, and they are still walking around humiliated and afflicted going door to door.

Malfuzat English Volume 8. p.448, 449

List of Mujaddidin:

Of these Mujadideen, scholars liek Abu Hassan Ashari, Imam Ghazali, Syed Abdul Qadir Jilani, Ibn Hajr Aqslani, Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti all believed Isigatha to be halal. It would be foolish for any Muslim to takfir these great Ulama when they were not in the presence of a Hakam wa Adl’.

Mawlana Ahsan Amrohi RA blesses both Subki RH and Ibn Taymiyyah RA

Mawlana Sayyid Muhammad Ahsan Amrohi RA wrote RH for Subki and RA for Ibn Taymiyyah despite the fact that these two scholars were fierce opponents of each other. Subki considered Ibn Taymiyyah to be an anthromorphist [ Mujasim] and Ibn Taymiyyah considered Subki to be a Mushrik.

The key difference: Ahmadiyya vs Najdi methodology

Najdi–Salafi approach

• Treats Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab and Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthaymeen as normative and decisive
• Absolutizes his harshest formulations
• Retroactively declares centuries of Muslims guilty of shirk and kufr
• Turns theological disagreement into takfīr
• Erases intent, context, and historical consensus

Ahmadiyya (and broader Sunni) approach

• Sees Ibn Taymiyyah as a great but fallible scholar who made mistakes and has many positions which salafis would Takfir for such as believing hell is not eternal, that Quburi Sufis and Shias have Udhr bil Jahl, etc
• Ahmadis recognize Ibn Taymiyyah’s ijtihād, but understand he was a fallible scholar who did make mistakes
• Acknowledges that Subkī was a scholar also grounded in Qurʾān, Sunnah, and usūl
• Refuses to declare the past mujaddideen mushrikeen udhama’ (great mushrikeen) and out of millah of Islam over a crime that both Salafis and Sufis are guilty of.
• Maintains adab, balance, and restraint

Conclusion

The arguments of Quburi Sufis and similar groups—often rooted in appeals to historical majorities, Ottoman or Mughal practices, and scholarly consensus crumble under scrutiny, as they overlook the clear scriptural prohibitions against Istigatha and the insidious origins of shirk. As evidenced by Quranic verses like Al-Fatiha 1:5, Surah An-Naml 27:62, and Al-Baqarah 2:186, alongside authentic Hadiths such as Sahih al-Bukhari 4920 and Sahih Muslim 2669a, Islam demands unwavering tawhid: worship and supplication directed solely to Allah. The proliferation of such biddah stemmed from emulating earlier nations, the absence of true Khilafah, limited Quranic accessibility, and unchecked reverence for pious figures, but Allah promises Mujaddids to renew the faith every century (Sunan Abi Dawud 4291). Muslims today must heed this revival, rejecting demi-god-like attributions to saints or prophets, and return to the pristine monotheism that defines our deen. In doing so, we avoid the pitfalls that ensnared communities before us, ensuring our pleas for help reach the One who truly answers

Related Articles

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (RH) (d. 241H) is one of the greatest scholars of Islamic history. He is the founder of the Hanbali school of thought and is widely known as 1 of the 4 most prominent Imams of Sunni Islam. More importantly though, Imam Ahmad (RH) is a shining example of steadfastness in faith during times of severe trials. He lived through the infamous Mihnat Khalaq al-Qur’an: a period when the ruling authorities (Abbasid Caliphate) tried to force the belief that the Qur’an was created, a clear deviation from the truth.

During this time, the majority of people, including judges, muftis, and even the caliph and his followers, sided with falsehood under pressure. Imam Ahmad (RH) stood alone, refusing to compromise on the truth, and his small group of followers remained steadfast with him.

This was the reality: Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (RH) himself was the Jama’ah, together with his small band of loyal followers, while the so-called ‘majority’ had fallen into misguidance.

The Reality of Modern Sunni Islam

Sunni muslims today claim to be part of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah, often boasting of being a large, unified community. They proudly say that because they are the majority, they are upon the Haqq. However, these Non-Ahmadis choose to live in blissful ignorance as countless sects exist within Sunni Islam – all of whom constantly accuse one another of deviation and openly declare takfir.

Where is the unity in this? There is no single Imam guiding them with authority, no central leadership, and no consensus even on core issues of faith. The Qur’an itself makes clear that the majority is not a measure of truth [Quran 6:117], and Prophet (ﷺ) prophesied that in the latter days the majority would be misguided, not guided. So how can mere numbers be used as proof of being the Jama’ah? How can this be called Jama’ah?

Scholars Affirm: Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Alone Was the Jama’ah

Both Imam Ad-Dhahabi (RH) and Ibn al-Qayyim (RH) explicitly affirm in the following statements that Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (RH) and his small band of followers were the true Jama’ah. These statements by two of the most renowned scholars in Islamic history make it clear: the Jama’ah is not determined by the majority. Being part of the true Jama’ah does not mean being part of the largest group; it means following the truth, even if only a few remain steadfast.

Imam Ad-Dhahabi (RH) (d. 748H)

“All the people deviated during the time (Mihnat Khalaq al Qur’ãn) of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal except for a small group, they were the Jammah, at that time the Judges, Muftis, the Caliph and his followers were all deviant and Imãm Ahmad alone was the Jamã’ah.”

_{[إعلام الموقعين عن رب العالمين, p. 389]}

Ibn Al-Qayyim (RH) (d. 751H)

“All the people went astray during the time of Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, except for a few individuals; thus, they were the Jamāʿah (the main body of the Muslims), while the judges, the Muftīs, the Khalīfah, and his followers were the ones who deviated and Imām Aḥmad alone was the Jamāʿah.”

_{‏[ 4/399 معلومات للذين يكتبون نيابة عن رب العالمين]}

True Jama’ah as Explained by the Sahaba

Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd رضي الله عنهما (d. 32 AH), one of the closest and most knowledgeable companions of the Holy Prophet ﷺ, repeatedly emphasized in various accounts that true Jama’ah is not determined by the majority:

Abdullah Ibn Mas’ūd رضي الله عنهما said:

“The Jamā’ah is (whatever agrees with) the Book and the Sunnah, even if you are alone.”

In another narration:

“The Jamā’ah is the people of the truth, even if you are alone.”

_{[al-Faqīh wa’l-Mutafaqqih, Dār Ibn al-Jawzī edition, p. 303]}

ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd said,

“The Jamāʿah is whoever obeys Allāh, even if they are a single person.”

_{[Aitaqad Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, p. 181]}

Ibn al-Qayyim reported: Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, said,

“The united community is that which adheres to the truth, even if you are alone.”

Nuaym ibn Hammad said,

“If the community becomes corrupted, you must adhere to its practice before it became corrupt. Even if you are alone, you by yourself would be the united community.”

_{[3/308 إعلام الموقعين عن رب العالمين]}

‘Amr ibn Maymun reported: Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, said,

“Verily, the majority of groups have left the united community. The united community is only the one that conforms to the obedience of Allah, even if you are by yourself.”

_{[Sharḥ Uṣūl I’tiqād Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah 160]}

True Jama’ah in the Words of the Scholars

Ibn Al-Qayyim (RH) (d. 751H)

Ibn al-Qayyim (RH) is again on record saying that you can be upon the truth even if the entire ummah is against you or opposes you, therefore, you should not be fooled by the majority:

“Do not be deceived by the large number of this kind of people, for thousands upon thousands of them are not equal to one person of knowledge. And a single scholar is equal to the whole earth full of them. Know that consensus, proof, and the true majority is the scholar who possesses the truth—even if he is alone, even if the people of the whole world oppose him. […] Then I accompanied after him the most knowledgeable of people, ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd, and I heard him say: “Hold fast to the community (al-jamāʿah), for indeed the Hand of Allah is with the community.” […] He said: “O ʿAmr ibn Maymūn, I used to think you were among the most knowledgeable people of this village. Do you know what the community (al-jamāʿah) is?” I said: “No.” He said: “The majority of people have in fact separated from the community. The community is whatever agrees with the truth—even if you are alone.” In another wording: He struck my thigh and said: “Woe to you! The majority of people have separated from the community, and the community is that which accords with obedience to Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.” And Nuʿaym ibn Ḥammād said: “If the community becomes corrupt, then hold to what the community was upon before they became corrupt—even if you are alone, for you are then the community.” Both al-Bayhaqī and others narrated this.“

_{‏[ p.396-398, معلومات للذين يكتبون نيابة عن رب العالمين]}

Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab (RH) (d. 1206H)

Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (RH) also stated will return to being “strange,” upheld only by a few. He particularly warned against relying on the large number of people or their consensus as a proof of truth, noting that such reasoning was used by the disbelievers of the past to reject the messengers:

[…] the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his Companions described it before it occurred, warned people against it, and informed that none would adhere to the religion except one after another, and that Islam would become strange as it began. You have known that when ‘Amr ibn ‘Abasah asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in the early days of Islam: “Who is with you in this?” He said: “A free man and a slave,” meaning Abu Bakr and Bilal. So if Islam returns as it began, how ignorant is one who argues based on the multitude of people and their consensus, and similar arguments, when faced with doubts that are great in the eyes of their adherents but insignificant before Allah and those of knowledge among His creation, as Allah says: “Rather, they say like what the former peoples said” [Al-Mu’minun: 81]. I know of no argument you use except that Allah has mentioned in His Book that the disbelievers used it to deny the messengers, such as the consensus of people, obedience to the elite, and other such things.

_{[Al-Durar Al-Saniyyah, vol 1, pg. 41]}

Sunni Claims of Majority ≠ True Jama’ah

The above statements of scholars and Sahaba completely dismantles the claim made by many Sunnis today that “we are the majority, therefore we are the Jama’ah.” If size and numbers truly defined truth, then the corrupt Khilāfah of Imam Ahmad’s (RH) time, backed by scholars, judges, and the masses of the time, would have been the true Jama’ah. Yet history tells us the exact opposite: a single Imam and a handful of followers held the truth, while the majority was astray. Unfortunately, this is the sad reality – most reject the Imam of the age, only to recognize him when it is too late.

True Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah: The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

The example of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (RH) shows that true Jama’ah can be small, rejected by most, and steadfastly loyal to the truth. This is exactly the reality of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community today, founded by the Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) in 1889.

A single Imam, Mirza Masroor Ahmad (ABA) – 5th successor of Messiah and Mahdi, leads the Jama’ah today. Followers remain loyal to him, despite widespread opposition around the world. Ahmadis around the world adhere to the Qur’an and Sunnah, just as Imam Ahmad (RH) and his small group exemplified centuries ago during the time of a monarchial caliphate.

Hazrat Khalīfatul Masīh I, Maulānā Ḥakīm Maulwi Nūrudīn (RA ) states:

“In this age, there is no Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah on the face of the earth except [for] the Aḥmadīyyah. The Jama’ah will only be the one with an Imām. If we were to line up our opponent Muslims in one row, would they be able to have one Imām? Absolutely Not! [However], yes, it is the unique characteristic of the Aḥmadīyyah Jama’ah that it has an Imām. Thus, at this time, except for Ahmadis no one [else] is from Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah.“

_{[Al Hakam, Feb 21, 1910, pg. 3]}

In a forthcoming article, we will take a deeper look at how renowned scholars have defined Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamā‘ah — and demonstrate, with references from scholars and Jama‘at literature, how Jama‘at Al-Ahmadiyya uniquely fulfills this title.

Conclusion

• Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (RH) and his small group of followers were the real Jama’ah, while the majority were in deviation.
• True Jama’ah is NOT determined by the majority. Sunni belief that majority equals Jama’ah has been refuted by both the Sahaba and Scholars.
• Sahaba and Scholars taught that true Jama’ah is defined by steadfastness to the truth, not numbers.
• The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community exemplifies the real Jama’ah today: faithfulness, loyalty, and guidance from a true Imam are what define Jama’ah, not size, popularity, or majority opinion.

Related Article(s)

Salafīs (also called Wahhabīs or Ghayr Muqallidīn) claim to uphold pure Tawḥīd. However, by attributing uniquely divine actions to Prophet ʿĪsā (عليه السلام), such as creating, reviving the dead, and ascending physically, they blur the distinction between Creator and creation. A separate article will examine the Quranic verses underlying these claims.

The Salafī Criticism of Ṣūfī Beliefs

The Salafī Rejection of the Saints’ Miracles

As Ṣāleḥ al-Fawzān makes it clear, Salafīs consider it major shirk to believe that the awliyāʾ or the righteous, whether dead or alive, can help by alleviating distress, curing illness, or granting benefit

Question: Is it permissible to pray behind an imam who believes in saints and righteous people? Please advise us, may Allah bless you.

Answer: Believing that saints and righteous people can bring benefit or harm, heal the sick, or relieve distress—as the grave worshippers today believe, those who venerate shrines—is major shirk, and we seek refuge in Allah from it. The one who holds such a belief is outside the fold of Islam, because they are worshipping other than Allah Almighty. This is because harm, benefit, relief from distress, and fulfilling needs that only Allah can do are not in the power of anyone except Allah, glorified and exalted be He. Believing that the dead or those in graves can bring benefit or harm, or even that the living can do so in matters that only Allah can do, such as healing the sick, granting provision, or removing harm, is major shirk. This is because it involves relying upon other than Allah Almighty and directing the highest forms of worship to other than Allah Almighty. Therefore, if this imam is as you have described, then he is not from the people of Islam as long as he remains upon this belief, and his leadership in prayer is not valid because he is a polytheist with Allah Almighty.

[Majmūʿ Fatāwā Faḍīlat al-Shaykh Ṣāliḥ bin Fawzān, vol 1, pg. 245]

Ibn Taymīyyah (رحمه الله) (d. 728H) also confirms this is shirk, whether the saints are dead or alive; believing they have such powers is a form of associating partners with Allāh. Therefore, Salafīs hold that attributing powers exclusive to Allāh to anyone else fundamentally undermines the core of monotheism and constitutes shirk

As for the prohibited forms of istighātha (seeking help), they are also of various types:
First: Seeking help from the Prophet ﷺ or from a righteous man who is alive, present, and physically before you, in matters that only Allah ﷻ is capable of—such as forgiving sins, guiding hearts, curing illnesses, granting provision, granting victory over enemies, and other things that none but Allah ﷻ can do. This type of istighātha is major shirk that takes one out of the fold of Islam, and it was the shirk of the Arabs in the pre-Islamic period.

However, these people may even exceed the shirk of the pre-Islamic Arabs, for they also commit shirk in tawḥīd al-rubūbiyyah (the oneness of Allah’s Lordship), which the polytheistic Arabs themselves affirmed. The pre-Islamic Arabs acknowledged that Allah is their Creator, Provider, Giver of life and death—whereas some of these extremists refuse to accept provision except from their shaykhs. Moreover, the polytheistic Arabs would sincerely call upon Allah in times of hardship, but these extremists only increase in their shirk during hardships. And there is no power and no might except with Allah.

[Kitāb al-Istighāthah fī al-Radd ʿalā al-Bakrī, pg. 43]

Ṣūfī View: Istighātha Allowed as Saints Help and Perform Miracles Through Allāh’s Permission

While the Salafīs accuse Ṣūfīs of shirk for seeking aid from Awliyā and believing that divine karāmāt or miracles manifest through them. The Ṣūfīs, however, maintain that all such help or miraculous acts performed by the Awliyā or the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) occurs solely by Allah’s will.

When Ibn Taymīyyah (رحمه الله) issued the fatwā that istighātha (seeking aid) is shirk, Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī (رحمه الله) (d. 756H) penned a defence against this claim in his book Shifā’ al-Suqām. He defended istighātha by explaining that it is permissible because the true helper is Allāh alone, while the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) intercedes by calling upon Allāh on behalf of the supplicant. Thus, the help received from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) occurs only by Allāh’s will or creation.

If the opponent says: “I do not prohibit tawassul (intercession) and tashaffu’ (seeking intercession) based on the traditions and evidence you have presented, but I prohibit the use of tajawwuh (seeking through someone’s status) and istighátha (seeking help), because they give the impression that the one through whom help is sought and the one from whom help is requested are higher than the One to whom the request is directed and from whom help is ultimately sought.” We say: No Muslim believes this, nor do the terms tajawwuh and istighátha indicate this. Tajawwuh comes from jáh and wajáha, meaning high rank and status. One may seek intercession through someone of high status to someone who is even higher in status than them. Istighátha is seeking help. The one seeking help (mustaghíth) asks the one from whom help is sought (mustagháthi bihi) to obtain help for him from another, even if that other is higher than the intermediary. Thus, tawassul, tashaffu’, tajawwuh, and istighátha through the Prophet ﷺ and other prophets and righteous people has no other meaning in the hearts of Muslims than this, and none of them intends anything other than this. […] The one from whom help is truly sought is Allah the Exalted, and the Prophet ﷺ is an intermediary between Him and the one seeking help. [pg. 378-379]

The third type of tawassul: when that desired matter is requested from him, meaning that he ﷺ is capable of being a cause for it through his supplication to his Lord and his intercession to Him. This returns to the second type in meaning, even though the expression is different. An example of this is when someone said to the Prophet ﷺ: “I ask you for your companionship in Paradise,” and he said: “Help me against your soul by prostrating frequently.” The traditions regarding this are also numerous, and people intend nothing by their requests except that the Prophet ﷺ be a cause and intercessor. Likewise, the Prophet’s ﷺ response, even when it comes according to the question, as we have narrated in Dalá’il al-Nubuwwa by al-Bayhaqi, with the chain of transmission to ‘Uthmán ibn Abí al-‘Ás (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: “I complained to the Prophet ﷺ about my poor memorization of the Qur’an, so he said: ‘A devil called Khinzab. Come close to me, O ‘Uthmán.’ Then he placed his hand on my chest, and I felt its coolness between my shoulder blades, and he said: ‘Come out, O devil, from ‘Uthmán’s chest.’ He said: After that, I never heard anything except that I memorized it.” Notice how the Prophet commanded the devil to leave in the name of Allah, knowing that this was by Allah’s permission, creation, and facilitation. The intent is not to attribute creation and independent action to the Prophet ﷺ; no Muslim intends this. Therefore, turning the discourse to this [interpretation] and prohibiting it is a form of deception in religion and confusion for the common monotheists. [pg. 382-383]

And one says: “I sought help from Allah” and “I seek help from Allah,” meaning requesting the creation of help from Him. So Allah the Exalted is mustagháthi (the one from whom help is sought), and help comes from Him through creation and bringing into existence. The Prophet ﷺ is mustagháthi (one from whom help is sought), and help comes from him through causation and acquisition. [pg. 385]

[Shifa` al-Saqam, pg. 378-379, 382-383, 385]

A careful study of Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī’s (رحمه الله) argument reveals that Ṣūfīs believe Istighātha is permissible and does not amount to shirk because when Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is beseeched for relief, the relief appears to come “from” the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in the sense that he is the immediate cause or means through which you receive it. However, the ultimate source remains Allah. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) doesn’t create or generate the relief from his own independent power. Rather, Allah grants it through the Prophet’s (صلى الله عليه وسلم) intercession. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) acts as a cause or means through which Allah provides the relief.

Shihāb al-Dīn al-Ramlī (رحمه الله) (d. 957H) is another scholar who defended istighātha, explaining that miracles and acts of assistance performed by the saints or the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) occur by the will and power of Allāh, who manifests His divine miracles through these chosen individuals:

The Imām was asked:

Regarding what occurs amongst the awwām who when in distress say “ya shaykh fulān” and “ya Rasūlullāh” and things like this from seeking aid (istighātha) with the Prophets and the Awliyā, the ‘Ulemā and the righteous, is this permitted or not? And do the Messengers, Prophets, Awliyā, the righteous, and the Mashayekh possess the ability to assist others after their deaths, and what strengthens that view?

He replied:
Istighātha (seeking aid) with the Prophets and Messengers, the Awliyā, the ‘Ulemā and the righteous is permitted.

The messengers, Prophets and the Awliyā have [the ability to] assist after their death because the miracles of the Prophets and Awliyā are not severed following their death. As for the Prophets, then they are alive in their graves praying and doing hajj as it has come in the reports. So assistance from them will be a miracle on their behalf; and the martyrs are also alive, and have been seen, openly killing the kuffār. And as for the Awliyā, then it is a karama from them. The people of the truth believe that this occurs from the Awliyā both with intention, and without intention-things that sever the customary manner of phenomenal reality (khariqa lil ādah), that Allah the Exalted brings forth through them.

[Al-Fatawa al-Kubra al-Fiqhiyyah wa bi-Hamishihi Fatawa al-Ramli, vol 4, 382]

Lastly, Hazrat Shaykh ‘Abdul Qādir Jīlānī (رحمت‌الله‌علیه) (d. 561H), a famous Sufi saint, explains that at the highest spiritual stage, the Awliyā by Allah’s will, be granted extraordinary divine powers, including the power of bringing things into existence. He goes onto explain how the Qur’anic phrase “Be, and it is” (كُن فَيَكُونُ; kun fa-yakūn) while associated with Allah’s supreme creative power, the Awliyā who becomes fully annihilated in Allah’s Oneness, whatever they command to “Be” (kun fa-yakūn) will likewise come into existence by Allah’s permission.

Here, a person is granted the power of creation (takwin), that is, the power of originating and bringing things into existence. And by the permission of Allah, through His command ‘Be’ (kun), wonders and marvels come into manifestation, and he becomes a refuge and sanctuary for God’s creation. He attains expansion of the heart (inshirah sadr) and his good remembrance becomes elevated in both worlds. And in some of Allah’s books, there is His statement: ‘O children of Adam! I am Allah, there is no deity besides Me. Whatever I say to a thing “Be,” it immediately comes into being. So by becoming annihilated (fana) in My unity, you too, whatever you say to a thing “Be,” it will immediately come into being by My permission.

[Futooh al-Ghaib, pg. 125]

The Problematic Beliefs of the Salafīs

The Salafī Belief About ʿĪsā (عليه السلام)

Salafīs believe that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) has the power to create life, such as making birds from clay and giving them life, and that he can revive the dead. For instance, their renowned scholar Ibn Uthaymīn (d. 1422H) affirms this belief by stating:

He (Jesus) breathed into it (a bird), and it became a bird that flies by the permission of Allah, and people watched that […] The Qur’an mentions that Jesus (peace be upon him) revived the dead by Allah’s permission, and in another verse, he brings forth the dead. These two acts are different: the first is reviving the dead before burial, and the second is reviving and bringing them out of their graves after burial. There is no doubt that these miracles given to Jesus by Allah are beyond human capability, and His support for him with these miracles is evidence and proof that he was a messenger from Allah, the Creator and Omnipotent.

[Majmūʿ Fatāwā Ibn ʿUthaymīn, vol 5, pg. 303]

The Salafīs also believe that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) was physically raised to heaven, a claim that will be expounded upon later in this article to show why it is theologically erroneous.

It is ironic that the excuses Salafīs use to justify their own beliefs mirror exactly the same justifications Ṣūfīs use when excusing their shirk. It was noted earlier that the Ṣūfīs also maintain that such miracles occur solely through Allāh’s will and permission. One must ask: what truly distinguishes the Ṣūfīs from the Salafīs? The Salafīs attribute miraculous powers to ʿĪsā (عليه السلام), claiming he performs them by Allāh’s permission. Similarly, the Ṣūfīs hold the same belief but extend these divine miracles to the awliyāʾ, who are also believed to act through Allāh’s permission. Despite this, Salafīs are quick to label Ṣūfīs as mushriks.

The Salafī Belief About Dajjāl

Salafīs, just like other Sunni Muslims, also hold similar beliefs about the Dajjāl (Antichrist), including the claim that he will have the power to revive the dead. These problematic beliefs can be seen in the following quote:

Allah the Mighty and Majestic has given the Dajjal the ability to bring a dead person to life. However, this enemy of Allah cannot do this through his own power and might, but only through Allah’s permission and command, not independently. […] Just as Allah the Mighty and Majestic gave `Isa (Jesus) (peace be upon him) the ability to bring the dead to life, heal the blind and the leper, and inform people about some unseen matters – all of which was only by the permission of Allah, the Glorified and Exalted – similarly, He gave the Dajjal some extraordinary abilities by His permission as a trial and test for His servants, Glory be to Him.

[IslamQA: How can the Dajjal resurrect the dead when this ability belongs exclusively to Allah?] (Accessed: 13 August 2025)

Criticism of the Salafī Beliefs in Light of the Writings of Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) (d. 1326H)

Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) explained that the core of true monotheism is that Allāh alone possesses divine attributes such as creating life, giving life and death, knowing the unseen, and having complete control over everything. He emphasized that these attributes are unique and cannot be shared or divided. He stated that when Salafīs claim that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) has powers like creating birds or reviving the dead, or that the Dajjāl can raise the dead they are wrongly attributing Allāh’s exclusive powers to created beings which thereby undermines Allāh’s uniqueness and amounts to shirk.

Furthermore, Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) explained how the Salafī belief that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) was physically raised to heaven creates a theological problem. He explains that the disbelievers repeatedly claimed they would accept the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) if he physically ascended to heaven. Yet, the response given to them was that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is only a human messenger, as stated in the Quran:

أَوۡ يَكُونَ لَكَ بَيۡتٞ مِّن زُخۡرُفٍ أَوۡ تَرۡقَىٰ فِي ٱلسَّمَآءِ وَلَن نُّؤۡمِنَ لِرُقِيِّكَ حَتَّىٰ تُنَزِّلَ عَلَيۡنَا كِتَٰبٗا نَّقۡرَؤُهُۥ ۗ قُلۡ سُبۡحَانَ رَبِّي هَلۡ كُنتُ إِلَّا بَشَرٗا رَّسُولٗا ٩٤

Translation: ‘Or thou have a house of gold or thou ascend up into heaven; and we will not believe in thy ascension until thou send down to us a book that we can read.’ Say, ‘Holy is my Lord! I am not but a man sent as a Messenger.’

[Holy Quran 17:94]

It is further known that Allāh never breaks His promises, and the promise He made to humans was that they would live and die on earth:

قَالَ فِيهَا تَحۡيَوۡنَ وَفِيهَا تَمُوتُونَ وَمِنۡهَا تُخۡرَجُونَ ٢٦

Translation: He said, ‘Therein shall you live, and therein shall you die, and therefrom shall you be brought forth.’

[Holy Quran 7:26]

Furthermore, humans have their permanent place on earth:

قَالَ ٱهۡبِطُواْ بَعۡضُكُمۡ لِبَعۡضٍ عَدُوّٞ ۖ وَلَكُمۡ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ مُسۡتَقَرّٞ وَمَتَٰعٌ إِلَىٰ حِينٖ ٢٥

Translation: He said, ‘Go forth, some of you being enemies of others. And for you there is an abode on the earth and a provision for a time.’

[Holy Quran 7:25]

Therefore, the question arises whether Allāh forgot this promise when He took ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) to heaven or whether ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) was not truly mortal if he physically ascended to heaven. Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad’s (عليه السلام) quotes surrounding all these arguments will be shown below:

Statement 1

Muslims, particularly the Ahl-i-Hadith, profess strong faith in Tauhid, but, unfortunately, their condition fits the proverb, ‘Spitting the gnat and swallowing the camel’. Can we really call them believers in the Unity of God when they believe Jesus (as) to be one and without partner, just like God is, and when they believe that he went to heaven in his physical body and will return to earth some day, and that he is the one who created the birds! The unbelievers repeatedly swore that if the Holy Prophets could only ascend to heaven in his physical body, they would at once accept him, but the answer given to them was قُلْ سُبْحَانَ رَبِّي هَلْ كُنْتُ إِلَّا بَشَرًا رَسُولًا i.e., tell them, my Lord never breaks His word, and I cannot go to heaven because He has promised فِيْهَا تَحْيَوْنَ وَفِيْهَا تَمُوتُونَ and وَلَكُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ مُسْتَقَرٌّ Are we to believe that God forgot this promise when He took Jesus to heaven, or are we to assume that Jesus was not a mortal at all? If Jesus did go to heaven in his physical body, it would inevitably follow, in the light of the Quranic statement, that he was not a human being. What is more, these so-called advocates of Islam have attributed even to the Dajjal qualities which necessarily make him God. What a pity that they should profess Tauhid and yet make such claims!

[Fountain Of Christianity, pg. 66]

Statement 2

What Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) misunderstood is that the Ṣūfīs also affirm that Allah is their Creator, Provider, and the One who gives life and causes death. However, just like the Salafīs, they believe that Allah has granted certain servants divine powers by His permission and will as shown earlier. Similarly, the idolaters never claimed that their gods were Allah Himself; their saying was also this: that their gods had been given divine powers by God Almighty just as Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) explained. In the same way, Ṣūfīs hold that their saints have been granted divine powers by Allāh, while Salafīs hold that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) was granted such powers, both mirroring the excuses of the idolaters by justifying that these abilities occur solely by Allāh’s will and permission.

Some people from the Muwahhideen sect, based on a verse of the Quran, believe that Jesus, the son of Mary, used to create birds of various kinds and give them life by blowing into them. Therefore, they have objected to this humble one, saying that if he claims to be a Messiah, then he should also create a bird out of clay and then bring it to life and show it to us. Because if the billions of birds that Jesus created are seen flying all over the place, then the Messiah should also have some birds that he created that still exist today.

The answer to all these false and baseless objections is that the verses in which this is written are in the category of mutashabihat (verses with ambiguous meanings). To interpret them as meaning that God Almighty had, with His will and permission, made Jesus a partner in His attributes of creation is clear blasphemy and gross infidelity. Because if God Almighty can also give His special attributes of divinity to others, then there is no difference between Him and His creation, and the whole concept of monotheism collapses. So this proves that his claim to divinity is false.

And the Muwahhideen’s excuse that they do not believe that Jesus was the creator of birds by his own power, but that their belief is that God Almighty had given him this power with His permission and will, and that He had made him a part of His creation by His will, and that it is His prerogative to make whomever He wills His Messiah, the Almighty, the One who does whatever He wills. This is pure paganism and worse than kufr (disbelief). This Muwahhideen was also asked if he could now identify which of these birds were created by God Almighty and which were the offspring of the birds that Jesus created? So he answered by his silence that he could not identify them.

It should now be clear that the belief of some Muwahhideen of this time that some of the species of birds are the creation of God Almighty and some are the creation of Jesus is a completely corrupt and pagan idea. And one who holds such a belief is undoubtedly outside the circle of Islam.

And the excuse that we do not consider Jesus to be God, but rather believe that God Almighty has given him some of His divine attributes is a very hateful and false excuse. Because if God Almighty can give His divine attributes to His servants with His permission and will, then He can undoubtedly give all His divine attributes to one servant and make him a complete God. In this case, all the religions of the idolaters will be proved true. Because if God Almighty can give the attribute of creation to a human being with His permission and will, then He can similarly make someone omniscient with His permission and will and give him such power that God Almighty like God Almighty, he is present and visible everywhere. And it is clear that if divine attributes can also be divided among the servants, then the oneness of God Almighty is false.

As many idolaters there are in the world, they do not even say that our gods are God, but in reality, like these Muwahhideen, their saying is also this that our gods have been given divine powers by God Almighty. The Lord Most High and Exalted is He, and these are only small gods. It is surprising that these people consider calling someone the Messenger of Allah a word of shirk and forbid it, but they are making a humble son of Mary a partner in divinity.

Brothers! Your religion is actually this that divinity can also be divided among the creatures, and God Almighty makes whomever He wills a partner in His attributes of creation, knowledge, omniscience, power, etc., forever. Then why have you people started so much war and strife with your heretical brothers? Those poor people also do not consider their saints to be gods, they only say that God Almighty has given them some divine powers with His permission and will, and because of the powers that they have obtained by the permission of God, they give someone a son and someone a daughter. And they are present and visible everywhere. They accept vows and offerings and grant wishes.

Now, if any seeker of truth asks this question that if such beliefs are completely false and pagan ideas, then what are the correct meanings of those verses of the Quran in which it is written that Jesus, the son of Mary, made a bird out of clay and breathed into it and it became a living bird by the command of God?

[Izala-e-Auham, pg. 251-253]

Statement 3

Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) explained that Christians can argue that the divine miracles of ʿĪsā (عليه السلام), which are unique to Allah, prove his divinity.

It is, however, a mistake on the part of our unthinking ulema that they attribute certain qualities to him; for instance, that he used to fashion, like the Creator of the universe, the frame of a bird and made it alive by breathing into it so that it flew away; that he revived the dead with the touch of his hand so that they began to walk about; and that he possessed knowledge of the unseen; and that to this day he did not suffer death, but rather, he is present in Heaven in his physical body. If all that is attributed to him were true, then there would be no doubt about his being the creator of the world, knower of the unseen, and reviver of the dead. If, on these premises, a Christian were to argue in favour of his divinity i.e. on the basis that the existence of the qualities of a thing is proof of the existence of the thing itself then what answer would the Muslims give to such a claim.

It would be an interpolation of the Word of God to assert that these miracles occurred as a result of prayer. For, the Holy Quran does not mention any prayer in connection with the flight of something that was fashioned in the shape of a bird and was breathed into, nor does it state that such a shape became alive in reality. It is impermissible to add something to the Word of God from oneself. This was the kind of alteration on account of which the Jews were cursed. […] an affirmation of true creation on his part amounts to a grave mischief and an association of partners with God. […] Allah the Exalted states in the Quran that even if the whole world joined together to create a gnat, it would not be able to do so, because in such a case it would become God’s partner in creation. It would be equally false to allege that God Almighty had Himself given him permission to create. There is no contradiction in the Word of God: He does not bestow such permission upon anyone. Allah the Exalted did not bestow upon the Chief of the Messengers, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, permission to create even a fly. Then how could the son of Mary receive such permission? Fear God Almighty, and do not seek to convert metaphor into physical reality.

[Testimony of the Holy Quran, pg. 119-120]

Statement 4

Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) again explains that the Salafīs hypocritically accept that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) performs divine actions by Allāh’s permission. At the same time, they harshly condemn Ṣūfīs for holding the same belief regarding the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) or the saints, even though Ṣūfīs also maintain that such divine miracles occur solely through Allāh’s will and permission.

It is astonishing to consider the understanding of those people who call themselves Ahl-e-Hadith and non-conformists (ghair muqallid) and claim that they prefer the paths of Tawhid. They are the same people who accuse the Hanafis of associating some saints with divine attributes and seeking their help. Yet, we have already proven that these people attribute many divine qualities to Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him), declaring him as the Creator, the Reviver of the Dead, and the Knower of the Unseen. They ascribe to him attributes that they do not regard permissible for any other human, even though the foundation of divine monotheism (Tauhid) is that God is One, without partners in His essence, His attributes, or His actions, and no other creation is like Him in being One without partners.

These are the same people who objected to the miracles that manifested through Hazrat Syed Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani (may Allah be pleased with him) and other revered saints. These self-proclaimed Monotheists (Muwahhideen) used to laugh at the notion that a ship could emerge from the river after twelve years with all the people who had drowned still alive in it. Yet now, these same people attribute miraculous qualities to the Dajjal (Antichrist) that they never deemed permissible for any saint. They used to say that invoking ‘Ya Sheikh Abdul Qadir, something for the sake of Allah,’ is disbelief (kufr), yet now they consider it permissible to attribute to the Messiah (Jesus) a form of disbelief that is even greater. They regard him as having extraordinary attributes, akin to God’s uniqueness without partners

[Tohfa-e- Golarhviyyah, pg. 207-208]

Salafīsm Follows the Footsteps of Past Jews and Christians Who Became Polytheists

Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud (رضي الله عنه) explained that the Prophet warned his followers not to turn graves into places of worship just as Jews and Christians had done before, despite originally being monotheistic. Later, when Muslims became corrupt, they followed in the footsteps of those nations, falling into grave worship, ascribing God’s attributes to saints, seeking favours from the dead, and committing other forms of shirk. Salafīsm follows that same path by ascribing Allah’s attributes to ʿĪsā (عليه السلام), mirroring the earlier deviation of the Christians.

From Islamic sources, there is evidence that the era of monotheism preceded the era of polytheism. Islam appeared last of all — look at its history: it is a religion which, from beginning to end, presented pure monotheism, in which there was never any mention of spirit-worship. Its Prophet could not even tolerate that any companion should say to him, “Whatever you wish, will happen” (as has already been mentioned earlier under the verse “Do not set up rivals to Allah”).

When the Prophet was on his deathbed, he warned his people with these words: “May Allah curse the Jews and the Christians, for they took the graves of their prophets as places of prostration” (Bukhari, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Prayer in Churches). When his community later became corrupt — what happened to them? They began prostrating at graves. They ascribed God’s attributes to saints. They sought favors from the dead. In short, there was no polytheistic practice they did not commit.

[Tafseer Kabeer, vol 1, pg. 318]

Salafis, also known as Wahhabis or Ghair Muqallids (non-conformists), commonly allege that Ahmadis oppose the majority of the Muslim Ummah and are therefore wrong and misguided. However, what is often overlooked in these discussions is the fact that prominent Salafi scholars themselves have openly acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of Muslims, throughout history and across the Muslim world, do not follow the Salafi methodology and instead are overwhelmingly Maturidi or Ash’ari in creed. This article presents clear statements from their own scholars admitting this reality, exposing the inconsistency in using “opposition to the majority” as an argument to delegitimize other groups.

Salafi Scholarship: Salafis Are a Minority

MUHAMMAD IBN ABD AL-WAHHAB رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ (d. 1206H)

To start with, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ said that Islam will return to being strange just as it began, adhered to only by a few individuals. He warned against relying on the large number of people or their consensus as a proof of truth, noting that such reasoning was used by the disbelievers of the past to reject the messengers.

While a separate article will delve deeper into this “majority fallacy,” including how various scholars have understood the term Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama‘ah, this article will specifically highlight how scholars respected within the Salafi tradition have themselves acknowledged that the majority of Muslims do not adhere to Salafi or Wahhabi interpretations.

[…] the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his Companions described it before it occurred, warned people against it, and informed that none would adhere to the religion except one after another, and that Islam would become strange as it began. You have known that when ‘Amr ibn ‘Abasah asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in the early days of Islam: “Who is with you in this?” He said: “A free man and a slave,” meaning Abu Bakr and Bilal. So if Islam returns as it began, how ignorant is one who argues based on the multitude of people and their consensus, and similar arguments, when faced with doubts that are great in the eyes of their adherents but insignificant before Allah and those of knowledge among His creation, as Allah says: “Rather, they say like what the former peoples said” [Al-Mu’minun: 81]. I know of no argument you use except that Allah has mentioned in His Book that the disbelievers used it to deny the messengers, such as the consensus of people, obedience to the elite, and other such things.

[Al-Durar Al-Saniyyah, vol 1, pg. 41]

SHAH ISMAIL DEHLVI رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ (d. 1246H)

Shah Ismail Dehlvi رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ was a respected scholar among Salafis who highlighted that the majority of Muslims are inclined toward shirk by engaging in acts such as istighatha (seeking help from deceased saints), which are largely considered permissible within the Ashari and Maturidi schools of theology. He similarly attributed this trend to a prophecy of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, who foretold that true believers would disappear.

Polytheism is generally widespread among the people and the concept of Monotheism is in scarcity. Many people who claim to be the bearers of Faith do not understand the meanings of Tauhid and Shirk (Monotheism and polytheism). Apparently they are Muslims, but they are unconsciously involved in the acts of Shirk. Therefore, first we should try to understand the meanings of Tauhid (Monotheism) and Shirk (polytheism) so that we may know about their advantages and disadvantages as directed by Qur’an and Sunnah. […] It means that the majority of people who outwardly profess to have faith in Allah are in fact entangled in the quagmire of polytheism. […] Allah will send down a blissful and chaste breeze which will end the lives of all those having the least amount of Faith whereas the vice-ridden and irreligious people shall be spared to live on. The hearts of these people shall be devoid of the dignity of the Prophet (Peace be upon Him) nor shall they have any interest in religion. They shall eagerly snap on the customs and rituals of their grand-fathers who were none other than the ignorant polytheists. A man who adopts the ways of the polytheists will naturally become one of them. […] Thus it becomes known to us that the old polytheism shall also be wide-spread during the concluding periodic phase of the world. Presently, all kinds of Shirk (both the ancient and new ones) are rampant among the Muslims. What the Prophet (Peace be upon Him) prophesied earlier seems to be coming true now. For instance, the Muslims are treating Prophets, saints, Imams and martyrs etc. polytheistically.

[English Translation PDF: Taqwiyat-ul-Iman]

SANAULLAH AMRITSARI (d. 1367H)

Building on the perspective of Shah Ismail Dehlvi رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ, who described the widespread prevalence of polytheism among Muslims, Sanaullah Amritsari, the editor of the Ahl-e-Hadith magazine stated that approximately eighty years ago, the Muslim population of Amritsar, Punjab, followed the same creed as those known today as Hanafi Barelvi, adherents of the Maturidi school of theology.

In Amritsar, the Muslim population is equal to the non-Muslim population. About eighty years ago, almost all Muslims followed the same belief, which today is called the Barelvi Hanafi school of thought.

[Sham-e-Tauheed, pg. 53]

AL-ALBANI (d. 1420H)

Salafis often maintain that it is within the fitrah (natural disposition) of lay Muslims to believe that Allah is above the Throne, so when asked “Where is Allah?” they instinctively point upwards. From this, they try to prove that the masses of Muslims follow the Salafi Athari creed. However, al-Albani disagreed with this view and remarked:

If we ask ordinary people and elites: ‘Where is Allah?’, we will find them looking at us with disapproving eyes, ignoring and unaware that it is the Prophet who decreed it for us in his Sunnah. Then, despite this, we see them confused and not knowing how to respond.

[Mawsuat al-Allamah al-Imam Mujaddid al-Asr Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, vol 2, pg. 593]

He further stated:

Know that the majority of Muslims today are either Ash’ari or Maturidi, will Islam succeed by them?

[Jami Turath al-Allamah al-Albani fi al-Manhaj wa al-Ahdath al-Kubra, vol 5, pg. 291]

For every Maliki is an Ash’ari, every Shafi’i is an Ash’ari except a few, and every Hanbali is an Ash’ari except a few especially in our time! […] The three Madhaheb, especially the Malikis and Shafi’is, are nothing but Asha’ira. And every Hanafi is a Maturidi.

[Jami Turath al-Allamah al-Albani fi al-Manhaj wa al-Ahdath al-Kubra, vol 5, pg. 412]

AL-UTHAYMIN (d. 1421H)

Al-Uthaymin corroborates this sentiment:

The Ashā‘ira are the most widespread in Muslims lands, and that is why we must know their beliefs entirely to know how to respond to them so that we can eradicate them entirely.

[Tafsir al-Quran al-Karim Surat al-Shura, pg. 104]

RABI’ AL-MADKHALI (d. 1446H)

Rabi’ al-Madkhali noted that during earlier centuries, the Salafi creed had nearly disappeared, with its followers across the Islamic world being so few they could be counted on one’s fingers.

Abu’l-Qasim lived in the second half of the fifth century and the first third of the sixth century Hijri. During this time, various sects had fully emerged, including the Khawarij, Shia, Qadariyyah, Mu’tazilah, Jahmiyyah, Jabriyyah, and Ash’ariyyah, which was predominant in the Islamic world at that time. The Ash’arites called themselves “Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah” (People of the Sunnah and Community). The Salafi methodology, the approach of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and the preceding Imams of Islam, had nearly disappeared. The creed of the Salaf had become strange, and its followers throughout the Islamic world could be counted on one’s fingers.

[al-Hujjah fi Bayan al-Mahajjah wa Sharh Aqidah Ahl al-Sunnah, vol 1, pg. 40]

SALEH AL-FAWZAN

Salih al-Fawzan admitted that historically even the Hanbali scholars of Najd followed the creed of the Ashʿariyyah and Maturidiyyah, stating:

As for the creed, they (Hanbali scholars of Najd) followed the creed of the Asha’irah and Maturidiyah, and they had Sufism, innovations (bid’ah), and whatever other lands had, in fact, they exceeded others due to the abundance of ignorance among them in their desert regions and villages.

[Sharh Aqidah al-Imam al-Mujaddid Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, pg. 10]

asdasd

To prove that Isa (AS) is alive, Anti-Ahmadis quote a narration from Al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (Arabic: الأسماء والصفات) by Imam al-Baihaqi (RH) which says the following:

أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَافِظُ، أنا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ، أنا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، ثنا ابْنُ بُكَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنِي اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، مَوْلَى أَبِي قَتَادَةَ الْأَنْصَارِيِّ قَالَ: إِنَّ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «كَيْفَ أَنْتُمْ إِذَا نَزَلَ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ فِيكُمْ وَإِمَامُكُمْ مِنْكُمْ» . رَوَاهُ الْبُخَارِيُّ فِي الصَّحِيحِ عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ بُكَيْرٍ، وَأَخْرَجَهُ مُسْلِمٌ مِنْ وَجْهٍ آخَرَ عَنْ يُونُسَ. وَإِنَّمَا أَرَادَ نُزُولَهُ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ بَعْدَ الرَّفْعِ إِلَيْهِ

“What will be your condition when the son of Maryam (i.e. ‘Eisa) will descend amongst you from the heavens and your Imam will be from amongst you?”

Bukhari narrated it in al-Sahih from Yahya bin Bukayr. And Muslim also narrated it through another chain from Yunus (bin Yazid). And they (also) meant his descent from the Heavens after his ascension towards it.

[Al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat]

Anti-Ahmadis allege that since this hadith mentions the coming of the Messiah from the skies, thus, it proves that Jesus (AS) is alive.

Refutation

Decietful Tehreef (Distortion)

Anti-Ahmadis cannot change the Holy Quran, as Allah has promised to protect it, so they alter what they can. This hadith does not contain the word ‘samaa’ (مِنَ السَّمَاءِ) or has any reference to heavens/skies. It is a deceitful and dangerous addition by the Anti-Ahmadis. A complete tahrif in the words of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

The correct wording is:

كَيْفَ أَنْتُمْ إِذَا نَزَلَ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ فِيكُمْ وَإِمَامُكُمْ مِنْكُمْ

How will you be when the son of Mary descends amongst you and is your imam among you.

[Al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat]

The following are four different manuscripts of the hadith book al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat. None of them contain the word ‘samaa’ or ‘min al-samaa’. So how can any computerized or printed version of this book include this word?

Manuscript 1

Manuscript 2

Manuscript 3

Manuscript 4

These manuscripts can be downloaded directly from source as well.¹

Does any Manuscript has the word Samaa?

Some deceitful Anti-Ahmadis might share a PDF of a manuscript that supposedly contains the word ‘samaa’. This is an even greater deception than what we discussed above. An Anti-Ahmadi group has deliberately edited the manuscript to insert this word.

What’s shocking is that they chose Manuscript 1 from above to alter. We compared the original manuscript with the PDF these Anti-Ahmadis share on archive.org.

You can clearly see that the entire page is unchanged except for the spot where they added the word ‘min al-samaa’. To make it fit, they shrank the font for the rest of the line so everything would stay on the same line. It is unbelievable to see these so-called Muslims go to such extremes to fabricate the words of our Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

Not so shockingly, the distorted manuscript on archive.org is uploaded by the same Anti-Ahmadi culprits, Khatam e Nabuwat Times. This is the same organization that persecutes and kills Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan and carries out other attacks on the community worldwide. One can see their character from the list of books they have uploaded on the archive.org. Many of them are filthy personal attacks on Ahmadis without a shred of evidence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Anti-Ahmadis have not even spared the words of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (SAW) from Tehreef. They consider everything in the opposition of the Ahmadi Muslims to be Halal.

They have clearly and shamelessly added the word ‘samaa’ into the hadith quoted by Imam Bayhaqi. It does not exist in any of the manuscripts of the Al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat of Imam Bayhaqi. Neither does Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim have this addition, even though they quote the exact same narration with similar narrators.

We will leave the Anti-Ahmadis with this warning of the Prophet (SAW).

لاَ تَكْذِبُوا عَلَىَّ، فَإِنَّهُ مَنْ كَذَبَ عَلَىَّ فَلْيَلِجِ النَّارَ

The Prophet (ﷺ) said

“Do not tell a lie against me for whoever tells a lie against me then he will surely enter the Hell-fire.”

[Sahih al-Bukhari 106]

References

The Deobandi sect, originating in South Asia in the 19th century, is a Hanafi reformist sect within Sunni Islam. Many Deobandis have adopted theological positions that overlap with Wahhabi or Salafi tendencies, particularly in their opposition to practices they view as innovations (bid‘ah) or forms of shirk (polytheism), such as istighātha (seeking help from dead saints) and excessive veneration of graves. However, despite this outward opposition, writings the founding Deobandi scholars have endorsed or permitted istighātha themselves. Deobandi texts contain clear statements affirming that calling upon the dead is allowed. Deobandis believe that asking dua from the dead (worshipping them) is allowed!

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi Encouraged Istighātha

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (d. 1323H), a prominent Deobandi scholar and one of the founders of the Deoband sect, issued a fatwa regarding the permissibility of istighātha by permitting seeking intercession from the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم at his grave. He states:

When you go to the Holy Grave, ask him for his intercession this way: Yā Rasūl Allāh, I ask you for intercession and make you my means to Allāh. Let me die as a Muslim on the path of your Ummah and Sunnah. And if you want to send greetings on behalf of someone who is not present, say: Yā Rasūl Allāh, Fulān ibn Fulān greets you; he asks for intercession through you to your Lord.

[Zubdat ul-Manāsik, pg.137]

The cited book was verified by Muhammad Tayyib an-Nanotwi, Hussayn Ahmad al-Madani, Muftī Mahmud Hassan al-Gangohi, Muhaddith Muhammad Zakaria and, other Akābir of Deoband.

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab رحمه الله: Istighātha (Seeking Aid) Is Shirk

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab رحمه الله (d. 1206H), the founder of the Wahhabi sect, considered such statements like directly asking the Prophet for intercession as clear acts of shirk (polytheism). His teachings strongly opposed any form of istighātha (seeking help) from the deceased, viewing it as a violation of pure tawḥīd (monotheism).

So it is not said, “O Messenger of Allaah (or) O wali of Allaah, I ask intercession from you…” or other such (requests) such as “Reach me (to aid me) or “Rescue me” or “Heal me”, or “Aid me against my enemy” and what is similar to that, from those affairs in which none has power over except Allaah, the Exalted. When he requests any of that which has just been mentioned (from those in the life) of al-Barzakh, it is from the types of Shirk, since no text has been related from the Book or the Sunnah (for this practice), and nor any narration from the Rigteous Salaf regarding it. Rather, the Book, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the predecessors have established that this is major shirk (shirk akbar), which is fought against.

[al-Durar al-Saniyyah, vol 1, pg. 231]

Is There a Difference Between Istighātha (Seeking Aid) and Tashaffuʿ (Seeking Intercession)?

Some people might object that there is a difference between seeking intercession (tashaffuʿ) and istighātha (seeking aid), and therefore argue that what Gangohi practiced was not istighātha and thus not shirk. However, what they fail to understand is that Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH) has already clarified that there is no meaningful difference between such terms. He explained that whether it is tashaffuʿ or istighātha, they essentially refer to the same concept:

If these [three] types [of Tawassul] and the [different] situations regarding the one who asks the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – [for aid] has become clear and the meaning has become apparent, then it should not concern you how one calls it: whether it’s Tawassul, Tashaffu’, Istighathah, Tajawwuh or Tawajjuh, because the [intended] meaning of all of these [different wordings used] is the same.

[Shifa` al-Saqam, pg. 314]

Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam, a student of Mufti Taqi Usmani, further stated that istighātha refers to calling upon and seeking help from other than Allah. Therefore, it would be accurate to say that Gangohi promoted a form of istighātha, since regardless of the reason, he still encouraged people to call upon Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم.

The second relates to calling upon and seeking the help of other than Allah (known as Istighātha and Istiʿāna). […] As such, in accordance with the position that the dead can hear in their graves, it would be permitted to request the deceased for Duʿāʾ and intercession at his grave.

https://daruliftaa.com/aqidah-belief/various-forms-of-tawassul-and-istighatha-and-their-rulings/ (Accessed: 20 July 2025)