Cow Sacrifice a Symbol of Islam

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا رسول الله

Prayers and peace upon you, Apostle of Allah

Recently, a senior cleric of Deoband, Arshad Madani, may Allah eliminate him and his fitnah,  restated his demand that the cow be declared the “national animal” of India. This is the next step in the diabolical agenda of Deoband to enter reverence and worship of the cow into the hearts of the Muslims!

Initially, Deoband strongly advised Muslims to avoid cow sacrifice on the occasion of Eid al-Qurban, and cow slaughter in general, so as to avoid hurting Hindu sentiments. This is in stark contrast to the fatwa of the Sunni Mujaddid, Ala Hadrat, Imam Ahmad Rida Khan رحمة الله عليه  who wrote an entire paper on this issue titled انفس الفكر في قربان البقر in which he established, quite brilliantly, that the sacrifice and slaughter of cows becomes a religious obligation for the Muslims in the context in which the Hindu cow-worshipers seek to humiliate Islam by preventing that. Quoting a fatwa of the Ulama:

قربانی گائے کی شعار اسلام ہے اس کا موقوف کرنا بسبب ممانعت ہنود معصیت ہے

Cow sacrifice is a symbol of Islam. To halt it due to the Hindu prohibition is sinful (Fatawa Ridawiyyah, v.14, p.549)

Ala Hadrat, Imam Ahmad Rida Khan, may Allah have mercy on his blessed soul, restated this fact that cow sacrifice is a symbol of Islam (ibid, p.558)

So even though the Shari’ah does not mandate Muslims to sacrifice specifically cows on the occasion of Eid al-Qurban, and one is free to sacrifice camels, sheep and goats instead, it becomes a duty of the Muslims to sacrifice cows where and when their failure to do so is understood as appeasement of the Hindu cow-worshipers and idolaters.

Now appreciate the honor and jealousy that Ala Hadrat رحمة اللہ علیہ and the orthodox Sunni Ulama have for Allah and His Religion as opposed to the shamelessness and cowardice of Deoband.

The attitude of Deoband both surprises and disturbs me. It shows an utter failure to understand the spirit of Islam and the spirit of the message of the Holy Quran. The story of the resistance of the Israelites to God’s commandment through His Prophet Moses عليه السلام to slaughter a cow gives name to and is featured in the longest Surah of the Quran, al-Baqarah, which literally means the cow.

Deobandis and some other Muslims in India, in avoiding cow sacrifice and slaughter as a means of deference to the Hindus are similar to those cursed Israelites, who under the influence of their pagan neighbors, repeatedly relapsed into worship of the Golden Calf, and the worship of Baal, a Canaanite idol associated with the bull.

The wicked Israelite King Jeroboam had two golden calves constructed and placed one in Bethel and the other in Dan for his people to worship. Mind you this was centuries after the Israelites in the time of Moses and Aaron عليهما السلام had constructed the Golden Calf and worshiped it at the foot of Mount Sinai in the wilderness.

Likewise, the idolatrous influence of their Hindu ancestors and neighbors has poisoned the hearts of Deobandis and some other Muslims in India, compelling them to avoid cow sacrifice and slaughter.

Arshad Madani is the author of other scandals, such as declaring that Allah and Om are one. This was another diabolical attempt of his to reconcile Islam with the idolatrous and satanic Hindu religious.

It should be borne in mind that Arshad Madani is not some obscure cleric, but the head of the Jami’at Ulama-i-Hind (JUH), the principal face of Deoband in the public affairs of India. He is the son of Hussain Ahmad Madani, a major figure in the Deobandi movement, who introduced the wrong concept of composite nationalism to the Muslims of India, arguing that Muslims and Hindus form a single nation and that Muslims must remain loyal to India as their motherland.

Khalid Rashid of Firangi Mahal and Umar Ilyasi are other contemporary clerics in India who, like Deoband, kowtow to the Hindus. Umar Ilyasi, may Allah eliminate him and his fitnah, shamelessly participated in the disgraceful consecration of the Ram Janmbhumi temple in Ayodhya on the 22nd of January, 2024. This idolatrous temple was constructed on the ruins of the martyred and demolished Babri Masjid.

Before the establishment of the school of Deoband, the Sunni Muslims of the Subcontinent were united in their creed and practice of Islam. They venerated the Saints and Sufis, visiting their tombs to pray for them and obtain spirituality through nearness to their bones. They celebrated the Mawlid—the Prophet Muhammad’s blessed birthday, peace be upon him. They openly proclaimed “Ya Nabi Salam Alaika”. Those Islamic institutions which predate the Deobandi school and have managed to survive to the present bear witness to this fact. Consider the iconic Jama Masjid in Delhi, which was built by the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in the mid 17th century. He invited Sayyid Abd ul-Ghafur Shah of Bukhara, in present day Uzbekistan, to inaugurate the Mosque and serve as its khatib and royal imam. His descendants continue to serve as royal imams for this special and beautiful mosque till this day. They are traditional, orthodox and mainstream Sunni Muslims who have nothing to do with the newer schismatic movements that emerged during the British colonial period, such as Deoband and the so-called Ahl ul-Hadith or Salafism.

Hussain Ahmad Madani (1879-1957)

Arshad Madani

Mahmud Madani

Khalid Rashid of Farangi Mahal

Umar Ilyasi

Muslims in India should beware of these charlatans who are using the garb of Islam to hoodwink them into kowtowing to the Hindus and going along with the diabolical agenda of Hindutva.

The Missing Books of the Bible

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا رسول الله

Prayers and peace upon you, Apostle of Allah

As I have already explained, my position, as a Sunni Muslim, to the Bible is a balanced and nuanced one in contrast to some of the Muslim debaters and apologists who focus on refuting and debating Christians. In my view, the Bible is, for the most part, a faithful record of the original revelation and Scriptures that God revealed to various Israelite Prophets. The Holy Quran not only testifies of the Torah, the Zabur (Psalms of David) and the Injil (Evangel or Gospel given to Jesus), it also confirms the Scriptures in general:

أَوَلَمْ تَأْتِهِم بَيِّنَةُ مَا فِي الصُّحُفِ الْأُولَىٰ

Has there not come to them clarification of that which is in the former Scriptures?

(Surah 20, Ayah 133)

I understand as-Suhuf al-Ula (prior Scriptures) as a reference to not only the Torah, or not only the Torah, Psalms and Gospel of Jesus, but also the Scriptures inspired to various other Israelite Prophets, such as Joshua, Samuel, Job, King Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jonah, and even the so-called “minor Prophets” like Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Whether the Scriptures attributed to the names of Joshua, Samuel, Job, Jonah and others are a record of their inspirations and visions, or merely a historical account of their prophetic ministries, their contents are surely true, or at the very least do not conflict with the Holy Quran. This is also true of other books in the Bible such as the Book of Kings and Chronicles, which although read more as accounts of history than actual revealed Scripture to a Prophet, nonetheless contain, from an Islamic perspective, mostly true and correct information.

I go even further and argue that the much of the Talmud, in its relaying of historical events, teachings and laws, is also true and correct from an Islamic perspective, and have been confirmed in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah. The Rabbinic Jewish doctrine that at Mount Sinai Moses received both a written Torah and an unwritten or oral Torah, is also correct from an Islamic perspective, though virtually all Christians and even many Muslims reject this.

Yet, it must also be acknowledged that the current Biblical canon is incomplete, and there were several other texts that were either omitted or genuinely lost. The Bible itself references some of these texts, for instance:

1. Book of the Wars of the Lord (mentioned in Numbers 21:14)

2. Book of Jasher (mentioned in Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18)

3. Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41)

4. Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (mentioned in 1 Kings and 2 Kings)

5. Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (mentioned in 1 Kings and 2 Kings)

6. Book of Samuel the Seer (mentioned in 1 Chronicles 29:29)

7. Book of Nathan the Prophet (mentioned in 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29)

8. Book of Gad the Seer (mentioned in 1 Chronicles 29:29)

9. Book of Ahijah the Shilonite (mentioned in 2 Chronicles 9:29)

10. Visions of Iddo the Seer (mentioned in 2 Chronicles 9:29, 12:15, 13:22)

11. Book of Shemaiah the Prophet (mentioned in 2 Chronicles 12:15)

12. Book of Jehu son of Hanani (mentioned in 2 Chronicles 20:34)

13. Sayings of the Seers (mentioned in 2 Chronicles 33:19)

It should be especially concerning to Christians and Jews that there were Scriptures attributed to several Prophets, namely,  Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, Iddo, Shemaiah, and Jehu, which are not found in their canon.

Mirza Qadiani: Killing Blasphemers

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا رسول الله

Prayers and peace upon you, Apostle of Allah

Qadianis of our time, under direction and encouragement of their organization, voice their condemnation and opposition to the mainstream Sunni Islamic narrative that blasphemy against the Holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is an egregious crime in which the blasphemer should be killed. This is obviously to gain the sympathy, confidence and partiality of non-Muslims in the West who are entirely critical of the laws in certain Muslims countries, especially Pakistan, in which blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is a death penalty offense. The Qadianis argue that although blasphemy is damned by God, it has no worldly penalty but is in fact a right guaranteed to the people as part of their freedom of religion and conscience. Catastrophically, this view is held by some Muslims too, influenced by modernity and liberalism. In our time, the chief defenders of executing those guilty of blasphemy against the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم are the Ulama and Mashayikh associated with the eminent Sunni Mujaddid, Ala Hadrat, Imam Ahmad Rida Khan رحمة الله عليه

We are the ones who celebrate and take pride in the actions of the ghazi, Ilm Din, and likewise, the ghazi, Mumtaz Hussain Qadiri رحمة الله عليهما who dispatched to Hell the one guilty of blasphemy and the one who publicly defended a blasphemer. Tragically, these two champions of Islam and guardians of the honor of the Holy Prophet were martyred by their respective governments for their noble and courageous acts. Indeed, it was due to the lobbying of the Sunni Barelwi clergy and spiritual leaders that Pakistan made blasphemy against the Prophet a death penalty offense (295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code).

Yet, interestingly, the founder of the Qadiani religion—the false prophet and antichrist Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian—admitted that those who have honor for the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم are committed to killing those who blaspheme against him:

لکھا ہے کہ ایک صحابی نے رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی توہین اپنی ماں سے سن کر اس کو مار دیا تھا۔ یہ غیرت اور حمیت تھی مسلمانوں کی

“It is written that a Sahabi heard blasphemy against the Apostle of Allah, sall Allahu alaihi wasallam, from his own mother and killed her. This was the jealousy and zeal of the Muslims!” (Malfuzat, v.1, p.159)

Mirza was likely referring to a blind Sahabi رضى الله عنه who killed his concubine, who bore him two sons, with a dagger. Mirza erroneously said she was his mother (one of countless errors by this false prophet). The blessed Sahabi murdered her for her repeated blasphemy against the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and then presented himself in the gathering of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم expecting to be punished for the crime of murder, but the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not punish him, rather said:

أَلاَ اشْهَدُوا أَنَّ دَمَهَا هَدَرٌ

“I testify that [the spilling of] her blood is licit” (Sunan Abi Dawud)

The Hadith is a proof for the mainstream Sunni sentiment that it is virtuous to immediately kill a blasphemer of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم for that is pleasing to Allah Most High and a sign of faith and jealously for God and His Prophet.

Pir of Herat: Abu Ismail Abdullah al-Ansari al-Harawi

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا رسول الله

Prayers and peace upon you, Apostle of Allah

One of the eminent Saints of Islam is Abu Isma’il Abdullah al-Ansari al-Harawi (d. 1089 CE), affectionately known as the Pir of Herat رحمة الله عليه

He was a strictly orthodox Hanbali theologian and charismatic mystic.

Some bigoted and extremist individuals from among the Asha’irah are deeply critical of him and have even labelled him a heretic, God forbid!

Tragically, Tajuddin as-Subki (d. 1370 CE), an otherwise erudite and respectable Sunni scholar of the Shafi’i-Ash’ari tradition, was among those who criticized the Pir of Herat, having said:

فَاعْلَم أَن أَبَا إِسْمَاعِيل عبد الله بن مُحَمَّد الهروى الذى تسميه المجسمة شيخ الْإِسْلَام

“Know that Aba Isma’il Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Harawi, whom the Mujassimah named ‘Shaikh ul-Islam…’” (Tabaqat ash-Shafi’iyyah al-Kubra, v.3, p.132)

The implication here is that it is only the Mujassimah (corporealists—those who predicate a body to God) that respect the Pir of Herat and refer to him with the honorific title Shaikh ul-Islam.

But the truth is that Shaikh ul-Islam, the Pir of Herat, Hadrat Abdullah al-Ansari رحمة الله عليه was an eminent mystic and theologian of Islam who is highly regarded by the Sufis and the generality of the Sunni Muslims, especially in the eastern lands.

He was a disciple of the great Sufi mystic Abu l-Hasan al-Kharaqani (d. 1033 CE), may Allah have mercy on his blessed soul.

The way of the Sufis is to generally avoid the hairsplitting theological controversies and embrace all the great Saints of our Sunni Islamic tradition regardless of the camp or school they belonged to.

Sharh us-Sunnah of Al-Barbahari

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا رسول الله

Prayers and peace upon you, Apostle of Allah

The text Sharh us-Sunnah has been published and widely distributed by Salafis. It is attributed to al-Hasan bin Ali al-Barbahari (d. 329 H), the Shaikh of the Hanabilah in the 10th century CE, based in Baghdad, although some believe the actual author was Ghulam Khalil al-Bahili (d. 275 H). The latter was a rabid opponent and persecutor of the Sufis in addition to being a fabricator of Hadith, such that the eminent Muhaddith, Abu Dawud as-Sijistani (d. 275 H), declared him the “Dajjal of Baghdad”.

But I think that Sharh us-Sunnah was not authored by Ghulam Khalil due to the total and conspicuous absence of any anti-Sufi polemics. In fact, it is generally a very good and orthodox Sunni manual of creed and methodology which is not at all offensive to mainstream Sunni Islam.

Al-Barbahari was a highly influential scholar and preacher among the early Hanbalis of Baghdad. They had a particularly pietist strain. Al-Barbahari and his circle of students and followers were known for their praiseworthy vigilante activities against public sinful activity, such as music and drinking. Al-Barbahari was also a proponent of Taqlid and was a strict Hanbali, in stark opposition to modern-day Salafis who reject Taqlid or the necessity of following one of the four schools of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam.

That a certain trend among the Salafis—commonly referred to as Madkhalis—have latched on to this text does not necessitate that we mainstream Sunni Muslims should disavow it. 

Now let us examine some of the points mentioned by al-Barbahari, may Allah have mercy on him, in Sharh us-Sunnah, especially those which establish it as a manifestly Sunni text.

Yes, there may be some minor points of fiqh in which Sharh us-Sunnah mandates the Hanbali view, such as that a marriage is not valid except with the guardian’s approval (in opposition to the Hanafi school), and some instances in which the Hanbali theological difference with the Ash’ari school is emphasized, but overall this is a text that is quite orthodox and should be embraced by mainstream Sunni Muslims. As a matter of fact, Sharh us-Sunnah makes no negative reference to Imam al-Ash’ari (d. 324 H) or the Ash’ari school. 

Al-Barbahari describes the Saved Sect of Islam, the Jama’ah, as

السَّوَادُ الأَعْظَمُ

“The Main Body” (p.37, #4)

The term as-Sawad ul-A’zam literally means the great blackness, indicating that the Saved Sect or the Jama’ah of the Muslims is that denomination that composes its majority, like a densely packed crowd which from a distance or a bird’s eye view appears to be a large blackness. The deviant schismatics are those which have broken away from the crowd into small groups, out of the mainstream. Although the Salafis today claim al-Barbahari and the text of his Sharh us-Sunnah, they are clearly not the Sawad ul-A’zam—the Main Body of the Muslims.

The madhhab of orthodox Sunni Islam is to make Tafwid with regard to those matters attributed to Allah that are from the Mutashabbihat. Al-Barbahari says:

فَعَلَيْكَ بالتَّسْلِيم وَالتَّصْدِيقِ وَالتَّفْوِيضِ

“Upon you is to accept, affirm and perform Tafwid” (p.68, #42)

He gives examples of narrations that are subject to Tafwid; “The hearts of the servants are between the two fingers of Ar-Rahman”, “Verily, Allah descends to the lowest Heaven”, “He descends on the Day of Arafah”, “He descends on the Day of Resurrection”, “He places His foot upon it (Hell)”, “If you walk toward Me, I run toward you”, “Allah created Adam in His image”, “I saw my Lord in the best form”. Rather than interpreting and explaining these narrations and their like literally, the way of the Sunni Muslims is to perform Tafwid—to consign the true meaning to the knowledge of Allah and to refrain from making any interpretation or explanation.

In repudiation of the Khawarij, the Shi’ah, and other tendencies which encourage political revolution, anarchy or disobedience to the Muslim ruler, al-Barbahari emphasizes in Sharh us-Sunnah the necessity of obeying the ruler, “It is neither permissible to fight the ruler or to rebel against him, even if he oppresses.”

I believe it is these points in Sharh us-Sunnah which certain people find unbearable due to their Kharijite and revolutionary tendencies that they have attempted to malign this text or distance the Muslims from it. This despite the fact that the teaching against disobedience or revolt against any Muslim ruler by his subjects is manifestly established from the Quran and Sunnah, not to mention wisdom and intellect.

The Ikhwani modernist Yasir Qadhi and others wrongly claim that this text was composed by the fabricator Ghulam Khalil in order to discredit it.

I say that whether this text was written by Ghulam Khalil or al-Barbahari, the content of it is solid and true. I do not find anything controversial in it. We mainstream Sunnis should reclaim this text from the Salafis who have apparently hijacked it.

Al-Barbahari affirms the orthodox Sunni belief that the dead can hear in some instances, contrary to the heresy of the Mamatis, and says one must believe the slain polytheists whose corpses were thrown into a well in the aftermath of the Battle of Badr heard the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمwhen he addressed them.

كَانُوا يَسْمَعُونَ كَلَامَهُ

“They heard his speech” (p.77, #61)

He also refutes another heresy of the Mamatis (that the souls of the deceased are not returned to their corpses in their earthly graves) and says:

وَالإِيمَانُ بِأَنَّ المَيِّتَ يُقْعَدُ فِي قَبْرِهِ وَيُرْسِلُ اللهُ فِيهِ الرُّوحَ

“To have faith that the deceased is made to sit up in his grave and Allah sends back to it the spirit” (p.83, #70)

The Wahhabis accuse of the orthodox and mainstream Sunni Muslims of heresy because we believe Allah revealed everything that will happen till the Resurrection to His beloved, the Prophet Muhammad صلوات الله والسلام عليه who therefore has knowledge of the unseen of all that which shall occur till Judgment Day. However, al-Barbahari concurs with us and says:

وَالإِيمَانُ بِأَنَّ اللهَ تبارك وتعالى أَطْلَعَ نَبِيَّهُ عَلَى مَا يَكُونُ فِي أُمَّتِهِ إِلَى يَومِ القِيَامَةِ

“To have faith that Allah, blessed and exalted, informed His Prophet of that which will happen in his Ummah till the Day of Resurrection” (p.90, #89)

In conclusion, today the text of Sharh us-Sunnah has been made controversial by those influenced by the political Ikhwani ideology and also the neo-Kharijites of our time. Some of them seek to distance ordinary Sunni Muslims from this text and the way of the early Hanbalis who predate the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abd ul-Wahhab of Najd by exploiting the fact that the text is today published and distributed by the Salafis. Yet I have highlighted several important points in Sharh us-Sunnah which illustrate the divergence of Salafism from the teaching of al-Barbahari and by extension the early Hanabilah, a teaching that is more in accordance with the mainstream Sunnis and Sufis.