plus minus gleich

Search our website

OPEN LETTER FOR TARIQ JAMEEL

E-mail Print PDF

OPEN LETTER FOR TARIQ JAMEEL

by Muhammad Umar Haydarī

.............................

The principles of the Jama’at laid down by the pious elders of Tabligh hold the position of obedience to the Ameer. At this moment, the emphasis with which the Tablighi Jama’at is stressing this point, probably no other Dīnī group is doing. (This is currently baseless in view of the mutual hostility between the two Tablighi factions. They have daggers at each other’s throats. The hostility is absolutely despicable – The Majlis) This is the reason behind the success of the Tablighi Jama’at. (Once upon a time, it was, but no longer. –The Majlis) 

In principle, you have the right to speak on topics beyond the six points. However, the mixture of history has now overshadowed your talks. You have given a secondary position to the principles of Dīn and have given primary importance to history. 

According to my knowledge, you have attested to being overpowered by history in a private gathering. The amount of oppression done by the historians to Islam is not matched by anyone else. They did this by planting the seeds of hatred for the pious predecessors. The flawed historical reports are responsible for the lowly and despicable objections against the noble group of the Sahābah. 

Bear in mind that according to the Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah, whatever history report is in accordance to the Noble Qur’an and Sunnah, it will be accepted, no matter who the writer is. During the first century, the senior scholars of the Ummah had a firm grip on the fields of Tafsir, Hadith and Fiqh. There were able scholars who specialized in this. As a result, Dīn remains protected to this day. However, from day one, there were no principles laid down for the compilation and recording of history, nor were there special scholars selected for it. The seniors of the Ummah were continuously engaged in striving in the path of Allah, whilst the Rawafid and the Nawasib were involved in writing history. The shameful results are being experienced in the Ummah until today. 

Examples of this are the works of Tabarī, Mas’udi, Hakim, Shostari and Ya’qubi. Through the narrations in their works, people in the Ummah are misled even today. People have forgotten the principle of weighing and scrutinising history in the light of the Noble Qur’an and the Sunnah. Some scholars have raised the rank of history to a certain degree, but history is after all, history.

 

The main discussion I want to draw your attention to is that during a lecture, you stood up and asked for water. You stood and drank it. Then you explained some new research for the first time in Islamic history, that there is ease in Islam, not difficulty. In addition, you said that it is proven from Sayyiduna ‘Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) that one can stand and drink water. We were astounded at this. Until today, all the Muhaddithin (and all the Fuqaha and Auliya of Islam –The Majlis) have unanimously stated that it is against the Sunnah to stand and drink water, and you have given permission for it by practically demonstrating it, without any references, or any proof! This was so that people like us, of inferior knowledge could remain silent and also stand and drink. (This is just one example of the Tariq Dajjaal’s deviation and anti-Sunnah stance acquired from his Shiah mentors—The Majlis)

 

Similarly, the lecture you delivered on the martyrdom of Sayyiduna Husayn (Radhiyallahu anhu), you included in it all the fabricated reports of the Shia, such reports that the senior scholars of the Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah have refuted unanimously. These reports are mostly heard from the Shia and they use them as proof of their ‘truthfulness’ against the Ahl-us-Sunnah walJama’ah.

 

A few years ago, you went to the Imambara in Gilgit and delivered a lecture there. (Imambara is a Shiah temple – The Majlis). Through the ‘blessings’ of your footsteps, an Imambara that was closed for eight years had once again opened in order to propagate Shiasm. (This Tariq Dajjaal is a Munaafiq – a Shiah agent –The Majlis) Then, you sat at the same table to dine with the Shia (devouring their haraam carrion meat – The Majlis). Pictures of this were taken. Definitely it was meat that was acquired from animals slaughtered by the Shia. Please throw light on the matter and inform us.

 

According to you, is the animal slaughtered by a Shia Halal or Haram?

 

In a lecture recorded on video (Videos are haraam –The Majlis), you have explained that janazah for them is permitted. Similarly, you delivered a highly controversial lecture at Madrasah Al-Hasanayn. This lecture became famous (infamous and extremely noxious for the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah—The Majlis)) worldwide. This talk proclaimed that the Shia are Muslims and that Maulānā Maududī was a great research scholar. You also said that Maududī had done great service for Islam. If you want know about his services, then read the book of Shaykh-ul-Hadith Maulānā Zakariyya(Rahmatullah alayh) on the Fitnah of Maududiyyat. The proof that you gave for your claim that the Shia are not disbelievers had caused great consternation to the ‘Ulamā’ and Hadīth scholars of the Ummah.

 

You said, ‘The Barelwis refer to us as disbelievers, so do we become disbelievers? Never! In the same way, the Shia call the Sahabah disbelievers, so how do the Shia become disbelievers?’ Like your claim, the proof is baseless. (The analogy presented by the Tariq Dajjaal is absolutely putrid and fallacious. The Shiah become Akfarul Kaafireen [The Worst and the Greatest kuffaar by branding the Sahaabah as kuffaar]. In so doing, they are in violent conflict with Allah Ta’ala Who testifies in the Qur’aan Majeed to the Imaan of the Sahaabah, and that He is well-pleased with them, and that they are the Inmates of Jannat. – The Majlis)

After this (claim of Kufr), ‘Allāmah ‘Ali Sher Haydarī took your lecture and went to Haji ‘Abdul Wahhāb (dāmat barakātuhum). He said, ‘The ‘Ulamā of Deoband have given fatwa, and we, the Sipa-e-Sahabah, have sacrificed many lives in defence of the Sahabah. Today, (Dajjaal) Tariq Jameel has wiped away an essential aspect of Dīn and has said that a renegade (Murtad) group is Muslim! Is this the principle of the Tablighi Jama’at?’ (Today, it appears that the Raiwand faction of the Tablighi Jamaat has incorporated this kufr as a principle, hence they are proudly, arrogantly and intransigently according the Dajjaal a platform –The Majlis)

Upon the instruction of Haji Saheb, you contacted ‘Allāmah ‘Ali Sher Haydarī and spoke at length over the phone. After a discussion, you conceded your error. ‘Allāmah ‘Ali Sher Haydarī said, ‘Maulānā, you have openly said that those who were insolent to the Sahabah (insolently branding the Sahaabah as kuffaar –The Majlis) are Muslims, and now you seek forgiveness over the phone? This is not the solution. In a huge gathering, you must refute your lecture and send the recording worldwide. You did this. Then, in a motorcade of thirty cars, you went to Faisalabad and clearly said at Jami’ah Haydariyyah Khayrpur that ‘Allāmah ‘Ali Sher Haydarī had pointed out this to you and you said that definitely those who deny the Sahabah are disbelievers and Maududi was astray. (The Dajjaal said this on the basis of his Shiah taqiyah belief –The Majlis)

 

However, we do not know what made you forget your past (i.e. your past retraction and acknowledgement of your kufr error. Since the ‘acknowledgment’ was on the basis of the confounded satanic belief of taqiyah, the Dajjaal conveniently forgot about it—The Majlis).

 

A short while after the martyrdom of ‘Allāmah ‘Ali Sher Haydarī (Rahmatullah alayh), you went to the suburb Sadhpura of Faisalabad. The front wall of the Masjid had the name of Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu) written there, together with the names of the Khulafā’ (Radhiyallahu anhum). You said in our presence, ‘Remove this name. Through it, discord spreads in the Ummah.’ (Unable to restrain his Shiah-inspired hatred for the Sahaabah, he blurted out his kufr – The Majlis) We seek the protection of Allah (against this Dajjaal and the kufr he propagates under guise of the Deen –The Majlis).

The Sahabī, Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu) had united the Ummah for twenty years in such a way that until today, one will not find the example of it. However, this action of yours in honouring the Shia had created pandemonium. For an entire month, you were the target of criticism. Bear in mind that a short while before this ill-fated action of yours, the Shia in the same suburb had made an effigy of Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu) and burnt it. The results of this were terrible; our local people were injured and killed in defence of Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu). Is this part of your Tabligh? (Yes, murder, killing, plundering and pillaging are integral constituents of Shiah tabligh—The Majlis)

A common theme of your lectures is ‘create unity in the Ummah’. You become very emotional at this, and practically demonstrate that the Abu Bakr of today and Abu Jahal of today must unite and join. At this moment, you probably forget the purport of Furqan. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that the Fir’aun in the time of Musa (Alayhis salaam) was not such a great oppressor as the Fir’aun of my time, i.e. Abu Jahal. In his lifetime, Rasulullāh (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) gave him the title of Abu Jahal. He (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) also referred to him as Fir’aun. However, you went to the house of the one that wrote books stating that Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu anhu) and Sayyiduna Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) are disbelievers. You went to the home of the person who spent his entire life calling for disassociation from the Sahabah. When looking at the picture of his funeral, one sees filth and pus coming out of his mouth.  He caused thousands of Muslims to go astray. You ate there, hugged them (He ate the haraam carrion of the Shiah kuffaar, and hugged the haters of the Sahaabah because of hatred FOR Rasulullah – Sallallahu alayhi wasallam – The Majlis). Giving guidance is not your work, not my work, but it is the work of Allah.

 

I remember the sentence of ‘Allāmah ‘Ali Sher Haydarī (Rahmatullah alayh), he said: ‘Whomever Rasulullāh (Sallallau alayhi wasallam) hated, you love them, and whomever Rasulullāh (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) took to be an enemy, you show affection for him. Have you become more merciful than Rasulullāh (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)?’

 

We have been labelled already as people who show insolence to the elders. Whoever feels that this letter is insolence for the elders then let him feel so. We have been assaulted for the sake of the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu anhum,), we have spent jail time for this cause, we have sacrificed a generation, we look at the honour of the Sahabah, the elders of the Ummah with much more fervour than the recent elders. If you feel that the works of Maulānā ‘Abdush Shakūr Lucknowī, Maulānā Abdus Sattār Tonswī and ‘Allāmah Dost Muhammad Qurayshī are services to Dīn, then we are not doing any new work.

 

You have also forgotten the principle of Raiwind when you went to the Imambara of Gilgit and when you went to the house of Talib Jauhari in Karachi. We have heard that when the Jama’ats are formed and sent out, then the advice is given that one should not go to any Imambara. Definitely, no Tablighi Jama’at has gone to an Imambara until today.

 

A new lecture of yours was recently uploaded. The lecture was at an overseas venue. You said, ‘Become and remain one Ummah. Make Shiasm your vest and Islam your shirt, i.e. continue swearing (abusing and vilifying) Abu Bakr, Umar and Ayesha (Radhiyallahu anhum), and continue saying superficially that you are Muslim. A Muslim should say that the Shia are non-Muslim inside, and say that they are brothers from the outside (i.e. adopt the satanic Shiah belief of taqiyah and act like the munaafiqeen – The Majlis). If this is Islam, then explain to us what is the meaning of hypocrisy (nifaaq). If a person makes Shiasm his vest and enters Islam, then the Mirza’īs had the first right to do this. They believe in a Nabi after Rasulullāh (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Rawafid (confounded Shiahs – The Majlis) believe in twelve (On the basis of their deviolish taqiyah belief, to deceive Muslims they call their twelve prophets ‘Imaams’ – The Majlis).

 

Then you said that in Pakistan, people do not perform the Janazah of the Shia. You urged them not to do this, for Pakistani Muslims are spreading hatred. You said that they must spread love (by accepting the Shiah kuffaar to be Muslims –The Majlis). We seek forgiveness from Allah and His protection. The meaning of your statement is that the fatawa books of Dar-ul-‘Ulūm Deoband, Dar-ul-‘Ulūm Karachi, Jami’ah Binnori Town, Jami’ah Faruqiyyah, etc. which  state that it is not permitted to perform the Janazah of a Shia, are spreading hatred!

 

Your lectures call for a review of the works of Ibn Taymiyyah, Shah Waliullah, Maulānā Qasim Nanotwi and Allamah Lucknowi. You are saying that the Sipa-e-Sahabah are emotional and that they have no etiquette, but these names (mentioned above) are also from your elders. (They were his elders. But now they, like the Sahaabah are ‘kuffaar’ because the Shiah say so—The Majlis)

 

Similarly, in one lecture you said in explanation of the famous Hadith, ‘Whoever I am a friend to, ‘Ali is his friend’, and ‘something has come into my heart, that we should say Maula ‘Ali, not Hadrat ‘Ali. This is his right. Rasulullāh (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used Maula only for ‘Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu).” The question arises that even before Hadrat ‘Ali (Radhyallahu anhu), the one who should be worthy of the title of Maula should be Rasulullāh (Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), as he said, ‘Whoever I am a friend (Maula) to’. Why did you not think of saying Maula for Rasulullāh (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? (Because the Shiahs say ‘maula’ for only Hadhrat Ali -Radhiyallahu anhu – The Majlis)

I do not negate saying Maula Ali if the ‘Ulamā’ of the entire Ummah, will say ‘Maula, for then we shall have the certificate authorizing it. However, the purport of Maula you had explained has the meaning of friendship and being a master, whereas Maula here means love. The next part of the Hadith indicates this. ‘O Allah, love the one who loves him and have hatred for the one who hates him.’

The words of love and hate are clear. However, through the method of your Tabligh, the belief of the Shia Imamiyyah gains strength. This narration is taken as the most reliable for their belief, and the entire edifice of Shiasm is built on it. Please study the book of Shaykh Muhammad Nafi’ on the life of Sayyiduna ‘Alī (Radhiyallahu anhu) for full satisfaction.

I end with a sentence of Maulānā Lucknowī, ‘Those ‘Ulamā’ who issued fatwa that the Rawafid are Muslims, they did not have a deep view of Shiasm. (They lacked  knowledge of the beliefs of Shiahs, either due to paucity of kutub or  failing to  make  proper research—The Majlis) Therefore, they will be excused.’ It is absolutely necessary for every ‘alim to study the books of Maulānā ‘Abdush-Shakūr Lucknowī (Rahmatullah alayh).

 

Was Salaam

Servant of the Sahabah and Ahl-ul-Bayt

 

COMMENT (We have slightly edited the article. We have omitted some statements of the author in which he flatters the Dajjaal with titles of respect. It is haraam to respect and honour even a faasiq. It is worse when the faasiq is a munaafiq and a Shiah agent and an agent of Iblees such as Tariq Jameel – The Majlis)

27 Zil Hajj 1439 – 8 September 2018

 

Hijri Date











Moon Phase