Sunteți pe pagina 1din 14

AHLUSSUNNAH

Falsification of a Fatva of
Occurrence of Kizb
Allegedly Ascribed to
Maulana Rashid
Janjuhi/Ganguhi [RH:]
REFUTATION OF A FALSE FATVA
AHLUSSUNNAH DEOBAND
[Pick the date]

Falsification of a Fatva of Occurrence of Kizb Allegedly Ascribed to Maulana Rashid Janjuhi/Ganguhi


[RH:]
Page 1 of 13

Page 1 of 13
Page 2 of 13

Some Discussions On The Physical State of the


Page.
The page is attached to a hard cover. The Upper corner from the left is in pretty good condition.

The Upper Right Corner appears to be cut by scissors which indicates that it is done deliberately to
make it appear as old. The Lower left Corner appears to be torn , it does not appear to be done by the
time. The same is true for the Lower Right Corner.

The Colour of the page does not shew that it is an actual old page. How ever if it is then it is an old
conspiracy.

The unseen side of the page maybe blank or there is some thing written . No thing can be said with
certainty.

There are twenty one lines beginning from Bismillah…… and ending at a picture of a stamp.

The “ Bismillah….” Is the part of the question. The question ends some where in the middle of the
seventh line.

The Answer begins from the seventh line after the question ends.

The question part is written by a copyist who writes in small handwriting.

The Answer Part begins with small hand writing but then the handwriting becomes some what large in
compare to its initial line.

The Print of Stamp is in form of a Pentagon with four of its sides at π/2 Radians each but the fifth side
which is the smallest side is inclined at a angle of π/4 Radians. [All angles are in approximation].

This is purported to be due to lack of ink.

The Noun of Maula:na: Rashi:d Janju:hi: is written in the Pentagon shape of the image of the fabricated
image.

The page is so coloured that it appears to be an old one, however nothing could be said about the age of
this Fabricated Page, It may be an old forgery , No proper testing for the age of this page is possible.

This page cannot be a page torn from a book , since the manuscript of a book which is/was to be
printed is generally written by the same person and in same size throughout, as it is evident from all the
books printed in Urdu, Persian and Arabic in the Indian Subcontinent. Additionally there is no number on
the page, which does shew that this is not a page from a proper book.

Page 2 of 13
Page 3 of 13

It appears as if it is a copy of an epistle written to some one in response to the question. This also shews
the forger purported that it was send to him as an epistle and the answerer did not like to answer on a
separate page but wrote his answer on the very same page of epistle , on the portion where no thing
was written by the questioner.

So the Question and Answer are on single page.

This is the physical state of the page under discussion.

Approximate Translation of the page

This corroded page is difficult to read but it was read with a probable accuracy. There are some
confusions in regard to translate this page.

The Probable Translation of the Question


Part ascribed to an unknown enquirer.
I say to you May G-d Bless You.

Two persons converse{ed} on the Falsehood {IN THE Assertive and Negative Sentences} Of G-d.

One of them said that G-d Saith “Indeed Allah doeth not forgive that any partner should be ascribed to Him, but He forgiveth
anything besides that to whomever He wisheth. And whoever ascribeth partners to Allah hath certainly strayed into far
error”.[4:116] (1)

“Should anyone kill a believer intentionally, his requital shall be hell, to remain in it [forever]; Allah shall be wrathful at him
and curse him and He shall prepare for him a great punishment.” [4:93] (2)

It is known from the above {Vesrse 4:116} that G-d Shall Forgive the Faithful who is a slayer by Intention. And the Second
Verse{4:93}} saith that he shall be punished.

The {Arabic} word “Man” {Who} is General and includes the slayer with intention. It is known from this {Verse } that there
shall not be any forgiveness for the faithful slayer with intention {i.e the faithful slayer with intention shall not be
forgiven}. The rival of the {stated above} speaker said after he heard it ,” From your Argumentation {‘Istadla:l}
the Occurrence of the Falsehood is Proved {if the argument supposed to be valid}, since the word in the Verse is
“Yagh:f-r” and Not “Va Yamkin ‘An Yagh:fir”.

Listening to it the speaker {First Person} said { an Interrogative Negative Sentence} “ When does I say, I am a
disbeliever in the Occurrence”.

And the second speech of the {First } Person is that Falsehood is not {Pure} Ugly {Defect/Imperfection in general
}…………………………

Page 3 of 13
Page 4 of 13

The Probable Translation of the Answer Part


Falsely Ascribed to Ima:m Rashi:d Junju:hi: [RH:]
However this Second Person has erred in the interpretation of the Verse ,yet he should not be declared to be Infidel (Ka:fir}

And Apostate Heretic since Occurrence Of Kh:-lf Of Va’:i:d is accepted by a large number of leading scholars.

So Maulavi: ‘Ah:mad H:asan the author of theTanzi:hur Rah:ma:n explicitly writeth , the quotation {follow} “Additionally those
who permit Kh:-lf Of Va’:i:d also believe in its occurrence.

Therefore it is permitted to say, (according to them) as the say “ It is not Naqs: {Imperfection/defect/deficiency} but a
Kama:l {Perfection}. It is obvious from it that the same scholars did believe in Kh:-lf of Va’:i:d , and it is evidently clear that
Kh:-lf of Va’:i:d is Particular and Falshood {Kidh:b} is General . since Falsehood is said to be a Statement against the
Occurrence , is the violation Threatening of Pnishment {Kh:-lf Of Va’:i:d}, Violation Of Promice {Kh:-lf Of Va’:dah}and News
{‘Akh:ba:r}, and all are the Subclasses/Minor Class/Species {‘Anva:’:} of Falsehood ; and Existence of Minor Class /Subclass
implieth the Existence of Genera/Jins {Major Class/ Super Class}; like if Human Being {‘Insa:n} Existeth then an Animal
Being {H:aiva:n} Exiseth with Necessity.

Therefore the meaning of the Occurrence Of the Falsehood hath become correct evien if it is an individual of the hidden one
{Mud:mir} ; So on this basis an strict order {H:-km} cannot be applied on the Second Person {mentioned in the Question}.

Since the declaration Of K-fr of Great Scholars of Elders is implied ; even if the proof is weak ; according to {various}
religious Schools of Thought {Madh:a;:hib} , it is wrong for a person who hath a Strong Proof to declare a Person who hath
weak Proof as Apostate, since H:-nfi: cannot declare Sh-f’:i: and Vice Versa cannot declare the other as Apostate and cannot
make emphasized objection {T:-‘:n}, If G-d Willeth I Affirm. It is called in the agreed upon books of believes as Generation.

Therefore one should save the Second {Person menstioned in the question} from declarations of being Ka:fir and Apostate.

However the Omnipotence Of G-d on the falsehood is an agreed upon problem {Mas-lah}, on which there is no controversy,
even if some people have disputed in this era. [‘A:YAH 32:13 IS QUOTED:” Had We wished We would have given every soul its
guidance, but My word became due [against the defiant]: ‘Surely I will fill hell with all the [guilty] jinn and humans.”]

Remark

Both the question part and the answer part appear to be innovated by one and the same author who
after authoring this fake question and answer made two persons to write. One person for each part.

The question is authored by a person who did know some of the argumentations of both side, similarly
the answer is authored by the person who also have some knowledge of the argumentations of both
sides.

It is most probable if not almost certain that the author of each part is one and the same.

Page 4 of 13
Page 5 of 13

Summary Of the Question and Answer in the fake fat-va: .

Discussion on the Text of the Fake Fa-va:

This is certainly a fake Fat-va: and cannot be authored by a scholar of such an eminence.

The eminent scholar is far beyond this.

There are some internal contradictions and inconsistencies in the fabricated text of the Fat-va:

First Fallacy

The author who authored this fab-ricated Fat-va: on one side says that the Second Person has erred.
But provides an argument which is of Jins and Nau’: . Further the Fabricating Author does claim that Kh:-
lf [Violation] of Va’:i:d is included in falsehood . If he had acknowledged it then he could not say that the
argument is weak. So on the one side the fabricator who so ever he may be, says that the argument is
weak and on the otherside the same fabricator tried to make it powerful.

This is an inconsistency in the Fat-va: and such an inconsistencey cannot be in any Logical Minded
Person, specially not A Scholar like Maula:na: Rashi:d Junju:hi.

Even Non Muslim Logicians cannot commit such fallacies.

This means that such a fallacy was deliberately made and falsely ascribed to the Great Scholar od
Sunnism Maula:na: Rashi:d Junju:hi .

Second Fallacy

The author of the fake Fat-va: who authored it as a conspiracy claimed that Kh:-f is a type of Falsehood.

Even a beginner knows that Falsehood is the Attribute of Assertive of Negative declarative Sentences
and not of Events, where Kh:-lf is the Attribute of the Event and not of the sentences .

How even in some cases there are some implications but implication is not in all the cases.

So once again this is a Fallacy which cannot be committed by a Scholar of such a high degree.

Third Fallacy

If Kh:-lf of Va’:i:d mentioned the fake Fat-va: is Nau’: i.e Subclass and Falsehood is its Jins i.e Superclass
then the proof cannot an interpretation but no interpretation at all, yet the Fat-va: claims that it is an
interpretation/Ta’vi:l.

Such an error cannot be ascribed even to beginners in the subject of Logic, if they are smart.

Forth Fallacy

Page 5 of 13
Page 6 of 13

The Fabricated Fatva: on one hand says that the Per Alias Absurdity {‘Imtina:’: Bil Gh:air} of Falsehood is
an agreed upon belief, and one who drifts from a belief that is agreed upon is not just an error but
atleast an Apostasy and atmost an Infidelity . How can a scholar on one hand claims that one belief is
agreed upon yet one who deviates from it commits just an Error.

This shews that the author of the Fake Fat-va: was did not know how two remove inconsistencies in his
authored Fat-va: . He was so nescient that he was unable to detect it and due to his nescience was
unable to remove them .

If he was a learned scholar he would have simply saved the Fat-va: from these inconsstencies.

These flaws and fallacies do shew that there are internal inconsistencies in the Fake Fat-va: purported to
be ascribed to the great scholar, not only to declare him as apostate and infidel but also ignorant of
Subject Of Logic.

A PROPER ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IN THE FABRICATED FAT-VA:

There are total three persons mentioned in the question in the Fake Fat-va: :-

The questioner .

The First Person who argues in favour of Per Se Absurdity of Falsehood.

The Second Person who argues in favour of Occurrence Of Falsehood in Assertive and Negative
Declarative Sentences of Deity.

The First Person provided no proof in support of his belief that the stated above Falsehood is Per Se
Absurd and hence not in Divine Omnipotence.

The Second Person did argue in favour of occurrence of mentioned above Falsehood .

The Second Person argued from the Text of Two Verses Of Holy Qur.a:n.

But the argumentations of the Second Person are wrong.

Since the Second Person is not differentiating between the Kh-lf that implieth Kidh:b and the Kh-lf that
doeth not imply it. For sake of convenience the first one may be termed as Kh:-lf of Kidh:b , and the
second one is Kh:-lf of Not Kidh:b.

So the first Person correctly points at the flaw in the argument of the Second Person.

That is that this argument affirmeth the Ocuurrence of Falsehood [Kidh:b].

But this is Kufr.

The Second Person Confirmeth that he believeth in the Occurrence of it.

Page 6 of 13
Page 7 of 13

Second Person useth Interrogative Negative Sentence which is used for the Confirmation, when used for
First Person in Urdu Grammar {Mutakallim}, as it is in Urdu/Ri:khtah Usage and apparent from context
.(3)

So the Second Person believeth that G-d/D-ity Speaketh Falsehood in certain cases.

The occurrence of Kidh:b /Falsehood contradicteth the Per Alias Absurdity of Falsehood.

This doeth Shew that the Second Person in the Question hath committed K-fr and is a Ka:fir beyond any
shadow of doubt.

REAL AND GENIUNE FAT-VA: OF MAULANA:


RASHI:D ‘AH:MAD JANJU:HI:
In Allah’s Name, the Ever Merciful, the Beneficent. We praise Him and send blessing on His noble Messenger. What is your
view (your blessings last!) on Allah being described with the attribute of falsehood? And what is the ruling on the one who
believes He lies? Provide us with an answer, and be rewarded.

Allah (Exalted is He) is certainly transcendent beyond being described with falsehood, and no element of
falsehood is found in His Speech, as Allah says, “Who is more truthful than Allah in speech?” (4:122)
Whoever believes or professes that Allah lies, he is certainly an accursed disbeliever, and has opposed
the Book, the Sunna and the Consensus of the Ummah.

Yes, the belief of the people of faith is: that which Allah foretold in the Qur’an, that Pharaoh, Haman and
Abu Lahab are from the inhabitants of Hell, it is a decisive decision that He will not act contrary to, but
Allah (Exalted is He) is Able to admit them into Paradise and is not incapable of this, but He will not do
so by His choice.

Allah (Exalted is He!) said, “And if We(4) had so willed, We could have given every soul its guidance, but
the word from Me concerning evildoers took effect: that I will fill the Fire with the jinn and mankind
together.” (32:13). It is evident from this verse that had Allah wished, He would have made everybody
believers but He does not contradict what He says, and this is all by choice, not coercion. He is a Doer by
choice, acting as He wills.

This is the belief of all the ‘:Ulama:’ of this ‘Ummah, as Al-Baid:a:vi: said under the explanation of His
statement (Exalted is He), “If you forgive them…” (5:118) that “the absence of forgiveness for Shirk is a
consequence of His threat, but it is not intrinsically impossible.”

Allah knoweth the best.

The lowly Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (may he be pardoned) wrote this.

In the presence of this Real Fat-va: the Fake Fat-va: is discarded and rejected once for all times.

Page 7 of 13
Page 8 of 13

Either the Real and Genuine Fat-va: is Prior to the Fake and Concocted Fat-va: or it is Posterior to it.

If it is Prior then the unreliable and unauthentic Fat-va: falsely Ascribed to Maula:na: Rashi:d Janju:hi: is
rejected and discarded on the basis that it was fabricated against a Reliable and Real Fat-va: .

If it is Posterior to the Fake and False Fat-va: then the Real and Authentic Fat-va: Refutes the Fabricated
and unauthentic Fat-va: on the basis that it Falsifieth a False and Fabricated Fat-va: .

It is very strange to see that the opponents insist on the Fake Fat-va: and discard the Genuine and
Authentic Fat-va: .

This means that some people are so unjust and so irrational that they deliberately do something which
is not acceptable in any Court Of Law .

If some one had done a similar thing to their religious leader they would have declared it as a
conspiracy.

But they have multiple standard , so they reject the Authentic one in favour if unauthentic one.

On religious grounds the Canonical Book of Fat-va: and Canonical Fat-va: always reject the Non
Canonical Fat-va:.

The Canon of Reliable and Authentic Fat-va: is rejected by these people and an unauthentic Fat-va: is
used to declare Maula:na: Rashi:d Janju:hi: as Ka:fir [Na’:u:dh:ubillah Va ‘Asthagh:farullah].

Belief of ‘Ahlussunnad Val Jama:’:ah Deoband in regard to Divine Omnipotence Over Kidh:b stated
above.

Kidh:b in the Divine Declarative Sentences whether Affirmative or Negative is Per Alias Absurd [M-
mtana’: Bil Gh:air].

One who considereth it as Mumkin ‘Al Vuqu:’: [Occurrenceally Contingent]is a Ka:fir and one who
believes it to be Per Se Absurd [M-mtana’: Bidh: Dh:a:t] is a Heretic.

There is a dispute whether such a heretic is out of the folds of Sunnism or not.

As this discussion is beyond the scope of this work so it is left.

So it is unacceptable that Maula:na: Rashi:d Janju:hi: himself rejected the agreed upon belief of all
‘Ahlussunnah Deoband.

Books written in favour of Per Se Absurdity of Falsehood are also a proof of the falsification of this Fat-
va: .

There are some books famous books written in favour of Per Se Absurdity [Intrinsic Impossibility] of
Kidh:b under discussion. Some of them are as follow:-

1] Tanzi:hur Rah:ma:n

Page 8 of 13
Page 9 of 13

2] ‘:Ija:lah ‘Ar Raka:vib.

3] Taqdi:s ‘Al Vaki:l

But none of them ever mentioned this allegation.

Infact it is certain that this Fake Fat-va: was written by an disbeliever of Per Alias Absurdity of Kidh:b
after the publication of Tanzi:hur Rah:ma:n.

Even ‘Ah:mad Rad:a Bans Baraili did not mentioned this allegation in his book Subh:a:n ‘As Subbu:h:

It is clear that this Fat-va: was written by some unknown person. This anonymous person fabricated and
concocted this Fat-va: after the publication of Tanzihur Rah:ma:n.

However this page was either written before ‘Al m-stan-d Val M-‘:tm-d or after it.

In the first case it may be the case that the author of ‘Alm-stan-d saw this fake Fat-va: and without any
proper investigation and positive research the author ascribed the Fake Fat-va: to Maulana: Janju:hi:

In the second case some one attempted to make a Fake Fat-va: after the false and wrong accusation of
Fat-va: in the book ‘Alm-stan-d refered above, in order to invigorate the false and wrong accusation.

FORGERY THROUGH HISTORY


Maula:na: M-rtad:a: Hasan Chandpu:ri Biha:ri: challenged the author of ‘Al M-stan-d for a single copy
of this Fabricated Fat-va: but the latter was unable to produce a single copy of the copy which he
claimed that he possessed , till he died in 1930 CE.No one in the entire Subcontinent was able to shew

A single copy but it was not produced.

Maula:na: Manz:ur Nu’:ma:ni: also demanded for a single copy of this Fake Fat-va: but even in his time
no one was able to shew it.

It is evident that some one in 2015 CE or 2016 CE got this idea of making a forgery after 110 or 111 solar
Gregorian years to make a forgery. It is probably in the middle of 2016 CE when it was first heard that an
attempt is made to produce a Fake Copy to support the allegation of the Author of ‘Al M-stan-d Val M-
‘:t-d .

But no Court Of Law can accept such a forgery.

Enemies Of ‘Isla:m are trying to print Fake Copies Of Holy Qur’a:n on a large scale.

See:-

Page 9 of 13
Page 10 of 13

Saudi officials confiscate 70,000 ‘fake’ Quran copies

We ask our readers to see the following link:

https://tribune.com.pk/story/961334/saudi-officials-confiscate-70000-fake-quran-copies/

One may see some attempts on internet to make fake copied of Holy Qur’a:n deviating from N-QLAN
‘ILAINA M-TVA:T-RAN.

PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING LINK:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283808355_Developing_the_novel_Quran_and_Hadith_aut
hentication_system/download

Some time an old copy is unauthentic and fake. We provide an other eye opening example of an old
attempt to tamper the Sacred Text Of Holy Qur’a:n.

One may see the Th:ana:[Sana] Manuscripit about which wikipedia writes:

The Sana'a palimpsest (also Ṣanʿā’ 1 or DAM 01-27.1) is one of the oldest Quranic manuscripts in
existence.[1] Part of a sizable cache of Quranic and non-Quranic fragments discovered in Yemen during
a 1972 restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana'a, the manuscript was identified as a palimpsest Quran
in 1981; as it is written on parchment and comprises two layers of text. The upper text largely conforms
to the standard 'Uthmanic' Quran in text and in the standard order of suras; whereas the lower text
contains many variations from the standard text, and the sequence of its suras corresponds to no known
quranic order. A partial reconstruction of the lower text was published in 2012;[2] and a reconstruction
of the legible portions of both lower and upper texts of the 38 folios in the Sana'a House of Manuscripts
was published in 2017 utilising post-processed digital images of the lower text.[3] A radiocarbon analysis
has dated the parchment of one of the detached leaves sold at auction, and hence its lower text, to
between 578 CE and 669 CE with a 95% accuracy.[4]

Comments:

Any thing that is different from the Received Qur’a:nic Text is a Forgery whether it is ancient or not,

This consists of two types of Texts. 1] Upper. 2] Lower.

About the Upper Text it is written

The upper text conforms closely with that underlying the modern Quran in use, and has been dated as
probably from sometime between the end of the 7th and the beginning of the 8th century CE.[11] Asma
Hilali provides a full transcription of the upper text from the 26 legible folios in the House of
Manuscripts, and found 17 non-orthographic variants in these pages, where readings differ from those
in the "standard" Qur'an text, as presented in the 1924 Cairo edition. Five of these 17 variants in the
upper text correspond to known Qira'at readings in the tradition of quranic variants.

One may read what Wikipedia says about the lower Text:=

Page 10 of 13
Page 11 of 13

Although the suras of the lower text do not follow the canonical order and have many additional words
and phrases, nevertheless, with only two exceptions, within each sura, the surviving lower text presents
the same verses as the standard Qur'an and in exactly the same order – the exceptions being in sura 20,
where Sadeghi and Goudarzi find that verses 31 and 32 are transposed, and in sura 9, where Sadeghi
and Goudarzi find that the whole of verse 85 is absent (neither of these passages of the lower text are in
folios that Asma Hilali found to be legible). Some of the variants between the lower text and the
standard Qur'an are provided by Sadeghi and Goudarzi below.[17]

[Those who want to read Wikipedia’s articlein detail may click the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%CA%BDa_manuscript

OUR COMMENT

WE FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT HOLY QUR’A:N IS CONSERVED AT IT WAS AT THE TIME OF DEATH
OF HOLY PROPHET IN 632 CE.

SO IF IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE MOST ANCIENT COPY OF HOLY QUR’A:N DIFFERS FROM THE
RECEIVED ‘:UTH:MANI TEXT THEN THE ANCIENT TEXT IS NEITHER AUTHENTIC NOR
RELIABLE, NOR GENIUNE NOR ORIGINAL NOR REAL. IT IS AT WORST AN OLD CONSPIRACY
OR ERROROUS WORK.
IT CAN BE A FORgERY OF ‘AkHBA:RIAH. WHO CHEMICALLY MADE TO APPEAR PAgES AS OLD, BY BOMBARDINg CARBON
atoms on the pages of animal skin,

Another example is of Jazz Al Mafqu:d .

It is a fake book of H:adi:th: which was probably invented in past , to make a forgery . This was
made to authenticate some unauthentic traditions, with fake Asna:d [Chain of reporters].

CONCLUSION

It is clear that Forgery is possible.

Even if the forgery is an old one it cannot be genuine .

If such attempts are made in past and present , in the case of Absolutely Authentic sacred Qur’a:n; in
case of H:adith: then such forgeries are also possible in case of Scholars like Maula:na: Rashi:d
Janju:hi: [Junju:hi:/Gangu:hi:/Gungu:hi:] RH:.

Some more cases :

1] A Fake books is ascribed to ‘Ima:m Ra:zi which is a commentary of Nahj Al Bala:gh:ah.

[Book of Twelver out side ‘Us:ul Al ‘Arba’:ah]

‘Ima:m cannot write a commentary which is not according to Sunni Standard.

2] Fake Books are ascribed to ‘Ima:m Shahristani: .

Page 11 of 13
Page 12 of 13

They support Seveners

(1)

(2)

Page 12 of 13
Page 13 of 13

(3)One must distinguish the term First or Second Person in question and First or second or third Person
In Grammar.

In Grammar the First Person is one who speaketh

In Grammar the Second Person is who whom one speaketh

In Grammar the Third Person is one who is neither of the two or is absent.

The First Person in the Question is one who debates in favour of Per Se Absurdity of Falsehood.

The Second Person in the Question is one who debates in favour of the occurrence of Falsehood.

These terms must not be confused, since their confusions do cause problem in understanding the
discussion.

(4) The word” We” is a Plural Of Majesty by ‘Ijma:’: .

(5)

Page 13 of 13