Readers would also surely be wanting to know who are the people who have written and said such blasphemies. You have already gone through the name of the book and page number against every such writing. Now, for your information the titles of the books and the names of their authors are given below.

You might say that these writings had been quoted out of context; that the intention of the writers had been something else; that such great scholars could not write such things.

Every man with faith and with knowledge and wisdom knows it full well that there is none more excellent than the holy Prophet is (Sallal Laahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) among all the creations of Al-Laah. Therefore, any negative word or any vulgar and improper and bad simile used for him cannot, in any case, be the right thing to do. It is better not to use a bad or incorrect word at all than to write a wrong or bad word and thereafter, add a whole paragraph or several pages by way of explanation.

It is accepted by all that an abusive word would not become a benediction or a refined writing by Shah Ismaiel Sahib Dehlvi Phulti Balakoti offering an explanation to it; it will remain an abuse all the same. Wherever wrong and improper words have been used (in these books) they would still remain wrong and improper words whether quoted in context or out of it. The proof is at hand, for these books are available in the market and you can yourselves go - through them, and the meaning of the words or similes would become clear to you inspite of passages before or after. Just one example will do.

Ashraf Alee Sahib Thanvi writes: "Then, if attributing knowledge of the unseen (ghaieb)to his (Sallal Laahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) blessed person may be all right according to A, the question' is whether knowledge of the unseen means all knowledge or some of it. If knowledge of some of the unseen is meant, then there is no element of exclusiveness in this for the holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam). Such knowledge of the unseen is not only given to A, B and to every child and every madman but even to animals and beasts." (Hifzul Ieemaan, Page 7).

Would you accept such a writing for Thanvi Sahib or for your father, or for the country's President, or for your teacher, or for any respectable person? Just reflect.

If, according to some, knowledge of the unseen is to be attributed to Ashraf Alee Sahib Thanvi, then the question to be asked is, if such knowledge extends to some things or all things. If what is meant is knowledge of some things, then it is not exclusive to Ashraf Alee Sahib Thanvi. Such knowledge is available not only to every Tom, Dick and Harry but to every child and madman and to every animal, including donkey, elephant etc.

Tell me, if it would mean insolence to Thanvi Sahib? You will say, certainly it will be so. It is amazing that similes and improper words should be considered insolent or disrespectful for Thanvi Sahib or for any person respected by you but not deemed insolent or disrespectful in the case of the holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) although it is established that insolence and disrespect to the holy Prophet (`Sallal Laahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) is, without any doubt, infidelity (kufr).

You might say these persons had not intended to be insolent; their writings meant something different; every word has more than one meaning. Just apply this very concession and interpretation to yourself and then answer the following.

Supposing someone calls you waladul haraam(a bastard), and you get flabbergasted and greatly infuriated, and then that person tells you he had been grossly misunderstood for the word haraamalso stands for respect and what he meant was that you were a respectable son and he had not intended any abuse. Would you accept this explanation?

If you cannot accept this explanation with regard to your own persons how can you, then, accept this explanation in respect of the holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam)? Remember that disrespect being intended or not being intended has no bearing so far as insolence is concerned. (For details and Fataawaof the 'Ulama of Deoband see my book "White and Black" (Kaukab).

Such writings of the Deobandi-Wahaabi-Tableeghi 'Ulama and their being adamant on their stand is the basis of our difference with them. The faith of even the most ignorant of the true Musalmaans cannot hear them with equanimity, much less accept them. So, you would also surely say that he who does or says such things is unworthy of being called a Musalmaan.

It stands to reason that- a crime committed by a knowing person is more cognizable than that committed by a person who is unknowing. This because what an unknowing person says or does is due to his ignorance, while a knowing person commits a crime knowingly, deliberately, and so his punishment also is greater than the former. The heathenish and improper writings you have already gone through have been written and said by these very people who insist on being called profound 'Ulama and on being followed, and their followers do accept them as more profound than all others.

These "Ulama" had been told during their lifetime (and the entire record has been preserved) that since such of their writings were wrong and heathenish so they must show repentance for doing so. But they declared the things written by them to be correct and they stood firmly by their writings.

Consequently, the right-guided 'Ulama of the Ahle Sunnat, not only in the subcontinent but also in Makkah and Madinah and the 'Arab countries, after exhausting all dialogue with them, gave the verdict of heathen-ness against all those 'Ulama who had written such things and refused to repent, as well as on such of them who had been on their side. (For details, see Fataawa Husaamul Haramaien.)After the verdict of heathen-ness against them was published, the 'Ulama who had indulged in such writings themselves said that if those who had given the verdict against them not done so on the basis of their writings they would have themselves become heathens.

See what Ashraf Alee Sahib has to say on the question of pronouncing the verdict of infidelity on somebody's infidelity. He says: "People say that Maulveesturn Musalmaans into infidels. O cruel people! How are the Maulveesat fault when you yourselves become infidels? How can a Maulveebe at fault if he pronounces you an infidel because of your indulging in such monstrous things? Maulveesdo not turn people into infidels; people become infidels on their own. All that they (the Maulvees)do is to pronounce the verdict on them of being an infidel, ask them to repent to Al-Laah, and renew their faith and their marriage. In short, they (Maulvees)do not turn anybody into an infidel but only point out to them their infidelity." Khutbaat-e-Hakeemul Um-mat,page 40, parts "Mahaasin-e-Islaam". Mufti Muhammad Shafi Sahib has also quoted the writing in his book "Ieemaanand Kufr"(For details on the subject see my book "White and Black" (Kaukab).

This makes it very clear that these Wahaabi 'Ulama of Deoband themselves had been aware of the infidelity of their writings. And yet they did not repent over their writings. The reason for this was that they had done so at the instance of and assistance from, non-Muslims. So, how could they annoy their (non-Muslim) masters? They did not realise that they were earning eternal damnation for themselves by displeasing Almighty Al-Laah and His Prophet (Sallal Laahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam), and were leaving behind them chaos and confusion in the Um-mat.

After those who had written these pagan things left this world, their successors had been asked to either burn or drown into sea books in which such pagan things occurred and repent over such writings. But their successors also shut upon themselves the door to repentance and chose to remain adamant on their standpoint, and still maintain the position that those writings are not at all wrong but are rather absolutely correct. So, basing themselves on the principle laid down in the Qur'aan and the Sunnat, the right-guided 'Ulama gave the verdict that "endorsement of heathenism also is heathenism"

Some people ask us, 'reward for how many units (rak'aat)of Namaazwould accrue to us by calling as infidels the writers of such wrong and heathenistic things and those who believe in them? Why should we condemn the dead? Do we really know that those dead had not repented?'

In reply, it should be pointed out that making distinction between infidelity and Islaam is among the necessities of Deen. Youmay not call an infidel an infidel but when his infidelity becomes manifest, it is incumbent on the believers to call him an infidel as such for this infidelity. And the principle is that not to believe that an infidelity is an infidelity is itself infidelity.

(For details, see my book "White and Black" (Kaukab).

As for the question why should we condemn them now that these people are dead, the reply is this. Abu Lahab, an uncle to the holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam), indulged in insolence, and so did Waleed Bin Mugheerah and others. So, these insolent people will continue to be cursed till Doomsday because of being insolent to the holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam). Surely they would not be praised and lauded but condemned!

Regarding the plea that they might have, repented, let me say this. First of all, only he can think of repenting who acknowledges these writings to be pagan. But when the present set of' Deobandi-Wahaabi-Tableeghi 'Ulama do not acknowledge such writings of their elders to be heathenistic then where is the scope for repenting.

Even so, if some of the followers of those Wahaabi 'Ulama of Deoband know that their leaders had repented for writing these heathenistic things their repentance should be published and made public and all their followers themselves should repudiate such wrong and heathenistic writings and announce their non-acceptance of these wrong and heathenistic writings and acknowledge such writings to be wrong and heathenistic. And so the controversy would resolve itself. *

Some people have said that since the rest of the writings of those who had written such things are correct it is not right to pronounce them infidels on the basis of some things or just one thing. **

Such people should be asked to tell us how Shaitaan, the accursed, who is, according to one tradition, reputed to have worshipped Almighty Al-Laah for six hundred thousand years and, according to another, for three million years or so and prostrated before Him on every single spot of the earth; was reputed to be the teacher of the angels by dint of his knowledge; was a firm believer in the unity of Al-Laah; had erred only once when he did not prostrate himself before Hazrat Aadam ('Alaihis Salaam) as,according to him, Aadam ('Alaihis-Salaam) was made of clay; and thus denied the greatness of Prophethood. The prostration, which Almighty Al-Laah had commanded to be made to Hazrat Aadam ('Alaihis-Salaam), was a prostration meant for showing respect, and when Shaitaan refused to do the prostration, Almighty Al-Laah, notwithstanding all his worshipping and his learning and his belief, condemned him for all times for only once being insolent and disrespectful to Prophethood; and now he stands totally condemned till Doomsday.

I have already said that for one to be a Mu'minit is necessary to believe in all the essentials of Deen,while for becoming an apostate it is enough to deny only one of the essentials of Deen.

Just consider this. When millions of years of Namaazand worshipping and all his learning and belief in the unity of Al-Laah could not save Shaitaan, the accursed, from being condemned and cursed, how, then, can several years' of their Namaaz,their learning and their belief in the unity of Al-Laah save these Ulama? Shaitaan had shown disrespect to a Prophet and these 'Ulama also have made such utterances against the Prophet of Prophets (Sallal Laahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) which one would hate to utter even for his elders.

In such a situation, can anyone doubt that Almighty Al-Laah's wrath will surely encompass these 'Ulama and those who believe in such accursed writings. And know it well that redemption depends upon the correctness of beliefs, not on acts and knowledge. They should now see a testimony to this in the writings of Ashraf Alee Sahib Thanvi himself.

The fatwa of Thanvi Sahib on the author of the famous book Seeratun-Nabee,Janab Shiblee Nu'maani, and another 'aalim of Deoband, Janab Hameedud-deen Faraahi, has been quoted by an 'aalimofDeoband, Janab 'Abdul Maaiid Daryabadi, on 457 Of his book Hakeemul Um-mat.