[PROCLAMATION OF KUFR]
Flaunting his copro-ignorance, the buffoon utters the following notoriety:
“I had a discussion with a Deo Mullah (i.e. a Deobandi Aalim) specialising in amulets in Bradford about this issue of Thanawi’s popular Behishti Zewer. I confronted him with the Kufr propagated in the book, like attaching verses to the thigh of the pregnant lady in labour.” 
The coprocreep is not the first Salafi to proclaim Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) as ‘kaafir’. Whilst the Qabar Pujaaris (Grave Worshippers) label Hadhrat a ‘kaafir’ for his strident criticism of their grave-worshipping stunts and other bid’ah activities, Salafis of the coprocreep ilk clutch at the straw of this one single Ta’weez prescription mentioned in A’maal-e-Qur’aani. Besides the coprocreep’s ‘fatwa of kufr’ being hilariously stupid, it displays his appalling ignorance of the Shariah.
Before proclaiming Hadhrat Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) a ‘kaafir’ on the stupid basis of the misconception of the Ta’weez around the thigh being an act of kufr, the coprocreep was supposed to have checked the kutub of the Shariah to ascertain what his primary Imaam, viz. Shaikh Ibn Taimiyyah, and his secondary Imaam, viz, Hadhrat Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (rahmatullah alayh), and the many other authorities of the Shariah have to say on the type of Ta’weez which constitutes the basis for the coprocreep’s ‘fatwa’ of jahaalat – his ‘fatwa of kufr’ against Hakimul Ummat Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh). Let us first, with Shaikh Ibn Taimiyyah’s fatwa, dispel the copro-haze which shrouds the brains of the coprocreep.
In his Majmu’ Fataawa, Vol. 19, page 63, Shaikh Ibn Taimiyyah states:
“It is permissible to write from Kitaabullah (the Qur’aan Majeed) and His Thikr with permissible ink something for the benefit of one stricken (with a problem) and for sick persons, and to wash (what has been written from the Qur’aan) and to give it to them (the stricken and the sick) to drink as Imaam Ahmad and others have explicitly said.
Abdullah, the son of (Imaam) Ahmad said: ‘I recited to my father (Imaam Ahmad) —the chain of the Hadith – that Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) said: ‘When birth pangs become difficult for a woman, then write:
(The relevant Qur’aanic verses)
My father (Imaam Ahmad) said: ‘Aswad Bin Aamir narrated with his Chain of Narration similarly, and he said: ‘It should be written in a clean basin and given to drink.’ My father (Imaam Ahmad) said: Waqee’ added: ‘It should be given to her to drink and (the balance of the water) should be sprinkled (on the area) below her navel.’ Abdullah (Imaam Ahmad’s son) said: ‘I saw my father write (these Qur’aanic verses and the other athkaar) on a clean basin for a woman (in labour).”
Whilst Hadhrat Maulana Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) prescribed a Ta’weez sewn securely in a cloth to be tied around the thigh of the lady suffering birth pangs, the Sahaabah, Taabi-een, Tab-e-Taabieen, Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal, Shaikh Ibn Taimiyyah and all the Fuqaha and Auliya of Islam prescribed water on which Qur’aanic verses are recited to be sprinkled on the genital organ of the woman.
Now whose ‘kufr’ is greater? The ‘kufr’ of Hadhrat Thaanvi or the ‘kufr’ of the galaxy of illustrious personalities mentioned above? What is ‘worse’ – the thigh or the genital organ? Whilst Hadhrat Thanvi’s Ta’weez containing the mubaarak Qur’aanic verse is applied to only the thigh, the water on which the mubaarak verses are recited are applied to both the thigh and the genital organ in terms of the prscription of the illustrious personalities mentioned above.
In the kitaab, Amalul Yaum wal-Lailah, page 188 appears the following narration:
“Ibn Abbaas narrated from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): ‘When labour becomes difficult for a woman, then the verses… (of the Qur’aan)…………………… Should be written on a clean basin. Then it should be washed and given to the woman to drink, and it (the water) should be sprinkled on her stomach and her genital organ (farj).”
Will the jaahil coprocreep Salafi now apply his fatwa of ‘kufr’ to even Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) and to even Rasulullah (salallahu alayhi wasallam)? There is the need for the coproceep to proclaim all of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen ‘kaafir’ before even the slightest attention could be afforded to his branding of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh). His argument is bereft of even an iota of Shar’i substance.
Hadhrat Thanvi’s Beheshti Zewer is indispensable for laymen. It is the ‘Scholar’ which resides or should reside in the home of every follower of the Hanafi Math-hab. A’maal-e-Qur’aani is an extremely beneficial kitaab. Every prescription in this kitaab is fully in accord with the Shariah regardless of how much the coprocreep and the deviant Salafis howl and disgorge their epithets of kufr.
Footnotes (added by admin)
1. He continued relating his dialogue as follows:
I said: “Whatever. But until I don’t get an explicit fatwa from a reputable Darul Uloom that prohibits the sale of all prints of Behishti Zewar in the world, I will never believe your statement that these amulets are not from the works of Thanawi.”
He said: “Why do you need such a fatwa?”
I said: “It is you who is ignorant. Why publish this book that contains evident Kufr in the name of Thanawi then?”
These practices branded here as “evident Kufr” have been universally accepted and approved by the Akaabir of Deoband, including the likes of Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanawi (rahmatullahi alayh). The ramifications of his accusation that knowledgeable Ulama have approved and actively propagated practices that are “evident Kufr”, are extremely grave.