[Does Giving Bay’ah Entail Unquestionable Obedience and Belief in the Shaykh’s Infallibility?]

Bay’t (or Bay’ah)


The miserable  Salafi coprocreep in  whose constitution is  ingrained kizb (lies and falsehood), in his baseless criticism of the Ulama of Deoband, slanders as follows:

 “If a mureed makes Bay’ah to a Sufi Sheikh, he cannot make Bay’ah to another Sheikh in his lifetime because it is an insult. So if  one is studying something in a Deobandi Darul Uloom, then one cannot go to a Salafi institution or Arabia or the Arab lands in general, or else that would  mean offence – this is what happens!” 

This jaahil coprocreep despite having  spent some time in a Deobandi Darul Uloom, is clearly ignorant of the Minhaaj  – the way, methodology and attitude  of the noble Akaabireen of  this illustrious Jamaat of Ulama. The claim that  a mureed of a Shaikh of Tasawwuf  is prohibited from making bay’t to another Shaikh for the entire duration of his lifetime is a despicable LIE.  There is no such rule in the  Tasawwuf of the Mashaaikh associated with  Darul Uloom. On the contrary, a true Shaikh of Tasawwuf will encourage a mureed to seek the spiritual guidance of another Shaikh, if in his opinion there is no Munaasabat  (compatibility/congeniality) between him and the mureed.

It is a principle of  Tasawwuf to which our Akaabireen rigidly adhere, that Munaasabat  is a condition of Bay’t. Thus, in his  kitaab, Shariat & Tasawwuf, Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah Khaan (rahmatullah alayh) states:

“Experience has proven that for gaining spiritual benefit (fuyudh-e-batini), mutual munasabat (congeniality) between the Shaikh and Mureed is a natural condition. Normally benefit is dependent on affection which is the reality of natural congeniality (munasabat-e-fitri). Sometimes a Shaikh will refer a mureed to another Shaikh because of the lack of such munasabat between them. In doing so the Shaikh establishes either by deduction or kashf (inspiration from Allah Ta’ala) that the mureed has munasabat with a certain Shaikh. In this Path it is essential that munasabat exists between the Shaikh and Mureed otherwise the latter will not benefit. Such munasabat is the basis for the acquisition of benefit and passing on faidh (spiritual grace) to the mureed.

Munasabat envisages that there exists between the Shaikh and Mureed compatibility and harmony to such a degree that the mureed discerns no rejection in his heart for any word or act of the Shaikh although he (the mureed) may have some  mental disagreement with any word or act of the Shaikh.

Nevertheless such mental disagreement will not countenance any rejection for the Shaikh in the heart of the mureed. In short, harmony and compatibility are conditional for bay’t. It is therefore essential to first inculcate munasabat. This need is imperative. In the absence of this essential condition, mujahadaat (strivings), riyadhaat (certain forms of exercises designed to subdue the nafs), muraqabaat (meditations) and mukashafaat (intuitive revelations) are all futile. In the absence of natural munasabat (tab’i munasabat), the mureed should endeavour to inculcate intellectual (aqli) munasabat, because benefit is dependent on it.

In view of the overriding importance of Munaasabat, one should not enter into the  Bay’t allegiance if such munaasabat is lacking.”

This is an incumbent principle of Tasawwuf  which Hadhrat Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) and all Muhaqqiqeen of Tasawwuf  explain with clarity and which  is considerably emphasized.  What the Ahl-e-Bid’ah  who masquerade as Shaikhs of Tasawwuf do, has no bearing on the  reality and Haqq of the Tasawwuf  practised by the Akaabireen of Deoband.  The contention that the  Mashaaikh of Deoband prohibit termination of the Bay’t relationship is manifest slander.  There is no Sufi Shaikh of the Haqq who  follows the Shariah and the Sunnah, who regards the termination of the bond to be an ‘insult’ as the Salafi coprocreep falsely contends.

If a Shaikh believes that his Ta’leem is not benefiting a mureed, or the mureed  experiences lack of munaasabat  with his Shaikh, the  former will and should advise, in fact, instruct, the mureed to take hold of the Mantle of another Shaikh. He will even advise the mureed of a Shaikh whom he (the first Shaikh) believes will be of benefit to the mureed.

Similarly, the mureed may terminate the relationship on account of Adm-e-Munaasabat (lack of compatibility). He only has to inform his Shaikh that he is terminating the bay’t relationship. There are many examples of  such mutual termination  among the Mashaaikh of Tasawwuf. Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh), in particular, was extremely rigid in the observance of the principle of Munaasabat, and he would not hesitate to terminate the bay’t, and at the same time  proffer advice to the mureed regarding a new Shaikh.

The Salafi coprocreep’s ignorance is stark, for he confuses academic study with Tasawwuf. Adopting a Shaikh of Tasawwuf and  pursuing academic studies at a Darul Uloom are  two different vocations. Thus, his claim that  a  student who has a bay’t relationship with a Shaikh of Tasawwuf  is not allowed to study at  a Darul Uloom of his choice is blatantly false. Firstly, it is the Minhaaj of  the senior Mashaaikh of Tasawwuf of Deoband to  refrain from initiating students into the Path (Tareeqat/Tasawwuf). Once, during his student days, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi  (rahmatullah alayh) requested Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) to accept him as a mureed. Hadhrat Gangohi responded that as long as he (Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi) was engaged in the pursuit of  academic knowledge, he should  regard the idea of  becoming a mureed to be a shaitaani waswasah.  The general attitude of our Mashaaikh was to refrain from accepting students as mureeds.

The discouragement to join a Salafi academic institution (madrasah) is the policy of our Ulama at our Darul Ulooms. This policy is unrelated to the Khaanqah. It is the Waajib obligation of the Asaatizah to warn their students from the dangerous pitfall and trap of Salafi institutions. It is  Islamic, Waajib and entirely logical for the Asaatizah of the Darul Uloom to warn their students against Salafi snares. When it is our belief that Salafis are plodding the path of baatil; that they constitute a deviant sect; that they are coprocreeps who subscribe to the blindest form of taqleed, namely, the taqleed of a seventh century Aalim who had strayed from the Minhaaj of the Ahlus Sunnah of the Salafus Saaliheen,  then it will be gross khiyaanat for us to allow our students to become ensnared in Salafi baatil which their institutions teach.

It is therefore Waajib on us to endeavour to prevent our students from studying at any Salafi institution whether in Madina or elsewhere.

The coprocreep alleges:

“A mureed cannot question his Sufi Sheikh’s tactics /approach to his tazkiyah. The same applies to Darul Uloom culture in not all but many instances. I once challenged a teacher relating to the presence of a word…….The teacher got so upset he walked out of the class…..”

Firstly, a true  Shaikh whose  profession is the Tazkiyah of the Nafs of his mureeds, does not have ‘tactics’. His methodology is called  Ta’leem. He does not operate like stupid, immoral Salafi coprocreeps who seek refuge in anonymity, and under such cover they  cowardly issue ‘brave  challenges’. The Shaikh of Tasawwuf is a Roohaani (Spiritual) physician whose duty it is to diagnose the spiritual maladies of the mureed and offer  prescriptions and remedies. No one questions the medical doctor. Everyone accepts his prescriptions and remedies without question. But, in the spiritual domain, the coprocreep propagates a stupid difference.  Spiritual maladies, due to their intangible (spiritual) nature are  more subtle and complicated than tangible (physical) diseases.  Just as a patient suffering from a physical disease has no right of questioning his doctor’s prescription and remedy, so too, does he lack this right  in relation to his Spiritual physician.

Our Akaabireen advise people that prior to accepting a person to be their Spiritual Guide, they should  first investigate and study him to ascertain if he is a Shaikh of the Haqq. Proffering this advice, Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) says in his kitaab, Shariat & Tasawwuf:

“A Shaikh is one who has full knowledge and experience of spiritual ailments (amraadh-e-batinah), attributes of vice and virtue (akhlaaq-e-razeelah and akhlaaq-e-hameedah), their characteristics (khawas) and their effects (ta’theerat). He should further be able to distinguish between their similarities and he must have perfect ability in devising plans and prescriptions for the acquisition of the attributes of virtue and the elimination of the attributes of vice. He has to be aware of the progress and retrogress of these attributes. He must be well versed in the hazards of the nafs and shaitaan, the intuitive senses and feelings pertaining to the angels and the Divine Being. He must be able to distinguish these various intuitive and extra-sensory feelings and perceptions. It is therefore imperative that the Shaikh of tareeqat be one who is qualified in this knowledge, be a mujtahid in this field and possesses natural ability and inherent propensity. If he has acquired the Tareeq by a mere self-study of books on Tasawwuf or by listening from others, he will destroy the mureed whom he is attending, because he will not be in position to correctly diagnose the various states of the mureed.

Shaikh Ibn Arabi (rahmatullah alayh) briefly summarises the signs of a Shaikh-e-Kamil (the perfect and qualified Shaikh) to be three:

1. Deen resembling the Deen of the Ambiya.
2. Prescribing like the physicians.
3. Management and control like that of kings.

The exposition of the above summary is as follows:

1. He should possess the necessary knowledge of the Deen which he must have acquired by either academic pursuit of such knowledge or from companionship with the Ulama-e-Muhaqqiqeen.
2. He must be a deputy (Khalifah) of a Shaikh-e-Kamil attached to an authentic Silsilah.
3. He should be uprighteous and pious.
4. He derived spiritual benefit by remaining for an adequate period of time in the company of the Shaikh. Such “companionship” is either by means of correspondence or by physical presence in the association of the Shaikh.
5. The people of knowledge (i.e. the Ulama) hold him in high esteem, and refer to him.
6. The effect of his companionship (suhbat) is increase in the desire for Akhirat and Divine love as well as detestation for the love of the world.
7. The majority of his mureeds are followers of the Shariat, their conditions conforming with the demands of the Shariat.
8. He is devoid of greed and desire (for worldly gain and benefit).
9. He engages in Thikr and devotional practices.
10. He does not leave his mureeds unfettered, but reprimands them when the need arises. He treats everyone according to their respective abilities.

The one in whom these attributes exist is worthy of being a Shaikh and he should be considered a wonderful alchemy. His companionship and service to him are in fact priceless treasures. Once these attributes of perfection are found in a Shaikh, One should not be concerned about kaaramat (miracles) and kashf (inspiration). It is not necessary that these states exist in the Shaikh-e-Kamil nor is it necessary that he be one who does nor himself earn his livelihood.”

Again the jaahil Salafi coprocreep confuses the Madrasah with the Khaanqah.  To substantiate his contention which is related to the Shaikh of Tasawwuf (the Sufi Shaikh), the coprocreep cites the episode related to the Madrasah where he was studying. The teacher who had  ‘walked out of the class upset’,  was not a Sufi Shaikh. To bolster his lies pertaining to the Sufi Sheikhs, the coprocreep failed to cite any incident  from the lives of the Akaabir Mashaaikh of Tasawwuf associated with Darul Uloom Deoband.

Secondly, the teacher (Ustaadh) who had walked  out of the class must have  done so  on account of the insolence of the coprocreep who had not  sincerely and humbly asked a question to educate himself, but had ‘challenged the teacher’.  The coprocreep  displayed his pride and  stupid ‘expertise’  in Arabic grammar. His intention was to humiliate the Ustaadh, hence he ‘challenged’ his senior with his satanic insolence. Insolence is a salient feature of Iblees. When Allah Ta’ala  questioned him about his refusal to  perform Sajdah for Aadam (alayhis salaam), Shaitaan   insolently and challengingly stated:  “You created me from fire, and him from sand.”  The coprocreep was fortunate that the Ustaadh  did not deliver a few  lashes with a heavy whip as a balm for his insolence.

The main issue here is that  the teacher’s attitude cannot be presented as substantiation for the absurd claim that a ‘mureed cannot question his Sufi Sheikh’.  A mureed has all the right to question his Shaikh  on issues pertaining to his Tazkiyah and Islaah. But, he has no right to become insolent like the coprocreep and seek to ‘challenge’ his Shaikh. The Khaanqah is not a place for insolent coprocreeps with the attributes of Iblees. The type of shaitaani challenge which the coprocreep made to his Ustaadh is undoubtedly “the ultimate sin of disrespect” to which he referred.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that the one who teaches you even one word of the Qur’aan is your master. You become his ‘slave’. This is the superior status of the Ustaadh over his  student. Every branch of Deeni education is related to the Qur’aan Majeed. Disrespect is a very prominent trait in almost all Salafis.


The Salafi coprocreep voicing another slander against the Ulama of Deoband, says:

“A Sheikh can never be wrong in his approach to Tazkiyah of his mureed’s heart – a mureed must have the firmest belief that his Sheikh is right. And guess what? Darul Uloom has the same mentality as well? All Islamic  institutions, esp. so-called Wahhabi-salafi institutions are unacademic and they themselves are upholding all the Islamic sciences as the Salaf upheld them.”

From whence did  the coprocreep extract this falsehood. Who among our Akaabir said, and in which kitaab of the Akaabir of Deoband is this LIE stated?  When it is  our belief that even our illustrious Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen such as Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Abu Yusuf, Imaam Muhammad, etc. also erred, how is it possible to believe that our Akaabireen held the view that a sheikh of Tasawwuf can never err?

When it is said ‘Ulama  of Deoband’, the reference is to the illustrious  Stars and Giants of all branches of Shar’i Uloom including Tasawwuf. These  noble authorities of the Deen were Stars of Ilm such as Hadhrat Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi (rahmatullah alayh), Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) and Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh).

The first was the Founder of Darul Uloom Deoband. Regarding the second, there is consensus of the Ulama of Deoband that He (Maulana Gangohi) was the greatest in this  august Jamaat of Ulama. Hadhrat Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) was acknowledged as a Mujaddid. He was a unique expert in all fields of Shar’i Uloom. Besides these three illustrious Ulama, there were numerous  great Ulama-e-Haqq of Daarul Uloom Deoband, who  had emblazoned  the firmament  of  the Shariah.

The aforementioned three  Akaabir Ulama and Mashaaikh of Deoband had commented  regarding their noble Shaikh, Hadhrat Haaji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah alayh) that in matters of Hadith and Masaa-il, Hajee Sahib should refer to them. They had stated unambiguously that the objective of  bay’t with their Shaikh was to facilitate practice (amal) on the Ahaadith and Masaa-il of the Shariah which they had acquired. They did not  enter into the bay’t relationship in order to ascertain  the status of the Ahaadith, etc., because that knowledge they had acquired in the Madrrasah.

When Hadhrat Haji Sahib had written the treatise, Haft-e-Mas’alah which ostensibly condoned  meelaad and other similar practices, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) instructed his own mureed to burn out the book, and he commented that Haaji Sahib “should  refer to us” in such masaa-il. It is therefore tantamount to slander for the Salafi coprocreep to  contend that according to the Ulama of Deoband the sheikh is never wrong; that he may not be questioned, etc.

The following exposition of Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) debunks the falsehood which the Salafi coprocreep has attributed to the Akaabir Ulama and Mashaaikh of Deoband:

“There are various reasons which induce a Mureed to search for a Shaikh other than the one who is his Shaikh. Among these reasons are: (1) The Mureed discovers that his first Shaikh does not adhere to the Shariah. The Shaikh indulges in bid’ah or always commits kabeerah (major) sins. (2) The mureed has no congeniality (munaasabat) with the first Shaikh notwithstanding the first Shaikh being a strict adherent of the Shariah and a follower of the Sunnah. (3) The demise of the first Shaikh. In this event it will suffice if the Mureed turns to another Shaikh to perfect his islaah (reformation) without him even becoming his formal mureed. The mureed may, however, also complete his islaah by another Shaikh along with entering into Bay’t with him (the Shaikh).

It is vital to remember that after having accepted another Shaikh, the Mureed should never be disrespectful to his former Shaikh, neither in word or deed nor in his absence or presence. This applies even if the former Shaikh  happened to stray from the Shariah. Any such disrespect will prove calamitous for the Mureed.”

Thus, the charge that the Akaabir of Deoband maintain that a Shaikh  is ‘always right’, and does not err, is palpably false…


Undoubtedly, the Ulama of Deoband  not only discourage, but warn their students against the danger of  studying at Salafi educational institutions. This is a holy obligation which devolves on the Ulama. It is imperative to warn Muslims to be on their guard  against the fitnah of the Salafis. The Ulama would be failing in their duty if they do not alert their students regarding the dangers of Salafi institutions…

The coprocreep alleges:

“Darul Ulooms have always had a culture of: ‘If you read Ibn Taimiyyah’s literature, you will be brainwashed.”

There is an imperative need to prevent students and others from reading the literature of  deviates. Not all students possess the requisite intellectual capacity to understand dalaa-il. Baatil can be presented  in forms which are palatable to  people of  little understanding.

The first person to prevent  from reading  the literature of others, was Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who prevented the Sahaabah from reading even the Taurah, much of which was extant  in that age. Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) specifically  prohibited Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) from reading the Taurah.

That people, even Ulama, become influenced by baatil written deceptively and with  appeal, is undeniable. When Greek philosophy was translated into Arabic, many Ulama  fell into the trap of shaitaan. They became  victims of  Greek philosophy and began subscribing to  explicit beliefs of kufr pertaining to the Zaat and Sifaat of Allah Azza Wa Jal.

So when it is known that Ibn Taimiyyah propagated many beliefs of falsehood and deviation, then it  is the Waajib obligation of the Asaatizah to prevent students from studying the literature of the deviates. As for the Ulama-e-Raasikheen (those grounded in the Ilm of the Deen), they study the literature of the Ahl-e-Baatil, and thoroughly refute their corruption.

If  students are prevented from  reading pornographic ‘literature’, no one  will have a valid objection. There should likewise be no objection when the Asaatizah prevent students from reading something worse, viz., spiritual pornography – corrupt beliefs and masaa-il propounded by deviates. Pornography ruins the moral character. But corrupt beliefs destroy Imaan…


The Salafi coprocreep states:

“A mureed cannot even entertain the thought of another sheikh he has not bay’ah to be better than his own Sheikh……..What matters is that the reverence and respect is taken to such a high level that the Shariah or the truth no longer matters, nor does it remain the primary focus of students.”

This is another despicable lie disgorged by the coprocreep. The Mashaaikh of Deoband do not teach their mureedeen  what the coprocreep has claimed here. The objective of Bay’t is Islaah (Reformation) of the nafs. The Shaikh thus does not  indulge in the destructive exercise of comparing  other Mashaaikh with himself. He does not engage in such futile, in fact, destructive, exercises with his mureeds. A sheikh who involves his mureeds in the type of ghutha (rubbish) vomited up by the coprocreep is not a Shaikh of Tasawwuf. He is not a Murshid – a Spiritual Guide.

The coprocreep has placed his own stupid interpretation to a certain ta’leem which the Mashaaikh proffer to their mureedeen, namely, that it is essential for the mureed to have implicit faith in his Shaikh and that he should believe that for his own Islaah there is no one in his knowledge who can benefit him more than the  Shaikh whom he is adopting as his spiritual guide.

This is a perfectly reasonable, rational principle which operates in even all mundane spheres. A  person of understanding enlists the services of such a medical doctor in  whom he has implicit faith, believing that he  is ‘the best’ doctor  to diagnose and prescribe for his sickness. If the patient  believes that there is in the vicinity another better qualified/experienced doctor, it would be irrational for him to acquire the services of a practitioner whom he believes is of  inferior expertise. The same applies when a person seeks legal advice from an attorney.

It is not an issue of  ‘best’ relative to Taqwa or Qurb-e-Ilaahi (Divine Proximity). It is ‘best’ in terms of  diagnosis and prescription. Should the mureed believe that  there is another better qualified Shaikh for his spiritual maladies, it would be irrational for him to be satisfied with a Shaikh of lesser expertise. An ambivalent attitude towards one’s Shaikh is indicative of adm-e-munaasabat (non-existence of compatibility). Compatibility is an essential condition for  the obtainment of  Islaahi benefit from the Shaikh. But the density of the sensorium of the coprocreep has confused him. He appears not to have even a hazy idea of the meaning  and objective of  Tasawwuf.

While the purpose of this specific item of Ta’leem is designed for the spiritual benefit of the mureed, the Salafi coprocreep interprets it as being the effect of self-conceit. This is a principle termed in Tasawwuf as Wahdatul Matlab (Unity of Purpose).

The episode and comments of the three Pillars of Deoband, namely, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi and Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayhim) mentioned above, adequately debunk the coprocreep’s accusation  and slander of  venerating the Shaikh over and above the Shariah to the extent that the Shariah is expunged from the life of the mureed.  Only a stupid Salafi coprocreep, due to his insolence and  contempt for the Truth would venture such slanderous accusations against  the sterling Ulama and Mashaaikh of Deoband whose lives were devoted to and sacrificed for reviving and establishing the Sunnah and for the dissemination of the Deen.


The miserable liar further states:

“If a sheikh does something questionable, the mureed cannot question the sheikh as he might be in the state of sukr, jazb, haaal, etc.”

On the contrary, intelligent mureeds usually do question their sheikh, but with humility, sincerity and respect regarding any doubtful practice which they may observe in the Shaikh or  which he may have done. In this regard, Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) writes in his Shariat & Tasawwuf:

“If in any doubt, immediately discuss it with the Murshid.”

The Mureed is entitled to question and seek an explanation. But insolence which is the effect of coprocreep vanity and  pride, is never permissible. If the Shaikh is a genuine Shaikh who was genuinely in some spiritual state  (haal), then on emergence from that state of ecstasy if he is informed that his utterance, etc. was in conflict with the Shariah, never will he justify it nor  proffer an interpretation despite being aware that he had made the statement in a ‘different world’. He understands that no amount of logical explanation will make sense to spiritually arid people. On the contrary, he will  repent in order to impress on the mureeds strict observance of the Zaahiri Shariah.

On the other hand, if  the statement he had uttered in a haal appears peculiar or inexplicable, but  it does not conflict with the Shariah, the Shaikh will adopt silence. He will not respond since the issue is not related to the Islaah  of the mureeds. When the Shaikh  remains silent,  the mureed should  understand that there is a mystery which he (the mureed) would be unable to understand, hence the Shaikh selected silence.

Furthermore, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) has clarified that if  the Shaikh acts in conflict with the Shariah, the mureed should with respect terminate his bay’t. But even when terminating the allegiance and thereafter, the ex-mureed should never adopt the insolence of Salafi coprocreeps who are so self-conceited that they believe themselves superior to their Asaatizah, hence they have no qualms in issuing challenges to their Teachers.

The attitude of the Mashaaikh of Deoband is succinctly stated in the following  statements of the illustrious Sufi Mashaaikh:

“Do not be deceived if you see a performer of supernatural feats flying in the air. Measure him on the Standard of the Shariah. That is, his observance of the limits of the Shariah (or his non-observance).”  —Bayazid Bustami

“All avenues besides the strict following of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are closed to mankind.” – Junaid Baghdaadi

“Do not venture near to one who lays claim to a state which brings about transgression of the limits of the Shariah.”  —Hadhrat Noori

“Obedience to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is imperative. Such obedience is obligatory in word, deed and intention because love for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is not possible without this obedience.”  — Khwaajah Naseeruddin Chirage

“Whoever acquires the wealth of Wusul (Attainment of the Love of  Allah Ta’ala) acquires it by virtue of following the Sunnah.” — Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi

Stating the nature of Tasawwuf, Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) writes in his Shariat & Tasawwuf:

“Now that the nature and reality of Tasawwuf have been made clear, it will be understood that:

  • Kashf (inspiration and revelation) and karamat (miracles) are not necessary.
  • It does not promise success in the worldly affairs.
  • It does not assert that one’s work will be achieved by means of ta’weez and potions; nor does it claim that one will be successful in court cases by means of duaa.
  • It does not promise increase in one’s earnings nor does it promise one cure from physical ailments.
  • It does not foretell future events.
  • It does not contend that the disciple’s (mureed’s) reformation will be achieved by the spiritual focussing (tawajjuh) of the Shaikh. Extra-normal operation is not necessary to Tasawwuf.
  • It does not contend that the one who treads this Path will not be afflicted by even the thought of sin nor does it claim that the mureed will automatically (without effort) engage in Ibaadat.
  • It does not promise total self-annihilation so that one is not aware even of one’s presence.
  • It does not promise the experiencing of states of ecstasy and spiritual effulgence in Thikr and Shaghl (spiritual exercise) nor does it claim that one will see beautiful dreams and wonderful visions.

All these are not the aims of Tasawwuf. The purpose is the Pleasure of Allah Ta’ala. This then, should be kept in sight.”

Salafis in general, and the cowardly coprocreep who  shields himself in the veil of anonymity whilst displaying  the ‘courage’ of a sapling, in particular, are spiritually barren, hence their inability to understand the spiritual states of the Auliya. Even Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) during his initial stage of Wilaayat  prior to Zuhoor-e-Nubuwwat (the public manifestation of Nubuwwat), experienced such states. The Hadith testifies to this fact.

However, since the Salafi coprocreeps expunge Tasawwuf from Islam, they  miserably fail to understand the explicit Tasawwuf  of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Their gross ignorance of the meaning of Tasawwuf  constrains them to believe that  Tasawwuf is some queer, mystical, baatil concept which is in conflict with the Shariah. Nothing is further from the Truth.

The Qur’aan and Sunnah apply  great emphasis on Tazkiyah-e-Nafs (self-reformation), and this is precisely the meaning of the Tasawwuf of the Mashaaikh of Deoband. Explaining the concept of Tasawwuf, Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) states in his Shariat & Tasawwuf:  

“Tasawwuf in fact is the Rooh and state of perfection of the Deen. Its function is to purify the baatin (the spiritual heart) from the despicable bestial attributes of lust, calamities of the tongue, anger, malice, jealousy, love of the world, love for fame, niggardliness, greed, ostentation, vanity, deception, etc.. At the same time Tasawwuf  aims to achieve the adornment of the heart with the lofty attributes of moral excellence such as  repentance, perseverance, gratitude, Divine fear, hope, abstinence, Tauheed, trust, love, sincerity, truth, meditation, reckoning, etc. In this way man’s focus on Allah Ta’ala is cultivated.

All the authentic principles of Tasawwuf are to be found in the Qur’aan and Ahaadith. The notion that tasawwuf is not in the Qur’aan is erroneous. Miscreant  Sufis as well as spiritually barren Ulama (Ulama-e-Khushq) entertain this  corrupt notion. Both groups have misunderstood the Qur’aan and Ahaadith….In conformity with their (corrupt) opinions, one group (the barren Ulama) has shunned Tasawwuf (which is an integral component of Islam), while the other group (miscreant Sufis) has shunned the Qur’aan and Ahaadith.”

This, then is the Tasawwuf which our Akaabir of Deoband taught, but which the coprocreep has miserably failed to understand.

The coprocreep further denigrating Tasawwuf and the Mashaaikh of Deoband mentions a story about a Buzrug who had advised three persons who were going on a journey to refrain from eating elephant’s meat. We reproduce here verbatim what the Salafi coprocreep has written in this regard:

“A group of three excellent mureeds came to their sheikh who was resting on his bed (I don’t recollect his name). They were intending to go out to travel. They came to the Sheikh for some spiritual advice. The Sheikh said: “Nothing is in my mind at the moment. You may leave”. But the Mureeds insisted for just one piece of advice. The Sheikh spontaneously said: “Do not eat the meat of elephants”. The mureeds started wondering what type of Naseehah is this! But the Sheikh insisted that this is the only piece of advice in his head at the time (note: he could not say: Follow the Shariah in public and private, but he did say: Don’t eat elephant meat). So the three Mureeds set out.

In the jungle, they encountered a massive storm and they lost their way. Ultimately their provisions started to run out. They were in a dire need. They were absolutely close to the brink of death. Eventually, they saw a baby elephant lying near a tree. Two of them said: “we have to slaughter and eat it or else we will die”. The third said: “Don’t contradict what our Sheikh said. The consequences will be deadly.” The other two just couldn’t hold themselves and they hunted down the baby elephant and consumed it, whereas the third stayed there, trying to prevent them. He was so tired, he lied down waiting for death by starvation, and his eyes shut slowly, until he lost sense of what was around him. The other two ate to their fill, then slept where their fellow was on the brink of dying.

An hour or so later, the mother-elephant came and saw what happened to her child. She was distressed severely, She looked around and saw three humans lying down in the heat of the day. She went up to them and smelt their mouths. As for the first two, she killed them. As for the third, she somehow got him to sit on her back (after she found out he did not eat her child by smelling his mouth) and took him to some trees where there were fruits growing.” The end.

This episode is not a fabrication as alleged by the coprocreep. It also does not belong to the very distant past. The Shaikh whose name the coprocreep says he cannot recollect, is Hadhrat Haaji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah alayh) who was the Shaikh of  some of the greatest Ulama in the world at the time, viz. Hadhrat Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi and Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayhim).

This story has been narrated by Thiqah Ulama. The reliability of the Ulama  and Mashaaikh who have narrated this story is beyond reproach. They never were liars such as the corprocreep is. This coprocreep whilst being a Salafi operates like a rat, cunningly portraying himself as a ‘Hanafi’ to seduce ignorant Hanafi students and to trap them into the snares of Salafi’ism by way of his Shiah oriented doctrine of Taqiyah.  Taqiyah  is common to  Salafis and Shiahs.

The coprocreep’s claim that this naseehat ‘encourages a person to forsake the Shariah’ is baseless and is the effect of the coprocreep’s ignorance and spiritual barrenness. Far from encouraging a person from forsaking the Shariah, it  commands him to observe the Shariah. The persons concerned were not on  the verge of death due to starvation. The fact that the one  who had refrained from consuming the meat had not died, testifies to the fact that there was no Shar’i  justification for the others in the group to have killed the baby elephant to consume its meat.

Furthermore, the naseehat emanating from  an authentic Wali whose credibility and uprighteousness were upheld and vouched for by great Ulama of the time – Ulama of the Zaahiri Shariah – was not to be discarded or treated  as an insignificant and meaningless statement. There was undoubtedly wisdom underlining it despite the Shaikh himself being unaware of it at the moment when he proffered it.

Kashf and Ilhaam are realities which only Salafi coprocreeps deny. The very nature of this particular and peculiar naseehat should have conveyed to the group at the time, that there was no incumbent need for them to have killed the baby elephant since they had not reached such a situation of starvation which occasioned such a move, especially when the contemplated move was in conflict with the  naseehat of a wise and uprighteous Wali of Allah Ta’ala.

The errant group paid the penalty with their lives for committing two exceptionally grave errors:

(1) They violated the Shariah by consuming haraam meat at a juncture  when eating haraam was not justified.

(2) They ignored the naseehat of a Wali of Allah Ta’ala – such a naseehat which was 100% in conformity with the Shariah.

Let us expand further on this issue. Assuming the Shaikh had said:  “Eat pork!”, then too it would be improper to condemn the Shaikh and to dismiss his naseehat as a stupid ranting in conflict with the Shariah. The Shaikh who is a paragon of the Shariah – the Zaahiri Shariah – and an embodiment of  the Uswah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) does not talk drivel and ghutha (rubbish) as do Salafi coprocreeps. His naseehat  to ‘eat pork’ should not be dismissed lightly or with disdain. There is some wisdom beneath the surface which currently may be inexplicable, but which will soon become manifest and comprehensible.

Of course, pork is haraam and  no one will give practical expression to the naseehat about pork. It will be set aside and a suitable interpretation proffered without condemning the Wali who is a follower of the Sunnah. The mystery will be shelved.

After  some time the group became entangled in such circumstances, for example they were imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay or in one of America’s torture chambers elsewhere in the world, and all food and water were denied to them. In consequence, they were reduced to dire straits of hunger which threatened them with death.  Now to psychologically punish them further, the American captors  knowing the Muslim aversion for pigs, presented pork to them. Some of the group who were on the point of death decided to eat the pork. One brother decided to rather die than eating pork.

Then the others reminded him: “Don’t you remember that the Shaikh said: ‘Eat pork’?  Now we understand the meaning of the Shaikh’s naseehat. It was meant for this occasion.” Thus, the naseehat which was apparently in conflict with the Shariah was in fact 100% in conformity with the Shariah. But spiritually barren Salafi coprocreeps do not understand because there is rijs (filth) in their brains. About such coprocreeps who condemn the Auliya of Allah Azza Wa Jal, it appears in a Hadith Qudsi:

“Whoever hurts My Wali, verily, I issue to him an ultimatum of war.”

The Qur’aan Majeed furthermore says about coprocreeps:  “And Ar-Rahmaan afflicts rijs on those who lack Aql.”  A salient feature of Salafi coprocreeps is the conspicuous lack of Aql (Intelligence) which is the consequence of spiritual aridity.

There is absolutely no ‘disaster’ in the story of the elephant. It is in entirety in conformity with the Shariah. And, assuming that it was in conflict with the Shariah, it would be set aside or assigned a suitable interpretation without giving practical expression to the ostensible meaning of the naseehat. The need for interpretation in such cases is because the statement emanates from a  genuine Wali of Allah Ta’ala. He is not a coprocreep. He is not an impostor. He is not a fake as all these juhhaal Salafis are.


In a miserable, flabby attempt to show that the naseehat of Hadhrat Haaji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah alayh) is in conflict with what Imaam Nasafi states in Sharh Aqaaid, which kitaab is a mainstay of  Aqeedah instruction at our Darul Ulooms, the coprocreep says:

“ …and this is where the Sufi mentality of Deoband contradicts Nasafiyyah as well when Nasafi says in Sharh Aqaaid:  ‘And a slave cannot reach to a level where  orders and prohibitions are absolved from him’.”

The density of the coprocreep’s brains is conspicuously established by his stupid averment. There is no contradiction between the naseehat and what is mentioned in Sharh Aqaaid. Furthermore, the statement from Sharh Aqaaid quoted by the coprocreep provides proof for the belief of the Ulama and Mashaaikh of Deoband that they adhere to the Shariah, and that they  refute the baatil concepts of the bid’ah Sufis. Earlier in this Refutation we have reproduced from Shariat & Tasawwuf the statements of our former Mashaaikh of Tasawwuf. Their statements clarify our adherence to the Zaahiri Shariah and the Zaahiri Sunnah.

We thus are compelled to dismiss the coprocreep’s ranting as plain garbage – ghutha and rijs with which his brains are contaminated and disfigured.

Back to Contents