Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi’s Reaction To Disagreement

Hakim al-Ummah Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi (may Allah shower His mercy upon him) related: 

‘‘Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (may Allah shower His mercy upon him) once wrote a fatwa concerning a particular issue. Mawlana Muhammad Qasim Nanautwi’s (may Allah shower His mercy upon him) renowned disciple, Amir Shah Khan, sent a letter to Mawlana by post, in which he expressed an objection to this fatwa. Thereafter, feeling he had disrespected the Mawlana, he wrote a second letter, seeking forgiveness. Mawlana Gangohi wrote in reply, ‘I liked your first letter in which you had expressed an objection. I do not like this second letter, as whatever you had written in your first one was sincerely for the din. I am certain that you had no intention to be disrespectful and therefore I was not offended in the slightest.’ 

(A couplet of Mawlana Rumi is quoted here, the translation of which has been omitted). 

In contrast to this, on another occasion, someone who had obtained a fatwa from Mawlana [Rashid Ahmad Gangohi] expressed objections to him in an argumentative tone. In reply, Mawlana wrote, ‘we have answered according to our knowledge. If you do not approve, then refer to a scholar whom you trust. Above every man of knowledge, there is someone more knowledgeable.’’

Majalis-e-Hakim al-Ummat,  p. 102-103 (Karachi: Dar al-Isha‘at, Dhu ‘l-Qa‘dah, 1366 AH ed.) compiled by Mufti Muhammad Shafi‘ Usmani.

 

‘Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri On ‘Allamah ‘Abd al-Hayy Lucknowi (May Allah Shower His Mercy Upon Them)

Mawlana Shams al-Haq Afghani (may Allah shower his mercy upon him) related: 

Our teacher Shaykh al-Islam Mawlana Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiri would say: ‘‘Mawlana ‘Abd al-Hayy Lucknowi is dependable in his opinions. However, the reverence for him in my heart is due to his piety (taqwa). One of his students informed me, ‘‘I remained in Mawlana Lucknowi’s company for seven years. In all that time – despite having many opponents – I did not hear him utter a word of ghibah.’’ (Our revered teacher, [‘Allamah Anwar Shah] Kashmiri would say), ‘‘this is a quality which is rare among scholars, let alone the masses.’’ 

Mawlana Anwar Shah Kashmiri Ke ‘Ulum wa Ma‘arif  (Karachi: Dar al-Isha‘at, June 1980 ed.) p. 43-44 by Mawlana Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi, citing Sawanih Hadrat Mawlana Rasul Khan saheb, p8. 

 

Haji Imdad Allah Muhajir Makki On Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi

Haji Imdad Allah Muhajir Makki’s Letter To Shah Rafi al-Din Deobandi

Below is translation of a portion of a letter from Shaykh al-’Ulama’ Haji Imdad Allah Muhajir Makki to Shah Rafi’ al-Din Deobandi ‘Uthmani[1] in which he emphasises his love for Shaykh al-Sunnah Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (may Allah shower them with His mercy) and highlights his dim view of those who bear enmity towards him. The letter is also a manifestation of Haji Imdad Allah’s high level of humility – a quality distinctly found in him and those affiliated to his tariqah. 

Hadrat Haji Imdad Allah writes: ‘‘And that which I have written in favour of Mawlana Rashid Ahmad – by way of divine inspiration (ilham) - in Diya’ al-Qulub is that whoever has devotion and love for this faqir also has love for Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi. And whoever opposes him and is his enemy is also my enemy. From among the brothers[2] of this faqir there is no one who is now superior (fadilat) to Molwi [Rashid Ahmad]. And whosoever claims that this faqir has disconnected himself from mawlana is a liar (kadhdhab). This faqir considers his love for mawlana the means of his salvation. That is all. May salam and du’as be accepted on behalf of all friends. I desire that you ask Allah to lift me up from this world as a believer and that He grants me a good death by His favour and generosity.

And I will also say that I consider Molwi Rashid Ahmad to be in place of my spiritual guide (pir). This faqir has written this letter with great difficulty. Due to my weak eyesight, reading and writing is difficult.” 

End of Dhu ‘l-Hijjah 1305 AH. 

Maktubat-e-Akabir-e-Deoband (Multan: Kutub Khana Majidia) p. 27-28

---

 [1] Shah Rafi’ al-Din Deobandi ibn Mawlana Farid al-Din ‘Uthmani, the second principal of Dar al-’Ulum Deoband, was among the awliya of his age. He was born in Deoband on 29 Ramadhan 1250 AH into a renowned ‘Uthmani family famed for its religiosity, piety and knowledge. Three of his four paternal uncles were martyred in the Battle of Balakot alongside Sayyid Ahmad Shahid (may Allah shower His mercy on them all).

Shah Rafi’ al-Din Deobandi was a khalifah of Mawlana Shah ‘Abd al-Ghani Mujaddidi, the hadith scholar of Delhi. He also received an honorary ijazah in Tasawwuf from Haji Imdad Allah Muhajir Makki. The grand Mufti of Dar al-’Ulum Deoband, Mufti ‘Aziz al-Rahman ‘Uthmani, traversed the path of suluk under his guidance. Mawlana Muhammad Qasim Nanautwi would say regarding him, ”Mawlana Rafi’ al-Din is no less than Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi in spiritual rank; their difference is only in knowledge. Knowledge is there (Mawlana Rashid Ahmad) and not here (Mawlana Rafi’ al-Din)”. [This refers to the fact that although Mawlana Rafi' al-Din  was a man of knowledge, he was not of the same level as Mawlana Rashid Ahmad who was known as a faqih al-nafs. (For an explanation of faqih al-nafs see The Rank Of Recent Hanafi Jurists )].

He migrated to the illuminated city of Madinah in 1306 AH and passed away there two years later on 12 Jumada ‘l-Thaniyah 1308 AH. He lays buried in al-Baqi’ at the feet of his shaykh, Mawlana Shah ‘Abd al-Ghani Mujaddidi, the hadith scholar of Delhi close to the resting place of his ancestor, the Companion of the Prophet Dhu ‘l-Nurayn Sayyiduna ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan (may Allah be pleased with him) (Translator).

 [2] The mashayikh often refer to their murids as brothers rather than murids out of humility.

 

The Excellent Qualities Of Shaykh al-Islam Mawlana Husayn Ahmad Madani (May Allah Shower His mercy Upon Him)

Hadrat Mawlana Muhammad Aslam Shaikhpuri (may Allah protect him) writes: 

”Hadrat Mawlana Khayr Muhammad Jalandhari, who is among the special khalifahs of Mawlana [Ashraf 'Ali] Thanawi, relates: ‘Hadrat Thanawi said regarding Hadrat [Mawlana Husayn Ahmad] Madani in my presence, ‘Our elders of Deoband possess, by the bounty of Allah, some special qualities. Shaykh Madani has, in particular,   two God-given excellent qualities which exist in him to the highest degree. One is mujahadah (striving for the sake of Allah), which no one else has as much as him. The second is humility. Therefore, despite being everything, he considers himself nothing.”      

(Heyrat Angeyz Waqi’at, p. 212, citing Takmilah Al-I’tidal) 

Chalis Barey Musalman (Karachi: Idarat al-Qur’an, November 2000 ed.) Vol. 1, p.513

 

Al-I‘tidal fi Maratib al-Rijal – Book Review by Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani

Al-I‘tidal fi Maratib al-Rijal

 by Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Muhammad Zakariyya

 

Book Review by Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani

 

This is actually a letter that Shaykh al-Hadith wrote in reply to seven questions posed by one of his students. The letter was written when the political fall out between the Muslim League and Congress was at its peak in pre-partition India, and a difference of opinion arose between Mawlana [Ashraf ‘Ali] Thanawi and Mawlana [Husayn Ahmad] Madani. Some Muslims were concerned about which path to choose in this difference between the seniors. Shaykh al-Hadith has explained the legislative (shar‘i) viewpoint of the difference in this letter, and detailed what the general masses should do in such circumstances. Apart from this, the general poor state of Muslims in the political and social arenas, and the issue of the ‘ulama differing has also been included [in this letter]. Shaykh al-Hadith has explained these issues in detail in his special style, which refreshes one’s faith and conviction. The book is actually a review of a temporary political issue. However, due to its encompassing discussions, it is a specific work that is beneficial in all ages.

 

(Rabi‘ al-Thani, 1392 AH)

 

Tabseray, (Karachi: Maktabah Ma‘arif al-Qur’an, Rabi‘ al-Awwal 1426/April 2005 ed.) p. 76

 

A Scholarly Difference Of Opinion?

Question.

Please, comment on the fiqhi standing of the following statement,

“Seeing that there is a scholarly difference of opinion regarding this matter, it is not permissible for anyone to refute one who practices it. As jurists have concurred, it is not permissible to refute that which scholars have differed over. Of course, it is praiseworthy to offer advice so that differences of opinion are avoided.”

Answer:

 In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Assalaamu `alaykum waRahmatullahi Wabarakatoh

It is incorrect to generalize such a statement.
 
Furthermore, who is referred to within the term scholarly? What is the qualification of such scholars? Is it the scholar who studied some Islamic courses by himself or in a university or he studied in a Darul Uloom? What is the nature of the difference and its topic of discussion. What if the difference violates a fundamental principle of Shariah? The Fuqaha have ruled that if a Qazi issues a decree contrary to fundamental principles of deen, it will be rejected. This is also discussed by Imam Bukhari (RA) in the chapter of “Al I’tisaam bil Kitab wal Sunnah” in the thirtieth juz of Bukhari. In today’s time of liberalism, there are many people claiming to be scholars who have very little proper understanding of deen and issue incorrect decrees. We go by the general understanding of such a statement that will lead to presenting a distorted view of deen. It is thus compulsory to reject such views in order to preserve the prestine purity of deen.

And Allah knows best

Wassalam

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Darul Iftaa, Madrassah In’aamiyyah

(Courtesy of Ask Imam)

 

‘Wahhabism’ In India – Truncating History to Sell an Agenda?

Truncating History to Sell an Agenda? 

Written by Husain Al-Qadi

Anyone who saw the first of a new three-part BBC TWO series called “Clash of the Worlds” will have been given the impression that, prior to the arrival of Rev John Midgley Jennings in India in 1852, Indians had welcomed the British with “flowers and open arms” on account of pluralistic interpretations of their faiths.

Midgely Jennings spoilt it for all by attempting to proselytise Christianity in India, which sparked a violent “Wahhabi” Muslim reaction in the person of Sayyid Ahmad.

According to the author and co-presenter of the programme, Charles Allen, “Sayyid Ahmad’s Wahhabism” created Islamic terrorism not only in the 19th century against the British, in the form of the 1857 Mutiny, but it also has a direct connection with acts of violence in the 21st century – including 9/11, 7/7 and plots to blow up aeroplanes at Heathrow in 2006 – through the “Wahhabi” Deobandi tradition. It’s a fascinating story, but is it true?

Myth number one: Anglo-Indian relations were peaceful before Sayyid Ahmad

What the programme confidently omitted to mention was that, long before the arrival of Rev Midgley Jennings in 1852, the British East India Company had been fighting numerous devastating wars in India against Hindu and Muslim rulers including the Battle of Buxar, the Anglo-Maratha Wars (1777-1818), the Battle of Assaye, and the famous four Anglo-Mysore Wars that lasted over three decades.

These were hardly pluralistic or harmonious gestures of coexistence. Rather, they were the results of plain and simple brutal tension between the powers of domination and the dominated. For example, during the siege of Mysore in 1792 the British General, Lord Cornwallis, had forced the Sultan into a temporary treaty to hand over three million pounds and his young sons as hostages. Yet the BBC’s so-called “experts” told us, in order to justify their “global-Wahhabi-threat” theory, that in India the “idea of worlds clashing would not have made sense to anyone”.

Myth number two: Followers of Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab are all “anti-Western”

“Wahhabism” has become the convenient concept by which we can clump together all those aspects of Islam we wish to jettison from history. It is now the ultimate Room 101 for disposing of all that we find uncomfortable with Islam and wish to delete from Muslim consciousness. The problem is that history seldom allows the comprehensive destruction of records. If Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s (1703-1792) version of Islam was so puritanically toxic that it could inspire an anti-British mutiny across the seas in India, why did it not have the same effect on people much closer to him?

For example, his strongest supporters and most ardent followers were the House of Saud. In December 1915, the British government had made the lands of the House of Saud a British protectorate and since then, by and large, the Saudi regime has maintained a cordial relationship with the British, the latest example being King Abdullah’s state visit to Britain last week. There is certainly more to this picture than we have been led to remember. It was with a British stipend of £5000 a month and a steady supply of weapons that the founder of the Kingdom, Abd Al-Aziz ibn Saud, was able to defeat his opponents and galvanise his rule over Arabia.

Myth number three: Sayyid Ahmad was inspired by “Wahhabism”

Anger over the dismantling of historic Muslim monuments and relics in Saudi Arabia by some followers of Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab had given rise to the coining of the term “Wahhabi” in India to describe anything undesirable. Being so, it aptly served those British academics of an imperialist mindset who wanted to undermine Sayyid Ahmad’s freedom fighter credentials to label him a “Wahhabi”. The famous historian W.W. Hunter wrote in his Our Indian Musalmans (1871) that Sayyid Ahmad was a follower of Muhammad ibn abd al-Wahhab and that he was expelled from the Holy city of Makkah during the Hajj.

These allegations have since been proven to be baseless by a number of researchers. Sayyid Ahmad had no contact whatsoever with ibn Abd Al-Wahhab. In fact, at the time of his pilgrimage to Makkah in 1822, there were no “Wahhabi” preachers in those areas for in 1818 the Ottomans had marched on their stronghold in Dariya and killed many members of the Abd al-Wahhab family. The chief of the area, Abdullah the son of Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, was deported to Constantinople and executed. In 1822, the Hijaz area of the Arabian peninsular was devoid of any “Wahhabi” influence.

More importantly, Sayyid Ahmad had launched his campaign for jihad several years before embarking on the pilgrimage. It was Shah Abd Al-Aziz, son of Shah Wali Ullah Dehlawi, who had advised Sayyid Ahmad to go on a country-wide tour in 1818 to raise awareness for his cause. That advice had absolutely nothing to do with Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

Myth number four: Deobandis are all inspired by “Wahhabi” Islam

Charles Allen suggested in the programme that the seminary in Deoband was established by students under the “Wahhabi” influence brought from Arabia to India by Sayyid Ahmad in 1822. If there is one feature through which interpretive traditions in Islam can be identified, it is through their adopted schools of jurisprudence. Schools of jurisprudence in Islam determine the framework parameters within which any given interpreter may function. Principally, in Sunni Islam, there are four major schools of jurisprudence, known as the Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki and Hanbali schools.

These schools are distinguished from one another through their differing approaches to a vast number of issues (though not including basic tenets of creed), which range from methods of praying the daily five prayers to matters of divorce and complex government and financial issues. Rulings of one school are not automatically applicable for a follower of another school unless it is proven to satisfy the interpretive criteria of that specific school. In practice, followers of a particular school will only seek and follow rulings from within their school. The Deobandis are strict followers of the Hanafi school and Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab was a follower of the Hanbali school.

If Deoband Madrasa (seminary) was an institution inspired principally by the mythical “Wahhabism” that requires its follows to denounce all others in an accept-Islam-or-die cult, then it is hard to understand why such an institution would produce the likes of the late Moulana Husayn Ahmad Madani (d.1957), who was Shaikh al-Hadith of Darul Ulum Deoband (the highest professorial position in the seminary) and who declared, very forcefully, in the 1930s:

“The view that Islam is an inflexible religion is beyond my comprehension. To the extent that I can understand its laws, [Islam] can live together with non-Muslims in the same country; it can be at peace with them; it can enter into treaties with them; as well as into commercial transactions, partnerships, tenancy, the exchange of gifts, loans, trusts, etc. Muslims can interact with them, participate in matters of joy and grief, and dine with them…” (Madani, Muttahida Qawmiyyat, p.51).

Another historical fact that demolishes the “Deobandi-Wahhabism” myth of its followers being on the constant prowl to grab swathes of land and colonise them with puritanical regimes, is that Moulana Madani and his fellow Deobandi followers, and including a vast number of other ulama (religious scholars), opposed the creation of the state of Pakistan. Large numbers of Deobandi scholars demanded to live in an undivided, free India.

If these facts are also part of the legacy of Sayyid Ahmad Shahid and the founders of the Deobandi school, which of course they are, then we certainly need to take a more informed look at recent history before trying to join isolated dots from pages in paperbacks and fictional accounts masquerading as historical narrative.

Conclusion

The real question is why are academics, orientalists, policy makers and TV producers fanning the flames of war with 18th and 19th century trickery? Why is the role of the CIA in the Afghan-Soviet war and the role of the Neocon policy makers in the current wars not acknowledged in this flood of rhetoric we hear on Wahhabism and Deobandism? The answer, I suspect, is that somehow they hope to not only win these wars with a decisive victory but also to dispose along with them all those aspects of Islam they find difficult to accept.

By truncating chunks of history and bundling them together with unpleasant realities of the day, it may allow for some Western designed “reformationist” theories to be superficially buttressed and problematic inconveniences to be disposed of in a “Grand Room 101″ of history. Unfortunately however, history has a habit of remaining persistently uncooperative with those who try to exploit it.

 

Aberrations In Tasawwuf And Their Reform

Hadhrat Mawlana Muhammad Manzur Nu’mani, may Allah have mercy on him, writes:

Certainly. Just as in other branches—that is to say, both in aqa’id (beliefs) and in the practices of din— there have, in some circles of the ummah, been both minor and major aberrations. So also the branch of suluk and tasawwuf has not remained safe from error. However, just as Allah Almighty has created godly Ulama and mujtahidin to correct errors in aqa’id and practices, he has also continued to create muhaqqiqin (examiners) among the Sufis to correct errors and deviations in the branch of suluk and tasawwuf.

Particularly in the last three to four centuries the work of reform and revival of tasawwuf that has taken place in India is a first-rate example of the separation of milk from water. Here we have thick volumes of the letters of Imam-e-Rabbani Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani and his son and successor Khwaja Muhammad Mas’sum; the writings and letters of Shah Waliyullah Dehlawi and Qadi Thana’ullah Panipati; and the collected sayings and advice of Sayyid Ahmad Shahid put together by Shah Isma’il Shahid under the name “Sirat al-Mustaqim.”

May Allah shower his mercy on them all.

Thereafter, in this century, we have the booklets and letters of Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullahi ‘alaihi), and most recently of all, a whole library of writings on this subject by Hakim al-Ummah, Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanwi (rahmatullahi ‘alaihi).

These efforts have made tasawwuf clearly visible, and effectively cleared away all the deception and malicious propaganda (against tasawwuf), that if anyone now goes astray on this path, he really has no one to blame except himself.

So, just as it is not right of anyone on the basis of the errors of some parties in aqa’id or practice, to simply get irritated and then cease to pay any attention to aqidah and practice, it is not the right of any person—on account of the errors of some parties in the field of tasawwuf—to cease paying attention to this branch of din, without which a person’s Islam will remain incomplete, and without which he will not find the sweetness of faith.

Din And Shari’at, Zam Zam Publishers, Pages 120-121  [English translation by 'Abd ur Rahman O'Beirne (with minor changes by the editor)]

 

Shah Isma’il Shahid – Glistening Stars From India’s Old Educational Institute In Delhi

Glistening Stars From India’s Old Educational Institute In Delhi
By Justice ʿAllāmah Khālid Maḥmūd
Translated by Mawlānā Abū Zaynab

Translator’s Foreword

Shāh Ismāʿīl Shahīd, the great mujāhid, Ḥanafī and Naqshbandī Ṣūfī, is an extremely misunderstood individual on the World Wide Web. Misconceptions and preconceptions about this individual—who was described, at the time of his death, by the likes of Mawlānā Faḍl-e-Ḥaq Khayrābādī as not just a molwī but rather the ḥakīm (physician) of the Ummah—are abound.

The following is a translation of some writing on the issue by Justice Dr. ʿAllāmah Khālid Maḥmūd. The text has been acquired from an excellent Urdu poster about the Walī Allāh camp, entitled “Glistening stars from India’s old educational institute in Delhi.” Biased individuals, while writing on this subject, have given the impression that many leading scions of the Walī Allāh camp were hostile to Shāh Ismāʿīl Shahīd (may Allāh shower him with His mercy). A thorough reading of the translation below shows otherwise.

This post is not directed at the antagonists of the Akābir of Deoband and their respected elders, but rather presented for the benefit of lay-Deobandīs (and those seeking justice) to gain insight into their shuyūkh and not be swayed by “popular trends” in pseudo-Islāmic thought. In fact many of the quotes mentioned by ʿAllāmah Khālid Maḥmud are from notable scholars, who are projected by these sectarian writers to have viewed Shāh Ismāʿīl Shahīd with disdain. The below demonstrates, with references, how such inferences are not only inaccurate but rather a gross misrepresentation of history. With the dawn of the blessed month, I hope and pray readers keep me close in their heartfelt supplications to the Almighty. ʿAllāmah Khālid Maḥmūd writes:

Ahl al-Bidʿat were against all of the ḥadīth scholars (muḥaddiths)

The Ahl al-Bid’at, who opposed Shāh Ismāʿīl Shahīd, were not only against him, they were, in the same way, also against Shāh Muḥammad Isḥāq. In fact, in terms of Islāmic knowledge, they had rebelled against Ḥaḍrat Shāh Walī Allāh and his entire family.

Before Molwī Aḥmad Raḍa Khān, Molwī Faḍl-e-Rasūl Badāyūnī (d. 1272AH) wrote in his Persian book Al-Bawāriq al-Muḥammadiyya bi Rajmī al-Shayātīn al-Najdiyya (The Muḥammadan Lightning in Striking The Najdī Satans):

The conclusion of everything that Shāh Walī Allāh has written shows that he is against the Ahl al-Sunnat wa al-Jamāʿat. Shāh Walī Allāh’s pious children[1] have not published and distributed these types of books (by Shāh Walī Allāh), and have kept (these books) hidden. It is as if they have veiled those words of their father that were unveiled.

Faḍl-e-Rasūl Badāyūnī worked for the British and his plan against the ḥadīth scholars of Delhi remained unsuccessful. Haḍrat Shāh Walī Allāh was not alone in propagating tawhīd (monotheism) and the sunnat, and opposing shirk and bidʿat. Among his students were famous pious people such as Qāḍī Thanā Allāh Pānīpattī (d.1228AH). His son Haḍrat Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Muḥaddith Dehlawī (d.1239AH), and learned brother Shāh ʿAbd al-Qādir Muḥaddith Dehlawī (d.1230AH), Shāh Rafʿī al-Dīn Muḥaddith Dehlawī (d.1233AH), Shāh Ismāʿīl Shahīd (d.1246AH) and Shāh Muḥammad Isḥāq (d.1262AH) were all of the same maslak (methodology). Their biggest mistake was that they strove hard in support of the noble Ṣaḥābah (may Allah be pleased with them). The Shīʿah did not wish that the Ahl al-Sunnat wa al-Jamāʿat remain united. For them, in order to protect themselves, creating internal disputes among the Ahl al-Sunnat was a major service to their people. Apart from his (Shāh Ismāʿīl Shahīd’s) family there were many other ʿulamā, who had complete faith in this family.

The view of Mawlānā Faḍl-e-Ḥaq Khayrābādī

The words uttered by Mawlānā Faḍl-e-Ḥaq Khayrābādī at the time of Mawlānā Ismāʿil’s death show that the ikhtilāf (difference) that existed between them was only of an academic (ilmi) sort, not of the type that would take one out of the fold of Ahl al-Sunnat.

When Mawlānā Faḍl-e-Ḥaq Khayrābādī heard the news of Mawlānā Ismāʿīl’s martyrdom, he said:

We do not consider Ismāʿīl to be just a molwī but rather the ḥakīm (physician) of the Ummat of Muḥammad (peace be upon him). There was nothing whose love and importance was not in his mind. If Imām Rāzī gained (knowledge) then he did so by inhaling the smoke of a lantern,[2] and Ismāʿīl gained (knowledge) only through his own competence and god given talent.

It can be understood from this that according to Mawlānā Faḍl-e-Ḥaq Khayrābādī, Mawlānā Ismāʿīl was on the truth. It is on account of this understanding that those from among his followers who are worthy of mention always remained connected to this family (the Walī Allāh family) and never allowed differences in masā’il to cause them to sever relations.

Mawlānā Aḥmad Raḍā Khān went to study under Mawlānā Faḍl-e-Ḥaq Khayrābādī’s son, Mawlānā ʿAbd al-Ḥaq Khayrābādī. However, Mawlānā Aḥmad Raḍā Khān returned having become upset with him.

Mawlānā Muʿīn al-Dīn Ajmerī – who is known as the ʿAllamah al-Zamān (The ʿAllamah of the Age) of the Khayrābādī maslak—disagreed with the takfīr of Mawlānā Aḥmad Raḍā Khān and even penned two books against him, Tajalliyāt Anwār al-Muʿallimīn (Divine Manifestations of the Radiances of the Teachers) and Al-Qawl al-Aẓhar (The Clear Word). In Tajalliyāt Anwār al-Muʿallimīn Mawlānā Muʿin al-Dīn has discussed the character of Mawlānā Aḥmad Raḍā Khān in great detail.

It should be noted that none of the other students of Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Shāh Muḥammad Isḥāq supported Mawlānā Aḥmad Raḍā Khān. In defence of Shāh Ismāʿīl Shahīd, they all remained vociferous.

The view of Ṣadr al-Ṣūdūr Delhi Muftī Ṣadr al-Dīn

He wrote:

(I) saw Molwī Ismāʿīl and I never saw anyone like him. These people are those, in whose support the Almighty in chapter four, Surat Al ʿImrān has said…”

(Faḍā’il-e-ʿĀlim Ba-ʿAmal [Virtues of a Practicing Scholar]p.5)

The view of Ṣadr al-Ṣūdūr Molwī ʿAbd al-Qādir Rāmpūrī (d. 1265)

He wrote:

In Delhi, Molwī Ismāʿīl (the son of Molwī ʿAbd al-Ghanī, who was the son of Shāh Walī Allāh Muḥaddith Dehlawī)—who in being well-spoken, deriving rulings from texts and being of a sharp mind was a reminder of his grandfather and uncles—girded his loin in stopping people from bidʿat, which had become mixed into those actions of religion that are mustahab and wājib.”

(Waqāʿi ʿAbd al-Qādir Khānī [Stories of ʿAbd al-Qādir Khānī], Urdu translation, part 2, p. 233)

The view of Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā Rashīd al-Dīn Khān Kashmīrī

Mawlānā Rashīd al-Dīn Khān, one of Kashmir’s revered individuals, was the leading student of Ḥaḍrat Shāh Rafʿī al-Dīn Muḥaddith Dehlawī. He attained a sanad in ḥadīth from Ḥaḍrat Shāh ʿAbd al-Azīz, was an expert (imām-e-fan) in the Rawāfiḍ and a successor of Ḥaḍrat Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. His son Mawlānā Ṣadīd al-Dīn was the student of Shāh Muḥammad Isḥāq. His enormous library was lost during the events of 1857. He said:

We are not as remorseful at having our library looted as we are at losing those footnotes (hāshiyat) that Mawlānā (Shāh Ismāʿīl Shahīd) wrote on religious books.”

(Akmal al-Bayān [The Complete Statement], p702)

The view of Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā Aḥmad al-Dīn Bughawī (d. 1286)

He was one of the senior students of Ḥaḍrat Shāh Muḥammad Isḥāq Dehlawī, however, Ḥaḍrat Shāh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz handed him his sanad. It is mentioned in Ḥadā’iq al-Ḥanafiyyah (The Gardens of the Ḥanafis) (p. 504):

There is none in the Punjab who can escape from being his student. Some are direct, and others are indirect students of his.

He was asked regarding Shāh Ismāʿīl Shahīd. This was the eighth question out of ten. He said:

The warrior who left his homeland and who sacrificed himself in the path of Allāh, Molwī Muḥammad Ismāʿīl. On the outside, he left the world clean and pure… Whoever—with regards to such a distinguished scholar (ʿalim fāḍil) who was a follower of the sunnat—entertains ill thoughts and feels he (Shāh Ismāʿīl Shahīd) has committed kufr then that person is guilty himself of those things. Such a person is a denier of the verses of the Qur’an and the ḥadīths… or the kalimah has simply not transcended his throat.”

(ʿAshr-e-Kāmilah [The Complete Ten], 1272, Fakhr al-Maṭābʿi, Dehli)

The view of Ḥakīm Maḥmūd Aḥmad Barakātī, a follower of the Khayrābādī maslak

Shāh Muḥammad Ismāʿīl was a brilliant ʿalim. He was strict, had sharp memory, was well versed in the sciences, he understood delicate issues, was of lofty character and was god fearing. His entire life was like that of the pious and chosen ones. In great prestige he handed his life over to He who takes and with such eagerness did he answer the call for martyrdom that from the heart of every believer a voice can be heard saying: ‘Allāh is the greatest, this is something worthy of attaining.

(Ḥayāt Shāh Muḥammad Isḥāq Muḥaddith Dehlawī [The Life of Shah Muhammmad Ishaq Muḥaddith Dehlawī], p38 )

——————————————————————————–

[1] Translator: Molwī Faḍl-e-Rasūl is being sarcastic here                                                                                                                                                                      [2] Translator: An Urdu metaphor alluding to spending time at night under the lantern studying

 

Murdoch’s Neocon Attack on a Quarter Billion Muslims

Murdoch’s Neocon Attack on a Quarter Billion Muslims

By Husain Al-Qadi

Ramadan arrived in Britain this year in a week when the Murdoch media empire intensified its attacks on Muslims in general and on those who follow the Deobandi school of thought in particular.

Murdoch’s Times newspaper ran a series of scaremongering articles which attempted to paint a picture of Islam as a “suicide cult” and the Deobandis as an obscure “sect” that got lucky by taking control of mosques in Britain “away from the Barelwis”.

So who is Murdoch and who is this “dangerous sect” of Deobandis and these “nice guy” Barelwis?

Rupert Murdoch

Most people know about Murdoch’s satellites, which deliver TV programmes in five continents, his 175 newspapers (including the New York Post and the London Times), his Twentieth Century Fox studio, Fox Network, and its 35 TV stations (his cable channels include Fox News and 19 regional sports channels). But what many seem to forget is that he is also a hard-core Neocon supporter of Israel, who played a major role in turning public opinion in favour of invading Iraq.

Mr Murdoch was unequivocal about war with Iraq:

We can’t back down now. I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly, and I think he is going to go on with it.

He said the price of oil would be one of the war’s main benefits.

The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country.

 Mr Murdoch’s comments come just a week after he told US Fortune magazine that war could fuel an economic boom.

Who knows what the future holds? I have a pretty optimistic medium and long-term view but things are going to be pretty sticky until we get Iraq behind us. But once it’s behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else”

he told Fortune. (The Guardian, 12.02.03).

The attacks by his Times newspaper is not the first on Muslim scholars of the Deobandi school of thought. Last year, Murdoch’s Star TV Network tried to entrap Muslim scholars in India with gifts and accusations of bribery. Later it was discovered that his reporter had misled the scholars under false pretences and then misrepresented conversations in his reports.

Deobandis and Barelwis

In the Times articles there were repeated, disparaging references to Deobandis, contrasted with highly-favourable statements about Barelwis. So who are the Deobandis?

A conservative estimate on the number of Deobandis around the world today puts it somewhere between 200 and 270 million. Although the name is taken from a village where a seminary was established in 1867 to protect traditional Muslim learning from interference by the British Raj, the term “Deobandi”, as a name for a school of thought, emerged much later in response to the polemics of the theologian Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi in the 1890s and early twentieth century.

During the establishment of the Indian seminary Nadwatul Ulama, which was set up to reform the madrasa curriculum and unite the various Muslim factions in India, a dispute developed which led to this division. Initially, Ahmad Riza Khan supported the idea of Nadwatul Ulama, and wrote hopefully that

in the era full of misfortune, in which the affliction of bad-mazhabi surrounds us and the plague of freedom has conquered the world, the Nadwatul Ulama…would strengthen the Ahl-e-Sunnat, and dispel turmoil”

(Muhammad Hasan Riza Khan (1895), Sawalat Haqaiq Numa ba Ruasa Nadwatul Ulama, Badayn; Victoria Press. p.2)

As the movement developed, Ahmad Riza Khan tried to convince those involved to restrict membership to his particular school of thought (Matubat-e-Imam Ahmad Riza Barelwi, 1986, p. 88-102) and he wrote private letters to the leader of the project, Moulana Mohammad Ali Mongeri, to this effect.

Eventually, he found the Nadwa movement too liberal in its approach to Muslim unity and decided to launch a campaign against the movement and all those involved with a series of theological and personal attacks. His campaign involved, for the first time in the history of Islam, a concept of “automatic takfir” or “default apostasy”, which was declared on anyone who doubted (man shakka) the kufr (apostasy) of the long list of Muslim scholars with whom he disagreed.

His 1903 fatwa compilation entitled Husam al-Haramyn (The Sword of the Two Holy Places) declared that, among others, all of the scholars of Deoband (the institution which had by then served the Muslims of India for almost four decades as one of the most distinguished and vibrant places of Islamic scholarship in the subcontinent), all of the scholars of the Nadwatul Ulama movement, all of the scholars of the Ahl-e-hadith movement, and the Nechiriyya (Sir Sayyid Ahmad and all those in his Alighar Muslim University movement) were apostates without doubt.

These scholars and their followers were to be excommunicated from the fold of Islam in the absolute sense.

Ahmad Riza Khan declared:

It is fard (obligatory) on everyone to stay away from such a person. He must be despised and scoffed at and refuted. Any respect shown to him is not only haram (prohibited) but will amount to the demolition of the foundation of Islam. It is haram to greet him, to sit or eat and drink with him. The conclusion of any marriage contracts is also haram: it will amount to pure adultery. Such a person should not be visited even if he is sick. Participation in the funeral of such a person, washing him according to the shari’ah law, to shoulder his dead body, to bury him in a Muslim burial place, to stand alongside his grave and make supplication for his salvation or the offering of the Fatihah to the departed soul – all are not merely haram – but acts of (kufr) apostasy.

(Irfan-e-Shariyat, p.39)

The prayers of such people were also null and void

since their prayer is not real prayer, no prayer is allowed behind them. On occasions like Friday and Eid, if there is no Imam available other than these apostates, it is obligatory on every Muslim to forsake and abandon the Friday and Eid prayers.”

(Ahkam-e-Shariyat, Vol.1, p.129)

In responding to these serious charges, the scholars of Deoband were distinguished from the Barelwis (Ahmad Riza Khan and his followers) and hence the naming of these two camps as “Deobandis” and “Barelwis”. In recent times, however, scholars from both sides have tried to bridge the gap of misunderstanding, especially in the Muslim diaspora.

Neocons and 21st Century Barelwis

So why are Murdoch and his Neocon friends so keen to promote the Barelwis and target the Deobandis? There are several reasons for this, the first being historic. The Deobandis always maintained their independence from the state during the British Raj in India. Unlike the Barelwis, the Deobandis were also at the forefront of the freedom movement for Indian independence. The calculation is that, given this history, the Deobandis would be less likely to accept any Neocon programmes of interference in Muslim social affairs.

The second reason is strategic. By reviving and promoting a school of thought that excommunicates almost all other streams of Islamic scholarship with the charge of apostasy, they would be able reduce the chances of unity among Muslims in defiance of their programmes of interference. If Muslims are united against their interventions, which are designed to undermine faith in Islam, then the task will be much more difficult. So it is better to promote people who can exclude large swathes of the community through doctrinal edicts.

The third reason is the enthusiasm nowadays of people like Haras Rafiq (who claim to speak for the Barelwis) to accept and promote, on the one hand, Neocon inspired “advice” such as, “instead of speaking out against atrocities in Palestine and Iraq, Muslims in the UK should occupy themselves only with ‘lifestyle discussions’” and, on the other hand, their willingness to exhume a century-old, rancorous pronouncement by Ahmad Riza Khan of apostasy against the Deobandis for political gain.

Waking Up to Pie in Sky

For those who may be inclined to take the pronouncements and editorial dictates of Mr Murdoch as gospel, it would be useful to bear in mind that this is the man who constructed public opinion through his newspapers and the Fox News Network for the war on Iraq with promises of a $20 barrel of oil. Yesterday, the price of oil closed at a record-high of more than $80 a barrel and the world economy continues to jitter on a knife edge while the death toll on all sides continues to spiral in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Deobandis and Barelwis may have their differences, but for Mr Murdoch to assume that he can exploit these to excommunicate or simply “wish into non-existence” a quarter of a billion (Deobandi) Muslims through biased media speculation, or even by force of war, is as much pie in the sky as a $20 barrel of oil today.

The sooner the world wakes up to these realities, the better it would be for all concerned. If not, we are likely to be faced with a future of even more catastrophic wars based on wishful thinking with dire consequences for all of us.

Ramadan Mubarak