An article contributed by Maulana Abu Zaynab.
The Great Medinan Scholar Shaykh Abdul Qadir Tawfiq al-Shalabi al-Tarablusi al-Hanafi on Molwi Ahmed Radha Khan
Foreword
In this era of confusion, many western Muslims call for reconciliation between the Barelwis and the Deobandis. The Arab ulama, and those westerners that have studied at their feet, are looked upon as a source of inspiration in bridging this gap.
The proposition is interesting. However, one wonders how well these western and Middle Eastern Muslims actually understand the Barelwi-Deobandi divide. This is especially the case since most of the writings surrounding the subject are in Urdu, a language generally only understood by people with roots in the Indo-Pak subcontinent.
Nevertheless, it is important that we earnestly and sincerely listen to all our non-sub-continental Ulama on this particular topic. One such individual is Shaykh Abdul Qadir Tawfiq al-Shalabi al-Tarablusi al-Hanafi, who hailed from the Libyan city of Tarablus and was resident in Medina when Molwi Ahmed Radha Khan came to the Hejaz to elicit his notorious fatwa against the Ulama of Deoband.
On a trip to Medina in 1363AH, Faqih al-Ummat Mufti Mahmud al-Hasan al-Gangohi met Shaykh Abdul Qadir who interestingly narrated his version of events and his impressions of Molwi Ahmed Radha Khan. Incidentally, Faqih al-Ummat was the Khalifa of Hadhrat Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Muhammad Zakariyya al-Kandalawi and former Grand Mufti at Darul Uloom Deoband.
As Molwi Ahmed Radha Khan’s contemporary and someone we can all assume to be neutral in the true sense, the words of Shaykh Abdul Qadir strike a particular resonance in this day and age. Through an impartial Middle Eastern scholar, many Deobandis are able to fully appreciate and confer the opinions of their elders regarding Molwi Ahmed Radha Khan and not be misled by contrary opinions that allude that the Akabir were perhaps “mistaken”.
Shaykh Abdul Qadir was not the only non-Salafi shaykh to voice concerns about Molwi Ahmed Radha Khan. Interestingly, Shaykh Sayyid al-Barzanji, the Grand Mufti of the Shafi’i’s in Medina, who was also an impartial Middle Eastern scholar and contemporary of Molwi Ahmed Radha Khan, wrote a book against Radha Khan entitled “Ghayat al-Mamul fi Ilm Ghayb al-Rasul”.
Abu Zaynab
Mufti Mahmud al-Hasan Gangohi narrates:
When I visited Medina for the first time in 1363AH, a person from Bukhara introduced me to Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Tarablusi. Shaykh Abdul Qadir asked me: “Do the serious differences that used to exist between Molwi Ahmed Radha Khan and the Ulama of Deoband still continue?”
I replied: “Where is Tarablus? And where is India? How do you know of this? What do you know of the differences between Molwi Ahmed Radha Khan and the Ulama of Deoband?”
He replied: “It’s been some time. Molwi Ahmed Radha Khan brought some Urdu texts to me. He attributed them to the Ulama of Deoband and sought a fatwa. I told him that the texts were in Urdu, which I didn’t know, and so how could I possibly issue a fatwa. He said he would translate them into Arabic for me, so I asked him how that could be possible when he is the claimant. How could his translations be accepted? He then convinced a student of mine to translate the texts into Arabic, which he did.”
Shaykh Abdul Qadir continues: “At that, I issued a fatwa with certain conditions that if these writings are those of the Ulama of Deoband, that these are the meanings of these texts (as explained by Molwi Ahmed Radha Khan), that the preceding and succeeding texts do not show the meanings to be otherwise, and that these are the authors’ intentions then these texts lead to disbelief. After that, Molwi Ahmed Radha Khan’s book “Husam Al-Haramain” (Sword of the Two Sanctuaries) was published. I looked at my fatwa inside there, it had been altered. My words had been changed and from this I realized that this man (Molwi Ahmed Radha Khan) was not from the people of trust (Ahl al-Diyanat).”
Malfudhat Faqih al-Ummat, Volume 2, Page 333
Translated by Abu Zaynab
Pearls of the Elders 
April 3, 2007 at 3:19 pm
[…] Molwi Ahmed Radha Khan among the Arab Ulama Jump to Comments Pearls of the Elders […]
April 4, 2007 at 3:29 am
That’s interesting I guess, but the thing with these kinds of polemics is that both sides can easily show similar statements of support.
Jazak Allahu khayr for posting this.
April 4, 2007 at 3:08 pm
“That’s interesting I guess, but the thing with these kinds of polemics is that both sides can easily show similar statements of support.
Jazak Allahu khayr for posting this.”
This is true but it should be remembered that Shaykh Tarablusi was a signatory to Molwi Ahmed Radha Khan’s fatwa, which he then revoked. This is documented. His words hold a particular weight.
In the biography of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni, Cherag-e-Muhammad, his biographer, Maulana Zahid Husayni, mentions details about Sheikh Sayyid al-Barzanji’s book. The following are translations taken from an article by Karim Abdullah of the UK and published on the internet:
“Finally, the Chief Mufti of the Shafi’i’s in Madinah al-Munawwara also wrote a book against Ahmad Rida Khan once the reality of his treachery against the Ulama of Deoband, Makkah and Madinah came to light. The full details behind this are mentioned in the book: Cherag-e-Muhammad by Shaykh Zahid al-Husayni. Details are found in an another article. The Mufti in question was Sayyid Ahmad al-Barzanji, who was one of the Ulama who initially signed in favor of Rida Khan’s Husam al-Haramayn. Let us repeat the details behind Sayyid Barzanji’s book and the Ulama who testified against Rida Khan.
Ghayatul Ma’mul fi Ilm Ghayb al-Rasul of Sayyid Barzanji was written in refutation of Ahmad Rida Khan’s views on Ilm al-Ghayb (Knowledge of the Unseen) possessed by the Holy Prophet – sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. Here are some quotes from this book.
On page 28, Shaykh Barzanji said that Raza Khan was: “One who stuck to his deviant beliefs because of his stubbornness and animosity…”
Also on the same page: “(He) acknowledges himself to be a scholar, whereas the thing he claims for himself (ilm) was never given to him….”
“His ta’weel and tahreef (interpretation and wilful changing of the truth) is an example of extreme treachery and obvious ignorance..”
“He (Rida Khan) is an ignoramus…”
These statements were conferred also by the following Ulama:
i) Shaykh Abdal Qadir Tawfiq al-Shalabi al-Tarablusi al-Hanafi, who later resided in Madinah al-Munawwara. He added on page 33 that Rida Khan was a “quarrel monger” and his (Rida Khan): “Beliefs are a pile of lies, false allegations and completely against religious teachings…”
ii) Shaykh Fatih al-Tahiri, Muhaddith and Faqih of the Maliki’s declared Rida Khan to be: “One who strives to create dissension….” and : “Is one of those people who follow their low bestial desires and whatever Shaytan pours in their heart….”
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/printthread.php?t=4403&page=15&pp=40
http://darulislam.info/forum/showpost.php?p=4580&postcount=7
April 4, 2007 at 7:12 pm
quite interesting but, the fact that all this info is from a deobandi scholar and the issue being discussed is the “brlwi/deo conflict” makes one wonder how truthful or balanced it could be.?
http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=3508
if trying to prove Imam Ahmad Rida (RA) was wrong to give such fatwas, is all that matters…..then there’s only one thing i can say………our efforts in the cause of islam is to please allah s.w.t and his beloved s.a.w, if it is for other than that then deware of RIYA.
Abu Unaysah: We can say the same for all statements made by Barelwi scholars and for all discourse on barelwi forums as well then?
April 4, 2007 at 8:15 pm
InshaAllah truth will flourish eventually.
The fraud and deception of Molwi Ahmad Raza Khan sahib is evident to all neutral individuals.
Even the Jordan based American Sheikh Nuh Ha mim Keller has raised serious doubts about Molwi Ahmad Raza Khan’s misintepretations and transalations of Deobandi text and totally rejected his notoriuos fatwa of Hussam al Haramain as being against basic the Hanafi fiqh rulings.
April 4, 2007 at 8:31 pm
don’t get me wrong my dear brother, my intention is not to get into a discussion on the brlwi/deo issue. yes, and i say the same to them too.
Imam Ahmad Rida (RA) and the deobandi elders are all long gone, islam does not revolve around them, nor is any one of their opinions on any issue an evidence for us, but a guidance. we can either follow their guidance or throw it on the wall.
we are ahlus sunnah hanafi and maturidi. NOT deobandi or barelwi!! why are we too stubborn to let go of deoband and barelwi and adhere to the teachings of ahlus sunnah scholars before any of these two existed.??
what are we afraid of.?
I hope inshallah you won’t label me as a barelwi, when i said the same to a barelwi he called me a wahabi.
my parents brought me up in an uniquely neutral stance, never restricting me from a particular group or ever expecting me to remain with any particular group.
It wasn’t until i was very mature,that i discovered this issue and what a barelwi or deobandi was.
I gained most of my understanding of ahlus sunnah from non-indopak scholars……..and now find myself leaning more towards the barelwi’s, but no! i am not a barelwi….but i do have some love and respect for the giant star of islamic scholarship in indo-pak region Imam Ahmad Rida (RA).
ps. it wasn’t only Imam Ahmad Rida (RA) who spoke against the deobadi elders, faruqi mureeds did too.
April 4, 2007 at 8:38 pm
brother basair; if the deobandi’s alter the text in their books as frequently as the christians do with their bible, NOBODY will ever know what was in the original text.
Abu Unaysah: Brother, please back this statement with reliable evidence, or else, refrain from making such outlandish claims.
I am not gonna argue with you on this issue, that is not why i’m on here. May Allah guide both parties to the truth and unity. inshallah.ameen.
April 5, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Can someone provide evidence for the existence of the book Ghayatul Ma’mul fi Ilm Ghayb al-Rasul. No one but the deobandis seem to mention this book.
Abu Unaysah: Barelwis are not going to mention it for obvious reasons. It was published and distributed throughout India. Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni (ra) has mentioned in his Autobiography that Maulana Mansoor Ali Rampuri (ra) was one of the main people behind it’s publication.
April 6, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Assalamu’alaykum
Just for the record, the article was written for the benefit of Deobandis. It is pretty obvious that Barelwis or those that sympathise with them were never going to be pleased with the article.
I personally had no desire to write about or discuss Barelwis on the blog when I created it but there remains a concerted effort on Barelwi websites and forums to continually attack, slander and belittle our Akaabir. Infact, it would seem that they are somewhat obsessed with spreading their malicious propaganda. It seems that many are extremely bitter and jealous at the acceptance that the efforts and scholarly works (especially in the field of Hadith) of the Akaabir have gained amongst the Arab ‘Ulama.
The article was for the benefit of those who have an attachment to the Akaabir so that they were made aware of what Mufti Mahmood al-Hasan Gangohi had heard directly from someone who was originally a signatory to Maulana Ahmad Ridha Khan’s fatwa and who met and conversed with him.
We must also remember that Maulana Ahmad Ridha Khan proved himself very intolerant when it came to differences of opinion. He not only made Takfeer of the Akaabir of Deoband but he had already made takfeer of the ‘Ulama of Nadwah. He also considered the Ahl al-Hadith to be kaafir (as he mentiones in his Fatawaa) and even referred to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad as an apostate.
It’s very strange that Salafis are criticised for their ‘Takfeeri’ attitude when it is quite clear that most Barelwis are no different in terms of blasting Kufr onto certain sections of the Muslim Ummah.
I was initially very hesitant in posting the article on the blog as I felt that it would be a lack of Adab on my part. The intention was not to attack but merely to point out undeniable facts. However, this is extremely sober and tame compared to what has been written about our Akaabir. A visit to any Barelwi forum will confirm that.
April 6, 2007 at 9:33 pm
“we are ahlus sunnah hanafi and maturidi. NOT deobandi or barelwi!! why are we too stubborn to let go of deoband and barelwi and adhere to the teachings of ahlus sunnah scholars before any of these two existed.??”
“Abd Al Mustafa”, why should we have to let go of some extremely beneficial works by the likes of Hakim al-Ummah Mawlana Thanawi and Faqih al-Ummah Rashid Gangohi just because others accuse them of horrible things? Imam al-A’zam Abu Hanifah received incredible amounts of criticism in his time and after, but nobody advocates abandoning his work.
[By the way, what is the opinion on scholars (other than Deobandi or Barelwi) on the usage of the name “Abd al-Mustafa”?]
April 7, 2007 at 1:08 am
Assalamu Alaikum,
my dear brother i understand where you are coming from and i didn’t intend to start up a debate when i posted on your blog.
I have been a member of both deobandi and barelwi forums, and now find myself running away from both.
Neither parties have actually sat down peacefully and with proper adaab in order to try and resolve this problem…….there’s been debates but they never have brought any solution to any of the problems/conflicts…….so i’ll leave both you guys and them to continue with your fatwa wars.
dear mujahid,what i meant by letting go of them was basically neither group is a madhaab but it seems as though they are and muslims are adhering to these groups as if they were madhaabs.
As for the name abd al-mustafa according to shaykh gibril its fine and according to shaykh gibril scholars of ahlus sunnah are ok with it. http://www.livingislam.org/n/riiz_e.html
thanx for entertaining me, truly i didn’t mean any offence. wassalaam,
April 7, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Assalamu’alaykum
I will not be commenting any further on this entry, Insha’allah. The article was posted in all sincerity. However, I have just read a beautiful piece on Maulana Bilal Ali’s blog. This piece highlights the exemplary Adab and character of our Akaabir (may Allah have mercy on them all) and is a lesson for us all. I would like to thank Maulana Bilal Ali for bringing this article to light.
Taken from http://attalib.blogspot.com/
Allamah Rashid Ahmad Gangohi’s Character with Maulana Ahmed Ridha Khan.
Hadhrat Maulana’s Akhlaq:
”Hadhrat Maulana used to be very tolerant. Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi was a contemporary of Hadhrat Maulana. In his writings, very often he would condemn Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (Rahmatullahi Alayhi) with very rude and harsh words.
The friends and associates of Hadhrat Maulana were waiting for the order or instruction of Maulana to reply to Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan. They just waited an indication and they were prepared to give a detailed answer to Ahmad Raza Khan.
One can imagine that if he was put in the same situation where someone is attacking him, attacking his personality and his integrity as though he is the worst of creation. This was the expression of Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan’s about Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (Rahmatullahi Alayhi) through his writings. Despite this, all Maulana would say is “Don’t respond.”
Normally, when a person condemns one, he has the fervor to show a point to that person. Thereafter he would take out all the time apply all his energies to give a word for word response to that person. But what is that for? It is only to cool the nafs down and to satiate the nafs.
Hadhrat Maulana’s approach was different. In spite of his hurt he said, “Don’t respond”. In fact he even said that by responding, you are wasting your time as well because Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan would not listen.
When one person is condemning another and he will not listen to the response, then what is the point in responding? The enemy will be even more cheerful. He will be doing all this to pierce the heart of the enemy and yet it doesn’t even prickle him.
If one only knew that all of his energies have been exerted to hurt his enemy and later he comes to know that it never even pierced him, he just took the paper and threw it in the dirt bin, how would one feel then? This is just the right thing to do and this is exactly what Hadhrat Maulana did.
He did not follow his nafs. He exercised restraint. This is a very good and beautiful example for us. At one stage, he mentioned when a person asked him permission to respond to Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan, “Instead of responding to Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan on my behalf and giving him answers, you rather sit in one corner and make zikr. That time that you will use making zikr of Almighty Allah will be more beneficial in relation to responding to Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan where you will not even benefit at all.” How appropriate an answer! How often do we abuse our time in things that do not benefit us?
Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan became ill with leprosy. Many people became happy and they felt that this was the azaab and punishment of Allah Ta’ala upon Ahmad Raza Khan for swearing at Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (Rahmatullahi Alayhi). However, when Maulana heard that Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan became ill with leprosy, there were signs of sadness on his face.
One should sit back and think that if he were to hear bad news regarding his archenemy, how would he respond? Immediately he would think, very good very good. However, this was not the response of Hadhrat Maulana. Hadhrat Maulana showed signs of displeasure and disappointment on his face. He further mentioned to his friends and associates “When someone is in pain and difficulty, one shouldn’t get happy.” He even said, “Only Allah knows what our final hour and end will be.” What is the point of laughing at someone? Will one be certain that at the end he will laugh? What if his condition is worse than his enemies? It would be premature to laugh at someone even though one disagrees with that person.”
April 7, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Jazak Allahu khayr for that beatiful story.
Abd Al Mustafa, sorry, I wasn’t trying to be argumentative either, I think it’s just the fact that tone cannot be conveyed on the internet. I see your point about people adhering to these groups as if they were madhahib. It may be because Deobandis have a unique approach in the Hanafi madhhab that people may like.
April 7, 2007 at 7:07 pm
salaam alaikum,
What are the sources for any of these stories. The book in the original post is nowhere to be found. Can anyone link me to a copy?
Wassalaam
Abu Unaysah: The Malfuzat of Mufti Mahmud al-Hasan Gangohi (ra) have been published in three volumes by Dar al-Huda (Karachi, Pakistan.) I’m not aware of any link online. Availability of the book will depend on where you are in the world.
April 11, 2007 at 2:35 pm
With all due respect, how can we be sure that the conversation between Mufti Mahmud al-Hasan Gangohi and Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Tarablusi ever took place?
Do we have to take the muftis word for it or is there a fatwa from Shaykh Abdul Qadir where he has said this?
Abu Unaysah – Mufti Mahmud al-Hasan sahib (ra) was probably the most senior khalifah of Hadhrat Shaykh al-Hadith Maulana Muhammad Zakariyya (ra) and was definitely not a liar. A brother has already posted other quotes by Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Tarablusi above.
April 14, 2007 at 11:35 am
dear sunni student, what you fail to comprehend is that;
Mufti Mahmud al-Hasan sahib (ra) was probably the most senior khalifah of Hadhrat Shaykh al-Hadith Maulana Muhammad Zakariyya (ra)……….so it is absolutely impossible that he could lie, infact it is absolutely impossible that he could even make an error.
be a good student and make a note of that..fi amanillah!
Abu Unaysah: Why the Sarcasm and/or twisting of words?
January 1, 2010 at 10:14 am
Aslam Aleikum,
At we suffering from a very weak condition, so we can’t afford any bitter difference among ourselves. Let us set aside our difference and promote only the things which can develop and strengthen our unity. Jazakum Allah Khair!
April 27, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Have you edited the Deobandi Aqida Book ‘Al-Muhannad’ and Where Can I get a Copy?
May 16, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Please give me the revoked fatwas of sheikh abdul kadir shalaabi and maulana barzanji and where i can find these revoked fatwas. jazakallah
May 20, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Assalamu’alaykum
Shaykh as-Sayyid Ahmad al-Barzanji endorsed Al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad. His lengthy testification can be found in there. (Please refer to Comment 17)
I do not know about Shaykh Abd al-Qadir Tarablusi. I do know that he retracted his fatwa verbally almost immediately after the publication of Maulana Ahmad Ridha Khan’s Husam al-Haramayn, when he realised that he had been decieved.
May 21, 2007 at 2:43 am
Assalamualaykum,
“Incidentally, Faqih al-Ummat was the Khalifa of Hadhrat Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Muhammad Zakariyya al-Kandalawi and former Grand Mufti at Darul Uloom Deoband.”
I am a bit confused here, I thought Mufti Mahud al-Hasan, also referred to as Shaykhul Hind was a senior to Hazrat Shaikh Zakariyya (rah. a). Is the gentleman referred to here, somebody else who came later? My impression is from Aap Beti, where the Mufti Mahmudul Hasan, Shaykh Husain Ahmed Madani and another gentleman is mentioned in connection to their efforts to fight the British. My memoery is a bit vague. But would you please clarify?
Allah give us help and guidance.
May 21, 2007 at 2:58 pm
There are two Mahmud Hasans. One is the senior one, known as Shaykh al-Hind Mawlana Mahmud al-Hasan Deobandi (rahimahullah). He is senior to Hadhrat Shaykh Mawlana Muhammmad Zakariyyah (rahimahullah) and was the khalifa of Mawlana Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi, although he was also granted the same by Haji Imdadullah Saheb.
The other Mahmud Hasan is Hadhrat Mawlana Mufti Mahmud Hasan Saheb Gangohi (rahimahullah), who was the head of Darul Ifta at Darul Uloom Deoband and passed away in 1996 in Johannesburg, South Africa. He was the Khalifa of Hadhrat Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhalawi (rahimullah).
His khalifas include Mufti Ibrahim Desai from Askimam.com.
May 21, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Wa’alaykum salam
Apologies for the repetition but I had already composed this and have therefore added it along with Maulana Abu Zaynab’s comments …
There are two Mahmud al-Hasan’s.
The first is Shaykh al-Hind Maulana Mahmud Hasan Deobandi, who as you say, was Hadhrat Shaykh Zakariyya’s senior. He was the first student of Darul ‘Uloom Deoband. He was later appointed as Shaykh al-Hadith of Darul ‘Uloom. His Shuyookh include Maulana Qasim Nanautwi, Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi & Haji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki.
His students include the likes of ‘Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri, ‘Allamah Shabbir Ahmad ‘Uthmani, Hakeem al-Ummah Maulana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanwi, Maulana ‘Ubaidullah Sindhi and of course, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni.
He was also at the forefront of the liberation struggle.
The second is Faqeeh al-Ummat Mufti Mahmud al-Hasan Gangohi, who is being referred to in this blog entry. He was Hadhrat Shaykh Zakariyya’s junior. He was a graduate of Darul ‘Uloom Deoband and was later appointed Grand Mufti of Darul ‘Uloom Deoband. He also had the good fortune of teaching Imam al-Bukhari’s Sahih at Darul ‘Uloom.
He received khilafat from Hadhrat Shaykh Zakariyya.
Mufti Ebrahim Desai of the Ask Imam site is his student and Khalifah. Mufti Mahmud al-Hasan Gangohi passed away only 11 years ago. Check the link below for more information.
http://www.almahmood.org/muftimahmood.html
May 24, 2007 at 2:11 am
Assalamualaykum,
Thank you very much, may Allah reward you in this world and the next. It is always a pleasure to know about these illustrious elders and draw inspiration from them.
June 16, 2007 at 1:35 am
Assalamualaikum,
The accusations against the Ulama-e-Haq by the Barelwis has been answered here.
http://www.sunnitorrents.com/viewtopic.php?t=4964
July 10, 2007 at 12:51 am
it is amazing how much **** you dirty deobandis can speak all at once. i could smell your stinky breath all the way from my computer desk.
any way i can carry on swearing at you kafirs but whats the point, as i remember the ayat of the quran surah baqrah sumun bukmun fa hum la yarjioon (they are deff dumb and belind and they shall not return).
Could kafirs please stop spreading falsehood to inoccent people. First know what you are talking about you dogs of hell. Insulters of the prophet. you kufrness is so clear that if someone has doubt that you are kafir that makes them kafir too.
explain to me how you believe:
that prophet SAW is dead.
he dint have knowlege of the unseen.
he isnt hazir and nazir.
tell Abu Zaynab the ******* im just a kid, and he is supposed to be concidred as a moula*a, to open his eyes and mail me back. you shall be asked on judjement day.
you got my email adress mail me.
watch on the day of judjement when prophet SAW be’s giving his mercy to his humble servats you’ll be recieving his lanat.
* Edited for vulgar language.
July 11, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Assalam o Alaikum
Is it not the tone in the last comment that clarifies the sincerity of the poster.
I urge all who have reservations about Ahmed Radha Khan Sahib’s academic dishonesty, to please please pick up the “Hussam al Haramain” and compare it with the original texts.. simple!
Walaikum Assalam
Abuhajira
July 13, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Assalam u alaikum br. Saeed,
Sadly, the kind of comments you have posted is not something new for me now…
Many (not all) of you guys seem to have no Adab whatsoever. You don’t hesitate for even one second from labelling us Kafirs and saying whatever comes to mind about us.Astaghfirullah…
I urge you to go pick up a book on the manners/Adaab of our beloved Prophet (Sallahu ‘Alayhi Wassalam) and read how he treated others around him.
As for your specific issues, even though these might have been explained a million times before by our ‘Ulama, here’s briefly:
1) Rasulullah (Sallahu ‘Alayhi Wassalam) is alive in his grave. When we make Salam near his grave, he hears us directly. We can ask him for his intercession and also to make D’ua for us for any issue whatsoever. We can use his Wasilah while making D’ua ourselves too.
2) Rasulullah (Sallahu ‘Alayhi Wassalam) definitely had knowledge of the unseen which was given to him by Allah Ta’ala. He was given more knowledge than the entire creation and was given knowledge of the Tablet and the Pen.
3) As I said above, Rasulullah (Sallahu ‘Alayhi Wassalam) is alive in his grave. he witnesses the actions of the Ummah via the angels informing him/telling him and also makes Du’a for us. As for your specific interpretation of Hazir and Nazir, I suggest you read/contact an authentic (Deobandi) scholar/book and enlighten yourself. That is, if you even consider our scholarship. I am not a scholar so I can’t answer why.
May Allah guide you to the straight path.
July 17, 2007 at 5:02 pm
To: Respected brother who runs this blog
assalamu’ alaikum,
As a sincere well-wisher, I would advice against posting vitriolic e-mails by people such as “saeed” (may Allah make him so) since it serves no purpose but rather hurts us to read such statements about our elders.
Jazak Allah.
July 17, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Wa ‘alaykum Salam Brother Imran.
I understand where you are coming from. It is certainly very hurtful to read such comments. I apologise for this.
The reason I put it up was to highlight the mainstream view of those who oppose our Akabir and to make people aware of exactly what we are dealing with.
It is not just misunderstanding or difference of opinion, but as shown by Brother Saeed and many others it is nothing but hatred directed at the Noble ‘Ulama of Deoband.
I believe that a young person such as Brother Saeed cannot have such extreme views unless he is taught so, directly or indirectly, by his Elders. This to me is extremely unfortunate.
July 18, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Assalamu ‘Alaikum Brother Abu Unaysah,
Yes, it is indeed very sad and unfortunate that a new crop of Barelvis has appeared on the scene whose rancor and vitriol rivals that of their great leaders, as one simply needs to look at their websites and message boards. But is it really a departure from the Barelvism of the past, which can be best summed up as “a reactionary movement to the teachings of Darul Uloom Deoband”? The simple answer is no. They have done well to maintain that tradition, which sadly is the only tradition they have maintained in its pristine purity. Alright, enough with the sarcasm!
With all of this being said, I will STILL give Maulana Ahmad Rida his due right and call him a Maulana since he was an ‘alim after all, but I can never come to terms with the fact that he is responsible for creating this mindset among the Barelvis through the well-calculated, hate-mongering collection of fatawa they so proudly hail as “hisaam-ul-haramain”. Islam commands us to do justice and not follow dictates of our nafs. Essentially, that’s the difference between Deobandis and Barelvis. Their survival depends on fueling this fire by constantly harping the same tune in an exaggerate tone, of course, to keep their perspective alive. While Deobandis never took them more than a mere nuisance and busied themselves in the service of Allah’s deen through the Dawah and Tabligh of Quran and Hadith. As a a result, we find that only a person who’s serious about his deen and his relationship with Allah associates with Deobandi ulema while the same cannot be said for the Barelvis as their minhaj caters more to satisfying one’s nafs.
I think its high time that our Barelvi brothers should reflect on their state and their relationship with Allah as such activities are not conducive to having a positive spiritual relationship with him. It will insha’allah only serve to benefit them spiritually.
October 10, 2007 at 8:49 am
Assalaamu ‘Alaikum Dear Brother Abu Unaysah,
Firstly I would like to thank you for your efforts in bringing out the truth about some very serious misconceptions that the muslims in the Indo-Pak and other parts of the world may have regarding our illustrious Elders… May Allah guide them all Isha-Allah. I have listed below mainly for the benefit of our Barelwi brothers and also for those brothers who dont exactly know what is true and false regarding the grave statements made by barelwi students from time immemorial. I would also like to thank Mufti Ebrahim Desai and his colleagues from Ask-Imam for providing us with this important infromation. May Allah grant them Jazaa’e Khair.. Aameen.
Below is a list of the serious fabrications that were invented by Ahmed Ridha Khan.
The False Allegation – The Truth – Clarification
The false propaganda against and blatant fabrications about our highly
acclaimed and respected Ulama of Deoband by the ignorant must be refuted at
all costs. Numerous pamphlets and booklets have been written distorting the
truth about and writings of our distinguished Ulama.
Among the most common pamphlets displayed is “Tabliqism – one way ticket to
Hell”. “Are these Islamic Beliefs”: in one column is the ‘Deobandi Tabliqi
Beliefs’ and next to it is the ‘Islamic beliefs’. However, answers to the
allegations have been given in various publications. Therefore, this
publication will attempt to print all the false allegations and the correct
views.
The False Allegation
Rashid Ahmed Gangohi, a founder of Deobandi Movement has the following
beliefs:
1. The Almighty Allah can speak a lie. (Fataawa Rashidiyya part 1 pg. 20)
2. Allah has already spoken a lie (Taqseedul Qadeer pg. 79).
The Truth
The view of Hadhrat Moulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi Saheb is that Allah is far
above and pure from being attributed with falsehood. There is no blemish of
falsehood in His words at all for Allah says, ‘Who is more truthful than
Allah in speech.’ He who believes that Allah speaks a lie is an accursed
outright Kaafir and opposed to the Qurãn and Sunnah. (Fataawa Rashidiyya
part 1 pg. 3)
Clarification (I)
Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 84: ‘From servant Rashid Ahmed Gangohi, after Salaam
Masnoon, you have inquired concerning the Masalah ‘Imkaane Kizb’
(possibility of falsehood). But ‘Imkaane Kizb’ in the sense that Allah Taãla
has the power to act contrary to what He has ordered, but will not to do
with His Free Will, is the belief of this servant. The Qurãn Shareef and the
Sahih Ahaadith bear testimony to this belief, and this is the belief of all
the Ulama of the Ummah too. For example, Firáwn is promised to be thrown
into Hell, but Allah Taãla has the power to enter him into paradise,
although He will never give him paradise. And this is the Masalah under
discussion at the moment. This is the belief of all my friends. The enemies
must have related it differently. Referring to this Power and the
non-occurrence of it is termed ‘Imkaane Zaati’ and ‘Mumtana bi Ghayr’ Was
salaam Rashid Ahmad Gangohi.
Look, how they lay waiting with vicious, malicious attempts to defame this
noble personality. If it is not slander then what is it?
To distort the above mentioned Masalah and refer it to Hadhrat Moulana
Rashid Ahmad Gangohi Saheb is totally evil and wrong. It is a slander and
slander is worse than back-biting,
Clarification (II)
Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 90: ‘That person who believes or utters with the
tongue concerning Allah Taãla that “He spoke a lie”, is positively a Kaafir,
an accursed and opposed to the Qurãn, Hadith and the unanimity of the Ummah.
He is definitely not a Mu’min. Taãlallaahu ammaa yaqoolu dhaalimoona oluwwan
kabeeraa. (Allah is far above from what the transgressors are saying).’
The misrepresenter, besides being involved with misrepresentation, has
earned the wrath of Allah. Let the Hadith of the Master of the Green Dome
once again ring in his ears. ‘A person does not target another with impiety
or a person does not target another with Kufr, but it returns to the former
if the latter is not guilty of it.’ (Bukhari)
Taqdeesul Qadeer is not compiled by the Ulama of Deoband. In fact there is
no such Kitaab by this name.
False Allegation
The Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) is not the only Rahmatullil
Aalameen. (Fataawa Rashidiyya part 2 pg. 19)
The Truth
The view of Hadhrat Moulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi is that: ”One should know
that the attribute of being Omnipresent is the quality of Allah Taãla alone,
like All-Knowing, Creator of the Skies and Earths and so forth. Therefore to
attribute this quality of being Omnipresent to someone else, though it be a
‘Nabi’, ‘Wali’, or Saint, is to ascribe Partners to Allah in His Qualities,
which is termed as ‘Shirk-fis-Sifaat.”
Clarification
The word ‘Rahmatullil Aalameen’ is not a characteristic only of Rasulullah
(Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam). In fact other Awliyaa, Ambiyaa and
Ulamaa-e-Rabbaniyyeena are also a means of mercy unto the world, although
Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) is the highest of them all.
Therefore, if it is used for others with ‘Taaweel’ (by elucidation) it is
permissible.’ (Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 96/97)
False Allegation
To lecture on or discuss the Shahaadat of Hadhrat Imaam Hussayn
(Radhiallaahu Ánhu) is Haraam even if the stories are true. (Fataawa
Rashidiyya part 3 pg. 113)
Clarification
The incident of the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussayn (Radhiallaahu Ánhu) who
sacrificed his life for the sake of Truth, is surely very important. But the
method adopted, like beating the chest, tearing the garment, pulling the
hair, slapping the face, shouting slogans of ‘Yaa Hussayn, Yaa Hussayn’ and
taking out processions to parade in the streets, is what Hadhrat Moulana has
stopped and said is Haraam.’
The reason for stopping this is that Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi
Wasallam) has forbidden the slapping of faces and the tearing of garments.
Therefore to lecture on or discuss the Shahaadat of Hadhrat Hussayn in the
abovementioned fashion, with that type of pomp and show, is forbidden in the
light of the Hadith. (Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 104/105)
False Allegation
In the month of Muharram, providing free water and feeding people with milk
or Sharbat is Haraam. (Fataawa Rashidiyya part 3 pg. 113)
Clarification
To feed the poor and needy and to distribute water free to quench their
thirst as ‘Isaale Sawaab’ is no sin. Neither did Moulana Rashid Ahmad
Gangohi nor anyone else say it is Haraam.
The Barelvis belief is this, that on the plains of Karbala the martyrs
sacrificed their life in thirst. Therefore, the water that is given here as
a drink, reaches them.
It is common sense, that this water does not reach them, nor are they in
need of it. They are in Jannat. If the whole idea is to convey the reward
(Isaale Sawaab), the whole year is available for that. No question arises
then whether to make ‘Isaale Sawaab’ or not. The practice mentioned above
similitudes the practices of the Rawaafidh; therefore it is Haraam.’
(Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 147/148)
False Allegation
Ashraf Ali Thanvi, a founder member of Deoband says: ‘The Holy Prophet
(Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) has an education like that of children,
lunatics and animals of every category.’ (Hifzul Imaan pg. 7)
The Truth
The view of Hadhrat Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi is that: Hadhrat Moulana was
asked, ‘Did you in Hifzul Imaan or any other book write anything directly or
indirectly comparing the education of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi
Wasallam) to that of children, lunatics and animals? If not then what is
your ruling regarding a person who holds such a belief?’
In reply to that Moulana states, ‘Let alone writing such falsehood and
filth, my heart had never even perceived such falsehood and verily if anyone
holds such a belief he is out of the fold of Islam.’ (Faisal-e-Khusoomat pg.
21)
Clarification
Hadhrat Hakimul Ummah, Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (author of the famous
‘Bahishti Zewar’) did not write the abovementioned statement in Hifzul
Imaan. Nor is it his belief. It is a slander on the said Moulana. In fact
Hadhrat Moulana has stated clearly in ‘Hifzul Imaan’ that, ‘Knowledge with
regard to the Excellence of Prophethood has been bestowed totally upon Rasul
(Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) (Hifzul Imaan pg. 12)
False Allegation
Prophets are not free from sins. (Tasfiyatul Aqaaid pg. 24 – Cassim Nanotwi,
a founder of Deoband)
Clarification
The topic under discussion in ‘Tasfiyatul Aqaaid’ was this: It was mentioned
in the Hadith, in Shaf’at that on the plain of resurrection people will
gather with great fear, perturbed and disturbed. They will go to Hadhrat
Aadam (Álayhis salaam) and request him to intercede on their behalf in front
of Allah Taãla. Hadhrat Aadam (Álayhis salaam) will refuse and say that it
is beyond his influence, because of the incident that he ate from the tree
of Jannah which was forbidden to him. Hadhrat Aadam (Álayhis salaam) will
say, ‘Today Allah’s wrath is so great that His anger was never great before
and will never be so great after’ (though Allah Taãla has forgiven him). He
will advise them to go to Hadhrat Nuh (Álayhis salaam). In this way people
will flock to the other Ambiyaa (Álayhimus salaam). Each one will be fearful
and reluctant, for some reason or the other to intercede on behalf of man.
At the end when the people will come to Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi
Wasallam), Rasul (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) will say, ‘Very well, I will
intercede on your behalf. I will take permission from my Sustainer and He
will grant me that permission.’
Hadhrat Moulana wrote that, which was mentioned in the Hadith and not that,
‘Prophets (Álayhimus salaam) are not free from sins,’ as mentioned in the
said leaflet.
False Allegation
Shaytaan has more education than our Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam).
(Barahine Qatia pg. 51 – Khalil Ahmad Ambhetwi)
Truth
We strongly believe and openly claim that Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi
Wasallam) was given more knowledge than the entire creation of Allah and it
is our belief that whosoever says that anyone has more knowledge than
Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) then such a person is a Kaafir. Our
great Úlama have already given a Fatwa of Kufr upon a person who says
Shaytaan has more knowledge than Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam)
then how could I ever have written such a thing. (Al Muhnad Allal Mufannad
Q&A 18-19)
Clarification
It is totally incorrect. This sentence is not written anywhere in ‘Baraahine
Qaati’ah’, that ‘Shaytaan has more knowledge than Rasulullah (Sallallaahu
Álayhi Wasallam).’
Moulana Khalil Ahmad (RA) was asked whether he wrote such a statement or
not? He replied, ‘I did not write such a statement anywhere. It is an open
slander on me. On the day of Qiyaamat account will be taken with Ahmad Raza
Khan.’
False Allegation
To read Alhamdu Fateha before eating food is Bidat (Fataawa Rashidiyya part
2 pg. 150)
Clarification
In order to establish anything in Islam, it is necessary that it be verified
in the light of the Shariáh. Unless it is not proven by the Shariáh, it
cannot be regarded as Deen. Yes, one may call it a matter of convenience.
For example, the use of an electric fan, motor vehicle, etc. The moment a
person wants to make it part and parcel of Deen, immediately it will need
verification from the Shariáh, whether it be Meelaad, Fateha, Giyaarwi, Urs,
Dua-e-Thani, Dua immediately after Janaaza prayer or any other ritual for
that matter. And on failing to be verified, it will be regarded as Bidat –
innovation. The wickedness of being involved in Bidat is that the Sunnats
are automatically left out. As darkness spreads, light vanishes.
To read Al-Hamd, Fateha before eating food is not verified and proven in the
Shariáh, therefore, it is a Bidat.
Regarding Bidat, Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) has decreed:
1. “He who innovates something in this matter of ours that is not of it will
have it rejected.” (Bukhari)
2. “Beware of newly-invented matters! For every invented matter is an
innovation and every innovation is leading astray and every leading astray
is in Hell-Fire.” (Abu Dawud; Tirmidhi)
The ‘Masnoon’ Duas read by Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) before
meals and after meals, should surely be read. Hadhrat Moulana Rashid Ahmed
Gangohi (RA) did not stop anyone from this.
False Allegation
We cannot make Nikah with any person who takes part in Urs, etc. (Fataawa
Rashidiya part 2 pg. 142)
Truth
Moulana Rashid Ahmed says in Fataawa Rashidiya, “Taking part in Urs is not
an act of Kufr therefore Nikah with a person who takes part in Urs is
valid.”
Clarification
Those who go to the Urs and make Sajdah (prostrate) to the graves, pray for
boon or ask for a favour from the inmates of the graves, and make Tawaaf of
the graves; to solemnise marriages with them will inculcate these Shirk
practices in them and others as well. Therefore, unless they don’t make
Tawbah and refrain from such Shirk practices, Nikah is not allowed until
then.
False Allegation
Giyaarwi Shareef is Haraam and Kufr, even if Qur’an is read. (Fataawa
Rashidiyya part 1 pg. 95)
Clarification
Anything in the name of ‘Ghayrullah’ (someone other than Allah), whether it
be Giyarwi Shareef’ or ‘Baarwi’, is Haraam. This Masalah is found in Shaami,
Tahtaawi, Bahrur Raaiq and in many other Kitaabs.
On the other hand, Esaale Sawaab is permissible. No one prohibited Esaale
Sawaab provided it is done without specifications of time, place and
invitation. But look at the beliefs of these people. They have this belief
that the distribution of sustenance is entrusted to Peerane Peer (RA). If
the Giyaarwi is held back, he will stop the food.
False Allegation
It is Sawaab to eat crows (Fataawa Rashidiyya part 2 pg. 130)
Clarification:
Crows are of three types: The first type is that which feeds only on grain.
It is exactly like a wild pigeon. It is Halaal according to all Jurists. The
second type is that which only feeds on excreta, and prey on other animals.
It is exactly like a vulture. It is Haraam according to all Jurists. The
third type is that which feeds on grain, eats excreta and it catches and
eats mice as well. It is like an uncaged fowl, which feeds on grain, worms
and even on mice.
Hadhrat Moulana wrote concerning this third type of crow that it is not
Haraam. This Masalah of the crow is found in Hidaaya, Durre Mukhtaar,
Fataawa Aalamghiri, as well as the other ‘Kitaabs’ of Fiqh (Jurisprudence).
Therefore, should anyone not eat a crow or a fowl for the rest of his life,
there is no criticism and blame on him according to the Shariáh. Yes, if he
takes it to be Haraam then he will be answerable. Thus whosoever takes it to
be Haraam, in order to correct his belief it is a ‘Sawaab’ and reward to eat
it.’ (Fataawa Rashidiyya pg. 492 Rahimia print)
False Allegation
Almighty Allah Taãla is not always ‘all knowing’. He finds out whenever
necessary. (Taqwiyatul Eemaan pg. 26).
Clarification
This is an open Calumny and a False Accusation. This sentence is not written
at all in ‘Tawiyatul Eemaan’ that ‘Allah Taãla is not always “all knowing”.
He finds out when necessary.
False Allegation
The Prophet (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) will die and become sand one day.
(Taqwiyatul Imaan pg. 69)
Truth
The view of Hadhrat Moulana Rashid Ahmed Saheb is that: The meaning of the
(phrase) ‘to lie on sand’ has two meanings. The one is to become soil, the
other is the body touches the sand. The latter meaning is meant, and the
Moulana (author of Taqwiyatul Imaan) also believes that the bodies of the
Anbiyaa (Álayhimus salaam) do not turn to dust. Because a deceased is buried
in a grave and he is surrounded with soil all over, his body together with
the ‘Kafn’ touches the sand beneath him is called ‘Mitti me milnaa’ – to lie
on sand. Hence, there is no point of objection. (Fataawa Rashidiyya pg.s
83/84)
Clarification
In Taqwiyatul Imaan, a Hadith is mentioned in which a Sahaabi (Radhiallaahu
Ánhu) told Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) that the people of other
places bow out of respect to their Rulers; whereas Rasulullah (Sallallaahu
Álayhi Wasallam) is more worthy of being bowed to. At this, Rasulullah
(Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said, ‘Look if you happen to pass by my grave,
will you bow to it?’ The Sahaabi (Radhiallaahu Ánhu) said ‘No, I will not do
so.’ On this, Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said, ‘So do not bow
to me …’ (A Sajdah Taazimi is also forbidden).
Commentary: ‘I will also die one day and lie on sand (buried); therefore am
I worthy to be prostated to?’ This phrase ‘Mitti me milne waalaa hoo – I
will lie on sand’ (meaning to be buried one day), became the bone of
contention for the Barelvis.
False Allegation
To think of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) in Salaat is worse than
thinking of cows and donkeys. (Siraate Mustaqeem pg. 150)
Clarification
The abovementioned statement is not found anywhere in ‘Siraate Mustaqeem’
that, ‘To think of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) in Salaat is
worse than thinking of cows and donkeys.’
That which was written in ‘Sarfe Himmat’. This is terminology used by the
Sufis in Tasawwuf (the spiritual field). ‘Sarfe Himmat’ in ‘Tasawwuf’ means
that a person’s meditation over a thing becomes so overpowering and
predominant that no other thoughts penetrate into the mind and soul. Like a
mirror, if a person does not want any person’s reflection to come into it,
he covers it with a black cloth and thus no reflection will appear. To
contemplate over a figure so that no other thing is contemplated is called
‘Sarfe Himmat’.
This has been forbidden in Salaat, that besides Allah, ‘Sarfe Himmat’ should
not be done towards anyone. Salaat should purely and solely be for Allah
alone. If ‘Sarfe Himmat’ is done towards Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi
Wasallam), then the entire Salaat and Ibaadat will be for him.
On the other hand, if any thoughts of cows, donkeys, business, etc. come to
mind, or a person gets drowned in these thoughts whilst in Salaat, it is
regrettable. There is no fear of it being worshipped. In fact the person
regrets that in the course of an esteem Ibaadat like Salaat, he should have
such thoughts, Astaghfirullah.
The Kitaab, ‘Siraate Mustaqeem’ is based on ‘Tasawwuf’. The objector is not
versed in Tasawwuf’. Therefore, he has translated ‘Sarfe Himmat’ to mean a
mere thought.
What comes to mind is this; that the Objector presents a picture of a Grade
One child, learning to read and write ABC and wishing to interpret the
writings of Shakespeare.
Moreover, it is stated in the Hadith that Salaat should be performed with
full attention. Therefore, when the name of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi
Wasallam) is recited in ‘Tashahhud’ the thought of the Rasul (Sallallaahu
Álayhi Wasallam) will come and should come. The Salaat will not be rendered
incorrect and this is not unlawful at all. The respected Moulana did not
stop anyone from this.
The End
Wassalaam
January 11, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Salaam-0-Alaikum,
Waht is the difference between Deobandi and Barelwi, i mean why they call each other Kafir. can anyone explain
January 18, 2008 at 5:33 am
deoband is on way of the sayaba but bralvi on other way the add new thing in islam bralvi r fitna in islam which is already told by hazrat muhammad (p.b.u.h)
January 26, 2008 at 4:42 am
Salaam-0-Alaikum,
can you explain some points clearly brother Touseef.
i need some proof to support your comments.
Thanks
April 21, 2008 at 11:17 am
As salam o alaykum
Some individuals have tried to create doubts regarding Shaykh Abdul Qadir Tawfiq al-Shalabi al-Tarablusi al-Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him)existence or that what is being reported as being incorrect.
Shaykh has been mentioned in the Hajj travelogue of Molvi Ahmad Raza Khan sahib.
This document in online (http://www.nafseislam.com/en/Literature/Urdu/Books/AalaHazratKaSafreMadinah/AalaHazratKaSafreMadinah.htm) and the said discussion is on page 42.
This travelogue is a remarkable piece of self-eulogy, praise and egoism. A typical example of Molvi Ahmad Raza sahib’s callousness towards those who dare to disagree with him.
It is cynical reading where the personality of the author overshadows the magnificence of Haramain al-sharifan and Hajj itself.
It is very strange to see this coming from an ardent lover (’ashiq) and annihilated ’sufi’ Shaykh.
April 22, 2008 at 3:22 pm
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21020
Jazakalah for this Hanif. This is very important and useful. Many people in the above thread tried to throw doubt on what Mufti Mahmud Saheb (ra)said. This, through the own words of Molw Ahmed Raza Khan Saheb, proves that Shaykh Abdul Qadir Saheb (ra) did not look favourably at Molwi Ahmed Raza Saheb. And so was the case with other leading Ulama in the blessed lands.
July 16, 2008 at 1:12 am
As salam o alaykum
The obove offences and defences of are having much discripency of arguments of knowledge that they can’t be discussed by a just person.Offenders are having very week arguments and defends and clarifications are not much power ful only reflecting one person opinion about that issue. we should seek neutral opinion about right and wrong. what Shayikh Abdul Qadir said would be effective if it was related by neutral person not from a Murid (Shayikhul Hind) of the person on whome the (descirbed) fatwa of kufr holds.
may god give us much wisdom to understand the path directed by Hazrat Muhammad and his Sehaba
wassalam
ibnesagheer
October 4, 2008 at 7:21 am
Assalamaou’alaikoum
For those who want to know the stance of the Arab Ulama of that era (i.e. 1323) then i would refer to the book Al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad (The Sword on the Disproved) also known as al-Tasdiqat li-Daf’ al-Talbisat (Endorsements Repelling Deceits).
Below is a note about the book by Mufti Adam Al Khawthari who have recently edited the book:
Abu Unaysah: Jazak’Allah khayra, brother ‘Abdullah. A link to Mawlana Muhammad Ibn Adam’s details about his edition of Al-Muhannad ‘ala ‘l-Mufannad has already been posted in an earlier comment.
October 26, 2008 at 5:40 am
Amam Sahib was a great man , May Allah bless upon his grave Amin!
January 1, 2010 at 10:09 am
If the Ulemas of the subcontinent are not sponsored by Riyals, Sterling Ponds, Irani currency and Dollars, then they can naturally resolve all the differences comfortably. The real fasad does not erupt among the Ulemas themselves, but get really erupted from the foreign fundings. The Ulemas who are promoting differences are mostly the recipients of foreign aid.
May 11, 2010 at 12:45 am
Assalaamalaikum
Very interesting article and links jazakallah khair. My request is to keep posting links by people like that Saeed character. These people should be given a chance to expose themselves and let people see them for what they really are. One of the signs of a munafiq according to Hadith literature is that when he quarrels he curses. So keep let these deviants keep posting their rubbish. I find it amusing.
February 15, 2017 at 12:41 pm
[…] * On Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Ṭarāblusī’s views on Aḥmad Riḍā Khān, see: zakariyya.wordpress.com/2007/04/02/molwi-ahmed-radha-khan-among-the-arab-ulama/ […]