Saturday, 21 August 2010

Wahhabi Fitnah in the Indian Subcontinent - Part:3

Mawlānā Sayyid Ahmad Raza Bijnori Qasmi writes:

“It is a shame that due to this book Here (Taqwiyatul Iman ) the Muslims of India who number 200 million, of which 90% are Hanafis, have been split into two groups.”[1] 

Mawlānā Abul Kalam Azad writes:

Mawlānā Muhammad Isma’il Shaheed was a classmate of Mawlānā Munawwaruddin.
After the passing of Shah Abdul Aziz, when he wrote: “Taqwiyatul Iman” and “Jilaul ‘Ainayn” and his creed spread throughout the land, all the scholars rose up against it.

The person who refuted these books the most was Mawlānā Munawwaruddin who wrote several books and in 1240 AH, the famous dialogue happened at the Jamia Mosque of DelhiAll the scholars of India were asked to effect a ruling [fatwa] and thereafter a fatwa was also beseeched from the Haramayn.

From his writings it is evident that initially Maulana Munawwaruddin tried to convince Maulana Isma’il and his son-in-law Maulana Abdul Hay and their friends and tried all means to persuade them.
However, when all his attempts came to nothing, he was forced to debate and refute

The famous debate at the Jamia Mosque of Delhi was organised where on one side were Maulana Isma’il and Maulana Abdul Hay and on the other side were Maulana Munawwaruddin and all the scholars of Delhi. [2]

Maulana Makhsoos Ullah bin Shah Rafiuddin Dihlawi, Maulana Muhammad Musa bin Shah Rafiuddin Dihlawi, Maulana Fazle Haq Khairabadi (student of Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dihlawi),
Mufti Sadruddin Aazurdah (student of Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dihlawi), Muhammad Fazle Rasool Uthmani Badayuni, Maulana Ahmad Saeed Naqshbandi Dihlawi, Maulana Rasheeduddin Dihlawi, Maulana Khairuddin Dihlawi, Hakeem Sadiq Ali Khan Dihlawi (grandfather of Masih-ul-Mulk Hakeem Ajmal Khan),
Maulana Sayyid Ashraf Ali Gulshan Abadi, Maulana Mukhlis-ur-Rahman Chatgami, Maulana Qalandar Ali Zubairi Panipati and numerous other Ulema of the Ahlus Sunnah refuted these new beliefs and doctrines via speeches and writings.

They took part in this noble Jihad to protect the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah through their knowledge and actions.

Hazrat Shah Makhsoos Ullah bin Shah Rafiuddin bin Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dihlawi was asked seven questions by Allama Fazle Rasool Uthmani Badayuni regarding : Taqwiyatul Iman.

The 7 Questions

These questions and answers have been published by the name of “Tahqeeq al-Haqeeqah” from Bombay in 1267 AH.

Three of these answers are presented here:

Hazrat Shah Makhsoos Ullah Dihlawi writes:
“The answer to the first question concerning “Taqwiyatul Iman” – and I call it “Tafwiyatul Iman” (with the letter faa) – is that which I have written in a monograph refuting it named Mu’eedul Iman”.
Isma’il’s book is not only against the traditions of our family but it is against the Tawhid of all the Prophets and Messengers themselves! Because Prophets and Messengers are sent to teach the people and make them walk the path of Tawheed.
In this book however, there is no sign of that Tawhid nor the Sunnah of the Messengers. Things that are claimed as Shirk and Bid’ah in this book and taught to the people have not been labeled as such by any of the Prophets or their followers. If there is any proof otherwise, ask his followers to show it to us.

The answer to the fourth question is that the Wahabi’s book [ibn Abdu’l Wahab Najdi] was the text and this is as if it’s commentary.

The answer to the fifth point is that Shah Abdul Aziz was impaired by his poor-sight. When he heard about the book, he said that if he were not ill, he would have written a refutation similar to “Tuhfa Ithna Ashariya.”

It is the grace of Allah that I (Maulana Makhsoos Ullah) wrote a rebuttal of the commentary (Tafwiyatul Iman) by course of which the text (Kitab al-Tawhid) was also refuted.
My fatherShah Rafiuddin, had not seen the book but when Shah Abdul Aziz saw it and expressed his disapproval, I set out writing the refutation.” [3]

Let us have a look at another example of Shah Isma’il Dihlawi’s reformist nature and his free thinking.

Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi writes:

“Shah Is’haq narrates that when Molvi Isma’il started performing Rafa’ Yadain (raising hands in salah) Molvi Muhammad Ali and Molvi Ahmad Ali, who were both students of Shah Abdul Aziz, approached Shah Abdul Aziz and asked him to warn Molvi Isma’il against this as it would cause unnecessary confusion.
Shah Abdul Aziz replied that he had become too old and weak to participate in debates.

When Shah Abdul Qadir visited Shah Abdul Aziz, he was asked to tell Isma’il to abandon Rafa’ Yadain as it would cause confusion among the public. Abdul Qadir replied that he would advise Isma’il but feared that the latter will not listen and will counter by presenting hadith. 

Hence, Shah Abdul Qadir asked Molvi Muhammad Ya’qub to ask Molvi Isma’il to abandon Rafa’ Yadain because it will cause unnecessary trouble among the masses. When Molvi Muhammad Ya’qub spoke to Molvi Isma’il, the latter replied ‘if one worries about troubling the masses, then what do you say about the hadith: “a person who revives a Sunnah in times of tribulation gets the reward of a hundred martyrs?”’ When an abandoned Sunnah is revived then there is bound to be opposition from the masses. Molvi Muhammad Ya’qub informed Shah Abdul Qadir of Molvi Isma’il’s reply to which Shah Abdul Qadir said:

“Oh, dear! We thought that Isma’il had become a scholar. But he has not understood the meaning of [even a simple] hadith. The hadith he quotes is for that action which contradicts the sunnah. In the matter of Rafa’ Yadain, we do not go against the Sunnah; because just as raising the hands [Rafa’ Yadain] is Sunnah, leaving them unraised is also [from another] Sunnah.[4]

The contradiction and mistakes of Shah Isma’il Dihlawi in matters of belief (aqayid) and juridical mistakes caused many disputes among the Ulema. Most notably, the issue Imkan-e-Kadhib and Imkan-e-Nazeer-e-Muhammadi caused an uproar.
The scholars of Ahlu’s Sunnah have explained these two issues brilliantly precisely and in detail. The contentious passage written by Shah Isma’il Dihlawi that caused this friction goes thus:

The glory of that King is such that He can create a billion prophets, awliya, jinns, angels, Muhammad and Jibril in a single moment with just a ‘kun’ [the command ‘Be.’]  (tafwiyatu’l iman, pg.37)

Allama Fazle Haq Khairabadi, student of Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dihlawi, refuted this idea proving it was against the Shari’ah.

He wrote that according to the absolute proofs of the Qur’an and hadith, Prophet Muhammad sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam is the last and final Prophet, there can be no other Prophet or Messenger after him. Conceiving another like the Prophet Muhammad is now an impossibility and from those aspects which is an impossibility according to the Shari’ah. To believe that there can be another Muhammad would necessitate that Allah did something apart from what He has stated in the Qur’an, that is, that Allah ta`ala has lied. Lying is a flaw and it is impossible for Allah to have a flaw. For a detailed discussion on the matter, refer to ‘Allama Fazle Haq Khairabadi’s Tahqeeq al-Fatwa fi Ibtal al-Taghwa. [5]

The book is has many proofs concerning the matter of possibility of lying by Allah ta`ala’ and ‘Impossibility of another Muhammad to exist’ [Imkan-e-Kizb and Imkan-e-Nazeer-e-Muhammadi.]

Shah Isma’il Dihlawi wrote a monograph on this subject named “Yak Roza” and his student Maulana Haidar Ali Tonki provided support to his teacher’s motif.

As an answer to this, ‘Allama Fazle Haq Khairabadi wrote a book in Farsi (Persian) called “Imtina’un Nazeer” which was published by ‘Allama Sayyid Sulaiman Ashraf (President of Islamic Studies, Aligarh University) in 1908 from Jaunpur.

Maulana Ahmad Hasan Kanpuri (student of Mufti Muhammad Lutfullah Aligarhi and Khalifa of Haji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki) wrote a book on the topic of Imkan-e-Kizb called “Tanzeeh al-Rahman ‘an Shee’at al-Kadhibi wa al-Nuqsan”.
On the same subject matter, Maulana Hakeem Sayyid Barkat Ahmad Tonki wrote “al-Samsam al-Qadib lira’asi al-Muftari ‘alallahi al-Kadhib” and
Mufti Muhammad Abdullah Tonki wrote “Ijalat al-Rakib fi Imtina’yi Kadhib al-Wajib”. With these works, they comprehensively refuted the idea of Imkan-e-Kizb with utmost brilliance.

We shall now leave the disagreements of that era and move on.
The famous Naqshbandi Mujaddidi scholar Maulana Abul Hasan Zaid Faruqi Dihlawi’s summing up of that era is quite informative:

“From the time of Hazrat Mujaddid-e-Alfi Thani Shaykh Ahmad Faruqi Sirhindi to 1240 AH (1825 CE), the Muslims of India were divided in only two groups:
Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah
and the Shi’a.

Then Maulana Isma’il Dihlawi came into the picture.

He was the paternal grandson of Shah Waliullah and the paternal nephew of Shah Abdul Aziz, Shah Rafiuddin and Shah Abdul Qadir.

He came across the ideas of Mu-hammad ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi and read Najdi’s book
 “Radd al-Ishrak”.
He wrote Taqwiyatul Iman in Urdu and this book initiated the era of unfettered freedom in religious matters.
Some became Ghair Muqallids, some Wahabis, some others called themselves Ahle Hadith and some became Salafis.

The respect that people had for the Mujtahid Imams diminished greatly and people of ordinary learning and common intelligence became Imams.

The great tragedy is that in the name of Tawhid, people began to disrespect the Prophet.
All these corrupted ideas started after the month of Rabi’ al-Akhir in
1240 AH. (1825 CE) ” [6]

In 1871 CE, a debate took place in Shaikhopur, Badayun, between
Muhibbur Rasool Taajul Fuhool ‘Allama Abdul Qadir Qadri Barkati Badayuni
(d. 1319 AH / 1901 CE)
Maulana Ameer Ahmad bin Molvi Ameer Hasan Sahsawani (d. 1306 AH / 1889 CE) on the matters of Imkan-e-Kizb and Imkan-e-Nazeer.

Maulana Nazeer Ahmad Sahsawani (d. 1299 AH / 1881 CE) has documented this debate. [7]

Maulana Ameer Ahmad and Maulana Nazeer Ahmad both spent time with Maulana Muhammad Ahsan Nanotwi.

Using the Athar of Ibn-e-Abbas as evidence, they not only believed that having Prophet’s like Adam, Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa, Isa ‘alayhimu’s salam and Muhammad sallallahu `alaihi wasallam was possible, they even believed that this was actually the case.

Prof. Muhammad Ayyub Qadri (Karachi) writes:
“It is important to point out that the Ulema of Bareilly and Badayun strongly opposed and disagreed with Maulana Muhammad Ahsan’s (Nanotwi) viewpoint. In Bareilly, the foremost in opposition was Maulana Naqi Ali Khan and in Badayun it was Maulana Abdul Qadir, the son of Maulana Fazle Rasool Badayuni. [8]

Maulana Abdul Haq Khairabadi, Maulana Sayyid Husain Muhaddith Rampuri, Maulana Abdul Ali Rampuri, Mufti Noorun Nabi Rampuri and other Ulema of the Ahlus Sunnah opposed the Athar of Ibn Abbas, proving it to be against the Qur’an and a false belief. 
Hazrat Mufti Irshad Husain Rampuri wrote that believing in it is against the creed of Ahlu’s Sunnah. Because Khatam al-Nabiyyin means The final Prophet – that is Muhammad sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam. [9]

[1] Anwar-ul-Bari, page 107. Nashir-ul-Uloom, Bajnur – Maulana Sayyid Ahmad Raza Bajnuri
[2] Azad ki kahani, page 48. Maktaba Khalil, Urdu bazaar, Lahore. Maulana Abdur Razzaq Maleeh Abadi
[3] Anwar-e-Aftab-e-Sadaqat, page 617-620. Kareem Press, Lahore – Muhammad Qadi Fazle Ahmad Ludhyanwi
[4] Arwah-e-Thalatha, Hikayat 73. Imdad-ul-Ghuraba, Saharanpur, 1370 H – Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi
[5] Maktaba Qadriya, Lahore – Urdu translation by Maulana Muhammad Abdul Hakeem Sharf Qadri
[6] Maulana Isma’il Dihlawi aur Taqwiyatul Iman, page 9. Shah Abul Khair Academy, Dehli – Maulana Abul Hasan Zaid Dihlawi
[7] Munazara-e-Ahmadiya. Published in 1289 AH / 1872 CE
[8] Maulana Muhammad Ahsan Nanotwi, page 94. Maktaba Uthmania, Karachi – Prof. Muhammad Ayyub Qadri
[9] Tanbeeh al-Jihal, page 26. Mufti Hafiz Bakhsh Anolwi.


Continue to... Part4

Edited by ADHM