|
|
Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Jan 21, 2015 10:16:38 GMT
Muhammed Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab in the Sight of the Ulama’ of Deoband
By Mufti Muntasir Zaman
Shaikh Muhammad b. ‘Abdul Wahhāb b. Sulaymān al-Tamīmī al-Najdī (1703 CE – 1792 CE/1115 H – 1206 H) was the eponymous founder of a revivalist movement from Arabia. He was born and raised in the village of ‘Uyaynah in the Najd province of central Arabia. He visited Hijāz twice and studied under some of its scholars and also briefly visited Shām. He eventually returned to Najd and settled in Huraymalā, and, thereafter, moved back to his hometown of ‘Uyaynah, where he began his preaching in the year 1143 H. He claimed to call to pure Tawhīd and to oppose the rampant shirk amongst Muslims. The Amīr of Dir‘iyyah, Muhammad b. Sa‘ūd, supported him politically and militarily, and together they took control of a large part of Arabia. Shaikh Muhammad b. ‘Abdul Wahhāb died in Dir‘iyyah, and his descendants until today are known as “the household of the shaykh,” and they are held in high esteem by the family of Sa‘ūd. He authored a number of works, mostly short treatises, such as Kitāb at-Tawhīd and Kashf ash-Shubuhāt.[1] Major Differences between Shaikh Muhammad b. ‘Abdul Wahhāb and the ‘Ulamā of Deoband
The movement spurred by Shaikh Muhammad b. ‘Abdul Wahhāb is known derogatively as the “Wahhābī movement.” According to our research, there are three major areas where the ‘Ulamā’ of Deoband depart from the ideology of Shaikh Muhammad b. ‘Abdul Wahhāb: Firstly, in ‘Aqīdah, Shaikh Muhammad b. ‘Abdul Wahhāb denounced the Ahlul Kalām or the Mutakallimūn(dialectical theologians) in their entirety, despite conceding that their school was prevalent throughout the Muslim world[2], and in particular, he attacked the revered scholars of the Ash‘arīs[3]. On the other hand, the ‘Ulamā’ of Deoband are defenders and followers of the creed of the Ash‘arīs[4], as were the great scholars of the past, like Ibn ‘Asākir, al-Bayhaqī, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī, al-Qurtubī, Fakhr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī an-Nawawī, al-Qastallānī and others. Secondly, we see the seeds of allowing for unqualified ijtihād in the writings of Shaikh Muhammad b. ‘Abdul Wahhāb. He felt he, and others, were at liberty to access the texts of Qur’an and Sunnah themselves, and select the view of the imams which they feel most inclined to.[5] The position of the ‘Ulamā of Deoband is that a person who is not qualified for ijtihād must resort to the fuqahā’, and may not pick and choose based on his own preferences or views as their personal views have no consideration in Sharī‘ah.[6] Thirdly, Shaikh Muhammad b. ‘Abdul Wahhāb showed extremism in certain issues. While we certainly agree with him that practices like slaughtering for other than Allah, taking a vow by other than Allah, or calling a dead person for aid are heinous acts, we do not accept his blanket ruling that these acts are always “major shirk” and Muslims who do so will automatically be labelled kāfirs and mushriks.[7] Shaikh Muhammad b. ‘Abdul Wahhāb even went as far as to say that Muslims who engage in these acts are worse than the idolaters of the time of the Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)![8] ‘Ulamā’ from his time also identified and refuted this extremism in his ideology[9]. The ‘Ulamā of Deoband have also rejected this extremism and have demonstrated that the Muslims who indulge in these errant practices are not the same as the idolaters from the time of Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)[10]. The Views of the ‘Ulamā of Deoband on Shaikh Muhammad b. ‘Abdul Wahhāb
Although there were a number of scholars who wrote about Shaikh Muhammad b. ‘Abdul Wahhāb and his movement,[11] we will focus here on the views of the ‘Ulamā’ of Deoband. Although the majority of the major ‘Ulama’ of Deoband held negative views about Shaikh Muhammad b. ‘Abdul Wahhāb, the reason for finding different views amongst them is that the information that reached them varied. It is quite common in Islamic intellectual history for ‘Ulamā to hold differing views about personalities based on the information that reached them. One may consult the works of Rijāl to see examples of this. Mawlānā Rashīd Ahmad Gangohī
Mawlānā Rashīd Ahmad Gangohī writes, “People call Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb ‘Wahhābi’. He was a good person, and I have heard (sunā hey) that he follows the Hanbali School of thought and acts upon the Hadith. He used to prevent people from Shirk and innovation, but he was harsh in his attitude.”[12] He also writes, “The followers of Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb are known as Wahhabis. They had good beliefs and their school of thought was Hanbali. They were very stringent in their attitude but he and his followers were good people. Yes, those who exceeded the limits were overcome by wretchedness. The belief of all is the same, and the difference they have in actions is like that of the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali schools of thought.”[13] Muftī Mahmūd al-Hasan Gangohī states in his Fatāwā that, Mawlānā Rashīd Ahmad Gangohī was initially unaware of Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb’s ideology, because he was initially known in the Subcontinent as a reformer of Sunnah, and one who strived greatly in rejecting Bid‘ah and establishing the Sunnah. As such, Mawlānā Rashīd Ahmad also said that his opinion was based on what he had heard, for a Muslim should always hold good opinions about other Muslims until it is proven otherwise. Thereafter, Mawlānā Rashid Ahmad’s teacher sent him the copy of Radd al-Muhtar wherein ‘Allāma ibn ‘Abidīn clearly refuted Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb. ‘Allāma ibn Abidīn states, “…as it has occurred in our times with the followers of (Muhammad b.) Abdul Wahhāb, who appeared from Najd and imposed their control over the two sacred Harams. They used to attribute themselves to the Hanbalī School but they believed that only they were Muslims and that whoever opposed their beliefs were polytheists. Thus they considered the killing of those who were from the Ahlus Sunnah and their scholars to be legitimate, until Allah Most High destroyed their might and power.” [14] Mufti Mahmūd al-Hasan states that had Mawlāna Rashīd Ahmad Gangohī read what ‘Allāmah Ibn ‘Abidīn stated in his Radd al-Muhtār regarding Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb and his movement, he would surely not have stated what he had in his Fatāwā. Moreover, the students of Mawlānā Rashīd Ahmad Gangohī clearly refuted the ideologies and actions of Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb and his movement. As will be mentioned, Mawlānā Khalil Ahmad Sahāranpūrī, a student of the Mawlānā Rashīd Ahmad Gangohī, stated in his book al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad that he and his teachers hold the same view as ‘Allāmah ibn ‘Abidīn regarding Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb and his followers. This was agreed upon and signed by almost all of the major scholars of the Indian subcontinent, including Shaykh al-Hind Mawlānā Mahmūd Hasan Deobandī, Mawlānā ‘Azīzur Rahmān, Hakīmul Ummah Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Ali Thānawī, Mawlānā Habībur Rahmān Deobandī and many others. Mawlāna Khaīl Ahmad Sahāranpūrī
Mawlāna Khaīl Amad Sahāranpūrī sates, “Their (Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and his adherents) ruling according to us is what the author of al-Durr al-Mukhtār said: ‘The Khawārij are a violent group that rebelled against ‘Ali due to an interpretation by which they believed that he was on falsehood and disbelief or disobedience making fighting him obligatory according to their interpretation. They legitimise our blood and our properties and take our women captives,’ until he said, ‘Their ruling is the ruling of rebels,’ and then he said, ‘We do not classify them as disbelievers because their actions are based on an interpretation although false.’ Al-Shāmī said in his commentary, ‘As has occurred in our time by the followers of ‘Abd al-Wahhab who came out from Najd and dominated the two Harams. He would claim to belong to the Madhhab of the Hanbalis but they believed that they are the only Muslims and those who disagreed with their belief are polytheists, and due to this, they legitimised the killing of the Ahlus Sunnah and ‘Ulamā until Allah broke their supremacy.’ “Then I (Mawlana Khalīl) say: Neither he nor any of his followers are from our Mashāyikh (mentors) in a chain from the chains of knowledge of jurisprudence, Hadith, Fiqh and Tasawwuf.”[15] It is important to note that the above was a response by Mawlānā Saharanpūrī to one of twenty-six questions sent by the scholars of Madīnah. After completing his response, he had scholars from around the Islāmic world sign it as a mark of confirmation. Scholars from India, Makkah, Madīnah, Cairo, Damascus, and other places, signed and expressed their approval regarding it. The response alongside the signatures was completed in the year 1325 AH and titled, “al-Muhannad ‘alā al-Mufannad,” also known as “al-Tasdīqāt li Daf’ al-Taslībāt.”[16] From the Ulamā’ of Deoband, there were twenty-four signatories, which in turn was approval for the above answer as well. The following are the names and comments of a few:[17] Shaykh al-Hind Mahmūd al-Hasan writes, “He has presented the clear truth and alleviated false conjecture from the people of truth. This is our belief and the belief of all our teachers…” Mawlānā Amīr Hasan Ahmad Amrohī writes, “This is undoubtedly the clear truth. This is the truth, and what remains after the truth besides deviance? All of this is our belief and the belief of our teachers. Mufti ‘Azīz al-Rahmān writes, “What he has elegantly composed in establishing these matters is the truth according to me and my teachers.” Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thanawi writes, “We affirm what is (written) therein, and entrust the affair of the fabricators to Allāh.” Mufti Kifāyatullāh writes, “I have seen all of the answers and have found them to be the manifest truth regarding which there exists no doubt or uncertainty. This is my belief and the belief of my teachers.” Mawlānā ‘Āshiq Ilāhī writes, “I was honored to read the noble treatise which the illustrious scholar Khalīl Ahmad has elegantly penned as a response to certain queries. This is undoubtedly the truth, correct opinion, and reality. This is my belief and the belief of my teachers. We affirm this verbally and belief in this in the heart.” Mawlānā Muhammad Yahyā Sahāranpūrī writes, “I have seen these answers and have found them to be true speech which conforms to reality and which is accepted by every assenter and dissenter.”[18] In light of the above, even if there were some scholars who might have held a contrary view, this sheds light on the accepted view among the scholars of Deoband regarding the discussion at hand. Mawlāna Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī Mawlāna Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī writes, “As for Muhammad b. ‘Abdul Wahhāb Najdī, indeed he was a dull minded person with little knowledge. He would be hasty in passing a ruling of disbelief on others. It is not appropriate that any one traverses this valley (passing a judgement of disbelief) except if he is diligent and has mastered the scenarios of disbelief and its causes.”[19] Mawlānā Husayn Ahmad Madanī
Mawlānā Hussayn Ahmad Madanī writes, “Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb appeared in Najd in the 13th century A.H. He harboured evil thoughts and held wrong beliefs, due to which he waged war on the Ahlus Sunnah Wa al-Jamā‘ah. He attempted to force his evil thoughts upon them and considered their properties as spoils of war and their killing as a source of blessing and mercy. He was harsh on the people of the Haramayn in particular and on the people of the Hijāz in general. He spoke ill of the pious people of the early generations. Because of the atrocities committed by him, countless people had to flee the holy cities of Makkah and Madīnah, and many of them were martyred by his troops. In short, he was a tyrant, rebel and blood spilling transgressor.”[20] It is claimed that Mawlānā Husayn Ahmad Madanī retracted from his original view. This is based on a supposed statement made by Mawlānā Husain Ahmad Madanī which was produced in a newspaper named Zameendār in the year 1925/1343. [21] However, after comparing the date of his supposed retraction and other statements, it becomes evident that his final and only opinion was that mentioned in al-Shihāb al-Thāqib (the above mentioned quotation). Mawlānā Husayn Ahmad Madanī was asked if he had changed his opinion regarding Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb, and he replied, “Al-Shihāb al-Thāqib was my first book written as a refutation on Ahmad Raza Khān. I only mentioned the Wahhābi sect by the way in order to show that our predecessors had a very moderate approach.” He further writes, “I still hold on to the opinion expressed in this book and this is the opinion of my predecessors.” This statement was dated at 1950/1370 which is much later than his supposed retraction. Therefore, it is clear that Mawlānā Husayn Ahmad Madanī is also of the view that Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb and his followers were not of sound ideology.[22] Mawlāna Manzūr N’umānīMawlāna Manzūr Nu‘mānī was of the opinion that Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb and his adherents were upon the truth and the allegations leveled against them were baseless. He writes, “After studying his life, I have realized that Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb encountered the same challenges that Shaykh Ismaīl Shahīd faced i.e. false accusations…His call to the oneness of Allah and efforts of reformation comprised of Jihād with the sword…”[23] Moreover, the work wherein Mawlānā Manzūr Nu’mānī expressed his view of acceptance was endorsed by Mawlānā Zakariyyā’ Kandhlawī and Qarī Muhammad Tayyib.[24] Conversely, there were those who disagreed and wrote against him, such as Mawalānā Ahmad Bijnori. Mawlānā Ahmad BijnorīMawlānā Ahmad Bijnorī writes after proving that there are many differences between the Salafīs and the scholars of Deoband, “The respected scholar Manzūr Nu‘mānī feels that the differences between the Salafī movement and the scholars of Deoband are only in a few issues. He also claims that Shaykh al-Islām Mawlānā Husain Ahmad Madanī had retracted from his original view regarding Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb whereas in reality he only lessened his harshness against him.” [25] Muftī Mahmūd GangohīMuftī Mahmūd writes, “Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb al-Najdī was a follower of the Sunnah but was extreme in his beliefs, statements and actions. He was a person of very little knowledge and understanding…..”[26] He also writes, “He claimed to follow the Sunnah hence, many people joined him. However, many of his views were contrary to the Sunnah…as his true colours began to show, many people left his group. It became apparent that his objective was to seize political power and his claim to follow the Sunnah was merely to attract a following.” [27] It is evident from the above statements of the elite scholars of Deoband, that they held negative views concerning Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab. The only purpose of this clarification is to dispel some doubts regarding the correct view point of the Ulama of Deoband in this regard, as many have claimed the contrary of what has been mentioned above. And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best
Muntasir Zaman
Student Darul Iftaa
USA
Checked and Approved by,
Mufti Ebrahim Desai.
[1] الأعلام للزركلي، دار العلم للملايين، ج. ٦ ص. ٢٥٧ [2] قال محمد بن عبد الوهاب في أهل الكلام: مذهبهم مع كونه فاسدا في نفسه، مخالفا للعقول، وهو أيضا مخالف لدين الإسلام، والكتاب والرسول، وللسلف كلهم…ثم مع ذلك راجت بدعتهم على العالم والجاهل حتى طبقت مشارق الأرض ومغاربها (الدرر السنية فى الأجوبة النجدية، ج. ١ ص. ٥٢) [3] قال في كتاب التوحيد: إثبات الصفات خلافا للأشعرية (مؤلفات الشيخ الإمام محمد بن عبد الوهاب، ج. ١ ص. ١٥) [4] ليعلم أولا أنا بحمد الله ومشايخنا رضوان الله عليهم أجمعين وجميع طائفتنا وجماعتنا…متبعون للإمام الهمام أبى الحسن الأشعري والإمام الهمام أبي منصور الماتريدي رضي الله عنهما فى الإعتقاد والأصول (المهند على المفند لمولانا خليل أحمد السهارنپوري، نفيس منزل، ص. ٢٥-٦) [5] قال محمد بن عبد الوهاب: ولا خلاف بيننا وبينكم أن أهل العلم إذا أجمعوا وجب اتباعهم وأنما الشأن إذا اختلفوا هل يجب علي أن أقبل الحق ممن جاء به وأرد المسألة إلى الله والرسول…أو أنتحل بعضهم بغير حجة؟…أنا على الأول (الدرر السنية فى الأجوبة النجدية، ج. ١ ص. ٤٥) [6] نقل العلامة كمال ابن الهمام عن المشايخ: المنتقل من مذهب إلى مذهب باجتهاد وبرهان آثم يستوجب التعزير فبلا اجتهاد وبرهان أولى (فتح القدير، ج. ٧ ص. ٢٥٧) وقال مولانا خليل أحمد السهارنپوري: لا بد للرجل في هذا الزمان أن يقلد أحدا من الأئمة الأربعة رضي الله تعالى عنهم بل يجب (المهند على المفند لمولانا خليل أحمد السهارنپوري، نفيس منزل، ص. ٣٩) [7] قال محمد بن عبد الوهاب: فمن دعا ميتا أو غائبا فقال يا سيدي فلان أغثني أو انصرني أو ارحمني أو اكشف عن شدتي ونحو ذلك فهو كافر مشرك يستتاب فإن تاب وإلا قتل (الدرر السنية فى الأجوبة النجدية، ج. ١١ ص. ١١) قال محمد بن عبد الوهاب: وأما المسائل الأخر وهي…أني أكفر الناذر إذا أراد بنذره التقرب لغير الله…وأن الذبح لغير الله كفر…فهذه المسائل حق وأنا قائل بها (الدرر السنية فى الأجوبة النجدية، ج. ١ ص. ٣٤) [8] قال محمد بن عبد الوهاب: واعلم أن المشركين في زماننا قد زادوا على الكفار في زمن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بأنهم يدعون الملائكة والأولياء والصالحين ويريدين شفاعتهم والتقرب إليهم وإلا فهم مقرون بأن الأمر لله… (الدرر السنية فى الأجوبة النجدية، ج. ١ ص. ٦٧) [9] قال الشيخ سليمان بن عبد الوهاب فى الرد على محمد بن عبد الوهاب: من أين لكم أن المسلم الذي يشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا عنده ورسوله إذا دعا ميتا أو غائبا أو نذر له أو ذبح لغير الله أو تمسح بقبر أو أخذ من ترابه أن هذا هو الشرك الأكبر الذي من فعله حبط عمله وحل ماله ودمه؟! (الصواعق الإلهية، مكتبة الحقيقة، ص. ٢٠) [10] إمداد الأحكام، ج. ١ ص. ١١٨ – ١٣١ [11] الصواعق الالاهية في الرد على الوهابية مقالات الكوثري ص 394-395، [12] فتاوى رشيدية، عالمي مجلس، ص. ٢٩٢ [13] المصدر السابق [14] كما وقع في زماننا في أتباع عبد الوهاب الذين خرجوا من نجد وتغلبوا على الحرمين وكانوا ينتحلون مذهب الحنابلة، لكنهم اعتقدوا أنهم هم المسلمون وأن من خالف اتقادهم مشركون، واستباحوا بذلك قتل أهل السنة وقتل علمائهم، حتى كسر الله شوكتهم (رد المحتار، دار عالم الكتب، ج. ٦ ص. ٤١٣) [15] قال مولانا خليل أحمد السهارنپوري: الحكم عندنا فيهم ما قال صاحبُ الدر المختار: وخوارج وهم قوم لهم منعة خرجوا عليه بتأويل يرون أنه على باطل كفر أو معصية توجب قتاله بتأويلهم، يستحلون دمائنا و أموالنا و يسبون نسائنا إلى أن قال: و حكمهم حكم البغاة ثم قال: و إنما لم نكفرهم لكونه عن تأويل و إن كان باطلاً و قال الشامي في حاشيته : كما وقع في زماننا في أتباع عبد الوهاب الذين خرجوا من نجد وتغلبوا على الحرمين وكانوا ينتحلون مذهب الحنابلة لكنهم اعتقدوا أنهم هم المسلمون وأن من خالف اعتقادهم مشركون واستباحوا بذلك قتلَ أهل السنة و قتلَ علمائهم حتى كسر الله شوكتهم ثم أقول : ليس هو و لا أحد من أتباعه و شيعته من مشايخنا في سلسلة من سلاسل العلم من الفقه و الحديث و التفسير و التصوف (المهند على المفند لمولانا خليل أحمد السهارنپوري، نفيس منزل، ص. ٤٢) [16] ‘Abd al-Shakūr, ‘Aqāi’sd Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamā’ah, p.2, Maktabat al-Shaykh 2009/1430. [17] For the sake of brevity, we have sufficed on specific excerpts from the entire text. [18] Al-Sahāranpūrī, al-Muhannad ‘alā al-Mufannad, pp.79-81, Maktabat al-Shaykh 2009/1430.] [19] أما محمد بن عبد الوهاب النَّجْدِي فإنه كان رجلًا بليدًا قليلَ العلمِ، فكان يتسارع إلى الحكم بالكفر ولا ينبغي أن يقتحم في هذا الوادي إلا من يكون متيقِّظًا متقِنًا عارفًا بوجوه الكفر وأسبابِهِ (فيض الباري، دار إحياء التراث العربي، ج. ١ ص. ٢٩٤) [20] الشهاب الثاقب صفحه 221 [21] دار العلوم ديوبند لمحمد عبيد الله الأاسعدي القاسمي نقلا عن دعايات مكثفة ضد الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب لمولانا منظور النعماني صفحه741 وكذا فتاوي شيخ الإسلام مدني وهذا التصريح قد نشرته صحيفة “زميندار” في عددها الصادر 17/ مايو 1925م، ونقله عنها الأستاذ عزيز الدين المراد آبادي في كتابه “أكمل البيان” الذي ألفه في الرد على كتاب “أطيب البيان في رد تقوية الإيمان” لصاحبه الأستاذ نعيم الدين المراد آبادي (1) أحد العلماء المبتدعين. البيان الصحفي للشيخ حسين أحمد المدني: “أريد أن أعلن صريحاً دون تلعثم أن الرأي الذي كنت قد أبديته ضد أهل نجد في “رجوم المدنيين” وفي “الشهاب الثاقب” لم يكن يستند إلى كتاباتهم ومؤلفاتهم، بل إنما كان يستند إلى الشائعات وإلى أقوال مخالفيهم، لكن مؤلفاتهم الموثوق بها – وقد تناولتها بالدراسة – تدل دلالة صارخة على أنهم لا يختلفون مع أهل السنة والجماعة ذلك الاختلاف الكبير الذي يتحدث به الناس، بل الاختلاف يقتصر فيما يتعلق ببعض القضايا الفرعية، مما لا يجوز أبداً تكفيرهم، أو تضليلهم، أو تفسيقهم، والله أعلم” (أكمل البيان ص 9، نقلا عن صحيفة “زميندار” اليومية الصادرة من “لاهور” 17/ مايو1925م) [22] مكتوبات شيخ الإسلام 343-346/2 [23] دعايات مكثفة ضد الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب ص 25 “أكدت لي دراستي هذه أن الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب النجدي رحمه الله قد واجه نفس الموقف – من الافتراء واختلاق أنواع الأكاذيب والأراجيف – الذي واجه الشيخ إسماعيل الشهيد من المبتدعين والخرافيين والقبوريين ومقدسي الأضرحة (التي يتخذونها من القصب ومن الأوراق في ذكرى سيدنا الحسين بن علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنهما) . وبما أن دعوته إلى التوحيد وجهوده الإصلاحية كانت تشتمل على الجهاد بالسيف وكان أنصاره وحماته يلقون النجاح تلو النجاح ويفتحون المناطق إثر المناطق – حتى تغلبوا على الحجاز المقدس والحرمين الشريفين بالإضافة إلى جميع مناطق نجد – فجعل رجال الحكم والسلطان وأصحاب الدول والحكومات المجاورة يستشعرون منهم الخطر، ويخافون على أنفسهم الدائرة، مما دفعهم إلى أن يشاركوا الذين يختلفون مع الشيخ عقيدة وتفكيراً من المبتدعين والخرافيين والساجدين للقبور، في دعايتهم الكاذبة، وفيما يثيرون حول شخصيته ودعوته من غبار كثيف من المكر والدهاء، ومن أنه يستهين بشخص الرسول (وينتقصه، ويحم الضغينة والحقد والعداء ضد الصالحين والأولياء، ويستحل دماء جميع أفراد الأمة الإسلامية ممن سواه. Mawlānā Mandhūr was from the few ‘Ulama of Deoband who approved of Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb. However, many Deobandi ‘Ulama have written against this stance of his, such as Mawālnā Ahmad Bijnorī. He wrote against him in many places in his commentary on Bukhari titled Awār al-Bārī. [24] شيخ محمد بن عبد الهاب اور هندستان كے علماے حق ص 135 ، ص137 [25] انوار الباري 306-311/19 [26] فتاوي محموديه 370/4 [27] فتاوي محموديه 367/4
Article taken from HERE |
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Jan 25, 2015 17:37:33 GMT
Mawlānā Manzūr Nu‘mānī, despite attempting to show a general agreement between the ‘ulamā’ of Deoband and the followers of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil Wahhāb in his Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil Wahhāb awr Hindūstān key ‘Ulamā e Haqq, admits that there are some real disagreements between them. Amongst these, he mentions (pp. 68-73):
1. The followers of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil Wahhāb believe it is impermissible to travel from a distance with the specific intention to visit the grave of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The view of the ‘ulamā’ of Deoband is that it is not only permissible, but desirable.
2. The followers of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil Wahhāb consider tawassul through personalities impermissible whereas the elders of Deoabnd – and even before them, Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd in his Taqwiyat al-Imān – considered it permissible.
3. The followers of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil Wahhāb regard asking for intercession from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) at his grave as not only impermissible but shirk. The ‘ulamā’ of Deoband consider it permissible as long as the person has the correct belief.
4. The followers of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil Wahhāb believe that asking help from the dead is shirk regardless of the belief of the person asking. The ‘ulamā’ of Deoband say it is only shirk if the person believes that the one asked for help is an independent agent (mutasarrif). Otherwise, it is not shirk.
Although Mawlānā Manzūr Nu‘mānī tries to make these disagreements appear small and insignificant, the reality is that some of these are based on fundamental disagreements between the followers of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil Wahhāb and the ‘ulamā’ of Deoband.
One major point of disagreement is that according to the ‘ulamā’ of Deoband, actions per se do not constitute the kind of shirk which renders a person a disbeliever, unless the action is a specific symbol of another religion (like prostrating to a Hindu idol). One may see Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī’s Nihāyat al-Idrāk fi Aqsām al-Ishrāk and his al-Idrāk wa l-Tawassul ilā Haqīqat al-Ishrāk wa l-Tawassul for more detail. On the other hand, the followers of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil Wahhāb believe actions such as asking the dead for help, slaughtering by their name and so on constitute the greatest shirk which renders a person a disbeliever regardless of his beliefs.
A second major point of disagreement is that in the view of the ‘ulamā’ of Deoband, Allāh is not described with direction, nor is He attributed with a physical body (jism) or characteristics which are particular to a physical body. As followers of Ibn Taymiyyah, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil Wahhāb and his followers adhere to beliefs that amount to tajsīm or ascribing a physical body to Allāh.
|
|
|
|
Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Jan 27, 2015 14:28:49 GMT
Mufti Muntasir Zaman has added some extra information to his article - the original post has been updated accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Jan 30, 2017 16:41:53 GMT
Mawlānā Husayn Ahmad Madanī
Mawlānā Hussayn Ahmad Madanī writes, “Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb appeared in Najd in the 13th century A.H. He harboured evil thoughts and held wrong beliefs, due to which he waged war on the Ahlus Sunnah Wa al-Jamā‘ah. He attempted to force his evil thoughts upon them and considered their properties as spoils of war and their killing as a source of blessing and mercy. He was harsh on the people of the Haramayn in particular and on the people of the Hijāz in general. He spoke ill of the pious people of the early generations. Because of the atrocities committed by him, countless people had to flee the holy cities of Makkah and Madīnah, and many of them were martyred by his troops. In short, he was a tyrant, rebel and blood spilling transgressor.”[20] It is claimed that Mawlānā Husayn Ahmad Madanī retracted from his original view. This is based on a supposed statement made by Mawlānā Husain Ahmad Madanī which was produced in a newspaper named Zameendār in the year 1925/1343. [21] However, after comparing the date of his supposed retraction and other statements, it becomes evident that his final and only opinion was that mentioned in al-Shihāb al-Thāqib (the above mentioned quotation). Mawlānā Husayn Ahmad Madanī was asked if he had changed his opinion regarding Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb, and he replied, “Al-Shihāb al-Thāqib was my first book written as a refutation on Ahmad Raza Khān. I only mentioned the Wahhābi sect by the way in order to show that our predecessors had a very moderate approach.” He further writes, “I still hold on to the opinion expressed in this book and this is the opinion of my predecessors.” This statement was dated at 1950/1370 which is much later than his supposed retraction. Therefore, it is clear that Mawlānā Husayn Ahmad Madanī is also of the view that Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhāb and his followers were not of sound ideology.[22] [20] الشهاب الثاقب صفحه 221 [21] دار العلوم ديوبند لمحمد عبيد الله الأاسعدي القاسمي نقلا عن دعايات مكثفة ضد الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب لمولانا منظور النعماني صفحه741 وكذا فتاوي شيخ الإسلام مدني وهذا التصريح قد نشرته صحيفة “زميندار” في عددها الصادر 17/ مايو 1925م، ونقله عنها الأستاذ عزيز الدين المراد آبادي في كتابه “أكمل البيان” الذي ألفه في الرد على كتاب “أطيب البيان في رد تقوية الإيمان” لصاحبه الأستاذ نعيم الدين المراد آبادي (1) أحد العلماء المبتدعين. البيان الصحفي للشيخ حسين أحمد المدني: “أريد أن أعلن صريحاً دون تلعثم أن الرأي الذي كنت قد أبديته ضد أهل نجد في “رجوم المدنيين” وفي “الشهاب الثاقب” لم يكن يستند إلى كتاباتهم ومؤلفاتهم، بل إنما كان يستند إلى الشائعات وإلى أقوال مخالفيهم، لكن مؤلفاتهم الموثوق بها – وقد تناولتها بالدراسة – تدل دلالة صارخة على أنهم لا يختلفون مع أهل السنة والجماعة ذلك الاختلاف الكبير الذي يتحدث به الناس، بل الاختلاف يقتصر فيما يتعلق ببعض القضايا الفرعية، مما لا يجوز أبداً تكفيرهم، أو تضليلهم، أو تفسيقهم، والله أعلم” (أكمل البيان ص 9، نقلا عن صحيفة “زميندار” اليومية الصادرة من “لاهور” 17/ مايو1925م) [22] مكتوبات شيخ الإسلام 343-346/2 To add to the above, while Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī (1296 – 1377 H/1879 – 1957 CE) [1] wrote al-Shihāb al-Thāqib in response to Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī’s Ḥusām al-Ḥaramayn in his early days, he reproduces a summary of its contents in his later work, Naqsh e Ḥayāt, his detailed autobiography. Naqsh e Ḥayāt was written between the years 1944 and 1953 ( Naqsh e Ḥayāt, Dārul Ishā‘at, p. 9-11;13; 692), not long before his death. This proves he did not change his views in later life, but continued to maintain the same position. In the relevant part of this summary, Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī writes in Naqsh e Ḥayāt: The ‘ulamā’ of Deoband and their noble predecessors, may Allāh (Exalted is He) have mercy on them, have always been combiners of Sharī‘ah and Ṭarīqah, pure Ḥanafīs and followers of the predecessors of the Ahl al-Sunna wa l-Jamā‘ah. They maintain their chain of pupillage through Ḥaḍrat Shāh ‘Abd al-Ghanī Ṣāḥib Mujaddidī al-Madanī, Ḥaḍrat Shāh Muḥammad Isḥāq Ṣāḥib Dehlawī al-Makkī, Ḥaḍrat Shāh ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Ṣāḥib Dehlawī and Ḥaḍrat Shāh Waliyyullāh Ṣāḥib, may Allāh sanctify their souls; just as Quṭb ‘Ālam Ḥājī Imdādullāh Ṣāḥib, may Allāh sanctify his precious soul, and their spiritual guides maintain their chain of spiritual direction (irāda) through the Chishtī, Naqshbandī, Qādirī and Suhrawardī Paths.
In beliefs, they are followers of the Ahl al-Sunna: Ash‘arīs and Māturīdīs. In actions and peripherals, they are muqallids of Ḥaḍrat Imām A‘ẓam Abū Ḥanīfah, may Allāh (Exalted is He) have mercy on him.
Their knowledge was not merely verbal. Rather, their hearts and limbs too were truly adorned and coloured by taqwā. Based on this, their impact of being loved and accepted has always remained very great and very deep amongst the Muslims, in much the same way as such people who are to also be found amongst the noble predecessors. The Noble Qur’ān and authentic ḥadīths are upright witnesses to the general acceptance of these people. In Sūrah Maryam [it states]: “Truly those who believe and do good works, the Most Merciful will create love for them.”
However, based on Qur’ānic counsel, the divine norm has always also been in operation that for each Prophet some of the people of falsehood, jinn and man, would stand and announce their hostility, create discord, and plot against the true prophets. In the eighth part [of the Qur’ān, it states]: “Thus have we appointed for each prophet an enemy, devils of man and jinn, inspiring one another with fancy words to deceive. Had your Lord wished, they would not have done so, so leave them to their fabrications.” In the nineteenth part [of the Qur’ān, it states]: “Thus have we appointed for each prophet an enemy from the wicked. Sufficient is your Lord as a guide and helper.”
…
Anyhow, it was necessary for the senior scholars of Deoband to receive a great share of this Prophetic legacy. Thus, have they received it, and open falsehood is being used against them for which we find no precedent! Firstly, they have been described as “Wahhābī” in this treatise (i.e. Ḥusām al-Ḥaramayn), whereas these revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] do not have even a distant connection with Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb and his sect. The beliefs and views for which the Wahhābī group are famous and by which they are distinguished [from the Ahl al-Sunnah], the books of these revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] are full of opposition to them:
1. They [i.e. the Wahhābīs] deny that after their physical death, the prophets (upon them peace) have bodily life and keep a connection between soul and body; while these revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] not only believe this but have proven it also, and have very passionately substantiated evidences for it. Having compiled numerous treatises on it, they have published and circulated them. The treatise Āb e Ḥayāt is an extremely detailed treatise written specifically on this subject. Furthermore, Hadiyyat al-Shī‘ah, Ajwiba Arba‘īn – part two –, and other published treatises written by Ḥaḍrat Nānotwī, may Allāh sanctify his precious soul, are filled with this content.
2. Wahhābīs regard it to be prohibited to travel for visiting the revered Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace), and state that one should only travel to offer ṣalāh at the Prophetic Masjid, upon reaching which the visitation may be done. Our Akābir regard the journey for the purified visitation as not only being permissible, but the most virtuous of recommendations and close to an obligation! In fact, they regard travelling only for the visitation, in which no other good deed is intended or considered, as being better and superior. Thus, the chapter on visiting Madīnah in Zubdat al-Manāsik, compiled by Ḥaḍrat Gangohī, may Allāh sanctify his precious soul, is a righteous witness to this.
3. Wahhābis regard tawassul through the prophets and saints prohibited and impermissible. These revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] not only regard it as permissible, but more hopeful of acceptance and of benefit. The spiritual lineages of the masters of Chisht, may Allāh (Exalted is He) have mercy on them, the etiquettes of visitation and the supplications at Madīnah Munawwarah, which have been published in numerous writings of Ḥaḍrat Nānotwī, Ḥaḍrat Gangohī, Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā Muḥammad Ya‘qūb Ṣāḥib and Ḥaḍrat Ḥājī Imdādullāh Ṣāḥib, may Allāh sanctify their souls, are a righteous witness to this.
4. Wahhābīs continue to use disrespectful words at the prophetic court. These revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] profess such reverence at the prophetic court that a literalist may feel that it falls under extremism and going beyond bounds. In the final section of his famous and accepted work Zubdat al-Manāsik, the words that Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Ṣāḥib Gangohī used in describing the visit to Madīnah Munawwara (upon its inhabitant blessing and peace) – the etiquettes of arriving at Madīnah Munawwarah, entering the Prophetic Masjid (upon its inhabitant blessing and peace), visiting the purified grave and presenting salutations; the supplications of intercession and tawassul and acquiring the blessing of the blessed places in the noble masjid and pure city – are an evident reality of such profession of reverence, and are clear evidence of the reverence and respect that filled the aforementioned Ḥaḍrat’s heart.
…
5. Wahhābis strongly reject taṣawwuf, bay‘ah of ṭarīqah and its activities: dhikr, murāqaba, tawajjuh and circles of dhikrs. These revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] adhere to all of these.
6. Many of the Wahhābis are opposed to Taqlīd Shakhṣī, and even those who profess it are extremely lax. However, all of these revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] regard Taqlīd Shakhṣī to be obligatory and the one who leaves it to be sinful. They are muqallids of the Lamp of the Imāms, Ḥaḍrat Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, Allāh’s mercy be upon him, in all particulars and universals. With extreme firmness and rigidity they follow him.
7. Wahhābis use severely derisive and disrespectful words in respect to the imāms of ṭarīqah, Ḥaḍrat Junayd Baghdādī, Sarī al-Saqaṭī, Ibrāhīm ibn Adham, Shiblī, ‘Abd al-Wāḥid ibn Zayd, Khājah Bahā’ al-Dīn al-Naqshbandī, Khājah Mu‘īn al-Dīn Chishtī, Ghawth al-Thaqalayn ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī, Shaykh Bahā’ al-Dīn al-Suhrawardī, Shaykh Akbar Ibn ‘Arabī, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Sha‘rānī and others, may Allāh sanctify all of their souls; while these revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] regard their love, respect and tawassul to be extremely beneficial, important and a cause for blessings and bringing divine pleasure.
The upshot is that those seniors do not even have a distant connection with the beliefs, ideas and practices of the Wahhābīs. Wahhābīs call Muslims “mushrik” and “kāfir” based on small, small matters, and regard their wealth and blood as being permissible, just as ‘Allāmah Shāmī, Allāh’s mercy be upon him, wrote in Radd al-Muḥtār, and as is evident from the conduct of Ghaṭghaṭ and others in the Ḥijāz. On the other hand, the agreed-upon view of those elders is that if there are a hundred possibilities in a Muslim’s statement and [profession of] belief, from which ninety nine possibilities are of disbelief and only one is of belief, it is not permissible to declare him to be a disbeliever, and nor can his blood and property become permissible. In fact, Ḥaḍrat Gangohī, may Allāh sanctify his precious soul, states explicitly in his letter, Anwār al-Qulūb, that the statement of the jurists, “ninety nine possibilities” is not to specify a fixed number, but in fact if there are a thousand possibilities in a person’s statement from which nine hundred and ninety nine possibilities are of disbelief and only one is of belief, even he cannot be declared a disbeliever! [Persian couplet]: Look at the difference in path, from where to where?!
The upshot is that to slander these revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] of being “Wahhābi” is like calling black white or day night. (Naqsh e Ḥayāt, Dārul Ishā‘at, p. 120-6) He continues to give some historical information of how the designation “Wahhābī” was used to divide the Muslims of India, and goes on to refute, one by one, the slanders made against Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī, Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī, Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī and Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī. [Note: A more thorough refutation of the allegations made in Ḥusām al-Ḥaramayn can be found in Mawlānā Manẓūr Nu‘mānī’s Fayṣlah Kun Munāẓarah, a translation of which has been made available here: ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/35/decisive-debate-deobandi-barelwi-conflict ] [1] Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī was one of the most remarkable Islāmic personalities of recent times, and someone who is indisputably amongst the great Akābir of Deoband, having served as teacher of ḥadīth at the Dār al-‘Ulūm for several decades. He is a sayyid whose lineage reaches back to Ḥusayn Aṣghar, the son of ‘Alī Zayn al-‘Ābidīn, son of Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum). His father, Sayyid Ḥabībullāh, was a close disciple of Mawlānā Faḍl al-Raḥmān Ganjmurādabādī, who Mawlānā Madanī thus also had the opportunity to meet and spend time with. He came to Deoband aged 13, and very studiously read over sixty books on various subjects under Shaykh al-Hind (his primary teacher), ‘Allāmah Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī, Muftī ‘Azīz al-Raḥmān Deobandī, ‘Allāmah Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān ‘Uthmāni and others. When his family moved to the Ḥijāz, he found himself teaching large books in the Arabic language at the Prophetic Masjid. At Makkah, he was given instruction by Ḥājj Imdādullāh al-Makkī and later received khilāfah from his shaykh, Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī. He experienced many dreams in this period in which he saw the Beloved Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), some of which he recounts in his autobiography. Piety, adherence to the sunnah, devotion to books and studies, respect for his teachers, efforts in teaching and spiritual training and political struggles, are some of his prominent characteristics that shine through in his remarkable biography. |
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Feb 6, 2017 16:05:48 GMT
In the relevant part of this summary, Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī writes in Naqsh e Ḥayāt: The ‘ulamā’ of Deoband and their noble predecessors, may Allāh (Exalted is He) have mercy on them, have always been combiners of Sharī‘ah and Ṭarīqah, pure Ḥanafīs and followers of the predecessors of the Ahl al-Sunna wa l-Jamā‘ah. They maintain their chain of pupillage through Ḥaḍrat Shāh ‘Abd al-Ghanī Ṣāḥib Mujaddidī al-Madanī, Ḥaḍrat Shāh Muḥammad Isḥāq Ṣāḥib Dehlawī al-Makkī, Ḥaḍrat Shāh ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Ṣāḥib Dehlawī and Ḥaḍrat Shāh Waliyyullāh Ṣāḥib, may Allāh sanctify their souls; just as Quṭb ‘Ālam Ḥājī Imdādullāh Ṣāḥib, may Allāh sanctify his precious soul, and their spiritual guides maintain their chain of spiritual direction (irāda) through the Chishtī, Naqshbandī, Qādirī and Suhrawardī Paths.
In beliefs, they are followers of the Ahl al-Sunna: Ash‘arīs and Māturīdīs. In actions and peripherals, they are muqallids of Ḥaḍrat Imām A‘ẓam Abū Ḥanīfah, may Allāh (Exalted is He) have mercy on him.
Their knowledge was not merely verbal. Rather, their hearts and limbs too were truly adorned and coloured by taqwā. Based on this, their impact of being loved and accepted has always remained very great and very deep amongst the Muslims, in much the same way as such people who are to also be found amongst the noble predecessors. The Noble Qur’ān and authentic ḥadīths are upright witnesses to the general acceptance of these people. In Sūrah Maryam [it states]: “Truly those who believe and do good works, the Most Merciful will create love for them.”
However, based on Qur’ānic counsel, the divine norm has always also been in operation that for each Prophet some of the people of falsehood, jinn and man, would stand and announce their hostility, create discord, and plot against the true prophets. In the eighth part [of the Qur’ān, it states]: “Thus have we appointed for each prophet an enemy, devils of man and jinn, inspiring one another with fancy words to deceive. Had your Lord wished, they would not have done so, so leave them to their fabrications.” In the nineteenth part [of the Qur’ān, it states]: “Thus have we appointed for each prophet an enemy from the wicked. Sufficient is your Lord as a guide and helper.”
…
Anyhow, it was necessary for the senior scholars of Deoband to receive a great share of this Prophetic legacy. Thus, have they received it, and open falsehood is being used against them for which we find no precedent! Firstly, they have been described as “Wahhābī” in this treatise (i.e. Ḥusām al-Ḥaramayn), whereas these revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] do not have even a distant connection with Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb and his sect. The beliefs and views for which the Wahhābī group are famous and by which they are distinguished [from the Ahl al-Sunnah], the books of these revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] are full of opposition to them:
1. They [i.e. the Wahhābīs] deny that after their physical death, the prophets (upon them peace) have bodily life and keep a connection between soul and body; while these revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] not only believe this but have proven it also, and have very passionately substantiated evidences for it. Having compiled numerous treatises on it, they have published and circulated them. The treatise Āb e Ḥayāt is an extremely detailed treatise written specifically on this subject. Furthermore, Hadiyyat al-Shī‘ah, Ajwiba Arba‘īn – part two –, and other published treatises written by Ḥaḍrat Nānotwī, may Allāh sanctify his precious soul, are filled with this content.
2. Wahhābīs regard it to be prohibited to travel for visiting the revered Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace), and state that one should only travel to offer ṣalāh at the Prophetic Masjid, upon reaching which the visitation may be done. Our Akābir regard the journey for the purified visitation as not only being permissible, but the most virtuous of recommendations and close to an obligation! In fact, they regard travelling only for the visitation, in which no other good deed is intended or considered, as being better and superior. Thus, the chapter on visiting Madīnah in Zubdat al-Manāsik, compiled by Ḥaḍrat Gangohī, may Allāh sanctify his precious soul, is a righteous witness to this.
3. Wahhābis regard tawassul through the prophets and saints prohibited and impermissible. These revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] not only regard it as permissible, but more hopeful of acceptance and of benefit. The spiritual lineages of the masters of Chisht, may Allāh (Exalted is He) have mercy on them, the etiquettes of visitation and the supplications at Madīnah Munawwarah, which have been published in numerous writings of Ḥaḍrat Nānotwī, Ḥaḍrat Gangohī, Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā Muḥammad Ya‘qūb Ṣāḥib and Ḥaḍrat Ḥājī Imdādullāh Ṣāḥib, may Allāh sanctify their souls, are a righteous witness to this.
4. Wahhābīs continue to use disrespectful words at the prophetic court. These revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] profess such reverence at the prophetic court that a literalist may feel that it falls under extremism and going beyond bounds. In the final section of his famous and accepted work Zubdat al-Manāsik, the words that Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Ṣāḥib Gangohī used in describing the visit to Madīnah Munawwara (upon its inhabitant blessing and peace) – the etiquettes of arriving at Madīnah Munawwarah, entering the Prophetic Masjid (upon its inhabitant blessing and peace), visiting the purified grave and presenting salutations; the supplications of intercession and tawassul and acquiring the blessing of the blessed places in the noble masjid and pure city – are an evident reality of such profession of reverence, and are clear evidence of the reverence and respect that filled the aforementioned Ḥaḍrat’s heart.
…
5. Wahhābis strongly reject taṣawwuf, bay‘ah of ṭarīqah and its activities: dhikr, murāqaba, tawajjuh and circles of dhikrs. These revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] adhere to all of these.
6. Many of the Wahhābis are opposed to Taqlīd Shakhṣī, and even those who profess it are extremely lax. However, all of these revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] regard Taqlīd Shakhṣī to be obligatory and the one who leaves it to be sinful. They are muqallids of the Lamp of the Imāms, Ḥaḍrat Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, Allāh’s mercy be upon him, in all particulars and universals. With extreme firmness and rigidity they follow him.
7. Wahhābis use severely derisive and disrespectful words in respect to the imāms of ṭarīqah, Ḥaḍrat Junayd Baghdādī, Sarī al-Saqaṭī, Ibrāhīm ibn Adham, Shiblī, ‘Abd al-Wāḥid ibn Zayd, Khājah Bahā’ al-Dīn al-Naqshbandī, Khājah Mu‘īn al-Dīn Chishtī, Ghawth al-Thaqalayn ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī, Shaykh Bahā’ al-Dīn al-Suhrawardī, Shaykh Akbar Ibn ‘Arabī, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Sha‘rānī and others, may Allāh sanctify all of their souls; while these revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] regard their love, respect and tawassul to be extremely beneficial, important and a cause for blessings and bringing divine pleasure.
The upshot is that those seniors do not even have a distant connection with the beliefs, ideas and practices of the Wahhābīs. Wahhābīs call Muslims “mushrik” and “kāfir” based on small, small matters, and regard their wealth and blood as being permissible, just as ‘Allāmah Shāmī, Allāh’s mercy be upon him, wrote in Radd al-Muḥtār, and as is evident from the conduct of Ghaṭghaṭ and others in the Ḥijāz. On the other hand, the agreed-upon view of those elders is that if there are a hundred possibilities in a Muslim’s statement and [profession of] belief, from which ninety nine possibilities are of disbelief and only one is of belief, it is not permissible to declare him to be a disbeliever, and nor can his blood and property become permissible. In fact, Ḥaḍrat Gangohī, may Allāh sanctify his precious soul, states explicitly in his letter, Anwār al-Qulūb, that the statement of the jurists, “ninety nine possibilities” is not to specify a fixed number, but in fact if there are a thousand possibilities in a person’s statement from which nine hundred and ninety nine possibilities are of disbelief and only one is of belief, even he cannot be declared a disbeliever! [Persian couplet]: Look at the difference in path, from where to where?!
The upshot is that to slander these revered ones [i.e. the elders of Deoband] of being “Wahhābi” is like calling black white or day night. (Naqsh e Ḥayāt, Dārul Ishā‘at, p. 120-6) A point that should also be noted is that although Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī mentions only seven points of departure here, in al-Shihāb al-Thāqib (a work written in the early 1910s), he mentions a number of other points, and elaborates on them in far greater detail than that found in this brief summary in Naqsh e Ḥayāt. In fact, this discussion – on the differences between the Deobandī Akābir and Wahhābīs – is a major part of the book, consisting of about 25 pages [p. 221 – 247] from the approximately 90 pages of the book [from p. 198 to 290 of the printed edition which comprises of a number of other works]. [One reason why this discussion is so lengthy is because he gives numerous examples, both verbal and practical, of the love, reverence and admiration the Akābir showed to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) (in approximately 10 pages)]. One major point found in al-Shihāb al-Thāqib that is not mentioned in the summary of Naqsh e Ḥayāt is as follows: “7. For example, in ‘He ascended the Throne’ and other such verses, the Wahhābī group affirm a literal ascension, direction and so on, as a result of which affirming corporealism ( jismiyyat) and so on is necessitated. However, these holy personages [i.e. the Elders of Deoband], just like the Salaf, while negating the concomitants ( lawāzim) of temporality ( ḥudūth) and corporealism ( jismiyyat), adopted tawaqquf (restraint) in all these verses and ḥadīths; or just like the later scholars, adopted valid interpretations of them.” ( al-Shihāb al-Thāqib, Dārul Kitāb, p. 243) Note: Neither Mawlānā Madanī – nor his seniors from the Akābir of Deoband – were ignorant of Sunnī ‘aqīdah. While at Deoband, Mawlānā Madanī studied Sharḥ al-‘Aqā’id al-Nasafiyyah and Ḥāshiyat al-Khayālī, both under Shaykh al-Hind (whose in-depth knowledge on works of Sunnī Kalām is evident from his Juhd al-Muqill which quotes extensively from such works). ( Naqsh e Ḥayāt, p. 56) Then, while in Madīnah, Mawlānā Madanī taught: “ al-Musāmarah Sharḥ al-Musāyarah, Sharḥ Ṭawāli‘ al-Anwār, al-Jawharah and other works on ‘Aqīdah.” ( Naqsh e Ḥayāt, p. 116) |
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Feb 15, 2017 9:27:26 GMT
It is claimed that Mawlānā Husayn Ahmad Madanī retracted from his original view. This is based on a supposed statement made by Mawlānā Husain Ahmad Madanī which was produced in a newspaper named Zameendār in the year 1925/1343. [21] However, after comparing the date of his supposed retraction and other statements, it becomes evident that his final and only opinion was that mentioned in al-Shihāb al-Thāqib (the above mentioned quotation). Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī’s student, Qāḍī Muḥammad Zāhid al-Ḥusaynī, wrote a popular biography of his teacher called Cherāgh e Muḥammad*. Regarding Mawlānā Madanī’s stance on the Wahhābīs as found in his al-Shihāb al-Thāqib, he writes: Some people in Pakistan popularised [the idea] that Ḥaḍrat Madanī, Allāh illuminate his resting-place, later reformed these views or took them back, whereas this is completely untrue and a slander of the people of innovations. Ḥaḍrat Madanī held the beliefs of all the Akābir as mentioned in al-Muhannad. The country’s illustrious author and scholar of religion, Mawlānā Riyāḍ Ashrafī Marḥūm sent the following question in the service of Ḥaḍrat Madanī (Allāh have mercy on him) with regards to this slander:
‘In the service of Shaykh al-Ḥadīth Mawlānā Sayyid Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī, may his lofty shadow be lengthened. Assalāmu ‘alaykum wa raḥmatullāh wa barakātuh. Is al-Shihāb al-Thāqib ‘ala l-Mustariq al-Kādhib against the Wahhābīs and Barelwīs your work? Do you still uphold this path or have you withdrawn [from your previous position].’
In response Ḥaḍrat Madanī (Allāh have mercy on him) said:
‘[To] the one of respected position, may your honour be increased. Assalāmu ‘alaykum wa raḥmatullāh wa barakātuh. The answer to your question is as follows. Undoubtedly, al-Shihāb al-Thāqib ‘ala l-Mustariq al-Kādhib is my first book. Since it was written against Mawlawī Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī’s refutation, Ḥusām al-Ḥaramayn, discussion on the Wahhābīs came as a secondary [discussion], the objective of which was [to show] that our predecessors are aloof of both extremism and laxity – their track was of moderation, and they are the true followers of the noble predecessors of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jamā‘ah. That which was expressed in the book remains my position, and it is the way of my noble predecessors.
The shame of the predecessors (nang e aslāf): Ḥusayn Aḥmad, may he be forgiven.
Deoband, 4 Rabī‘ al-Awwal, 1370 [ 1950 CE].’ (Cherāgh e Muḥammad, p. 118) * Available online at: islamicbookslibrary.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/charagh-e-muhammad-sallallahu-alaihi-wasallam-by-shaykh-qazi-muhammad-zahid-ul-husaini-r-a/ |
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Feb 22, 2017 14:26:50 GMT
A point that should also be noted is that although Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī mentions only seven points of departure here, in al-Shihāb al-Thāqib (a work written in the early 1910s), he mentions a number of other points, and elaborates on them in far greater detail than that found in this brief summary in Naqsh e Ḥayāt. In fact, this discussion – on the differences between the Deobandī Akābir and Wahhābīs – is a major part of the book, consisting of about 25 pages [p. 221 – 247] from the approximately 90 pages of the book [from p. 198 to 290 of the printed edition which comprises of a number of other works]. The following is a translation of the introduction and conclusion to this section of al-Shihāb al-Thāqib (under the subtitle, "The Sixth Deception", from the first chapter): This is an enormous deception and trickery of “Dajjāl al-Mujaddidīn” [i.e. Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī] and his followers, because of which [the usage of the name of] this group [i.e. “Wahhābīs”] has gained in popularity amongst the Arabs in particular and the Indians in general. By exploiting this name and deceiving the world, they acquire their [daily] bread. This is the foundation of all trickeries and the basis of all deceptions.
Friends! Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Najdī emerged from Najd, Arabia, at the start of the thirteenth century. Since he held false ideas and corrupt beliefs, this is why he slaughtered and fought the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jamā‘ah. He kept on imposing his ideas on them by force. He deemed their properties to be spoils [of war] and permissible [for the taking]. He considered their slaughter a cause of reward and mercy. He caused great distress to the people of the two Ḥarams in particular, and the people of Ḥijāz in general. He used words of great disrespect and impudence with respect to the pious Salaf and their followers. Many people had to leave Madīnah Munawwarah and Makkah Mu‘aẓẓamah because of the severe hardships he [caused]. Thousands of people were martyred at his and his forces hands.
In short, he was an oppressor and rebel, a wicked blood lusting person. This is why the people of Arabia had and still have a particular hatred – from the heart – for him and his followers: such [hate] that they harbour for neither the Jews nor the Christians nor the Zoroastrians nor the Hindus. In brief, because of the aforementioned reasons, they have the highest degree of hostility towards this group, and undoubtedly, since he caused such hardships, so should it most certainly be. These people do not have as much anguish and hostility towards the Jews and Christians as they do towards the Wahhābīs.
Since the objective of “Mujaddid al-Muḍillīn” and his followers was to show before the eyes of the people of Arabia in particular and the people of India in general that they are their well-wishers while others their enemies and opponents of Religion, this is why they did not find any title better than this title.
Wherever any follower of Sharī‘ah and imitator of Sunnah was found, immediately he was branded “Wahhābī” so as to draw [people] away from him, and so that there is no effect to their interests and payoffs which are acquired through various forms of trickeries. [The attitude of such people is as follows:] “Friends, drink wine, shave your beards, devote yourselves to graves, take vows by other than Allāh, commit fornication, sodomy, leaving congregation, fasting and prayer, whatever you do, all of these are signs of being from the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jamā‘ah; and whoever acquires obedience of Sharī‘ah in form and practice, he becomes a Wahhābī.” It is famous that some Nawāb Ṣāḥib said to his companion, “I heard you have become Wahhābī.” He answered: “Ḥuḍūr, I shave my beard, how can I possibly be Wahhābī?! I am pure Sunnī.” See how the sign of being Sunnī has come to be to shave the beard.
For his particular agenda, “Dajjāl al-Mujaddidīn” has in this treatise called these Elders “Wahhābīs”, so that the people of Arabia upon seeing it will become agitated by anger and fury, and without asking anything, without contemplating, will give fatwās of takfīr. Further, he mentioned the term Wahhābī in various places using different expressions with filthy words.
[This is] all the while there is the difference between the sky and earth between the beliefs of the Wahhābīs and the beliefs and practices of those Elders, and in fact a greater difference than this! These revered ones are fully upon the beliefs of the pious Salaf. They strictly follow Imām A‘ẓam (Allāh’s mercy be upon him) and the way of the Ḥanafī jurists in every way, in knowledge and practice. They do not wish for even small variation. The sulūk of the seniors of the four Orders, in particular Chishtī Ṣābirī, is practised by them.
Now, I will briefly present several beliefs of the Wahhābīs and in contrast, the statements of these Elders, so that from this small sample it becomes clear to you the degree of the slander that is being made against these Elders, and what great injustice and slander “Barelwī Mujaddid” and his followers are perpetrating against the People of Truth.
It was Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb’s belief that all the people of the world and of all Muslim lands are idolatrous and disbelieving, and it is permissible, in fact obligatory, to slaughter and fight them and take their properties. Thus, Nawāb Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān has himself explicitly mentioned these two things [i.e. the permissibility of slaughtering and taking the property of Muslims] in his [Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb’s] biography. Ḥaḍrat, these two are undoubtedly matters of great severity. Now check whether this is found in the followers of these Elders or not? And if not, then who is truly the follower of Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb?
A discussion of the first matter is forthcoming. But, regarding the second matter, you yourself ponder over it. “Dajjāl al-Mujaddidīn” has done tafsīq and taḍlīl of all the people of Nadwah, at which time many ‘Ulamā’ were part [of it]. He has done taḍlīl, takfīr and tafsīq of all the ‘Ulāmā’ of Deoband, while the group of these revered ones has spread throughout the world. Generally, the ‘Ulamā’ and teachers and the religious men of virtue in the lands of India, Afghanistan etc. are these people and their students and followers. Thousands, in fact hundreds of thousands, of ‘Ulamā’ are from them, and are coming to be from them, and if Allāh, the Almighty, wishes, will continue to be from them till the Day of Judgement, despite the humiliation of the enviers. This “Mardūd” (rejected individual), like his Najdī shaykh, regards it to be prohibited to marry and sit with all these Elders. He regards it to be obligatory to hurt them, blemish their honour, and cause them personal and monetary damages. Thus, the start and end of his treatise is a good demonstration [of this]. Thus, in reality he is a complete follower of his Najdī shaykh, and he himself and his followers are “Wahhābīs”.
Now I will present some words briefly from the Elders of Religion, how carefully they operated in the matter of doing takfīr of Muslims and tafsīq of believers. Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā Gangohī, Allāh sanctify his precious soul, says in Laṭā’if Rashīdiyyah (p. 31) under the commentary of the ḥadīth, “The last man to enter Paradise”: “…Thus, īmān has such position that no angel or messenger can fathom. With Allāh, it necessitates salvation and is highly regarded. Thus, no believer may be said to be definitely a person of Hellfire, and nor should īmān be looked at with scorn no matter how hidden [it is]. Because of this, the jurists of the Ummah have stated that if from a hundred possibilities, one possibility can be of īmān, takfīr may not be made of a believer. The number ‘hundred’ is not for specification (taḥdīd) but to express a large number (takthīr). If there is only one possibility from a thousand, even then takfīr cannot be done. Īmān has a very great stature, as it is affirming the oneness of Allāh (Exalted is He), the unique quality of Allāh (Exalted is He). Say: He is Allāh, the One. Then, one in whose nature the light of this special quality has entered, even if hidden to some degree, will he not be accepted and a person of Paradise? Entering the Fire is for his purification and rectification not for degradation and punishment. However it is apparently punishment, just like hitting an enemy and hitting a beloved child to discipline [him] are similar [in appearance], although there is a difference in the two…”
Ḥaḍrāt! Now ponder, Ḥaḍrat Mawlānā Gangohī, Allāh sanctify his precious soul, how careful he and his followers were in takfīr and declaring others “mushriks” etc., and how diligent they were in following the pious Salaf, as distinguished from the Wahhābīs, who make everyone kāfir and mushrik at the slightest imagined doubts, and regard their properties and blood to be permissible. [Persian couplet]: Look at the difference in path, from where to where?!
However, “Mujaddid al-Dajjālīn” and his followers are undoubtedly step by step [followers] of Wahhābīs. Taking mental leaps from afar and contrived imagined interpretations, they strive and struggle to make [others] kāfir. They spend their day and night thinking how to make the Muḥammadan Ummah more restricted and smaller. Can these people be lovers of the Messenger (upon him peace) or supporters of the Ummah? Never! Is it the work of the ‘Ulamā’ of the Ummah to make Muslims into kāfirs by zealously misrepresenting the meanings [of texts] and mutilating passages? – or is it [rather] the demand of prophetic inheritance and knowledge of Sharī‘ah to passionately bring disbelievers into Islām, mushriks into Īmān and munāfiqūn into certainty? Would the Messenger of Allāh (upon him peace) support their method? Is this what the noble imāms would teach? Was this the salient feature of the pious Salaf? It is very unfortunate that the fear of God has been lifted from their hearts. A divine seal and shadow has been cast over their hearts. (al-Shihāb al-Thāqib, p. 221-4) After a lengthy discussion on further areas of disagreement between Wahhābīs and the Elders of Deoband, Mawlānā Madanī concludes: Friends, these few matters have been discussed for your consideration, in which the Wahhābīs opposed the ‘Ulamā’ of the two Noble Ḥarams and continue to do so. Because of this, when they forcefully became sovereign of the two Noble Ḥarams, they put thousands to the sword, making them martyrs, and they brought great troubles to thousands [of others]. At times, these [issues] were debated. In all these issues, our Elders are very much against them. Thus to accuse them of having Wahhābī tendencies (tawahhub) or being Wahhābī is a major slander and falsehood. And since this is their greatest ploy in creating a bad opinion [of the Elders of Deoband], this is why we went into great detail on it. Now it will be completely plain to those with intelligence how great a trick and deception this was of “Mujaddid Barelwī”, and how much scheming has been employed in this. It is Allāh that will take recompense, and the complaint is put to Him.
This methodology of these people is just like [how] the Rawāfid regard the Ahl al-Sunnah and the elders of the ṣaḥābah and the two shaykhs (Allāh be pleased with them) as enemies of the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) and as being from the Khārijī sect. This is precisely the methodology of these little Rāfiḍīs. (al-Shihāb al-Thāqib, p. 246-7) |
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Feb 24, 2017 16:11:31 GMT
Refuting the popular claim that Sayyid Aḥmad Shahīd Barelwī and his disciples were “Wahhābīs”, Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī writes: It becomes very clear from the aforementioned events that Ḥaḍrat Sayyid [Aḥmad Shahīd] Ṣāḥib and his companions arrived at Makkah Mu‘aẓẓamah at the end of 1237 H, that is at the beginning of 1823. This is the time in which no remnant or sign remained of the Wahhābī government and its communities in either Ḥijāz or any town or village of Najd. In fact, five years before this, Egyptian forces under the command of Ibrāhīm Pāshā ibn Muḥammad ‘Alī Pāshā, the viceroy (Khedive) of Egypt, under instructions from Sulṭān ‘Abd al-Majīd Khān, had crushed them, in not only Madīnah Munawwarah and Makkah Mu‘aẓẓamah, but in the whole of Ḥijāz and the famous regions of Najd. Those that were left of them became absconders, fleeing to far off places in the mountains and jungles. Thus, Shāmī has mentioned them clearly in the Ḥāshiyah of al-Durr al-Mukhtār, in the third volume, [stating] that in 1233 H, Egyptian forces completely annihilated this group.
On page 87 [of The Indian Musalmans] W.W. Hunter, after mentioning that the Wahhābīs took control of Makkah Mu‘aẓẓamah, Madīnah Munawwarah and other regions, wrote: “It was Mehmet Ali, Pasha of Egypt, who at last succeeded in crushing the Reformation (Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb and his followers). In 1812, Thomas Keith, a Scotchman, under the Pasha’s son, took Medina by storm. Mecca fell in 1813; and five years later, this vast power, which had so miraculously sprung up, as miraculously vanished, like a shifting sand mountain of a desert.”
Since this community of Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb caused trouble to all the inhabitants of Madīnah, Makkah and Ḥijāz, during this duration of their stay in Ḥijāz, kept going on with killing people, beating and looting, humiliating, and other such actions, as is famous and well-known there, and the author of Radd al-Muḥtār has written that these people only considered themselves Muslims and regarded others as Mushriks and non-Muslims, and considered looting and putting to waste their properties and lives permissible, this is why the people of the two Ḥarams harboured extreme hostility and hatred towards the Wahhābīs. This is why the people of Ḥijāz would not at all tolerate that any Najdī who had any connection with this sect would remain here in the Ḥijāz. After stirring up such an immense rebellion against the Turkish government and its governors, and wasting such money and lives in [efforts to] extinguish them, how could they tolerate that any Wahhābī remains there?
In short, when Sayyid Ṣāḥib and his companions reached Makkah Mu‘aẓẓamah in Sha‘bān of 1237 H, no Wahhābī ruler, scholar or preacher was there, and nor were they at the borders or fringes. Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb’s death had occurred long before. This is why they had no chance of adopting the Wahhābī methodology from them, and nor is it established through any reliable means that they had met with any Wahhābī. Thus, to affiliate these respected ones to this sect is a completely slanderous and false propaganda.
These respected ones were disciples of Ḥaḍrat Shāh ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Ṣāḥib Dehlawī (Allāh’s mercy be upon him), and are his followers in external and esoteric knowledge. They had received such perfection from the benefit they acquired [from him] that no match or equal of them could be found in depth [of knowledge], juristic understanding, taṣawwuf, speech and writing, neither in Hindustan nor in Arabia, Egypt, Levant etc. Their writings, speeches and actions are witness to this. How can such people of perfection become followers and imitators of others? How can this come to a sound mind? Especially when these others are less than them in every perfection?
In Wahhābī belief and practice, it is impermissible to travel with the objective of visiting the revered Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). Thus, their writings and works are available [stating exactly this]. If, Allāḥ forbid, this was the belief of these respected ones, why did the entire group having travelled to Makkah Mu‘aẓẓamah go to Madīnah Munawwarah? And why did they remain there for three months, from the end of Dhu l-Ḥijjah till Rabī‘ al-Awwal? (Naqsh e Ḥayāt, p. 431-2) Mawlānā Madanī goes on to explain that the first to brand Sayyid Aḥmad Shahīd’s group as “Wahhābīs” were the English as they feared his popularity, and thus wished to stigmatise him in this way so as to distance the Muslims of India from him |
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Feb 25, 2017 16:02:35 GMT
Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī al-Thānawī: Deobandīs have no Connection with “Wahhābīs”
In Ashraf al-Jawāb [1], addressing the accusation that Deobandīs are “Wahhābīs,” Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī al-Thānawī states: There is a group of the People of Innovations who call us “Wahhābīs”, but till today, we don’t understand on the basis of what connection/affiliation we are referred to as “Wahhābīs”? – because “Wahhābīs” are those people who are descendants of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb or are his followers. The conditions of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb have been recorded. Every person can, having had a look at them, discover that he is neither from our forebears in [what we] follow, nor in terms of lineage. However, it may be correct in some respect to refer to those who nowadays abandon taqlīd as “Wahhābīs”, because much of their ideology matches with Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb [2]. We, however, should be called “Ḥanafīs”...We don’t feel bad for being called “Wahhābī”, but certainly say that this slander will most definitely be questioned on the Day of Judgement. (Ashraf al-Jawāb, p. 104) It is clear that Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī al-Thānawī, just like his younger contemporary, Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī, feels that Wahhābī thought is very different to Deobandī thought, and thus it would be “slanderous” to refer to Deobandīs as “Wahhābīs.” [3] [1] A compilation of different writings of Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī al-Thānawī completed in the year 1353 H/1934 CE. [2] The Ahl al-Ḥadīth of India emerged primarily from groups of students that coalesced around two prominent ḥadīth-scholars of India: Nadhīr Ḥusayn al-Dehlawī and Shaykh Ḥusayn ibn Muḥsin (originally from Yemen). The major influence behind, and impetus for, their beliefs seem to be some aspects of the Waliyyullāh tradition and the thoughts and ideas of al-Shawkānī. In terms of its Taymiyyan and anti-traditional orientation, it can be said to have a clear connection with Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb’s school, but it would be incorrect to state the Ahl al-Ḥadīth emerged as a direct influence of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb’s school, or that they are in full agreement on all points of controversy. Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī al-Thānawī, of course, does not claim this, as evident from his statement. A researcher belonging to the Ahl al-Ḥadīth has recently authored a book showing that it is the Ahl al-Ḥadīth from the different groups of India who are favourably disposed to the Wahhābīs, as opposed to other groups like Deobandīs and Barelwīs (see: Da‘wat al-Imām Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb bayn Mu’ayyidīhā wa Mu‘āriḍīhā fi Shibh al-Qārrat al-Hindiyyah). It may be of interest to note that this book quotes a letter of Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī – a companion, disciple and successor of Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī – in which he explains that Mawlānā Gangohī’s good, or rather, more favourable, impression of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb and his followers was because he was not familiar with them. (ibid. p. 169-71) [3] Some Barelwīs online quote a statement of Mawlānā Thānawī that he made to some local people in the area of Kānpūr (where he resided and taught for some time): “Brothers, Wahhābīs reside here, don’t bring anything for offering ‘Fātiḥah.’” ( Ashraf al-Sawānīḥ, Idārah Ta’līfāt Ashrafiyyah, 1:84) This is found in his biography, Ashraf al-Sawānīḥ, in the reference given. Mawlānā Thānawī said this when some of the local people brought jalebis in order for them to be distributed on the occasion of a popular innovated practice called “Fātiḥah” (reciting Fātiḥah over some food and distributing it). However, some students ate those jalebis. After resolving the subsequent dispute that occurred between the local people and the students, Mawlānā Thānawī asked the local people in the above manner to not bring anything for “Fātiḥah” again. The biographer explains that the local people did not understand Mawlānā Thānawī himself to be “Wahhābī”, but rather the students who ate the jalebis. (ibid.) Mawlānā Thānawī himself was very much adored by the common people in his locality in Kānpūr, particularly for his gentle nature and his generosity. (ibid.) Mawlānā Thānawī here used the term “Wahhābī” in its customary meaning, not its true meaning. In a fatwā dated 1367 H/1948 CE, Muftī Maḥmūd Ḥasan Gangohī (1325 – 1417 H/1907 – 1996 CE) explains: “Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Najdī followed the sunnah but was extreme in belief, speech and practice, and he was in short supply of knowledge, understanding and intellect, and thus [incorrect] actions and statements emerged from him, and he became a cause of sti rring up fitnahs. As for today, however, in our lands, the term, as you have stated, [is used for] one who follows the Sunnah of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) and prohibits innovations – such is called on the mouths of the People of Desires: ‘Wahhābī’. The complaint is put to Allāh.” (Fatāwā Maḥmūdiyyah, Jāmi‘ah Fārūqiyyah, 3:44) A similar explanation can be found in al-Muhannad of Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad al-Sahāranpūrī.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Jan 11, 2019 9:35:46 GMT
The official fatwā collection of Dārul ‘Ulūm Ḥaqqāniyyah* (Akora Khattak, Pakistan), known as the “Second Deoband”, contains the following question and answer: Question: Janāb Muftī Ṣāḥib, what do the respected ‘Ulamā’ of Deoband say about Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb Najdī and his followers? Are they Kāfirs or Muslims?
Answer: Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Najdī was a man of religion of an extremist type, and in light of his ideas his followers adopt haste in making Takfīr of people. The respected ‘Ulamā’ of Deoband do not agree with his beliefs and ideas, and nor do they make Takfīr of him and his followers. It is necessary for common people to avoid his beliefs and ideas.
‘Allāmah Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī said: “As for Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Najdī, he was a foolish man with little knowledge, and thus would hasten in passing judgement of Kufr. No one besides one who is alert, adept and aware of the reasons and causes of Kufr should enter into this valley.” (Fayḍ al-Bārī) (Fatāwā Ḥaqqāniyyah, 1:380) * Founded by Mawlānā ‘Abdul Ḥaqq (1912 – 1988), graduate of Dārul ‘Ulūm Deoband, and student of Shaykh al-Islām Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī, Mawlānā I‘zaz ‘Alī Amrohī, Mawlānā Murtaḍā Ḥasan Chāndpūrī, Mawlānā Ibrāhīm Balyāwī and others. |
|
