Palash Biswas On Unique Identity No1.mpg

Unique Identity No2

Please send the LINK to your Addresslist and send me every update, event, development,documents and FEEDBACK . just mail to palashbiswaskl@gmail.com

Website templates

Zia clarifies his timing of declaration of independence

What Mujib Said

Jyoti basu is DEAD

Jyoti Basu: The pragmatist

Dr.B.R. Ambedkar

Memories of Another Day

Memories of Another Day
While my Parents Pulin Babu and basanti Devi were living

"The Day India Burned"--A Documentary On Partition Part-1/9

Partition

Partition of India - refugees displaced by the partition

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Fwd: [bangla-vision] Aga Khan at haram horse race + plan to undermine Pakistan. Part 1 by Qasim Ismail. RE: Mawdudi's slandering of Islamic belief ...a must read !



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: kaukab siddique <butshikan@msn.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:57 PM
Subject: [bangla-vision] Aga Khan at haram horse race + plan to undermine Pakistan. Part 1 by Qasim Ismail. RE: Mawdudi's slandering of Islamic belief ...a must read !



 

PRINCESS ZAHRA'S HORSE MANDESHA WON AT LONGCHAMP
2006, October 1: Paris, France: Princess Zahra's horse Mandesha won at Longchamp. HH Aga Khan attended with His daughter Zahra, the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe at the Hippodrome de Longchamp. Winning owner Princess Zahra Khan said, "The Arc is a dream which will carry on to next year." Winning breeder the Aga Khan said, "We opted for the Opera instead of the Arc when we decided she would stay in training and besides three-year-old fillies don't have a good record in the race." [pic1] [pic2] [pic3] [pic4] [pic5
 
 

MEMORANDUM ON AGA KHAN
> This Memorandum consists about the micro-minority known as Ismailis the followers of Aga Khan. Its supreme pontiff is Prince Karim Aga Khan. His followers consider the Aga Khan as man god and an incarnation of Hazrat Ali (RD.) as well as the incarnation of Rasool Allaah (p.b.u.h.) This means that Aga Khan in his capacity, as Imaam is holder and bearer of Noor-e-Elahie and Noor-e-Hidayat. Brushing aside this blasphemous claim of Prince Karim Aga Khan and his followers; I solicit your kind attention to the facts that: Prince Karim Aga Khan along with his followers are engaged upon to carve out their own pro-Zionist, Ghali Shia Ismaili State in the North of Pakistan. This includes Northern Areas of NorthWest Frontier Province, Jammu and Kashmir. In the North of Pakistan this includes: Pul-i Khumri, Darr-i Kiyan, Badakshan, Pamirs, Certain areas of Tajikistan and other central Asian Muslim States.
>  
>  I have traced the historical background of the Aga Khans, from Aga Khan-I to Aga Khan IV each one of whom has always endeavoured to gain territorial control to establish their own State in the territories now included in Pakistan and the north of Pakistan.
>  
>  I have also traced the activities of Prince Karim Aga Khan-IV under the garb of various N.G.O's. Viz. Aga Khan Foundation, Aga Khan University Hospital, Aga Khan Education Services network, Health Services and Network of Health Units, Aga Khan Rural Support Programme and similar many other N.G.Os.

 

> Financial Support to these programmes is in terms of Billions of Dollars donated to Aga Khan, by various Governments, International, pro-Zionist N.G.Os. an exhaustive list of which has been submitted     herewith under the caption of Financial Support. In addition to this many philanthropists have donated millions of Rupees locally from Pakistan.
>  
>  I have also submitted a very brief, abridged survey of doctrine of the Aga Khan Cult and its Cult  practices,  under the caption of  Aga Khan Ismaili Cult and Cabalistic Doctrine.
>  
>  In the light of all these facts and points, I earnestly request your honour to revise the Protocol and honours awarded to Prince Karim Aga Khan as a head of the State, while in fact he is a very doubtful personality acting antagonistically to interests of Islaam.
>  
> Let us pray to Allah the Al-Mighty; in His infinite and eternal mercy bestow upon all of us the necessary courage, steadfastness and his choicest blessings.

 

> Your brother in Islam,
>
mmissionary

 

Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:52:49 -0700
From: zina.khan@yahoo.com
Subject: Mawdudi's slandering of Islamic belief ...a must read !
To: butshikan@msn.com; yasirkhan21@gmail.com; akhtar46_1999@yahoo.com; detecting_power@yahoo.co.uk
CC: ibramsha7@yahoo.com; drshabbir@bellsouth.net; jaffem@sen.parl.gc.ca; drmaqazi@yahoo.com; hasniessa@yahoo.com; mohanofchenai@gmail.com; moderate53@yahoo.com; bahramji@gmail.com; ank2000pk@yahoo.com; mukhtaralam2000@yahoo.com; mathews_kuruvilla06@yahoo.co.in; atif98@yahoo.com; iftekhar.hai@gmail.com; ummaabroadcasting@rollanet.org; premsadani@hotmail.com; saima29@gmail.com; sohailhashmi@gmail.com; sals420@gmail.com; mikeghouse@aol.com; drmookhi@hotmail.com; tarekfatah@rogers.com; mnaquvi@yahoo.com; azam.sikandar@gmail.com; tirmidhi@hotmail.com; alishaban952@yahoo.com; great72000@yahoo.com; hassan_javid@hotmail.com; aleem.faizee@gmail.com; faruquealamgir@yahoo.com; drshabbir@comcast.net; salsabeel65@yahoo.com; khasif235e@yahoo.com; zakhum@hotmail.com; firasat777@yahoo.com; anwerkhurshid@hotmail.com; yunussidira@yahoo.com; ssmeezan@hotmail.com; ahlam_albahr@yahoo.com; amino66@hotmail.com; k2411871@hotmail.com; pk4318@yahoo.com; april702@cox.net; auzyxkhan@yahoo.co.uk; gul_badshah@yahoo.com; shariq.hamid@yahoo.co.in; ahmadtotonji@yahoo.com; sarwar@muslim-ed-trust.org.uk; mirza.syed@gmail.com; khattak99@yahoo.com; bintwaleed@yahoo.com; gafoor111@yahoo.com; cssharif@yahoo.com; nomani_z@yahoo.com; asra@asranomani.com; yousuftabish@yahoo.com; rafiq786@cbn.net.id; rial982000@yahoo.com; sohail972002@yahoo.co.in; aeisha_786@yahoo.com; bushra_meraj@yahoo.com; cherylin_bas@yahoo.com; doctor_aliasghar@yahoo.com; engrbbkarube@yahoo.com; knowledge4all00@yahoo.com; kristonia7@yahoo.com; hussain@nifty.com; juan.suquillo@gmail.com; fayyaz@reading.org; znanwalla@gmail.com; ahumanb@yahoo.com; akbar@mostmerciful.com; mohanofchenai@googlemail.com; brilliant005@hotmail.com; umah.hai@hotmail.com; farzanaqazi@yahoo.com; yas1rkhan@hotmail.com; tsidd96472@aol.com; africawalla@gmail.com; reform@dawoodi-bohras.com; badshahanizer@gmail.com; doctorforu123@yahoo.com; nssjobs@att.net; farrukhabidi@yahoo.com; webmaster9@mostmerciful.com; minayet@yahoo.com; sharouq@gmail.com



Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 2:56 PM

 

                                                           

  Mawdudi's slandering of Islamic faith and the Ahl as-sunnat scholars and its answer
Back Home Next

 

 


Mawdudi's slandering of Islamic belief
and the Ahlus-Sunnah Ulema
and its answer

   Mawdudi, in the first edition of this book The Revivalist Movement in Islam, slandered the Islamic faith and the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars.
 
Muslims with right belief in Pakistan began to defend themselves and refuted his slanders and heretical thoughts with documents.
 
Mawdudi, altogether confused with these righteous criticisms, had to tidy his book up.
 
Changing some parts of it and attempting to explain away some others stupidly, he published it again. In order to save his face, he wrote in the preface, "Reviewing the parts which are misunderstood, I have tried to prevent the heartbreaking criticisms.1"
 
Yet, in the same book, he did not give up speaking ill of the words of reverence such as 'al-Imam', 'Hujjat al-Islam', 'Qutb al-'arifin' and 'Shaikh al-Islam', that had been presented to the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars by Muslims, and proclaimed that he did not regard the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars worth these high titles.
 
 
But, in praising Ibn Taymiyya and 'Abduh, who are documentedly proved to have had departed from the Ahl as-Sunnat, the right path, he himself did not neglect to write the words 'Imam' and 'Ustadh' (master) in front of their names.
 
 
The words of reverence, which he deems too much for the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars are given freely to them by him.
 
 
It is written detailedly on page 487 of the fifth volume of Ibn 'Abidin's Radd al-mukhtar for whom and which words of reverence can be used. At the beginning of The Revivalist Movement in Islam, Mawdudi says: "Islamic faith puts forth its own philosophy, which greatly differs from irreligious philosophies. Its knowledge about the Universe and mankind is quite opposite to the knowledge of the irreligious."
 
 
He means that there is philosophy in Islam and that Muslim scholars are philosophers.
 
 
His deductions are similar to the Europeans' understanding of Islam by looking at it from the outside.
 
 
As explained in detail in our book Se'adet-i Ebediyye, one's degrading Muslim scholars down to the degree of philosophers shows his misunderstanding of them.
 
 
Islamic knowledge is divided into two parts: religious and scientific. Scientific knowledge in Islam is obtained by observation, close examination and experimentation, as is the knowledge of the irreligious in Europe and America about the Universe and man.
 
 
The science Muslims learn is seen as "quite opposite" by Mawdudi, which means to deny that there is scientific knowledge in Islam.
 
 
And this is to spoil the lot instead of being useful. It is pertinent to quote the exalted Islamic scholar al-Imam al-Ghazali here: "It will not be useful but harmful to the religion for the ignorant to attempt to help the religion."
 
 Mawdudi says on the thirty-third page of his book:
 "One of the two reasons why the institution of khalifate weakened was because Hadrat 'Uthman did not have as much quality of a leader as his predecessors had had."
 With these words, he tries to blemish Hadrat 'Uthman's (radi-Allahu 'anh) governance. Sayyid Qutb, a Freemason Egyptian writer, also attacks Hadrad 'Uthman (radi-Allahu anh) thus presumptuously in his book Al-'adalat al-ijtima'iyyata fi 'l-islam.
 
 
Speaking ill of Hadrat 'Uthman Dhi 'n-nurain (radi-Allahu 'anh), who was recommended by Hadrat 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anh) and elected by the Prophet's ('alaihi 's-salam) companions unanimously and whose superiority had been declared in many hadiths is a symbol of being too ignorant to understand that it is a grave sin to speak ill of him or a symbol of attempting to demolish Islam insidiously from behind the screen.
 
 
Each of the Sahabat al-kiram was a hero honored by being praised in the hadiths, "The highest people are those who live in my time," and "My companions are like the stars in the sky. If you follow any one of them, you will find the right path," and in the ayat, "They are very strong against disbelievers."
 
 
To misrepresent 'Uthman (radi-Allahu 'anh) as the cause of weakening of the institution of khalifate can be done only by those who cannot comprehend their honors. The history is obvious.
 
 
The extent of lands conquered in the time of Hadrat 'Uthman (radi-Allahu 'anh) was much greater than the former. Muslim lands enlarged from Philippines to Tunisia. The capacity of this book does not suffice to tell about the improvements he made in administrative, military and social fields.
 
 
His attempts and achievements in administrative, military and economic fields are told in detail in the fifth chapter of the Turkish Hak Sozun Vesikalari.
 
 
Those who misrepresent Hadrat 'Uthman's (radi-Allahu 'anh) martyrdom as a defect for him reveal what they think about the prophets whom the Bani Israil had martyred and about the hadith, "No Nabi suffered as much torture as I have."
 
 
Evidently, the reason why they do not speak ill of Hadrat 'Umar's (radi-Allahu 'anh) martyrdom by his servant is because they cannot find the favorable opportunity. Let us tell these ignorant people again that each of the Sahabat al-kiram was a perfect leader and a courageous mujahid.
 
 
From Hadrat Habib (radi-Allahu 'anh), who challenged the enemies in his speech on the tripod of gallows in Mecca, up to Abu 'Ubaida (radi-Allahu 'anh), the Conqueror of Damascus, and to Hadrat Khalid (radi-Allahu 'anh), who was amongst the fighters of the army that came Constantinople, it would make a long legend to write about the superiority of each of them in every respect.
"Khalifate, which had the qualities of prophethood, was passed on to cruel sovereigns. Thus, once more, administration was seized by those who were against Allah. Islam was pushed away from the power. Atheism seized the power and domination under the name of khalifate. Rulers were said to be the shade of Allah on the earth."
 Words of this kind do not befit the mouths and pens of believers. These absurd, crazy words against Muawiya (radi-Allahu 'anh), one of the prominent Sahabis, disgrace with unbelief all the khalifs up to Sultan Muhammad Vahidaddin Khan, the last khalif of Muslims, and, therefore, are not worth answering. His attempt to interpret wrongly the hadith stating that Muslim rulers are zill-Allah (Allahu ta'ala's shade) and his considering Muslims so stupid as to suppose that Allahu ta'ala is a material being that makes a shade cannot rescue him from the ditch in which he has fallen.
 
 
All Islamic khalifs were Muslims. Especially the Ottoman khalifs held on to Islam in everything they did and were proud of their devotion to Islam. Those who read the written will of 'Uthman Ghazi, the founder of the Ottoman Empire, which is written in many books, for example, in Qisas-i Anbiya', will understand the truth.
"It was the above-given conditions that incited the scholastic duel, which gave birth to various madhhabs, the Mutazila creed and the atheistic and skeptical inclinations."
 It is surprising that he relates the birth of Madhhabs to the movements of fitna (mischief, disunion). Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) foretold it and praised beforehand the four madhhabs in that their birth was Allahu ta'ala's compassion. They did not arise from worldly conditions.
 
They arose from religious, divine reasons pertaining to knowledge. Those who look at Islam from the outside and cannot penetrate into its essence strive to end up the sacred, spiritual manifestations by the substance and appearance.
 
 
 Mawdudi, from behind the screen, fiercely attacks tasawwuf and says:
"Philosophy, literature and knowledge coming from Greek, Persian and Indian skies were shared. The peoples belonging to polytheist societies that have converted to Islam brought with them many of their polytheistic beliefs and ideas. When they were introducing idolatry into Islam, the 'alims who were adherent to the world co-operated with them. With the idea of giving place to graves and to awliya' in worship, the meaning of the Qur'an was distorted. Many a hadith were misinterpreted."
 This passage, too, is entirely mendacious and slanderous. Greek, Persian or Indian philosophies have not taken place in any of the basic books of Islam.
 
 
On the contrary, the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars have answered them one by one and refuted the ones which were incompatible with Islam.
 
 
And, let alone comparing with Islamic literature, no one has ever condescended to use the word 'literature' for their sayings. If Mawdudi wants to attack the seventy-two heretical groups or the bidat' among ignorant people with these words of his, it does not prove him good-willed to attack them as if they were of Islam or religious scholars, for none of them can represent Islam.
 
 
The Ahl as-Sunnat scholars of all ages have shown them Allahu ta'ala's path and distinguished their good aspects from the bad ones.
 
 
They have written thousands of books for this purpose and have not left any need for the help of the people like Mawdudi. If Mawdudi wants to serve Islam, he should reproduce the advices and warnings of those blessed scholars of Islam, instead of misrepresenting, by putting forward the words of a few ignorant or heretical people, those most flourishing ages of Islam, during which the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars spread light.
 
 
Thus he will prove himself to be sincere in the sense which he has attributed to the word 'mujaddid'. Also, he will render a true service to Islam. But he does not mean to do so. He claims that bad customs of Iranians spread among Muslims and thus Islam was spoilt. In this subject, too, he misrepresents the events very surprisingly.
 
 
 It is a historical fact that the evils of Iran and Rome had mixed with the pre-Islamic Arabs but not with Islam! As he says, idolatry had gone as far as even into the Kaba.
 
 
As a matter of fact, it was for this reason that when the Prophet came forward and started to carry out his task of commanding what was good and prohibiting what was evil, all the Arabs became hostile against him. All of them were in a pitiable situation.
 
 
The whole Arabian Peninsula was in ignorance and heresy. They could not understand the good word. They refused the exalted Prophet (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim) who invited them to salvation. Before Islam, the evils of the fire-worshiping Iranians and the idol-worshiping Romans had spread over the Arabian Peninsula.
 
 
In Iran, a person named Majdak had made up a new religion and spread the partnership of property and woman far and wide. He had prohibited the right of possessing. He had established today's communism yet then in Iran.
 
 
He had turned the social life and morality in Iran upside down. Afterwards, Nushirwan Shah struggled to brake this current, yet he was not able to clear it off entirely.
 
 
 As for the Romans, their morality had become even worse with the evils that had come to them from the Greeks. A philosopher named Aristipus of Cyrene had made up a moral theory and said, "The purpose of life and morals is amusement and sensual pleasure. It is to enjoy everything. Everything which satisfies one's ambitions, desires and tastes is good. One should run after them."
 
 
This meant the end of morals. How can illegitimate acts ever be good?
 
 
Those who worked only for this purpose tolerated the evils such as theft, perfidy, dishonesty and murder in order to attain their aims. Here are the moral principles of the ancient Greek civilization!
 
 
An irreligious civilization should have been so. This system dragged many people on to despair and suicide, for not everybody could be without care and griefs; he could not obtain every taste he would desire and, when he could not get to his purpose, he would want to escape from life.
 
 
Among the followers of this philosophy, a Greek named Agerias regarded it a heroism for those who could not attain their pleasures to commit suicide. With the influence of his exciting speeches, there were many suicides among his audience. Also in the twentieth century, there are those who kill others or commit suicide upon being unable to get a base flavor or a sexual desire.
 
 
For this sheer reason, the ancient Greeks and Romans had been absorbed in pleasure and dissipation. Its consequence had been the corruption of social life and the demolition of economy. Both civilizations had died away for this reason.
 
 
As the Romans began introducing these evils into the Arabian Peninsula, Islam came to rescue the humanity.
 
 
 With Islam, the fogs of ignorance over the Arabian Peninsula cleared away. The lights of virtue and spiritual knowledge shone out. Fraternity settled among the people and clans. The people who had remained behind for many centuries began to advance and got strong by following Rasulullah (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim).
 
They challenged shahs and kings whose sovereignties they had admired to see once upon a time. Conquering their lands they disseminated Islam in there. The history is evident! Books, documents, works are obvious!
 
 Mawdudi says on the thirty-seventh page of his book:
 "The morals of Greek philosophy and monastic life and a general pessimistic attitude towards life became natural in Islamic societies. Thus, it lured Islamic knowledge and literature to deviation and supported monarchism. It confined the whole religious life to certain rites and ceremonies."
 Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) gave the good news that a mujaddid would come and strengthen Islam at the onset of each century.
 
 
So it happened. In every century, Islam has illuminated the humanity in every field through the leadership of the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars and has been the source of civilization. In order to portray Ibn Taymiyya as a source of illumination like the sun, Mawdudi tries to annihilate the great Islamic civilization and to misrepresent as obscure the luminous skies of the century of the Tabiin, who were praised in the Hadith, and the following century. Those who read Islamic books and true histories written by reasonable pens in Europe will not have difficulty in comprehending these destructive tactics of his.
 
 
 He tries to separate the meaning of the word 'mujaddid' in the hadith we have quoted above from the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars.
 
 
He blames the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars, e.g. Hadrat al-Imam ar-Rabbani, for having said that Hadrat al-Mahdi, who had been mentioned in the Hadith would be the mujaddid of the third millennium. In addition, he insults Muslims and men of tasawwuf by calling them "ancient type reactionary people". He makes fun of sacred beliefs by saying, "Shall jihad be performed with spirituality, amulets and prayers and would tanks be destroyed with malediction?" He marks those who believe so with the words 'populace' and 'ignorant'. He defends that al-Mahdi will be far from the said spiritual values, that he will be "the most modern of the modern who has a deep authority in the main problems of life," that he is afraid that scholars and mutasawwifs will clamor against the novelty which he will bring.
 
Whereas, in the times when Hadrat al-Mahdi will appear 'Isa ('alaihi 's-salam) will descend from heaven and they will meet each other, there will not be any Islamic scholar left on the earth and Islamic knowledge will have disappeared. Ignorance and heresies, which Mawdudi tries to impute on the early Muslim ages praised in the Hadith, will appear in that future time as pointed out again in the Hadith.
 
 
The attacks of the people like Mawdudi to the Ahl as-Sunnat and their attempts to extinguish the Ahl as-Sunnat knowledge indicate that those gloomy days pointed out in the Hadith are drawing near.
 
 
When Hadrat al-Mahdi will appear and renew the Ahl as-Sunnat knowledge, those same non-madhhabite people, heretics and religion reformers will cry and oppose him and Hadrat al-Mahdi will put them to sword. Hadrat al-Imam ar-Rabbani wrote in the 255th letter in the first volume of Maktubat that al-Mahdi will kill the heretics occupying religious posts in Medina. Mawdudi thinks that al-Mahdi will be "not a man of supernatural works or karamat, inspirations and spiritual accomplishments, but a man of struggle like other revolutionists." He says, "Al-Mahdi will found a new school of thought. As this world has witnessed sinful leaders such as Lenin and Hitler, so there will come a virtuous leader."
 
 
 Mawdudi, who departs in many respect from the Ahl as-Sunnat, takes Hadrat al-Mahdi as an ordinary leader. Great scholar Ahmad Ibn Hajar al-Makki gave about two hundred characteristics derived from the hadiths about him in his book Al-qawl al-mukhtasar fi 'alamat al-Mahdi. A person who reads this book can easily see the difference between the real al-Mahdi whom Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) described and the imaginary one whom Mawdudi tries to form.
 
 
 That the first mujaddid in Islam was 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz is another product of Mawdudi's short sight. 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz was one of the mujaddidin of the first century of the Hegira, but he was not the first mujaddid. According to the unanimity of Islamic scholars and historians, the first mujaddid was Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (radi-Allahu 'anh) who, after Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) death, overpowered the renegades and prevented the mischief and instigation that arose among the new Muslims on the Arabian Peninsula.
 
 
He says on the fifty-fourth page:
 "After the death of 'Umar the Second, the administration was obtained by irreligious hands, which became an obstacle against Islam's way. But the Umayyads and 'Abbasids could not prevent Islam's progress. Since the hadith and fiqh scholars were unfamiliar with rational knowledge, they remained deprived of interpreting and explaining the Islamic system under the light of contemporary inclinations of thought. They could do nothing but resort to bad influences. Imam Abu 'l-Hasan al-Ashari and his successors were not successful, either, because, though they possessed scholastic knowledge, they had not been educated in rational knowledge. They went so far in opposing the Mutazila that they introduced into the religion things which did not have place in the religion. Scholars, rulers and masses of people altogether turned their backs to Allah's Book and our Prophet's Sunnat. The wars declared for luxury, ambition and avarice by a notorious group governing the State cause a serious retrogression. Knowledge and arts disappeared. Meanwhile, Imam al-Ghazali came up and won the confidence of the khalif in Baghdad. But he departed from the palace and tried to refute the Greek philosophy. He criticized all the [Ahl as-Sunnat] madhhabs for their weak aspects and inclinations incompatible with Islam. He revived the system of education which had been decaying. Worldly knowledge and religious knowledge had been far away from each other. Yet he was inefficient in hadith. He had dealt too much with rational knowledge. It was a defect for him to have too much interest in tasawwuf. It was Ibn Taymiyya's lot to revive Islamic thought and spirit by abstaining from these three dangers."
 It is true that there have been some Muslim rulers who committed cruelty and sin under the influence of sycophants and renegades who surrounded them. But Muslim scholars struggled to draw them to the right course by telling them Islamic commands and prohibitions in speech and writing.
 
 
Thus, the worst ones among them became more just and more useful than the best ones of irreligious rulers. The world's histories write about this fact.
 
 
Those who read the book of Lord Davenport, an Englishman, will easily comprehend not only that Mawdudi is wrong but also that he is in a struggle of hostility. We want to emphasize that non-Sahabi Islamic khalifs might have been cruel and committed sins, yet none of them ever was an unbeliever.
 
 
They were by no means hostile to Islam. Each of them had commissions of knowledge, Shaikh al-Islam and counselors. None of them ever thought of preventing Islam's progress. All of them struggled to serve Islam. Mosques, schools, madrasas, roads, hospitals, fountains, baths, bridges and various institutions of benevolence and arts which each of them handed over to the next generation were innumerous.
 
 
Their remains and many of them themselves are evident. Millions of Muslims get use from them today. It is a tactic of the enemies of Islam to attempt to speak ill of them by putting forward their human defects. Islamic scholars' staying away from the sultans does not show that sultans were evil. Following the hadith, "The one who approaches and is modest towards a rich man because he is rich will lose one-third of his iman," scholars have abstained from every rich or famous person, yet they did not neglect to tell them Islamic commands and prohibitions.
 
 
Mawdudi, who cannot comprehend the subtlety between these two, attacks Islamic scholars and khalifs writing at random. If, instead of writing about their few faults, he had the honor of writing about their goodness and services to Islam, he would fill volumes of books. Especially the Ottoman khalifs were all learned, pious, just, perfect and blessed persons.
 
 
 Supposing that hadith and fiqh scholars were deprived of rational knowledge shows lack of understanding the greatness of Islamic scholars. An Islamic scholar is a great person who has reached the grade of ijtihad in religious knowledge and learned well what has been discovered up to his time in experimental knowledge and who has attained the degree of Wilayat al-khassa al-Muhammadiyya in the marifa of the heart.
 
 
 For the truth-seeking youth, who are confused by Mawdudi's aggression, which is as base as to call the Muslim khalifs "irreligious", the short biographies of some khalifs in the history book Mirat al-ka'inat are translated in the following: [The Roman numeral in front of each name shows his order of khalifate and the Arabic numerals in parantheses show the dates of his birth and death in the Muslim calendar.
 
 
Long biographies of Khulafa ar-Rashidin, Umayyad and Abbasid khalifs are given under the heading "Iwaz" in the famous work by ad-Damiri.]
"VI: Muawiya [The book begins with prayers for Hadrat Muawiya.] (radi-Allahu 'anh) was one of Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) clerks who wrote down the Qur'an. He acquired his prayers which asked blessings on him. He had a strong reason and intellect, much forgivingness, generosity and administrative power. He was mild, majestic and brave. He looked as if he had been created to be a sultan. He conquered Sudan, Afghanistan, many part of India, Cyprus, going to the last one in person. He sent soldiers to Constantinople. His khalifate was rightful.
 "The la-madhhabi slander Muawiya on account of his combat against 'Ali (radi-Allahu 'anhuma) and grievously exaggerate the sad situations which might take place in any combat. When the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars give them answers based on the Qur'an, the Sunnat and reason, they lose their head. They cannot find anything to say. They begin to tell about the evils of his son, Yazid. They say, 'He opened the way to such a bad tradition as passing the khalifate from the father on to the son. He turned khalifate into sultanate.' On the subject about praying in congregation, Ibn 'Abidin says, 'It is necessary for a Muslim who is to be khalif to be elected by the notables of scholars and administrators or to be designated by the former khalif as his successor. The khalifate of the Muslim who has seized the government by force also will be religiously rightful. Abu Bakr (radi-Allahu 'anh) when he was about to die, designated 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anh) the Khalif. All the Prophet's companions accepted it.' It is seen that it was a rightful act compatible with Islam for Muawiya (radi-Allahu 'anh) and for all other khalifs to designate their sons, whom they themselves brought up and trained, or others whom they could confide in, for their place. If a khalif began cruelty afterwards, it cannot be a defect for his predecessor. (19-60)
 [Mawdudi's attacking Islamic khalifs and the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars by writing at random is not only deprived from any value pertaining to knowledge but also diametrically opposite to historical and religious facts.
 
 
The following passages from a Persian work of Shah Wali-Allah, whom Mawdudi praises very much, is an evident proof for the pure youth:
 
"Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan (radi-Allahu 'anhuma) was one of Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) companions. Among as-Sahaba, he was well-known for his beautiful virtues. Be cautious of thinking ill of him! Do not fall into the danger of speaking ill of him. Or else you will be committing haram.
 
 
It is declared in a hadith reported by Abu Dawud, 'Do not speak ill of my companions! Even if you give gold as big as Mount Uhud as alms, there will not be as much thawab as in their alms of a handful of barley!'
 
 
Again in a hadith reported by him, Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) pointed to Hadrat Hasan (radi-Allahu 'anh), 'This son of mine is mature. Through him, I expect, Allahu ta'ala will reconcile two armies of my umma.' A hadith reported by at-Tirmidhi declares about Muawiya (radi-Allahu 'anh), 'O my Rabb! Make him hadi and muhdi!' that is, "Keep him in the right path and make him a means for guiding others to the right path.' A hadith reported by Ibn Sad and Ibn 'Asakir declares about Muawiya (radi-Allahu 'anh), 'O my Rabb! Teach Him the book and make him own countries and protect him against punishment.' Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) knew he would become the khalif.
 
 
It is obvious that because he pitied his umma very much it was necessary for him to pray so that the person who would take the lead would be in the right path and guide them to the right path. It is declared in a hadith reported by Hasan (radi-Allahu 'anh) and conveyed by Ad-Dailami, 'Someday Muawiya will be the head of the State.' Hadrat Muawiya (radi-Allahu 'anh) said that since the day when Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) had said to him, 'O Muawiya! When you become head of the State, do favors!' he had been awaiting the time when he would become the khalif.
 
 
A hadith reported by Umm Hiram (radi-Allahu 'anha), a Sahabi, declares, 'Of my umma, those who will fight in the first naval battle of Islam will certainly enter Paradise.' Muawiya (radi-Allahu 'anh) fought in the first naval battle of Islam during the khalifate of Hadrat 'Uthman (radi-Allahu 'anh).
 
 
And Umm Hiram (radi-Allahu anha), since she had heard the hadith herself, was among his soldiers and was martyred when she landed [on Cyprus]. With the blessing of these prayers by Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam), he became a just, trustworthy khalif.
 
 
He kept a few of Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) hairs, which, in order to be blessed with, were requested in his will to be put into his nose.
 "Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) prophesied the Battle of Siffin between 'Ali and Muawiya (radi-Allahu 'anhuma), too. The scholars al-Bukhari and Muslim reported the hadith: 'Unless two great soldiers fight each other, the end of the world will not come. Both of them will fight for the cause.' In a hadith reported in the Sahih of al-Bukhari, the Prophet ('alaihi 's-salam) said to Ammar ibn Yasar, 'You will be killed by some disobedient people.' He was killed by Muawiya's (radi-Allahu 'anh) soldiers....[Shah Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi, Izalat al-Khafa, p.571]
"There are some hadiths disapproving the Umayyad khalifs, but some other hadiths praise them. A hadith declares, 'Khalifate will be in Medina, and sultanate will be in Damascus.'
"It is declared in a hadith, 'Up to the twelfth khalif, Islam will be cherished. They all will belong to the Quraish.' More than half of these twelve khalifs, who were praised in this hadith, were the Umayyad khalifs. It is declared in a hadith reported by Ibn Maja, 'People with a black flag will come from the east, and they will fight the Arabs. Obey their khalifs! They are the khalifs guiding to the right path!' This hadith and the like praise the Abbasid khalifs... [Shah Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi, Izalat al-Khafa, p.601]
"The khalif who did Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) task of guidance as he had done was called Khalifat rashida. These were perfect, real khalifs. The khalif who did not carry out this task precisely and who did not obey Islam was called Khalifat jabira.. [Shah Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi, Izalat al-Khafa, v. II, p.330].
 "Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) task of guidance had three parts. The first one was to have Allahu ta'ala's commands and prohibitions obeyed by using power and force. This is called 'sultanate'. His second task was to teach His commands and prohibitions. His third task called 'ihsan' was to purify the heart. Al-Khulafa' ar-rashidin did all of these three tasks. Those who succeeded them did only the task of sultanate. The task of teaching was given to the imams of madhhabs, and the task of ihsan was given to the great men of tasawwuf." .. [Shah Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi, Izalat al-Khafa, v. II, p.342. A hadith written on its 567th page calls such a khalif "Malik al-adud", who has been called "khalif" symbolically. The khulafa al-jabira came next.].
"VII: Yazid ibn Muawiya became the khalif in 60 and died four years later in Hawwarin, which is located between Damascus and Tadmur. He was buried there. (23-64)
 "VII: Muawiya It ibn Yazid was very intelligent, very pious and very just. He resigned from khalifate after forty days. (44-64)
 "IX: Marwan ibn Hakam was a fiqh scholar. He was very clever and very intelligent. He read the Qur'an very beautifully. He abstained from sins and feared Allahu ta'ala very much. He was the beloved son-in-law of Hadrat 'Uthman (radi-Allahu 'anh). It was written on his seal, 'I trust in Allahu ta'ala. I ask from Him.' (2-65)
 "X: 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan was a hadith and fiqh scholar. He was famous for having much zuhd and 'ibadat . Imam an-Nafi', a prominent one among the Tabiin, said, 'In Medina, I have not seen a person who was learned in fiqh more profoundly, worshiped more, knew the knowledge and manners of hajj more or read the Qur'an more beautifully than 'Abd al-Malik.' According to many scholars, 'Abd al-Malik was one of the seven fiqh scholars of Medina. Imam ash-Shabi, another prominent one among the Tabiin, said, 'I found myself superior to every scholar whom I interviewed. I found only 'Abd al-Malik superior to me.' He fought Mukhtar, the chief of the rebels who shed much blood and killed him. His khalifate was religiously rightful. He repaired the Kaba. His construction continued till the restoration by Murad Khan IV in 1040 (1631). Before him, Byzantine gold coins and Persian silvers had been used, and he was the one who coined the first Islamic money. He is the conqueror of Adana and Sicily. He sent his son Maslama to conquer Constantinople. Maslama (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala 'alaih) performed salat in the big church of St. Sophia and built the Arab Mosque. (26-86)
 "XI: Walid ibn 'Abd al-Malik was very pious and charitable and worshiped much. He read through the Qur'an in every three days. His good deeds and favors were countless. As soon as he became the khalif, he appointed his cousin, 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, the governor of Medina. He had the Umayya Mosque built in Damascus, spending four hundred chests of gold coins. It was Walid who built the first hospital and soup kitchen for the poor in Muslim history. He himself paid the debts of religious men. His commandant, Kutaibiya, took Bukhara peacefully from the Turks. He was the conqueror of Andalusia (Spain), Ankara, Samarkand and India. It was written on his seal: 'O Walid! You will die and be called to account!' (46-96)
 "XII: Sulaiman ibn 'Abd al-Malik was learned, zealous, literary, eloquent, charitable and just. He abstained much from tormenting others. One day, a person told him that his farm had been taken from him cruelly. Because he feared Allahu ta'ala much, he got down from his throne, removed the rug and put his cheek on the ground. He took an oath that he would not withdraw his cheek from the ground until an order would be written to that cruel person. The order was written immediately and given to the farmer. (60-99) [Another example showing the justice of Islamic khalifs is written in Hadrat Sayyid Abdulhakim al-Arwasi's (rahmat-Allahi ta'ala alaih) note book: "Khalif Sulaiman asked Hadrat Abu Hazim, one of the Tabi'un, 'We don't want to die. What is the reason?' He said, 'O Sulaiman! You have destroyed your next world and made this world prosperous. Certainly you wouldn't like to go from a prosperous place to a destroyed one.'"]
"XIII: 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-Aziz ibn Marwan (rahmat-Allahu ta'ala 'alaih) was a good, just Muslim. (61-101) [Maodudi, too, praises him. He says that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz was the first mujaddid and writes about some of his innumerable good deeds, but he does not attribute any share of these good deeds to Khalif Sulaiman who had designated Umar as his successor. To him, the khalifs spoilt the institution of khalifate by designating their sons or relatives as their successors and thus governed the Islamic republic dictatorially like kings. He searches for and counts all their faults and defects and disgraces them with unbelief, but he does not ever see their good deeds. Whereas, they designated them with the intention of following Islam. Then, religion reformer speak ill of the followers of Islam but praise those who adapt Islam to their own thoughts and points of view.]
"XIV: Yazid ibn 'Abd al-Malik had been formerly addicted to pleasures. But when he became the khalif, he became pious and just. (71-105)
 "XV: Hisham ibn 'Abd al-Malik was very intelligent, efficient in governing and benevolent. Everybody liked him. His goodness and justice were known far and wide. When some goods were brought to the bait al-mal, he would not accept it unless forty persons bore witness to that they were taken in a halal way. (71-125)
 "XVI: Walid ibn Yazid was literary, eloquent. Because he was seen to be mentally deficient, a year later he was killed while reading the Qur'an. (92-126)
 "XVII: Yazid ibn Walid ibn 'Abd al-Malik was intelligent, clever and devoted to the religion. He prohibited alcoholic drinks. (90-126)
 "XVIII: Ibrahim ibn Walid ibn 'Abd al-Malik was the khalif for seventy days which elapsed fighting Marwan. (?-126)
 "XIX: Marwan ibn Muhammad ibn Marwan was brave, intelligent and efficient in administration. He conquered many lands. He fought the Khawarij and killed their chief Dahhak. He was overcome and killed by the 'Abbasids. (72-132)
 "XX: 'Abdullah Saffah ibn Muhammad ibn 'Ali ibn 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas was learned, intelligent, provident, eloquent and generous. He died of small-pox. He is the first khalif of the 'Abbasids. (104-135)
 "XXI: Mansur ibn Muhammad had much knowledge and decency. He did not care for amusement. He was brave and patient. He worshiped much. (95-158)
 "XXII: Mahdi ibn Mansur was learned, brave, intelligent and very generous. Everybody liked him. His itiqad was very pure. He killed the renegades. (126-169)
 "XXIII: Hadi ibn Mahdi was learned, intelligent, eloquent and generous. It was written on his seal, 'I believe and trust in Allahu ta'ala.' (147-170)
 "XXVI: Harun ar-Rashid ibn Mahdi performed a hundred rak'as of salat every day and every night. He went on hajj one year and on ghaza every other year. He followed Islam in everything he did. He had in himself all the beautiful habits. (148-193)"
 Al-Imam al-azam Abu Hanifa, Imam al-Ghazali, Imam an-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, al-Imam ar-Rabbani and Khalid al-Baghdadi (Radhi Allahu Anhum) and many other great scholars were like these.
 
It is obvious that people like Mawdudi, Sayyid Qutb and Hamidullah have remained outside this circle. Nothing can be so credulous as regarding as Islamic scholars the people who do not know anything about Islamic knowledge and Islamic scholars and who cannot penetrate into the inner essence of Islam but observe it from the outside like non-Muslim orientalist authors.
 
 
The branches of knowledge taught in madrasas which are called "scholastic knowledge" by Mawdudi are 'ulum an-naqliyya (religious knowledge). And what he calls "rational knowledge" is 'ulum al-'aqliyya (scientific, literary knowledge).
 
 
Both of these make up the Islamic knowledge. It does not befit a Muslim to say that fiqh and hadith scholars have known one of these branches of knowledge without knowing the other. Islamic scholars have been the very exalted people praised in the Qur'an and Hadith.
 
 
They are the heirs of prophets. They have organized the division of labor among themselves, each undertaking the job of disseminating a separate branch of knowledge.
 
 
This division of labor confuses the ignorant, and they suppose that Islamic scholars have not been exalted in other branches of knowledge. Hadrat 'Abd al-Wahhab ash-Sharani wrote at the beginning of his book Al-mizan al-kubra: "Hadrat Abu Hanifa, the founder of and expert in the knowledge of fiqh, was a great wali like Hadrat 'Abd al-Qadir al-Geilani . He was a man of karamat like him. But he did not undertake to spread the knowledge pertaining to the heart or to purify the souls. He undertook the task of spreading all kinds of worship done with the body, that is, the knowledge of fiqh. The mujtahids whom he educated were like him."
 
 
It is seen that the insidious enemies, who want to demolish Islam from the inside, try to blemish Islamic scholars in this respect also in order to deceive the Muslim youth. They may praise Islamic scholars through false, roundabout words exaggerating them greatly in order to conceal their destructive plans.
 
 
We should not believe them. One who reads, for example, Imam Muhammad al-Ghazali's Persian book Kimya' as-Saada will easily realize his deepness in medical knowledge. He tells that blood is cleaned as the bile and other harmful substances are separated from the blood in the liver, that the spleen, kidneys and the gall bladder play roles in this procedure and that the health will get out of order when the quantities of substances in blood change, just like it is told in today's physiology books.
 
 
Since Islamic scholars were so superior not only in scholastic knowledge but also in rational knowledge, they have been successful in everything they did in every century, and Islamic countries have been the home of civilization.
 
Their thousands of books, which spread their superiority over the world, are evident.
 
 
They fill the world's libraries. Many of them have been translated into foreign languages. Everybody except insidious enemies sees and expresses this fact. It is sufficient to see the book Kashf az-zunun to know about their works. The mischief-makers, who bore Muslim names and who belonged to the seventy-two groups, the members of which, according to the hadith, will go to Hell, introduced into Islam some superstitions long before, like contemporary religion reformers do now. But the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars investigated and cleaned them off one by one.
 
 
Today there is no superstition or mawdu' hadith in the basic books of Ahl as-Sunnat. Shams ad-din as-Sahawi, ash-Shawkani, Ibn Taymiyya, 'Abduh, 'Ali al-Qari and Ismail Hakki said that there were mawdu' hadiths in the basic books of Ahl as-Sunnat, especially in al-Baidawi's tafsir book and in al-Ghazali's Ihya'. They are not right; it is a calumniation against these great scholars.
 
 
Mawdudi's words "declared for luxury, ambition and avarice" about jihad, which is one of Islam's five basic 'Ibadat, reveal his own personality.
 
 
Since the ayats and hadiths commanding jihad have become tawatur, it is not necessary to quote them here in addition. He himself admits them in his book Holy War in Islam. Our ancestors performed jihad not for pleasure or ambition but for spreading Allahu ta'ala's Word. Jihad is carried out by the State, by its army. People perform jihad by serving the army.
 
 
 Mawdudi mistakes the rightful madhhabs for the heretical groups.
 
 
In none of the Ahl as-Sunnat madhhabs, either of itiqad or 'amal, is there a mawdu' hadith or anything incompatible with Islam. There are mawdu' and un-Islamic aspects in the seventy-two heretical groups.
 
 
All Islamic scholars, especially Hadrat Imam al-Ghazali, criticized these heretical groups. Mawdudi does not like the Islamic education, which has spread its arts and established its universities over three continents from Philippines and India to Portugal and from Bukhara to Morocco.
 
 
This is like attempting to plaster the sun with sticky mud to hide the truth. One is surprised not at such a writer but at those who suppose him to be a Muslim scholar.
He says on the seventy-ninth page:
 "Shah Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi removed the old doubts concerning itiqad. He illuminated the heads with a new spirit."
 He means that Shah Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih), too, was a religion reformer. Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi's works bear witness for the fact that he belonged to Ahl as-Sunnat; this fact is also declared by Hadrat 'Abdullah ad-Dahlawi. That Muslims' Iman has been doubtful for centuries is a lie made up by the la-madhhabi. Mawdudi could not be too ignorant to know that doubtful iman is not iman. But it is a heresy worse than ignorance to say that Muslims' iman has been doubtful for centuries.
 
 
The iman of the Ahl as-Sunnat who form ninety percent of Muslims on the world, has been true in every century, and they did not doubt anything in which they believed. Besides, the members of the heretical groups were not so numerous as to represent Islam.
 Mawdudi says on the eighty-first page of his book:
 "The difference between the idea and doctrine of khalifate and sovereignty was explained by Shah Wali-Allah, and the pictures from the Hadith, which were not known before him, were drawn by him. He wrote in his book Musaffa: 'The idiots of four century have abandoned ijtihad. They do not know where they are going, with their rings put on their noses like camels. Each has chosen a different path. It is a pity that they do not have a common understanding.' "
 Hadrat Shah Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi did not say "idiots" about the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars in any of his books, but he complained about the heretical groups who dissented from the four madhhabs. The following passage from him is very descriptive of his reverence towards the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars:
 "Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) said, 'Great scholars will come in Iran.' Besides great hadith scholars such as al-Bukhari, Muslim, at-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, an-Nasai, Ibn Maja, ad-Darimi, ad-Dara-Qutni, Hakim, al-Baihaki and many others who were educated in Iran, there are the great fiqh scholars such as Abu 't-Tayyib [Qadi Tahir at-Tabari], Shaikh Abu Hamid [al-Isfaraini], Shaikh Abu Ishaq ash-Shirazi, and al-Juwaini ['Abdullah ibn Yusuf and his son], Imam al-Haramain 'Abd al-Malik ibn 'Abdullah al-Juwaini and Imam Muhammad al-Ghazali and many many others, who were also educated in Iran. Even Imam Abu Hanifa and his disciples in Mawara an-nahr and Khurasan are the scholars of Iran and are the subject of the good news in the Hadith. A hadith declares, 'There will come a mujaddid in every hundred years.' As he declared, a mujaddid came in each century and strengthened the religion. In the first century of the Hegira, 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-Aziz removed the cruelty of the rulers and established the principles of justice. In the second century, al-Imam ash-Shafi'i explained the knowledge of iman and separated the knowledge of fiqh. In the third century, Abu 'l-Hasan al-Ashari formulated the Ahl-as-Sunnat knowledge and rebutted the people of bidat. In the fourth century, Hakim and al-Baihaki and the like established the fundamentals of the knowledge of the Hadith, and Abu Hamid and the like spread the knowledge of fiqh. In the fifth century, Imam al-Ghazali opened a new way and said fiqh, tasawwuf and kalam were not different from one another. In the sixth century, Imam Fakhr ad-din ar-Razi spread the knowledge of kalam; and Imam an-Nawawi spread the knowledge of fiqh. Thus, a mujaddid, coming in each century up to our time, strengthened the religion. We should not dismiss the matter by just saying that the above hadith and the like are the miracles predicting future happenings. We should also realize the importance and the value of the predicted happenings." [Shah Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi, Izalat al-Khafa 'an khilafati'l-Khulafa'. v II. p. 377, Karachi, 1372.]
Shah Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi (Rahmatullahi Ta'ala Alayh) wrote in another book:
 "One of the wajibs of Islam is to learn the Divine Rules (al-Ahkam al-Ilahi), which can be learned from the Qur'an, the Hadith, the athars of as-Sahaba and of the Tabiin and from the teachings deduced from the Qur'an and the Hadith. Fiqh is the branch of knowledge that deals with the Divine Rules, and fuqaha' are the scholars of fiqh. Fuqaha' had different madhhabs, and the scholars who came later differed from one another in choosing and following these madhhabs. Many of them said that one of the famous madhhabs should be chosen and be followed in one's every affair. For those who cannot understand the Qur'an, the Hadith and the books of scholars, such form of following (taqlid) is very rewarding on condition that they should have resolved to follow the Qur'an and the Hadith in this taqlid. If one fairly presumes that his madhhab's ijtihad concerning one of his affairs is in disagreement with an explicit ayat or hadith, he should follow another mujtahid's ijtihad which agrees with the Qur'an and Hadith more. He should not be prohibited to follow another madhhab for that affair. A scholar of later generations who learned the Sunnat and the athars well, studied the sayings of one of the fuqaha' of Islam well, who could deduce rules by comparing the hadiths that seemed disagreeing to a hadith all the transmitters of which were known by him and which had been used as a support (sanad) by a faqih, thus served the madhhab of his imam, and who could deduce new rules according to the methods of the madhhab of his imam, was called the mujtahidu fi 'l-madhhab. This way of following is very rewarding, too. Most Muslims follow the madhhab which has spread in their country or which they learn from their fathers or masters. This way of following is suitable for those who can read the books of only one madhhab and cannot study the sanads of the madhhab. Islamic teachings are composed of three parts, namely, zahir, nawadir and takhrij teachings, the last one being the teachings deduced by scholars. All three of them exist in the sciences of fiqh, tasawwuf and 'aqa'id. One who is able to distinguish the three kinds of Islamic teachings from one another in all of these three sciences and to deduce rules for each kind of these teachings is called an alim of Islam or mujtahid. Only such an alim can understand the Qur'an and Sunnat. In the books Tahzib by al-Baghawi, Hidaya by Imam al-Haramain, Sharh al-wajiz by ar-Rafii, Ghaya by 'Izzad-din ibn 'Abd-as Salam, Sharh al-muhadhdhab by an-Nawawi, Adab al-futya by Abu 'Amr ibn Salah and in Kitab al-bahr by Badr ad-din az-Zarkashi, knowledge is divided into two, one of which must be learned by everybody. Learning the other is a fard kifaya, and, therefore, an alim who has become a mujtahid learns it; if there is such an alim in a town, others need not learn it and, if there is no such alim, all Muslims are sinful. If such an alim can deduce rules from the Qur'an, Hadith, ijma' and qiyas without depending upon a madhhab, he is called a mustaqil (independent) mujtahid. There has not been such a mujtahid for a long time.
 "There are four kinds of non-mustaqil mujtahids. A mujtahid of the first kind does not follow the imam of his madhhab in searching for documents and deducing rules. Because he is on the way of an imam, he is said to belong to an imam's madhhab and is called a mujtahid muntasib. He is a mujtahid mutlaq, and there must always be such a mujtahid. The Ashab at-tarjih, of the second kind, depend on the methods and documents of the imam of the madhhab, and each is called a mujtahid muqayyad. A mujtahid of the third kind knows the documents of his madhhab. The one belonging to the fourth kind can understand the teachings of his madhhab and conveys them to others.
 "The ordinary Muslims who are not able to perform ijtihad and do not study knowledge are permitted to follow a madhhab. For the one who has reached the degree of performing ijtihad, however, following a madhhab is disapproved." [Shah Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi, Al-intibah, part III. The author of It'haf, an annotation to Al-intibah, wrote: "The one who said that a Muslim should give up following a madhhab and do his actions direct according to ayats and hadiths was not Shah Wali-Allah but ash-Shawkani," and added that ash-Shawkani's words were better and superior, thus displayed that he was against the madhhabs.]
Shah Wali-Allah's above writings clearly show the fact that Mawdudi is a heretic who has not realized the greatness of the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars, all of whom were praised in the Hadith and who followed the same path and spread and strengthened Rasulullah's (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) path.
 Mawdudi writes altogether nonsense on the eighty-third page; see what he writes out of delirium:
 "Because of the difference of opinions with regard to fiqh, the Hanafi and the Shafi'i madhhabs have judged each other resentfully to defend its own opinion and have become excessively dangerous to each other. Every madhhab overflows with details, and facts get lost in muchness of interpretation."
 These delirious words are excessively slanderous against the madhhab leaders. In no fiqh book is there a single word written with resent or jealousy against any of the four madhhabs. On the contrary, each madhhab considers it permissible to follow other madhhabs when in difficulty.
 
 
[For details, see Abd al-Ghani an-Nabulusi's Khulasat at-tahqiq and our book The Sunni Path, p. 32.] Such a corrupt, absurd and obvious lie as this can be written only by a heretic attacking Islam behind the curtain. poor Mawdudi has tried to dive into kalam and fiqh, which are the important subjects of Islam, but, being inexperienced, he has been drowned.
 
 
On the ninetieth page, he praises Shah Wali-Allah and says that he selects the following lines from his book Al-tafhimat:
 "In the contemporary age, reality, which is compatible with the spirit of Divine Knowledge, combines the Hanafi and the Shafi'i madhhabs. The Qur'an commentaries should be reviewed and the parts that are against the Hadith should be sifted out, and what is without essence and value should be discarded."
 A Muslim who knows his religion and madhhab becomes infuriated at these words. It is unbelievable that such a great scholar as Shah Wali-Allah would have such heretical ideas. In order to show the fact to our brothers-in-Islam and to disgrace Mawdudi, we will give some quotations from the same book:
 
 
 "The origins of Islam are the Qur'an and the Hadith. There is no other source. Ijtihad is permissible in deciding about worldly affairs. If such an affair was decided about before, the decision cannot be changed. There is not qiyas or ijma' in the knowledge of Islam." [Shah Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi, at-tafhimat al-ilahiyya, v. II. p. 142, Pakistan, 1387 (1967).] The anti-madhhabite people say, "The gate of ijtihad cannot be closed. Ijtihad can be done anytime," thus they want to change the religious knowledge. They refer to Shah Wali-Allah as a support for these words. Whereas, Shah Wali-Allah clearly writes above that he never admits ijtihad and qiyas in the religious knowledge and also shows that the words and references of such non-madhhabite people as Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb are unsound.
 
 
 "Read the hadith books of al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud and at-Tirmidhi and the Hanafi and Shafi'i fiqh books! Hold fast to the books 'Awarif al-ma'arif and Ar-risalat an-Naqshibandiyya! These great people wrote about the dhikr and yad dasht so clearly that there is no need to learn them from a murshid. It is a very great blessing to attain the grades of the great men of tasawwuf..[ [Shah Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi, at-tafhimat al-ilahiyya, v. II. p. 290, Pakistan, 1387 (1967).]. I dreamt of Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam). I asked him which madhhab and Tariqa were better and which he liked most. 'All the madhhabs and Tariqas are equal. None is superior to another,' he said." [Shah Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi, at-tafhimat al-ilahiyya, v. II. p. 301, Pakistan, 1387 (1967).]
 
 
"Muslims have parted into madhhabs. The scholars reported the religion that had come from Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam). They agreed on most of the teachings, and there remained some insignificant disagreements on a minor part. But the majority of scholars held on to the right path and disapproved those who separated from them. From fear, the separatists either hid themselves or behaved double-facedly, which showed that they were the people of bidat.
 
 
We should hold fast to the teachings on which the right madhhabs agreed, and we should not deny the ones on which they disagreed. He who says that it is fard to follow the madhhab of a certain person who was not a prophet becomes an unbeliever; Islam had existed before that person was created, and fiqh scholars had preached it. Muslims have always followed one of the right madhhabs, for they have believed that the imam of the madhhab reported the religion coming from Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) correctly. It occurs to my heart that it would be good to compare the present teachings of the two most widespread madhhabs, the Hanafi and Shafi'i, with hadith books. When the teachings without foundation,
 
 
[By these words, Shah Wali-Allah meant the teachings made up in the books written by ignorant men of religion. Such teachings do not exist in the basic books of the Hanafi and Shafi'i madhhabs or in hadith books.
 
 
When such teachings are cleared off, it will be seen that there is very little difference between madhhabs, for there is no difference pertaining to the teachings that are expressed clearly in the Hadith between the two madhhabs, even among the four madhhabs; and there are not many differences pertaining to the teachings that are not expressed clearly. These different teachings are either rukhsa (easiness, facility) or azima (difficulty).
 
 
For more detail, see The Sunni Path, published by Hakikat Kitabevi in Istanbul.] are excluded, the two madhhabs will seem as if they are united. Of the remaining teachings, the ones in common with both madhhabs would be taken. Those which are not common would be classified as rukhsa or 'azima. In case of darura (necessity or emergency), the ones that are rukhsa would be followed." [Shah Wali-Allah, At-tafhimat, v. I, pp. 277-9.] Here he gives definite answers to the la-madhhabi and shows that their statement, "Our opponents are polytheists," is unbelief.
 
 
This passage, only the last sentence of which is played as a trump card by Mawdudi, does not ever support his point of view, but it rescues the madhhabs, from the slanders with which the ignorant people and heretics smeared the madhhabs.
 
 
As a matter of fact, Shah Wali-Allah explained it more clearly: "What Allahu ta'ala likes is to search firstly through the Qur'an and Hadith. If a person can comprehend and draw conclusions from them, he has attained to a great blessing. If he cannot comprehend them, he should follow the madhhab of an imam who, he believes, understood them correctly and suitably with the Sunnat and communicated clearly what he understood. Arabic knowledge and the lessons at the madrasa should be studied with the view of understanding them, not for other purposes!" [." [Shah Wali-Allah, At-tafhimat, v. I, pp. 283.]
 
As it is seen, Shah Wali-Allah, too, prohibited the scholars who were mujtahids from following another mujtahid and wrote that we ignorant people should follow one of the right madhhabs.
 
 
 In the book Endless Bliss, Shah Wali-Allah's invaluable writings praising the four madhhabs in his works Al-insaf and 'Iqd al-jayyid [These two arabic books are reproduced photostatically in one volume by Hakikat Kitabevi, Istanbul, 1395 (1975).] are quoted lengthily. Even the Turkish book Nimat ul-Islam clearly states that the madhhabs cannot be united and it is superstitious to be a mulfiq.
 
 
In the fatwa book Fatawa al-Haramain and Persian Saif al-abrar, which were written in India, and in Hadrat 'Abd al-Wahhab ash-Sharani's preface to his Al-Mizan al-kubra, [These three books are reproduced in Istanbul.] 'madhhab' is explained clearly, and it is proved with documents that the madhhabs cannot be united.
 
 
To pioneer something about which has been unanimously said "cannot be done" for a thousand years means to turn Islam upside down. Are those who defend it Muslims or are they are enemies of Islam? It is left to the readers to decide about it.
 Shah Wali-Allah explained and praised tasawwuf and the Tariqas throughout his Persian work Hama'at (Pakistan, 1944), from which the following lines are extracted:
 "If the salik is not so learned as to study the hadith books or the knowledge coming from as-Sahaba and the Tabiin, he should follow one of the four madhhabs. All the Tariqas are the same in respect of belief, of doing the commands and abstaining from the prohibitions. They have been different in doing the dhikr and supererogatory worship. If worldly thoughts come to one's mind while performing the dhikr, one should sit near an exalted person whose tawajjuh is strong and pay his tawajjuh to him. Or one should pay his tawajjuh to the souls of the mashayikh al-kiram, and, therefore, visit their graves and beg them to attract him towards themselves. If the dhikr causes vexation to the nafs, this has various reasons. One of them is the lack of following the rules of adab towards the mashayikh of the Tariqa he follows. If the salik cannot understand the reason, the shaikh will understand it with his tawajjuh and insight and will let him know of it. This faqir [Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi himself] paid my tawajjuh to the world of souls and understood that each Tariqa had a different relationship to it. Also i'tikaf in shrines will help one make progress. Speaking ill of the Salaf as-Salihin is one of the reasons which block the way. It has often been seen that angels scatter blessings onto the gatherings of dhikr and that those who perform the dhikr are surrounded by light. If one's soul is in relation with the pure souls of prophets or of awliya' or with angels, facts not taught to others will be taught to him. If one understands that someone is a wali and loves him, his soul gets attached to the wali's soul. Or, he loves his murshid or his pious ancestor and gets attached to his soul. He gets faid from him. Visiting the graves of awliya', reading the Qur'an and giving alms and sending its thawab to their souls, and revering their works and children will help one get attached to their souls. One will dream of them. Appearing in their own figures, they will help and rescue one at dangerous places. One who gets benefit from the souls is called an Uwaysi. Because his attraction is very strong, Hadrat El-Sheikh 'Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani has the ability to be beneficial as alive awliya have. This faqir paid my tawajjuh to the souls of the mashayikh and attained many blessings. Five hundred years after the death of the mashayikh, there is not any natural power left in their bodies and their effects on those who visit their graves become more. Benefit by tawajjuh to the soul can be done in two ways: by thinking that the two souls are attached to each other, which is like seeing somebody in the mirror; or by visiting his grave and thinking of him, which is like opening one's eyes and seeing somebody facing him."
 Wali-Allah ad-Dahlawi (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih) further wrote: "One is permitted to gather the rukhsas of the four madhhabs only when it is not prohibited by the explicit nasses of the Qur'an and Hadith, by the ijma' of the Salaf as-Salihin or by an explicit qiyas." [Izalat al-khafa, p. 522, Pakistan, 1386 (1966), original Persian and translated Urdu versions together.] As it is seen, Shah Wali-Allah, let alone saying that the madhhabs should be united, he makes conditions even for taking their rukhsas.
 
 
 Mawdudi goes on attacking the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars and again claims to quote from Shah Wali-Allah's book Musaffa, on the 91st page of his book The Revivalist Movement in Islam: "Ijtihad is necessary in every age. It is necessary to put new rules event if it may not agree with a certain madhhab. Because it is a must to have divine responsibilities according to the peculiarities of every century. The books of the madhhabs that have been written up to now are inefficient and full of differences. It is the only way out to remove these differences through the principles of Islam."
 
 
 He attributes these exaggerations, which he likes very much and, his mouth watering, praises excessively, to Shah Wali-Allah. He makes that great scholar a false witness for himself. These slanders reveal his real purpose and raise his mask. Hadrat Wali-Allah, however, wrote in the preface of his famous work Izalat al-khafa:
 "Most of the rules declared in the Qur'an are concise. They cannot be solved or understood without the explanation by the Salaf as-Salihin. Most of those hadiths reported by one person cannot be documents unless they were reported by many of the Salaf as-Salihin and unless the mujtahids derived rules from them. If those great people had not worked so hard, the hadiths that seemed to disagree with one another would not have been brought together. Likewise, unless all the branches of religious knowledge, such as 'ilm al-qira'a, 'ilm at-tafsir, 'ilm al-'aqa'id and 'ilm as-suluk, have come from those great people, they cannot be documents. In all these branches of knowledge, as-Sahaba were the source for the Salaf as-Salihin and shed light on their way. The pillar to which the Salaf as-Salihin held on is the cuffs of the Khulafa' ar-rashidin. The person who breaks this origin, this pillar, will be demolishing the whole religious knowledge."
 Shah Wali-Allah further wrote: "For being a mujtahid, it is necessary to know the majority of the detailed documentation from the Qur'an, Hadith, ijma' and from qiyas of the knowledge of fiqh. He must know the document of every rule and form a firm opinion about the documents. Being a mujtahid in this time requires being specialized in the following five branches of knowledge: 'ilm-i kitab qira'atan wa tafsiran; 'ilm al-hadith, that is, to know each hadith together with its documents and to recognize the daif hadith and the sahih hadith immediately; the third one is 'ilm al-aqawil as-Salaf, that is, to know what the Salaf as-Salihin said about each matter so that one will not go out of ijma', so that one will not swerve to the third way if there were two different decisions on a matter; the fourth one is 'ilm al-'arabiyya, i.e., Arabic with branches of lughat, nahw, [mantiq, bayan, ma'ani, balagha,] etc; the fifth one is 'ilm at-turuq al-istinbat wa wujuh at-tatbiq bain al-mukhtalifain. Such a profoundly learned scholar is called a mujtahid. Such a scholar ponders very hard on every small matter and observes each rule similar to it together with its documents. It should be known certainly that interpreting the Qur'an also requires being deeply specialized in these five branches. In addition, it is necessary to know the hadiths telling the reason for the descent of the ayats. He should know what the Salaf as-Salihin said about interpreting the Qur'an. His memory and comprehension should be very strong. He should understand the siyaq, sibaq and tawjih of ayats and the like." [Izalat al-khafa, p.21.]
 
 
Those people who attempt to do ijtihad and to write Qur'an commentaries, such as Mawdudi, Sayyid Qutb and Hamidullah, should read these lines and realize the greatness and exaltedness of Islamic scholars.
 
 
However, this realization is a great virtue. Hence arises the fact that those who do not realize this or do not want this to be realized either by themselves or by others are trying to demolish Islam from the inside under the mask of Muslim scholars. May Allahu ta'ala protect Muslims against believing such insidious enemies of Islam! Lest my dear readers should be taken in by wrong, very dangerous articles of anti-madhhabite people, I deem it proper to give additional information on ijtihad in the following.

Footnotes

  • Since this shaytan was just as bad as a Yahudi, we'll put his quotes (and other la-madhhabiyya) in blue, which is the color of ink used by Yahudis.
    More on Maududi - to follow !!!!
     
    --- On Sat, 7/24/10, Yasir Khan <yasirkhan21@gmail.com> wrote:

    Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 7:28 AM

    LOL @ your comparison one ( your wahab ) hate monger who ignited the killing influenced the killers of  20th century .. 

    So you are saying any one who is not wahabi is deviated from Islam and as per wahab every one who comes in the way of Wahabism is mushrik Wajib ul katal and his killing is as justified as the killing of Mushriks and there women and children can be made slaves
    So the rest of Alam -e- Islam is Mushrik wajibul katal ......

    Wonder full here comes out the reality


    On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:29 AM, kaukab siddique
    < wrote:
     
     
     

     

    Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:14:00 -0700
    From:
    zina.khan@yahoo.com

     

                                                               

      The beginning and spread of Wahhabism
    Home Next

     

     
    Publisher's Note

    21 June, 1995 Copyleft c Waqf Ikhlas, Istanbul, 1995.
    Permission to reprint & distribute is granted only if this heading included, and the text is not modified in any way, shape or form to alter the intended meaning.
    WAQF IKHLAS 

    Ihlas Holding A.S.
    Cagaloglu-ISTANBUL
    Tel: (90.212) 513 99 00
     
     



    PART TWO
    THE BEGINNING AND SPREADING OF WAHHABISM[*]









    [*] Ttranslated, for the most part, from Ayyub Sabri Pasha's Turkish work Mir'at al-Haramain: 5 volumes, Matba'a-i Bahriyye, Istanbul, 1301-1306 A.H.
     
     
    36 - During the time when the Ottoman reign was dominant in the Arabian Peninsula, each state was governed by an official selected from the state.
     
    Later on, every region except the Hijaz came into the possession of whomever could usurp it and was governed as sheikhdoms.
     
    The tenets of Wahhabism disseminated by Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab changed into a political form in a short time in 1150 A.H. (1737) and spread all over Arabia. Later, by the order of the Caliph in Istanbul, Muhammad 'Ali Pasha, the Governor of Egypt, liberated Arabia from them with the armed forces of Egypt.
     
     
    'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Muhammad, who believed in the Wahhabis, declared war for the first time in 1205 A.H. (1791) against the amir of Mecca, Sharif Ghalib Effendi.
     
    They had disseminated Wahhabism secretly till then.
     
     
    They had killed and tortured many Muslims, enslaved their women and children and usurped their possessions.
     
     
    Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab belonged to the Bani Tamim tribe. He was born in Uyayna village near the town of Huraimila in the Najd Desert in 1111 A.H. (1699) and died in 1206 (1792).
     
    Formerly, with the idea of trading, he went to Basra, Baghdad, Iran, India and Damascus, where he won the name "Shaikh an-Najdi" due to his clever and aggressive attitude.
     
    He saw and learnt a great deal at these places and set his heart on the idea of becoming a chief.
     
     
    In 1125 (1713 A.D.), he met Hempher, a British spy, in Basra, who understood that this unexperienced young person (ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab) has a desire to be a chief by way of revolution, established a long-term friendship with him.
     
     
    He inspired him the trics and lies that he had learned from the British Ministry of the Commonwealth.
     
     
    Seeing that Muhammad enjoys these inspirations, he proposed him to establish a new religion.
     
     
    So, the spy and Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab got what they were looking for. He had thought it proper to found a new Tariqa or reach his goal, and, in preparation for this goal, attended the lectures of the Hanbali 'ulama' in the blessed city of Medina and later in Damascus for some time.
     
    When he went back to the Najd, he wrote pamphlets on religious subjects for villagers.
     
    He wrote what he learned from the British spy and mixed corrupt information from the Mutazila and other groups of bidat.
     
     
    Many ignorant villagers, particularly the inhabitants of Dar'iyya and their ignorant chief, Muhammad ibn Sa'ud, followed him.
     
     
    The Arabs esteemed ancestral distinctions very highly, and because he did not belong to a well-known family, he used Muhammad ibn Sa'ud as a tool to disseminate his Tariqa, which he named Wahhabism.
     
     
    He introduced himself as the Qadi (Head of the Religious Affairs) and Muhammad ibn Sa'ud as the Hakim (Ruler).
     
     
    He had it passed in their constitution that both would be succeeded only by their children.
     
     
    In 1306 (1888) when the book Mirat al-Haramain was written, the amir of the Najd was 'Abdullah ibn Faysal, a descendant of Muhammad ibn Sa'ud, and the Qadi was a descendant of Muhammad ibn 'abd al-Wahhab.
     
     
    Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's father, 'Abd al-Wahhab, who was a pious, pure alim in Medina, his brother Sulaiman ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his teachers had apprehended from his statements, behavior and ideas, which he frequently had put forward as questions to them when he was a student in Medina, that he would become a heretic who would harm Islam from the inside in the future.
     
     
    They advised him to correct his ideas and advised the Muslims to avoid him.
     
     
    But they soon encountered the very thing they were afraid of, and he started disseminating his heretical ideas openly under the name of Wahhabism.
     
     
    To deceive ignorant and stupid people, he came forward with reforms and innovations incompatible with the books of the 'ulama' of Islam.
     
     
    He dared to be so impetuous as to deem the true Muslims of Ahl as-Sunnat wal-Jamaat as disbelievers.
     
     
    He regarded it as polytheism to ask Allahu ta'ala for something through the mediation of our Prophet (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) or other prophets or awliya', or to visit their graves.
     
     
    According to what Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab learned from the British spy, he who talks to the dead while praying near a grave becomes a polytheist.
     
     
    He asserted that Muslims who said that someone or something beside Allah did something, for example, saying "such-and-such medicine cured" or "I obtained what I asked through our master Rasulullah" or "such-and-such wali" were polytheists.
     
     
    Although the documents Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab made up to support such statements were nothing but lies and slanders, the ignorant people who could not distinguish right from wrong, the unemployed, raiders, ignoramuses, opportunists and the hard-hearted soon assented to his ideas and took their part on his side and regarded the pious Muslims of the right path as disbelievers.
     
     
    When Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab applied to the rulers of Dar'iyya with the view of disseminating his heresies easily through them, they willingly cooperated with him with the hope of extending their territories and increasing their power.
     
     
    They strove with all their might do disseminate his ideas everywhere.
     
    They declared war against those who refused and opposed them.
     
     
    The bestial people and pillagers of the desert competed with one another in joining the army of Muhammad ibn Sa'ud when it was said that it was halal to plunder and kill Muslims.
     
     
    In 1143 (1730), Muhammad ibn Sa'ud and Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab hand in hand arrived at the conclusion that those who would not accept Wahhabism were disbelievers and polytheists, and that it was halal to kill them and confiscate their possessions, and publicly announced their declaration seven years later.
     
     
    Then, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab started fabricating ijtihad when he was thirty-two years old and announced his false ijtihads at the age of forty.
     
     
    As-Sayyid Ahmad ibn Zaini Dahlan (rahmat-Allahi 'alaihi), Mufti of the blessed city of Mecca, described under the topic "Al-fitnat al-Wahhabiyya" the tenets of Wahhabism and the tortures the Wahhabis inflicted upon Muslims? [Al-futuhat al-Islamiyya, second volume, page 228, Cairo, 1387 (1968); photo-offset reproduction of a comparable part, Istanbul, 1395 (1975).]
     
     
    He wrote: "To deceive the 'ulama' of Ahl as-Sunnat in Mecca and Medina, they sent their men to these cities, but these men could not answer the questions of the Muslim 'ulama'.
     
    It became evident that they were ignorant heretics.
     
    A verdict declaring them disbelievers was written and distributed everywhere.
     
    Sharif Masud ibn Said, Amir of Mecca, ordered that the Wahhabis should be imprisoned.
     
    Some Wahhabis fled to Dar'iyya and recounted what had happened to them." [Al-futuhat al-Islamiyya, second volume, page 234, Cairo, 1387 (1968); photo-offset reproduction of a comparable part, Istanbul, 1395 (1975).]
     
     
     The 'ulama' of the Hijaz belonging to all the four madhhabs, including Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's brother Sulaiman and also his teachers who had trained him, studied Muhammad's books, prepared answers to his disunionist writings, which were destructive to Islam, and wrote, to call to the attention of Muslims, well-documented books in refutation to his heretical writings. [See above article 5, for the passage translated from Sulaiman ibn Abd al-Wahhab's work As-Sawa'iq al-ilahiyya fi'r-raddi ala'l-wahhabiyya; first published in 1306; second edition (reproduced by photo-offset) in Istanbul in 1395 (1975).]
     
     
    These books did not help much but rather increased the Wahhabis' resentment against Muslims and excited Muhammad ibn Sa'ud to attack Muslims and augment the bloodshed.
     
     
    He belonged to the Bani Hanifa tribe, so was a descendant of a stupid race that believed in the prophethood of Musailamat al-Kadhdhab.
     
     
     Muhammad ibn Sa'ud died in 1178 (1765), and his son 'Abd al-'Aziz succeeded him. 'Abd al-'Aziz was assassinated, stabbed in the abdomen by a Shiite, in the Dar'iyya Mosque in 1217 (1830).
     
     
    Then, his son Sa'ud ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz became the chief of the Wahhabis.
     
     
    All three strove very hard, as if competing with one another, to shed Muslim blood in order to deceive the Arabs and to disseminate Wahhabism.
     
     
    The Wahhabis say that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab disseminated his thoughts in order to attain sincerity in his belief in the unity of Allah and to rescue Muslims from polytheism.
     
     
    They allege that Muslims had been committing polytheism for six centuries and that he came forth to renew and reform the religion of Muslims.
     
     
    He put forward the 5th, 106th and 14th ayats of the respective Suras al-Ahqaf, Yunus and ar-Rad as documents to make everyone believe his ideas.
     
     
    However, there are many similar ayats, and the 'ulama' of tafsir unanimously declared that all these ayats were about idolatrous unbelievers or polytheists.
     
     
    According to Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, a Muslim becomes an idolatrous polytheist (mushrik) if he receives istighatha from our-Prophet (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam), from another prophet, a wali or a pious person near the Prophet's grave or far away from it, that is, if he asks for help from him to relieve him of a burden or trouble, or if he asks for his intercession by mentioning his name or if he wants to visit his grave.
     
     
    Allahu ta'ala describes the situation of idolatrous disbelievers in the third ayat al-karima of Surat az-Zumar, but the Wahhabis display this ayat as a document to justify their using the word "mushrik" for a Muslim who prays by putting a prophet or a wali as an intermediary.
     
     
    They say that the idolaters, too, believed that not the idols but Allahu ta'ala created everything.
     
     
    They further say that Allahu ta'ala declared, "They [idolaters] say, 'Of course, Allah created them,' when you ask who created them," in the 61st and 87th ayats of Surat al-'Ankabut and Surat az-Zuhruf, respectively.
     
     
    They say that the idolaters were polytheistic disbelievers not because they believed as such but because they spoke as quoted in the third ayat of Surat az-Zumar: "Those who make friends with those other than Allah say, 'They help us approach [Allahu ta'ala] by interceding for us with Allahu ta'ala.' "
     
     
    They claim that Muslims who ask at the graves of prophets and awliya' for intercession and help become polytheists by saying such.
     
     
    It is very unsound, foolish and ridiculous of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab to liken Muslims to disbelievers and polytheists in the light of this ayat.
     
     
    Because, disbelievers worship idols so that idols may intercede for them; they leave aside Allahu ta'ala and ask only idols to give them their wishes, whereas we Muslims worship neither prophets nor awliya' but expect everything only from Allahu ta'ala.
     
     
    We wish awliya' to be a wasita or wasila for us.
     
     
    Disbelievers believe that idols intercede for whatever they wish and make Allahu ta'ala create everything they want.
     
     
    Whereas, Muslims ask intercession and help of awliya' whom they know as the beloved servants of Allahu ta'ala, because Allahu ta'ala has revealed in the Qur'an al-karim that He will permit His beloved servants to intercede and will accept their intercession and prayers and because Muslims believe this good news stated in the Qur'an al-karim.
     
     
    There is no analogy between disbelievers' worshiping idols and Muslims' asking help of awliya'.
     
     
    Muslims and disbelievers are human beings in appearance; they are similar in being human beings, but Muslims are Allahu ta'ala's friends and will remain in Paradise eternally, whereas disbelievers are Allahu ta'ala's enemies and will remain eternally in Hell.
     
     
    Their superficial resemblance does not prove that they will always remain the same.
     
     
    Those who entreat idols who are Allahu ta'ala's enemies and those who entreat Allahu ta'ala's beloved servants may look alike in appearance, but entreating idols leads one to Hell and entreating awliya' causes Allahu ta'ala to forgive and show Mercy.
     
     
    The hadith ash-Sharif, "Allahu ta'ala's Mercy descends where His beloved servants are mentioned," too, indicates that Allahu ta'ala will show Mercy and forgive when prophets ('alaihimu 's-salawatu wat-taslimat) and awliya' are entreated. [See the last paragraph of article 30.]
     
     
    Muslims believe that prophets and awliya' are not to be worshiped and are not gods or Allahu ta'ala's partners.
     
     
    Muslims believe that they are Allah's powerless servants who do not deserve to be worshiped or performed 'ibada or prayed towards. Muslims believe that they are Allah's beloved servants whose prayers He accepts.
     
     
    The 35th ayat al-karima of Surat al-Ma'ida says, "look for a wasila to approach Me." Allahu ta'ala means that He will accept the prayers of His pious servants and endow them with what they wish.
     
     
    A hadith ash-Sharif quoted by al-Bukhari, Muslim and in Kunuz ad-daqaiq declares, "Verily, there are such human servants of Allahu ta'ala that He creates it if they swear for something; He does not belie them."
     
     
    Muslims take awliya' as wasilas and expect prayers and help from them because they believe the above ayats and hadiths.
     
     
    Although some disbelievers state that idol-statues are not creators and that Allahu ta'ala creates everything, they claim that idols deserve to be worshiped and are able to do and make Allah to do whatever they wish.
     
     
     They attribute idols as partners to Allahu ta'ala. If someone asks help of a person beside Allah and says that he will certainly help him and that whatever he wishes will happen in any case, this person becomes a disbeliever.
     
     
    But, he who says, "My wish will not be granted for sure through his will. He is only a cause. Allahu ta'ala likes those who hold fast to the causes.
     
     
    It is His Custom to create as consequences of causes. I ask this person for help so as to be holding fast to the cause, but expect my wish to be granted from Allah. Rasulullah, too, held fast to the causes, and I am following the Sunnat of that exalted Prophet by holding fast to the causes," he gains thawab.
     
     
    If he obtains his wish, he thanks Allahu ta'ala; if not, he resigns himself to Allahu ta'ala's qada' and qadar. The idolatry of disbelievers is not like Muslims' asking awliya' for prayers, intercession and help.
     
     
    A wise, reasonable person cannot liken these two to each other but fully comprehends that they are different.
     
     
    Allahu ta'ala alone creates both what is useful and what is harmful. No one but He deserves to be worshiped.
     
     
    No prophet, wali or creature can ever create anything. There is no creator besides Allah.
     
     
    Only, Allahu ta'ala shows Mercy to those who mention the names of His prophets, awliya' and pious, beloved servants and who regard them as mediators, and He grants them their wish.
     
     
    He and His Prophet revealed this, and Muslims, therefore, believe as they revealed.
     
     
    Polytheists and disbelievers, however, regard idols as ilahs (gods) or mabuds (one to be worshiped) and worship them though they know that idols do not create anything.
     
     
    Some of them become polytheists by regarding idols as ilahs while some others by worshiping or regarding them as mabuds.
     
     
    They are polytheists not because they say their idols would intercede for them and make them closer to Allah, but because they regard them as mabuds and because they worship them.
     
     
    Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) declared, "A time will come when the ayats revealed about disbelievers will be used as documents to slander Muslims," and "What I fear most is that some people will come to use the ayats for purposes which Allahu ta'ala does not approve of." These two hadiths, which were related by 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anhuma), foretold that the la-madhhabi people would appear and ascribe the ayats revealed about disbelievers to Muslims and calumniate the Qur'an al-karim.
     
     
    Muslims visit the graves of those whom, they believe, Allahu ta'ala loves. They beg Allahu ta'ala through the means of His beloved servants.
     
     
    Rasulullah and as-Sahabat al-kiram did so, too. Rasulullah said in his prayers, "Oh my Rabb! I ask You for the right (love) of Your servants to whom You grant their wishes." He taught this prayer to his companions and ordered them to say it, and, therefore, Muslims pray as such.
    Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) put Hadrat 'Ali's mother Fatima bint Asad's corpse into the grave and prayed, "Oh my Rabb! Forgive Mother Fatima bint Asad!
     
     
    Show much mercy unto her for the love of Your Prophet and the prophets who came before me!"
     
     
    He ordered a blind man, who wanted to gain his sight, to perform a salat of two rak'as and to pray, "Oh my Rabb! I ask You for the love of Your Prophet Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam) whom You, out of Mercy, sent to
     
     
    Your human servants, and I make him a wasila. I entreat You. Oh the beloved Prophet, Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam)! I entreat my Rabb through you so that He may accept my prayer and grant me my wish.
     
     
    Oh my Rabb! Let that exalted Prophet be an intercessor for me so that my prayer may be accepted!"
     
     
    Adam ('alaihi 's-salam) prayed, "Oh my Rabb! Forgive me for the love of my son Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam)!" When he had descended onto the Serandib Island (Ceylon) after he had eaten the fruit from the tree which Allahu ta'ala had forbidden.
     
     
    And Allahu ta'ala declared, "Oh Adam! I would have accepted your intercession if you had asked for intercession through Muhammad for all beings on the earth and in the skies."
     
     
    Hadrat 'Umar took Hadrat 'Abbas (radi-Allahu 'anhuma) with him to pray for rain with the intention of making him a wasila, and his prayer was accepted.
     
     
    The words "Oh... Muhammad!.. You..." in the above prayer, which Rasulullah ordered a blind man to say, prove that it is permissible to mention the names of awliya' when praying through them.
     
     
    Biographies of the as-Sahabat al-kiram and the Tabiin (radi-Allahu 'anhum) are full or documents which show that it is lawful and permissible to visit graves, to ask for intercession by mentioning the name of the dead person and to make the dead wasilas.
     
     
    Muhammad ibn Sulaiman Effendi (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih), who is well known for his annotation to Ibn Hajar al-Haitami's Tukhfa, a commentary of Minhaj, proved well with documents that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was on a corrupt and heretical path and that he ascribed wrong meanings to ayats and hadiths.
     
     
    He wrote: "Oh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab!
     
     
    Do not slander Muslims! I advise you for Allah's sake. Tell him the truth if there is anyone who says that there is a creator besides Allah!
     
    Lead him to the right path by proving through documents! Muslims cannot be said to be disbelievers!
     
    You are a Muslim, too. It is more correct to call one person a 'disbeliever' than calling millions. It is certain that one who departs from the community is in danger.
     
     
    The 114th ayat al-karima of Surat an-Nisa' declares, 'We will leave in disbelief and apostasy the person who, after learning the way to guidance, opposes the Prophet ('alaihi 's-salam) and deviates from the believers' path in iman and 'amal, and then We will throw him into Hell, which is a very terrible place.'
     
     
    This ayat karima points to the situation of those who have departed from Ahl as-Sunnat wal-Jamaat."
     
     
    There are a great number of hadiths which explain that it is permissible and useful to visit graves.
     
     
    As-Sahabat al-kiram and the Tabiin (radi-Allahu 'anhum) frequently visited Rasulullah's (sall-Allahu ta'ala 'alaihi wa sallam) blessed shrine, and many books have been written on the way and uses of this visiting.
     
     
    It is never harmful to pray by holding a wali as a mediator (wasila), to ask for his help by mentioning his name.
     
     
    It is disbelief to believe that the person who is mentioned would be influential and certainly do what he is asked for and would know the ghaib.
     
     
    Muslims should not be accused of having such a tenet since they do not believe so.
     
     
    Muslims ask a beloved servant of Allahu ta'ala only to be a mediator, to intercede and to pray for them.
     
     
    He who creates what is asked for is only Allahu ta'ala. His beloved servants are asked for prayers because He has declared in the 27th ayat al-karima of Surat al-Ma'ida, "I accept the prayers of those whom I love."
     
     
    The dead are not asked to grant the wish asked for but to be an intermediary (wasita) for Allahu ta'ala's granting the wish.
     
     
    It is not permissible to ask the dead to grant anything, and Muslims do not do so.
     
     
    It is permissible to ask for their mediation for that wish to be granted. The words istighatha, istishfa' and tawassul all mean 'asking for wasita or wasila.'
     
     
    Allahu ta'ala alone is the One who creates everything.
     
     
    It is His Custom that He makes a creature of His an intermediary or a cause in creating another thing.
     
    He who wishes Allahu ta'ala to create something should hang on to the intermediary which is the cause for the creation of that thing. Prophets ('alaihimu 's-salatu wa 's-salam) all hang on to the causes.
     
     
    Allahu ta'ala commends the act of holding on to the causes, and prophets ('alaihimu 's-salatu wa 's-salam) ordered it. Daily events also indicates its necessity.
     
     
    One should cling to the causes in order to obtain the things one wishes for. It is necessary to believe that Allahu ta'ala alone makes those causes be the causes of certain things, makes man hang on to those causes and creates them after man holds on to the causes.
     
    The one who believes so may say, "I obtained this thing by holding on to that cause." This statement does not mean that the cause created the thing; it means that Allahu ta'ala created the thing through that cause.
     
     
    For example, the statements, "The medicine I took relieved my pain"; "My sick relative recovered when I vowed a nadhr for Hadrat as-Sayyidat Nafisa"; "The soup satiated me," and "Water slaked my thirst," all imply that these causes are only wasilas or wasitas.
     
     
    It is necessary to think that the Muslims who make similar statements believe in this manner, too.
     
     
    The one who believes so cannot be called a disbeliever.
     
     
    The Wahhabis, too, say that it is permissible to ask for something from those who are near and alive.
     
     
    They ask one another and the government officers for many things; they even entreat them to obtain their wishes.
     
     
    To them, it is polytheism to ask something from the dead or people far away, but it is not so to ask living people.
     
     
    However, to the 'ulama' of Ahl as-Sunnat, the former is not polytheism since the latter is not, and there is no difference between them.
     
     
    Every Muslim believes the fundamentals of iman and Islam and that the fard are fard and the haram are haram.
     
     
    It is also obvious that every Muslim believes that Allah is the only One who creates and makes everything, that no one besides Him can create anything.
     
     
    If a Muslim says, "I won't perform salat," it should be understood that he means that he will not perform salat at that moment or in that place, or because he has already performed it.
     
     
    No one should slander him by alleging that he meant he did not want to perform salat any more.
     
     
    Because, his being a Muslim should prevent others from calling him a "disbeliever" or "polytheist."
     
     
    No one has the right to use the word "disbeliever" or polytheist" for a Muslim who visits graves, asks the dead for help and intercession or says, "May my such-and-such wish be accepted," or "Oh Rasul-Allah! Please intercede for me!"
     
     
    His being a Muslim indicates that his words and deeds are in accord with the permitted, lawful belief and intention.
     
     
    Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's beliefs and writing will be demolished and refuted at their very foundation by the full comprehension and judgement of the preceding explanations.
     
     
    In addition, many books have been written to prove with documents that he was on a wrong path, that he slandered Muslims and tried to demolish Islam from within. Sayyid 'Abd ar-Rahman (rahimah-Allahu ta'ala), the Mufti of Zabid, Yaman, wrote that it would suffice to quote nothing but the following hadith ash-Sharif to show that he was on a wrong path: "Some people will appear in eastern Arabia.
     
     
    They will read the Qur'an al-karim. But the Qur'an al-karim will not go down their throats.
     
     
    They will leave Islam as the arrow leaves the bow. They shave their faces." Their faces' being shaved clearly indicates that those people reported to be on a wrong path are his followers.
     
     
    There is no need to read other books after seeing this hadith ash-Sharif. It is ordered in Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's books that his followers should shave the scalp and sides of the face. There is no such order in any of the seventy-two heretical groups.
     
     

    A WOMAN'S SILENCING IBN 'ABD AL-WAHHAB:









    Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab also ordered women to shave off their hair. a woman said to him: "Hair is the precious ornament of a female as is the beard for a male.
     
    Is it apt to leave human beings deprived of their ornaments bestowed upon them by Allahu ta'ala?" Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab was unable to give any answer to her.
     
     
    Although many wrong, heretical beliefs exist in the path led by Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, there are three main beliefs:
     
     
    1. He taught that rites ('a'mal) make up a part of iman and that he who omits a fard (for example, does not perform salat once because of laziness or does not give the zakat of one year because of stinginess, though he believes that salat and zakat are fard) becomes a disbeliever, and he must be killed and his possessions must be distributed among the Wahhabis.
     
     
    2. They believe that it is polytheism to make wasila of the souls of prophets ('alaihimu 's-salawatu wa 't-taslimat) and awliya' (rahimahum-Allahu ta'ala) and to ask them to pray on behalf of one who, thus, may attain his wish or be safe against what he fears. They say that it is forbidden to read the prayer book Dala'il al-khairat.
     
     
    3. They believe that it is polytheism to build a dome over a grave, to light oil-lamps for those who perform 'ibada and serve in shrines and to vow alms or nadhr of an animal for the souls of the dead. To them, each of these acts is a form of worshiping a person besides Allahu ta'ala.
    All the shrines of as-Sahabat al-kiram, Ahl al-Bait (radi-Allahu ta'ala 'anhum ajmain), awliya' and martyrs (ridwan-Allahi 'alaihim ajmain), except that of our master Rasulullah (sall-allahu 'alaihi wa sallam), were destroyed when Sa'ud ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz attacked Mecca and Medina. The graves became indistinct. Although they attempted to pull down Rasulullah's shrine, too, those who took hold of pickaxes either went mad or suffered paralysis, and they were not able to commit that crime. When they captured Medina, Ibn Sa'ud assembled Muslims and, slandering them, said, "Your religion is now completed by Wahhabism, and Allah became pleased with you. Your fathers were disbelievers and polytheists. Do not follow their religion! Tell everybody that they were disbelievers! It is forbidden to stand and beg in front of Rasulullah's shrine. You may only say 'As-salamu 'ala Muhammad' when passing by the shrine. He is not to be asked for intercession."
     
     

     





     

     

     

     


    Date: Friday, July 23, 2010, 6:34 PM

     

                                                               

      Excerpts from Advice for the Muslim
    Back Home Next

     

     

    Excerpts from " Advice for the Muslim"

    A  Refutation of "Fathul Majid" commentary of Kitaabul Tawhid of  Ibn Abdul Wahhab, founder of the Wahhabi Movement and inspiration of the modern day Wahhabi's known as the Salafi Movement

     
    In the Book "Kitaabul Tawhid", Ibn Abdul Wahhab Al Najdi tried to repute Ahl As Sunnah beliefs and justify his own deviated beliefs. 
     
    Fathul Majid is a commentary on the same wherein the author tries to carry on the work of his  mentor. 
     
    The author attacks every Islamic belief the Muslims hold yet fails miserably.
     
    Advice for the Muslims answers the  book Fathul Majid point for point. 
     
     As of yet, no one has come forth to refute Advice for the Muslims. 
     
    The book Advice for the Muslims was originally entitled " Advice for the Wahhabi."  The name was changed when  many muslims thought the book was pro-wahhabi propaganda . 
     
    Below are links to excerpts to selected topics covered in the book.

     
    Back To Ahl  as Sunnah Aqeedah




    &a mp;a mp;l t;/ DIV>

    __._,_.___

    Palash Biswas
    Pl Read:
    http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/

    No comments:

    Post a Comment