Student
of Mirza Qadir Beg |
Harsh by nature |
|
British Agent |
Never
has there been a great man in the world, who has not been
criticized. A‘lahazrat has admired those who love Holy
Prophet (Allah’s Grace and Peace be upon him) with respect
and those who respect the Holy Prophet (Allah’s Grace and
Peace be upon him) with love. A‘lahazrat has taken to task
those whose main task has been to undermine the love and
respect for Holy Prophet (Allah’s Grace and Peace be upon
him). And, A‘lahazrat has been criticized because he has
criticized such people. A‘lahazrat has been criticized on
one charge or the other. The main charges leveled against
him are as follows:
The
first and foremost charge leveled by the Deobandis is that
the followers of A‘lahazrat call him A‘lahazrat. He is
called A‘lahazrat, whereas the Holy Prophet (Allah’s
Grace and Peace be upon him) is simply called Hazrat. Hazrat
means "person" and "A‘la" means
great, A‘lahazrat means a great person. Thus, according to
them, to call him A‘lahazrat would mean that A‘lahazrat
is greater than the Holy Prophet (Allah’s Grace and Peace
be upon him). How wrong is it, they add.
Apparently,
the charge seems to be forceful. It creates some sort of
misunderstanding in the minds of people. But, as a matter of
fact, it is far from being forceful. It is too weak. If it
is wrong to call anyone A‘lahazrat, is it wrong only in
case of A‘lahazrat of Bareilly? Is it all free and fair in
case of A‘lahazrat of Deoband? Those who criticize
A‘lahazrat for the name of A‘lahazrat , must know that
they have had so many A‘lahazrats of their own. What about
them, let them decide first.
No
literary arguments need be made. No annotation of words need
be made. Haji Imdadullah Saheb is the top saint of the
Deobandi savants. Mawlawi Ashiq Ilahi of Meerut is one of
the top savants of Deoband. In his book "Tazkaratur
Rashid" part II, on page 237, and 238, he has
called Haji Imdadullah Saheb "A‘lahazrat" four
times each. In part I of this book on page 128, a letter of
Mawlawi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi has been published wherein he
calls Haji Imdadullah Saheb A‘lahazrat twice. On page 130,
132 & 136 of this part, Mawlawi Ashraf Ali Thanvi has
used A‘lahazrat thrice in the honour of Haji Imdadullah
Saheb. Not only this, on page 9 of "Tohfat al-Qadyan",
Mawlawi Saifullah, a well-known preacher of Deobandi
thoughts, has used A‘lahazrat for Qari Taiyab Saheb of
Madarsa Deoband. It is thus clear that those who do not like
the word A‘lahazrat to be used for Imam Ahmad Riza Khan,
very much like it to be used for Haji Imdadullah Saheb and
Qari Taiyab Saheb. Does it not mean greater than Holy
Prophet then?
Actually
there is nothing wrong to use A‘lahazrat for Imam Ahmad
Riza Khan. Nor is it wrong for Haji Imdadullah Saheb as it
is used to denote the greatness amongst the contemporaries
only. Similarly, it is all-proper to call Imam-i-‘Azam,
Ghauth-i-‘Azam, Mufti-i-‘Azam and so on.
The next
charge against A‘lahazrat is that he founded a new
religion. The Bareilly or the Bareillvi religion, they
assert. In support of this charge, reference is invited to
the booklet "Wasaya Sharif" wherein
A‘lahazrat is claimed to have said: "My religion
which is apparent from my books." Every stress is laid
upon the words "My religion". According to these
opponents, my religion means the religion given birth by me.
No doubt, A‘lahazrat while on his deathbed advised:
"Stick
strongly to my religion which is apparent from my books. It
is imperative".
A‘lahazrat
is giving maximum importance to religion. To which religion,
he has himself clarified that the religion, which is
apparent from his books, that is, the religion which he has
practiced and preached as per his books. In his books
A‘lahazrat has nowhere stated that he is espousing any new
religion. He has simply followed the religion of Imam-i-‘Azam,
Ghauth-i-‘Azam, Imam Ghazali, Shah Abd al-Haq, Khwaja
Gharib Nawaz, Hazrat Nizam al-din Aulia and so forth. He
has followed all Sunni saints and savants. What
is new with him? Actually, it is A‘lahazrat who has
opposed the "new" as brought by Mr. Muhammad Bin
Abd al-Wahab, who was born in 1699 and his Indian
counterpart Mawlawi Ismail Dehlawi, who was born in 1799.
There is
nothing wrong with the words "My religion".
Usually it is questioned: "What is your religion."
It is answered: "My religion is Islam." It does
not mean that the religion, which has been founded or given
birth by me, is Islam. It is said my cat, my dog and so on.
Does it mean that the cat or dog I have given birth to. Not
only this, so often it is said "My Allah" Then
what would it mean? Thus, "My religion" speaks of
no recency on the part of A‘lahazrat.
Bareilly
is no religion. In 1986, the Acting Mufti-i-‘Azam
of India Allma Akhtar Riza Khan, the grandson of
A‘lahazrat during his Hajj pilgrimage, declared in Saudi
Arabia that Bareilly is no religion. And, if it is a
religion, he is averse to it, he made clear. The fact is
that neither Bareilly nor Deoband is a religion. Both are
different Schools of Thought. Imam Ahmad Riza was the Torch
Bearer of Ahl-i-Sunnat wa Jama‘at. He was
deadly against disintegrating the unity of Ahl-i-Sunnat.
He fought for this aim through out his whole life.
[c]
Non-Condemnation of Mawlawi Ismail as Kafir
There is
raised an objection that A‘lahazrat did not declare Ismail
Dehlawi Kafir. He abstained from doing so. I would
like to say one thing to such people: You have got an
objection that Mawlawi Ismail Dehlawi was not declared Kafir
by A‘lahazrat. In other words, it means that you wanted
Mawlawi Ismail Dehlawi to have been declared Kafir by
A‘lahazrat. A‘lahazrat did not want to declare him Kafir
and, hence, he did not declare him Kafir. He has
merely observed Kafe Lisan (silence) over the issue.
If you wish to call him Kafir, you may call him Kafir.
Who prevents you from calling him Kafir? You want
neither this nor that. If A‘lahazrat has declared some
people Kafir, you have got objection. But if
A‘lahazrat has spared somebody such as Mawlawi Ismail
Dehlawi from declaring him Kafir, even then you have
got objection. It is fantastic, instead of raising any
objection; actually you must have thanked A‘lahazrat at
least on this ground. As a matter of fact, such an objection
itself goes against the very people who raise it.
One
thing is important. A‘lahazrat has not declared Moulve
Ismail Dehlawi Kafir but he has duly declared Kufria (kufr leading) his various writings which were objectionable
Why so? The obvious reason is that Mawlawi Ismail Dehlawi
was not a contemporary of A‘lahazrat. Just a quarter
century had passed since the death of Mawlawi Ismail Dehlawi
when A‘lahazrat was born. It had become popular that
Mawlawi Ismail Dehlawi had apologized for his objectionable
and disgraceful writings. But no proof was available.
Whether it was reality or rumor, A’lahazrat could not
verify it. Thus, a case of benefit of doubt did exist. Every
judicious person would appreciate that A‘lahazrat was very
correct in refraining from declaring Mawlawi Ismail Dehlawi Kafir
by allowing him benefit of doubt. Non-declaration was quite
in order. His decision is not a matter of objection but of
appreciation, not a matter of tears but cheers. How
cautious, just and judicious was A‘lahazrat.
Another
charge against A‘lahazrat is that he was an agent of the
British. Such a charge is framed by only those who charge
for framing charges against A‘lahazrat. They discharge
their duty. They have nothing to do with the background or
base.
Nobody
can say that A‘lahazrat has ever written a single word in
support of the British. Nobody can say that A‘lahazrat has
ever spoken even a single word in favor of the British.
Nobody can say that A‘lahazrat has ever attended any
Meeting of the British. Nobody can say that A‘lahazrat
ever invited any British in any of his functions or ever
otherwise. It was A‘lahazrat who never allowed any
interview to the British. He hated the British so much that
he used to affix postage stamps on the envelope in such a
way that the head of Queen Victoria, Edward VIII and George
V were downward. He carried out this practice not only in
case of envelopes but he also wrote address on that postcard
by keeping the picture-head of the Queen and King downward.
Such envelopes and postcards of A‘lahazrat can be seen in
the libraries of Prof. Dr. Mukhtar al-din Arzu at Aligarh
and Prof. Dr. Muhammad Mas‘ud Ahmad at Karachi (Pakistan).
Some photocopies from the collection of Dr. Mukhtar al-din
Arzu being presented here for the readers. A‘lahazrat
usually spoke and wrote against the British. His four point
economic programme released in 1912 was a big challenge to
the British Govt. and their interest in India. Prof.
Mas‘ud Dehlawi has written a separate book "Gunahe
be Gunahi" in this respect. Through his book "Ulčma-i-Deoband
Ki Angrez Dosti" published from Allahabad (UP).
Allama Mushtaq Ahmad Nizami has proved that, in fact, bonds
of friendship existed amid Ulčma of Deoband and the
British Government. Both were hand and glove with each
other. Of late, Hazrat Abd al-Naim Azizi, Ex-editor of Sunni
Dunya, Bareilly has compiled and published a thrilling
book. "Humphery Kay E‘trafat" (Memoirs of
Mr. Humphery, the English spy in Islamic countries) which
unmasks that the real British agent was Mr. Muhammad bin Abd
al-Wahab. The book is a severe blow to the Wahabi
world. Allama Arshadul Qŕdri has given a unique challenge
to the opponents of A‘lahazrat in this regard. He said to
the opponents, "what to say of proving this charge from
the books of A‘lahazrat or his followers, you cannot prove
this even from your own authentic books." It is a
challenge as well as an advice. Let such people find out
such a charge in the books of Mawlawi Ashraf Ali Thanvi,
Mawlawi Khalil Ahmad Ambethvi etc. who were contemporaries
of A‘lahazrat. If they fail to prove from their own books,
then they should at least be kind enough to feel
sorry and withdraw this charge.
[e]
Creation of Differences amongst Muslims
Another
big charge against A‘lahazrat is that he created
differences amongst Muslims. The sole basis of this
allegation is that A‘lahazrat condemned Ghulam Ahmad
Qadyani, Mawlawi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Mawlawi Khalil Ahmad
Ambethvi, Mawlawi Qasim Nanutvi and Mawlawi Ashraf Ali
Thanvi as Kafir. It was but natural for these leaders
and their supporters to turn against A‘lahazrat. Had
A‘lahazrat supported or agreed to the cause of these
leaders, certainly there would have been no schism amongst
the Muslims. This is what the opponents of A‘lahazrat want
to impress upon the people. Here, the following points
arise:-
(i)
A‘lahazrat had differences with Mawlawi Ismail Dehlawi but
he had no differences with Shah Abd al-Aziz Muhaddith
Dehlawi. Shah Abd al-Aziz was admittedly an uncle of Mawlawi
Ismail. Had Mawlawi Ismail agreed to or supported the cause
of Shah Abd al-Aziz, certainly there would have been no rift
amongst the Muslims. It is also a point to think over.
(ii)
A‘lahazrat had differences with Mawlawi Rashid Ahmad
Gangohi and Mawlawi Ashraf Ali Thanvi but A‘lahazrat had
no differences with Haji Imdadullah Sahib. Mawlawi Rashid
Ahmad Gangohi and Mawlawi Ashraf Ali Thanvi happened to be a
Mureed of Haji Imdadullah Muhajir-i-Makki. Mawlawi
Rashid Ahmad Gangohi and Mawlawi Ashraf Ali Thanvi agreed to
or supported the cause of his own Pir, Haji
Imdadullah Saheb, certainly there would have been no split
amongst the Muslims. It is also a point to give importance
to.
(iii)
A‘lahazrat had differences with Abu al-Kalaam Azad but
A‘lahazrat had no differences with Mawlana Khair al-din,
the father of Abu al-Kalaam Azad. Had Mr. Abu al-Kalaam Azad
agreed to or supported the cause of his own father,
certainly there would have been no differeces amongst
Muslims. It is also a point to give rating to.
(iv) Why
A‘lahazrat alone? It always takes two to shake together.
If A‘lahazrat is to be blamed for criticizing
Deobandism, then the so-called leaders of Deoband are equally
to be blamed for criticizing Sunnism. Who made a
start, is the only deciding factor. Now it must be
remembered that Mawlawi Ismail Dehlawi lashed out at Sunnism
and laid the foundation of Deobandism in India at a
time when A‘lahazrat was not born. Mawlawi Ismail Dehlawi
died in 1830 and A‘lahazrat took birth in 1856.
If books
not men are to be counted then Taqviat-al-Iman of Mawlawi
Ismail Dehlawi was published in 1824 and Al-Motamad al-Mustanad
of A‘lahazrat was published in 1902 who started
first, is now clear. Mawlawi Ismail Dehlawi was the first
person in India who created differences amongst Muslims by
criticizing Sunni ideology and introducing "Deobandi"
ideology. Taqviat-al-Iman was the first book in
India, which brought about such tumult.
Over and
above, even if the condemnation of Deobandism alone
is taken as the root cause for Muslim split-up, even then,
it shall have to be seen if A‘lahazrat was the first
person in this sphere? It cannot be gainsaid the Mawlawi
Ismail Dehlawi was first opposed by Shah Abd al-Aziz Dehlawi,
Shah Makhsoos Ullah Saheb (nephew of Shah Abd al-Aziz) and
Shah Munawwar al-din Saheb (grandfather of Mr. Abu al-Kalaam
Azad) All these savants were contemporaries of Mawlawi
Ismail Dehlawi and A‘lahazrat was not born by then. It
cannot be gainsaid that Hazrat Fazle Haq Khairabadi
condemned "Deobandism", wrote "Tahqiq al-Fatwa"
( ), A‘lahazrat was not born by then. It cannot be
gainsaid that Hazrat Fazle-i-Rasůl Budayooni condemned Deobandism
wrote "if al-Jabbar" and A‘lahazrat was not
born by then. As a number of savants condemned Deobandism and as a number of books were written over this issue
before the birth of A‘lahazrat, he cannot be said to the
first person to condemn Deobandism and thereby create
differences amongst Muslims A‘lahazrat only followed Sunni
savants and endorsed their views in regard to
propagation of Sunnism and condemnation of Deobandism. For detailed study of various charges leveled against
A‘lahazrat at and their befitting replies, please see
"Adhere say ujale tuk" written by Hazrat
Muhammad Abd al-Hakim Qŕdri, published from Markazi
Majlis Riza, Lahore.
Thus, it
would be seen that it was not A‘lahazrat but the above
named kingpins of Deoband who opened the floodgates
of differences amongst Muslims. No Doubt A‘lahazrat was
the torch Bearer of Ahl-i-Sunnat wa Jama‘at in the
subcontinent. He fought for the Unity of Muslim Ummah.
[f]
Opposition of Low-caste Muslims
Much
hullabaloo is made over the issue that A‘lahazrat has
written against Ansari community. It is a dangerous move to
defame A‘lahazrat.
Whatever
A‘lahazrat has written is all on paper. Nothing to conceal
and nothing can be concealed. Read one book or all the books
written by A‘lahazrat. You will get only one thing that
except Sayyids to whom he paid and wanted to be paid greater
respect, he has kept the rest alike. He has written nothing
to degrade or upgrade any particular community. In this
connection, Qari Amanat Rasůl Saheb of Pilibhit has written
a booklet named "A‘lahazrat Ki Bargah Men
Ansariyon Ka Muqam" (Place of Ansar is in the eyes
of A‘lahazrat). Qari Saheb himself belongs to Ansari
community. In this booklet, it has been made clear that
according to A‘lahazrat, the measurement of superiority is
piety and piety only. The booklet says that an Ansari having
more piety (taqwah) would lead the Namaz and the
Pathans and Shaykh would follow him. I hope it would dispel
the misunderstanding, if any.
One
thing, more which is an ample proof of whether A‘lahazrat
was anti-Ansari or pro-Ansari. As per "Wasaya Sharif"
A‘lahazrat has directed that his Namaz-i-Janaza be
led by Mawlawi Amjad Ali. Who was this Mawlawi Amjad Ali,
solves all the problem. All know and if not, then must know
that Hazrat Amjad Ali is the writer of voluminous "Bahar-i-Shari'at"
and is Ansari by caste. It proves beyond any doubt how much
A‘lahazrat loved and respected Hazrat Amjad Ali regardless
of his caste. Not to speak of Hazrat Amjad Ali, even today
hundreds of savants are Ansari by caste and all are ready to
sacrifice their lives upon A‘lahazrat. After all, why? —
Because A‘lahazrat has written against them or just
because A‘lahazrat has given something to them. Ask any
Ansari savant if A‘lahazrat has written against Ansari
community. He would say, "No, not at all." Then
does it mean that A‘lahazrat has written against Ansari
community that is not known to the Ansari savants and that
it is known only to the opponents of A‘lahazrat to
reproach him. Please judge yourself as to where lies the
truth.
[g]
Student of Mirza Ghulam Qadir Beg
There is
a charge against A‘lahazrat that he was a student of Mirza
Ghulam Qŕdir Beg and Mirza Ghulam Qŕdir Beg was brother of
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadyani, who was bogus prophet.
Here,
there is nothing but confusion-confusion in the name of
similar names. The name of one of the teachers of
A‘lahazrat was Mirza Ghulam Qŕdir Beg. But he had nothing
to do with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadyani and his so-called
brother, Mirza Ghulam Qŕdir Beg. This Mirza Ghulam Qŕdir
Beg was a Thanedar and died in 1883 at the age of 55, while
Mirza Ghulam Qŕdir Beg of A‘lahazrat was a Mawlawi and he
died at the age of more than 80. In 1897, that is, after 14
years of death of the brother of Qadyani, Mirza Ghulam Qŕdir
Beg of A‘lahazrat had sent a letter to A‘lahazrat, which
duly finds its place in Fatwa-i-Razviyya vol. III. It
is thus clear that the teacher of A‘lahazrat and the
brother of Qadyani were two different persons. The
opponents of A‘lahazrat also very well know this fact, but
only to misguide people, they raise such objection.
Even if
this objection is taken as correct, it makes no difference.
In any ease, A‘lahazrat cannot be said to be Qadyani
because he has written five separate books in condemnation
of Qadyanism. A person who is castigating, condemning
and criticizing Qadyanism, cannot be called a Qadyani.
Those who try to take benefit of these similar names and
those who try to create confusion in the minds of the people
cannot show even a single sentence or a single word, written
by A‘lahazrat in favour of Qadyanism. Mawlawi
Hashmat Ali Khan, a great Sunni savant was admittedly
a pupil of Wahabi savants. It is no insult on the part of
Mawlawi Hashmat Ali Khan. The insult, if any, is of the
teacher whose teachings proved futile. Similarly, even if
A‘lahazrat is taken as a student of Mirza Ghulam Qadir Beg
of Qadyani group, even so it is no insult of
A‘lahazrat. The real insult is of Mirza Saheb whose
teachings proved so hollow, ineffective and useless.
The
opponents of A‘lahazrat unleash a charge against him that
he was harsh by nature. A‘lahazrat was not harsh by
nature. Rather the objection is harsh by nature.
A‘lahazrat was a great poet and a poet usually does not
happen to be harsh by nature. More so, how would he beg
excuse from the palanquin-bearer, who was a Sayyid if he
were harsh by nature? How would he beg excuse from Sayyid
Saheb whom he requested not to intervene in his home
affairs, if he were harsh by nature? How would he refrain
from declaring Mawlawi Ismail Dehlawi Kafir, if he
were harsh by nature?
He was
very, very kind. He was harsh only for those who were
back-friends of Islam. Actually, he was a person strict not
harsh. Friends of Islam always found A‘lahazrat at their
disposal. But fiends of Islam could not be the buttonholes
of A‘lahazrat. The opponents of A‘lahazrat should not be
harsh enough to call him harsh by nature. First, they must
be kind enough themselves not to call him harsh.
Another
charge against A‘lahazrat is that he was an agent of the
British. Such a charge is framed by only those who charge
for framing charges against A‘lahazrat. They discharge
their duty. They have nothing to do with the background or
base.
Nobody
can say that A‘lahazrat has ever written a single word in
support of the British. Nobody can say that A‘lahazrat has
ever spoken even a single word in favor of the British.
Nobody can say that A‘lahazrat has ever attended any
Meeting of the British. Nobody can say that A‘lahazrat
ever invited any British in any of his functions or ever
otherwise. It was A‘lahazrat who never allowed any
interview to the British. He hated the British so much that
he used to affix postage stamps on the envelope in such a
way that the head of Queen Victoria, Edward VIII and George
V were downward. He carried out this practice not only in
case of envelopes but he also wrote address on that postcard
by keeping the picture-head of the Queen and King downward.
Such envelopes and postcards of A‘lahazrat can be seen in
the libraries of Prof. Dr. Mukhtar al-din Arzu at Aligarh
and Prof. Dr. Muhammad Mas‘ud Ahmad at Karachi (Pakistan).
Some photocopies from the collection of Dr. Mukhtar al-din
Arzu being presented here for the readers. A‘lahazrat
usually spoke and wrote against the British. His four point
economic programme released in 1912 was a big challenge to
the British Govt. and their interest in India. Prof.
Mas‘ud Dehlawi has written a separate book "Gunahe
be Gunahi" in this respect. Through his book "Ulčma-i-Deoband
Ki Angrez Dosti" published from Allahabad (UP).
Allama Mushtaq Ahmad Nizami has proved that, in fact, bonds
of friendship existed amid Ulčma of Deoband and the
British Government. Both were hand and glove with each
other. Of late, Hazrat Abd al-Naim Azizi, Ex-editor of Sunni
Dunya, Bareilly has compiled and published a thrilling
book. "Humphery Kay E‘trafat" (Memoirs of
Mr. Humphery, the English spy in Islamic countries) which
unmasks that the real British agent was Mr. Muhammad bin Abd
al-Wahab. The book is a severe blow to the Wahabi
world. Allama Arshadul Qŕdri has given a unique challenge
to the opponents of A‘lahazrat in this regard. He said to
the opponents, "what to say of proving this charge from
the books of A‘lahazrat or his followers, you cannot prove
this even from your own authentic books." It is a
challenge as well as an advice. Let such people find out
such a charge in the books of Mawlawi Ashraf Ali Thanvi,
Mawlawi Khalil Ahmad Ambethvi etc. who were contemporaries
of A‘lahazrat. If they fail to prove from their own books,
then they should at least be kind enough to feel
sorry and withdraw this charge.