First know something, then try to know Alahazrat Imam Ahmed Raza Khan al-Qadiri (may Allah be pleased with him), is my humble suggestion. Please don’t make haste in appreciating or criticizing Alahazrat. Please don’t be pre-determined or prejudiced. Whatever subject you know well, ask for a book of Alahazrat on that subject. Make a discreet study. First study, then comment.
A‘lahazrat learnt Islamic
studies by leaps and bounds. When he was four, he completed
the Nazra (oral recitation) of the Holy Qur’an. At
five, he delivered his first speech, at twelve, he wrote his
first book in Arabic, a commentary of "Hidayat-un-Nahav".
At the age of thirteen, on 19th November 1869, Dastŕr
(accomplishment of Islamic studies) was conferred on him. On
this very day, he wrote a Fatwa on the issue of
foster-brotherhood and presented it to his respected father,
Hazrat Naqi Ali Khan, who found it absolutely correct.
Looking to the talent of his son, Hazrat Naqi Ali Khan
authorized him to work as a Mufti (one who issues
Islamic verdicts) since then. Thus, at 13, A‘lahazrat
became full-fledged Mufti. Much to our surprise,
A‘lahazrat achieved so much within such a short period.
Yet, what is most surprising is that he became a Mufti
while he was teenager. It is a fact that savants of vast
experience and high calibre only are authorized to work as a
Mufti.
A‘lahazrat
learnt a few books of Urdu and Persian from Hazrat Mirza
Ghulam Qadir Beg. He also learnt a little from Hazrat
Mawlana Abdul Ali of Rampur (d. 1885). A‘lahazrat learnt
21 subjects from his respected father, Hazrat Naqi Ali Khan
(d. 1880). Besides, he was also taught by his Shaykh, His
holiness Shah Al-i-Rasůl of Marehrah Sharif (d. 1879) and
H.H. Shah Abul Hasan Nůri of Marehrah Sharif (d. 1906).
Thus,
this talented student who later on proved himself at home in
so many subjects, learnt most of the subjects at home.
A tree
is known by the fruits it keeps. A teacher is known by the
students he produces. A‘lahazrat taught a number of
persons. Yet it cannot be said with certainty as to how many
persons in all were taught by A‘lahazrat. The reason is
that at that time, no pomp and show was in vogue. Service to
religion was the only motto. The number of students was not
remembered, students were remembered.
Some of
his prominent pupils are Mawlana Hasan Riza Khan, Mawlana
Mohammad Riza Khan, Mawlana Hamid Riza Khan, Mawlana Sayyid
Mohammad Jilani Muhaddith-i-‘Azam of India of Pilibhit, Mawlana Sayyid Nůr of
Chittagong, (Bangla Desh)
and Mawlana Hashmat Ali Khan of Pilibhit. Some of his
prominent caliphs are Mawlana Abd al-Hayy of Africa, Shaykh
Swaleh Kamal, Sayyid Ismail Makki of Saudi Arabia, Mawlana
Ziauddin Ahmad, Hujjatul Islam Mawlana Hamid Riza Khan,
Mufti-i-‘Azam Mawlana Mustafa Riza Khan, Mawlana Amjad Ali
(Writer of Bahar-i-Shari‘at), Mawlana Naimuddin Moradabadi, Mawlana Didar Ali of Lahore, Mawlana Abdul Alim
Siddiqui (father of Shah Ahmad Noorani of Pakistan), Idul
Islam Mawlana Abdul Salaam of Jabalpur, Mawlana Burhanul Haq
of Jabalpur, Mawlana Lal Mohammad of Madras etc.
Great
from great, each and every pupil of A‘lahazrat emerged to
be a great savant. Now the position is that every Sunni
savant all over the world, how great he may be, wishes to be
called a servant of A‘lahazrat. He takes it as a great
honor. Such is the honor of honorable A‘lahazrat.
A mufti
is one who issues Fatwas or Islamic verdicts. He is
supposed to be a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence. Of course,
he is a savant of savants, who works with greater sagacity,
understanding and responsibility. A‘lahazrat was an
international Mufti. Questions for fatwa from
every corner of the World were received by A‘lahazrat, who
replied them explicitly with ample references and quotations
from Holy Qur’an, Hadith and other authentic books.
Most complicated and insoluble questions were sent to
A‘lahazrat and he solved them in no time. In this field,
A‘lahazrat has written a number of books and booklets on a
number of issues. But his masterpiece is "Fatawŕ-i-Rizawiyya"
which runs in 12 volumes and each volume is spread over 1000
pages. It is a book of books. It is a dictionary of Fatwas and an encyclopedia of Muslim jurisprudence and an
encyclopedia of Muslim jurisprudence.
Dr Hasan
Riza Khan presented his thesis on "The place of
A‘lahazrat in Islamic jurisprudence", which was
accepted by the Patna University of India and a degree of
Doctorate was conferred on Dr. Hasan Riza Khan. Conceding
the intellect of A‘lahazrat in Fiqh (Islamic
jurisprudence), Justice D. F. Mulla, a Parsi Judge of Bombay
High Court observed that in India and Pakistan, two great
books were written on Fiqh — one "Fatawŕ-i-Alamgiri"
and the other "Fatawŕ-i-Rizawiyya". An
uncommon feature of Fatawŕ-i-Rizawiyya is that it is
hailed among friends and foes alike.
It is
difficult to become a Mufti. But it is easier for a Mufti
to remove his difficulties through Fatawŕ-i-Rizawiyya.
A‘lahazrat
enjoyed a lofty position in the science of Hadith.
A‘lahazrat has written several books on the subject. A Muhaddith
is a scholar of the sayings of Holy Prophet (Allah’s Grace
and Peace be upon him). He is a master of this subject.
The
savants of Arabic have accepted the intellect of
A‘lahazrat in this field. Applauding the ability of
A‘lahazrat in the science of Hadith, Shaykh Yasin
Ahmad Khyari al-Madni has observed about A‘lahazrat as
"Hova Imam-ul-Muhaddethin" That is,
A‘lahazrat is the leader of Muhaddethin. (Plural of
Muhaddith). Allama Muhammad Zafar al-Din Rizawi has
compiled a collection of traditions quoted by A'lahazrat in
his books in several volumes. The second volume has been
published from Hyderabad (Sindh) with the title of "Sahih
al-Bihari" in 1992 containing 960 pages. Mr. Khalid al-Hamidi of Jamia Millia of Delhi writing his
doctoral dissertation of ulamŕ of sub-continent to Hadith
literature. In this dissertation the author has mentioned
more than forty books/treatises of A‘lahazrat on Hadith
literature.
A‘lahazrat
delivered only religious speeches. I must better say that he
used to deliver sermons. Now a day, we have become used to
listening to political speeches and to make a political
speech is an easy job. It is almost a blind speech and needs
no restraints and brakes at all. Blind support, blind
criticism and blind assurances are the main ingredients of a
political speech. The only job of a political speaker is to
support his party, oppose his rival party and give
assurances in lieu of his support, but a sermon is quite
different. It entails a lot of difficulty for a speaker.
Here every sentence and every word is to be spoken with
great care and responsibility. A speaker may be taken to
task for uttering even a single word, which is incorrect,
inappropriate or indecent. In this field too, A‘lahazrat
had a beauty of his own. On the issues where it was
difficult for others to make even a maiden speech,
A‘lahazrat was able to speak extempore. He never used to
speak on the subject of his choice or on the given subject.
But, whenever he was asked to deliver a sermon, he usually
said: "Till now, I could not deliver a sermon to
myself, how can I deliver a sermon to others. How ever, if
you have any religious problem to be solved, put it before
me. I will try to get it solved, because once a question is
put up, then under Shariah, it becomes obligatory to
answer it". The people went on putting up their
questions and thereafter A‘lahazrat made his detailed and
dignified speech covering the answers of all the questions
with all facts and figures, references and quotations. How
simple and superb was his way of speech? He avoided speaking
every now and then. He made a speech only when it was
needed. However, usually during the year, he used to deliver
magnificent speeches on three occasions — first, at the
time of Annual Function of Dastŕrbandi of students;
secondly, on the eve of 12th Rabi al-Awwal (Holy
Birthday of Holy Prophet) and thirdly, at the Urs
ceremony of H. M. Hazrat Al-i-Rasůl Saheb of Marehrah
Sharif.
Once, on
the eve of Urs ceremony of Hazrat Shah Abdul Qŕdir Saheb, A‘lahazrat went to Budaun where he spoke
continuously for six hours over Surah Al-Doha (Parah
30), which consists of only 11 small verses. Such a great
orator and mufassir A‘lahazrat happened to be.
A Mujaddid
means a Renewer of Islam. He is known as a predominant and
pre-eminent savant of a particular century — Islamic
century in terms of Hijra. How to recognize a Mujaddid,
there is a criterion for it. In this connection, the savants
of Islam have set a principle that a Mujaddid is he,
who must have enjoyed his eminence at the end of a century
as well as in the beginning of the next century. It clearly
means that, other things being equal, a savant, who lived
(took birth and died) within a single century, is out of the
purview of being a Mujaddid straightaway.
During
the century, whatever wrong spreads on the holy road of
Islam, a Mujaddid is supposed to clear it away,
repair the damaged portion and renew the road for the
passers-by of the new century, Just as for a particular
year, a Nobel laureate in a particular field may be one or
more, in the same way, in respect of a particular century,
the Noble Savant of Islam. I mean to say Mujaddid,
may be one or more than one.
Mawlana
Zafar al-din Bihari has written a book "Chaudhvin
Sadi ka Mujaddid" published from Maktaba-i-Rizawiyya,
Lahore. It depicts a comprehensive century-wise list of
renewers of Islam according to the consensus of savants. It
shows that Hazrat Umar Bin Abdul Aziz is the Mujaddid
of the first century. Imam Muhammad Bin Ghazali is the Mujaddid
of fifth century. Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti is the Mujaddid
of ninth century. Mulla Ali Qurari is the Mujaddid of
tenth century. Shaykh Ahmad Sarhandi is the Mujaddid
of 11th century along with Shah Abdul Haq Muhaddith
Dehlawi and Mir Abdul Wahid Bilgrami. Alamgir Aurangzeb is
the Mujaddid of 12th century. Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlawi
is the Mujaddid of 13th century and A‘lahazrat is
the Mujaddid of 14th century. In 1318/1900 in a
meeting held at Patna (India) and attended by ulamŕs.
Mawlana Abdul Muqtadir Badauni (d.1334/1915) conferred the
title of Mujaddid-i-Mi‘at-i-Hazira (Revivalist of
the current century) to A‘lahazrat in the presence of 500
hundred high-ranking ulamŕs of the sub continent. In
1324/1906 the curator of the Mecca library Sayyid Isma‘il
bin Khalil Makki called A‘lahazrat a Mujaddid. In
1330/1911 Shaykh Musa Ali Shami called him the Mujaddid of
the 14th century. In 1330/1911 Shaykh Hidayatullah bin
Muhammad bin Muhammad Sa‘id Sindhi called A‘lahazrat the
Revivalist of 14th century.
A‘lahazrat
was Mujaddid of the 14th century. He was born in 1272
A.H. and passed away in 1340 A.H. At the end of the century,
A‘lahazrat was sailing in the boat of eminence. He was a
savant who mattered around the end of century. A‘lahazrat
has been accepted as sole Mujaddid of fourteenth
century unanimously.
Even
after writing a single book on a single subject, one becomes
an author. Those who have had to their credit a dozen of
books or so, they are usually known as great authors. But
what to say about A‘lahazrat, who has written hundreds of
books on various subjects? More or less, he has written one
thousand books and treatises on fifty-five subjects as
revealed by Mufti Ijaz Wali Khan Shaykh al-Hadith
Jami‘a Nizamiyya Rizawaiyy, Lahore, in al-Mu‘tamid al-Mustanad, (Turkey).
Allama
Zafar al-din Rizawi had presented the bibliographical data
of A'lahazrat in his book al-Mujmal al-Mu‘addid li
Talifat al-Mujaddid (1327/1909), Dr. Hasan Riza ‘Azami
also has given details of writings (Urdu, Persian, Arabic)
of A‘lahazrat in his doctoral dissertation an A‘lahazrat.
Dr. Majeedullah Qadri of Karachi University (Sindh,
Pakistan) has given the details of A‘lahazrat’s
contribution to various rational and traditional branches of
knowledge in his doctoral dissertation on A‘lahazrat. Dr.
Muhammad Mas‘ud Ahmad has collected the titles of books
and treatises of A‘lahazrat. This list may exceed to one
thousand books/treatises after completion. Mawlana Abdul
Mubin Nu‘mani of al-Majma‘ al-Islami (Mubarakpur,
India) has also compiled a book on the academic and literary
contributions of A'lahazrat — rational and traditional
branches of knowledge. The monthly al-Mizan (Bombay)
and the monthly Qari (Delhi) have given the same
details in their special issues on A‘lahazrat in 1976 and
1989 respectively. And now some scholars are collecting the
data of those scholars and writers who have written or are
writing on A‘lahazrat. Dr. Muhammad Mas‘ud Ahmad, R.B.
Mazhari, Prof. Fayyaz Ahmad Khan Kawish, Ijaz Ashraf Anjum
etc., are prominent compilers. In the light of these
researches we came to this conclusion that A‘lahazrat was
a unique author of his time. Hardly would there be any
savant throughout the world except Imam Jalal al-din Suyuti,
who might have written so many books.
To read,
write and speak a language is another thing but to possess
skill in a language is quite different and a linguist is one
who possesses skill in different languages. A‘lahazrat
possessed noted proficiency in Arabic and Persian apart from
Urdu and Hindi. Urdu was his own language; Hindi was the
language of his country — no wonder he became master of
these languages. What really matters is that he attained
marvelous proficiency in Arabic while he was a non-Arab. He
was so adept in Arabic that the Masters of Arabic from
Arabian countries seemed to be mere students before him. He
has written over 200 books in Arabic in prose as well as
poetry. His single book "al-Daulat-al-Makkiyya"
is enough to prove the proven proficiency of A‘lahazrat in
Arabic. Whosoever wants to ascertain his standard of Arabic,
I will advise him only one thing? Pick up "Al-Daulat-al-Makkiyya".
Don't disclose anything about its writer. Open any page of
this book and place it before any Master of Arabic
literature. Ask him not to go through its contents. Ask him
simply to give his opinion about the standard of language
used. Then see what he says. You will appreciate that he
will appreciate a lot. Then tell him that it has been
written by a non-Arab. Please believe that he won’t
believe. You may take any Arabic couplet of A‘lahazrat and
ask any Arabic poet his openion of it. Leave it all. His
Arabic Qasidas in praise of Allama Fazl-i-Rasůl
Badauni or his Persian Qasida in praise of Allama
Abdul Qadir Badauni are masterpieces. Open the first page of
first volume of "Fatawŕ-i-Rizawiyya"; Its
preface is a galaxy of literary pearls. Its preface is the
preface of literary talents of A‘lahazrat. Similar is the
case of A‘lahazrat in case of Persian. He has written a
number of books in Persian and Urdu. He also presented
presentable poetry in Persian and Urdu. His Qasida-i-M‘irajiyya
is included in the syllabus of the Sindh University
(Pakistan) for M.A. Urdu.
What is needed to make one a linguist, A‘lahazrat
possessed far more than that.
[i]
A‘lahazrat as a Commentator
Once
upon a time, on the auspicious occasion of the Urs
ceremony of Hazrat Shah Abdul Qŕdir at Budaun, A‘lahazrat
spoke continuously for six hours over the commentary of Surah
"al-Doha‘ (parah 30) comprising only 11 small
verses. A‘lahazrat has also reduced to writing his
commentary on this Surah. Thanks to the knowledge and
ability of A‘lahazrat, it exceeds 600 pages. In his book
"Ujala" (in Urdu), Prof. Mas‘ud Dehlawi
has observed that if A‘lahazrat was to write commentary on
Holy Qur’an for the whole of his life, even then it would
not have been complete. What he says is correct and correct
in toto. When his commentary of 11 small verses covers more
than 600 pages, then for sure, the commentary of the entire
Holy Qur’an consisting of 6666 verses, small and big,
would fetch about half a million pages at least. His father Mufti
Muhammad Naqi Ali Khan had written a commentary of Surah Al-Nashrah,
which has been published from Karachi in
1989. It consists of 438 pages — lo! a commentary of 8
small verses in 438 pages! A‘lahazrat was the son of this
great Mufassir.
The
position of A‘lahazrat in the field of commentary can be
adjudged from another angle also. Hazrat Mufti Ahmad Yar
Khan is a pupil of Hazrat Mawlana Naimuddin Moradabadi, who
was a caliph of A‘lahazrat. Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan has
written a commentary of Holy Qur’an. "Tafseer-i-Nayeemi".
The commentary of each paragraph is spread over 1000 pages
which is a commendable task. When the position of his caliph
is so high, then it can be taken for granted that the
position of A‘lahazrat must have been very high.
[j]
A‘lahazrat as a Translator of Holy Qur‘an
A‘lahazrat
has translated the Holy Qur’an into Urdu published in 1912
under the name and style of "Kanz al-Iman Fi Tarjuma
al-Qur’an."
Mawlawi
Irfan has translated into Urdu a book "Jazb al- Qulůb
Ilb Dyar al-Mehboob" written by Shah Abdul Haq
Muhaddith Dehlawi in Persian, under the name of "Rahat-al-Qulůb".
In the preface of his book, he has mentioned that the work
of translation is not an easy job. Whosoever may have had an
occasion to under-take this work, better knows the
difficulties he has to face. I agree with Mawlawi Irfan as I
too experienced a lot of difficulty in translating a few
poetic verses of "Hadŕ’iq-i-Bakhshish"
of A‘lahazrat into English though my translation is
restricted to a drop in ocean. Reasonably, the more
difficulty arises, the more responsible book it is sought to
be translated and Holy Qur’an is the most responsible book
of the universe.
Translation
does not mean substitution of words only. Translation is
what reflects the true sense. Every man who knows English
and Urdu, cannot translate an Act into Urdu. He is not
supposed to be acquainted with the legal terminology as also
the purpose of legislature without which the translation of
any Act or legal matter is impossible. Holy Qur’an is the
highest book of law revealed by Allah, the Most High upon
his Holy Rasůl. Its translation into another language can
only be done by a Doctor of Religion who possesses equal
command of both the languages. He is supposed to be well
aware of the Islamic sciences as also the purpose of Allah,
the Highest Legislator.
As far
as the translation of A‘lahazrat is concerned, it
satisfies all the above conditions and it is most surprising
that A‘lahazrat dictated the translation to Mawlana Amjad
Ali ‘Azami in extempore. The original manuscript is
preserved in the library of Idara Tahqiqat-i-Imam Ahmad Riza
(Karachi). It is further surprising that there are no
corrections and omissions in the manuscript. Needless to say
that to be a doctor of religion, A‘lahazrat is a Mujaddid
and insofar as his being at home in Arabic and Urdu is
concerned, he is an author of about one thousand books in
Arabic, Urdu and Persian — in prose as well as poetry. The
translation of A‘lahazrat provides simple, idiomatic and
appropriate Urdu. It fully preserves the position, prestige
and purpose of Allah and His Prophet. This is why the Sunni
savants of the entire world recognize his translation as a
standard one. However, there are certain people who try in
vain to find fault with the translation of A‘lahazrat.
This is because of ignorance or rancor. The Urdu
translations available are many. The fact is that the
translation of A‘lahazrat has not lowered the standard of
other translations; yet, it has not allowed the translations
of below standard to assume the place of standard
translation. It must be borne in mind that in his
translation from beginning to the end A‘lahazrat has
nowhere pointed out any mistake or mistakes what so ever of
any of his counterparts. So A‘lahazrat cannot and should
not be held responsible if the people later on make a
comparison of other translations with that of A‘lahazrat,
with the result that some blunders in other translations
become apparent.
About a
dozen books have been written on the comparative study of
"Kanz al-Iman". One of the books "Tauzih al-Bayan" by Allama Ghulam Rasůl Saeedi is a
comprehensive one. Those who wish to have a bird’s eye
view are advised to consult the booklet "Qur’an
Sharif Kay Ghalat Tarjumon Ki Nishandehi" (pointing
out of wrong translations of Holy Qur’an), which has been
written by Qari Riza-ul-Mustafa Azmi, published from Aijaz
Book Depot, Calcutta. Prof. Dr. Majeedullah Qadri of Karachi
University has written his doctoral dissertation on the
comparative study of Kanz al-Iman and other selected Urdu
translations. It is most comprehensive. I give hereunder the
comparative study of various translations in regard to only
four small verses of Holy Qur’an, which is enough to
evidence the respective standard of various translations.
One thing to be noted is that I am presenting English
version of these translations. In case of any doubt, being
double translation, the original text of Urdu translations
may please be seen in the above booklet;
(1)
Wa Lamma Yalamil Lahul Lazina Jahadoo Minkum
..........Arabic
text.......
Different
translations by different translators have been made as
under:
(a)
And still Allah did not inquire "who are fighters
amongst you". (Shah Abdul Qadir & Mahmood Hasan)
(b)
Though still Allah did not inquire well the very crusaders
amongst you. (Fateh Muhammad Jullandhari)
(c)
Though still Allah did not know amongst you who waged
crusade. (Abdul Majid Daryabadi)
(d)
Though still Allah did not see the very people who waged (Mawlawi
Ashraf Ali Thanvi)
(e)
And still Allah did not put your Ghazis
(crusade-conquerors) to test. (A‘lahazrat)
Now
attention is invited to the fact that Mawlawi Shah Abdul Qŕdir
and Mawlawi Mahmood Hasan are pointing out that Allah did
not enquire (say enquire at all). Mawlawi Fateh Muhammad
Jullandhari is going a step further by pointing out that
Allah did not inquire well.
The
doctor did not treat the patient and the doctor did not
treat the patient well — there is lot of difference
between the two. The latter version, in fact, points out a
shortcoming or charge on the part of the doctor — a
shortcoming if he could not and a charge if difference
between did not enquire and did not enquire well. The latter
part clearly speaks of a charge against Allah as certainly.
He could but did not. In any case, Mawlawi Fateh Muhammad
Jullandhari has not been able to use word "well"
well
Mawlawi
Abdul Majid Daryabadi went wrong all the more by saying that
Allah did not know. It is a more serious charge than that of
not enquiring well. It is not necessary that one who asks
something or enquires of something, does not know himself.
To substantiate it, I would refer to the verse "Wa
ma Tilka Be Yamineka Ya Moosa"(Arabic text); of
Holy Qur’an. Allah enquired of Hazrat Moosa Alaihis
Salaam as to what was in his right hand. Did He not know
that it was his A‘asa (Holy Staff). Of course, He
knew. To say flatly that Allah did not know, clearly goes to
point out lack of knowledge on Allah’s part, which is an
absurd charge.
Mawlawi
Ashraf Ali Thanvi well caught hold of the words
"enquire" and "know" and better chose to
put such words into oblivion but even so he used the word
"see"(dekhna). In Urdu, this word is
usually used in the sense of sight or look. Mawlawi Ashraf
Ali translates to say that Allah did not see the very
people. It goes to show that either Allah could not see or
the people were able to escape His sight. If the first part
is followed, then Allah remains blind and if the latter part
is followed, then the sight of Allah stands challenged.
It is
surprising to note that at hundreds of other places, Mawlawi
Ashraf Ali Thanvi and others have translated that Allah
knows everything; Allah sees everything. Allah knows what
you know not; Allah sees what you see not. Readers would
appreciate that Allah is the same and the translators are
the same but the translations are not the same.
Now come
to the translation of A‘lahazrat that still Allah did not
put your Ghazis to test. Here it is to be seen that
"did not put to test" is something different from
"did not know" and "did not see". Not
putting to test does not constitute any charge or
shortcoming on the part of Allah. Rather it is a boon. It is
His sweet will whether or not to put to test any of His bandas
(slaves). A‘lahazrat has used the word "Ghazis"
(conquerors of crusade). Though the word crusaders is also
correct, yet looking to the context of the verse, the word
"Ghazis" is more befitting.
Thus, it
would be seen that A‘lahazrat presented his translation
conveying the real sense of the verse as also preserving the
prestige of Allah, the Most Prestigious. Conversely, the
Deobandi savants either could not follow the real sense and
used the words as such. Or, they followed the real sense but
could not use the appropriate words. Or, they could use the
appropriate words but did not for the reasons best known to
them.
(2).
Wa Yamkuroona wa Yamkurullah,
wallaho khayr-ul-makerin.
.............Arabic
Text............
(a)
And they also betrayed and Allah also betrayed and the
betrayal (fareb) of Allah is the best of all.(Shah Abdul
Qadir).
(b)
And they defrauded and Allah defrauded and Allah is with
good frauds (makr). (Shah Rafiuddin Muhaddith).
(c)
They also played tricks and Allah also played tricks and the
trick (dau) of Allah is the best of all. (Mahmood Hasan).
(d)
They also plotted and Allah also plotted and the plotting (chaal)
of Allah is the best of all. (Fateh Muhammad Jullandhari).
(e)
And they were planning of their own and Allah Mian were
planning of (their) own and Allah is the most stable
planner. (Mawlawi Ashraf Ali Thanvi).
(f)
And they defrauded as they could and Allah was doing his
secret planning and the secret planning of Allah is the best
of all. (A'lahazrat).
The
first four translations speak and clearly speak that Allah
betrayed, Allah defrauded, Allah played tricks and Allah
plotted. Now if any non-Muslim comes forward to criticize
Islam on the ground that God of Islam is He, who is a big
traitor or a big fraud and goes on to quote such
translations of such savants as evidence, then what do we
have to say? God forbid that if such is Islam, then Islam
would remain only a touch-and-go. The language used by these
translators is so clear that it requires no further
interpretation or explanation. Even the men of ordinary
intelligence understand well that the said words are dirty
and defamatory and such translations are anti-Islam and Anti
Allah.
Mawlawi
Ashraf Ali Thanvi, however, realized the dirt of these
translations and in place of betrayal, fraud or plot, he
used the word "planning". However, he has used the
word "Allah Mian". Whether or not, Mian can be
used with Allah, is another aspect of controversy. I do not
want to go into it at this time. Further, he has used
"were planning" for Allah. Whether or not plural
can be used for Allah, is another aspect of controversy. I
do want to go into it at this time. However, I would like to
point out only one thing, which is glaring. Within this very
sentence, "Allah Mian were planning" and
"Allah is the most stable planner” have been used. It
means that in a single sentence, Allah has been used in
singular and plural form both. At least one thing at a time
must have been applied.
Far from
flaw, A'lahazrat has presented a careful and graceful
translation. In Arabic, the word "makr"
carries different meanings. The first "makr"
as it relates to Kuffar (Non-Muslims), has been
translated by A‘lahazrat as "fraud" and the
subsequent "makr" which relates to Allah,
has been translated as "secret planning". Now the
question arises: Whether a single word can have double
meaning in the same sentence? Yes, by all means. To pay fine
is not fine, is a fine example.
(3)
Wa wajadaka dallan fahada.
............Arabic
Text...........
(a)
And found you wandering, then gave you the way (Shah Abdul
Qadir).
(b)
And found you forgotten-of-the-way, thus showed you the way.
(Shah Rafiuddin Muhaddis Dehlawi).
(c)
And was (you) unaware of the way, then showed (you) the
right way. (Fateh Muhammad Jullandhari).
(d)
And Allah found you unaware (of Shari'at), so told you the
way (of Shari'at). (Mawlawi Ashraf Ali Thanvi).
(e)
In love with Him He found you. The way to Him He showed you.
(A‘lahazrat)
I hardly
need tell you that all these translations are not of common
men but of savants, who must have studied the sciences of
Islam in full. Every savant knows and preaches that a
prophet is one who cannot err. A prophet is m‘asům
(innocent). But surprisingly enough, here someone sees the
prophet wandering and someone sees him going. To all
appearances, Shah Abdul Qadir seems to have found himself
wandering over getting the appropriate words, hence, he has
given the way for attributing "wandering" to the
Holy Prophet. Similarly, Shah Rafiuddin Muhaddith and
Mawlawi Fateh Muhammad Jullandhari were either unaware of
different meanings of the Arabic word "Dal"
or had forgotten the same, hence, they went out of their way
to ascribe straying and unawareness of the way to the Holy
Prophet. However, even if these savants thought like so,
they must have learnt a lesson from the study of verse No.2
of Surah Najam of Parah 27 "Ma dalla Sahibokum wama
ghawa" (............Arabic Text........ .........)
which speaks clearly that the Holy Prophet neither became
misled nor he went out of the way.
In
Arabic, the word "dal" has got four
different meanings viz, unaware, mixed, lost in love and
lofty-tree. Whichever of these is appropriate on the
occasion should only be used. Nothing should be fitted
hurriedly which is out of sense or which kills the sense.
Keeping to the dignity of the Revealer and the Revealed of
Holy Qur’an, A‘lahazrat has translated the "Dal"
into lost in my love". A man of love talks of love. One
who loved the Holy Prophet picked up the word of love out of
different words. After all, choice differs from man to man.
Moreover, the name of Holy Prophet is Muhammad as well as
Ahmad (Allah’s Grace and Peace be upon him). Muhammad
means one whom Allah praised most and Ahmad means one who
praised Allah most. All this bears testimony to his being
lost in love with Allah.
My
readers would appreciate that like Arabic, in English too,
there are so many words, which have got so many meanings. It
is the prima facie duty of the translator to have an eye on
the various meanings and use the appropriate equivalents
only. It should not be twisted in a free style. Take an
example; "Everybody must take interest in Namaz". Interest means curiosity or inclination. It is
interesting that interest also means the extra sum
charged from the borrower called "sood"
which is strictly prohibited in Islam. In the name of
translation, it may be twisted to mean that while in Namaz,
the so-called extra sum (sood) may be taken or
accepted or realized. More so, not only it may be taken but
it must be taken. Is it translation or manipulation?
Remember, translation is what reflects the true sense. If
not, it is nonsense. A translator should not be interested
in making his translation interesting only; the interests of
the author ought to be predominant.
(4)
Wama Ohilla Behi le ghayrillah.
............Arabic
Text...........
(a)
On what called the name of other than Allah. (Shah Abdul
Qadir)
(b)
And whatever called thereupon, for other than Allah. (Shah
Rafiuddin Muhaddith)
(c)
And on whatever thing, upon which called the name of any
other except Allah, has been made haram. (Fateh
Muhammad Jullandhari)
(d)
And the animal who has been nominated for other than Allah.
(Mawlawi Ashraf Ali Thanvi)
(e)
And that animal, who was slaughtered calling the name of
other than Allah (A‘lahazrat).
In this
connection, it is necessary to mention that the part of
verse preceding the above portion is as follows (as
translated):
"No
doubt, Allah made haram (strictly-forbidden) for you
the carcass, the blood, the swine-flesh and..........".
Allah
has clearly named the first three things which are haram
for us and the fourth thing, which is haram is what has been
translated by the various translators as above. What comes
under the fourth category of things, is the only point of
consideration. All the translators are saying in one tone
that in order to save from being haram, the name of
Allah only is to be uttered. But when and on what?
As for
as the first part of the question is concerned, it is only
A‘lahazrat and none else whose translation provides a
reply thereto. A‘lahazrat is talking of zibah
(slaughter) whereas the other translators are talking of
nothing like that. Whether A‘lahazrat is correct or the
other translators are correct? Those who are fond of calling
A‘lahazrat wrong, may call him wrong. But such opponents
of A‘lahazrat will create problem for themselves too. If
A‘lahazrat is taken as wrong and the element of Zibah
is withdrawn, then calling of any animal in the name of
non-Allah shall render the animal haram for you
outright. To call Bilal’s cow, Haleema Saadiya’s goat,
camel of Anas shall make these animals haram. Now
which of the two would you like to withdraw — word of zibah
used by A‘lahazrat or word of wrong used by you for
A‘lahazrat?
Replying
to "on what", A‘lahazrat says
"animal". All the other translators except Mawlawi
Ashraf Ali Thanvi do not talk of animal at all. If
A‘lahazrat is taken as wrong and the word of animal is
also withdrawn, the translations of Shah Abdul Qadir, Shah
Rafiuddin Muhaddith and Mawlawi Fateh Muhammad Jullandhari
shall have to be taken as correct, which would hardly leave
anything which might not be haram. In the light of
these unsaddled translations, everything which is called in
the name of non-Allah, becomes haram. If the house of
Zaid is spoken, then house becomes haram. If we utter
the name of Zaid on book, pen, watch or the like, then all
such things shall become haram. Interesting or
unfortunate as you think, if the names of translators are
uttered on these translations, then such translations would
become haram.
Mawlawi
Ashraf Ali Thanvi has talked of animal. But he has not
talked of Zibah. He is silent on this point.
Moreover, he has talked of nomination. Everybody knows that zibah
and nomination are two different things. Animals are
earmarked or nominated for marriage, Waleema
(post-marriage feast) etc etc. According to the translation
of Mawlawi Ashraf Ali Thanvi, all such animals nominated for
non-Allah would become haram. One thing interesting I
would like to add is that according to Shari'at it is
permissible that an animal nominated in the name of an Idol,
may be immolated in the name of Allah. It is a principle
which is accepted by Mawlawi Ashraf Ali also but now in the
light of his translation, it would mean that an animal may
be immolated in the name of Allah, who had already become haram
by way of nomination in the name of idol (non-Allah). Thus,
it would be seen that the word "nomination" is
creating difficulties on various fronts from various angles.
When the
position of these translators is going so wrong, will you
still be right to call them right? Will you not be wrong to
call A‘lahazrat wrong? If I am not wrong, the above
juxtaposition of various translations of only four verses is
enough to distinguish between right and wrong. Kindly take
some pains, apply your mind and take your own decision.
Some
people object that while translating A‘lahazrat has used
additional words which do not exist in the text. It is a
fact. But it is also a fact that there should be no
objection for additional words. Objection if any, should be
in regard to objectionable words, if any. Moreover, such an
objection applies not only to A‘lahazrat but to all other
translators equally. In the fourth example given above,
Mawlawi Ashraf Ali Thanvi adds the word "animal".
There is no word equivalent to it in the text. However, we
find no objection because it is not objectionable. So is the
case with A‘lahazrat.
Whenever
he has used the additional words, he has done so with a view
to conveying the true sense of the matter. Translation does
not mean one-word substitution. Sometimes, use of additional
word or words becomes essential. I give an example. Suppose,
"a white lie" is sought to be translated into
Urdu. There may be various translations such as Safaid
jhoot (a lie of white colour), Saaf jhoot (a
clear lie), Gora jhoot (fair-skinned lie) and Shayastgi
Ke liye Bola gaya qabile ma‘afi jhoot
( Urdu text ) (an excusable lie told for the sake of
politeness).
To all
its appearance, some people would object to the last one and
their objections would be such as:
(a)
What is the equivalent of Shayastgi (politeness) in
the text?
(b)
What is the equivalent of Qabile maafi
(excusable) in the text ?
(c)
Why has the translator mentioned the cause of the lie?
(d)
Why has the translator gone in favour of excuse on his own ?
All
these objections appear to be correct but actually none of
them is correct. It shall have to be impressed upon the
people that every language has got its own beauty. The white
lie as used in English has been translated in its true
sense. It is right that white means "Safaid"
and lie means "Jhoot". Yet, it is wrong
that white lie means "Safaid jhoot". In
other words, it can be said that "a white lie" of
English is quite different from "Safaid jhoot"
of Urdu. I may add that if "Safaid jhoot"
of Urdu is sought to be rendered into English then it would
be better translated as "a damn lie".
The endowments of A‘lahazrat in the field of translation of Holy Qur’an into Urdu can hardly be translated into words. And to say that his translation is wrong, is not a white lie but a damn lie.
[k]
A‘lahazrat as a Researcher
A‘lahazrat
has researched in various fields. Whatever he went into, he
went to the full depth of it.
(1) Wuzu
(ablution) is the act of washing the parts of the body,
which are generally exposed, in a prescribed manner. For
making Wuzu, water is required. But water is a wide
term. Which type of water is fit for making Wuzu and
which type of water is unfit for the purpose. Such a
question came up for consideration before A‘lahazrat. My
readers will be deeply surprised to know as to how deeply
A‘lahazrat went into the matter. In 1915, he wrote a
separate treatise over this issue. A‘lahazrat has
described 160 kinds of water; the Wuzu is permissible
to make with. Besides, the water with which Wuzu
cannot be made, A‘lahazrat has given 146 kinds thereof.
Thus, in all, A‘lahazrat has described 306 kinds of water.
(2) Tayammum
is an alternative of ablution (Wuzu or ghusl) made
without water under certain circumstances. A‘lahazrat has
drawn a list of 181 things fit to be used for Tayammum.
He has given a separate list of 130 things unfit for the
purpose.
(3)
Mawlana Zafar al-din Rizawi, one of the noted students of
A‘lahazrat, is author of "Hayat-i-A‘lahazrat",
an authentic biography of A‘lahazrat. The Mawlana states
that he was able to fill up the "Naqsh-i-Murabba"
(a sixteen column quadrilateral) by 1152 methods. He
further states that A‘lahazrat from whom he learnt this
art, knew to fill it up by 2300 methods. Nowadays, the
position is that one who knows to fill it even by 16 types,
thinks himself to be a perfect Master. The Mawlana has
written a book in which he has practically shown 1152
different ways of filling up the Naqsh. The knowledge
of a student speaks of the heights of his Master. This shows
that A‘lahazrat made an in-depth research whereby he could
succeed to chalk out 2300 methods.
(4) Once
someone asked A‘lahazrat if there were only 99 names of
Holy Prophet, Hazrat Muhammad (Allah’s Grace and Peace be
upon him). A‘lahazrat replied: "About 800
names of Holy Prophet are usually found in the books. I have
been able to gather upto 1400 names and Allah knows better
the exact number." It is difficult for a savant to
enumerate even 200 such names while A‘lahazrat is talking
of 1400. Certainly his research was not deep but deeper.
Moreover, he does not say that he has been able to find out
1400 names and that is all. He keeps the issue open for
further research. Such is the greatness of a great
researcher.
(5) His
Holiness Imam ‘Aŕli Muqam Hazrat Imam Hussain (May Allah
be pleased with him) proceeded from Mecca for Karbala
(Syria) on 3rd Zilhij and reached there on 2nd of Moharram. Some of the people raise an objection to it. According
to them, it was impossible for Hazrat Imam Hussain to reach
Karbala from Mecca within such a short time, particularly
when in those days the caravans used to proceed only on
horses and camels.
On this
point, A‘lahazrat made a full research. He pointed out
that the caravan of Hazrat Imam Hussain (May Allah be
pleased with him) proceeded on horses. He also pointed out
the various kinds of horses. He even pointed out the number
of horses in the fleet of Hazrat Imam Hussain, their
individual races, and various routes through which the
caravan proceeded. He went to the extent of pointing out the
respective distances and the aggregate distance from Mecca
to Karbala, the different kinds or routes, the holy caravan,
passed through — sandy, stony and otherwise. He pointed
out the different speeds of different horses. He pointed out
their speeds vis-ŕ-vis the kinds of routes. He pointed out
the time to be taken by a particular horse of a particular
race on a particular route. Thus, after making a thorough
research, the "thorough-bred researcher" proved
fully that the caravan of Hazrat Imam Hussain (May Allah be
pleased with him) having proceeded from Mecca on 3rd Zilhij
carrying horses of such and such races passing through such
and such routes, must have reached Karbala-i-Mo‘alla
only on 2nd Moharram and so it came to be.
Research
is a matter of talent but the talent of A‘lahazrat in
the field of research is a matter of research itself.
[l]
A‘lahazrat as a Mathematician
Prof. Zia al-din was the Vice Chancellor of Aligarh University and Sayyid Sulayman Ashraf was Professor of Islamic Studies. Prof. Zia al-din was a noted Mathematician of India. Once he got confused over a question of mathematics. The question was so complicated that despite all efforts, it remained unsolved. Insofar as, Prof. Zia al-din made up his mind to go to Germany in order to consult his German counterparts. Meanwhile, Prof. Sulayman Ashraf advised him to approach A‘lahazrat at Bareilly on this issue. Prof. Zia al-din raised certain queries about A‘lahazrat. On being told that A‘lahazrat was Maulana [Mawlavi], he paid no heed and began to make all arrangements for his trip to Germany.
However, Prof. Sulayman Ashraf did not change his stand and
went on insisting that he should visit Bareilly. Upon this,
Prof. Zia al-din said: "I admit what you say. I admit
that he is a great man. But it is not a question of Islamic
science; it is a question of mathematics. What has a Mawlawi
to do with mathematics? What a deriding it is to go to him
for such a question which is a gordian knot even for
mathematicians." Even so Prof. Sulayman Ashraf did not
retract at all and argued: "As compared to Germany,
Bareilly is at an arm’s length and direct train is there.
What ails you if you go there first for my sake? If you get
satisfaction, all well. If not, you are at liberty to
proceed to Germany or anywhere you like." Then, Prof.
Zia al-din said: "If you so insist, let me see
A‘lahazrat".
Finally
both the gentlemen reached Bareilly and met A‘lahazrat.
A‘lahazrat was running somewhat indisposed. However,
A‘lahazrat asked Prof. Zia al-din, "What brings you
here?" "In connection with a question of
mathematics", he replied. "What is that",
A‘lahazrat asked. Prof. Zia al-din said: "The
question is not so easy. I shall tell you when you are at
ease," "Even so, what is that?" —
A‘lahazrat remarked. Prof. Zia al-din then went on putting
up his lengthy and uphill question. By the time the question
was finished A‘lahazrat replied forthwith: "Its
answer is such and such." Hearing the answer at such a
slip shod, Prof. Zia al-din was all-agape. He was
overwhelmed with the charisma of A‘lahazrat’s talent. He
said: "I heard of Ilm-i-Ladunni (inspired
knowledge) but today I have seen it with my own eyes.
Glorious mathematicians are vainglorious. The real genius is
A‘lahazrat who took no time to solve an insoluble question
for which I have been languishing since long." Prof.
Zia al-din, thus, took a sigh of relief and thanked Prof.
Sulayman Ashraf for his kind and fruitful guidance.
Thrilling
news appeared in the English Daily "Express" of
18th October 1919 published from Bankipur, Patna (Bihar). It
was regarding a unique and dreadful forecast made by Prof.
Albert of USA, who happened to be an astronomer and
mathematician of international repute. Its gist was as
under:-
"On
17th December, 1919, six planets which are most powerful
viz. Jupiter, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn and Neptune will
be in conjunction and the Sun will come in opposite
direction of these planets. These planets will fetch the sun
towards them with all their gravity. The result will be that
the magnetic properties of these planets will pierce into
the sun and it will inflict a hole into the sun, which will
be in the shape of a big dagger. And, such a stain on the
sun will be visible which everybody would see on 17th
December 1919 with naked eyes. Prof. Albert further
predicted that conjunction of such planets, which was not
witnessed for the last twenty centuries, would cause
disorder in the air and it would bring about big storms,
terrible rains and powerful earthquakes. The earth will
return to its normal position after several weeks."
The news
spread like wild fire. Panic gripped the whole world. Some
of the Muslims fell prey to it as well. Mawlana Zafaruddin
of Bihar, a disciple and caliph of A‘lahazrat apprised
A‘lahazrat of such forecast of Prof. Albert. Thereupon,
A‘lahazrat wrote an article belying the forecast tooth and
nail brandishing it as baseless and bogus, which was
published in the Monthly "Al Riza" from Bareilly.
This contradictory article too gained equal publicity.
A‘lahazrat was challenging Prof. Albert. A Mawlawi was
challenging an astronomer. An Indian was challenging an
American. It was towards the middle of November and the
people were waiting impatiently for 17th December. In order
to allay the fear on the part of his Muslim brethren,
A‘lahazrat rose to the occasion and chose to get his
article published. A‘lahazrat consoled the frightened
Muslims and advised them:-
"Muslims:
be afraid of Allah. Don't be afraid of Albert. His forecast
is false and baseless. It is neither desirable nor
permissible for you to pay any heed to it".
Interestingly enough, A‘lahazrat gave as many as seventeen
arguments to disprove the said forecast. The arguments
advanced by A‘lahazrat are astronomical and technical. Men
of common understanding cannot understand. So, it is of no
use to reproduce them in full. However, those who can and
those who wish to make a deep study of these arguments, may
please go through the booklet "Prof. Albert F. Porta
Ki Peshin Goi Ka Rad" published from Maktaba Gharib
Nawaz, Allahabad.
However,
to present something for a common, man, I would like to
point out that A‘lahazrat argued vehemently that the very
basis of such a forecast was wrong. The forecast was based
on the principle that "sun is stationary and the earth
moves around the sun". In the light of Holy Qur’an,
A‘lahazrat declared:- "The sun and moon do move
according to their course. They are sailing within a circle.
It is earth (not sun) that is stationary around which the
sun and other planets revolve".
According
to the working of Prof. Albert, the mutual distance of six
planets as on 17th December 1919 worked out to 26 degree,
whereas A‘lahazrat presented a detailed chart depicting
the real position of such planets as on 17th December,
according to which, such mutual distance worked out to 112
degree. There was such a lot of difference between the two.
Prof.
Albert gave all the weight to Law of Gravitation. Confuting
it, A‘lahazrat argued that the said conjunction did not
conform with the Law of Gravitation as well. Either of the
two shall have to be discarded then. Have all the planets
made a pact to attack the sun alone? Why will they not
attack each other, A‘lahazrat quipped. If the Law of
Gravitation is correct, it is bound to affect all — more
effect upon what is nearer and sharper effect upon what is
weaker. When the attack of six planets can cause such an
injury to the sun, then why the Saturn could not be
destroyed by the gravity of the remaining five planets,
especially when the Saturn is smaller than Sun by thousand
times, A‘lahazrat asked.
Mars is
smaller than Saturn. Mercury is the smallest of all. So in
this way, these are bound to be shattered into pieces. What
an absurd it is to believe that the weaker might not suffer
at all and the strongest (sun) will lose the battle,
A‘lahazrat argued. Even on the basis of the Law of
Gravitation, there can be no such conjunction of planets,
A‘lahazrat declared. That is, A‘lahazrat beat Albert
from both ends.
By and
by, the time passed and the crucial day of 17th December
arrived. As the sun rose, the panic-stricken people began to
take it as Doomsday. The routine life went to standstill.
Clouds of horror hovered heavily. Some people laid hope in
Albert. Some people laid hope in A‘lahazrat. The names of
Albert and A‘lahazrat were running on the lips and tips of
one and all. By grace of Allah, the day went off peacefully,
the sun set setting the pandemonium at rest. Nothing
untoward took place anywhere. The position of Albert was all
burst.
Everybody
witnessed that what A‘lahazrat had observed and declared,
came true word by word. It bagged three cheers for
A‘lahazrat. Prof. Albert also conceded the talent of
A‘lahazrat in the field of astronomy.
The
earth moves constantly about its own axis and also round the
sun, which is stationary. This theory espoused by
Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, gained popularity all over
the world. The theory says that the speed of rotation of
earth is 1036 miles per hour i.e. 17.26 miles per minute
i.e.30389 yards per minute i.e.506.4 yards per second.
Against this theory, nobody could speak. It was A‘lahazrat
who challenged it and declared:-
"The
Islamic principle is that the sky and earth are stationary
and the planets rotate. It is sun that moves round the
earth; it is not earth that moves round the sun."
In order
to substantiate it, A‘lahazrat put forward two-tier
arguments. First, he quoted a number of verses from Holy
Qur’an and Hadith, the translation of some of which
is given below:
1.
The movement of Sun and Moon is according to a course.
2.
The sun and the moon are sailing within a circle.
3.
The moon and the sun were besieged for you which are
constantly moving.
[For detailed study, please see "Nuzool-i-Ayat-i-Furqan Besukoon-i-Zameen-o-Aasman" of A‘lahazrat written in 1339 A.H, published from Riza Academy, Bombay.]
It is
thus; quite clear that the sun moves and it is obligatory
upon every Muslim to believe it because it is what Allah
ordains us to believe. In light of Holy Qur’an and Hadith,
the theory of rotation of earth is absolutely wrong. Such
arguments were more than enough for Muslims but for Muslims
only. For others, A‘lahazrat presented a number of
arguments based on scientific understanding — technical
and otherwise. A‘lahazrat wrote several books on this
subject. In 1920, he presented his book "Fauz-i-Mubin
Dar Radd-i-Harkat-i-Zamin", Published from Idara
Sunni Dunia, Saudagran, Bareilly. This book contains 105
arguments, dozens of diagrams and lots of calculations in
refuting the said theory. Out of 105, I am giving below gist
of only five logical and axiomatic arguments which are quite
easy and which can be understood by a man of average
intelligence.
1. If a
heavy stone is thrown up straight, it would fall on the same
place from where it was thrown, whereas according to the
theory of movement of earth, it must not happen. According
to it, if the earth were moving towards east, the stone
would fall in west because during the time it went up and
came down, that place of earth from where the stone was
thrown up, due to movement of earth, would slip away towards
east. Suppose, the process of stone going up and coming down
took a time of 5 seconds, then according to the said speed
of movement of earth, that is, 506.4 yards per second, the
earth would slip away towards east by 2532 yards i.e. about
one and a half miles In other words, the stone must fall in
the west of that place (place of throwing up the stone) at a
distance of about one and a half miles but actually it would
fall on the same place from where it was thrown up. It shows
that the said theory of movement of Earth is wrong.
2. If
two stones are thrown away at the same time and with the
same power — one towards east and the other towards west,
then what should happen according to the said theory of
movement of earth, is that the stone going towards west must
appear to be going very fast and that the stone going
towards east very lazy. Suppose the power of throwing the
stone is 19 yards within three seconds, then the respective
stones would fall in the east and west at a distance of 19
yards only but according to the said theory, by the time the
westward stone would cover a distance of 19 yards in three
seconds, the place from where the stones were thrown, would
slip away towards east by 1519 yards (506.4 x 3) In this
way, it must fall at a distance of 1519+19 i.e. 1538 yards,
whereas it would actually fall only at a distance of 19
yards. Similarly, the other stone going towards east must
fall in the west at a distance of 1519-19 i.e. 1500 yards,
whereas actually it would fall in the very east at a
distance of 19 yards only. It shows that the said theory of
Movement of Earth is wrong.
3.
Suppose, from a tree, two birds fly with equal speed and for
equal period, one of them goes towards east and the other
towards west. Now if their flying speed is equal to the
speed of movement of earth, that is, if they fly at a speed
of 1036 miles per hour, then according to the said theory,
bird going towards west must fly at a speed of 1036+1036
i.e. 2072 miles per hour (being its own speed added by the
speed of movement of earth), while the bird going towards
east would not be able to move even an inch as its speed
after adjusting the speed of movement of earth (both being
equal) would become zero. On the contrary, what would
actually happen is that the bird going eastward would go in
the east to a distance of 1036 miles during an hour and the
bird going westward would go in the west at a distance of
1036 miles. It shows that the said theory of movement of
Earth is wrong.
For a
bird, the abnormal speed of flight of 1036 miles per hour
has been assumed only to bring it parallel to the speed of
movement of earth and simply to prove that according to the
said theory, the bird flying towards east would not be able
to cover any distance even if it comes abreast of a plane in
the matter of speed and flies at a rate of 1036 miles per
hour.
4. If it
is intended to kill a bird appearing at a distance of 10
yards in the air from a particular place and suppose it
takes two seconds in stringing the bow and shooting the
arrow, then by the time the arrow is shot, that particular
place would slip away within these two seconds at a distance
of 1013 yards at a speed of 506.4 yards per second being the
speed of movement of earth and thus the arrow can never
reach the target, whereas it may be taken for granted that
the arrow would hit the target. It shows that the theory of
movement of Earth is wrong.
5. If a
bird is sitting on a pillar near its nest just at a distance
of one yard, even then it can never reach the nest, because
in order to reach the nest, the bird shall have to fly —
may it be for a second or part thereof. The fact is that,
the bird can never surpass the speed of 1036 miles per hour,
which is said to be the speed of movement of earth. It shows
that the theory of Movement of the Earth is wrong.
Need you
go yet for further arguments? Go on thinking over plane,
gun, cannon, missile squad and so forth.
Thus, we
can come to the conclusion that a person who challenged the
great scientists like Copernicus Kepler, Galileo, Newton
etc, must have been a great scientist himself. I would like
to add that what is required to disprove the theories of
these scientists, A‘lahazrat has done ahead of it but
sooner or later its credit will be bagged by someone else
who will win the fight in the name of a scientist for,
A‘lahazrat is better known as a Muslim theologian rather
than a scientist.
[o]
A‘lahazrat as an Economist
Economics
is the science of wealth, as says Adam Smith, who is called
the Father of Economics. Adam Smith wrote a book entitled
"Wealth of Nations" which was published in 1776.
For centuries, this subject was taken as dry and no interest
was shown in it. It was only around 1940 when this subject
gained popularity. International depression was the main
cause behind it. During the time of A‘lahazrat (1856-1921)
Economics was a subject, which was not given much
importance. Nevertheless, A‘lahazrat through his book
published in 1912, presented four peerless points for the
economic development of Muslim brethren. These are:
1.
Barring the affairs wherein Government is involved, the
Muslims should decide all their disputes mutually so that
millions of rupees, which are being spent over litigations,
may be saved.
2.
The affluent Muslims of Bombay, Calcutta, Rangoon, Madras
and Hyderabad should open banks for other poor Muslims.
3.
Muslims should not purchase anything from anybody except
Muslims.
4. The
sciences of Islam should be propagated and publicized,
At the
instance Prof. Rafiullah Siddiqui Chairman Board of
Intermediate and Secondary Education Hyderabad (Sindh), has
written an article "Fazil-i-Bareillvi Kay Char
Ma‘ashi Nikaŕt", published from
Maktaba-i-Chashm-i-Rahmat,
Balrampur (UP), India. Prof. Siddiqui has beautifully
explained all the four points at length; I have had all the
appreciation for Prof. Siddiqui and his article.
Through
his first point, A‘lahazrat has propounded the theory of
savings. He has realized the significance of savings and has
made people to realize it. In most of the under-developed
countries, the rate of saving varies from 5 to 8%. Now the
economic experts have declared that for economic development
of the country, saving to the tune of 15% of the national
income is a must. The importance of savings over-shadowed
the world in 1936 when Lord J.M. Keynes of England presented
his "Theory of Savings & Investment", which
proved successful in overcoming the international
depression. In short, according to Keynes, saving is all. It
is equal to investment according to his Equation. Thus, more
saving, more investment; more investment, more development.
For this theory of Saving & Investment, Prof. J. M.
Keynes was honored by England and the most prestigious title
of "Lord" was conferred on him. Prof. Rafiullah
Siddiqui has so nicely and so rightly quipped that Prof. J.
M. Keynes was honored in 1936 for what was already pointed
out by A‘lahazrat in 1912. Who deserved and who bagged the
honor, is thus to be seen. Yet, it may be taken for granted
that A‘lahazrat would not accept such an honor from
British even if he were presented one.
Secondly,
A‘lahazrat presented the theory of opening banks. Needless
to mention that banks in the eyes of A‘lahazrat were meant
to be interest-free banks. History of banking is known to
all of us. A‘lahazrat suggested and talked of opening
banks at a time when banks played no significant role in the
country. In 1912, there were only a few banks in India, in
big cities, and nobody could foresee then that after a lapse
of three or four decades, the importance of banks would
assume so much proportion. No doubt, it was A‘lahazrat who
was able to peep into future and suggest boosting up the
banking industry before hand.
A bank
is an institution through which the savings of the masses
are deployed over productive investment. It is bank that
collects pennies but provides pounds. Banks help the people
create tendency of saving. Being a great economist.
A‘lahazrat well realized the hazards of hoarding and
advocated for the development of the banking industry.
The
third point of A‘lahazrat is that Muslims should purchase
each and every thing from Muslims only. Apparently, this
point appears to be based on somewhat narrow-mindedness. But
it is not so, if we go deep. What A‘lahazrat says is that
Muslims should purchase from Muslims only. It is not
restricted to a particular place, locality or province. It
means that Muslims countries should purchase from Muslim
countries only. It means that A‘lahazrat has opposed the
free-trade theory as espoused by Adam Smith and suggested
Trade Protection so as to withstand the competition in the
international market. Fredrick List, a noted German
economist has emphatically supported the Trade Protection
Policy. Prof. Rafiullah Siddiqui has very much appreciated
this point of A‘lahazrat. According to him, A‘lahazrat
wanted to provide economic protection to Muslims but the
Muslims neglected the economic acumen highlighted by their
own savant, A‘lahazrat.
To the
misfortune of Muslims, what was pinpointed by A‘lahazrat
for the benefit of Muslims, was utilized by non-Muslims.
Second World War had badly ruined Germany, France, Italy
etc. The economy of these European countries was crippled.
European Common Market (E.C.M) consisting of six European
countries came into existence. It achieved marvelous success
and the entire World witnessed that it changed the entire
story. The staggering economy of these countries mustered a
sudden boom and the German mark became the powerful currency
of the world. After all, what was this E.C,M.? It was a
practical shape of the guidelines given by A‘lahazrat just
on the lines that Muslims should make purchases from Muslims
only. Even today, if the Muslim countries unite and follow
such a policy, luck will smile upon them.
Now come
to the fourth point. It is regarding the publicity of
Islamic sciences. When theories of economics are going on,
how far it is desirable to talk of Islamic sciences or
religion. A Mawlawi always remains a Mawlawi-some people may
think. Prof. Siddiqui has duly appreciated the importance of
knowledge of Islamic sciences but meanwhile he has gone to
say that this fourth point is not in regard to economics.
With due respect to Prof. Siddiqui, I would like to say that
he has hastened to observe like so, perhaps because of its
appearance. Prof. Siddiqui has succeeded in realizing the
importance of this point but has failed to link it with
economic theories.
To my
mind, this point is all the more important. Everybody knows
that there is lot of difference between theory and practice.
Implementation is an upheaval task. The first three points
of A‘lahazrat provide a theoretical approach. The fourth
one provides a pragmatic approach. It must be borne in mind
that A‘lahazrat has introduced what we may call Muslim
Economics. He has talked of benefit and betterment of only
Muslims. From this angle, all the four points are
inter-connected. The first point of A‘lahazrat is
regarding mutual settlement of their disputes. The idea is
so nice but its implementation is fairly difficult. As says
Adam Smith, "man is the born servant of self
interest". Everybody wants to gain. Nobody wants to
lose. In quest of gain, man runs after the courts headlong.
He runs and runs towards the courts till he gets a gain what
he calls justice. Such a race towards the gain makes the
litigation time-consuming as well as money-consuming. Now
A‘lahazrat speaks of preaching and teaching Islamic
sciences to the people. He means to say that spirit of Islam
must prevail upon the Muslims. A‘lahazrat goes to say that
such an abrupt race of litigation can be controlled only
with the spirit of Islam. Under true spirit of Islam,
Muslims shall prefer to get their disputes decided only by
their Muftis whom they would consider as heirs of
Holy Prophet and regarding Holy Prophet (Allah’s Grace and
Peace be upon him), the Holy Qur’an declares as under:-
"By
Allah, they shall not be Muslims unless they make you Hŕkim
in matter of their disputes and unless they accept your
decision by heart and feel no hindrance whatsoever there
from in their hearts."
Thus, a
true Muslim shall be duly satisfied with the decision of a Mufti
regardless of the fact whether he remains a gainer or loser.
He would accept the decision by heart. Nor would he take it
as point of prestige, as a true Muslim wants nothing but
what Allah and His Holy Prophet (Allah’s Grace and Peace
be upon him) want for him. He would not knock at the doors
of the court at all. A short meeting with a Mufti can
solve a long dispute. Thus, it would be seen that the fourth
point advanced by A‘lahazrat is very much linked with the
theory of mutual settlements Muslims by avoiding litigation
with a view to ensuring large savings.
The
second point is of opening Muslim banks. Muslims would like
to help Muslims only when they are taught to help them in
terms of Islamic sciences, that is, in light of Holy
Qur’an and Hadith. Interest is a prize of
exploitation. Muslims would refrain from accepting interest
if they are told that usury is haram (strictly
forbidden) according to Holy Qur’an and whosoever accepts
interest, should be ready to fight with Allah on the Day of
Judgment. Only through the injunction of Islamic spirit,
which flows from the knowledge of Islamic sciences attained
through the study of Islamic books or through the company of
Islamic savants, Muslims can agree to opening of
interest-free banks and usury can be put an end to. If the
rich people open banks out of their riches, the poor people
will get rid of their poverty to a great extent. First, the
poor will be able to get employment in various projects
financed by banks. Secondly, the poor section will be able
to secure interest-free loans from the banks, which they
would get otherwise at a heavy rate of interest. Thus, the
second and fourth points of A‘lahazrat are well linked
together.
Muslims
should make purchases from Muslims only — is the third
point. It does not purport to say that Muslims should sell
to Muslims only. A‘lahazrat is restricting outgoings only
of Muslims. Unless the Muslims are taught of their religion,
nothing can be achieved in this field. A person, who has no
knowledge of Islamic studies, is western-minded, would
hardly purchase anything from Muslims. He would be addicted
to using foreign goods and would not hesitate to purchase
them from any corner. Nowadays, it is seen that those who
have craze for using foreign goods, may it be, cigarette,
wine or anything like that, help the foreign companies earn
a lot of foreign exchange. A Muslim would make purchases
from Muslims only when it is impressed upon him that Holy
Qur’an declares:
(Space
for Arabic script) "Innam al-Mo’minoona Ikhwatun"
That is,
"Muslim and a Muslim are brethren." Unless he
treats the other Muslim as his brother, he would not extend
him a brotherly-treatment. Moreover the teachings of Islam
shall bear wide repercussions on the standard of trade. No
trader would like to give short weight as it is forbidden in
Islam. No trader would make any adulteration of any kind, as
it is forbidden in Islam. No trader would try to conceal
defect, if any, in his commodity as it is forbidden in
Islam. No trader would resort to unnecessary hoarding of
stock as it is forbidden in Islam. No trader would allow
unnecessary bargaining in price as it is forbidden in Islam.
In this manner, under the yoke of Islam, trade will wear a
bloomy look. If Muslims undertake to make purchases from
Muslims only and if Islamic spirit prevails, then a Muslim
will not be able to get wine, because no Muslim would like
to sell it as it is forbidden in Islam. In this way, not
only the trade will flourish but it will also bring about a
flawless society.
So, it
is evident that all the four points of A‘lahazrat are
coherent and co-related insofar as Muslim Economics is
concerned. As I have been associated with Economics for the
last twenty years, I had a right to study A‘lahazrat in
this field and so I did. I have no hesitation to say that
before the insight of A‘lahazrat in the field of
Economics, I find myself no better than a big zero.