We have seen that Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi believed Shah Isma’il Shahid’s Taqwiyat al-Iman is a translation of Muhammad b ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s Kitab al-Tawhid, a view he expressed both early and late in his writing career. (See here.) Amjad ‘Ali A’zami, a successor of Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi, repeated the same claim in the popular Barelwi manual Bahar-i-Shari’at. (See here.)
The claim actually originated with Fadl Rasul Badayuni, who described a forgery purporting to be a summary of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s Kitab al-Tawhid. This so-called “summary of Kitab al-Tawhid” was created precisely so it could be claimed Taqwiyat al-Iman derives from Kitab al-Tawhid! For details see here, here and here (where it is pointed out that Mawlana Nurul Hasan Rashid Kandhlawi also pointed out this forgery in his extensive research on Taqwiyat al-Iman). The so-called “summary of Kitab al-Tawhid” bears no resemblance with the actual Kitab al-Tawhid.
This is in fact evidence, as Mawlana Manzur Nu’mani mentions, that neither Fadl Rasul Badayuni nor Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi had access to the actual Kitab al-Tawhid of Muhammad b ‘Abd al-Wahhab.
Follow the hyperlinks for documentation and images from the original works.
It is the delusional belief of Ahmad Rida Khan’s Barelwi followers that these extreme innovated ideas represent the carried understanding of the Ummah from its inception!
Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi taught a particular ritual for fulfilling one’s needs called “Salat al-Ghawthiyya” or “Salat al-Asrar”.* This ritual involves performing a two-rak‘ah optional prayer in a specific manner, followed by specific actions. Ahmad Rida Khan elaborates on a part of the ritual as follows:
“Then he should focus with his heart towards Madinah Tayyibah and say eleven times: ‘Oh RasulAllah, Oh NabiAllah, grant me relief, assist me, in fulfilling my need, Oh fulfiller of needs.’” (Fatawa Ridawiyyah, 7:643)
Ahmad Rida Khan believed the Prophet ﷺ is omnipotent (i.e. able to do anything he wishes in creation) and hears people from all over the world. He believed the Prophet ﷺ can literally and physically aid someone in distress. Elsewhere, he proclaimed: “The Prophet ﷺ can fulfil every type of need. All wants of this life and the next are within the Prophet’s ﷺ powers.”
The ritual also includes taking several steps in the direction of the grave of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (471-561 AH). Ahmad Rida Khan says:
“While taking the steps, one should be in a state of awe, humbleness, respect and tranquillity, and I prefer he imagines being present in Baghdad with (Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani‘s) resting place in front of him…The slave becomes enthused and proceeds with steps of joy saying with every step: ‘Oh Ghawth al-Thaqalayn, Oh Karim al-Tarafayn, grant me relief and assist me in fulfilling my need, Oh fulfiller of needs.’” (Fatawa Ridawiyyah, 7:646-7)
Ahmad Rida Khan even described a particular night, while he was in Delhi having travelled there in 1302 H/1885 CE to visit a particular grave, when he practised this ritual, “focused on it with all sides of his heart” (muqbil ‘alayha bi sharashir qalbi). (Fatawa Ridawiyyah, 7:654) Showing how seriously he takes the proper performance of the ritual, he complains of “some common people” who don’t lift their feet when taking the steps, saying: “We’ve been ordered to take steps, so moving away from that without need is the essence of error” (Fatawa Ridawiyyah, 7:644-5), and explains what he believes to be the significance of taking eleven steps specifically. (Fatawa Ridawiyyah, 7:654-8)
In a recently published book titled The Maturidi School, Dr Gibril F Haddad provides a simplistic and evidently one-sided analysis of a highly complex controversy over divine omnipotence.[1] He paints Deobandī theologians and their predecessors as being on the “wrong side” of Sunnī doctrine. In the following, we will offer some important analysis on the issues Dr Haddad raises. We hope this will serve to bring clarity to some much-debated issues and present a more balanced, and accurate, understanding than the one Dr Haddad presents.
Dr Gibril Haddad’s Thesis
In a section titled “Salient Themes of Maturidism”, Dr Haddad has a chapter called, “The Mu‘tazilī and Deobandi position that Allah is described as ‘having power to lie’”. In it, he explains that “the Māturidī (sic) position is that injustice and lying are precluded from [Allāh].”[2] He then writes:
The Mu‘tazilī position [that Allāh has the power to lie] resurfaced and was recirculated by the Indian Shāh Ismā‘īl b. ‘Abd al-Ghanī al-Dihlawī (1193-1246/1779-1830 (sic)[3]) and his Deobandi continuators, principally Rashīd Aḥmad Gangūhī (1244-1323/1829-1905), as a supposedly Ash‘arī position. It is more reminiscent of a pagan Greek/Roman and Christian theology akin to Ibn Ḥazm’s blunderous statement that ‘Allah is able to take for Himself a son’.[4]
Dr Haddad provides a table that lists Arabic passages from early and late Māturīdī texts, some of which repeat the doctrine: “Allāh is not characterised as having power (qudrah) over unfairness, foolishness and falsehood” (lā yūṣafullāhu bi ‘l-qudrati ‘ala ‘l-ẓulm wa ‘l-safah wa ‘l-kidhb).[5] Following a critique of a passage from Ibn al-Humām’s al-Musāyarah (which will be discussed below), he concludes the chapter by sharing some excerpts and references from Ash‘arī works also declaring falsehood an impossibility for Allāh.[6]
The obvious conclusion he wants readers to take away from the discussion is that Deobandī theologians, in arguing that falsehood falls within the ambit of divine power (but can never occur), have taken a stance in opposition to legitimate Sunnī discourse; indeed, they are guilty of “resurfacing” and “recirculating” an ostensibly dead Mu‘tazilī doctrine.
In Taqwiyat al-Īmān (p. 88) of Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd, we find the following passage:
The author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān firstly quotes a ḥadīth (from Mishkāt, Sunan Abī Dāwūd). The ḥadīth is as follows:
Qays ibn Sa‘d (Allāh be pleased with him) said: “I came to Ḥīrah and saw them prostrating to a leader of theirs. I thought: ‘The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ is more deserving of being prostrated to.’ I came to the Prophet ﷺ and said: ‘I went to Ḥīrah and saw them prostrating to a leader of theirs. You Oh Messenger of Allāh are more deserving of us prostrating to you.’ He said: ‘What do you suppose, if you were to pass by my grave would you prostrate to it?’ I said: ‘No.’ He said: ‘Then do not do so…’” (Sunan Abī Dāwūd 2140, Badhl al-Majhūd, 8:75)
The author of Taqwiyat al-Īmān then adds his commentary:
Meaning, I too will one day die and ‘come into contact with soil’ (mittī mein milne wālā hon), so how can I be worthy of being prostrated to? Prostration is only for the Holy Being that never dies. It is realised from this ḥadīth that prostration is not made to anyone living or dead, nor to a grave or a site, because whoever is living will one day die and whoever died was once living & held within the confines of human-ness. When he then dies, he does not become God. He remains only a slave. (Taqwiyat al-Īmān, p. 88)
‘Allāmah Khālid Maḥmūd makes a useful distinction with regards to our “differences” with Barelwīs:
An allegation is for one group to accuse another group of a belief which the other group does not acknowledge to truly be their belief and in fact they deny it. They offer a different explanation to the statement which was the basis of the allegation. If they acknowledge that it is truly their belief, then this is a disagreement, and not merely an allegation.
For example, we say to the Qādiyānīs: “You regard Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad Qādiyānī to be a prophet after the Prophet ﷺ.” They say: “Indeed, we regard Mirzā Ṣāhib to be a prophet, and a prophet can be born after the Prophet ﷺ.” Now a real disagreement has been established between us and Qādiyānīs. Read the rest of this entry »
In his authoritative sharḥ on the famous Mālikī primer Mukhtaṣar al-Khalīl, ‘Abd al-Bāqī al-Zurqānī al-Miṣrī (1020 – 1099 H) writes:
“One who becomes Kāfir because of his Bid‘ah may not be given from Zakāt by agreement, like one who believes ‘Alī is a prophet and that Jibrīl erred; or one who believes that there are two messengers in the ummah – one that spoke, namely the chosen one (the Prophet ﷺ) and one that did not speak, namely ‘Alī; & one who believes that the imāms and prophets know all that was and will be [up until Yawm al-Qiyāmah]; and the like of these.” (Sharḥ al-Zurqānī ‘alā Mukhtaṣar al-Khalīl, 2:309)
Another expert Mālikī commentator on Fiqh, Ṭālib ibn Ḥamdūn Ibn al-Ḥājj (d. 1273 H), explains in his ḥāshiyah on Mayyārah’s commentary on Ibn ‘Āshir’s al-Murshid al-Mu‘īn:
“As for he who becomes a Kāfir because of his Bid‘ah by agreement, like the one who believes ‘Alī is a prophet and that Jibrīl erred; or believes that the prophets know all that was and will be up to Yawm al-Qiyāmah, they may not be given from Zakāt by agreement. As for he who does not become Kāfir because of his Bid‘ah by agreement, like the one who believes that ‘Alī is the best of the Ṣaḥābah, he can be given from it by agreement.” (Ḥāshiyat Ibn al-Ḥājj ‘alā Sharḥ Mayyārah li ‘l-Murshid al-Mu‘īn, 2:68)
In understanding these passages, it is important to keep in mind that ‘ilm mā kāna wa mā yakūn (knowledge of what has passed and will come) has two senses:
Barelwīs, like Shahid Ali, Abu Hasan and Aqdas Barelwī, have been sharing a common Barelwī refrain: In their efforts to affirm the Prophet ﷺ as having total power, complete vision, encompassing hearing and exhaustive knowledge of creation, they are elevating the status of the Prophet ﷺ; on the other hand (by producing clear and incontrovertible evidence against these doctrines – see here, here, here), Deobandīs are lessening Prophetic status. Hence – the argument goes – Muslims (who hold to the honour of the Prophet ﷺ) should tend towards Barelwī prophetology, not Deobandī (Sunnī) prophetology.
It bears mentioning to begin with that this is not an argument. It is an appeal to emotion (i.e. trying to manipulate the interlocuter’s emotions to win an argument, in the absence of factual evidence). Barelwīs produce inadmissible “evidence” (things that do not count as evidence – e.g. statements of late scholars, ambiguous incidents) or distort evidence (verses of Qur’ān/Ḥadīth/Āthār) to argue for their false, innovated doctrines. On the other hand, Deobandīs (Sunnīs) use actual evidence – the correct meanings of verses of Qur’ān/Ḥadīth/ Āthār, coupled with statements of early & authoritative scholars. Hence, the two views are not on an equal footing.
[Take, for example, the position that disbelievers are not destined for eternal torment in the next life or that Fir‘awn is destined for Paradise. A proponent of such innovated views could say: we favour divine mercy, while the opposition (i.e. Ahl al-Sunnah) do not. But this is an invalid (emotional) argument, as the two views are not on an equal footing: one is completely without sound basis, and the other is an established truth.]
This is a straightforward, academic (taḥqīqī) response to the Barelwī appeal to emotion (“argument”). But, it also bears considering: Is the Barelwī point even valid to begin with? Does Barelwī (& Shī‘ī) prophetology elevate the Prophet ﷺ while Deobandī (Sunnī) prophetology diminish it? With a little scrutiny, it will be revealed that it is indeed Barelwī prophetology that lessens the status of the Prophet ﷺ and Sunnī prophetology that elevates it. (This is an argumentative (ilzāmī) response to this Barelwī contention.)
Shahid Ali Barelwī has, in a recent talk, advanced the typical Barelwī argument that the description of the Prophet ﷺ as a “witness” (shāhid/shahīd) in the Qur’ān is proof that the Prophet ﷺ witnesses all humanity and their actions, at all times, and knows the details of their inner and outer states. He further uses the ḥadīth of “presentation of deeds” to support this. He couples these two textual evidences with statements from Ibn al-Ḥājj/al-Qasṭāllānī and Shāh ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Dehlawī. We will thus look at these four pieces of evidence in turn:
The meaning of the word “shāhid”/“shahīd” when used for the Prophet ﷺ
The meaning of the presentation of deeds
The statement of Ibn al-Ḥājj/al-Qasṭallānī
The statement of Shāh ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Dehlawī
Shāhid
Shāhid means a “witness”. The Prophet ﷺ has been described as a witness (over his Ummah) in Sūrahs Muzzammil, Baqarah, Nisā’, Aḥzāb & Ḥajj.
This witnessing does not refer to an extra-ordinary level of witnessing of the whole of humanity, for all time. It refers to the ordinary witnessing carried out by the Prophet ﷺ during his lifetime of individuals within his Ummah (i.e. their public deeds). This was said explicitly by the Prophet ﷺ himself, while explaining one of the verses that describe him as a witness (4:41):
As documented in an earlier post, Barelwīs believe that the Prophet ﷺ is all-powerful or omnipotent (“Mukhtār Kull”). That is, he was given full powers of discretion over Allāh’s creation, to do as and what he pleases. For example, Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī (1856 – 1921) wrote in a short treatise on ‘aqīdah (creed):
(Allāh) clothed [the Prophet’s ﷺ] worthy body with the elevated-in-rank cloak of complete successorship…The keys of the treasures of knowledge and power, governance and control, were placed in his hands…What is there to say about his power?! It is an illustration and reflection of the power of the Absolutely Powerful, great is His majesty. His rule operates in the upper and lower worlds. The powerful kun is at the disposal of his tongue. If he says qum (“get up”) to the dead, it will come to life. If he points to the moon it will immediately split in two. (al-Fatāwā al-Riḍawiyyah, 29:348-50)
Similarly, his disciple, Amjad ‘Alī al-A‘ẓamī (1882 – 1948), wrote in the ‘aqīdah section of Bahār e Sharī‘at, a popular Barelwī manual:
Ḥuḍūr Aqdas (Allāh bless him and give him peace) is the absolute deputy of Allāh (great and glorious is He). The entire universe has been put under the control (taṣarruf) of Ḥuḍūr. He may do as he desires, give to whomsoever he wishes, take from anyone whatever he desires. None in the universe can turn back his rulings. The entire universe is under his governance and he is under the authority of none except Allāh.
He is the owner (mālik) of all humans. Anyone who does not accept him to be his owner (mālik) remains devoid of the sweetness of the Sunnah. All the earth is his property. The entire paradise is his estate. The kingdom of earth and the sky are under Ḥuḍūr’s command. The keys to paradise and hell have been given to him in his holy hand. Sustenance, goodness and other types of blessings are distributed from his noble office. This world and the hereafter is a portion of his blessings. The rulings of Shari‘ah have been delegated to his authority. He may make impermissible (ḥarām) for anyone whatever he decides. Similarly, he may make permissible (ḥalāl) whatever he wishes and exempt whatever obligation (farḍ) he desires. (Bahār e Sharī‘at, p42-3)
Barelwīs take these beliefs to be literal. They are not metaphors or spiritual/hidden realities that are merely expressed in this manner. Rather, they believe that the Prophet ﷺ is literally omnipotent and has full legislative freedom to make whatever he chooses ḥalāl or ḥarām.
There are thus two aspects to the belief in “Mukhtār Kull”:
Barelwīs believe the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) possesses total and all-encompassing knowledge of all things in creation, from the beginning of creation until the final hour (including the precise timing of the final hour itself), in such a manner that not even the minutest detail is excluded. This includes knowledge of every little detail of people’s actions, even details of the filthy and dirty acts people engage in, as well as all-encompassing and exhaustive knowledge of all the waste, filth, dirt, impurity, excrement and so on that litter all corners of the world.
The main evidence Barelwīs use is a number of ḥadīths which apparently indicate the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) had total and exhaustive knowledge of creation.
A few of these ḥadīths will be analysed below.
Clear Opposing Evidence
There is an explicit mutawātir ḥadīth in the two Ṣaḥīḥs and other collections, showing the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) on the Day of Resurrection will be unaware of the actions of some who had met with him that apostatised after his demise. When told he does not have awareness of this, he will say in response: “I was witness over them for as long as I was amongst them. When You took me up, You Yourself were the Watcher over them.” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim)
In the Ḥajj that the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) performed a few months before his demise, he said: “It may be that I will not see you after this year of mine.” (Jāmi‘ al-Tirmidhī – ṣaḥīḥ)
This does not conflict with the ḥadīth on deeds being presented (‘arḍ al-a‘māl) to the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) after his demise.
Faḍl e Rasūl Badāyūnī (1798 – 1872) said, based on a fabricated story and a fabricated version of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd, that Shāh Ismā‘īl Dehlawī’s Taqwiyat al-Īmān is effectively a translation (and commentary) of Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb’s Kitāb al-Tawḥīd. For details, see here.
Aḥmad Riḍā Khān (1856 – 1921), then, on the authority of Faḍl e Rasūl Badāyūnī, asserted that Taqwiyat al-Īmān is a translation of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd. For documentation, see here.
One of the main students and successors of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān, Amjad ‘Alī A‘ẓamī (1882 – 1948), then wrote in a widely-read and accepted Barelwī manual Bahār e Sharī‘at (1:107):
“This son of ‘Abdul Wahhāb (i.e. Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb) wrote a book called Kitāb al-Tawḥīd. Ismā‘īl Dehlawī translated it in Hindustan, keeping the title as Taqwiyat al-Īmān. In Hindustan, he is the one that spread Wahhābism.”
We have mentioned in an earlier post that Mawlānā Manẓūr Nu’mānī has explained that it is preposterous to assert that Taqwiyat al-Īmān is a translation of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd; the two books are completely different in nature. ‘Allāmah Khalid Maḥmūd also commented on Amjad ‘Alī A’zamī’s claim:
“It is not correct that Taqwiyat al-Īmān is a translation of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd…” (Mutāla‘a Barelwiyyat, 1:190)
He explains that Taqwiyat al-Īmān is in fact based on an Arabic work Radd al-Ishrāk, authored by Shāh Ismā‘īl Dehlawī himself; and states a manuscript of Radd al-Ishrāk is available dated to the author’s own lifetime. For more on Radd al-Ishrāk (and Taqwiyat al-Īmān) and how it differs from the ideology of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, see here.
Abu ‘l-Ḥasan Fārūqī made a similar claim in Maulānā Ismāīl Dehlawī aur Taqwiyat al-Īmān based on the “research” (that derived from a fabricated “Kitāb al-Tawḥīd”) of Faḍl e Rasūl Badāyūnī. Then based on Abu ‘l-Ḥasan Fārūqī’s writings, Abu Hasan Barelwī of “Sunniport”, the fraud and liar, repeated a similar claim.
Why is it so hard for Barelwīs to simply repudiate this falsehood that has made its way into some of their mothertexts (Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah, Bahār e Sharī‘at)?
While Barelwīs like to present themselves as polar opposites of Wahhābīs, the reality is they share with Wahhābīs in their most characteristic fault: mass unjustified takfīr.
Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb (1703 – 1792 CE) promoted innovated ideas on how to identify Tawḥīd and violations of Tawḥīd, based on which he carried out mass unjustified takfīr. This then became a characteristic Wahhābī trait.
Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī (1856 – 1921 CE) promoted innovated ideas on how to venerate the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), like advocating the belief that the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) has all-encompassing, detailed knowledge of creation and the belief that he has complete power and authority over the whole of creation. The most prominent and influential Sunnī ‘Ulamā’ to oppose such misguidance were the seniors of the Deobandī school. Hence, Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī took it upon himself to distort and misrepresent texts belonging to four major scholars of this school, and in one case, present a total fabrication, and make takfīr based on the distortions/fabrication. These ‘Ulamā’ are as follows:
Maulānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī (1829 – 1905 CE)
Maulānā Qāsim Nānotwī (1833 – 1880 CE)
Maulānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī (1852 – 1927 CE)
Maulānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī (1863 – 1943 CE)
Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī didn’t stop at this. He said anyone who doubts his slanderous takfīr of them becomes a kāfir, leading to mass unjustified takfīr. His motive? Some who wish to hold to some “romanticised” ideal believe that Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī made such major blunders because he was “annihilated” in prophetic love. This is not the case. He had promoted false, innovated ideas on Prophetic attributes; and to further his aims and to make himself and his ideas popular, he made unjustified, slanderous and fraudulent takfīr of leading scholars belonging to the most prominent, rival Sunnī school of India: Deobandīs. This is not “annihilation” in prophetic love, but ittibā‘ al-hawā (following desires/being agenda driven) – pure and simple.
The following series of articles exposes in clear and vivid detail how Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī was guilty of deception and fraud in each one of his allegations:
For Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s Barelwī followers, the takfīr of these four leading Sunnī imāms and the resultant mass takfīr of all who reject the takfīr are fundamental and integral parts of their ideology.
A valuable point came to me during a lecture of mine. Keep it in mind. The totality of virtues is the full standard for the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). There are [only] four reasons why a benefactor would not grant a favour to another:
Either the one giving is not able to bestow this favour
He can give it but stinginess prevents him
The one he is giving is not deserving of it
Or he is deserving but there is one more beloved than him for whom he is reserving it.
Ulūhiyyah (divinity) is the only perfection that is not within divine power. All other perfections are within divine power. Allāh (exalted is He) is the most generous of the generous and the most giving of givers, and the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is deserving of every virtue and excellence. And there is none more beloved than the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) to Allāh. This entails that as many perfections, favours and blessings there are below divinity, God has granted them all in a complete way to the Prophet. Had granting divinity been within divine power, He would definitely have granted this also!Just as He said:
لو أردنا أن نتخذ لهوا لاتخذناه من لدنا إن كنا فعلين
“If We desired a son, then indeed We [would take one] from Our own side, if we were to do so.”
It is as though He is saying, Oh Christians, Jews and Arab polytheists, you have taken the Messiah, Ezra and the Angels as My sons. If I were to take a son for Myself, would I not take the one that is closest of all? Meaning, Muḥammad (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). (Malfūẓāt A‘lā Ḥaḍrat, p226-7)
An Arabic translation follows:
إني قد ألقي علي نكتة نفيسة عندما كنت ألقي وعظا. احفظوها
إن الفضائل جملةً هي المعيار الكامل لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم؛ وذلك أن المنعم لعدم إعطائه نعمةً ما لغيره أربعة احتمالات: إما أن المعطي ليست له قدرة على هذه النعمة، أو يمكن له الإعطاء لكن منعه البخل، أو أن الذي لم يعطها إياه ليس أهلا لها، أو كان أهلا لكنه استأثر به من هو أحب إليه منه
الألوهية هي الكمال الوحيد الذي هو ليس تحت القدرة الإلهية، وأما سائر الكمالات سوى الألوهية فإنها تحت القدرة الإهية، والله تعالى أكرم الأكرمين وأجود من يجود، والرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم أهل لكل فضل وكمال، وليس أحد أحب إلى الله من الرسول، فاللازم أن الفضائل والنعم والبركات سوى الألوهية مهما قدرها فالله تعالى أعطاها على وجه الكمال للرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولو كانت الألوهية تحت القدرة ليعطيها إياه أيضا لا محالة! كما قال: ((لو أردنا أن نتخذ لهوا – أي ولدا – لاتخذناه من لدنا إن كنا فعلين.)) كأنه قال: يا أيها النصارى ويا أيها اليهود ويا مشركي العرب! إنكم جعلتم المسيح وعزيرا والملائكة أولادا لي، ولو كنت متخذا ولدا ألست متخذا من هو الأقرب عندي؟ أي: محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم – من ملفوظات أعلحضرت، ص٢٢٦-٢٢٧
Elsewhere, he wrote: “He has acquired all perfections that are conceivable within the storehouse of omnipotence for a possible being, so there is no scope for equality with another.” (al-Fatāwā al-Riḍawiyyah, 29:350; Das ‘Aqīdey, p177)
In other words, according to Barelwī logic all possible feats, powers and positive qualities must have been acquired by the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). They can thus affirm the Prophet’s complete power and knowledge – he can hear everything, see everything, do everything; fly, breathe under water or not even breathe all (!), teleport, travel through space, time travel, etc. etc. It doesn’t matter to Barelwīs that this will result in going against clear evidence of Qur’ān (e.g. of the Prophet being Ummi and not knowing the Final Hour) and going against the rule of not affirming anything for the Prophet unless it is proven.
‘Allamāh ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Lakhnawī writes:
Attributing a virtue or a rank to his purified essence, the existence of which is not established in the holy prophetic essence by verses or reliable hadīths, is also from the greatest of major sins. The preachers should, therefore, pay attention, and the story-tellers and the exhorting and reproving sermonisers should beware, since they attribute many things to the holy person, the existence of which has not been established therein, and they think that in this is great reward due to establishing a virtue for the holy essence and elevating its stature, yet they are unaware that the prophetic virtues established in the authentic hadīths dispose of the need for these flimsy falsehoods. By my life, his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) virtues are outside the limit of encompassment and enumeration, and his merits, by which he excels all creation, are very many without end, so what is the need to extol him using falsehoods? Rather, this is a cause for great sin and deviation from the Straight Path. (al-Āthār al-Marfū‘ah)
If one is wondering how Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s logic above is flawed, there are two things to keep in mind:
Human virtue is mainly determined by voluntary acts and spiritual condition, like worship, slavehood, abstinence, scrupulousness, sincerity, devotion etc. It is not determined by involuntary powers or feats Allāh grants like knowledge of useless things or powers of a supernatural nature. If Allāh grants these to some and not others, this does not prove the excellence of one and not the other.
Premises two and four from Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s four premises are flawed. It is not only “stinginess” or “another being more deserving” that would prevent Allāh from giving a favour to someone. There could be a vast array of wisdoms and reasons why Allāh would withhold a quality from someone, including the Prophet. Does Aḥmad Riḍā Khān claim to encompass God’s knowledge? Allāh says: “He knows all that is before them and behind them, and they do not encompass Him in knowledge.” (20:110) Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī said to the effect: “The Ahl al-Bida‘ treat the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) as though a god, but a deficient god, while the Ahl al-Sunnah treat the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) as a slave but a perfect slave.”
What genuine Muslims and true Sunnis are supposed to do is accept what Allāh and His Messenger have taught; not contrive some formula to justify believing in fairy tales that go against explicit texts.
Apart from going against explicit texts of Qur’an and Hadith, for any Muslim of sound fitrah, who has not been poisoned by the Barelwi (or any Barelwi-esque) virus, such belief will immediately be seen for what it is: utterly repulsive and extreme. On such a view, one will be justified in having full reliance, trust and dependence in the Prophet, rather than Allah!
How do Barelwis justify such beliefs? By saying:
All the above qualities were endowed by Allah, thus to hold such beliefs is not shirk;
It does not entail making the Prophet exactly equal to Allah in any quality
This, in truth, is their only criterion. Everything else, about staying faithful to Qur’anic and Prophetic teachings, and imbibing the spirit of Islam (dependence only on Allah), and avoiding even the semblance of shirk, just goes out the window.
In brief, the above-described belief about the Prophet is just like belief in a sub-God to a main God, but carefully modeled in such a way that it does not negate, in a strict sense, belief in tawhid.
Allāh having the power to issue an untrue statement in the kalām lafẓī (but it being impossible to occur), which is sometimes labelled “imkān al-kidhb”*, is proven in clear texts of the Kalām-scholars.
Al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī (740 – 816 H)
said:
“All the Mu‘tazilah and Khawārij consider it necessary for the perpetrator of a major sin to be punished when he dies without repenting, and they do not consider it possible that Allāh pardons him for two reasons: the first, that He, exalted is He, has given a warning of punishment for major sins and foretold it, i.e. punishment for it, so had He not punished on account of a major sin and pardoned, it would entail going back on His warning and falsehood in His report, which is impossible. The answer is that the most [that can be arrived at from] this is the punishment occurring, so whence the necessity which we are discussing? Since there is no doubt that the absence of necessity together with occurrence does not entail going back [on the threat] or falsehood.** It cannot be argued that this would entail they are possible which is also impossible because we respond that their being impossible is not accepted. How [can it be accepted] when they are from the possibilities contained in His, exalted is He, power?” (Sharḥ Mawāqif, 8:331)
Al-Siyālkūtī (d. 1067 H)
says in explaining this passage:
“If you say: Falsehood is a defect that is impossible for Him, exalted is He, by consensus, and there is no doubt that the possibility of the impossible is impossible, I say: It is evident that this discussion relates to the Mu‘tazilah who only believe in the kalām lafẓī. It has preceded that a defect in the kalām lafẓī is from the category of rational ugliness which we do not agree to. Yes, the negation of falsehood in His speech is established absolutely from the statement of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). As for it being a matter that is impossible in itself (i.e. intrinsically impossible) on the basis that it is a defect, then this is not accepted.”*** (ibid.)
It is thus clear that Sharīf al-Jurjānī is saying that kadhib (untrue speech) in the kalām lafẓī (not kalām nafsī) is not intrinsically impossible, but intrinsically possible, and included within divine power, while only extrinsically impossible. Read the rest of this entry »
Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī (1856 – 1921 CE) used lies and deception to mislead and guilt people into accepting his slanderous takfīr of four of the great ‘ulamā’ of Deoband, namely:
The following series of articles exposes in clear and vivid detail how Aḥmad Riḍā Khān is guilty of deception and fraud in each one of these allegations:
Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī (1856-1921) writes in a treatise he wrote in 1900:
A translation is as follows:
“It is without a doubt that the Almighty has given His Noble Beloved ﷺ the complete knowledge of earlier and later ones. From the east to the west, from the Throne till the earth, everything was shown to him. He was made witness to the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth. From the very first day till the last day all of the knowledge of what was and what shall be (mā kāna wa mā yakūn) has been told to him. From all of the above, not even an iota is outside the knowledge of the Prophet. The great knowledge of the Noble Beloved ﷺ encompasses all of these. It is not just of a summary type but what is small and big, everything wet and dry, (every) leaf that falls and (every) grain in the darkness of the earth are in their entirety known to him individually and in detail. Much praise to Allāh. In fact, that which has been discussed is not, never, the complete knowledge of the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace and send peace on his family and companions, all of them); but this is a small part of the Prophet’s knowledge …” (Inbā’ al-Muṣṭafā; in: Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah, Riḍā Foundation, 29:487)
In a fatwa from 1919 CE (only two years before his death), he reiterates the same belief:
“Allah has granted detailed knowledge to His beloved ﷺ of all the earlier ones and later ones, the east and the west, the throne and the ground and what is beneath the soil, the totality of what was and what shall be until the last of days, each and every atom thereof. The details of this are in my treatises Inbā’ al-Muṣṭafā, Khāliṣ al-I’tiqād, al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah etc.” (Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah, 29:284)
In a fatwa from 1920 (only a year before his death), he says even more emphatically, referencing his earlier works al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah, Inbā’ al-Muṣṭafā and Khāliṣ al-I‘tiqād:
“From the first day till the last day, all that has happened and is happening and will happen, each and every particle – detailed knowledge of this Allāh has given to His Noble Beloved ﷺ. In a thousand darknesses, the particle or grain of sand that sits (on the earth), the knowledge of the Prophet ﷺ encompasses this. It is not just knowledge. Rather, the whole world and everything that will happen therein until Qiyāmah, he sees all of it like he sees the palm of his hand. Not a particle is hidden from his vision in the heavens and the earths. In fact, everything just mentioned is (but) a small tributary from the oceans of his knowledge. He recognises his whole Ummah better than someone who is sitting next to another. He doesn’t just recognise them, rather he sees their every action and movement. He is aware of (even) the thoughts that cross the hearts.” (al-Fatāwā al-Riḍawiyyah, 15:75)
This is an example of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī’s extremism in describing the knowledge of the Prophet ﷺ. He also says in al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah that based on this knowledge, the Prophet ﷺ can be described as “all-knowing” (but not in the sense that Allah is “All-Knowing”):
The books of the Ḥanafī school are clear that such a belief is blasphemous. It states in al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah: “A [man] weds [a woman] without witnesses, saying: ‘I make the Messenger of Allāh and Angels witness’, he has become a kāfir, because he believes that the Messenger and Angel know the Ghayb, as distinguished from his saying: ‘I make the angel on the left shoulder and the angel on the right shoulder witness’, he would not become Kāfir, because they are aware [of that].” (al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah, 6:325) In al-Muḥīṭ al-Burhānī (Idārat al-Qur’ān, 7:407), the same mas’alah is found ending with: “because they are aware of that as they are not absent from him.”
Moreover, according to a mutawātir ḥadīth that is clear in its meaning, the Prophet ﷺ foretold that on Judgement Day there will be people driven away from him that he will call and he will be told by Allāh/Angels that he has no knowledge of what they did. See here & here. This is categorical in showing the Prophet ﷺ did not have complete and detailed knowledge of all creation in the manner that Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī describes.
Furthermore, the Prophet ﷺ sought protection from knowledge that is of no benefit, as found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. That the Prophet made this supplication is reported by several ṣaḥābah including ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr, Abū Hurayrah, Anas ibn Mālik and Zayd ibn Arqam with authentic chains – making it close to a categorically established ḥadīth. Knowledge of no benefit would of course include useless knowledge of the world, let alone knowledge of dirty and filthy things which is unbefitting the Prophet ﷺ. Hence, the Prophet ﷺ also said: “You are more aware of the matters of your world.” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim)
Taqwiyat al-Īmān is indeed based on an earlier work, but an earlier work written by Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd himself called Radd al-Ishrāk (Refutation of Shirk), which he wrote some decades previously in 1799, in Arabic.
Radd al-Ishrāk is essentially a collection of verses and ḥadīths refuting shirk proper as well as things derived from shirk and things leading to it. In a very important introduction to Radd al-Ishrāk, Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd explains what shirk means, leaving no doubt whatsoever that his definition of shirk is far-removed from that of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb.
Faḍl-e-Rasūl Badāyūnī (1798 – 1872), a predecessor to Aḥmad Riḍā Khān (& someone greatly admired by him), and someone who opposed Shāh Waliyyullāh in writing (& apparently had Shī‘ī tendencies), wrote a tract called Sayful Jabbār against Mawlānā Ismā‘īl Dehlawī and his Taqwiyat al-Īmān, alleging that Taqwiyat al-Īmān is a spinoff of Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb‘s Kitāb al-Tawḥīd, and is thus literally Wahhābī in its provenance.
Sayful Jabbār was written around 1849, almost two decades after Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd was martyred, and more than three decades after Taqwiyat al-Īmān was written. In this work, Faḍl-e-Rasūl Badāyūnī presents to readers an Arabic epistle that he claims is authored by Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb as a summary of the contents of his larger work Kitāb al-Tawḥīd. He states that this summary was refuted by scholars of Makkah in 1221 H/1806 CE, which was penned down by a certain “Aḥmad ibn Yūnus al-Bā‘alawī”. However, this entire tale and the epistle itself are an obvious forgery.
Fabricators (including Faḍl-e-Rasūl Badāyūnī himself?) had taken Taqwiyat al-Īmān as a base text, and “translated” parts of it into Arabic, giving it the worst possible interpretation, and then claimed that this is Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb’s summary of his own book Kitāb al-Tawḥīd! One can read Kitāb al-Tawḥīd, and find that it bears no resemblance with this supposed summary. Rather, the alleged summary follows the order of Taqwiyat al-Īmān topically, but with additions and alterations that make it appear “Wahhābī” and extreme, and without the clear reference in the original Taqwiyat al-Īmān to the Hindu and Shi‘ī influences peculiar to an Indian context that Shāh Ismā‘īl Dehlawī was refuting.
The following are some examples showing clearly that this is a fabrication, and neither Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhāb nor Shāh Ismā‘īl could have written such a thing. References are to this edition of Sayful Jabbār. For the entire section describing the alleged Arabic epistle, see pages 99 – 193 of the work. Read the rest of this entry »
Shāh Waliyyullāh Dehlawī (1703 – 1762) was the great fountainhead of Indian ḥadīth scholarship. His acceptance and pivotal role in representing the Ahl al-Sunnah of India is in need of no introduction. There is a clear tension between Shāh Waliyyullāh’s opposition to excessive personality-veneration/innovated practices and Barelwī support of them. Thus we find some clear opposition to Shāh Waliyyullāh amongst Barelwī scholars.
Faḍl al-Rasūl Badāyūnī
Faḍl al-Rasūl Badāyūnī (1798 – 1872), regarded as one of the prominent predecessors of the Barelwī/RazāKhānī school, clearly wrote in opposition to Shāh Waliyyullāh. Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī (1856 – 1921) had written a brief commentary on one of Faḍl al-Rasūl Badāyūnī’s books (al-Mu‘taqat al-Muntaqad) referring to him in it as “the seal of verifiers, support of inspectors, sword of Islām, lion of the Sunnah” etc. (al-Mustanad al-Mu‘tamad, p. 8)
[On the other hand, when Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī was studying at Delhi (between 1845 – 1850), he once encountered Faḍl al-Rasūl Badāyūnī who was visiting for a lecture. Mawlānā Gangohī sat at the lecture and found his statements and evidences extremely problematic, and never returned to him again. (Tazkirat al-Rashīd, p. 36)]
In a work called al-Bawāriq al-Muḥammadiyyah, Faḍl al-Rasūl Badāyūnī attacks Shāh Waliyyullāh al-Dehlawī. On pages 28-31 of the book, he attacks Shāh Waliyyullāh’s celebrated work, Izālat al-Khafā, claiming it is like a Khārijī book! He claims it appears the topic of the work is “removing khilāfah from the seal of khilāfah and the opener of wilāyah (i.e. ‘Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu)” (p. 31). He then concludes: “In sum, the writings of Shāh Waliyyullāh are opposed to the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jamā‘ah.” Referring to Tafhīmāt Ilāhiyyah and “other writings” of Shāh Waliyyullāh he claims these demonstrate his claim, but the sons of Shāh Waliyyullāh, according to him, suppressed these works! (ibid. p. 32)
Aḥmad Riḍā Khān wrote in a work he compiled on creed, called I‘tiqād al-Aḥbāb fi ‘l-Jamīl wa ‘l-Muṣṭafā wa l-Āl wa ‘l-Aṣḥāb:
“He made him (i.e. the Prophet ﷺ) the centre of the circle and the circle of the centre of kāf and nūn. He clothed his worthy body with the elevated-in-rank cloak of complete successorship, so that all individual existents can take rest under his continuous shade and prominent hem.
“It is not possible for the great ones brought-near to reach the King unless they take an intermediary through this refuge of the world. The keys of the treasures of knowledge and power, governance and control, were placed in his hands.” (al-Fatāwā al-Riḍawiyyah, 29:347; Das ‘Aqīdey, p176)
And:
“What is there to say about his power? It is an illustration and reflection of the power of the Absolutely Powerful, great is His majesty. His rule operates in the upper and lower worlds. The powerful kun is at the disposal of his tongue. If he says qum to the dead, it will come to life. If he points to the moon it will split immediately into two. Whatever he wants God wants given he wants only what God wants. The decree of “absolute successorship” and “complete handing over” was recited for his glorious name. His rule and sermon [of praise] was carried forth from the lowest company to the highest world.
“Whatever anyone receives from the world or religion, they receive it from his court-resembling-the-throne. He is supreme commander: everything apart from Allāh are subordinate to him and there is no commander apart from him in the world. All are in need of him and he is in need of Allāh.” (al-Fatāwā al-Riḍawiyyah, 29:348-9; Das ‘Aqīdey, p176-7)
And:
“He has acquired all perfections that are conceivable within the storehouse of omnipotence for a possible being, so there is no scope for equality with another.” (al-Fatāwā al-Riḍawiyyah, 29:350; Das ‘Aqīdey, p177)
Aḥmad Riḍā Khān states in another work: “Allāh Ta‘ālā is the ‘intrinsic assister’ (bizzāt madadgār) and this characteristic does not belong to any other. The Messenger and Awliyā of Allāh are assisters via Allāh giving them the power. All praise to Allāh!…Allāh Subḥānahū intrinsically waives harm while the Prophets and Awliyā (upon them blessing and praise) by God’s bestowal [waive harm].” (al-Amn wa l-‘Ulā, Fayḍān e Madīnah Publications, p. 125)
He further states: “Allāh’s deputy [i.e. Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam], on Allāh’s behalf, has the authority of complete discretion (taṣarruf) in Allāh’s kingdom.” (ibid. p. 136)
He states further: “The entire workshop of taking and giving from the Divine Court are in the hands of Muḥammad Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam.” (ibid. 102)
He describes the “keys the Owner of the Kingdom, the King of Kings, the All-Powerful, Jalla Jalāluhu, gave to his greatest deputy and most eminent representative ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam: keys to treasures, keys to the earth, keys to the world, keys of aid, keys of benefit, keys of paradise, keys of hellfire, keys of everything.” (ibid. 142-3)
How does he get around this belief amounting to shirk? He says: “When it is accepted that [the powers] are God-given, what is the meaning of shirk?” (ibid. p. 72)
He says in another work: “Ḥuḍūr, master of both worlds, Allāh bless him and grant him peace, is the greatest deputy of Allāh and is the one that distributes His provision. If any blessing of religion, this world or the next, is received, then it is only from Ḥuḍūr; it was received from the graceful and merciful hand of Ḥuḍūr.” (Inbā’ al-Ḥayy, p413) He mentions further that he has written a whole book on this called Salṭanat al-Muṣṭafā (The Sovereignty of the Chosen One).
Describing this Barelwī belief, Amjad ‘Alī A‘ẓamī (1882 – 1948), one of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s closest disciples and successors, wrote while describing “true Islāmic beliefs” (this being the 50th belief regarding nubuwwah): “Ḥuḍūr Aqdas (Allāh bless him and give him peace) is the absolute deputy of Allah ‘azza wa jall. The entire universe has been put under the control (taṣarruf) of Ḥuḍūr. He may do as he desires, give to whomsoever he wishes, take from anyone whatever he desires. None in the universe can turn back his rulings. The entire universe is under his governance and he is under the authority of none except Allāh. He is the owner (mālik) of all humans. Anyone who does not accept him to be his owner (mālik) remains devoid of the sweetness of the Sunnah. All the earth is his property. The entire paradise is his estate. The kingdom of earth and the sky are under Ḥuḍūr’s command. The keys to paradise and hell have been given to him in his holy hand. Sustenance, goodness and other types of blessings are distributed from his noble office. This world and the hereafter is a portion of his blessings. The rulings of Shari‘ah have been delegated to his authority. He may make impermissible (ḥarām) for anyone whatever he decides. Similarly, he may make permissible (ḥalāl) whatever he wishes and exempt whatever obligation (farḍ) he desires.” (Bahār e Sharī‘at, p. 42-3)
Mufti Kifayatullah Dihlawi (1875-1952) was asked about this passage, and he replied: “This belief is clearly in opposition to the teachings of the Qur’an, Hadith and Holy Shari‘ah.” (Kifayat al-Mufti, 1:95)
For a thorough refutation of such false belief, see Dil Kā Surūr (written in 1951) of Mawlānā Sarfrāz Khān Safdar.
One of the most perverted and repugnant Barelwī beliefs is that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was not from the jins (species) of humanity, but was a separate creation made of light that came in human form. To illustrate their belief, Barelwīs will often draw an analogy with Jibrīl (‘alayhissalām) – who is an angel made of light that at times came in human form. Hence, according to this Barelwī belief, in his physical reality, the Prophet is not a human being. This is a blasphemous belief.
The Fatwā of Ḥakīm al-Ummat Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī
In a fatwā dated Shawwāl of 1346 H (1928 CE), Ḥakīm al-Ummat Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī (1863 – 1943) describes the statement of a preacher that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was a human being in outward form but not in reality (ānḥaḍrat ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam dar ẓāhir ṣūrat bashar būd walekin dar ḥaqīqat bashar nabūd) as kufr. (Imdād al-Fatāwā, Maktabah Dārul ‘Ulūm Karāchī, 5:234)
Several posts were written previously refuting allegations against Shah Isma’il Shahid of having Wahhabi tendencies, as well as other allegations made against him.
In the first of these refutations, a reference was made to the Urdu translation of Shah Isma’il’s work, ‘Abaqat, in which he negated the belief that Allah (SWT) has a direction. The original Arabic of Abaqat has now been made available on PDF:
The passages referred to in the post are found in this Arabic edition as follows:
ولا يشك عاقل من الملئين وغيرهم في أن الوجود الإمكاني إذا قيس في جنب الوجود الواجبي يصير هباء منثورا إذ كل شيء هالك إلا وجهه، وإن الواجب يتصرف فى الممكن بمحض العلم والإرادة لا بالمباشرة والآلات، وإنه إن شاء أبطل جوهر العالم وأفناه إفناء مطلقا بحيث يصير معدوما مطلقا، وإنه لا يتصف بالنسبة إلى الممكنات بكونه في جهة ما ولا بالقرب والبعد المكانيين ولا بالاتصال والانفصال، ولا يتصور بينهما مسافة لا متناهية ولا غير متناهية
“No sane person from the two groups or others will doubt that the possible existent when compared to the Necessary Existent is like scattered dust, since everything will perish besides His countenance; and that the Necessary Being intervenes in the possible existence by mere knowledge and will not by physical interaction and instruments; and that if He wanted He would eradicate the essence of the universe and make it disappear such that it becomes completely nonexistent; and that He is not characterised as being, in relation to possible existents, in a particular direction, nor as being distant or near in terms of place, nor as being physically joined or separated; nor is a distance between them, whether finite or infinite, conceivable.” (Abaqat, p. 35)
وبه ثبت للاهوت أنه موجود فى الخارج ليس في جهة ولا مكان ولا متصل ولا منفصل منزه عن تجدد الصفات كالعلم والإرادات دائم العناية والتأثير فى العالم
“Thus it is established that the Divine exists external [to the mind], not in a direction, nor place, nor physically joined or separated…” (Abaqat, p. 102)
In ‘Abaqat, Shah Isma’il mentions the Ash’aris and Maturidis as being from the Ahl al-Haqq (adherents of truth). He writes:
قد وقع بين كل فن تفرق واختلاف، وهو على نحوين، تفرق بين المبطلين والمحقين كالتفرق بين فقهاء الشيعة و أهل السنة والأشاعرة والمعتزلة أو الوجودية الملاحدة والوجودية العرفاء أو بين من يستعين في مراقاباته بالخمور والمسكرات وبين من يستعين فيها بالأذكار والصلاة أو بين من يعالج عجب القلب بترك شعائر الشرع وبين من يعالجه بملاحظة المعاصي أو القصور فى الطاعات وهكذا فقس، فالحكم في مثل هذا التفرق وجوب تصويب أحد الجانبين وتخطئة الآخر كذلك، وتفرق بين أهل الحق كالتفرق بين الأئمة الأربعة أو بين الأشعرية والماتريدية أو بين الوجودية الورائية والشهودية الظلية أو بين أهل الطرق، فالحكم فيه أن كل واحد منهم في أكثر المسائل على طريق حق، ولكل واحد هو موليها فاستبقوا الخيرات، فمن اتبع واحدا منهم فاز بالمقصود
“Divergence and disagreement has occurred in every field. It is of two kinds. One is divergence between those who are wrong and those who are right, like the divergence between jurists of the Shi’ah and of Ahl al-Sunnah; and between Ash’aris and Mu’tazila; or between the heretical Wujudis and the learned Wujudis, or between those who use wine and intoxicants in their meditations and those who use litanies and prayer, or between those who treat the vanity of the heart by abandoning the main features of Shari’ah and those who treat it by giving attention towards sins and falling short in good deeds – you can find similar examples. The rule on such divergence is the necessity of calling one group specifically correct and calling the other incorrect similarly. Another kind of divergence is amongst adherents of truth like the divergence between the four imams or between the Ash’aris and Maturidis or between the Wara’i Wujudis and the Zilli Shuhudis, or between the adherents of the different Tariqas. The rule on this is that each of them are on a right road in most issues, and each have a direction to which they turn, so compete with each other in virtues. Whoever follows any one of them will succeed in attaining the goal.” (Abaqat, p. 174)
Shah Isma’il also mentions that his main source of guidance is the teachings of his uncles (i.e. Shah Abdul Aziz, Shah Abdul Qadir and Shah Rafiuddin). (Abaqat, p. 3)
Given the above, and that Shah Isma’il was a Sufi-philosopher, and given his location and history, it is nonsensical to say Shah Isma’il was a “Wahhabi”. Yet, Barelwis continue to make this slander and false accusation because to them facts don’t matter as much as what the “grand-master” of takfir and deception, Ahmad Rida Khan, claimed.
It should be noted such slanders against Shah Isma’il predate the lying dajjal Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi. One such allegation was that the Arabic work of Shah Isma’il Shahid, Radd al-Ishrak, from which the Urdu Taqwiyat al-Iman derives, was a translation or summary of Kitab al-Tawhid of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. As Mawlana Nurul Hasan Rashidi shows in a detailed academic research on Radd al-Ishrak and Taqwiyat al-Iman, there are several genuine manuscripts of Radd al-Ishrak available, but in one fabricated copy a fabricator changed the contents of Radd al-Ishrak and reworded it to make it appear to be a summary of Kitab al-Tawhid of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Then based on this fabrication some claimed Shah Isma’il’s Radd al-Ishrak/Taqwiyat al-Iman are based on Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s Kitab al-Tawhid!
Note: A PDF of the genuine Radd al-Ishrak is available:
Uthman Nabulusi, a student of Sa’id Fuda in Jordan and author of a work refuting mistaken Wahhabi conceptions on “Tawhid”, commented after reading Shah Isma’il’s introduction to the above work (Radd al-Ishrak):
هذه المقدمة لا غبار عليها، والفرق شاسع جدًأ بين كلامه وكلام محمد بن عبد الوهاب
“This introduction is completely unproblematic, and there is a massive difference between what he said and what Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab said.”
Shah Isma’il himself clarified that in some parts of Taqwiyat al-Iman he used the term “shirk” not literally (as Wahhabis did), but to refer to practices associated with shirk. This is discussed in an earlier post:
Book Name: Barelwism Vs Hanafi Fiqh [English Rendering of the Urdu Work Razakhaniyat ba-Muqabla Hanafiyyat]
Language: English Author: Mawlana Sajid Khan Naqshbandi (Hafizahullah)
236 Pages [Only Paperback & Hardcover (unavailable in Kindle)]
Published on: 1st July 2023
Islam Reigns Publications
About the Book: In this day and age, the Ahl al-Bid’ah (Barelwis) who count themselves from the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah and also proclaim to be Hanafis and the muqallids of Imam Abu Hanifah (Allah have mercy on him). Whereas the reality is against it, just as these Barelwis are against the “Sunnah” and are the promoters of “Bid’ah”; in the same way they are also rebels of Hanafi Fiqh. If we pick up any major work of Hanafi Fiqh, we would fail to find the validation of practices of innovations invented by Barelwis anywhere in it. In the same note, one can test the Barelwis by demanding them: “provide me a proof of your bid’ah practices with the references from reliable books of Hanafi Fiqh,” then the fakery of their claim of following Hanafi Fiqh would lay exposed.
Mawlana Sajid Khan Sahib Naqshbandi (Hafizahullah) has penned this brief book “Barelwism vs Hanafi Fiqh” in refutation of the same Barelwi claim of adherence to Hanafi Fiqh. In this book, the respected Mawlana presents 31 masa’il from the books of the classical scholars of the Hanafi Fiqh and the past scholars of India and after elaborating each masa’il, he follows it up by putting forward the conflicting stance of Barelwism on the same juristic issue through which the opposition of Barelwism against Hanafi Fiqh becomes clearly manifest and comprehendible for the readers. Available for purchase in the following (country-wise) Amazon links:
228 Pages [Paperback & Hardcover (unavailable in Kindle)]
Published on: 9th April 2024 Islam Reigns Publications
About the Book:
The Ḥanafī school of fiqh was adhered to by the Mu‘tazilites, and hence adhering to one of the four schools of fiqh by itself does not entitle one to membership in the Ahl al-Sunnah. Furthermore, a person is not considered to be a member of the mainstream group if they reject the other viewpoints and only practices upon a few stances of the group. What if, however, we discovered a “sect” that, despite their unwavering bragging of themselves being staunch followers of Ahl al-Sunnah [“kattar Sunnī”], yet their “high priest” [A‘lā Ḥadhrat] actually followed, accepted, and propagated the beliefs of Shī‘īsm in secret, misleading thereby millions of people?
This is perhaps an exact description of the trait of Barelwism and its leader, Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī, despite their valiant emphasization to gain acceptance as “Sunnīs,” they have been found to violate Ḥanafī Fiqh in multiple beliefs, as expounded in our previous translation work Barelwism Vs Ḥanafī Fiqh. [Available here: https://www.amazon.com/Barelwism-Hanafi-Fiqh-Razakhaniyyat-Ba-Muqabla/dp/B0C9S7K14L%5D
Thereafter the question which automatically arises at this point is when Barelwism and its high priest have professed such beliefs which contradicts Ḥanafī Fiqh, then on what grounds have they propagated such deviant polytheistic dogmas? Which is that hidden root through which such anti-Sunnī beliefs stem from? And which is that impure fountain from which these dogmas were adopted, modified and vehemently introduced among the unsuspecting masses by the founder of Barelwism while tricking them to accept it as “Sunnī beliefs”, and what was his objective behind such a massive conspiracy?
It was hence essential that we investigate other deviate denominations and compare the creeds of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī, the high priest who founded Barelwism, in order to provide an academic response to these questions. Thus, the purpose of this compilation is to enlighten the readers of the creedal, historical and ancestral background of the founder of Barelwism and his covert affiliation with Shī‘īsm, and to provide insight into the striking fundamental similarities of both these groups proving thereby the conspiracy of Shī‘īsm to destabilize Ahl al-Sunnah through their taqiyyah clad operative, Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī.
Available for purchase in the following (country-wise) Amazon links:
According to Ahmad Rida Khan, only Allah in reality exists, and nothing besides Allah (really) exists. He writes:
Translation
No one (in reality) knows anything besides Allah. Indeed, Allah alone enjoys existence in a real sense. The Prophet ﷺ deemed the truest word the Arabs have spoken to be the statement of Labid, “Beware, everything besides Allah is false.” (1)
It is established according to us that the statement la ilaha illAllah according to the commoners means that “nothing besides Allah is worshipped”; according to the elite it means that “nothing besides Allah is sought after”; according to the more elite it means that “nothing besides Allah is witnessed”; and according to the masters it means that “nothing besides Allah exists”. These are all true. Iman is based on the first, righteousness pivots on the second, traversing the path is completed by the third and reaching (Allah) is constituted of the fourth. (al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah, p.199)
Ahmad Rida Khan denies the very existence of the Prophet ﷺ, wa ‘l-‘iyadhu billah.
Surely, Barelwis should be more offended by this?
(1) This statement has a number of other possible meanings (besides “nothing but Allah exists”) as mentioned by the commentators like Ibn Battal, Ibn al-Mulaqqin, al-‘Ayni etc.
For example, it could mean: a) everyone besides Allah will die; b) all activities that don’t lead to Allah are futile; c) everything that people worship besides Allah are “false” deities; d) the existence of everything else is only possible, while Allah’s existence is necessary; e) because all that exists apart from Allah results from His agency, nothing exists besides Allah and things He has created.
The Qur’an states: “Everything is perishing besides His countenance.” (28:88) The Qur’an also states: “Allah is the Real, while those they call upon besides Him are false.” (22:62; 31:30)
No one (in reality) knows anything besides Allah. Indeed, Allah alone enjoys existence in a real sense. The Prophet ﷺ deemed the truest word the Arabs have spoken to be the statement of Labid, “Beware, everything besides Allah is false.” (1) It is established according to us that the statement la ilaha illAllah according to the commoners means that “nothing besides Allah is worshipped”; according to the elite it means that “nothing besides Allah is sought after”; according to the more elite it means that “nothing besides Allah is witnessed”; and according to the masters it means that “nothing besides Allah exists”. These are all true. Iman is based on the first, righteousness pivots on the second, traversing the path is completed by the third and reaching (Allah) is constituted of the fourth. (al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah, p.199)
(1) This statement has a number of other possible meanings (besides “nothing but Allah exists”) as mentioned by the commentators.
For example, it could mean: a) everyone besides Allah will die; b) all activities that don’t lead to Allah are futile; c) everything that people worship besides Allah are “false” deities; d) the existence of everything else is only possible, while Allah’s existence is necessary; e) because all that exists apart from Allah results from His agency, nothing exists besides Allah and things He has created.
The Qur’an states: “Everything is perishing besides His countenance.” The Qur’an also states: “Allah is the Real, while those they call upon besides Him are false.”
The following question and answer is recorded in Malfuzat A’la Hazrat:
Question (to Ahmad Rida Khan): “Those things that Allah has willed” (ma sha Allah) is included in “ma kana wa ma yakun” (everything that occurred and will occur).
Allah ‘Azza wa Jalla states: “We will make you recite (the revelation), so you forget not besides those things Allah has willed.” (87:6-7)
This entails that the Prophet ﷺ did not retain knowledge of those things Allah willed even though that is included in “ma kana wa ma yakun” (everything that occurred and will occur)!
Answer (by Ahmad Rida Khan): “Those things that Allah has willed” was said in relation to what? The discussion relates to the divine verses. The divine verses are a divine attribute, which is eternal. It is not included in “ma kana wa ma yakun”. “Ma kana wa ma yakun” refers to originated things that occurred or will occur from the first day (of creation) till the last day (of the universe).
Ahmad Rida Khan is here attempting to reconcile his doctrine of the Prophet ﷺ possessing ‘ilm jami‘ ma kana wa ma yakun, i.e. all-encompassing knowledge of creation (see here), with the fact that some revelation sent to the Prophet ﷺ was abrogated, which he was subsequently made to forget. His solution is that these revelations are eternal and uncreated, thus are not included within the created realm. Of course, the Prophet ﷺ received, heard and uttered physical words. (The verses under discussion refer to the Prophet ﷺ being made to recite.) According to Ahmad Rida Khan, even those physical words are eternal and uncreated!
This is the man Barelwis and their allies treat as an “imam” and an expert in Islamic theology (kalam).
He even describes the fact that Allah’s speech is divided into the eternal self-speech and temporal spoken speech, something that the Ash‘aris and Maturidis both agree upon, as a mistake! (Malfuzat A’la Hazrat, p.454; al-Mu‘tamad al-Mustanad, p.103; Anwar al-Mannan)
(For more detail on the subject of Allah’s speech, including the views of Iji, Shahrastani, Nabulsi etc., see al-Kalam al-Mawthuq by Allamah Muhammad Idris Kandhlawi.)
Posted by Abdullah 
Barelwis: A Critical Review 