Barelwi Alleges Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi Plagiarised From Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani

The Claim

The same Barelwi who was exposed here for spreading misinformation about Taqwiyat al-Iman is also spreading misinformation about Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi. Following earlier Qadiyani claims, the Barelwi is alleging that in a work on the rational benefits of Islamic ahkam (injunctions), titled al-Masalih al-‘Aqliyyah li ‘l-Ahkam al-Naqliyyah or Ahkam-i-Islam Aqal ki Nazar Main, Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi plagiarised from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani. He concludes this based on a close resemblance between some passages from this work and sections from different writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani.

Screenshots From the Barelwi’s Social Media

Analysis

But merely showing a close resemblance between different passages is not sufficient to prove plagiarism. Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi may have been taking from a common source or another book that also has the same/similar passages. And, indeed, that is the case here.

Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī on Khatm al-Nubuwwah – Response to Asrar Rashid

In a recent book, Navigating the End of Time, Asrar Rashid attempts to show a link, albeit a “subtle” and “unexpressed” one, between Deobandīs and Qādiyānīs.^[1] Apart from decontextualized citations from Taḥdhīr al-Nās of Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī, his evidences for this are extremely thin, indeed in some cases apparently fictitious. This is not altogether surprising given an earlier critique of some of his unfounded and untruthful claims.^[2]

In the following essay, we will first put Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotwī’s work Taḥdhīr al-Nās in historical context, followed by a contextualisation of some specific citations from his work that Asrar Rashid presents.

This will be followed by a brief analysis of some points he puts forward regarding:

• Ḥakīm Nūr al-Dīn Bhairawī’s (successor of Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad Qadiyānī) alleged connection to Deoband;
• The alleged proximity between the authorship of Taḥdhīr al-Nās and Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad’s claims of prophethood;
• The alleged use by Qādiyānīs of Taḥdhīr al-Nās in the 1974 Pakistan Supreme Court hearing aimed at declaring Qadiyānīs non-Muslims and the alleged failure of the scholars of Deoband to put up a credible defence.

Hifz al-Iman (Answer to Q3) & Bast al-Banan – Complete English Translation

Find PDF file here.

The following is a translation of the full question and answer in Hifz al-Iman (authored in 1901), based on which Barelwis allege Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi equated prophetic knowledge to the knowledge of madmen and animals.

It is followed by a full translation of Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi’s Bast al-Banan (authored in 1911), a defence of what he wrote in Hifz al-Iman in response to the ugly allegation of Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi.

See also: The Decisive Debate, pp. 68-80; A Critique of Husam al-Haramayn, pp. 62-69; al-Muhannad ‘ala ‘l-Mufannad, pp. 22-23.

Sectarianism and Its Roots in the Indian Subcontinent – Response to Asrar Rashid

By Mufti Zameelur Rahman

Introduction

Asrar Rashid of Birmingham, UK, is a preacher who claims to be non-partisan, non-sectarian, and an objective, unbiased “Sunnī Muslim”. However, the subjectivity, and often baselessness, of his claims on the nature and roots of one of the most pronounced intra-Sunnī divides in the Indian Subcontinent proves otherwise. His entire thesis on the causes of the divide is coloured by highly subjective, sometimes evidently false, sectarian readings of history.

In the following, we will deconstruct his historical narrative from a recent talk[1] which has been uploaded online. Relevant parts of the talk will be transcribed and responded to in some detail. Asrar Rashid provides his account in a roughly chronological order. Thus, the following will document (and transcribe) the substantive points in his account and demonstrate the clear bias, subjectivity, lack of academic rigour, and at times outright falsity, of his claims, exposing the fact that they are tainted by sectarian allegiances and tropes, and are not based on an objective assessment of the evidence. In the course of the response, we also hope readers will gain a better appreciation of some of the oft-discussed issues that Asrar Rashid touches upon.

Sectarian bias will often cloud a person’s judgement. If, for example, sectarian mythology is rooted in the idea that Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd wrote Taqwiyat al-Īmān after having come under the direct influence of Arabian Wahhābīs, it will be difficult to entertain the possibility (in this case, the fact) that Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd wrote Taqwiyat al-Īmān years before setting foot in the Ḥijāz, that is, before even the remotest contact with the Arabian Wahhābīs. In deconstructing Asrar Rashid’s narrative, we will observe several other such examples of conclusions that are clearly products of a biased reading.

Theological Debates on Divine Omnipotence – Response to Dr Gibril Haddad

By Mufti Zameelur Rahman

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.