Documented Beliefs of Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi (1856-1921 CE)

Some of the explicit beliefs of Ahmad Rida Khan (1856-1921 CE), leader and guide to tens of millions of Barelwis worldwide, are:

1. If it were in Allah’s power He would have made the Prophet ﷺ a God. (Malfuzat A‘la Hazrat)
2. It is not disbelief to believe the Prophet ﷺ has knowledge exactly equal to Allah in terms of quantity. (al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah [footnotes])
3. For the fulfilment of needs, it is encouraged to pray a two rak‘ats prayer, then focus attention on Madina, and say: “Oh Messenger of Allah, help me, give me relief in fulfilling my need, Oh fulfiller of needs”, 11 times, and make the same request of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani while taking 11 steps in the direction of where he is buried imagining oneself standing before his grave. (al-Fatawa al-Ridawiyyah)
4. Saints can literally and physically be present in multiple locations at the same time. (Malfuzat A‘la Hazrat)
5. The Prophet’s ﷺ power is a reflection of divine power and everything in creation is subordinate to his command. (al-Fatawa al-Ridawiyyah; I‘tiqad al-Ahbab)
6. The Prophet’s ﷺ knowledge includes every leaf on every tree, every grain of sand, every thought that cross every heart, not an iota is excluded from his encompassing knowledge and vision of all physical things from the start of the universe until the final hour. (Inba’ al-Mustafa; al-Fatawa al-Ridawiyyah)
7. The Prophet ﷺ possesses encompassing hearing, whereby there is no doubt that he hears and sees everyone sending salawat on him from anywhere in the world. (Inba’ al-Hayy; al-Fatawa al-Ridawiyyah)
8. Physical words of revelation are eternal and uncreated. (Malfuzat A‘la Hazrat)

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!

See also:

Blasphemous Barelwi Belief Negating The Prophet ﷺ Is Literally Human

New Book: Barelwism vs Hanafi Fiqh

Barelwis claim to adhere to Hanafi Fiqh and regard Barelwi texts like Fatawa Ridawiyyah and Bahar-i-Shari‘at to be Hanafi reference works. However, in key areas, Barelwism conflicts with the Hanafi madhhab. These include: constructing structures over graves, calling the Adhan after burial, attributing all-encompassing knowledge of created things to the Prophet ﷺ from the beginning of creation until the final hour, and believing that the Prophet ﷺ knows the exact time of the final hour.

Hence, when the Barelwi claim to adhere to Hanafi Fiqh is tested, it fails, and reveals that Barelwism’s true loyalties lies with the exotic views of Ahmad Rida Khan Barelwi and his successors, and not the Hanafi madhhab.

Mawlana Sajid Khan, a graduate of Jamiah Darul Ulum Karachi Pakistan, documents various Barelwi views, from texts such as Fatawa Ridawiyyah, Ja’ al-Haqq and Bahar-i-Shari‘at, and shows how they are in conflict with the Hanafi madhhab. He cites not only well-known Hanafi reference works, like Bada’i‘ al-Sana’i‘, al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah and Fatawa Qadhi Khan, but also eminent pre-Barelwi Subcontinent Hanafi scholars like Mujaddid Alf Thani, Qadhi Thana’ullah Panipati and Shah ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Dihlawi.

The book, which consists of 31 topics, has recently been translated into lucid English, spanning 235 pages.

And is available for purchase at:

UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0C9S7K14L

US: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0C9S7K14L#

Canada: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B0C9S7K14L

Australia: https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/B0C9S7K14L

France: https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B0C9S7K14L

Barelwi Istighathah in Action: Salat al-Ghawthiyyah/Salat al-Asrar

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.”

And here, he is advising his readers to call out to the Prophet ﷺ in distress, after performing a two-rak’ah optional prayer, to grant them relief and aid, addressing him as “fulfiller of needs”. Ahmad Rida Khan also held the belief that if it were within Allah’s power, He would have elevated the Prophet ﷺ to the status of a deity.

Recall, the Shari’ah not only forbids shirk proper, but also a resemblance of shirk. Among practices that closely resemble shirk, this practice will certainly be up there.

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)

Classical Mālikī Scholars: Doctrine of ‘Ilm Jamī‘ Mā Kāna wa Mā Yakūn for Prophets is Kufr

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:

Deobandī (Sunnī) Vs Barelwī (Bid‘ī) Prophetologies – Elevating or Lessening the Prophet ﷺ?

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.)