Maslak of Pir Mehr Ali Shah Golri

[Talhah]

Assalamu-‘alaykum


Recently, I visited the grave of Peer Mehr Ali Shah in Golra Sharif (in Islamabad). This thread has been started to discuss the maslik of the shaykh. Peer Mehr Ali was a khalifah of Peer Qamar-ud-deen siyalwi. He later attained khilafah from Hadhrat Haji Imdadullah Muhajir makki (I think this was an honorary khilafah) when shaykh was on a visit to makkah. Haji sahib also instructed him to return back to india soon since Allah willed to take some enormous service of deen from him. This was an indication to the work of refutation of qadiyanism. Peer sahib did splendid work in this field. Even Hadhrat Ashraf Ali thanwi and Hadhrat Anwar Shah kashmiri praised and recommended one of his books (on the life of Hadhrat Eesa a.s., if I remember correctly). Also, peer sahib was also the first shaykh of Hazrat Ataa-ullah Shah Bukhari.

Brother Saad khan previously pointed out that peer sahib considered the attribution of bashariyat to the nabi s.a.w. as a dignity and respect. (link: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...r-Pir-Mehr-Ali). This view is contrary to the view of barelwi clerics who deem such attribution as a blasphemy (gustakhi) against nabi s.a.w.

I myself am not pretty sure about the maslik of the shaykh so I tried to find a bit about it during my short visit to the mazar. The conclusion which I could draw was that the shaykh was neither a deobandi nor a barelwi but rather in some way between the two groups. Having said that, let me share what I myself could find regarding the subject:

Firstly, I’ll mention about the mazar. In the hanaf/deobandi view, the building of tombs etc on graves is impermissible (this has been discussed previously on SF in another thread) but there was a huge mazar of peer sahib. This mazar seemed to me a bit better than other mazars which I have previously seen (the mazar of Hazrat Farid ganj shaker in pakpatan and of Hazrat Ali hajweri in lahore) or heard of since I could not see anyone prostrating or doing any such act near the grave of peer sahib. Infact, there was a message written on a board from the caretakers of mazar prohibiting anyone to prostate or do tawaf of the grave. Also, the women were not allowed to enter the mazar (the place where the grave of the peer sahib was located) either.

I also tried to read a few pages of Mehr-e-Muneer (from a book shop), a detailed book written on the biography of shaykh. So hereunder are some of the things which I could find:

1. It was mentioned at a place (under a chapter about barelwis and deobandis) that shaykh held the opinion that the aqeedah of ataai ilm-e-ghayb and istimdad from ambiya is correct (though no quotes from the shaykh concerning this were mentioned in this chapter. Also, the former claim does not specify whether the sahykh believed in the same belief as that of raza khan which was that the prophet knew everything of what has been, what is and what will be).Also, the shaykh wrote in a letter (mentioned in the same book) that the preferred view is that the nabi is present in the homes of the believers (this is what I could understand from the complex urdu shaykh used).

2. However, I could not find the shaykh agreeing with raza khan in the takfeer of the ulama of deoband. (Infact in many books published there, words like rahmatullah ‘alay can be found with the names of deobandi ulama. This can also be seen in some of the pages in the following link: http://razakhanimazhab.weebly.com/urdu20.html). Also, in the matters of difference between Deobandis and Barelwis, it seems that the shaykh was not very keen to express his opinion and incases where he did so, he did not attack the other side either.

3. Other than this peer sahib also held believes which the majority of the barelwis will not agree to. For example it was stated in the same book (mehr-e-muneer) regarding cursing of yazeed that although peer sahib did not deem it to be impermissible but said that its wrothless (bay sood hay. page 143). This view is similar to the one held by majority of our ulama (i.e. deobandi ulama). Similarly, he said regarding Allamah ibn taymiah and ibn qayyim that theres no doubt that they were great scholars and servants of islam (khadim-e-islam) but they adopted extremism in a few agreed upon issues for the sake of Tauheed (baaz ijmai masail may riayat-e-tauheed k zu’m may tashaddud ikhtyaar kr gay. Page 142). I think that no barelwi can use such respectful words for the shaykhayn.

This is what I could find about the maslik of Peer mehr ali shah but there may be many flaws in some of my find-outs and conclusions since the above mentioned details are a result of a very short and surface research. So if any brother has some knowledge about this subject, it will be much appreciated.

Wassalaam

Muhammad Talhah ‘afaa Allah ‘anh

[Talhah]

One more point which could be mentioned is that there was no salaat o salaam read loudly before the azan as common barelwis usually practice.

[Aamir]

One more point which could be mentioned is that there was no salaat o salaam read loudly before the azan as common barelwis usually practice.

Jazakallah brother, extremely interesting information. I have heard the scholars of aalmi majlis tahaffuz khatme nabuwwat praise Pir sahib for his work against qadiyanism too. It looks like Pir sahib rahimullah is respected in both deobandi and brelwi circles - something which is quite rare.

[Abu_Bilal]

Assalam Alaikum.

The maslik of Peer Mehr Ali Shah (RA) is not clear. Maulana Sarfraz Safdar had criticized him in Guldasta-e-Tawheed and some other books. Peer Sahab also believed in Nida-e-Ghayr Allah to be permissible in Mehre-Muneer. Secondly, there is a tomb built over his grave, which is haraam. There are many other things. However, Peer Sahab (RA) had also praised the ulema-e-deoband, and didn't do takfeer of them.

Also not saying salat-o-salam loudly before the Azaan is not a big issue according to my humble opinion. The problem is with Shirkia Aqaid, and not Bidah.

So, it is confusing. We leave his case to Allah.

[London786]

Pir mehr ali shah was a wali of ALLAH. We should hold our tongues against him. The tomb was built after his death. How does one know that he consented to it. Also as I said previously we should not judge pir saheb in relation to his modern day followers many of whom are die hard brelvis. We should refer to his works and those of his very high khulafah. Also pir saheb may have made mistakes....but he was a wali of ALLAH praised by deobandis like Allama Anwar shah kashmiri rh.

[Ishaaq Ahmad]

Pir mehr ali shah was a wali of ALLAH. We should hold our tongues against him. The tomb was built after his death. How does one know that he consented to it. Also as I said previously we should not judge pir saheb in relation to his modern day followers many of whom are die hard brelvis. We should refer to his works and those of his very high khulafah. Also pir saheb may have made mistakes....but he was a wali of ALLAH praised by deobandis like Allama Anwar shah kashmiri rh.

This "peer" is the one who promoted belief in "wahdatul wujood", but said it is not obligatory to believe in wahdatul wujood!!! If an aqeeda is true, how can it not be obligatory to believe it?

http://www.thelightofgolrasharif.com.../main_page.htm
"One Maulana Sufi Abdul Rahman of Lucknow had declared, in his book titled Kalimatul Haq (The Word of Truth), that belief in Wahdat-ul-Wajood was binding upon the Muslim Ummah in general, in the same way as belief in the Kalima-e-Tayyibah was, and that non-belief in it therefore constituted heresy. Hazrat effectively disproved this point of view in his book Tahqiq-ul-Haq Fi Kalimatul Haq. At the same time, in line with his moderate and tolerant approach, he refused to denounce Maulana Abdul Rahman to be “misguided” and heretic as many other contemporary scholars had chosen to do. Instead, he attributed the Maulana’s views to be due to an overpowering spiritual state beyond his control."

[al-Kankohi]

Pir mehr ali shah was a wali of ALLAH. We should hold our tongues against him. The tomb was built after his death. How does one know that he consented to it. Also as I said previously we should not judge pir saheb in relation to his modern day followers many of whom are die hard brelvis. We should refer to his works and those of his very high khulafah. Also pir saheb may have made mistakes....but he was a wali of ALLAH praised by deobandis like Allama Anwar shah kashmiri rh.

True. Many of the awliya of the past have tombs on their grave such as Imam Rabbani. And the list is very long. This does not mean they requested for it.

[Ishaaq Ahmad]

Now let us see what "Peer" Mehr Ali Shah of Golra says about music and sama (chishti spiritual music):

"Since Hazrat [Peer Mehr Ali Shah] belonged primarily to the Chishtia school (Silsila), he regarded music and sama to be religiously permissible although not indispensable for the “Sufi”. Love of music was indeed part of his nature, and he used to sing mystical verses of eminent poets to warm up his heart and when he found himself alone in deserted places. His life record shows that in his early life he used to listen to qawwali (the Urdu term for sama) with musical instruments"

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful." (Sahih Bukhari)

Abu Hurairah رضى الله عنه narrated that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "The Bell is one of the musical instruments of Satan." (Sahih Muslim)

[Abu_Bilal]

Assalam Alaikum,

Brother Talhah (the OP) asked me to post my comments on this thread. I have nothing against Peer Mehr Sahab. However, Maulana Sarfraz Safdar (RA) has critcized him very heavily in his book "Guldasta-e-Tawheed". This criticism revolves around a book written by Peer Mehr Sahab called "Aila-e-Kalimatullah".

In this book, Peer Sahab (RA) has mentioned at various places, that calling out to ghair-Allah is permissible. Maulana Sarfraz Safdar (RA) has used very harsh and strong words against him.

Brother Ishaaq, the problem with Peer Sahab's maslik is related to his Aqaaid, and not other stuff like music, etc.

[Ishaaq Ahmad]

Brother Ishaaq, the problem with Peer Sahab's maslik is related to his Aqaaid, and not other stuff like music, etc.

Fine then let us examine the aqeeda of "Peer" Mehr Ali Shah, specifically the aqeeda of wahdatul wujood and fana:

"Man as a bashar becomes Masjood-e-Malaika (capable of earning a bow from the heavenly bodies) when he practices: <ayat> (the Divine principle) and evolves as a true reflection of Siffat-e-Ilahiya (the characteristic of God). When forces of this universe bend their heads before him they are rather bowing before Him (God) and not before man."

So according to Peer Mehr Ali Shah, when the Angels bowed before Adam, they were bowing before Allah, because Adam had divine qualities (Siffaat-e-Illaahiyyah)...Na'audhubillah!

Divine self – manifestations is a perpetual process. He is the Real One. A wave is a wave; when it rises or when it falls it merges into the sea becomes part and parcel of the sea which proves that a wave dose not annihilate, rather it adopts a new shape. The real existence is of Him and when these manifestations (universal moods of Pure Being) are over, He alone remains.

Audhubillah! The "Peer" is now referring to the concept of Fana, and saying like how a wave terminates into the sea, the same way all other existence terminates in the Being of Allah! This is the Sufi concept of "Fana" which is pure blasphemy!

The seed of a banyan tree is a small one it is said that this seed contains fifteen thousand branches and fifteen thousand leaves, it does not seen to be acceptable to the intellect. The seed is there hidden while branches and leaves are manifest and apparent. Seed has its own rules; leaves have their own characteristics. God is God, man is man.

Like Hajji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki, Mehr Ali Shah also compared Allah to a seed, and that which branches out of the hidden seed and becomes manifest is Allah's creation! La hawla wa la Quwatta illa Billaah!!!