Originally Posted by
SunniSeeker
Your explanation regarding the 'Arab propaganda' doesn't convince me either
It was not my explanation that I was explaining, but Mawlana Manzur Nu'mani's in his book Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab aur Hindustan ke 'Ulama e Haqq on which you are making judgements without having read.
Originally Posted by
SunniSeeker
I don't think it is possible that so many ulema,who were near contemporaries, would reach such 'wrong' conclusions in relation to a significant event. There may be exaggeration but they wouldn't be completely wide off the mark.
There were also many 'ulama who were contemporaries of Imam Abu Hanifah, yet they made wrong judgements on him based on the false propaganda that reached them, and in this case we are at a better position to assess those judgements as false based on our knowledge that it was misinformation that reached them. Mawlana Manzur Nu'mani quotes Shaykh Ahmad Zayni Dahlan and points out that he provides no references for the claims he made, and he proves that his comments were based on hearsay which began much earlier, in the very time of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab himself, who refuted it and his followers also denied it after him (i.e. many decades before Shaykh Ahmad Zayni Dahlan wrote those things).
For example, Mawlana Nu'mani quotes Shaykh Zayni Dahlan saying the following in his book Khulasat al-Kalam fi Bayan Umara’ Balad al-Haram:
When someone wanted to enter into his [Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab] religion, he would say to him after he produced the two testimonies [of faith], “Bear testimony on yourself that you were a disbeliever, and bear testimony on your parents that they died as disbelievers, and bear testimony on so-and-so and so-and-so,” and naming a group of the great scholars of the past, “that they were disbelievers.” If they bore testimony, he accepted them, and otherwise he ordered their execution. He would clearly state that the ummah had turned apostate for six hundred years, and he would anathematise all who did not follow him, even if from the most god-fearing of the pious men, calling them idolaters and permitting their blood and property. And he would affirm the faith of those who followed him even if the worst of the transgressors. He would excessively degrade the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) with different terms, until his followers would also do that, and one of his followers even said that “my staff is better than Muhammad because benefit can be gained from it in killing a snake etc. and Muhammad is dead and there is no benefit or harm in him at all, and he is deaf and dead.” From that is he would detest blessings being sent on the Prophet and would be offended by listening to it.
And:
In his initial period, he was fascinated in reading the reports of those who falsely claimed prophethood like Musaylamah al-Kadhdhab and al-Sajah and al-Aswad al-‘Anasi and Tulayhah al-Asadi and their types, so he concealed in himself the claim of prophethood, and if it was possible for him to proclaim this claim, he would proclaim it. (p. 229)
The fact that these allegations were addressed by Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab himself and his direct followers, Mawlana Manzur Nu'mani argues, is proof enough that Shaykh Ahmad Zayni Dahlan did not base his conclusions on anything substantive but on, what Mawlana Nu'mani calls, "the tawatur of the commoners" - i.e. some claim has become so widespread and accepted amongst people that no one will hesitate in accepting it as historical fact.
For example, Mawlana Nu'mani quotes a letter of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab from the year 1204 as follows:
“Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. As for what follows: A fitnah has occurred which has reached you and others, and its reason is destruction of buildings in our land over the graves of the righteous, and along with this we forbade them from supplicating to the righteous, and we ordered them to purify their supplication for Allah. When we publicised this matter, with what we mentioned of destroying buildings over graves, it became heavy on the common people, and some who claim knowledge supported them for reasons which are not hidden to the likes of you. Thus they spread about us that we curse the righteous, and we are on [a path] besides the path of the ‘ulama. They took the matter to the east and the west, and they said about us things which a sensible person is ashamed to relate. I will tell you what we are upon...Thus, by the grace of Alah, we are followers and not innovators, on the madhhab of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal...I make Allah and His Angels and I make you witnesses that I am on the religion of Allah and His Messenger and I follow the people of knowledge.”
He said in another letter quoted by Mawlana Nu'mani:
“By Allah’s grace, I am a follower, not an innovator. My belief and my religion which I adopt before Allah is the madhhab of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama‘ah, which the imams of the Muslims are upon like the four imams and their followers...From them [the slanders] is what you mention that I anathematise all people except those who follow me, and I claim that your marriages are void. Alas! How can this enter the mind of a sane person? Does a Muslim say this?...Likewise, their claim that I say if I was able to destroy the dome of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) I would destroy it...In sum, all such explanations [given about my movement] besides calling people to Tawhid and forbidding shirk, are all slanders.”
He also quotes extensively from a document written by the son of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab from the early part of the thirteenth century the first time when the Saud family captured the Hijaz. Some of what he quotes from this document of 'Abd Allah ibn Muhammad (as documented in a work called al-Durar al-Saniyyah):
Our madhhab in the foundations of religion is the madhhab of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama‘ah, and our method is the method of the Salaf. In peripherals, we are upon the madhhab of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and we do not denounce anyone who imitates one of the four Imams. We are not deserving of the position of “absolute ijtihad,” and none of us claim it. However, in some issues when a manifest text from the Book or Sunnah is authentic according to us, and not abrogated, restricted or overridden by a stronger [evidence] than it, and one of the four Imams have adopted it, we adopt it and leave the madhhab [of Imam Ahmad]. A group of the Imams of the four madhhabs have come earlier with preferences in some matters against the madhhab in which they adhere to its founder. (pp. 38-9)
As for what has been fabricated against us, concealing the truth and confusing the creation, that we degrade the station of our Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace) by our statement: “the Prophet is dust in his grave, and the staff of one of us is more beneficial to him than him, and he does not have intercession and his visitation is not recommended,” and that we do not rely on the statements of the ‘ulama so we ruin the works of the scholars of the madhhabs because they have in them [both] truth and falsehood; and that we are anthropomorphist; and that we do takfir of people in absolute terms; and in connection with that, that we do not accept the pledge of anyone unless he confesses that he was a mushrik and his parents died on associating partners with Allah; and we forbid sending blessings on the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace); and other [allegations], there is no basis for them, so all these and their likes are falsehoods, and when we are asked about them, our reply in every matter from them is: “Glory be to You! This is a great slander.” (Qur’an, Surah 24) (pp. 40-1)
What we believe is that the position of our Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is the absolutely highest position of creation, and that he is alive in his grave with an intermediary life (hayat barzakhiyyah) stronger than the life of the martyrs due to the texts documented on it in the Revelation, since he is better than them without doubt; and that he hears the salutation of a Muslim on him; and his visitation is recommended although long journeys are not made [lit. saddles are not tied] except to visit the mosque and pray therein, and when he intends along with that the visitation then there is no harm; and whoever spends his precious time in sending blessings on him (upon him blessings and peace) which were transmitted from him, he will attain happiness in the two worlds, and it will suffice his worries and grief as has come in hadith. (p. 41)
We do not deny the miracles of the saints, and we show recognition of them as due, and that they are on guidance from their Lord as long as they walk the path of the Shari‘ah, and the observed rules, although they do not deserve anything from the types of ritual worship, not during their lifetime nor after their death, rather supplication can be sought from them during their life, rather from every Muslim. (p. 41)
We do not denounce the Sufi way, and the purification of the internal from the vices of sins connected to the heart and limbs, as long as its practitioner remains steadfast on the law of the Shari‘ah, and the straight observed path. However, we do not go out of our way to make favourable interpretation of his speech or his actions. Nor do we depend on, seek help from and rely in all of our affairs except Allah Almighty. He is sufficient for us and a brilliant advocate. (p. 50)
Mawlana Nu'mani also relates his own memories. When he was around 7 years old (i.e. 1912 CE) he remembers a story in which Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab intended to desecrate the blessed body of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam); he says, that the story was so common in his hometown that it was treated as historical fact. He also mentions another example where during Hajj he met an elderly Arab man who told him that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab rejected the part of the kalimah that says "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah"!
Mawlana Nu'mani also proves this from Mawlana Husayn Ahmad Madani's writings. Mawlana Husayn Ahmad Madani - who lived in Madinah for 17 years between 1898 and 1915 - wrote a book called al-Shihab al-Thaqib in 1910 against the false allegations of Ahmad Rida Khan. Here he mentioned many of the same claims made about Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his movement quoted from Shaykh Dahlan, and others. Later in 1925 when the Saud family again returned to power and Mawlana Husayn Ahmad Madani was able to investigate the matter from first hand sources he publicly announced his retraction of his earlier statements. Mawlana Nu'mani quotes a newspaper (called Zamindar Lahore ) dated May 1925 where Mawlana Husayn Ahmad Madani's exact wording is quoted (which can be read on page 93 of Mawlana Nu'mani's book). Mawlana Madani says clearly that he based his conclusions in al-Shihab al-Thaqib on what was commonly known amongst the people and writings of opponents, and was not based on any serious investigation, and then he said, having studied their authoratitve works he came to the conclusion that the differences between them and Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama‘ah are not as great as was popularised, rather there are only small (juzi) differences for which there is no takfir or tadlil.
Mawlana Nu'mani gives extensive proofs for his opinion that many of the negative writings were based on a negative attitude adopted by the commoners and rulers alike with respect to the Najdi movement. Otherwise, why would scholars like Shawkani and Nawwab Siddiq Hasan (who Nu'mani quotes) - who were ideologically similar to Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab - write in very negative terms about him, and propagate some of the same false claims about him which he himself and his direct followers refuted? It is unfair for you to make a judgement on Mawlana Nu'mani's conclusions without first having read his proofs and arguments.
Originally Posted by
SunniSeeker
You seem to portray a more balanced view of the issues and seem to recognise that there are differences. There are others who claim to be staunch deobandis but appear to be more wahhabi to the extent they are pro-salafi/wahhabi in everything. For example you admit above that the akabir ulema if deoband allow certain types of istighatha
I only summarised what Mawlana Nu'mani said in the book you claim makes all his books undeserving of serious study - and you have not even read that book as well! I did not say it from myself.
Re: Translation of Fayslah Kun Munazarah on the Barelwi Fitnah by Zameelur Rahman
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks