At the beginning of The Revivalist Movement in Islam, Mawdûdî says:
“Islamic faith propounds its own philosophy, which greatly differs from irreligious philosophies. Its knowledge about the Universe and mankind is quite antonymous to the knowledge of the irreligious.”
He means that there is philosophy in Islam and that Muslim scholars are philosophers. His deductions are similar to the Europeans’ extraneous understanding of Islam. As explained in detail in our book Se’âdet-i Ebediyye, degrading Muslim scholars down to the degree of philosophers is symptomatic of a misjudgement based on narrow personal valuations.
Islamic knowledge is divided into two groups: religious and scientific. Scientific knowledge in Islam is obtained by observation, close examination and experimentation, as is the knowledge of the irreligious in Europe and America about the Universe and man. To say that these two groups of knowledge are antonymous means to deny the existence of scientific knowledge
in Islam which in turn means to make matters worse. A quotation from the exalted Islamic scholar Imâm al-Ghazâlî would go with the situation: “An unschooled attempt to help Islam would, let alone help, damage Islam.”
Mawdûdî says on the thirty-third page of his book:
“One of the two reasons why the institution of caliphate weakened was because Hadrat ’Uthmân was devoid of the charismatic leadership possessed by his predecessors.”
With these words, he tries to blemish ’Uthmân’s (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) governance. Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptain writer, also attacks Hadrad ’Uthmân (radiy-Allâhu anh) with the same presumptions in his book Al-’adâlat al-ijtimâ’iyyatu fi ’l-islâm. Speaking ill of Hadrat ’Uthmân Dhi ’n-nûrain (radiy-Allâhu ’anh), who was recommended by Hadrat ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) and elected by the Prophet’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) companions unanimously and whose superiority had been declared in many hadîths is a symptom of being too ignorant to understand that it is a grave sin to speak ill of him or a symptom of attempting to demolish Islam insidiously from behind the screen. Each of the Sahâbat al-kirâm was a hero honoured by being praised in the hadîths, “The highest people are those who live in my time,” and “My companions are like the stars in the sky. If you follow any one of them, you will find the right path,” and in the âyat, “They are very strong against disbelievers.” To misrepresent ’Uthmân (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) as the cause of the weakening of the institution of caliphate can be done only by those who cannot realize their honours. The history is in the open. The extent of lands conquered in the time of Hadrat ’Uthmân (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) was much greater than the former. Muslim lands extended from Philippines to Tunisia. The capacity of this book would not suffice to tell about the improvements he made in administrative, military and social fields. His attempts and achievements in administrative, military and economic fields are told in detail in the fifth chapter of the Turkish Hak Sözün Vesîkalarý[1]. Those who misrepresent Hadrat ’Uthmân’s (radî-Allâhu ’anh) martyrdom as a defect for him reveal what they think about the prophets whom the Children of Isrâ’il had martyred and about the hadîth, “No prophet suffered as much torture as I have.” Evidently, the reason why they do not speak ill of Hadrat ’Umar’s
---------------------------------
[1] Documents of the Right Word. Please see the book list at the end of this book.
(radiy-Allâhu ’anh) martyrdom by his servant is because they cannot find the favourable opportunity. Let us tell these ignorant people again that each of the Sahâbat al-kirâm was a perfect leader and a courageous mujâhid. From Hadrat Habîb (radiy-Allâhu ’anh), who challenged the enemies in his speech on the gallows in Mecca, up to Abû ’Ubadia (radiy-Allâhu ’anh), the Conqueror of Damascus, and to Hadrat Khâlid (radiy-Allâhu ’anh), who was amongst the fighters of the army that came to Constantinople, it would make a long legend to write about the superiority of each of them in every respect.
“Caliphate, which had the qualities of prophethood, was passed on to cruel sovereigns. Thus, once more, administration was seized by those who were against Allah. Islam was pushed away from the power. Atheism seized the power and domination under the name of caliphate. Rulers were said to be the shade of Allah on the earth.”
Statements of this kind do not befit the mouths and pens of believers. These absurd, crazy words against Mu’âwiya (radiy-Allâhu ’anh), one of the prominent Sahâbîs, impute atheism to all the caliphs up to Sultan Muhammad Vahîdeddin Khan, the last caliph of Muslims, and, therefore, are not worth answering. His attempt to interpret wrongly the hadîth stating that Muslim rulers are zill-Allâh (Allâhu ta’âlâ’s shade) and his considering Muslims so stupid as to suppose that Allâhu ta’âlâ is a material being that makes a shade cannot rescue him from the ditch in which he has fallen. All Islamic caliphs were Muslims. Especially the Ottoman caliphs held on to Islam in everything they did and were proud of their devotion to Islam. Those who read the written will of
’Uthmân Ghâzî, the founder of the Ottoman Empire, which is written in many books, for example, in Qisâs-i Anbiyâ’, will understand the truth.
“It was the above-given conditions that incited the scholastic duel, which gave birth to various madhhabs, the Mu’tazila creed and the atheistic and sceptical inclinations.”
It is surprising that he associates the birth of madhhabs with the movements of fitna (mischief, disunion). Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) foretold it and praised beforehand the four madhhabs in that their birth would be Allâhu ta’âlâ’s compassion. They did not arise from worldly conditions. They arose from religious, divine reasons pertaining to knowledge. Those who observe Islam from without and cannot penetrate into its essence strive to base the sacred, spiritual manifestations on
Mawdûdî, behind the scene, fiercely attacks tasawwuf and says:
“Philosophy, literature and knowledge coming from Greek, Persian and Indian skies were shared. The peoples belonging to polytheist societies that have converted to Islam brought with them many of their polytheistic beliefs and ideas. When they were introducing idolatry into Islam, the ’âlims whose main concern was worldly advantages co-operated with them. With the idea of giving place to graves and to Awliyâ’ in worship, the meaning of the Qur’ân was distorted. Many a hadîth was misinterpreted.”
This passage, too, is entirely mendacious and slanderous. Greek, Persian or Indian philosophies have not taken place in any of the basic books of Islam. On the contrary, the Ahl as-Sunna scholars have answered them one by one and refuted the ones which were incompatible with Islam. And, let alone comparing them with the Islamic literature, no one has ever condescended to use the word ‘literature’ for their sayings. If Mawdûdî wants to attack the seventy-two heretical groups or heretics among ignorant people with these words of his, it does not prove him good-willed to attack them as if they were of Islam or religious scholars, for none of them can represent Islam. The Ahl as-Sunna scholars of all ages have shown them Allâhu ta’âlâ’s path and distinguished
their good aspects from the bad ones. They have written thousands of books for this purpose and have not left any need for the help of the people like Mawdûdî. If Mawdûdî wants to serve Islam, he should reproduce the advices and warnings of those blessed scholars of Islam, instead of misrepresenting, by putting forward the words of a few ignorant or heretical people, those most flourishing ages of Islam, during which the Ahl as-Sunna scholars spread light. Thus he will prove himself to be sincere in the sense which he has attributed to the word ‘mujaddid’. Also, he will render a true service to Islam. But he does not mean to do so. He claims that bad customs of Iranians spread among Muslims and thus Islam was spoilt. In this subject, too, he misrepresents the events in an appalling way.
It is a historical fact that the evils of Iran and Rome contaminated the pre-Islamic Arabs, but not Islam! As he says, idolatry had penetrated into the Ka’ba. As a matter of fact, it was for this reason that when the Prophet came forward and started to carry out his task of commanding what was good and prohibiting what was evil, all the Arabs became his enemies. All of them were
in a pitiable condition. The entire Arabian Peninsula was awash in ignorance and heresy. They could not understand the good word. They refused the exalted Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm) who invited them to salvation. Before Islam, the evils of the fire-worshipping Iranians and the idol-worshipping Romans had spread over the Arabian Peninsula. In Iran, a person named Majdak had invented a new religion and spread the ideas of shared property and common wives far and wide. He had prohibited the property rights. He had established today’s communism in Iran. He had turned the social life and moral values in Iran upside down. Afterwards, Nushirwân Shah struggled to brake this current, yet he was not able to entirely extirpate it.
As for the Romans; their moral life had become even worse with the evils that had come to them from the Greeks. A philosopher named Aristipus of Cyrene had made up a moral theory and said, “The purpose of life and morals is amusement and sensual pleasure. It is to enjoy everything. Everything which satisfies one’s ambitions, desires and tastes is good. One should run after them.” This meant the end of morals. How can illegitimate acts ever be good? Those who worked only for this purpose tolerated the evils such as theft, perfidy, dishonesty and murder in order to attain their aims. These were the moral principles of the ancient Greek civilization! An irreligious civilization should have been so. This system led many people to despair and suicide, for a person
could not always be without care and griefs; he could not obtain every taste he would desire and, when he could not get to his purpose, he would try to flee from life. Among the followers of this philosophy, a Greek named Agerias regarded it a heroism for those who could not attain their pleasures to commit suicide. With the influence of his exciting speeches, there were many suicides among his audience. Also in the twentieth century, there are those who kill others or commit suicide upon being unable to attain a base flavour or a sexual desire. For this sheer reason, the ancient Greeks and Romans had been absorbed in pleasure and dissipation. Its consequence had been the corruption of social life and the demolition of economy. Both civilizations had died away for this reason. As the Romans began introducing these
evils into the Arabian Peninsula, Islam came to rescue the humanity.
With Islam, the glooms of nescience over the Arabian Peninsula cleared away. The lights of virtue and spiritual
knowledge shone out. Fraternity settled among the people and clans. The people who had remained behind for many centuries began to advance and gain strength by following Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm). They challenged shahs and kings whose sovereignties they had been observing with admiration. Conquering their lands they disseminated Islam there. History is in the open! Books, documents, works are on hand!
Mawdûdî says on the thirty-seventh page of his book:
“The morals of Greek philosophy and monastic life and a general pessimistic attitude towards life became natural in Muslim societies. This led Islamic knowledge and literature to deviation and supported monarchism. It confined the entire religious life to certain rites and ceremonies.”
Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) gave the good news that a mujaddid would come and strengthen Islam in the beginning of each century. And it has come true. In every century, Islam has illuminated the humanity in every field through the leadership of the Ahl as-Sunna scholars and has been the source of civilization. In order to portray Ibn Taimiyya as a source of illumination like the sun, Mawdûdî tries to enshroud the great Islamic civilization and to obscure the luminous skies of the century of the Tâbi’ûn, who were praised in the Hadîth, and the following century. Those who read Islamic books and true histories written by reasonable pens in Europe will not have difficulty in comprehending his destructive tactics.
He tries to strip the Ahl as-Sunna scholars of the meaning of the word ‘mujaddid’ in the hadîth we have quoted above. He blames the Ahl as-Sunna scholars, e.g. Hadrat al-Imâm ar-Rabbânî, for having said that Hadrat al-Mahdî, who had been mentioned in the Hadîth would be the mujaddid of the third millenium. In addition, he insults Muslims and men of Tasawwuf by calling them “ancient type reactionary people”. He makes fun of sacred beliefs by saying, “Could jihâd be performed with spirituality, amulets and prayers and could tanks be destroyed with malediction?” He stigmatizes those who believe so with the words ‘populace’ and ‘ignorant’. He defends that al-Mahdî will be far from the said spiritual values, that he will be “the most modern of the modern who has
a deep authority in the main problems of life,” that he is afraid that scholars and mutasawwifs will clamour against the novelty which he will bring. However, in the times when Hadrat al-Mahdî will appear ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm) will descend from heaven and they will meet each other, there will
not be any Islamic scholar left on the earth and Islamic knowledge will have disappeared. Ignorance and heresies, which Mawdûdî tries to impute on the early Muslim ages praised in the Hadîth, will appear in that future time as pointed out again in the Hadîth. The attacks of the people like Mawdûdî to the Ahl as-Sunna and their attempts to extinguish the Ahl as-Sunna knowledge indicate that those gloomy days pointed out in the Hadîth are drawing near. When Hadrat al-Mahdî will appear and renew the Ahl as-Sunna knowledge, those same non-madhhabite people, heretics and religion reformers will cry and oppose him and Hadrat al-Mahdî will put them to the sword. Hadrat al-Imâm ar-Rabbânî wrote in the 255th letter in the first volume of
Maktûbât that al-Mahdî will kill the heretics occupying religious posts in Medina. Mawdûdî thinks that al-Mahdî will be “not a man of supernatural works or karâmât, inspirations and spiritual accomplishments, but a man of struggle like other revolutionists.” He says, “Al-Mahdî will found a new school of thought. As this world has witnessed sinful leaders such as Lenin and Hitler, so there will come a virtuous leader.”
Mawdûdî, who disagrees with the Ahl as-Sunna in many matters, takes Hadrat al-Mahdî as an ordinary leader. Great scholar Ahmad Ibn Hajar al-Makkî cited some two hundred characteristics derived from the hadîths about him in his book Al-qawl al-mukhtasar fî ’alâmat al-Mahdî. A person who reads this book can easily see the difference between the real al-Mahdî whom Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) described and the imaginary one whom Mawdûdî tries to visualize.
That the first mujaddid in Islam was ’Umar ibn ’Abd al-’Azîz is another product of Mawdûdî’s short sight. ’Umar ibn ’Abd al-’Azîz was one of the mujaddidîn of the first century of the Hegira, but he was not the first mujaddid. According to the unanimity of Islamic scholars and historians, the first mujaddid was Abû Bakr as-Siddîq (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) who, after Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) death, subdued the renegades and prevented the mischief and instigation that arose among the new Muslims on the Arabian Peninsula.
He says on the fifty-fourth page:
“After the death of ’Umar the Second, the administration was obtained by irreligious hands, which became an obstacle against Islam’s way. Fortunately, the Umayyads and ’Abbâsids could not prevent Islam’s progress. Since the hadîth and fiqh scholars were unfamiliar with rational knowledge, they remained devoid of
interpreting and explaining the Islamic system under the light of contemporary inclinations of thought. They could do nothing but resort to vicious influences. Imâm Abu ’l-Hasan al-Ash’arî and his successors were not successful, either, because, though they possessed scholastic knowledge, they had not been educated in rational knowledge. They went so far in opposing the Mu’tazila that they introduced into the religion things which did not have place in the religion. Scholars, rulers and masses of people altogether turned their backs to Allah’s Book and our Prophet’s Sunna. The wars declared for luxury, ambition and avarice by a notorious group governing the State caused a serious retrogression. Knowledge
and arts disappeared. Meanwhile, Imâm al-Ghazâlî came up and won the confidence of the caliph in Baghdad. But he departed from the palace and tried to refute the Greek philosophy. He criticized all the [Ahl as-Sunna] madhhabs for their weak aspects and inclinations incompatible with Islam. He revived the system of education which had been decaying. Worldly knowledge and religious knowledge had been far away from each other. Yet he was inefficient in hadîth. He dealt too much with rational knowledge. He was in the wrong to have too much interest in Tasawwuf. It was Ibn Taimiyya’s lot to revive Islamic thought and spirit by avoiding these three dangers.”
It is true that there have been some Muslim rulers who perpetrated cruelty and wrongdoing under the influence of sycophants and renegades who surrounded them. But Muslim scholars struggled to draw them to the right course by telling them Islamic commands and prohibitions in speech and writing. Therefore, the worst ones among them were more just and more useful than the best ones of irreligious rulers. The world’s histories write about this fact. Those who read the book written by Lord Davenport, an Englishman, will easily comprehend not only that Mawdûdî is wrong but also that he is after sedition. We want to emphasize that non-sahâbî Islamic caliphs might have been cruel and committed sins, yet none of them ever was an unbeliever. They were by no means hostile
to Islam. Each of them had commissions of knowledge, Shaikh al-Islâms and counsellors. None of them ever thought of preventing Islam’s progress. All of them struggled to serve Islam. Mosques, schools, madrasas, roads, hospitals, fountains, baths, bridges and various institutions of charity and arts which each of them handed over to the next generation were innumerous. Their remains and many of them themselves are in the open. Millions of Muslims benefit from
them today. It is a tactic of the enemies of Islam to attempt to vilify them by putting forward their human defects. Islamic shcolars’ staying away from the sultâns does not show that sultâns were evil. Following the hadîth, “The one who approaches and is modest towards a rich man because he is rich will lose one-third of his îmân,” scholars kept away from every rich or famous person, yet they did not neglect to warn them about Islam’s commands and prohibitions. Mawdûdî, who cannot sense the nuance between these two, attacks Islamic scholars and caliphs by writing in a haphazard way. If, instead of writing about their few faults, he had the honour of writing about their goodness and services to Islam, he would fill volumes of books. Especially the Ottoman caliphs were all learned, pious, just, perfect and blessed persons.
An argument based on the surmise that the scholars (in the branches) of Hadîth and Fiqh were devoid of rational knowledge betrays an utter lack of understanding concerning the greatness of Islamic scholars. An Islamic scholar is a great person who has reached the grade of ijtihâd in religious knowledge and learned well what has been discovered up to his time in experimental knowledge and who has attained the degree of Wilâyat al-khâssa al-Muhammadiyya in the ma’rifa of the heart.
For the truth-seeking younger generation, who are confused by Mawdûdî’s aggression, which is so vulgarly sordid as to call the Muslim caliphs “irreligious”, the short biographies of some caliphs in the history book Mir’ât al-kâ’inât are translated in the following paragraphs[1]:
“VI: Mu’âwiya[2] (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) was one of Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) clerks who wrote down the Qur’ân. He acquired his prayers which asked blessings on him. He had a strong reason and intellect, much clemency, generosity and administrative power. He was mild, majestic and brave. He looked as if he had been created to be a sultân. He conquered Sudan, Afghanistan, many parts of India, Cyprus, going to the last one in person. He sent troops to Constantinople. His caliphate was rightful.
“The lâ-madhhabî slander Mu’âwiya on account of his combat
---------------------------------
[1] The Roman numeral in front of each name shows his order of caliphate and the Arabic numerals in parentheses show the dates of his birth and death in the Muslim calendar. Long biographies of Khulafâ’ ar-Râshidîn, Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs are given under the heading “Iwâz” in the famous work by ad-Damîrî.
[2] The book begins with blessings invoked on Hadrat Mu’âwiya.
against ’Alî (radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ) and grievously exaggerate the sad situations which might take place in any combat. When the Ahl as-Sunna scholars give them answers based on the Qur’ân, the Sunna and reason, they lose their head. They cannot find anything to say. They begin to tell about the evils of his son, Yazîd. They say, ‘He paved the way for a bad tradition wherein caliphate was a patrimonial institution. He turned caliphate into sultanate.’ On the subject about public prayers, Ibn ’Âbidîn says, ‘A Muslim candidate for the caliphate must be elected by the notables of scholars and administrators or designated by the former Khalîfa as his successor. Also, a Muslim who has seized power by using force is the rightful Khalîfa. Abû Bakr (radiy-Allâhu ’anh),
when he was about to die, designated ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) Khalîfa. All the Prophet’s companions accepted it.’ It is seen that it was a rightful act compatible with Islam for Mu’âwiya (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) and for all other Khalîfas to designate their sons, whom they themselves brought up and trained, or others whom they could confide in, for their place. A preceding Khalîfa can not be blamed on account of the cruel acts perpetrated by his successor(s). (19-60)
These written attacks which Mawdûdî so wantonly spearheads against Muslims’ Khalîfas and the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna are not only devoid any scientific value but also in glaring contradiction with historical and religious facts. The following passages from a Persian work of Shâh Walî-Allah, whom Mawdûdî praises very much, is an evident proof for the pure youth:
“Mu’âwiya ibn Abû Sufyân (radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ) was one of Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) companions. Among as-Sahâba, he was wellknown for his beautiful virtues. Avoid injuring him even in your thoughts, nonetheless for the danger of speaking ill of him! Or else you will be committing harâm. It is declared in a hadîth reported by Abû Dâwûd, ‘Do not speak ill of my companions! Even if you give gold as huge as Mount Uhud in the name of alms, you will not attain blessings equal to those which they attain for having given a handful of barley as alms!’ Again in a hadîth reported by him, Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) pointed to Hadrat Hasan (radiy-Allâhu ’anh), ‘This son of mine is mature. Through him, I expect, Allâhu ta’âlâ will reconcile two armies of my umma.’ A hadîth reported by at-Tirmidhî declares about Mu’âwiya (radiy-Allâhu ’anh), ‘O my Rabb! Make him hâdî and muhdî!’ that is, “Keep him in the right
path and make him a means for guiding others to the right path.’ A hadîth reported by Ibn Sa’d and Ibn ’Asâkir declares about Mu’âwiya (radiy-Allâhu ’anh), ‘O my Rabb! Teach Him the Book and make him own countries and protect him against punishment.’ Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) knew he would become Khalîfa. It is obvious that because he pitied his umma very much it was necessary for him to pray so that the person who would take the lead would be in the right path so that he could guide them to the right path. It is declared in a hadîth reported by Hasan (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) and conveyed by Ad-Dailamî, ‘Someday Mu’âwiya will be the head of the State.’ Hadrat Mu’âwiya (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) said that since the day when Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) had said to him, ‘O Mu’âwiya! When you become head of the State, do favours!’ he had been awaiting the time when he would become Khalîfa. A hadîth reported by Umm Hirâm (radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ), a Sahâbî, declares, ‘Of my umma, those who will fight in the first naval battle of Islam will certainly enter Paradise.’ Mu’âwiya (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) fought in the first naval battle of Islam during the caliphate of Hadrat ’Uthmân (radiy-Allâhu ’anh). And Umm Hirâm (radiy-Allâhu anhâ), because she had heard the hadîth herself, joined his troops and was martyred when she landed [on Cyprus]. With the blessing of these prayers by Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm), he became a just, trustworthy Khalîfa He kept a few of Rasûlullâh’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) hairs, which, in order to be blessed with them, he requested in his will to be put into his nose.
“Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) prophesied the Battle of Siffîn between ’Alî and Mu’âwiya (radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ), too. The scholars al-Bukhârî and Muslim reported the hadîth: ‘Unless two great armies fight each other, the end of the world will not come. Both of them will fight for the cause.’ In a hadîth reported in the Sahîh of al-Bukhârî, the Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm) said to Ammâr ibn Yâsar, ‘You will be killed by some disobedient people.’ He was killed by Mu’âwiya’s (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) soldiers....[1]
“There are some hadîths castigating the Umayyad Khalîfas, but some other hadîths praise them. A hadîth declares, ‘Caliphate will be in Medina, and sultanate will be in Damascus.’
“It is declared in a hadîth, ‘Up to the twelfth Khalîfa, Islam will be held in high esteem. They all will belong to the Quraish.’ More than half of these twelve Khalîfa, who were praised in this
---------------------------------
[1] Shâh Wâlî-Allah ad-Dahlawî, Izâlat al-Khafâ, p. 571
hadîth, were the Umayyad Khalîfa. It is declared in a hadîth reported by Ibn Mâja, ‘People with a black flag will come from the east, and they will fight the Arabs. Obey their Khalîfas! They are the Khalîfas guiding to the right path!’ This hadîth and the like praise the Abbâsid Khalîfas...[1]
“A Khalîfa who carried on Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) task of guidance as he had done was called khalîfat râshida. These were perfect, real Khalîfas. A Khalîfa who did not carry out this task precisely and who did not obey Islam was called khalîfat jâbira...[2]
“Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) task of guidance contained three levels. The first level was to have Allâhu ta’âlâ’s commands and prohibitions obeyed by using power and force. This is called ‘sultanate’. His second task was to teach His commands and prohibitions. His third task called ‘ihsân’ was to purify the heart. Al-Khulafâ’ ar-râshidîn were successful in all these three levels. Those who succeeded them managed only the task of sultanate. The task of teaching was given to the imâms of madhhabs, and the task of ihsân was given to the great men of Tasawwuf.”[3]
“VII: Yazîd ibn Mu’âwiya became Khalîfa in 60 and died four years later in Hawwârin, which is located between Damascus and Tadmur. He was buried there. (23-64)
“VII: Mu’âwiya II ibn Yazîd was very intelligent, very pious and very just. He resigned from caliphate after forty days. (44-64)
“IX: Marwan ibn Hakam was a fiqh scholar. He was very clever and very intelligent. He read the Qur’ân very beautifully. He abstained from sins and feared Allâhu ta’âlâ very much. He was the beloved son-in-law of Hadrat ’Uthmân (radiy-Allâhu ’anh). It was written on his seal, ‘I trust in Allâhu ta’âlâ. I ask from Him.’ (2-65)
“X: ’Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan was a scholar of hadîth and fiqh. He was famous for having much zuhd and ’ibâdât . Imâm an-Nâfi’, a prominent one among the Tâbi’ûn, said, ‘In Medina, I have not seen a person who was learned in fiqh more profoundly, worshipped more, knew the knowledge and manners of hajj more or read the Qur’ân more beatifully than ’Abd al-Malik.’
---------------------------------
[1] Ibid, p. 601.
[2] Ibid, v. II, p. 330.
[3] Ibid, p.
According to many scholars, ’Abd al-Malik was one of the seven fiqh scholars of Medina. Imâm ash-Shâ’bî, another prominent one among the Tâbi’ûn, said, ‘I found myself superior to every scholar whom I interviewed. I found only ’Abd al-Malik superior to me.’ He fought Mukhtâr, the chief of the Râfidîs[1] who shed much blood, and slew him. His caliphate was religiously rightful. He repaired the Ka’ba, a construction which survived to the present day. Before him, Byzantine gold coins and Persian silvers had been in circulation, and he was the Khalîfa who coined the first Islamic money. He is the conqueror of Adana and Sicily. He sent his son Maslama to conquer Constantinople. Maslama (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih) performed salât in the big church of St. Sophia and built the Arab Mosque. (26-86)
“XI: Walîd ibn ’Abd al-Malik was very pious and charitable and worshipped much. He read through the Qur’ân in every three days. His good deeds and favours were countless. As soon as he became Khalîfa, he appointed his cousin, ’Umar ibn ’Abd al-’Azîz, the governor of Medina. He had the Umayya Mosque built in Damascus, spending four hundred chests of gold coins. It was Walîd who built the first hospital and soup kitchen for the poor in Muslim history. He himself paid the debts of religious men. His commandant, Kutaibiya, took Bukhâra peacefully from the Turks. He was the conqueror of Andalusia (Spain), Ankara, Samarkand and India. It was written on his seal: ‘O Walîd! You will die and be called to account!’ (46-96)
“XII: Sulaimân ibn ’Abd al-Malik was learned, zealous, literary, eloquent, charitable and just. He abstained much from tormenting others. One day, a person told him that his farm had been taken from him cruelly. Because he feared Allâhu ta’âlâ much, he got down from his throne, removed the rug and put his cheek on the ground. He took an oath that he would not withdraw his cheek from the ground until an order would be written to that cruel official. The order was written immediately and given to the farmer. (60-99)[2]
---------------------------------
[1] One of the earliest heretical groups in Islam.
[2] Another example showing the justice of Islamic Khalîfas is written in Hadrat Sayyid Abdulhakîm al-Arwasî’s (rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih) note book: “Khalîfa Sulaimân asked Hadrat Abu Hâzim, one of the Tâbi’ûn, ‘We don’t want to die. What is the reason?’ He said, ‘O Sulaimân! You have destroyed your next world and made this world prosperous. Certainly you wouldn’t like to go from a prosperous place to a destroyed one.’ ”
“XIII: ’Umar ibn ’Abd al-Azîz ibn Marwan (rahmatullâhu ta’âlâ ’alaih) was a good, just Muslim. (61-101)[1]
“XIV: Yazîd ibn ’Abd al-Malik had been formerly addicted to dissipation. But when he became Khalîfa, he became pious and just. (71-105)
“XV: Hishâm ibn ’Abd al-Malik was very intelligent, efficient in governing and benevolent. Everybody liked him. His goodness and justice were known far and wide. When some goods were brought to the Bayt al-mâl, he would not accept them unless forty persons bore witness to that they were taken in a halâl way. (71-125)
“XVI: Walîd ibn Yazîd was literary, eloquent. Because he was seen to be mentally deficient, a year later he was slain as he was reading the Qur’ân. (92-126)
“XVII: Yazîd ibn Walîd ibn ’Abd al-Malik was intelligent, clever and devoted to Islam. He prohibited alcoholic drinks. (90-126)
“XVIII: Ibrâhîm ibn Walîd ibn ’Abd al-Malik was Khalîfa for seventy days which elapsed fighting Marwan. (?-126)
“XIX: Marwan ibn Muhammad ibn Marwan was brave, intelligent and efficient in administration. He conquered many lands. He fought the Khawârij and killed their chief Dahhâk. He was overcome and killed by the ’Abbâsids. (72-132)
“XX: ’Abdullah Saffâh ibn Muhammad ibn ’Alî ibn ’Abdullah ibn ’Abbâs was learned, intelligent, provident, eloquent and generous. He died of smallpox. He is the first Khalîfa of the ’Abbâsids. (104-135)
“XXI: Mansûr ibn Muhammad had much knowledge and decency. He did not care for amusement. He was brave and
---------------------------------
[1] Mawdûdî, too, praises him. He says that ’Umar ibn ’Abd al-Azîz was the first mujaddid and writes about some of his innumerable good deeds, but he does not attribute any share of these good deeds to Khalîfa Sulaimân who had designated ’Umaras his successor. To him, the Khalîfas spoilt the institution of caliphate by designating their sons or relatives as their successors and thus governed the Islamic republic dictatorially like kings. He searches for and counts all their faults and defects and disgraces them with unbelief, but he does not ever see their good deeds. Indeed, they designated their successors with the intention of following Islam. Then, religion reformers speak ill of the followers of Islam but praise those who adapt
Islam to their own thoughts and points of view.
patient. He worshipped much. (95-158)
“XXII: Mahdî ibn Mansûr was learned, brave, intelligent and very generous. Everybody liked him. His i’tiqâd was very pure. He slew (a number of irreligious people called) zindiqs. (126-169)
“XXIII: Hadî ibn Mahdî was learned, intelligent, eloquent and generous. It was written on his seal, ‘I believe and trust in Allâhu ta’âlâ.’ (147-170)
“XXVI: Hârûn ar-Rashîd ibn Mahdî performed a hundred rak’as of salât every day and every night. He went on hajj one year and on ghazâ the following year. He observed Islam in everything he did. He had in himself all the beautiful habits. (148-193)”
Al-Imâm al-a’zam Abû Hanîfa, Imâm al-Ghazâlî, Imâm an-Nawawî, Ibn Hajar, al-Imâm ar-Rabbânî and Khâlid al-Baghdâdî and many other great scholars were identical with these people. It is obvious that people like Mawdûdî, Sayyid Qutb and Hamidullah are quite outside this circle. Nothing can be so credulous as associating Islamic scholarship with such people who are quite unaware of Islamic knowledge and Islamic scholars and who cannot penetrate into the inner essence of Islam but observe it from without like non-Muslim orientalist writers. The branches of knowledge taught in madrasas which Mawdûdî calls “scholastic knowledge” are ’ulûm an-naqliyya
(religious knowledge). And what he calls “rational knowledge” is ’ulûm al-’aqliyya (scientific, experimental knowledge). These two branches make up the Islamic knowledge. It does not befit a Muslim to say that fiqh and hadîth scholars have known one of these branches of knowledge without knowing the other. Islamic scholars have been the very exalted people praised in the Qur’ân and Hadîth. They are the heirs of prophets. They have organized the division of labour among themselves, each undertaking the job of disseminating a separate branch of knowledge. This division of labour confuses the ignorant, and they
suppose that Islamic scholars have not been exalted in other branches of knowledge. Hadrat ’Abd al-Wahhâb ash-Sha’rânî wrote at the beginning of his book Al-mîzân al-kubrâ: “Hadrat Abû Hanîfa, the founder of and expert in the knowledge of fiqh, was a great Walî like Hadrat ’Abd al-Qâdir al-Jîlânî. He was a man of karâmât like him. But he did not undertake to spread the knowledge pertaining to the heart or to purify the souls. He undertook the task of spreading all kinds of physically practised worship, that is, the knowledge of fiqh. The
mujtahids whom he educated were like him.” It is seen that the insidious enemies, who want to demolish Islam from within, try to blemish Islamic scholars in this respect also in order to deceive young Muslims. They may praise Islamic scholars through false, roundabout words exaggerating them greatly in order to conceal their destructive plans. We should not believe them. One who reads, for example, Imâm Muhammad al-Ghazâlî’s Persian book Kîmyâ’ as-Sa’âda will easily realize his profundity in medical knowledge. He tells that blood is cleaned as the bile and other harmful substances are separated from the blood
in the liver, that the spleen, kidneys and the gall bladder play roles in this procedure and that the health will derange when the quantities of substances in blood change, in a manner quite coincidental with the information given in today’s physiology books. Since Islamic scholars were so superior not only in scholastic knowledge but also in rational knowledge, they were successful in everything they did in every century, and Islamic countries were the homes of civilization. Their thousands of books, which spread their superiority over the world, are in the open. They fill the world’s libraries. Many of them have been translated into foreign languages. Everybody except insidious enemies sees and expresses this fact. It is sufficient to see the book
Kashf az-zunûn to know about their works. The mischief-makers, who bore Muslim names and who belonged to the seventy-two groups, the members of which, according to the hadîth, will go to Hell, introduced into Islam some superstitions long before, like contemporary religion reformers do now. But the Ahl as-Sunna scholars investigated and cleaned them off one by one. Today there is no superstition or mawdû’ hadîth in the basic books of Ahl as-Sunna. Shams ad-dîn as-Sahâwî, ash-Shawkânî, Ibn Taimiyya, ’Abduh, ’Alî al-Qârî and Ismail Hakký said that there were mawdû’ hadîths in the basic books of Ahl as-Sunna, especially in al-Baidâwî’s tafsîr book and in al-Ghazâlî’s Ihyâ’. They are not right; it is a calumniation against these great scholars[1].
The phrases “declared for luxury, ambition and avarice”, which Mawdûdî uses about jihâd, which is one of Islam’s five basic ’Ibâdât, reveal his own personality. Since the âyats and hadîths commanding jihâd have become tawâtur, it is not necessary to quote them here in addition. He himself admits them in his book
---------------------------------
[1] For details on this subject, see below, the 55th article.
Holy War in Islam. Our ancestors performed jihâd not for pleasure or ambition but for spreading Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Word. Jihâd is carried out by the State, by its army. People perform jihâd by serving the army.
Mawdûdî confuses mistakes the rightful madhhabs with the heretical groups. In none of the Ahl as-Sunna madhhabs, either of i’tiqâd or ’amal, is there a mawdû’ hadîth or anything incompatible with Islam. There are mawdû’ and un-Islamic aspects in the seventy-two heretical groups. All Islamic shcolars, especially Hadrat Imâm al-Ghazâlî, criticized these heretical groups. Mawdûdî does not like the Islamic education, which has spread its arts and established its universities over three continents from Philippines and India to Portugal and from Bukhâra to Morocco. This is like attempting to plaster the sun with sticky mud to hide the truth. One is surprised not at such a writer but at those who suppose him to be a Muslim scholar.
He says on the seventy-ninth page:
“Shâh Walî-Allah ad-Dahlawî removed the old doubts concerning i’tiqâd. He illuminated the brains with a new spirit.”
He means that Shâh Walî-Allah ad-Dahlawî (rahmatullâhi ’alaih), too, was a religion reformer. Walî-Allah ad-Dahlawî’s works bear witness for the fact that he was Sunnî; this fact is also declared by Hadrat ’Abdullah ad-Dahlawî. That Muslims’ imân has been doubtful for centuries is a lie made up by the lâ-madhhabî. Mawdûdî could not be too ignorant to know that doubtful îmân is not îmân. But it is a heresy worse than ignorance to say that Muslims’ îmân has been doubtful for centuries. The îmân of the Ahl as-Sunna who make up ninety percent of Muslims on the earth, has been true in every century, and they did not doubt anything in which they believed. Besides, the members of the heretical groups were not so numerous as to represent Islam.
Mawdûdî says on the eighty-first page of his book:
“The difference between the idea and doctrine of caliphate and sovereignty was explained by Shâh Walî-Allah, and the pictures from the Hadîth, which were not known before him, were drawn by him. He wrote in his book Musaffâ: ‘The idiots of our century have abandoned ijtihâd. They do not know where they are going, with their rings put on their noses like camels. Each has chosen a different path. It is a shame that they do not have a common understanding.’ ”
Hadrat Shâh Walî-Allah ad-Dahlawî did not say “idiots” about the Ahl as-Sunna scholars in any of his books, but he complained about the heretical groups who dissented from the four madhhabs. The following passage from him is very descriptive of his reverence towards the Ahl as-Sunna scholars:
“Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) said, ‘Great scholars will come in Iran.’ Besides great hadîth scholars such as al-Bukhârî, Muslim, at-Tirmidhî, Abû Dâwûd, an-Nasâ’î, Ibn Mâja, ad-Dârimî, ad-Dâra-Qutnî, Hâkim, al-Baihakî and many others who were educated in Iran, there are the great fiqh scholars such as Abû ’t-Tayyib [Qâdî Tâhir at-Tabarî], Shaikh Abû Hâmid [al-Isfarâ’inî], Shaikh Abû Ishaq ash-Shîrâzî, and al-Juwainî [’Abdullah ibn Yûsuf and his son], Imâm al-Haramain ’Abd al-Malik ibn ’Abdullâh al-Juwainî and Imâm Muhammad al-Ghazâlî and many many others, who were also educated in Iran. Even Imâm Abû Hanîfa and his disciples in Mâwara an-nahr[1] and Khurasan are the scholars of Iran and are within the circle blessed with the good news in the hadîth. A hadîth declares, ‘There will come a mujaddid in every hundred years.’ As he declared, a mujaddid came in each century and strengthened the religion. In the first century of the Hegira, ’Umar ibn ’Abd al-’Azîz removed the cruelty of the rulers and established the principles of justice. In the second century, al-Imâm ash-Shâfi’î explained the knowledge of îmân and separated the knowledge of fiqh. In the third century, Abû ’l-Hasan al-Ash’arî formulated the Ahl-as-Sunna knowledge and rebutted the people of bid’a. In the fourth century, Hâkim and al-Baihakî and the like established the fundamentals of the knowledge of the Hadîth, and Abû Hâmid and the like spread the knowledge of fiqh. In the fifth century, Imâm al-Ghazâlî opened a new way and said fiqh, tasawwuf and kalâm were not different from one another. In the sixth century, Imâm Fakhr ad-dîn ar-Râzî spread the knowledge of Kalâm; and Imâm an-Nawawî spread the knowledge of Fiqh. Thus, a mujaddid, coming in each century up to our time, strengthened the religion. We should not dismiss the matter by saying that the above-quoted hadîth and the like are the miracles predicting future happenings. We should also realize the importance and the value of the predicted happenings.”[2]
---------------------------------
[1] Transoxiana.
[2] Shâh Walî-Allah ad-Dahlawî, Izâlat al-Khafa ’an khilâfati ’l-Khulafâ’. v. II. p. 377, Karachi, 1372.
Shâh Walî-Allâh ad-Dahlawî wrote in another book:
“One of the wâjibs of Islam is to learn the Divine Rules (al-Ahkâm al-Ilâhî), which can be learned from the Qur’ân, the Hadîth, the works of as-Sahâba and of the Tâbi’ûn and from the teachings deduced from the Qur’ân and the Hadîth. Fiqh is the branch of knowledge that deals with the Divine Rules, and fuqahâ’ are the scholars of fiqh. Fuqahâ’ had different madhhabs, and the scholars who came later differed from one another in choosing and following these madhhabs. Many of them said that one of the famous madhhabs should be chosen and be followed in one’s every business. For those who cannot understand the Qur’ân, the Hadîth and the books of scholars, this manner of following (taqlîd) is a great blessing on condition that their taqlîd be intended to follow the Qur’ân and the Hadîth. If you strongly believe that the ijtihâd[1] of the mujtahid (you have been following) disagrees with (a certain rule clearly stated in) an âyat or hadîth with an open meaning, you should follow, concerning the matter in question, another mujtahid whose ijtihâd appears to be in closer agreement with the Book or the Hadîth. In this case, you should not be prohibited from following another madhhab. Scholars of later generations who have perfectly learned the Sunna and the Works (of early Islamic scholars), who have thoroughly studied the words of (at least) one of the scholars of Islamic fiqh, who know the hadîth, -
---------------------------------
[1] Ijtihâd means to infer meanings from the figurative âyat-i-kerîmas in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. A scholar who is learned enough to perform ijtihâd is called a mujtahid. Performing ijtihâd requirs first learning the basic essentials of Islam, the Qur’ân al-kerîm, all the hadîth-i-sherîfs with all the particulars and details entailed, such as the time of revelation of each and every âyat-i-kerîma, where and upon what event it was revealed, the âyat-i-kerîmas that invalidated others, which ones invalidated which ones, and so forth, learning all the contemporary scientific branches, which in turn requires years of lucubration and self-sacrifice. This book would be too short to explain all the requirements. Our aim here is to help our readers to develop an idea as to the stupendous size of the job of ijtihâd. Those scholars
who devoted all their worldly lives to this unutterably painstaking job of ijtihâd did us so great a favour by doing so that any degree of gratitude would fall short of paying them their dues. May Allâhu ta’âlâ lavish them with rewards in the Hereafter! Please read the five fascicles of Endless Bliss and the book The Sunni Path for detailed information.
and also the names of the blessed and trustworthy people who transmitted the hadîth-, which a faqîh (scholar of fiqh) has utilized as a document, and who are therefore authorized to serve their madhhab by comparing the seemingly contradictory hadîths and deducing new rules and, (if necessary,) to deduce new rules by studying within the methods and principles established by their madhhab, are called Mujtahid-i-fi-l-madhhad) (Mujtahid within a madhhab.) This way of following is very blessed, too. Most Muslims follow the madhhab which has spread in their country or which they learn from their fathers or masters.
This way of following is suitable for those who can read the books of only one madhhab and cannot study the sources utilized by the madhhab. Islamic teachings are composed of three parts, namely, zâhir, nawâdir and takhrîj teachings, the last one being the teachings deduced by scholars. All three of them exist in the sciences of fiqh, tasawwuf and ’aqâ’id. A scholar who is able to distinguish the three kinds of Islamic teachings from one another in all of these three sciences and to deduce rules for each kind of these teachings is called an ’âlim of Islam or mujtahid. Only such an ’âlim can understand the Qur’ân and the Sunna. In the books Tahzîb by al-Baghawî,
Hidâya by Imâm al-Haramain, Sharh al-wajîz by ar-Râfi’î, Ghâya by ’Izzad-dîn ibn ’Abd-as Salâm, Sharh al-muhadhdhab by an-Nawawî, Adab al-futyâ by Abû ’Amr ibn Salâh and in Kitâb al-bahr by Badr ad-dîn az-Zarkashî, knowledge is divided into two, one of which must be learned by everybody. Learning the other is a fard kifâya, and, therefore, an ’âlim who has become a mujtahid learns it; if there is such an ’âlim in a town, others need not learn it and, if there is no such ’âlim, all Muslims are sinful. If such an ’âlim can deduce rules from the Qur’ân, Hadîth, ijmâ’ and qiyâs without depending upon a madhhab, he is called a mustaqil (independent) mujtahid. There has not been such a mujtahid
for a long time.
“There are four groups of non-mustaqil mujtahids. A mujtahid in the first group does not follow the imâm of his madhhab in searching for documents and deducing rules. Because he is on the way of an imâm, he is said to belong to an imâm’s madhhab and is called a mujtahid muntasib. He is a mujtahid mutlaq, and there must always be such a mujtahid. The as’hâb at-tarjîh, i.e. the second group, depend on the methods and documents of the imâm of the madhhab, and each
is called a mujtahid muqayyad. A mujtahid in the third group knows the documents of his madhhab.
A mujtahid belonging to the fourth group can understand the teachings of his madhhab and conveys them to others.
“Ordinary Muslims who are not able to perform ijtihâd and do not study Islamic sciences are permitted to follow a madhhab. However, a scholar who has reached the capacity to perform ijtihâd is not allowed to follow a madhhab.”[1]
Shâh Walî-Allah’s writings above clearly show the fact that Mawdûdî is a heretic who has not realized the greatness of the Ahl as-Sunna scholars, all of whom were praised in the hadîth and who followed the same path and spread and strengthened Rasûlullah’s (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) path.
Mawdûdî writes altogether nonsense on the eighty-third page; see what he writes in a delirium:
“Because of the difference of opinions with regard to fiqh, the Hanafî and the Shâfi’î madhhabs have judged each other resentfully to defend its own opinion and have become excessively dangerous to each other. Every madhhab overflows with details, and facts get lost in an abundance of interpretations.”
These delirious words are excessively slanderous against the madhhab leaders. In no fiqh book is there a single word written with resent or jealousy against any of the four madhhabs. On the countrary, each madhhab considers it permissible to follow other madhhabs when in difficulty.[2] Such a corrupt, absurd and blatant lie as this can be written only by a heretic attacking Islam from behind the scene. Poor Mawdûdî has tried to dive into kalâm and fiqh, which are the important
subjects of Islam, but, being inexperienced, he has been drowned.
On the ninetieth page, he praises Shâh Walî-Allah and says that he selects the following lines from his book Al-tafhîmât:
“In the contemporary age, reality, which is compatible with the spirit of Divine Knowledge, combines the Hanafî and the Shâfi’î madhhabs. The Qur’ân commentaries should be reviewed and the
---------------------------------
[1] Shâh Walî-Allah ad-Dahlawî, Al-intibâh, part III. The author of It’hâf, an annotation to Al-intibâh, wrote: “The person who said that a Muslim should give up following a madhhab and adapt himself directly to âyats and hadîths was Shawkânî, not Shâh Walî Allah ad-Dahlawî,” and added that ash-Shawkânî’s words were better and superior, thus confessing the fact that he was against the madhhabs.
[2] For details, see ’Abd al-Ghanî an-Nablusî’s Khulâsat at-tahqîq and our book The Sunni Path, p. 32.
parts that are against the Hadîth should be sifted out, and what is without essence and value should be discarded.”
These statements would exasperate any Muslim who knows his religion and madhhab. It is unbelievable that such a great scholar as Shâh Walî-Allah would have such heretical ideas. In order to show the fact to our brothers-in-Islam and to disgrace Mawdûdî, we will give some quotations from the same book:
“The origins of Islam are the Qur’ân and the Hadîth. There is no other source. Ijtihâd is permissible in deciding about worldly affairs. A religious matter that has already been prescribed cannot be changed. The teachings of Sharî’at do not contain qiyâs or ijmâ’.”[1] The anti-madhhabite people say, “The gate of ijtihâd cannot be closed. Ijtihâd can be done anytime,” thus they try to change the religious knowledge. They refer to Shâh Walî-Allah as a support for these words. However, Shâh Walî-Allah clearly writes above that he never admits ijtihâd and qiyâs in the religious knowledge and also shows that the words and references of such non-madhhabite people as Mawdûdî and Sayyid Qutb are unsound.
“Read the hadîth books of al-Bukhârî, Muslim, Abû Dâwûd and at-Tirmidhî and the Hanafî and Shâfi’î fiqh books! Hold fast to the books ’Awârif al-ma’ârif and Ar-risâlat an-Naqshibandiyya! These great people wrote about the dhikr and yâd dasht so clearly that there is no need to learn them from a murshid. It is a very great blessing to attain the grades of the great men of tasawwuf”[2]... “I dreamt of Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm). I asked him which madhhab and tarîqa were better and which he liked best. ‘All the madhhabs and tarîqas are equal. None is superior to another,’ he said.”[3]
“Muslims have parted into madhhabs. The scholars reported the religion that had come from Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm). They agreed on most of the teachings, and there remained some insignificant disagreements on a minor part. But the majority of scholars held on to the right path and rejected those who deviated from their path. From fear, the separatists either hid themselves or behaved double-facedly, which showed that they were the
---------------------------------
[1] Shâh Walî-Allah ad-Dahlawî, At-tafhîmât al-ilâhiyya, v. II, p. 142, Pakistan, 1387 (1967).
[2] Ibid. p. 290.
[3] Ibid. p. 301.
people of bid’a. We should hold fast to the teachings on which the right madhhabs agreed, and we should not deny the ones on which they disagreed. He who says that it is fard to follow the madhhab of a certain person who was not a prophet becomes an unbeliever; Islam had existed before that person was created, and fiqh scholars had preached it. Muslims have always followed one of the right madhhabs, for they have believed that the imâm of the madhhab correctly reported the religion coming from Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm). My heart feels that it would be good to compare the present teachings of the two most widespread madhhabs, the Hanafî and Shâfi’î, with hadîth books. When the teachings without foundation[1], were excluded, the two madhhabs would seem as if they were united. Of the remaining teachings, the ones that were common in both madhhabs would be taken. Those which were not common would be classified as rukhsa or ’azîma. In case of darûra (necessity or emergency), the ones that were rukhsa would be followed.”[2] Here he gives definite answers to the lâ-madhhabî and shows that their statement, “Our opponents are polytheists,” is kufr, (i.e. something which causes one to go out of Islam). This passage, only the last sentence of which is played as a trump card by Mawdûdî, does not at all support his point of view, but it exculpates the madhhabs from the slanders with which the ignorant people and heretics smeared the madhhabs. As a matter of fact, Shâh Walî-Allah explained it more clearly: “What Allâhu ta’âlâ likes is to search firstly through the Qur’ân and the Hadîth. If a person can comprehend and draw conlusions from them, he is endowed with a great blessing. If he cannot comprehend them, he should follow the madhhab of an imâm who, he believes, understood them correctly and suitably with the Sunna and communicated clearly what he understood.
---------------------------------
[1] With these words, Shâh Walî-Allah meant the teachings made up in the books written by ignorant men of religion. Such teachings do not exist in the basic books of the Hanafî and Shafi’î madhhabs or in hadîth books. When such teachings are cleared off, it will be seen that there is very little difference between these madhhabs, for there is no difference pertaining to the teachings that are expressed clearly in the Hadîth between the two madhhabs, even among the four madhhabs; and there are not many differences pertaining to the teachings that are not expressed clearly. These different teachings are either rukhsa (easier way, facility) or ’azîma (difficult way). For more detail, see The Sunni Path, published by Hakîkat Kitabevi in Istanbul.
[2] Shâh Walî-Allah, At-tafhîmât, v. I, pp. 277-9.
Arabic knowledge and the lessons in the madrasa should be studied with the view of understanding them, not for other purposes!”[1] As it is seen, Shâh Walî-Allah, too, prohibited the scholars who were mujtahids from following another mujtahid and wrote that we ignorant people should follow one of the right madhhabs.
In the book Endless Bliss, Shâh Walî-Allâh’s invaluable writings praising the four madhhabs in his works Al-insâf and ’Iqd al-jayyid[2] are quoted in full length. Even the Turkish book Ni’met ul-Islâm clearly states that the madhhabs cannot be united and it is a heresy to be a mulfiq. In the fatwâ book Fatâwâ al-Haramain and Persian Saif al-abrâr, which were written in India, and in Hadrat ’Abd al-Wahhâb ash-Sha’rânî’s preface to his Al-Mîzân al-kubrâ,[3] ‘madhhab’ is explained clearly, and it is proved with documents that the madhhabs cannot be united. To pioneer something which has been unanimously said to be ‘impermissible’ for a thousand years means to turn Islam upside down. Are those who defend it Muslims or are they are enemies of Islam? It devolves on the readers to decide about it.
Shâh Walî-Allah explained and praised tasawwuf and the tarîqas throughout his Persian work Hama’ât (Pakistan, 1944), from which the following lines are borrowed:
“If the sâlik is not so learned as to study the hadîth books or the knowledge coming from as-Sahâba and the Tâbi’ûn, he should follow one of the four madhhabs. All the tarîqas are the same in respect of belief, of doing the commands and abstaining from the prohibitions. They have been different in doing the dhikr and supererogatory worship. If worldly thoughts come to one’s mind while performing the dhikr, one should sit near an exalted person whose tawajjuh is strong and pay his tawajjuh to him. Or one should pay his tawajjuh to the souls of the mashâyikh al-kirâm, and, therefore, visit their graves and beg them to attract him towards themselves. If the dhikr causes vexation to the nafs, this has various reasons. One of them is lack of following the rules of âdâb towards the mashâyikh of the tarîqa one follows. If the sâlik cannot understand the reason, the shaikh will understand it with his tawajjuh and insight and will let him know of it. This faqîr
---------------------------------
[1] Ibid, p. 283.
[2] These two Arabic books are reproduced photostatically in one volume by Hakîkat Kitabevi, Istanbul, 1395 (1975).
[3] These three books are reproduced in Istanbul.
[Walî-Allah ad-Dahlawî himself] paid my tawajjuh to the world of souls and understood that each tarîqa had a different relationship to it. Also i’tikâf in shrines will help one make progress. Speaking ill of the Salaf as-Sâlihîn is one of the reasons which block the way. It has often been seen that angels scatter blessings onto the gatherings of dhikr and that those who perform the dhikr are surrounded by light. If a person’s soul is in relation with the pure souls of Prophets or of Awliyâ’ or with angels, facts not taught to others will be taught to him. If he understands that someone is a Walî and loves him, his soul gets attached to the Walî’s soul. Or, he loves his murshid or his pious ancestor and gets attached to his soul. He gets faid from him. Visiting
the graves of Awliyâ’, reading the Qur’ân and giving alms and sending its thawâb to their souls, and respecting their works and children will help one get attached to their souls. One will dream of them. Appearing in their own figures, they will help and rescue one at dangerous places. A person who gets benefit from the souls is called an Uwaisî. Because his attraction is very strong, Hadrat ’Abd al-Qâdir al-Jîlâni has the ability to be as beneficial as the alive Awliyâ. This faqîr paid my tawajjuh to the souls of the mashâyikh and attained many blessings. Five hundred years after the death of the mashâyikh, there is not any natural power left in their bodies and their effects on those who visit their graves become more powerful. Benefit by tawajjuh to the soul can be done in two ways: by thinking that the two souls
are attached to each other, which is like seeing somebody in the mirror; or by visiting his grave and thinking of him, which is like opening one’s eyes and seeing somebody facing him.”
Walî-Allah ad-Dahlawî (rahmatullâhi ’alaih) further wrote: “It is permissible to gather the rukhsas of the four madhhabs only when it is not prohibited by the explicit nasses of the Qur’ân and Hadîth, by the ijmâ’ of the Salaf as-Salihîn or by an explicit qiyâs.”[1] As it is seen, Shâh Walî-Allah, let alone saying that the madhhabs should be united, states conditions even for picking their rukhsas.
Mawdûdî goes on attacking the Ahl as-Sunna scholars and again claims to quote from Shâh Walî-Allah’s book Musaffâ, on the 91st page of his book The Revivalist Movement in Islam:
“Ijtihâd is necessary in every age. It is necessary to establish
---------------------------------
[1] Izâlat al-khafâ, p. 522, Pakistan, 1386 (1966), original Persian and translated Urdu versions together.
new rules event if it may not agree with a certain madhhab. For it is a must to have divine responsibilities according to the peculiarities of every century. The books of the maddhabs that have been written up to now are inefficient and teem with differences. It is the only way out to remove these differences through the principles of Islam.”
He attributes these exaggerations, which he likes very much and, his mouth watering, praises excessively, to Shâh Walî-Allah. He makes that great scholar a false witness for himself. These slanders reveal his real purpose and unmask his real motives. Hadrat Walî-Allah, however, wrote in the preface of his famous work Izâlat al-khafâ:
“Most of the rules declared in the Qur’ân are concise. They cannot be solved or understood without the explanation of the Salaf as-Sâlihîn. Most of those hadîths reported by one person cannot be documents unless they were reported by several Salaf as-Sâlihîn and unless the mujtahids derived rules from them. If those great people had not worked so hard, the hadîths that seemed to disagree with one another could not have been brought together. Likewise, unless all the branches of religious knowledge, such as ’ilm al-qirâ’a, ’ilm at-tafsîr, ’ilm al-’aqâ’id and ’ilm as-sulûk, come from those great people, they cannot be documents. In all these branches of knowledge, as-Sahâba were the source for the Salaf as-Sâlihîn and shed light on their way. The pillar to which the Salaf as-Sâlihîn held on is the cuffs of the Khulafâ’ ar-râshidîn. The person who breaks this origin, this pillar, will be demolishing the entire religious knowledge.”
Shâh Walî-Allah further wrote: “For being a mujtahid, it is necessary to know the majority of the detailed documentation from the Qur’ân, Hadîth, ijmâ’, and from the qiyâs of the knowledge of fiqh. The mujtahid has to know the document of every rule and form a firm opinion about the documents. Being a mujtahid in this time requires being specialized in the following five branches of knowledge: ’ilm-i kitâb qirâ’atan wa tafsîran; ’ilm al-hadîth, that is, to know each hadîth together with its documents and to recognize the da’îf hadîth and the sahîh hadîth immediately; the third one is ’ilm al-aqâwîl as-Salaf, that is, to know what the Salaf as-Sâlihîn said about each matter so that you will not go out of ijmâ’, so that you will not swerve to the third way if
there were two different decisions on a matter; the fourth one is ’ilm al-’arabiyya, i.e., Arabic with branches of lughat, nahw, [mantiq, bayân, ma’ânî, balâgha,] etc; the fifth one is ’ilm at-turuq
al-istinbât wa wujûh at-tatbiq bain al-mukhtalifain. Such a profoundly learned scholar is called a mujtahid. Such a scholar ponders very hard on every small matter and observes each rule identical to it together with its documents. It should be known certainly that explaining the Qur’ân also requires being deeply specialized in these five branches. In addition, it is necessary to know the hadîths telling the reason for the revelation of the âyats. He should know what the Salaf as-Sâlihîn said about interpreting the Qur’ân. His memory and comprehension should be very strong. He should understand the siyâq, sibâq and tawjîh of âyats and the like.”[1] Those people who attempt to do ijtihâd and to write Qur’ân commentaries, such as Mawdûdî, Sayyid Qutb and Hamidullah, should read these lines and realize the greatness and exaltedness of Islamic scholars. However, this realization is a great virtue. Hence, those who not only do not realize this themselves and also will not let others realize it are enemies trying to demolish Islam from the inside under the mask of Muslim scholars. May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect Muslims against believing such insidious enemies of Islam! Lest my dear readers should be taken in by wrong and very dangerous articles of anti-madhhabite people, I deem it proper to give additional information on ijtihâd in the following.
---------------------------------
[1] Izâlat al-khafâ, p. 21.