Imam Ahmad Reza Khan (1856-1921): A Great Scholar of the 20th Century

This is a guest post by Raziq

****

Imam Ahmad Reza Khan was born in 1856 in a town called Bareilly, India. Because of the name of his place of birth his followers are commonly referred to as “Barelewis”.  Imam Ahmad Reza began writing fatwas at the age of fourteen then he went on to become a Hanafi scholar and a spiritual follower of Pir Abdul Qadir Jilani al-Baghdadi.  He was a prolific writer and his fatwas are still used today.  In this article I will be looking at some of the key rulings and issues he dealt with.

British India Dar al-Harb or Dar al-Islam?

According to Imam Ahmad Reza Khan’s fatwa, India under British rule was still Dar al-Islam (land of Islam).  This was because:

In Hindustan…Muslims are free to openly observe two Eids, the azan, iqamat, namaz ba-jama’at…which are signs of the shariat, without opposition.  Also the religious duties, nikah, fosterage…There are many such matters among Muslims on which the British government also finds it necessary to seek fatawa from the Ulama and act accordingly, whether they (the rulers) be Zoroastrian or Christian…In short, there is no doubt that Hindustan is dar al-Islam
(The Ahle Sunnat Movement in British India 1880-1921, Edited by Prof. Dr. Allah Bukhsh, Islamic Propagation Centre Lahore, Pg 265)

This fatwa is also supported and approved of today by the likes of Sheikh Nuh Keller, it can be found in his translation of ‘Reliance of the traveller’, whilst  Deobandi scholars gave different and contradictory opinions.  Those such as Ashraf Ali Thanawi and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi were of the same opinion as Imam Ahmad Reza khan.

Was the Ottoman Empire a Caliphate?

Imam Ahmad Reza khan rejected the claim that the Ottoman Sultan was the Khalifa (Caliph) of all Muslims.  He believed that a Caliphate had only existed for the 30 years after the death of the Prophet (PBUH) and after that it had been Sultanates (monarchies):

…it was clear to all that the Uthmaniya Sultanate (Ottoman Empire), of Turkey due to her misconduct, was no more than a stain on the name of Khilafat.  Then suddenly it was rumoured, (by contriving Hindus) that the Sultan of Turkey is the Khalifah of Islam and the end to his rule is equal to assaulting Islam.
(Imam Ahmad Ridaa Khan, a Versatile Personality by Mawlana Kawsar Niazi, Pg 14, Tanda Printers)

..the khalifa had always been required to be and had historically been a member of the Quraish tribe, while “worldly” rulers such as Sultans were not limited in this way.  The institution of Khilafat had ceased to exist after  749 AD and all Muslim rulers since then had been, and presently were, rulers or sultans but not Khalifas.
(Dawam al-Aish fi’l Ummat min Quraish by Imam Ahmad Raza Khan, Pg 95, Lahore: Maktaba-e-Rizwia, 1980)

Some Muslims figures such as Ibn Khaldun had claimed that Quraishi descent was not a necessary condition for a Caliph; Imam Ahmad Reza Khan rejected this view saying that Ibn Khaldun was a historian, not a scholar, and had no right to make such judgments.

The majority of mainstream scholars in India accepted Imam Ahmad Reza’s view.

On Wahhabis and Deobandis

Wahhabis are commonly referred to as followers of Abdul Wahhab Najdi.  Imam Ahmad Reza Khan took a strict stance against Wahhabis and accused them of Kufr (disbelief).  In his opinion the Wahhabis as well as the Deobandis are the present day Khawarij:

When asked whether the Wahabis had existed during the (golden) age of the first four caliphs, he responded in the affirmative, relating a number of hadith in support of this view. The Khawarij who had seceded from Hazarat Ali’s army …had been the first..In the present time, they were known as  ‘Wahabis’
(The Ahle Sunnat Movement in British India 1880-1921, Edited by Prof. Dr. Allah Bukhsh, Islamic Propagation Centre Lahore, Pg 223)

Respect for the deceased and visiting tombs

Followers of Imam Ahmad Reza regularly observe special days to commemorate and remember the birth and death of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and famous Muslim saints:

As Imam Ahmad Reza’s care in observing birth or death anniversaries such as urs, gyarween and Milad indicate, he strongly believed that the dead continued “to live” in a spiritual sense, and they retained a specially close relationship with places they had been associated with during their lives. Moreover, their spirits were especially alert and their grace heightened on certain days (their birth or death anniversaries).  For these reasons, supplicants were well advised to observe such anniversaries and exhibit the greatest respect for tombs.
(Ibid)

The Prophet (PBUH)

Imam Ahmad Reza believed the Prophet (PBUH) had knowledge of the unseen (Ilm-e-ghaib). He was granted this belief in the unseen by God and was also by divine favour able to spiritually be almost omnipresent (Haazir Naazir).  He believed the Prophet (PBUH) was made of light whilst being a human being (Noor and Bashar).  He also believed the Prophet (PBUH) could hear those who called out his name, so it was acceptable to say “Ya rasul Allah” (Oh messenger of Allah).

His Legacy

Throughout his life Imam Ahmad Reza wrote about and corrected beliefs which he viewed as incorrect and affecting the basic beliefs of Islam. He authored around 1000 books, the most famous being his collection of Fatwas entitled “Fatawa-e-Rizwia”.  On his death bed he requested his son carry on with his work:

…by Allah’s grace, for more than ninety years the writing and sending out of fatawa (to those who had requested them) had been continuous activity in his house.  The task had been started by his grandfather, handed over after many years to his father and passed onto him when he was a mere lad of fourteen. He had continued this work throughout his life. Now he, in his turn, was entrusting it to his two sons and nephew, as part of his bequest.  If they all worked together, by Allah’s grace they would be successful
(Wasaya Sharif by Hasnain Raza Khan, Pg 5, in Rasa’il-e-Rizwia, Vol 5, Faisalabad, 1984)

Today his followers are known as the ‘Ahle Sunnah wal Jammah’ and make up over 50% of the total Muslim population in the Indian subcontinent. They also make up the majority of Muslims in the UK. The fact that the overwhelming body of British Muslims are Barelwis proves how wrong the government has been to flirt with Islamist outfits like the Muslim Council of Britain, MINAB and East London Mosque.

He has sewn shoes with the rays of sun, whatever he did, by Allah, has no parallel
(Reza Khan)

This entry was posted in Sufism, Your View and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

56 Comments

  1. Zalloom
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 4:32 PM | Permalink

    Good article,

    No wonder Islamists don’t like Brelawis : )

  2. Seerat
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 5:21 PM | Permalink

    Raziq – good article! But can you explain why the government is wrong in flirting with groups like MCB, MINAB and ELM? Is it cos they are just Deobandi? Or Deobandi inspired Jamaat-i-Islami Islamist groups? And whats wrong with only Deobandis – surely they are just religiously conservative, but better than the Wahabis no? If deobandism has been influenced by wahabism is it recent or were they always from its start influenced by wahabis? Sorry do not know much about the history of deobandism. And are there any Islamist Brelawis?

  3. Numan
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 5:26 PM | Permalink

    The best article on Spittoon so far!

  4. Raziq
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 5:52 PM | Permalink

    Seerat,

    MCB & ELM are Deobandi inspired Jamaat-i-Islami Islamist groups. They work to push foriegn political agenda’s here in the UK. Groups like the Taliban are Deobandi, religously conservative but also violent extremists.

    I have never come across an Islamist Brelawi or a violent extremist Brelawi. I don’t think it is possible to be an Islamist and a Brelawi because it’s a contradiction. Brelawis don’t agree with Islamist ideology. They are quite happy to live under any political system as long as they can practice their religion.

  5. Posted October 13, 2009 at 7:21 PM | Permalink

    They are quite happy to live under any political system as long as they can practice their religion.

    In other words they are Muslims without the modernist, post-colonial, inner-city, Qutb-addled hump.

  6. Abdul Razzaq
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 8:10 PM | Permalink

    Surely the barelwis are closer to the khawarij in their declaring deobandis to be kafir and those who don’t consider them kafir are also kafir according to them?

  7. Raziq
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 9:29 PM | Permalink

    Abdul Razzaq,

    This is how the famous Deobandi scholar Ashraf Ali Thanvi reacted to the news of Imam Ahmad Raza Khans death:

    “When Hadrat Mawlaana Ahmad Raza Khan (R.A) passed away, somebody came to Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanavi, and informed him. Involuntarily Mawlana Thanvi raised his hands in prayer. When the prayer was over, someone from the audience asked: “He (Imam Ahmad Raza Khan) had been calling you a kafir (infidel) throughout his lifetime and you have prayed for his deliverance.” He (Mawalana Thanvi) replied, “Mawlana Ahmad Raza Khan indicted the fatwa’s of kufr against me because he believed that I was guilty of contempt in honour of the Prophet (saw). After having this belief and surety, if he had not passed any fatwa of kufr, he would have himself become a kafir” (Imam Ahmad Raza Khan: A Versatile Personality by Mawlana Kawsar Niazi, Pg 5, Tanda Printers)

    Every fatwa Imam Raza khan issued was based on his understanding of Islam and not for any other reason. The above quote proves that even his adversaries acknowledged this.

    The Khwarij were guilty of trying to incite muslims to rebel against the leaders. In British India some Wahabis were doing the same thing by declaring India to be dar al harb (land of war). It was in this context that Imam Raza Khan declared India to be dar al Islam (land of Islam) and by doing so he saved much innocent Muslim blood from being spilt.

  8. green
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 9:53 PM | Permalink

    Are we to deduce from this article that Spittoon hold wahabis and deobandis to be non-Muslims ?
    what do you think Imam Ahmed Rida Khan would say about people like Spitoon who say homosexuality is halal or whose editors promote works abusing and insulting the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wasallam in the worst terms?

    This fatwa is also supported and approved of today by the likes of Sheikh Nuh Keller, it can be found in his translation of ‘Reliance of the traveller’, whilst Deobandi scholars gave different and contradictory opinions.

    The same noble Sheikh Nuh Keller that Spitoons editor Faisal Gazi described thus

    It’s depressing, but characteristic, to see how these women who have most likely been seriously abused by the Nuh Ha Mim Keller cult should be ones in the wrong for leaving Islam.
    Whereas the bullies, freaks and perverts who populate this cult (and indeed any such cult) are excused for any amount of physical and psychological damage they inflict on their fellow-adherents in the name of Islam

    http://www.spittoon.org/archives/2590/comment-page-1#comment-11745

    But no such damnation is passed to the perpetrators of the psychological and sexual abuse of credulous murids that goes on in cults like Keller’s. Often at the hands of “scholars”
    http://www.spittoon.org/archives/2590/comment-page-1#comment-11759

    I hate religious cults which degenerate into misogynistic, sexually and psychologically abusive religious Ponzi-schemes.
    http://www.spittoon.org/archives/2590/comment-page-1#comment-11930

    Eveything with “Sufi” on the tin isn’t real sufism. Real sufis warn people of charlatans and occultists like the Keller cult.
    http://www.spittoon.org/archives/2590/comment-page-1#comment-11936

  9. checkmate
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 11:24 PM | Permalink

    Raziq

    The Khwarij were guilty of trying to incite muslims to rebel against the leaders. In British India some Wahabis were doing the same thing by declaring India to be dar al harb (land of war).

    In which case Mujibur Rahman and th Awami League must be declared khawarij as they incited Bengali Muslims to rebel against their Pakistani leaders. So Bangladesh is a khawarij state .

    Odd you praise Imam Amed Reza Khan for supporting the leaders against those rebelling and inciting against it but condemn the Jamaat-e-Islami for doing the same

  10. checkmate
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 11:28 PM | Permalink

    Effendi

    In other words they are Muslims without the modernist, post-colonial, inner-city, Qutb-addled hump.

    This is from the Imam Ahmed Raza Khan website
    [+] TABLEEGHI JAMAAT CENTRES IN ISRAEL

    [+] MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT CELEBRATE THE NON-MUSLIM FESTIVALS

    [+] TO STUDY AND INTERPRET THE QURAN ON YOUR OWN

    Current Affairs
    [+] PUBLIC RELATIONS OR WAR OF WORDS

    [+] CONSPIRACY OF ZIONISM

    [+] ISRAELI ATROCITIES CONTINUE

    [+] SHARON’S NAZI-LIKE STATEMENTS

    [+] GUJURAT OFFICIALS TOOK PART IN ANTI-MUSLIM VIOLENCE

    [+] AMNESTY SEND U.S. DOSSIER OF COMPLAINTS OVER AFGHAN DETAINEES

    [+] TRUE SIDE OF INDIAN PRIME MINISTER

    [+] WHO YOU CALLING TERRORIST?

    [+] KASHMIR AND THE GLOBAL MUSLIM UMMAH

    [+] DEMOLITION AND DESECRATION OF MOSQUES IN GUJURAT

    [+] THE MUSLIM HOLOCAUST

    [+] AMERICAN DRIVE FOR WORLD DOMINATION

    http://www.raza.co.za/articles.html
    http://www.raza.co.za/

  11. Abdul Razzaq
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 11:38 PM | Permalink

    raziq, so you would prefer a British India to what we have now?

  12. Abdul Razzaq
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 11:39 PM | Permalink

    Raziq,
    Do you prefer a British India to an independent India?

  13. Bangali
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 12:13 AM | Permalink

    I think the complicated issue of the takfir that happened between the subcontinent ulema needs to be looked at properly – not in the way people har presented it here. I suggest Reading nuh keller’s discussion on the subject.

    It is erroneous to make simple analogies on the subject.

    As for the issue of whether a land is dar al-Islam or dar al-Harb has no relation to what is better as a political situation. One is a religious fatwa, the other a political analysis. Idiots may confuse them.

    Egypt is a majority Muslim country, it is without doubt according to ulema dar al-Islam, Mubarak is an evil dictator, the Muslim Brotherhood spokesperson on Newsnight described the system as “Islamic”, undoubtedly the secular system in the UK is better for it’s citizens.

    I hope this makes it clear. The “Caliphs” slaughtered the companions and killed the prophets grandchildren, and oppressed the Muslims, but according to nut jobs like the Hizb they were “Islamic”!!!!!

    Applying such labels and not realizing the mad ideological nature that blinds them to the truth is a disease of indoctrination only suffered by the “cultured”.

    Literacy also helps – 71 the awami league won the election, they were the rulers and so did not rebel. In fact the war was initiated by the existing regime and the split was an inevitable outcome, as it was a political necessity. Unfortunately sick evil people like some of the Jamaat folk wanted for war crimes, boast about killing and slaughtering Muslims to this day about it. They were the only Ones who viewed it through a religious lens and considered killing Muslims halal – an Islamist kharjite trait.

  14. Posted October 14, 2009 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

    checkmate

    Thank you for drawing my attention to those rather dubious articles and links on the Barelwi website (raza.co.za). It just goes to show how pervasive this modernist, post-colonial Qutb-ism scourge is and how it has infiltrated even the exponents of the Barelwis. Pity.

  15. 264u
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 10:32 AM | Permalink

    Well said Bengali. Unfortunately such nuonces get missed by your average modern day Muslim cum pseudo political analyst. The synchronization of religious paradigms and political ones causes much confusion as does adopting a vague narrative which views a modern politicized understanding of Islam as the solution to every problem.

    Something can be religiously haram yet still a good idea in real terms or religiously good yet a bad idea. Let’s judge ideas as ideas and not make a certain view of theology our only compass.

  16. adam
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 2:00 PM | Permalink

    Brelawi chap Dr Amir Liaqat sounded like an Islamist on D-bate against Maajid Nawaz.. no?

  17. Sapere Aude
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 5:05 PM | Permalink

    Dar ul Islam and Dar ul Harb are technical terms, as I understand them from proofreading the translation of a book by Imam Raza Khan, who died in the 1920′s.

    Dar ul Harb is a place where it has become impossible for Muslims to practise their faith and way-of-life in their own land. In such circumstances they are permitted to fight to overcome the oppression if there is no other way.

    (It doesn’t mean that Muslims can set off and go and live in somebody else’s not-Muslim land and then start fighting because of lack of facilities or so on.)

    Imam Raza Khan argued that, despite the British occupation of India, the sidelining of Muslims and their communities, and constant incursion of influences hostile to the deen, the Indian Muslims were not prevented from living the Muslim way of life.

    Therefore, technically, they were living in “Dar ul Islam” and were not entitled to take up arms against the occupiers, viz the British Raj. It doesn’t mean that India was a Muslim state(s) or anything like that.

    He also made a reasoned argument explaining why the Ottoman Sultanate which was in grave danger, was not a “caliphate”. He listed six qualities necessary in a caliph, and the first was that he should be of the Quraish. The Ottoman sultans were not Quraish.

    Various people had been urging the impoverished, mainly agricultural, Indian Muslims to a) take up arms against the British, which he fatwa’d was the wrong thing to do because they were not in “dar ul Harb”, and also didn’t have any weapons etc.

    b) These same types of people had also been urging the Indian Muslims, impoverished villagers in the main, to go all the way to Turkey to rescue the “Caliphate”.
    He said it was NOT a caliphate and therefore they did not have the responsibility to go, so they should not go. All they had was the clothes they stood up in and farm tools as weapons and their feet for transport. If they left their small farms, there would be nothing left whould they ever return.

    In fact some did go, and it is reported that they were killed by Afghani tribes when they got that far. ( I suppose they thought they were invaders).

    When it came to trying to protect the Indian Muslims and Islam in India, Imam Ahmad Raza Khan showed great shrewdness and strengthened and reassured the Muslims at a time of great fear and lack of confidence. The benefit of this aspect of his life’s work is incalculable. His approval of visiting shrines needs to be understood in this context, as it was already a custom that helped to keep the Muslims together, etc.. He did make a fatwa that the Muslims should NOT make tawaf round saints’ shrines.

    Some of the mathematical calculations and scientific pronouncements that are attributed to him,were written in the face of the onslaught of Darwinism and “modern science” .They are rather questionable to say the least, but he had the diligence and courage to produce them, and hence reassured the faltering and mostly uneducated Indian Muslims of his day.

    His various plans for education and for cohesion of the Muslim communities were excellent in the context they were designed for, though for today’s world they need some updating. In effect he promulgated methods of peaceful resistance to occupation.

    On the other hand it should be noted that some of his points are inappropriate for Muslim migrants of today, where the non-Muslim nation may be the host nation, rather than the occupying nation. Eg.UK.

    He also strongly recommended that rich Muslims should establish Islamic banks. Sadly it was a very long time before this began to happen.

  18. Abu Faris
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 6:48 PM | Permalink

    He also strongly recommended that rich Muslims should establish Islamic banks. Sadly it was a very long time before this began to happen.

    I cannot agree with the final sentiment expressed above. The political and economic consequences of “Islamic” (read: Islamist) banking in the Arab world have been little short of disastrous.

    In a very useful book, Political Islam: religion and politics in the Arab world, Nazih N. M. Ayubi exposes “Islamic” banking to a series of telling criticisms. In particular, Ayubi recounts the close relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and the rise of the Islamic banking movement in the 20th Century, as embodied in the life of the Egyptian entrepreneur, ‘Uthman Ahmad ‘Uthman, a student of Hassan al-Banna as well as a leading member of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (see, Ayubi, pp. 187 – 188).

    In Sudan, the control exercised over Islamic banking by the Muslim Brotherhood’s sister organisation there, together with Nimeri’s “Islamisation” of the entire economy in the early ’80s, led to the rise of those Islamist forces that today dominate Sudan politically and economically (see: Mahgoub El-Tigani, Closing Days of Religious Mongers, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article31475). The utter corruption of these Islamist political-economic forces, together with the almost complete waste of Sudan’s vast resources they have left in the wake of their pocket-lining and thievery beggar belief.

    In all, so-called Islamic banking has had an almost entirely negative impact on the course of progressive and democratic reform in the Arab world, frequently acting as the war-chest of the most reactionary and authoritarian tendencies in the region.

  19. Abu Faris
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 7:10 PM | Permalink

    dimidium facti qui coepit habet: sapere aude

    He who has begun is half done: Dare to know!

    Horace, Epistles, Book 1

  20. Abu Faris
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 9:00 PM | Permalink

    Good of you to share the post you made on MPACuk’s highly entertaining (if ultimately dim-witted) Islamist forum, Sapere Aude:

    http://forum.mpacuk.org/showpost.php?p=661875&postcount=13

  21. reda
    Posted October 25, 2009 at 10:53 AM | Permalink

    “This fatwa is also supported and approved of today by the likes of Sheikh Nuh Keller, it can be found in his translation of ‘Reliance of the traveller’, whilst Deobandi scholars gave different and contradictory opinions. “

    This is the same Reliance of the Traveller that says this about the caliphate
    “The caliphate is both obligatory in itself and the necessary precondition for hundreds of rulings (books k through o) established by Allah Most High to govern and guide Islamic community life.”

    !!!

    Some Muslims figures such as Ibn Khaldun had claimed that Quraishi descent was not a necessary condition for a Caliph; Imam Ahmad Reza Khan rejected this view saying that Ibn Khaldun was a historian, not a scholar, and had no right to make such judgments.

    True. yet Spitoon uses Ibn Khaldun ,a historian not a scholar, to justify secularism. One of their frequent supporters even uses his name as an identifier!

  22. Abu Faris
    Posted October 25, 2009 at 11:39 AM | Permalink

    Reda

    I am not sure exactly what your point is.

    “reliance of the Traveller” is also fairly damning of philosophy as a subject. For example it argues in a chapter dedicated to Subjects that are not sacred knowledge:

    Having mentioned the categories of Sacred Knowledge the subjects it excludes are those that are unlawful offensive, or permissible…

    Unlawful Knowledge

    Unlawful knowledge includes: [...]

    philosophy.

    In fact, philosophy is placed in the same category as “sorcery”.

    Yet there have been quote a few Muslim philosophers since, including those that ascribe to the Shafi’i madhab.

    Your contradiction between the text and Shaykh Nuh Keller’s views only stands if you assume that the text must be literally and exactly followed. This actually suggests that not only are the gates of ijtihad closed, but that the entire gateway has been entirely and completely bricked over. This is, frankly, an unacceptable misinterpretation of the role and purposes of Islamic scholarship both traditionally and presently.

    On Ibn Khaldun: He was not simply a historian, he was also definitely the first Muslim scholar engaging in what today would be called political philosophy and a very early Muslim sociologist.

    His devaluation is a constant theme of Islamists, who are – unsurprisingly – not enamoured of his conclusions. Especially his conclusions that Islamic society is subject to change, just as much as any other. Principally because this conclusions directly conflicts with the Islamist myth that Islamic society is inherently unchanging and somehow immune to the normal processes of political, social and (more broadly) cultural development.

  23. Abu Faris
    Posted October 25, 2009 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

    Ibn Khaldun ,a historian not a scholar

    Since when were historians not scholars!?!?!?

    If you mean Ibn Khaldun was not educated in the traditional Islamic syllabus, then I am afraid you are wrong – he was and to a very high level.

    Of course, I write this as someone who was educated as a philosopher – and therefore presumably little better than a sorcerer.

  24. Abu Faris
    Posted October 25, 2009 at 11:49 AM | Permalink

    His family’s high rank enabled Ibn Khaldun to study with the best North African teachers of the time. He received a classical Islamic education, studying the Qur’an which he memorized by heart, Arabic linguistics, the basis for an understanding of the Qur’an, hadith, sharia (law) and fiqh (jurisprudence). He received certification (ijazah) for all these subjects. The mystic, mathematician and philosopher, Al-Abili, introduced him to mathematics, logic and philosophy, where he above all studied the works of Averroes, Avicenna, Razi and Tusi.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun

    By any standards, Ibn Khaldun was an Islamic scholar (in the most traditional sense of the word), in receipt of ijazah in all the subjects of the traditional Islamic syllabus.

    Bang goes your second point as well, Reda.

  25. Reda
    Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:11 PM | Permalink

    Abu Faris

    On Ibn Khaldun: He was not simply a historian, he was also definitely the first Muslim scholar engaging in what today would be called political philosophy and a very early Muslim sociologist.

    His devaluation is a constant theme of Islamists, who are – unsurprisingly – not enamoured of his conclusions.

    Since when were historians not scholars!?!?!?

    If you mean Ibn Khaldun was not educated in the traditional Islamic syllabus, then I am afraid you are wrong – he was and to a very high level.
    sense of the word), in receipt of ijazah in all the subjects of the traditional Islamic syllabus.

    Bang goes your second point as well, Reda.

    Abu Faris you don’t seem aware that the statement “Ibn Khaldun was a historian, not a scholar” comes not from me but from the author of this article, Raziq. Since you have proved Ibn Khaldun was an Islamic scholar his opinion that non-Quraishis can be caliph is an acceptable one and therefore the Ottomans were a caliphate. And the its Sultan was the khalifa. Which is what Islamists/HT believe.

    Raziq’s statement quoting Imam Ahmed Reza Khan “Some Muslims figures such as Ibn Khaldun had claimed that Quraishi descent was not a necessary condition for a Caliph; Imam Ahmad Reza Khan rejected this view saying that Ibn Khaldun was a historian, not a scholar, and had no right to make such judgments” is thus nullified by you

    You aren’t too bright are you?

  26. Reda
    Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:14 PM | Permalink

    Bangali

    Literacy also helps – 71 the awami league won the election, they were the rulers and so did not rebel. In fact the war was initiated by the existing regime and the split was an inevitable outcome, as it was a political necessity.

    But according to the logic of this article they rebelled against the state by declaring independence from it and therefore were khawarij. This article is absurd-
    It implies that Bengali Muslims who rebelled against non-Muslim British rule were khawarij but Bengali Muslims who fought against Muslim Pakistani rule weren’t.

    Unfortunately sick evil people like some of the Jamaat folk wanted for war crimes, boast about killing and slaughtering Muslims to this day about it. They were the only Ones who viewed it through a religious lens and considered killing Muslims halal – an Islamist kharjite trait.

    But this article does exactly the same since it declares Bengali Muslims who fought against the British to be khawarij who it was halal for the British to kill

    Applying such labels and not realizing the mad ideological nature that blinds them to the truth is a disease of indoctrination only suffered by the “cultured”.

  27. Reda
    Posted October 29, 2009 at 9:18 PM | Permalink

    Effendi

    checkmate

    Thank you for drawing my attention to those rather dubious articles and links on the Barelwi website (raza.co.za). It just goes to show how pervasive this modernist, post-colonial Qutb-ism scourge is and how it has infiltrated even the exponents of the Barelwis. Pity.

    Its seems to have infiltrated editors of Spitoon too

    Check this quote out

    “For example you forgotten to include in your sweeping surmise that the
    USA (a Christian Democracy) has been involved in 42 wars and conflicts
    in the last 40 years. This is a record of violence unbeaten by any
    country, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever takes your
    fancy.

    It may be that you do not wish to include the USA in your statistics
    because you are not willing to bite the hand that feeds. I can only
    congratulate you then on your caution.

    Faisal Gazi”
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eshomabesh/message/4650

  28. Posted October 29, 2009 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

    Yes, I was and am anti-Iraq war. Does that make me a raving anti-semitic, Qutbian conspiracy theorist?

    Why do you want to recruit me into your cult? Don’t you have enough members already? :-D

  29. Abu Faris
    Posted October 30, 2009 at 10:38 AM | Permalink

    Reda

    So what who wrote the statement.? I don’t happen to agree with it. That’s the point, sunbeam.

    The fact that non-Quraishi might be Caliphs does not necessarily prove that the Ottoman were legitimate Caliphs. There were other criteria, as well, for legitimate Caliphs.

    If you had bothered reading what I wrote, rather than engaging in the normal Islamist personal abuse, you might have noticed that I am actually contesting even the Abbasid “right” to the Caliphate, let alone the Ottoman. The Caliphate was, in the long run, an utter disaster – and practically ineffectual for most of its existence. A little knowledge of history might show you the same.

    Now, if you are going to simply be an oaf and rude to people, rather than read their arguments and engage with them, might I suggest you take it elsewhere? Thanks.

  30. curious
    Posted November 3, 2009 at 9:39 AM | Permalink

    Why do berelvis pray behind that kafir imam of Kaba?

    This is eye opening. You want to destroy something. Take it to India/Pakistan. They will pervert it destroy it. What the heck have they made out of islam.

    It is incredibly ironic that the term wahabis is used as a slur when it is the name of God. Want to insult them, dont do it by associating them with God. Thats hardly an abuse.

  31. Abu Faris
    Posted November 3, 2009 at 11:25 AM | Permalink

    curious

    You think Islam has fared any better elsewhere?

    You think that the various cults, innovations and violently disposed groups that have sprung up across the Arab and Persian lands over the last century are any better than those that have mimicked the same in South Asia?

    A curse on all their houses.

    Where is Islam?

    It is in one’s heart and in one’s mind (and I would remind you, that if I wrote that in Arabic I would simply have to say that it was in one’s heart). It belongs to no land and to every land and to all times and to none.

    Have you seen the Ridley Scott film, “Kingdom of Heaven”, with Salah ad-Din played by the fantastic Syrian actor, Ghassan Massoud? There is a wonderful encounter between him and Orlando Bloom when Jerusalem is about to fall. Bloom’s character asks Massoud what Jerusalem means to him and his army. Massoud responds with that gesture of completeness used in Syria, the two fists pushed at each other: “Everything… and nothing.”

    Islam, everything and nothing. To borrow from another faith and yet another time – sometimes Paris is not worth a Mass.

  32. Abu Faris
    Posted November 3, 2009 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

    Apologies – a little disjointed. Got to go to Cairo shortly. A bit rushed at present.

    Khalaas.

  33. bananabrain
    Posted November 3, 2009 at 1:54 PM | Permalink

    abu faris – you should try and meet up with the sandmonkey!

    http://www.sandmonkey.org

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  34. Abu Faris
    Posted November 3, 2009 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

    That would be a good thing, BB! I like Sandmonkey’s stuff very much. May be moving to Cairo in New Year.

    :)

  35. Bobby
    Posted November 3, 2009 at 4:37 PM | Permalink

    This is eye opening. You want to destroy something. Take it to India/Pakistan. They will pervert it destroy it. What the heck have they made out of islam.

    What an interesting, and stupid statement. Islam developed its own culture in the Indian sub-continent, partly because it came into contact with Hinduism and the rituals and philosophy of India. Pakistan is something different from India. In 62 years of existence it has concentrated every psychotic impulse of Arabian Islam and combined it with a febrile identity crisis due to hyper Islamic nationalism and the stupidity of Saudi Islam. Plus the idea that Arabian Islam is in some way unmodulated and deformed by India probably reflects the lazy racist assumptions of the commenter more than anything else — quite apart from being utterly delusional (as though Arabian Islam is not perverted and stupid enough in its own ‘pure’ modern state)

  36. Abu Faris
    Posted November 3, 2009 at 5:07 PM | Permalink

    Bobby

    Quite and very well put.

  37. marwan
    Posted April 22, 2010 at 5:57 PM | Permalink

    Dont you wonder what Imam Ahmed Reza Khan, a staunch defender of the honour of the anbiyya, would make of this website and Abdul Hamid’s mocking of the Prophets of God in the South Park thread ?

  38. Posted April 30, 2010 at 1:51 PM | Permalink

    Didnot God say in Quran that ” You will die (Mohammad) and They will die”. Then why is it that Brelawis, and Diyobandis believe that he is living?

    Allah says to be fully “mukhlis” in worship towards him meaning that the prayers should only be done for HIM and HIM only then why these brelavis, shias, sofees, diyobandis call upon Mohammad, Ali and others?

    Is this not Kufr, how are Hindus then different from muslims? I mean Hindus also believe in one God and as per them the figurines are a “waseela” meaning a way to reach to God.

  39. Posted May 5, 2010 at 3:56 PM | Permalink

    Please let me your email, Phone, Fax that i could contact with you.
    thank you .

  40. sheikh Dr. golam mus
    Posted July 26, 2010 at 5:55 PM | Permalink

    i need a picture of imam ahmad reza khan.
    thank you

  41. sheikh Dr. golam mus
    Posted July 26, 2010 at 5:55 PM | Permalink

    thank you

  42. sheikh Dr. golam mus
    Posted July 26, 2010 at 5:55 PM | Permalink

    i need a picture of imam ahmad reza khan

  43. MUHAMMAD MIAN KHAN KHARAL
    Posted February 26, 2011 at 2:51 PM | Permalink

    A….A
    All team workers, members and veiwers.
    Allah Ahmad Raza Khan (R.A) was the greatest scholar of the past era and today. We cannot forget his services in estabilishing and preaching of Islam in subcontinent. I need Allah Ahmad Raza (R.A) ‘s picture. I will thankful to all of you.

  44. Posted May 15, 2011 at 6:08 AM | Permalink

    Dont indulge in Takfir with muwahidun, who believe in the Quran. pray, fast, pay zakat and perform Haj in conformity with the Sunnah.
    Ahmad Reza Khan was a great mujaddid.Period but this great saint cannot be perfect in his views.
    Anyway the Quran is clear that Prophet is head of the Spiritual Government of the world when it states that he is Muta’ i.e obeyed by the angels of the Arsh.”Dont say that they are dead, they are living….”

  45. zakir khan
    Posted January 19, 2012 at 4:15 PM | Permalink

    naara-e- TAKBEER—————>ALLAHUAKBAR….
    naara-e- RISAALAT————>YARASOOLALLAH…………..

  46. Afroz raza
    Posted May 28, 2012 at 7:44 AM | Permalink

    Aala hazrat was a great scholar of islam.

  47. Posted May 28, 2012 at 7:54 AM | Permalink

    Maslake aalahazrat

  48. Posted May 28, 2012 at 8:01 AM | Permalink

    Sab unse jalne walo ke gul hogaye charaag,

    ahmed raza ki shama firoza hai aaj bhi.

    maslake aala hazrat zindabad

  49. tausif khot
    Posted August 8, 2012 at 7:35 AM | Permalink

    ahmed razaa is wali according to barelwi but kabhi nabi (s.w.s) ne yaa kisi sahabhi (r.d.allah.anhu) ne yaa kisi awliya (reh) ne musalmaano mai fitnaa nahi daalaa then how can ahmed raza wali hosaktaa hai wo toh ek yahudi loby ke hisaab se aapas mai fitnaa paydaa kar raha hai.

  50. Posted November 14, 2012 at 7:37 AM | Permalink

    wel ive red evry thng of imam ahmd raza khan .he is 99.9 % right bt .bt PROPHET (PBUH) was not made of light or what eva .HE was a human being.and thats it.

  51. Bob Rowther
    Posted December 4, 2012 at 9:58 AM | Permalink

    A tree will be known by its fruits. Ahmad Raza’s fruits were many for example his student Abdul Aleem Siddique the Roving Ambassador of Peace who was hailed as a sage by even George Bernard Shaw the Wit of the 20th Century and another product was Dr Fazlur Rahman Ansari described as the best product of Aligarh Muslim University who founded the Word Federation of Islamic Missions and wrote the book hailed by S.H.Nasr “Quranic Foundations and Structure of Muslim Society”
    Of course his students refined his views even his complete acceptance of the Sihah Sittah . For example F.R.Ansari would not accept that Moses encouraged our beloved to ask God to cut down the number of daily salats from fifty to five, As for Abdul Aleem Siddique he promoted peace through setting up Inter Religious Organisations and also intra-Ummah unity and was not as harsh with the Wahabis as was his famous teacher. The magazine that he started Genuine Islam was the first to allow all mazhabs to contribute to it whether it was the Wahabi Syed Ibrahim Omar Alsagoff, Consul General of S.Arabia in Singapore, Dr Salmin the Shiite scholar, the mutazilite Muhammad Asad, the Sunni mufassir Sulaiman Nadvi, etc etc.
    So please judge the man according to his socio-cultural and political context.
    Umar bin Abdul Aziz asked Salman “Am I a king or a caliph” and Salman replied “If you have taken one penny from the Baitul Mal , you are a king” And Abdul Aziz cried.” In any case the Prophet’s saying that the windmill of Islam would only turn for 33 years or some figure near that is very pertinent. Because after the blessed Prophet passed away, we had the four khulafa, then Hassan and Hussain, then even that brave son of Asma bte Abu Bakar Abdullah ibn Zubayr then thereafter except for periods of tajdid such as the very short one of Umar bin Abdul Aziz , it has only been a moral downslide
    Of course the Prophet said that even if a black African were to rule, then we are to obey . Of course there is no obedience in sin. Also he did say that his Ummah was like the rain. He could not tell whether the earlier part of the rain or the last part of the rain was better. So we must understand that neither pessimism or optimism is Islamic but meliorism which is blessed with certain reward
    Ahmad Reza Khan Brelvi accepted the Imams of the Shiah together with the khulafa except that he did not accept their masoomat or the disappearance of the twelfth Imam. When I asked Ahmad Shah Noorani a pillar of the Brelvis about Sunni attitude towards the Aimmah Ahle Bait , he told me that we should love them just as much as we should love the khulafa.
    It was in the Genuine Islam that I read that the Prophet not Jibrail is the Obeyed One at the Arsh . This was the view of Imam Ghazzali when he wrote on the meaning of MuTaa who is Al Ameen and Exalted Messenger Rasul Karim mentioned in one particular verse of the Quran .The term MuTaa can be derived from the verse

    Ati Allah was AtiuRasul Obey God and Obey the Prophet so here we understand that it is the Prophet after death who is the Head of the Spiritual Government of the Univese. Salallah ‘ala Muhammad !
    Ahmad Reza Khan believed in the reality of he spiritual because of his own experiences with angels and even Khidr. But he caustioned against Unislamic behaviour at graves and tombs, such as music and tawaf-ing etc etc. As for visiting graves it is a recognised Sunnah to remind us of the hereafter . Wassalam

  52. Posted December 10, 2012 at 5:56 PM | Permalink

    There are levels of celebrating kufr festivals, for instance the supposed birthday of the Prophet Isa (PBUH) To have an Xmas party may be shirk but making the salibim uncomfortable (about say, wishing “Happy Christmas”) is wrong if one is mujahiroun.

  53. sajawal khan jalali
    Posted December 23, 2012 at 8:07 AM | Permalink

    i love ala hazrat.main qyamat kay din un ki qyadat chahta hun.allah tala hmen un k naqshe qadam pe chalne ke tufeeq ata frmaey.unka rohani saya hmaray saroon pr qaem rhay.allah un ke qabar pe karoron rehmateen nazel farmaey.tehreek fikr raza lahore

  54. Shoaib malik
    Posted June 10, 2013 at 4:41 PM | Permalink

    Beware of ‘barelwi’ scholars in bed with deobandis.
    Ya Rabb save us from these ulema

  55. mohd azim dar
    Posted July 26, 2013 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

    ahmed raza khan created new bliefs in islam and wasted time of people

  56. Khalid
    Posted August 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM | Permalink

    Dear Islamic Brothers As Salaam Aliykum
    May God blessings rest on you. Barelwi They are doing totally on Shirk.
    They are telling Prophet is still alive. How this is possible. Ilyaas Quadri are you mad or what. How this is possible. I had been personally presented before the Prophet grave & you to also. Ilyaas don’s speak childish.
    Thanks

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe without commenting

  • Categories

  • Archives