A Sufi Salafi Connection: Sh. Abdul Wahab [ra] and Muhammad Hayyat al-Sindi [ra]
GUEST AUTHORS | DECEMBER 3, 2007 7:29 PM

By Dr. John Voll

Taken from shaukani’s blog

A powerful revivalist impulse emerged in the Islamic world of the eighteenth century. Some of the leaders, like Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahab or Shah Wali Allah in India, are well known. However, the foundations of this revivalism remain relatively obscure and personalities who inspired its leaders remain shadowy figures in history. One such person is Muhammad Hayyat al-Sindi, who was a teacher of the founder of the Wahabi movement. A closer examination of this Medinese scholar and the intellectual community of which he was a part can provide insight into the conditions which helped to inspire a prominent revivalist. Even more important, however, such analysis provides a basis for discerning some of the relationships among a number of the major eighteenth century movements. Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahab came to Madina as a relatively young scholar and studied under Muhammad Hayyat al-Sindi. He was introduced to this teacher by ‘Abdallah ibn Ibrahim ibn Sayf, another scholar with whom he had studied. Scholars have described Muhammad Hayyat as having an important influence on Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahab, encouraging him in his developing determination to denounce rigid imitation of medieval commentaries and to utilize informed individual analysis (ijithad).

Muhammad Hayyat also taught Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahab a rejection of popular religious practices associated with ‘ saints ‘ and their tombs that is similar to later Wahabi teaching. It is apparent, then, that Muhammad Hayyat, and his general intellectual milieu, have some importance for an understanding of the origins of at least the Wahabi revivalist impulse. Muhammad Hayyat appears to have had a modest fame in his day as a teacher of hadith. Major historians of his time like ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti and Muhammad Khalil al-Muradi gave him some notice, but he was not one of the dominant intellectual leaders of the period. He was, rather, a quiet scholar who attracted a variety of students and who participated in a vigorous community of hadith scholarship in Madina. Only a general outline of his life is given in the biography. He was born in a village in Sind, in present-day Pakistan and traveled in the province to get his basic education. From there he went to the holy cities in Arabia, where he settled, first as a student and then as a teacher, becoming, in the praise rhetoric of al-Muradi, the ‘bearer of the banner of the Sunna in Madina.

As a student, Muhammad Hayyat was associated with a number of the prominent teachers of his time. In terms of his own life, the most important of these was Abi al-Hasan Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi al-Sindi, like himself an emigrant from Sind. Abi a1-Hasan had attained substantial fame as a teacher in the Prophet’s mosque and Muhammad Hayyat became his close associate, eventually taking over his teaching sessions after Abi al-Hasan’s death. Three other teachers are also mentioned: ‘Abdallah ibn Salim al-Bagri, Hasan ibn ‘li al-’Ajami, and Abi al-Tahir Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Kirini. In addition, it is noted that he was initiated into the Naqshabandiyys tariqa by ‘Abd al-Rahmin al-Saqqaf.

There is some diversity among the four ‘ academic ‘ teachers, but in certain respects they have basic similarities that help to define Muhammad Hayyat’s intellectual position. They are diverse in terms of madhhab and origin. Two are Hanafi and two are Shafi’i. One was born in India and, while the other three were born in the Hijaz, their families had come to the region relatively recently,’Abdallah’s from Basra, Aba al-Tahir’s from Persian and Hasan’s name could imply a foreign, possibly Persian, background. However, these men had a distinctive feature in common : they appear to have been strongly influenced, especially in hadith study, by the same general school of thought.

The most obvious feature in their common background is their relationship to Ibrahim ibn Hasan al-Kirini, a famous Medinese teacher of that time. Three of the four-’Abdallah, Abi al-Hasan, and Abd a1-Tahir-were students of Ibrahim. (Abi al-Tahir was his son.) The fourth, Hasan al-’Ajami, appears to have been older, and studied with Ibrahim’s major teacher Amad al-Qashashi,as well as other prominent teachers of Ibrahim. A more detailed examination of the instructors of Muhammad Hayyat’s teachers emphasizes their scholarly linkages even further. While Ibrahim al-Kirini seems to have been a dominant figure in this scholarly group in the holy cities, he is, in a broader picture, only a focal point within a larger web of intellectual interrelationships, which appear for this group to centre around two prominent teachers of an older generation, Ahmad al-Qashiishi in Arabia and Muhammad al-Babili in Egypt. All four of Muhammad Hayyii’s instructors have close links with these two men.

Three of the four were students of al-Babili, along with Ibrahim, and only Ibrahim’s son, Abi at-Tahir, did not have direct contact since he was too young. If one constructs an ‘ intellectual family tree ‘, Muhammad Hayyat had at least eight lines of connexion with al-Biibili. Similar ties can be seen with al-Qashashi. Ibrahim al-Kirini was his successor in his major teaching post, so the ties with Ibrahim lead to al-Qashashi. In addition to Hasan al-’Ajami’s direct connexion with al-Qashashi, there are at least four other instructors of Muhammad Hayyat’s teachers who were students of al-Qashashi. Thus, in the ‘ family tree ‘ there are at least six lines linking Muhammad Hayyat with al-Qashashi. The interconnected nature of this ‘ academic community ‘ is further emphasized by the fact that five of the six men who are parts of the linkage between Muhammad Hayyat and al-Qashashi were also links between him and al-Babili.

The picture that emerges from this pattern of student-teacher relationships is one of a relatively closely intertwined intellectual community. There is no evidence to show that this ‘ school ‘ was in any way formally organized. However, it seems safe to assume that these scholars had at least some basic common views and either knew each other personally or were well known to each other by reputation. This particular group or tradition was centred in Makka and Madina, although most of the men had relatively wide-ranging educations. The most common place to which they went for further education was Egypt, with the result of the close ties with the Egyptian teacher, al-Babili. In addition, many of the group took advantage of the educational opportunities provided by scholars coming to the holy cities on pilgrimage. Thus the names of prominent scholars from throughout the Islamic world appear on some of the teacher lists.

A total of names appear in biographies as either teachers of Muhammad Hayyat or their teachers. Of these, 16 appear as a part of the integrated ‘ family tree ‘ of student-teacher relations, while 11 appear as teacher of only one of the men and no other direct connexion is indicated in the biographies. This grouping of scholars as a whole has a number of interesting characteristics. The group is more broadly cosmopolitan than the five direct teachers of Muhammad Hayyat. Their birthplaces and areas of early study range from India and Persia to Algiers and Morocco. The group as a whole is widely traveled and very few received their full education in just one or two places. Some had direct dealings with political and military officials but none of them held a significant ‘ official ‘ religious post for any length of time, except for one teacher o f Hasan al-’Ajami. That man was the Hanafi Mufti of ‘ the Hijaz regions and al-Madina.

Perhaps related to this is the fact that out of the 24 scholars whose madhhab is given or can be reasonably inferred, 12 only three, including this mufti and al-’Ajami, are Hanafi. The third, Abi a1-Hasan al-Sindi, was of Indian origin. The prominence of the Hanafi madhhabin India may explain his position and also Muhammad Hayyat’s own atypicality in this regard, since he was also a Hanafi. The five scholars of Maghribi origin were Maliki in madhhab. All of the remaining 16 were Shafi’i. Especially in the light of the emphasis often given to the Hanbali background of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, it is remarkable to note that none of the teachers, or even the teachers of the teachers, of Muhammad Hayyat, is identified as Hanbali. Thus, while the group is not explicitly defined by madhhab affiliation, it does appear to have some relationship to the legal schools. The core of the group is Shafi’i, with a solid leaven of Maliki scholarship. It was not closed to other schools but their participation was limited.

It is also notable that most of these 27 scholars had some Shafi affiliations. This is most frequently described in general terms rather than having the name of a specific tariqa given. One order that is specifically mentioned is the Naqshabandiyya, into which Muhammad Hayyat was initiated. Perhaps the most notable Naqshabandiyya affiliates in the general group are Ibrahim al-Kirini and Ahmad al-Qashashi. Thus while little concrete can be said about the specific affiliations of this cluster of scholars, it is possible to note that they were not opposed to Sufism and at least some of them were affiliated with the reformist Naqshabandiyya tradition.

This community of scholars is the context within which Muhammad Hayyat taught. Available sources provide information about 20 students who studied under him in Madina. An examination of these men aids in providing a fuller picture of the educational background of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab. In a broader sense it provides a case study in the spread of influence of the group of scholars of which Muhammad Hayyat was a part. The importance of being located in Madina is illustrated by the variety of the students. The Medinese scholarly community in general was able to contact people from throughout the world of Islam because of the Pilgrimage. This means, however, that a list of the students of any Hijazi scholar will tend to be heterogeneous and not from particular academic group, since many would only stay in Madina for a relatively short time before returning home. At the same time, it was thus possible for Medinese scholars to have at least some influence over the development of Islam in many different areas.

The list of students of Muhammad Hayyat under study here has a recognizable bias. It is compiled primarily on the basis of biographical information appearing in the works of al-Muriidi and al-Jabarti. As a result, all 20 men have some connection with the eastern Arabic-speaking world and none of the men listed by these two historians settled as mature scholars outside of that region. However, some hint of the broader nature of Muhammad Hayyat’s ’student body ‘ can be seen in the birthplaces. Three of them were born in the eastern Islamic world and three came from the regions of Rum. The remaining 14 all came from the eastern Arab world, but even here there is substantial diversity. Four were born in Madina and four came from Aleppo, and the other six came from different places : one each from Yaman, Najd, Jerusalem, Baghdad, Nablus, and Damascus. It is noteworthy that while a number of these students had North African teachers and Muhammad Hayyat himself appears to have had associations with North African scholars, none of his listed students are of North African origin. Since both al-Muradi and al-Jabarti are quite conscious of the activities of Maghribi scholars, this may indicate something more than just data bias. It is possible that a Hanafi teacher like Muhammad Hayyat with ‘ eastern ‘ connexions would not attract Maliki scholars in the same way that some of his Shafi’i colleagues would.

In general terms of madhhab affiliation, none of Muhammad Hayyat’s listed students were Maliki. In contrast to the general scholarly community of which he appears to have been a part, the majority of his students (twelve) were Hanafi and only five were Shafi’i. Out of the twelve Hanafis, seven either came to hold ‘ official’ religious positions or became in some way closely associated with the Ottoman state. Four of the other five were Shafi shaykhs or teachers of Sufism, and only one was a regular teacher of hadith. ls In contrast to this, all five of the Shafi’i students had little or no direct connexion with ‘religious officialdom ‘ and were basically scholar teachers in the various legal sciences. Among the three other students, one was a Sufi recluse, whose madhab given, the second was a prominent Hanbali teacher of madhab in Nablus, and the remaining student was Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab himself, a Hanbali whose family had had and maintained close connexions with local ruling princes in central Arabia.

Similar diversity can be seen in terms of the associations of this group of students with the Shafi tradition. Of the 20 scholars, 12 are explicitly noted as participating directly in some way in Sufism. Seven are identified as members of major tariqas, three either taught or wrote Sufi books, one was a miracle-working Sufi recluse, and one may said to be ‘ beloved of the people of the tariqas. Within this grouping there is no apparent correlation between Sufi affiliation and either geographic origin or madhhab. Even in the case of the two Hanbalis, one, Muhammad al-Saffiirini, had association with a tariqa. This was not unusual among eighteenth-century Hanbalis in the Syrian region.

There are relatively few tariqas that are explicitly mentioned. The most frequently noted is the Naqshabandiyya. Four of the seven are said to be members of this order. The second order of apparent importance in this group is the Khalwatiyya, with the other three men noted as affiliates. Although two of the students were mernbers of more than one order, none of the seven is said to have been a member of both the Khalwatiyya and the Naqshabandiyya. One man from each of these two orders was described as having Qadiriyya connexions. The only other orders mentioned by name are the ‘Aydarusiyya and the Wafii’iyya, which are other tariqas of the Naqshabandi/Qadiri, ‘Abd al-Rahman al-’Aydarisi.

Although the number of Khalwatiyya and Naqshabandiyya listed members is small, these particular students also help to define the religious scholarly community of which Muhammad Hayyat was a part. The Naqshabandi students are among the more prominent members of that period in the eastern Arab world: Ismail al-Uskandari was the ‘ shaykh of the Naqshabandi group in Madina ‘, while ‘Ali al-Muradi was the senior member of the leading Naqshabandi family in Syria and the Hanafi Mufti of Damascus for many years, had the Ottoman Sultan as a patron. ‘Abd al-Rahman al-’Aydarusi, a third Naqshabandi, was a prominent member of the great ‘Aydarus family which provided teachers and religious leaders for communities stretching from India to Cairo. The fourth listed member of the order was an Indian scholar who settled in Damascus under the patronage of the Muradi family. Thus Muhammad Hayyat, himself a Naqshabandi, can be said to have been associated, both through his teachers and his students, with some of the most prominent and influential groups within that tariqa as it was established in the eastern Arab world.

Although Muhammad Hayyat’s connexions with the Khalwatiyya do not appear to be as close, it is certainly worth noting that two of his three Khalwati students were associated with that order through the leading reviver of that tradition, Mustafa al-Bakri. One of these was Muhammad al-Samman, a leading student of al-Bakri. In addition, Mustafa himself studied under one of Muhammad Hayyat’s teachers, ‘Abdallah al-Basri, and one of the sons of Ibrahim al-Kiruni, as well as other men in the community of scholars with whom Muhammad Hayyat was associated. Thus, while the ties are more generalized, the new revivalist Khalwati tradition of Mustafa al-Bakri also appears to play a part in Muhammad Hayyat’s personal milieu. Through examining his students and his teachers, the position of Muhammad Hayyat al-Sindi thus becomes clearer. He was a quiet teacher of hadith in Madina but was in contact with and a part of some of the major movements of his day. Many of his students became men of some importance, as notables in the religious ‘ establishment, as tariqa leaders, or as teachers of hadith.

Although Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab is now the best-known ‘ revivalist among his students, he was not the only student with that approach. The others included Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim al-Samman, the student of al-Bakri whose own tariqa, the Sammaniyya, had influence in Yaman and the eastern Sudan, and Muhammad al-Saffarini, who came to dominate Hanbali scholarship in Nablus, one of the smaller centres of the madhhab. Al-Saffarini was said to have been ‘victorious for the Sunna and a suppressor of innovation. Scholars often search for possible sources of the ideas and inspirations of important historical figures. In terms of Islamic fundamentalism, many attempts have been made to show how the Wahhabis influenced other revivalist movements, but less has been done in analysing the context out of which Wahhabism itself grew. It certainly is possible to note the potential fundamentalism of the Hanbali tradition, especially as defined by Ibn Taymiyya.

It is, however, not at all clear that the spirit of Ibn Taymiyya was the dominant one among the Hanbalis of the eastern Arab world in the eighteenth century. It was a part of Muhammad Ibn Abd Wahab’s inspiratonib but one might also see inspiration for vigorous reform coining from the study of hadith as presented by Muhammad Hayyat. Through this teacher, Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab certainly must have had an introduction to a broader world of religious scholarship within which ideas of reform were developing. This picture is limited, however, if one simply looks at the brief information about Muhammad Hayaat himself. When the group of which he is a part is analysed, the point becomes stronger. Through Muhammad Hayyat, the founder of the Wahhabiyya can be seen in contact with the eighteenth-century revivalist impulses of the Naqshabandiyya and Khalwatiyya traditions. This line of analysis provides an even broader set of less direct connexions. The community of teachers in which Muhammad Hayyat participated played a quiet but important role in the Islamic world of that era. When the great Indian reformer Shah Wali Allah came to Arabia, he studied hadith under Muhammad Hayyat’s teacher, Abi ‘at-Tahir Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Kirrani. At a slightly earlier date, the students of Ibrghim al-Kiirani included Shaykh Yusuf, who later led a holy war against the Dutch in Indonesia and was exiled to South Africa, and ‘Abd al-Ra’iif of Singkel, who was a major influence in the revival of orthodox Sufism in Sumatra.

Thus, through Muhammad Hayyat al-Sindi and his scholarly tradition, one can place the founder of the Wahhabi movement in a world of Islamic revivalism that stretches from Indonesia to Africa. These various eighteenth-century movements assumed varying forms depending on local conditions and the personalities of the leaders. There is, however, a remarkable convergence of background around the small group of teachers of hadith in the holy cities. Men like Muhammad Hayyat do not often have a prominent place in history, but a careful analysis of their life and context can provide an opening to a better understanding of the major movements in history

http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-studies/a-sufi-salafi-connection-sh-abdul-wahab-ra-and-imam-al-sindi-ra-dr-john-voll/

Shah Wali-Ullah and Jihad
Vinod Kumar
A contemporary of Abdul Wahhab of Saudi Arabia, Shah Wali-Allah’s influence on Muslim thought in India cannot be overemphasized.

Muslim historian I H Qureshi, (had been member of the Indian as well as Pakistan Historical Records Commission, of the Council of the Indian and Pakistan Institutes of International Affairs, of the executive committees of the Indian History Conference and Pakistan historical Society). wrote:

Shah Wali-ullah was a man of encyclopedic learning. He was not one of those scholars who keep different branches of knowledge in different chambers of their mind…..The world has not produced many scholars like him….During his lifetime his greatness was recognized by his contemporaries and his claim to that he was MUJADDID of his century was not challenged by any one.” (Ulema in Politics — I H Qureshi, pp 126)

Shah Wali-Ullah is regarded as one of the greatest Muslim thinkers of all times. This is just to emphasize what position Shah Wali-Ullah holds in Islam and what his views about Hindus and jihad were?

The following is what Sayyid Athar Abbas Rizvi of Australia wrote about Shah Wali-Ullah and his works in his Shah Wali-Ullah and His Times, Australia, 1980:

Talking of Wali-Allah (it can be either Allah or Ullah) and his ideas about Jihad and Proselytization, he wrote (pp. 285-6) :

The modern interpretation of jihad or Islamic holy war overemphasized its defensive character. To the ‘ulama, jihad was the fard kifaya (collective duty) and it remained a duty as long as Islam was not the universally dominant religion in any area.”

If it was done forcefully it was quite acceptable but if someone mixed it with kindness it was even better. However, there were people, said the Shah who indulged in their lower nature by following their ancestral religion, ignoring the advice and commands of the Prophet Muhammad. If one chose to explain Islam to such people like this it was to do them a disservice. Force, said he was the much better course — Islam should be forced down their throat like bitter medicine to a child.. This, however, was only possible if the leaders of the non-Muslim communities who failed to accept Islam were killed; the strength of the community reduced, their property confiscated and a situation was created which led to their followers and descendants willingly accepting Islam. The Shah pleaded that the universal domination of Islam was not possible without jihad…..”

He went on to write:

They (Imams) should preach that other religions were worthless since their founders were not perfect, and their practice was opposed to divine law, interpolations having made them unbelievable……”

Another means of ensuring conversions was to prevent other religious communities from worshipping their own gods. Moreover, unfavorable discriminating laws should be imposed on non-Muslims in matters of rules of retaliation, compensation for manslaughter and marriage, and in political matters.”

Most of Muslim rulers in fact did exactly the same, and many Muslim countries do it even today. Saudi Arabia is the prime example. In Saudi Arabia practice of any religion other than Islam is illegal. It is reminiscent of the laws decreed by many Muslims rulers of India. Aurangzeb had issued orders to ban public practice of Hindu religion, construction of new temples and repair of old ones.

However, the proselytization programme of Shah Wali-Allah only included the leaders of the Hindu community. The low class of the infidels, according to him, were to be left alone to work in the fields and for paying jizya. They, like beasts of burden and agricultural livestock, were to be kept in abject misery and despair.”

And the same people are led to believe Muslims have no caste distinction. Even when Hindus were converted to Islam Hindus of higher caste got relatively better treatment than Hindus of the lower castes. But still Local converted Hindus were never treated as equal to foreign Muslims. All Muslim administrations were full of first generation Muslims from all over the Muslim world or their descendants — not of local converted Muslims.

http://www.kashmirherald.com/featuredarticle/shahwaliullah.html

Why are Pashtun nationalists mute on Deobandi ideology and identity of TTP-ASWJ terrorists? – See more at: https://lubp.net/archives/306125

The footprints of Deobandi militant jihad in India and Pakistan – by Maloy Krishna Dhar – See more at: https://lubp.net/archives/307525

دار العلوم دیوبند کی جانب سے سنی بریلوی اور شیعہ مسلمانوں کے خلاف نفرت انگیز فتاویٰ – Deobandi fatwa against Sunni & Shia – See more at: https://lubp.net/archives/235373

Role of Abdul Ghaffar Khan in the spread of Deobandi ideology in Pashtuns – See more at: https://lubp.net/archives/306211

A research article on differences and similarities between Deobandis and Salafis/Wahhabis – See more at: https://lubp.net/archives/280211

متحدہ ہندوستان میں شیعہ نسل کشی کی مختصر تاریخ – از وسعت الله خان – See more at: https://lubp.net/archives/245395

Historical context and roots of Deobandi terrorism in Pakistan and India – See more at: https://lubp.net/archives/306115

hah Waliullah was a key player in Shia genoicde for centuries to come. He also brought Sunnis of India close to Hanbali and Wahhabi ideology, culminating in pro-Wahhabi Deobandis.

Shah Waliullah, the 18th century Muslim thinker seems to have inspired both liberal and orthodox ways of thinking in South Asia.6 His most remarkable contribution was the linkage he formed between Deobandi Islam and the Hanbali Islam of Saudi Arabia during his sojourn in Hijaz. The rise of Saudi influence in Pakistan during the Afghan jihad against the Soviets cemented the old nexus further. Saudi gift of the seed money for General Zia’s Zakat Fund was conditional: a significant bequest had to be made to the Ahle Hadith seminary headquarters in Faisalabad, the city from where Al Qaeda’s Abu Zubaidah was to be arrested in 2002. Army chief Aslam Beg was the first to allow Deobandi seminaries in Bahawalpur and Rahimyar Khan so that their armed youth could be used as ‘second line of defence’ against a possible Indian attack from Rajasthan.7 The Arab sheikhs, who enjoyed extra-territorial rights, came to the area for hunting rare birds and began to fund the seminaries, thus allowing the rise of the Sipah Sahaba under an intensely anti-Shia and anti-Iran leader, Maulana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi.8 The Deobandi-Ahle Hadith tradition in India had always been coloured with strong sectarianism. Jihad in Pakistan brought to the fore the dominance of a Deobandi consensus together with a strong anti-Shia trend among the main jihadi groups.

1.Bobby S. Sayyid, A Fundamental Fear: Eurocentrism and the Emergence of Islamism, (Zed Books London, 1995). The book discusses the problem from the Muslim point of view but with the tools of Western scholarship.2.Daily Times Lahore (11 September 2003) quoted Ernest Gellner from his book Post-modernism, Reason and Religion: ‘High Islam stresses the severely monotheistic and nomocratic nature of Islam, it is mindful of the prohibition of claims to mediation between God and man, and it is generally oriented towards puritanism and scripturalism. Low Islam, or Folk Islam, is different. If it knows literacy, it does so mainly in the use of writing for magical purposes, rather than as a tool of scholarship. It stresses magic more than learning, ecstasy more than rule-observance. Rustics, you might say, encounter writing mainly in the form of amulets, manipulative magic and false land deeds. Far from avoiding mediation, this form of Islam is centred on it: its most characteristic institution is the saint cult, where the saint is more often than not a living rather than a dead personage (and where sanctity is transmitted from father to son).’ Gellner was an outstanding theorist of modernity and a rare breed among late twentieth century scholars. He made major contributions in very diverse fields, notably philosophy and social anthropology. He is known for his path-breaking analyses of ethnicity and nationalism (Thought and Change, 1964; Nations and Nationalism, 1983), among other works.3.Dr Rashid Ahmad Jullundheri, Journal Al Ma’aref Quarterly, (January-March 1998) Idara Saqafat Islamia Lahore. The issue contains a long survey of the Deoband seminary’s birth and activities under British Raj.4.K.K. Aziz, Religion, Land and Politics in Pakistan: A Study of Piri-Muridi; (Vanguard Books Lahore, 2002): Historian Khursheed Kamal Aziz has taken in hand an interesting but difficult theme from Pakistan’s history: the relationship between ownership of land and the custodianship of grassroots spirituality as a power base for national politics. He was surprised to find that not much research work had been done on the subject. The most significant angle he provides to the understanding of the Brelvi dominance in Pakistan on the eve of 1947 is in his narrative of the participation of the Chishti order of sufi saints in the politics of a land that was dominated by Suhrawardi saints and Deobandi ulema. It was the Chishti success that brought in the Brelvi influence from Central India and converted what became known as Pakistan into a Low Church territory. This also makes known the Chishti support to the Pakistan Movement as opposed to the Deobandi ulema who opposed it.5.Daily Jang, Lahore (14 June 2003), wrote that the founder of the Banuri Mosque complex, which is the centre of the powerful Deobandi movement in Pakistan, was Maulana Yusuf Banuri (1908-1977) who was born in Basti Mahabatabad near Peshawar, son of Maulana Syed Muhammad Zakariya who was in turn the son of a khalifa of Mujaddid Alf-e-Sani. He was educated in Peshawar and Kabul before being sent to Deoband where he was the pupil of Shabbir Ahmad Usmani. He returned to join the seminary of Dabheel. In 1920 he passed the Maulvi Fazil exam from Punjab University. In 1928, he went to attend the Islamic conference in Cairo. He migrated to Pakistan in 1951 and started teaching at Tando Allahyar. He founded the Jamia Arabiya Islamiya in Karachi in 1953 while he led the attack against Pakistani Islamic scholar Dr Fazlur Rehman. He was involved in the aggressive movement of Khatm-i-Nabuwwat from 1973 onwards and was made member of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) by General Zia on coming to power.6.Dr Javid Iqbal, Islam and Pakistan’s Identity, (Vanguard Books Lahore, 2003). The Mughal rule in India and the rise of the puritan wahabi Islam in the Mughal twilight is discussed in the book as a process of constant adjustment to reality; so is the ‘enigmatic’ and fantasy-ridden Khilafat Movement. But the highlight of the discussion is the consideration by the author of the role of Shah Waliullah who continues to inspire both the fundamentalists and the liberals in Pakistan. The followers of Deoband who link up with the Ahle Hadith or wahabis and subliminally apostatise the Shiites revere him because he was in the tough Naqshbandi tradition. The liberals love him because he translated the Quran into Persian. The author links Iqbal’s ‘liberal’ interpretation in his Lectures of the Islamic hudood to Shibli’s reading of Shah Waliullah.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234976437-islamic-extremism-in-pakistan/

——-

Acc to Khaled Ahmed, Shah Waliullah urged Ahmad Shah Durrani (Abdali) to invade India to save Muslims from Hindus and Shias. #ShiaGenocide

wali Ullah was traitor.politically. he was main starter of Wahabisim like attitude folowd by Syed Ahmad.prasd by JI bc o tht

——

Khaled Ahmed, who does a systemic review of Shia-Sunni Problems(starting from the start of this conflict and with special mention of anti-Shia attitudes of Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah),

——

In context of Indian subcontinent, Mughal Emperor Alamgir crystallised anti-Shia sentiment in the psyche of Indian Muslims. Fatwa-e-Alamgiri compiled during the reign of Mughal emperor Alamgir under the supervision of Shah Waliullah and several hundred Sunni jurists from all over the world was the first comprehensive volume which collected several hundred fatwas declaring the Shia infidels. It went as far as to say that anyone who does not accept the Muslim caliphs is an infidel. It also made it binding upon Muslims to call Shia Rafidah, a derogatory term meaning defectors, deserters, and traitors. All fatwas used against the Shia since then refer back to this collection. A close examination of the fatwas used by Sipah Sahaba and similar anti-Shia militant groups makes it clear that the source of them is Fatwa-e-Alamgiri collection.

—–

The three conditions that Sayyid Ahmad and the Taliban fill are: fighting enemy number one (the British, the Americans) through a secondary enemy (the Sikhs, Pakistan); mixing local Islam with hardline Arab Islam; and using the tribal order as matrix of Islam. The Taliban derive their radical Islam from the Wahhabi severity of the money-distributing Arabs; the mujahideen of Sayyid Ahmad derived their puritanism from Shah Waliullah’s ‘contact’ with the Arabs in Hijaz in 1730.

In the battle of Balakot, Sikh commander Sher Singh finally overwhelmed Sayyid Ahmad after he was informed about his hideout by his Pashtun allies. Ahmad fought bravely but was soon cut down. To prevent a tomb from being erected on his corpse, the Sikhs cut him to pieces but ‘an old woman found the Sayyid’s severed head which was later buried in the place considered to be his tomb’ (p.105).

Author Jalal notes that in the battlefield of Balakot, where Sayyid Ahmad of Rai Bareilly was martyred in 1831, another kind of ‘cross-border’ deniable jihad is being carried out by other mujahideen. She writes: ‘To this day Balakot where the Sayyid lies buried is a spot that has been greatly revered, not only by militants in contemporary Pakistan, some of whom have set up training camps near Balakot, but also by anti-colonial nationalists who interpreted the movement as a prelude to a jihad against the British in India’ (p.61).

Not far from Balakot, the votaries of the Sayyid are fighting on the side of Al Qaeda against ‘imperialist’ America and its client state, Pakistan, and killing more Muslims in the process than Americans, just as the Sayyid killed more Muslims than he killed Sikhs. According to Sana Haroon (Frontier of Faith: Islam in the Indo-Afghan Borderland; Hurst & Company London 2007), Ahmed Shah Abdali had induced descendants of Mujaddid Alf Sani to move to Kabul after his raid of Delhi in 1748. In 1849, Akhund Ghafur set up the throne of Swat and put Syed Akbar Shah on it as Amir of Swat, the Syed being a former secretary of Sayyid Ahmad of Rai Bareilly.

It was a Wahhabi war in the eyes of mild Indian Muslims. It was therefore a virulently Sunni war which pointedly did not attract the Shia. It is difficult to believe that Urdu’s greatest poet Mirza Ghalib (1797-1869) could have supported the jihad (p.61). Writers have claimed that he wrote in cipher and used complicated metaphor in his poetry to attach himself surreptitiously to jihad; but that is not true if you read his Persian letters recently made accessible in the very competent Urdu translation of Mukhtar Ali Khan ‘Partau Rohila’ in a single volume Kuliyat Maktubat Farsi Ghalib (National Book Foundation Islamabad 2008).

Far from being attracted to the movement of jihad inspired by anti-Shia saints like Shah Waliullah and Shah Abdul Aziz, Ghalib praises an opponent of the Sayyid, Fazle Haq, and is more forthright about his own conversion to Shiism from the Sunni faith. Like Al Qaeda’s war against America, Sayyid Ahmad’s jihad was a Sunni jihad, an aspect that must be made note of. Al Qaeda today kills Shias as its side business.

– See more at: https://lubp.net/archives/245395

محدث دہلوی امام شاہ عبدالعزیز اپنی کتاب ” تحفہ ءِ اثنا عشریہ” میں شعیہ حضرات کی بابت لکھتے ہیں:
“اہل تاریخ اس پر متفق ہیں کہ شیعوں میں سے آج تک کوئی جہاد پر کمر بستہ نہیں ہوا اور نہ ہی ان میں سے کسی نے کسی ملک یا اس کے حصے کو کفار سے چھین کر اسے دارلسلام بنایا بلکہ اس کے برخلاف انہیں اگر کسی شہر کی سیادت یا حکمرانی ملی بھی جیسے مصر و شام کی ریاست ان کے پاس آ بھی گئ تو انھوں نے کفار ہی کی طرف دوستی اور یگانگت کا ہاتھ بڑھایا اور دین کو دنیا کے عوض بیچ کر دارلسلام کو دارلکفار میں تبدیل کر دیا۔ (یہ ہمیشہ کافروں سے دوستی اور مسلمانوں کے قتل پر شیر رہے)۔ چنانچہ اس کا نتیجہ ہے کہ جہاں اس مذہب کے سبز قدم پہنچے وہاں کے باشندے ہمیشہ غالب و شان رہے۔ چنانچہ توران، ترکستان، روم اور ہندوستان کے بادشاہوں نے شیعوں کے اختلاط اور دوستی سے پہلے عزت و شان کی زندگی بسر کی ہے اور جب کسی شہر اور ملک میں شیعہ مذہب رائج ہوا وہاں فتنہ و فساد ، بدبختی، اور ذلت و باہمی نفاق جو زوال سلطنت کے اندرونی اسباب شمار ہوتے ہیں، آسمان سے بارش قطرہ برسنے لگے اور پھر وہاں کی فضا ناقابل اصلاح ہوگئی۔ ایران، دکن اور ہندوستان میں ہی نہیں۔ ملک عرب، شام ، روم ، توران و ترکستان وغیرہ کے حالات کو دیکھ لیجئے(تو اسکی تصدیق ہوجائے گی)۔ اور تاریخ کا ایک یہ بھی ناقابل تردید تجربہ ہے کہ جب بھی اتفاق سے کسی ملک میں شیعہ غلبہ ہوا ہے تو اسکے کے متصل بعد ہی اس پر کفار کا غلبہ ہونا گویا لآزمی ہوگیا۔ بلکہ یہ سمجھنا چاہیے کہ ان کا تسلط کفار کے تسلط کا گویا پیش خیمہ ہوتا ہے اور یہ گویا چھوٹے کفار ہیں۔ بنگال ، دکن، پورب و گرد و نواح، لاہور پنجاب میں کفار کو یہی بدبخت و سیاہ روح، سیاہ کار ہی بر سر اقتدار لائے۔
—————————————————————————
(امام شاہ عبدالعزیز، ” تحفہ ءِ اثنا عشریہ”، باب دوم، ص ۹)
(ترجمہ: مولانا خلیل الرحمن نعمانی)
(پبلشر: عالمی مجلس تحفظ اسلام)

When such morons are hailed as heroes in Pakistan Studies books, then no wonder ‪#‎ShiaGenocide‬ is a fact of life in the bastion of Islam

3.Shah wali ulah wrote letters to Ahmad Shah Durrani to come and kill both Marhattas and Shias in Delhi. Reference:- Sayyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, ‘Shah Waliullah and his times’, Ma’rifat publishing house 1980, page 306

Verdict of Shah Waliullah Dahlawi

Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dahalwi asked the Holy Messenger (may Allah give him peace) in a dream about the Imamiyyah. He writes about this dream and his conclusion in the light of instructions from the Holy Messenger,

سألته صلى اللّه عليه وسلم سوالا روحانيا عن الشيعة فاوحى الى ان مذهبهم باطل وبطلان مذهبهم يعرف من لفظ الامام ولما افقت عرفت ان الامام عندهم هوالمعصوم المفترض طاعته الموحى اليه وحيا باطنيا وهذا هو معنى النبى فمذهبهم يستلزم انكار ختم نبوة قبحهم اللّه تعالى

“I asked the soul of the Holy Prophet (may Allah bless him and give him peace) [in a dream/kashaf/ilham] about the Shias, so he revealed to me that their religion is false and the falsity of their religion is known by the word imam. When I came to my senses [from dream/kashaf/ilham], I concluded that the term imam, according to them, is just like ‘ma’sum’ (infallible person) who receives inner wahy (revelation) from Allah and whose obedience is compulsory (muftaridut ta’at), and this is the meaning of ‘nabi’ as well, so their belief entails to denying Khatm Nubuwwat (finality of the Prophethood). May Allah uglify them!”

(Tafhimat al-Ilahiyyah, 2:250)

He further writes,

ايں فقير از روح پرفتوح آنحضرت صلى اللّه عليه وسلم سوال كرد كه حضرت چى مى فرمايند درباب شيعه كه مدعى محبت اهل بيت اند وصحابه رابد ميگويند آنحضرت صلى اللّه عليه وسلم نبوعى ازكلام روحانى القأ فرمودند كه مذهب ايشاں باطل است وبطلان مذهب ايشاں از لفظ امام معلوم مى شود چوں ازاں حالت افاقت دست داد در لفظ امام تامل كردم معلوم شد كه امام باصطلاح ايشاں معصوم مفترض طاعته منصوب للخلق است ووحى باطنى درحق امام تجويز نمايند پس درحقيقت ختم نبوت را منكر اند گو بزبان آنحضرت صلى اللّه عليه وسلم را خاتم الانبيأ رميگفته باشد

“I asked the soul of the Holy Prophet (may Allah bless him and give him peace) about the Shias that they claim to love the Ahl al-Bayt and condemn the Companions (Sahabah), so he revealed to my heart that their religion is false and the falsity of their religion is known with the word imam. When I came to my senses, I deliberated and concluded that the term imam, according to them, means ‘ma’sum’ (infallible) who is sent for people and receives inner wahy (revelation) from Allah and whose obedience is compulsory (muftaridut ta’at). So, in fact they deny Khatm Nubuwwat (finality of the Prophethood), though they call the Prophet (may Allah bless him and give him peace) as Khatim al-Anbiya (the Seal of the Prophets).”

(Tafhimat al-Ilahiyyah, 2:244)

Once Imam Shah Waliullah reached the above conclusion, he declared Imamiyyah to be zindiqs (heretics).

He writes In his book Al-Musawwa Sharh al-Muwatta, a commentary on al-Muwatta of Imam Malik,

وكذلك من قال في الشيخين أبي بكر وعمر مثلاً ليسا من أهل الجنة مع تواتر الحديث في بشارتهما أو قال: ان النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم- خاتم النبوة ولكن معنى هذا الكلام أنه لا يجوز أن يسمو بعده أحد بالنبي، وأما معنى النبوة وهو كون الإنسان مبعوثاً من الله تعالى إلى الخلق مفترض الطاعة معصوماً من الذنوب ومن البقاء، على الخطأ فيما يرى فهو موجود في الأئمة بعده ، فذلك هو الزنديق . وقد اتفق جماهير المتأخرين من الحنفية والشافعية على قتل من يجري هذا المجرى والله أعلم

“Similarly, whoever claims concerning the two Shaykhs [Abu Bakr and ‘Umar] for example that they are not [to be] the inhabitants of Paradise, even though it is mass narrated in the hadīth that they were given the good news [of entering Paradise]; or whoever states that the Prophet is the seal of Prophethood, but that this term means that no one after him can be named a ‘prophet’, and that as for that meaning of prophethood which is – a human sent by Allah to the people, obedience to whom is required, protected from sins and remaining in error – that, this [meaning of] prophethood can still be found in the leaders of the Community after him; then this person is a heretic (zindiq). Furthermore, the majority of the later Hanafi and Shāfi scholars are unanimous in agreement that such a person deserves capital punishment, and Allah knows best.”

(Al-Musawwa Sharh al-Muwatta, 2:110)

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?54580-Sunni-view-on-Shiah-Rawafid-Twelvers/page5

Shah Waliyullah’s work Izalatul Khifa is in two large volumes , each running more than 900 pages was written to refute the heretical points of shia and to bring them closer to Ahle sunnah

Shah Waliullah wrote to Abdali

further wrote:

“We beseech you in the name of Prophet to fight a jihad against the infidels of this region… The invasion of Nadir shah, who destroyed the Muslims, left the Marathas and Jats secure and prosperous. This resulted in the infidels regaining their strength and in the reduction of Muslim leaders of Delhi to mere puppets” ( Shah Wali Allah and his times by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, page page305).

He also instigated Rohillas leader Najib al Dawla against his Hindu employees alleging that they were sympathetic to Jats. “Shah WaliUllah pointed out that one of the crucial conditions leading to the Muslim decline was that real control of governance was in the hands of Hindus. All the accountants and clerks were Hindus. Hindus controlled the countries wealth while Muslims were destitute” ( Shah Wali Allah and his times by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, 1980, page 304). In his letter he advised Abdali for ” orders prohibiting Holi and Muharram festivals should be issued” (Ibid. page, 299) exposed his hostility towards both Hindus and Shias.

Reminding the Muslim rulers of the dominant role of Muslims even in a multi-religious society Wali Ullah said, “Oh Kings! Mala ala urges you to draw your swords and not put them back in their sheaths again until Allah has separated the Muslims from the polytheists and the rebelious Kifirs and the sinners are made absolutely feeble and helpless” (Ibid. page 299)

– See more at: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/paper629#sthash.vC3DEKG1.dpuf