Mawdudi
vmi...@yahoo.com
> <vmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:99gm08$2bh$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> > Abul Ala Maudoodi, May Allah(SWT) Have Mercy on his soul, was, by
> > far, one of the best thinking muslim scholar and writer of the
> > 20th century.
> Can you name ten of them?
What yardstick would the Hajj like me to use?
Many of Maudoodi's works have been extensively translated, as have been the
works of Syed Qutb and his brother Mohammed Qutb.
The works of the Indo-Pak poet, philosopher, and thinker Shaykh Mohammad
Iqbal have also been widely translated, and studied both in the East and
theWest. Incidentally, it was Iqbal who recognized the mentor and teacher
in Maudoodi and invited him to settle down, and create a Dar-ul-Islam, in
the undivided Punjab.
Muhammad Asad's name comes to mind as one of the better muslim thinkers.
I have only read his auto-biography (The Road to Mecca), and have his
commentary of the Holy Quran. I was struck (and to an extent, dismayed) by
the evolution of his outlook from the deeply orthodox to the highly
modernist.
I have mostly enjoyed reading Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi, although he tends to
use un-necessarily diffiult Urdu (not a problem for me, but it could be for
most Pakistanis). He has authored many books, and has had the honor of
delivering invitation lectures in Saudi Arabia. However, by his own
admission, he is more of a historian than a thinker. I have read many of
his works, and was impressed by one which studies the impact of the rise
and fall of muslims on the human civilisation. I also found his work (in
six volumes) titled "tarikh-e-da'wat va azeemat", to be very educational,
Our respected Hajj, though, would probably not be amued by his admiration
for Shaykh-ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah.
Few would know that Dr. Fazlur Rahman, who was regularly at loggerheads
with Maudoodi, was, at one time, his student, when the latter was teaching
Islam at the Islamia College in Lahore.
I do not normally read extensively, not unless the writer, or the subject
grabs my attention.
BTW, what is the significance of asking me to name ten of them?
> > Though never studied, and graduated, from any of the prominent Islamic
> > seminaries of undivided India, he had properly learned all major
> > Islamic ulum from known, orthodox, teachers privately.
> Can you name one of them?
Maulana Abus Salam Niyazi.
Insha'Allah, I will find some more names and publish it.
> What is known is that his main influence and friend was the Hindu
> novelist Nyaz Fatahpuri, as quoted from Mawdudi's own words, in As`ad
> Kaylani's biography, _Mawlana Mawdudi_ (p. 72).
Niyaz Fatehpuri was a Hindu novelist? So much for Hajj Gibril knowledge of
factual information.
Maudoodi and Niyaz struck friendship when the former was still quite young,
and the latter was a practicing orthodox muslim. Both had journalistic
interests and ability. Later, Niyaz Fatehpuri became a much too liberated
muslim with ideas bordering on ilhaad. By this time, he had become the
editor of his own magazine (Nigar), while, at the same time that Maudoodi
edited "Tarjuman ul Quran" in India. Thereafter, there was little love lost
between Niyaz and Maudoodi, and the two regularly crossed swords.
That aside, Maudoodi was a prolific writer (no novels, of course) with
dozens of impressive works to his credit. I am scratching my head, though,
about the names of Niyaz Fathepuri’s works, or the impact of his
thought on any muslims in India, let alone Maudoodi.
Ah, but who am I to contend with the most extensively researched scholar on
the SRI?
That I am of Indo-Pak origin, have personally read Maudoodi, and have first
hand knowledge of these issues, while the respected Hajj has to depend on
the word of As’ad Gilani (not Kaylani), is doubtless of no
consequence.
> Then why did he not write nor translate anything in Arabic himself? Why
> did Abu al-Hasan al-Nadwi have to translate for him simultaneously when
> Mawdudi lectured in Damascus? Did he become well-versed in Arabic on his
> deathbed?
May be the Hajj can tell us how Maudoodi got to write a commentary of
the Holy Quran (Nadwi has'nt written one) without the knowledge of Arabic?
BTW, Maudoodi was eleven years old when he translated his frist book from
Arabic to Urdu.
> or that he taught disrespect for the prophets
> > (PBUTA) and/or the major companions.
> Note that I had said he taught disrespect of the Prophets, of the major
> Companions, *and* of the Ulema. The above is a telling admission by
> omission, that Mawdudi did teach disrespect for the Ulema.
Wow! I fail to dwell on the keyword "ulema", and, all of a sudden *my*
omission becomes a "telling proof" that *Maudoodi* taught disrespect for
the ulema?
Is this the same brand of logic that allows Jack Van Impe to prove the
pre-existence of Jesus (PBUH), by pointing out that God Said in the Bible,
"Let *us* create man in *our* own image"?
I don't know if this is a regular tactic by the Hajj, or a measure of
his disdain for the intelligence of the readers of the SRI?
> He certainly
> seems to have taught Viqar Ahmed nice expressions like "the boot-licking
> Shaykh of Lebanon."
Maudoodi, did not even bother to reciprocate the insults regularly hurled
at him by the so called "ulema", much less teach others the art of
insulting.
However, if I were a disciple of the Lebanes Shaykh, I would have surely
secured the license to call people heretic based on third hand information.
> As for Mawdudi's undoubtedly heretical stance with regard to Prophets and
> the Companions, I may post some excerpts from his own works insha Allah.
No doubt, based on equally baseless, and third hand, information. But If
Hajj Gibril intent on parading the shallowness of his being to the point
that Fear of God(SWT) no longer exists, who can stop him?
> While there definitely exists
> > concensus amongst both the deobandi and barelvi schools in censuring
> > him, the former because he dared to think and opine independently after
> > having taken into consideration all aspects of the orthodox Islamic
> > thought,
>
> Not at all. Rather, because he dared to think and opine independently
> without qualification.
I beg to differ. There is no qualification which will make Alims out of
idiots.
Most the critics of Maudoodi cited by the Hajj, are the products
of the Deobandi school of thought in Indo-Pakwhich has become so totally
bogged in rigid taQleed, that even a whiff of any reason or thinking is
nowhere in sight.
The shining example of the pupils of the Deobandi school today, are the
Taliban of Afghanistan who are doing the ummah proud with their recent
stellar exploits.
Others are the sipah-e-sahaba and lashkare Jhangvi outfits whose claim to
fame is random assassination of the Shia, often even in mosques.
>
> and
> > the latter because he did not sanctify the decadent form of saint
> > worship prevalent amongst the illiterate millions of Indo-Pak,
>
> So then there is a non-decadent form of which Mawdudi alone, in a special
> way, possessed the knowledge?
Ah, the same brilliant logic of which we have seen such fine examples
above.
The respected Hajj, of course, has little, I daresay no, knowledge of the
history of tasawwuf in the Indian subcontinent. Should he examine the
school of thought of such prominent names as Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi, Sha
Waliullah, coming down to Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, he would be astounded
at the difference between what these Shuyukh taught and practiced, and the
ill conceived logic (of wahdat-al-wujud) of Mohiyuddinn al-Arabi, which is
at the root of all decadent forms of mysticism which pass for Islamic
tasawwuf today.
And if the claim is that there is no
> veneration of the saints in Islam, then why did Allah Most High inspire
> such deep respect of them through mention of their high status, their
> miracles, and their knowledge in the Qur'an?
That is a debate for another day. And I am not so sure I am motivated
to conduct it with a person of Hajj Gibril's objectivity.
> there also exists
> > an impressive following, primarily among the educated and reasoning
> muslims
> > for his thought and his contibutions.
>
> I met many of them in the United States. None of them impressed me as
> possessing even the most basic understanding of the Law required of a
> Muslim schoolboy with regard to the principles of doctrine and the five
> pillars. In fact, they all spent considerably more time in the pursuit of
> money than in the learning of the verses, narrations, and rulings that
> are obligatory in Islam although they made a big deal of their reformist
> ideas and jockeyed for masjid leadership.
So, finally the cat is out of the bag.
This, then, is the sin for which Hajj Gibril holds Maudoodi responsible.
These jockeys for the masajid leadership, equally unprincipled in their
conduct, played no mean role in thwarting the efforts of the Shaykh of
Lebanon for assuming the mantle of "the" leader of the muslims in North
America.
And an innocent man, dead since 1979, has been left holding the bag?
No matter that the seekers of the leadership of the masajid are mostly
ISNA members, predominantly an Arab phenomenon.
No matter that Maudoodi, or his jama'at, never put much stock in taking
over The masajid.
Or that the movement that he founded continues to occupy itself, in India
at least, with doing very commendable grass root work for the education,
better health, and social well being of the muslims in India.
But, could all this match up with the scorn that his reverred Shaykh must
have heaped on poor Maudoodi's soul, at the height of his frustrations?
No sir!
Maudoodi was, without doubt, a heretic!
And Hajj Gibril has conclusive evidence, based on third hand half-truths,
to prove it.
> > He was the founder of the well known Jama'at Islami in India, and later
> > in Pakistan.
> >
> > Maudoodi is the author of a well regarded commentary of the Holy Quran
> > (Tafhim ul Qur'an), parts of which have been translated into English.
> > He was a prolific writer, having authored dozens of impressive books on
> > various aspects of the Islamic thought.
>
> None of this counts as more than what the Prophet (saws) predicted
> concerning the spread of falsehood and corrupt teachers/leaders at the
> end of times.
That clinches it.
Who else could the prophet (SAW) have meant, but Maudoodi?
Could it be the likes of the misguided Shaykh of Lebanon? Ma'adh Allah, the
very thought is sacriligeous!
> > His fierce independence, and his refusal to tow the line, regularly
> invited
> > the ire of the governments, as well as the vast sections of the so
> > called ulema who had been schooled under the 12th century syllabus of
> > Islamic education, and who neither knew nor understood the modern
> > sciences and their relevance to the progress of muslims in the
> > contemporary world.
>
> Here is where the disease is given away, namely modernism and the
> itch to rebel and throw off the yoke of "centuries of Islamic education"
> - read "backward" - to follow in the steps of the most fiercely
> independent leader who ever refused to tow the line- Iblis.
If the fire in my heart is a disease, May Allah (SWT) Increase my disease.
> As for the attempt to attribute to any part of Islam this
> pseudo-opposition of science and religion straight from medieval
> Christian history, it is a wonder that such mindless cliches are still
> brought up in the Indo-Pakistani world.
>
Who is attributing to any part of Islam, the pseudo-opposition of science
and religion? And where?
I leave it to the judgement of Allah(SWT) how much worse is the Indo-Pak
Muslim society, compared to the “enlightened” middle eastern
muslim societies.
> But if this is the case, then why did his own early associates in the 30s
> and 40s, at the time they all founded Idarat Dar al-Islam in Hyderabad
> Dakn then Jamaat-e-Islami such as Abu al-Hasan al-Nadwi, Muhammad Mansur
> Nu`mani, Amin Ahsan Islahi, Mas`ud `Alim, Munazir Ahsan Kaylani, Shaykh
> `Abd al-Majid Daryabadi, Sulayman al-Nadwi, and others ALL desert him and
> denounce him in the years that followed? Did they all begin as
> enlightened, fiercely independent, progressive contemporaries who then
> turned into preying Pirs of superstition and deceit?
>
Both Abul Hasan Ali and Manzur Naumani, even today, probably hold Maudoodi
in much higher regard than does the respected Hajj. Certainly neither have
called him a heretic.
When Abul Hasan Ali wrote a book critical of Maudoodi, the first person he
sent the draft to, was Maudoodi. In his own words,"he (Maudoodi) responded
in the only way a person of his stature could have. Namely, that he
(Maudoodi) had never considered himself, or his works, above criticism".
As for Amin Ahsan Islahi, in offering his condolences to Maudoodi’s
son on his death, he said,"... the best part of my life was that which I
spent in your father's company..". Amin Ahsan left the jam'at in 1958, as a
result of his disagreement in principal, on the matter of the jama't
becoming a political party (a very regrettable misjudgement on
Maudoodi’s part), not due to any sense of personal revulsion towards.
Amin Ahsan Islahi, as also Abul Hasan Ali and Manzur Naumani, are still
alive. Perhaps the Hajj could check things out himself.
As for Maulana Manazir Ahsan Gilani (not Kaylani) was probably piqued at
having the worst of his debate with Maudoodi regarding the permissibility
of Rib’a for Indian muslims, which he (a fully qualified Alim) was
advocating. I’ll have to check if he ever was among the founding
members of the jama’at.
Incidentally, one of the major works by Maudoodi, is on Rib’a. It is
worth a read.
> So many of our African-American brethren came to Sunni Islam through the
> teachings of Elijah Muhammad. Does that give us the right not to call the
> latter a
> false teacher on the whole? Never. However, as related by al-Tirmidhi and
> Ibn Majah from the Prophet (saws), "The wise word is the lost property of
> the believer, wherever he finds it, he is its more righteous owner." And
> Allah Most High guides whom He wishes how He wishes.
>
May Allah (SWT) Grant us all the inclination to reclaim our lost property.
> > In doing so, I merely uphold his own sunnah of making one's own
> > judgement after taking all available information into consideration,
> > and of not blindly accepting anything hook, line, and sinker. If this
> > be a sin or heresy, then I am happy to be a heretic.
>
> A truly obscene expression, "Mawdudi's own sunna". Have those who harbor
> such thoughts reached such depth of despair of obtaining knowledge of the
> Sunna of the Best of creation (saws) that they must settle for - or even
> pride themselves - in trinkets!
>
Amazing. This ease, with which the Hajj accuses me, without knowing
anything about me, of being ignorant of the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger
(SAW) of Allah (SWT), and worse. But then, he is operating under no
ordinary license. I can only be Thankful to Allah (SWT) that I have not
been condemned (yet) as a heretic.
But, at any rate, better the sunnah of Maudoodi than the sunnah of the
Shaykh of Lebanon.
Have those, who would rather follow the latter, sunk to such a level of
demagoguery that they would so pathetically attempt to confuse the Sunnah
of the best of creation (SAW) with the sunnah of ordinary men and women, in
the hopes of scoring cheap points?
> My advice to admirers of Mawdudi is, familiarize yourselves with his life
> and ask yourself why he was deserted by those of his former associates
> who possess at least equally high writing/leading credentials as he.
> Examine the exhibits of their case against him and stop taking your
> fatuous contentment with his evident skills as a writer for actual
> knowledge of the status of his positions in Islam. Success comes from
> Allah.
>
Now if Hajj Gibril can demonstrate the character to argue based on factual
information, rather than on the basis of his emotional prejudices
recklessly reinforced by third hand half-truths disseminated by equally
prejudiced people, I might even consider his advice.
> was-Salam
>
> Hajj Gibril
>
> GF Haddad
> Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
Viqar Ahmed
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet for the Web
GF Haddad
The following material by BrotherMasud Khan first appeared on SRI in October
1996 under the title "Maududi's Calumniations against the Prophets and
Companions."
Insha Allah I will be posting additional notes mostly translated from Shaykh
Muhammad Yusuf al-Binnuri's introduction to Shaykh Muhammad Zakariyya
Kandihlavi's book on Mawdudi.
== Begin 1996 post ==
ABU'L 'ALA MAUDUDI'S CALUMNIATIONS AGAINST
THE GREAT PROPHETS AND COMMPANIONS OF THIS UMMAH
(may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all)
Abu'l Ala Maududi (1903-1979) was probably the most well known
leader of the various "Salafi" movements in his time. He founded
the political party known as Jama'at al-Islami in 1941 with the aim
to revive Islam in the Indian subcontinent as well as establish a
true Islamic state. The aims seemed to be noble initially, but as
he gained prominence through his writings and speeches (many of
which have been translated into various languages), he lost the
confidence of the majority of the Ulama in the Indian subcontinent;
be they Deobandi/Tablighi or Barelvi.
A number of religious edicts were passed on him and his Jama'at due
to some ideas championed by Maududi, and subsequently backed,
funded and published by a section of the government appointed
scholars of "Salafi-Saudi" Arabia. We will mention some of his
famous declarations by the aid of Allah below.
Despite facing a number of setbacks, this political party is still
active today in the subcontinent, as well as in the Western world;
where it has managed to proselytize its activities and ideas by
channelling it through a number of well funded Saudi backed
umbrella groups.
The names of these groups may be different but the aims and
intentions are practically the same; and generally it is at core a
wing of Salafiyyism in its many divisive and subdivisive forms that
exist in the Muslim lands today. To name but a few of these groups
based in the occident may enlighten the reader to some extent.
Here in England the Jama'at al-Islami has been represented to the
best of my knowledge in the shade of some of the following groups:
UK Islamic Mission, Young Muslims (YM), Young Muslim Organization
(YMO), and most notoriously the academic and cultural
representative of the Jama'at has been expressed and promoted by
the Islamic Foundation based in Leicester, UK.
Needless to say, the above groups are all in one form or another
admirers of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Abdal Wahhab; as well
as having some members who respect al-Albani to a certain degree.
Our aim is not to belittle or dishonour the members of the above
named groups, but to warn and advise its unsuspecting members as
well as the "Salafi" movements in the West who never condemn
Maududi in general,[157] the true nature of Maududi and his party's
beliefs to the best of our knowledge and sincerity.
We have derived most of the following quotes from a work compiled
by Shaykh Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianvi,[158] entitled: Differences in
the Ummah and the Straight Path.[159] To the introduction of
another book written by Ludhianvi,[160] there is a brief review of
Maududi's life and works, by the late Muhaddith of Pakistan:
Shaykh Muhammad Yusuf Banuri,[161] in the following words[162] :
"I admired many things about Maududi Saheb and detested many. For
a long time I did not wish to degrade him. I felt that from his
innovated style of presentation the modern generation could
benefit. Although at times such compositions appeared from him
that it was not possible to endure it, but taking into
consideration the Deeni (religious) well being, I tolerated and
kept silent. I did not forsee that this fitnah (mischief) would
spread worldwide and have a detrimental effect on the Arab world;
that every day from his master pen new buds would keep on
blossoming, and indecent words would be used regarding the Sahabah
kiraam Ridhwanullahi Alayhim and the Ambiyya (Prophets) Alayhimus
Salaam. Later on, such things appeared daily in the 'Tafhimul
Quraan.' [163]
Now it has become known without doubt that his writings and
publications are the greatest fitnah of the present time,
notwithstanding a few beneficial treatises that have appeared. It
is the case of, 'and the sin of them is greater than their
usefulness.'[164] Now that stage has been reached where to keep
silent seems to be a great crime. It is regretted that for forty
years an offensive silence was kept. Now the time has dawned,
where without fear of rebuttal and censure all his writings from A
to Z should be thoroughly studied with a view to fulfill the
demands for the preservation of the Deen with Haqq (truth) and
justice."
Shaykh Ludhianwi said[165]:
"You are aware that Prophethood is a very sensitive issue. Any
expression which debases a Nabi is inappropriate. Examine the
entire treasure of ahadith of Nabi (peace be upon him) and you will
not find the minutest doubt regarding any Nabi (peace be upon
them), but Maududi's pen, even after reaching the sanctuary of
Prophethood, remains unacquainted with respect. Without
compunction he mentions:
(a) The example of Musa (peace be upon him) is that of a hasty
conqueror who continues marching without reinforcing his authority.
Behind him in the captured land a revolt spreads like fire in a
jungle.[166]
(b) Hadrat Dawud (peace be upon him) was influenced by the general
custom of the Israeli society of his era and requested Urya to
divorce his wife.[167]
(c) There was a carnal desire in the act of Hadrat Dawud (peace be
upon him) and he misused his authority. It was an act which did
not suit any acquiescent person in the government.[168]
(d) Hadrat Nuh (peace be upon him) was overcome by his human
deficiency and he became prey to the emotions of ignorance.[169]
(e) The statement of Hadrat Yusuf (peace be upon him), 'Appoint me
as a treasurer of the land' according to him was not merely a
request for the post of treasury, as some people presume, but it
was a demand for dictatorship. As a result of this, the position
which Yusuf (peace be upon him) achieved was very much similar to
the position Mussolini [170] held.[171]
(f) Hadrat Yunus (peace be upon him) was negligent in the duty of
Prophethood. Presumably he left his place before time after
loosing his patience.[172]
After analyzing the severe consequences of the above statements
made by Maududi, Shaykh Ludhianvi noted on the hundred and twenty
first page of his above named work:
"Whoever has read Maududi's book 'Khilafat wa Mulukiyat'[173] will
testify that the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them all) are
openly degraded in it, and the author's animosity for the Sahaba
(may Allah be pleased with them) is quite apparent. Under the
title "Termination of the superiority of the law", Maududi writes:
(a) "Another abominable innovation that originated in the rise of
Mu'awiyah is that he and the governors under his command used to
vilify and swear at Hadrat Ali (radiallahu anhu) from the pulpit,
to such an extent that even in Masjidun Nabawi[174] on the minbar
of Rasulullah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) right in
front of the Rowdah-e-Nabawi, the beloved cousin of Nabi (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) used to be vilified. The
descendants and relatives of Ali (radiallahu anhu) used to bear
this abuse. To swear at any person after his death, besides the
Islamic illegality is ethically despicable. To pollute the Jummah
(Friday sermon) with this filth was an extremely repulsive
act.[175]
(b) Hadrat Mu'awiyah (radiallahu anhu) openly violated the Qur'an
and Sunnah in the matter of the distribution of the booty.
According to the Qur'an and the hadith, one fifth of the total
spoils of war were to be given to the public treasury and the
remaining four portions were to be distributed amongst the army
that participated in the battle. But Mu'awiyah gave the order that
the gold and silver were to be first taken out for him and the
remaining distributed according to the Shari rule." [176]
(c) The enrolling of Ziyad ibn Sumayah was also one of the acts of
Mu'awiyah which he perpetrated for political aims and thereby
contravened an accepted law of Shari'ah. This was a completely
unlawful act.[177]
(d) Hadrat Mu'awiyah regarded his governors as above the law and
openly rejected Shar'i proceedings against their violations."[178]
If one wishes to discover more vile slanders and attacks (which are
diametrically opposed to the beliefs of the Ahl-us-Sunnah wa'l
Jama'ah), made against great Companions like Aisha, Hafsah, Abu
Bakr, Uthman, Amr ibn al-Aas (may Allah be pleased with them all),
and not to mention the great Prophet's (peace and blessings of
Allah be upon them all) of the past - then please refer to Shaykh
Ludhianvi's works mentioned above for a detailed analysis.
So far, we have provided Maududi's attacks on the past generations,
but to finish of this section we will quote what he says of the
awaited Imam al-Mahdi; without any direct proof from the sources
of the Shari'ah - but rather from his own arrogant imaginations!
He said in his book: A Short History of the Revivalist Movement in
Islam[179]:
"In my opinion the coming one will be a most modern leader of his
age possessing an unusually deep insight in all the current
branches of knowledge, and all the major problems of life. As
regards statesmanship, political sagacity and strategic skill in
war he will take the whole world by surprise and prove himself to
be the most modern of all the moderns. But I am afraid that the
people who will be the first. So called to raise hue and cry
against his "innovations" will be the Ulema and the Sufis.
I also do not expect that his bodily features will be any different
from the common man so as to render him easily recognizable.
Neither do I expect that he will proclaim himself to be the Mehdi.
Most probably he will not be aware of his being the promised Mehdi.
People, however, will recognize him after his death from his works
to be the one who was to establish "Caliphate after the pattern of
Prophethood", as mentioned in the prophecies.
As I have indicated above, none but a Prophet has any right to
start his work with a claim, nor does anybody except a Prophet know
with certainty the nature of his mission. 'Mehdi-ism' is not
something to be claimed, it is rather something to be achieved.
People who put forward such claims and those who readily accept
them, in fact, betray a serious lack of knowledge and a degraded
mentality.
Moreover, my view of the nature of the Mehdi's mission is also
different from the views cherished by these people. I do not find
any room in his work for supernatural acts, divine inspirations and
ascetic and spiritual exercises. I believe that the Mehdi, like
any other revolutionary leader, will have to struggle hard and
encounter all the obstacles common in this way. He will create a
new School of Thought on the basis of pure Islam, change mental
attitudes of the people, and initiate a strong movement which will
at once be cultural and political. 'Ignorance' will muster all its
forces and strength and come out to crush him, but he will
eventually put it to rout and establish a powerful Islamic
state..."
Despite Maududi's protestations, many people in his time accused
him of having aspirations for the title of Imam ul-Mahdi! We leave
it to the reader, and most importantly to a section of "Salafi's"
who regard him as their "leader-reviver of the Deen", to decide
what they think of one who during his life time openly cast such
nefarious aspersions on the great personalities of Islam.
May Allah give Maududi and those who openly praise him what they
deserve best in the hereafter. Amin.
======================================================================
FOOTNOTES
[157] Simply because as one observer put it: "He shares a large
proportion of their ideas on Salafiyyism as well as having the
same Middle Eastern paymasters!"
[158] Presently a teacher of Hadith and other Islamic sciences at
Madrasah Islamiyya Arabiyyah Binnoriah, New Town, Karachi,
Pakistan. Besides writing a number of well known books in
Urdu, he regularly answers questions via a prominent Pakistani
newspaper.
[159] Published by Zam Zam Publishers, 2 Junaid Mansion, D'mello Rd,
Off Burns Rd Karachi, Pakistan, 1995.
[160] The Maududi Calamity, Madrasah Arabia Islamia Azaadville 1750,
South Africa. This book mentions a number of vile statenents
made by Maududi against the Prophet's (peace be upon them all)
and Companions (may Allah be pleased with them all).
[161] He died in 1978. A district of Karachi (Allama Banuri Town)
has been named in his honour. Rahimahullah.
[162] P.6
[163] This is a commentary by Maududi on the Holy Qur'an. It is also
available now in English.
[164] Surah al-Baqara: 219
[165] See Differences in the Ummah and the Straight Path (p. 114).
[166] Maududi's Tarjumanul Qur'an, vol. 29, no. 4, p.5.
[167] Maududi's Tafheemat, vol. 2, p.42, 2nd edition.
[168] Maududi's Tafheemul Qur'an, vol. 4, ch. 38, p.27, 1st
edition.
[169] Tafheemul Qur'an, vol. 2, p.344.
[170] The corrupt fascist Italian dictator who supported Adolf Hitler
in the "Second World war."
[171] Tafheemat, part 2, p.122, 5th edition, 1970.
[172] Tafheemul Qur'an, Ch.11, footnote no. 312-13.
[173] The reader may note that this book has been praised by the
Shi'ite regime in Iran, as well as being a book that is
essential reading on certain college curriculums in Iran!
[174] The Holy Prophet's (peace be upon him) mosque in Madinah.
[175] Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, p.124.
[176] Ibid, p.124.
[177] Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, p.175.
[178] Ibid.
[179] 1st edition, June 1973, Markaza Maktaba Islami, Delhi, India,
pp.40-1, section on al-Imam ul-Mehdi.
== end 1996 post ==
GF Haddad
Adapted from al-Binnuri's Arabic introduction to Shaykh Zakariyya
al-Kandihlavi on Mawdudi
(Waqf Ihlas ed.)
1. Mawdudi says in the introduction to his book _The Four Key Concepts of
the Qur'an_ (p. 10-12) that those were: the God, the Lord, worship, and
Religion. "Whoever knows them knows the Qur'an and whoever does not know
them does not know the Qur'an, nor Tawhid, nor Shirk, nor does he know that
worship is for Allah alone. Whoever is unclear about those concepts then
understanding the Qur;an will remain unclear to him even if he is a
believer. Despite his being a believer, his belief will be lacking as well
as his deeds. Further, these concepts were changed from their original
meanings in the time of the Revelation, and have become narrow and obscure
due to two reasons: (1) poor knowledge of Arabic [!] and (2) because Muslims
were born in Islam so they did not know those meanings as they were used
concerning the unbelievers at the time the Qur'an was being revealed. As a
result those concepts remained unclear and hideen from the Imams of the
Arabic language [!!] and the Masters of Tafsir , who all understood them as
the rest of the Muslims understood them." I.e. Mawdudi knows what the Imams
of Arabic and Tafsir have failed to know since the earliest times until his.
Also, belief in Allah, the angels etc. and accomplishment of the Pillars is
not enough to make one a true believer until he fully understands the four
concepts of "the God, the Lord, worship, and Religion."
2. Same book (p. 14) : "Due to the unclarity of those meanings, three
quarters of the Religion remained hidden from the people, indeed the true
spirit of Islam remained hidden from them, hence you see deficiencies in
their beliefs and works." I.e. Mawdudi knows the true spirit ofIslam and the
fullness ofReligion, contrary to everyone else among the Muslims.
3. He concludes (p. 156): "Allah Most High ordered the Prophet (saws) in
Surat al-Nasr to seek forgiveness from his Lord for what he committed during
the accomplishment of his duties [i.e. as a Prophet] such as shortcomings
and defects." I.e. the Prophet's (saws) conveyance of the Message contains
defects.
4. In the periodical al-Minbar of 21 January 1958 and in the Rabi` al-Thani
1376 issue of Tarjuman al-Qur'an p. 13-14 Mawdudi said that "the
foundational principles ofIslam are of two kinds: the kind that never
changes such as Tawhid and the Message; and the kind that changes according
to needs." Then he gives as an exampleof the latter the verse in which Allah
said {We have made you peoples and tribes so that you may know each other,
and the noblest among you are those who are most Godwary/righteous}. And
this is what the Prophet (saws) applied at first, but then he quickly had to
abandon that principle and resorted to the principle of monarchy, saying:
"The Imams are from Quraysh." Al-Mawdudi calls the principle of change
al-hikma al-`amaliyya, "practical wisdom" on the basis of which, he says,
"it is halal for the amir to change the rulings of the Law for a certain
wisdom and a religious gain."
Al-Binnuri said: "THis belief is the apex of misguidance and heresy and its
ugliness is manifest like the new dawn. ... It means that every aspect of
worship and religion such as prayer, zakat, fasting, hajj and others are
subject to change and replacement even if they are essential objectives of
Islam. ... He used this principle to support Fatima Jinnah against Sayyid
Ayyub the late chief of government in Pakistan."
5. In the third edition of his Tafhimat (2:57) he dismisses the `Isma of
Prophets (saws) - immunity to sin - as not being an essential aspect
of their persons and says that Allah protects them from error "but sometimes
lifts His protection so that they [Prophets] will commit some blunders, and
Allah by this means to show people that they are human beings and not
deities." This means that at any given time, Divine protection might
actually be lifted and the ruling that comes from a Prophet at that time
might be spurious, or indeed his acts might be those of a lowly person as is
the creed of Jews and Christians concerning Prophets.
6. In his Khutubat ("Discourses" p. 227) he states that "all those types of
obligatory worship such as Salat, Syam, Zakat, and Hajj which Allah imposed
and made the pillars of Islam, are not like the religious obligations of
other religious denominations which, once accomplished, release one from
one;sresponsibility. Rather, they have been imposed towards a huge objective
and mighty end, .... [until he said] and in a nutshell, the reason for them
is so as to bring out mankind from the human dominion and enter them into
the dominion of Allah the One. Jihad is self-sacrifice and total striving
towards that same goal, and Salat, Syam, Hajj, and Zakat are preparations
for this one unique objective." In other words the Five Pillars are but a
means towards a certain end - which was left unexplicited in the Qur'an and
Sunna until Mawdudi came along to explicate it - and they are not needed in
themselves.
7. He further clarifies that this "dominion of Allah the One" is "the
State" - using that word in English - in the third volume (p. 93) of his
book Siyasa Kashmakash: "The purpose of Religion is something near what is
called today 'STATE'." In other words, the hadith of Gibril in which the
Prophet (saws) concludes that "He [the angel] came to teach you your
Religion", left out the most important part - the goal - and only mentioned
the means and accessory parts.
Note that al-Binnuri characterized Mawdudi as primarily interested in
politics, striving after power and possessing little concern with actual
Religious knowledge and its requirements, to the point that both he and his
followers fell into various pitfalls of error and misguidance, until they
reached actual atheism and freethinking. This is most commonly verifiable
today in the wholesale dismissal of the Ulema of Islam East and West by
Mawdudi admirers, which leaves little room to doubt their apostasy.
8. In his Rasa'il Masa'il (p. 55) he states:"Everything that was narrated in
the [mutawatir] hadiths of the Prophet (saws) in connection with the
Anti-Christ - all of it - was mere opinion and conjecture on his part
(saws)and he was undecided concerning it. One time he thought he would come
out from Khurasan, another time from Asbahan, another timefrom between Sham
and Iraq, and yet another time he though that the Anti-Christ was Ibn
al-Sayyad in Madina. And one time he said something which was narrated from
him by that Palestinian Christian Monk, Tamim al-Dari [in Sahih Muslim]."
9. In the same book (p. 57): "The Messenger of Allah (saws) thought that the
Dajjal would come out in his time or very near it and yet 1350 long years
have passed and the Dajjal did not come out. So it is established that what
he (saws) believed was untrue."
It is a measure of the terminality of our state that such discourses not
only spread but are defended and even praised when they are the mark of
{asfala safilin}.
As al-Binnuri said: The Prophet (saws) sought refuge in Allah (swt) from the
Dajjal all his life and taught his Companions to do so in every prayer, and
he further told them that no Prophet was ever sent except he warned the
people about him, and he gave his description and said that his coming out
was one of the portents of the Last Hour so to belie it is to belie the fact
that {the Hour has drawn near}. As for the outward discrepancy of the
reports concerning his location it shows that they all agree on his coming
out. And the apparent discrepancy is not a problem except to those who have
no knowledge of hadith and its disciplines.
10. In Tarjuman al-Qur'an for the year 1965 p. 35-36 and 49 Mawdudi
criticizes `Uthman (ra) for employing in key posts the Sahaba that entered
Islam late - i.e. after the conquest of Makka such as Mu`awiya, al-Walid ibn
`Uqba, Sa`id ibn al-`As, and `Abd Allah ibn `Amir - because, he claims, they
may have possessed the political skills but not the moral requirements! He
reiterates this claim in his book al-Khilafa wa al-Mulukiyya (see next
paragraph) and his letters as well as his purported Tafsir titled Tafhim
al-Qur'an. In other words, Mawdudi (1) differentiates like Christians and
Jews between the political and the moral realm and (2) was better aware of
their moral merit or demerit than `Uthman or rather than the Prophet (saws)
himself, since they fought with him at Ta'if, Hunayn and elsewhere and it is
the latter that first gave them positions of responsibility even befor
`Uthman.
11. On page 23 of Mawdudi's "The revivalist movement in Islam" he writes,
"One of the two reasons why the institution of caliphate weakened was
because Hadrat Uthman did not have as much quality of a leader as his
predecessors had had."
Sayyid Qutb says as much in his book _al-`Adala al-Ijtima`iyya fi al-Islam_
but it is a Sunni tenet that no-one after Prophets compares to Abu
Bakr and `Umar, so any comparison of inferiority to them is spurious. As for
the conclusion that the institution of caliphate weakened because of
`Uthman, it is not only presumptuous but actually a contradiction of the
Prophet's (saws) explicit recommendation of the caliphate of the three
according to the following hadith:
The Prophet (saws) asked: “Did any of you see anything in his dream?” A man
said to the Prophet (saws): “O Messenger of Allah, I saw in my dream as if a
balance came down from heaven in which you were weighed against Abu Bakr and
outweighed him, then Abu Bakr was weighed against `Umar and outweighed him,
then `Umar was weighed against `Uthman and outweighed him, then the balance
was taken up.” This displeased the Prophet (saws) who said: “Successorship
of prophethood (khilafa nubuwwa)! Then Allah shall give kingship to whomever
He will.”
Narrated from Abu Bakrah by Ahmad with three chains, Abu Dawud, and
al-Tirmidhi (without the last statement of the Prophet (saws)) who said:
hasan
sahih, and from Safina by Abu Dawud with a fair chain and al-Bazzar with
a fair chain as indicated by al-Haythami. Al-Hakim narrated it with a chain
similar to al-Tirmidhi’s and graded it sahih and al-Dhahabi concurred.
This illustrates that one reason for Mawdudi's disrespect of the Companions
was his lack of knowledge of the Sunna, although he was fond of attributing
such lack to the Ulema such as of Imam al-Ghazzali.
One wonders also if al-Mawdudi and Qutb considered that they arrived at such
a level as to be called Hujjat al-Islam or, say, Mujaddid al-Alf al-Thani;
or the level of Shah Waliyyullah; or Muhaddith `Abd al-Haqq Dihlawi; or any
of the Ulema who are considered Mujaddids in India. If not, then we should
equally say that one of the reasons why Islam weakened in India was because
Mawdudi did not have as much moral mettle as a Muslim as they did.
However, there is a huge difference: `Uthman is among the {First and
Foremost} mentioned by Allah in His Book, and He said {Allah is pleased with
them and they with Him} and he was praised to the skies by the Prophet
(saws). None of this is true of Mawdudi and Qutb.
Another difference is that there is no precedent in scholarly discourse in
Sunni Islam for Mawdudi's and Qutb's disparagement of the leadership
qualities of `Uthman except, perhaps, in the books of Ibn Taymiyya. In this
respect it appears that those two authors merely took their clues from
Wahhabism, which consists in exhuming and reanimating the ideas of Ibn
Taymiyya as stated by Imam Abu Zahra in his Tarikh al-Madhahib al-Islamiyya.
There are other differences also, such as the facts (1) that we know that
`Uthman is in Paradise whereas we do not know the same of Mawdudi and Qutb,
(2) that `Uthman - Allah be well-pleased with him - probably conquered more
lands for Islam than Mawdudi and Qutb knew, and (3) that no Muslim opens the
Mushaf or learns a single verse of the Qur'an without `Uthman receiving a
share of his reward!
12. The constitution of Mawdudi's Jama`a Islamiyya states black on white
that "No man other than the Messenger of Allah (saws) provides any yardstick
for the truth nor is above criticism. And no one can take anyone else as an
object of worship in terms of reason and thought because men are all alike
in one same rank and they are all created by Allah. Therefore, each is
subject to criticism and investigation according to that same criterion and
placed at his level and rank according to his caliber."
Al-Binnuri: "One might say that this rule is quite acceptable, but a second
look and an analysis of it reveals otherwise.... for such a rule can easily
be used as an avenue for every atheist proposition against the Religion and
every possible innovation in the Law, and the Umma of Islam knows since its
earliest days that the Prophet (saws) directed us to cling to Abu Bakr and
`Umar as our leaders, and commanded us to follow his Sunna and the Sunna of
his rightly-guided Caliphs after him, more than that, to 'bite upon it with
your very teeth'.... In fact he targets even the Prophets themselves with
his words although we are ordered to believe in them and in their being
immune to sin. But we have seen Ustaz Mawdudi in action against them and he
has not left Dawud, nor Sulayman, nor Musa,nor Yunus, nor even our Master
the Prophet (saws) except he said they all made errors and missed the mark
and were belied by history and that each Prophet not only necessarily errs
but also disobeys and sins, and he said other such enormities...."
Further, Allah Most High has praised other Companions highly in His Book and
so has the Prophet (saws),naming so many of them and praising their accuracy
and acumen without the "criticism and investigation" nor their being
"worshipped" as claimed.
This constitution coupled with his so-called "Four Key Concepts of the
Qur'an" is in fact a program for the dismantlement of the methodologies and
disciplines of the Law that are regrouped under the Four Schools and the
works of the Ulema. For in the sight of that man, all those works of Tafsir
and Fiqh missed the mark because of deficiency in the Arabic language [!]
and ignorance of his four principles.
Thus he claims that Sahih al-Bukhari contains falsehoods although the Umma
is in agreement that it is the soundest book after the Qur'an. For example,
that there is no such thing as the seven heavens in reality, nor that al-Tur
mountain was raised over the heads of Bani Isra'il, nor that the wide-eyed
maidens of Paradise exist, and he claims that those maidens are in fact the
daughters of the unbelievers and the daughters of the Muslims that are
undeserving of Paradise, nor that the Prophet (saws) was given the strength
of so many men as related from Anas, etc.
Consequently, Jam`iyyat al-`Ulema' in Delhi on 27 Shawwal 1370 issued thew
following verdict concerning Mawdudi: "The works of al-Mawdudi and his
party, al-Jama`a al-Islamiyya, give people licence to cease following the
Imams of the Religion and divorce all ties with them, something which is the
path to destruction of the Umma and their misguidance one and all, and the
path ofsevering their ties with the Companions of the Messenger of Allah
(saws) and the righteous Predecessors. In addition, much of his research and
false ideas are an invitation to a new Fiqh and innovation in the
Religion... and we announce our complete innocence and dissociation from
that Jama`a and from such a movement."
Was-Salamu `ala man Ittaba`a al-Huda
rja...@my-deja.com
To understand this issue imagine this scenario:
If I place a baby wolf in your backyard and assure you that this baby
wolf will grow up to be an asset to your family and you agree, who would
you blame if this baby wolf actually grows up to become a murdering
predator
that ate up several of your family members, me or the wolf?
would you blame me or the wolf?
This is exactly what happened when Abu Bakr and 'Umar installed the sons
of Abu Sufyaan (Yazid and Mu'awiyah) as the governors of Syria.
'Uthmaan only strengthened the stronghold of Mu'awiyah in Syria and made
it worse
by installing more 'Umayyads (his relatives) all over the Islamic
Empire.
They became stronger and stronger until Mu'wiyah fought 'Ali, killed
'Ammar
as well as thousands of Sahabah and Tabi'een. Then Mu'awiyah became the
ruler and installed his son as his successor. Then Yazid killed Husayn
and his family and companions. After the killing of Husayn there was
nothing the
tyrants feared anymore hence you had the descendants of Marwaan play
with the religion like
a toy and you had among the worst villians rule over the muslims,
killers like Hajjaj bin Yusuf etc.
Then the 'Abbasids were not any better in their oppression especially
towards the family members of the Prophet (sawa).
You would easily agree from the first scenario that if I installed a
baby wolf in your
backyard that grew into a monster that devoured your family that it
would be me that
would be to blame and not the wolf.
But when you observe a practical example of this you turn a blind eye to
all these atrocities
and make up excuses for the three. You refuse to accept that those
three were responsible for
anything at all.
Why is that? Is it because it was only the Prophet's family and the
Prophet's grandson Husayn bin 'Ali that was masacarred. Hey who cares
it wasn't your family right?
If the tragedy of Karbala is not enough to wake you up to the truth then
I don't know what will ever
wake you up.
So who do you blame for all these crimes the wolf or the ones who
installed the wolves? Oh here it is not the installer of the wolves
fault (God forbid). Amazingly this wolf is Mu'awiyah but you refuse to
even blame him for anything (God forbid!). So in this case it is
neither the installer of the wolves fault neither the wolfs fault! So
whose fault is it?
May Allah reward 'Abdul A'laa Mawdudi for speaking the truth about these
things regardless of fearing any blame of fanatical extremists. (wa laa
yakhaafuuna lawmata laa im 5:54).
When will you realize that this concept of infallibility of the Sahaabah
is not from Allah nor his Messenger.
It is a plot/scheme invented by the Tyrants to passify you and prevent
you from finding the truth, just the same way the doctrine of
Predestination was also concocted by the same Tyrants to passify you,
just as obedience to the rulers even if they are Yazids and Hajjaaj's.
The Tyrant says: It was the will of God that I rule over you so be
patient and God will reward you. Rebel and you will go to hell.
So what do you do? You accept!
Is it due to a lack of intelligence or is it plain good old slavery?
When will you realize that if Husayn (as) stood up against Yazid then
there must be something wrong with our passive thinking? If this
predestination ploy/Obedience to the ruler be he the Pharoah belief was
correct do you really think that Imam Husayn would be ignorant of it?
You guys even bought the Tyrant story of 'Ashura being a day to
celibrate and fast on like an 'Eid?
When will you guys realize that you have taken the wrong path. Will it
only take the day of Judgement to make you realize that when one
abandons the Prophet's advise of following the two weighty things, one
goes astray?
And you really think your path leads to paradise?
To follow the tyrants leads to hell no doubt. This common version of
Islam that you follow is the one that was nurtured and manipulated in
the laps of the tyrants.
What will be your excuse on the Day of Judgement for knowing the
Prophet's instructions and knowingly going against it?
[33:67]And they shall say: O our Lord! surely we obeyed our leaders and
our
great men, so they led us astray from the path;
[33:68]O our Lord! give them a double punishment and curse them with a
great
curse.
[25:27]And the day when the unjust one shall bite his hands saying: O!
would
that I had taken a way with the Messenger
[25:28]O woe is me! would that I had not taken such a one for a friend !
[25:29]Certainly he led me astray from the reminder after it had come to
me; and
the Shaitan fails to aid man.
[25:30]And the Messenger cried out: O my Lord! surely my people have
treated
this Quran as a forsaken thing.
[25:31]And thus have We made for every prophet an enemy from among the
sinners
and sufficient is your Lord as a Guide and a Helper.
salaam,
RiDwaan
--
The Messenger Of Allah Said (sawa)
"I Am Leaving Two Things Behind With You That If You Follow You Will
Never Go Astray After Me: The Book Of Allah And My Ahlul-Bayt. These
Two
Shall Never Seperate Until They Meet Me On The Day Of Judgement."
Innee Tarik Feekum Maa In Tamassaktum Bihimaa Lan TaDilluu Ba'di
Kitaaballahi Wa 'Itrati Ahla Bayti Wa Innahumaa Lan Yatafarraqaa Hattaa
Yaridaa 'Alayal Hawd.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain2.jpg
References:
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 662-663,328, report of 30+ companions, with
reference to several chains of transmitters.
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Chapter of "Understanding (the virtues) of
Companions, v3, pp 109,110,148,533 who wrote this tradition is authentic
(Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and
Muslim).
Sunan, by Daarami, v2, p432
Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 14,17,26,59, v4, pp 366,370-372, v5,
pp 182,189,350,366,419
see http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia
The Prophet also said (sawa):
Behold! My Ahl al-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah, whoever embarked in it
was saved, and whoever turned away from it was drowned.
Inna Mathala Ahli Baytee Feekum Mathalu Safeenati NuH man rakibaha najaa
Wa Man Takhallafa 'Anhaa halak
sample of Arabic text taken from http://www.muhaddith.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/safinah.jpg
References:
AlĸHakim records this tradition of the Prophet (S) in his Mustadrak, ii,
343, iii, 150:
Abu Nu`aym in Hilyat alĸ'awliya', iv, 306;
alĸKhatib in Ta'rikh Baghdad, xii, 19;
alĸSuyuti in alĸDurr alĸmanthur (al-Matba`at alĸMaymaniyyah,
Egypt,1314),
under verse 2:58 also in his Jami' al Sagheer.
alĸMuttaqi in Kanz alĸ`ummal, i, 250, vi, 216;
alĸHaythami in Majma` alĸzawa'id, ix, 167, 168;
alĸMuHibb alĸTabari in Dhakha'ir alĸ`uqba, 20; alĸManawi in Kunuz
alĸHaqa'iq, 132.
Yanabi Muwaddah, Qundoozi Hanafi, p 30, 370
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, Ibn Hajar, p 184, 234
see http://al-islam.org/thaqalayn/nontl/index.HTM
Omar Mirza
www.sunnah.org.
Among other things, nonMuslims see Maududi being admired by Muslims, and
they
take him as an authority on Islam.
>Adapted from al-Binnuri's Arabic introduction to Shaykh Zakariyya
>al-Kandihlavi on Mawdudi
<big snip>
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
Imran Razi
>
> "You are aware that Prophethood is a very sensitive issue. Any
> expression which debases a Nabi is inappropriate.
The shaykh seems to equate criticism with debasement. This is simply a
mistake.
Examine the
> entire treasure of ahadith of Nabi (peace be upon him) and you will
> not find the minutest doubt regarding any Nabi (peace be upon
> them),
Nor was there in Maududi.
but Maududi's pen, even after reaching the sanctuary of
> Prophethood, remains unacquainted with respect.
See above comment. Criticism is also no sure sign of disrespect. See
Qur'an 80:1-10, where Allah (swt) criticizes the Rasool (saws).
Without
> compunction he mentions:
>
> (a) The example of Musa (peace be upon him) is that of a hasty
> conqueror who continues marching without reinforcing his authority.
> Behind him in the captured land a revolt spreads like fire in a
> jungle.[166]
The key word is the EXAMPLE of Musa. Did not his people rebel?
>
> (b) Hadrat Dawud (peace be upon him) was influenced by the general
> custom of the Israeli society of his era and requested Urya to
> divorce his wife.[167]
>
> (c) There was a carnal desire in the act of Hadrat Dawud (peace be
> upon him) and he misused his authority. It was an act which did
> not suit any acquiescent person in the government.[168]
This account is based on the literature of the Israeliyyat, some of
which is accepted by orthodox Sunni ulema, others of it not. Whether
the account is correct or not is a matter for scholars, but discussing
its accuracy does not indicate in any way disrespect.
>
> (d) Hadrat Nuh (peace be upon him) was overcome by his human
> deficiency and he became prey to the emotions of ignorance.[169]
>
See 11:45-47. Is discussing the Holy Qur'an a sign of disrespect?
> (e) The statement of Hadrat Yusuf (peace be upon him), 'Appoint me
> as a treasurer of the land' according to him was not merely a
> request for the post of treasury, as some people presume, but it
> was a demand for dictatorship.
This is an interpretation of the meaning of the position of "treasurer"
in Yusuf's (saws) time. Even if it was a "dictatorship", it was the
dictatorship of Muhammad's (s) over Medina. There is certainly no
fault in either, and no fault in presenting it as such.
As a result of this, the position
> which Yusuf (peace be upon him) achieved was very much similar to
> the position Mussolini [170] held.[171]
A purely factual matter, meant to elucidate the position Yusuf had for
a contemporary audience. If I say "the Rasool and Pharoah are both
human beings," have I criticized or disrespected anyone?
>
> (f) Hadrat Yunus (peace be upon him) was negligent in the duty of
> Prophethood. Presumably he left his place before time after
> loosing his patience.[172]
See 37:139-144, especially 142. Is there any doubt in this?
I won't bother with the discussion of Muawiyah. The Shaykh's main
problem seems to be that Maududi discusses supposedly "negative" and
"potentially harmful" aspects of the prophets' lives. Never mind that
they come from Allah Himself. Discussing and contemplating and trying
to learn from the Qur'an is now considered potentially harmful, not
something for the common Muslim. First you limit thought and
discussion about fiqh, then hadith, then sunnah and sirah, and finally
the Quran itself.
And this is the fundamental objection the traditional ulema to Maududi
and others like him - reading and thinking and discussing for oneself
"without qualifications."
Beware the thought police, especially religious thought police.
wa salaam,
Imran Razi
1man4all
I think you have made three mistakes in your references: 1) You are using a
translation of a translation (from Urdu to Arabic to English), which is never a
good way to report somebody's ideas. And the translated text is not even from
the original book but selectively culled out from another book written by a
critic. 2) You have taken Maududi's words out of context. 3) Your conclusions do
not follow from the references that you have quoted.
GF Haddad wrote:
> A word about Mawdudi's ideas
>
> Adapted from al-Binnuri's Arabic introduction to Shaykh Zakariyya
> al-Kandihlavi on Mawdudi
> (Waqf Ihlas ed.)
>
> 1. Mawdudi says in the introduction to his book _The Four Key Concepts of
> the Qur'an_ (p. 10-12) that those were: the God, the Lord, worship, and
> Religion... Further, these concepts were changed from their original
> meanings in the time of the Revelation, and have become narrow and obscure
> due to two reasons: (1) poor knowledge of Arabic [!] and (2) because Muslims
> were born in Islam so they did not know those meanings as they were used
> concerning the unbelievers at the time the Qur'an was being revealed. As a
> result those concepts remained unclear and hideen from the Imams of the
> Arabic language [!!] and the Masters of Tafsir , who all understood them as
> the rest of the Muslims understood them." I.e. Mawdudi knows what the Imams
> of Arabic and Tafsir have failed to know since the earliest times until his.
> Also, belief in Allah, the angels etc. and accomplishment of the Pillars is
> not enough to make one a true believer until he fully understands the four
> concepts of "the God, the Lord, worship, and Religion."
If true, seems like a very poor translation to me. Probably, what Maududi is
trying to say is that with our better understanding of science, we can
appreciate Quran much more than the early Muslims. Even though the early Muslims
knew Arabic language, they did not grasp the full nuances of certain words that
we can now appreciate.
>
>
> 2. Same book (p. 14) : "Due to the unclarity of those meanings, three
> quarters of the Religion remained hidden from the people, indeed the true
> spirit of Islam remained hidden from them, hence you see deficiencies in
> their beliefs and works." I.e. Mawdudi knows the true spirit ofIslam and the
> fullness ofReligion, contrary to everyone else among the Muslims.
It is true that most Muslims do not understand the true spirit of Islam. The
purpose of any religion is to make one a better person, not to train for
rituals. We Muslims have turned Islam into a system where we go through the
motions but we do not understand or ponder on the reasons why God has asked us
to do certain things. Furthermore, many of the Ayahs have a certain historical
context that many Muslims are unaware of. They take every line literally,
sometimes in isolation, to prove their own distorted view of Islam, when Quran
taken in totality would produce totally different meanings.
>
>
> 3. He concludes (p. 156): "Allah Most High ordered the Prophet (saws) in
> Surat al-Nasr to seek forgiveness from his Lord for what he committed during
> the accomplishment of his duties [i.e. as a Prophet] such as shortcomings
> and defects." I.e. the Prophet's (saws) conveyance of the Message contains
> defects.
I think your conclusions do not follow from your mis-quoted reference. I am sure
that the word Maududi used was not "defects."
>
>
> 4. In the periodical al-Minbar of 21 January 1958 and in the Rabi` al-Thani
> 1376 issue of Tarjuman al-Qur'an p. 13-14 Mawdudi said that "the
> foundational principles ofIslam are of two kinds: the kind that never
> changes such as Tawhid and the Message; and the kind that changes according
> to needs." Then he gives as an exampleof the latter the verse in which Allah
> said {We have made you peoples and tribes so that you may know each other,
> and the noblest among you are those who are most Godwary/righteous}. And
> this is what the Prophet (saws) applied at first, but then he quickly had to
> abandon that principle and resorted to the principle of monarchy, saying:
> "The Imams are from Quraysh." Al-Mawdudi calls the principle of change
> al-hikma al-`amaliyya, "practical wisdom" on the basis of which, he says,
> "it is halal for the amir to change the rulings of the Law for a certain
> wisdom and a religious gain."
Again, seems like a poor translation. In his book Rasail-o-Masail, Maududi
argues that Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) never once claimed that the Khalifa
"should" be from the Quraish. Then he quotes several Ahadith in which he shows
that the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) was merely making a factual statement that the
Quraish "are" leaders of Arabs and as long as they mete out justice, keep their
promises, and be kind to the creation of God, they would remain leaders.
>
>
> Al-Binnuri said: "THis belief is the apex of misguidance and heresy and its
> ugliness is manifest like the new dawn. ... It means that every aspect of
> worship and religion such as prayer, zakat, fasting, hajj and others are
> subject to change and replacement even if they are essential objectives of
> Islam. ... He used this principle to support Fatima Jinnah against Sayyid
> Ayyub the late chief of government in Pakistan."
I don't know who al-Binnuri is, but he doesn't seem like a very intelligent
person. First of all, there was no Sayyid Ayub. There was a Field Marshall
Muhammad Ayub Khan who was the president of Pakistan and he ran against Ms.
Fatimah Jinnah in national elections, which he won (some say by fraud). Before
the elections, thinking that he would loose, President Ayub Khan sought a fatwaa
>from the Ulemaa to declare that a woman cannot be the head of state of a Muslim
country, which Maududi AND many other religious scholars refused to sign.
Maududi's thinking was that under extraordinary circumstances, for collective
need and betterment, minor technicalities as suggested in the Shari'ia can be
set aside. Yours or al-Binnuri's statement that this decision was against the
"essential objectives of Islam" is highly exaggerated, even false. The
objectives of Islam are given in the Quran and nowhere does it say that a woman
cannot be a head of state. If a woman can be a head of an estate and employ men,
why can't she be a head of state?
>
>
> 5. In the third edition of his Tafhimat (2:57) he dismisses the `Isma of
> Prophets (saws) - immunity to sin - as not being an essential aspect
> of their persons and says that Allah protects them from error "but sometimes
> lifts His protection so that they [Prophets] will commit some blunders, and
> Allah by this means to show people that they are human beings and not
> deities." This means that at any given time, Divine protection might
> actually be lifted and the ruling that comes from a Prophet at that time
> might be spurious, or indeed his acts might be those of a lowly person as is
> the creed of Jews and Christians concerning Prophets.
It is clear from the Quran that the prophets could make some minor mistakes. For
example, Prophet Solomon forgot the Asr prayers because he got too busy with the
horses (Quran 38.31-34); Prophet Dawood followed desire (Quran 38.26); and even
Prophet Muhammad ignored a poor blind man, who kept interrupting, in preference
to a group from Quraish who were not going to embrace Islam in the first place
(Quran 80).
>
> 6. In his Khutubat ("Discourses" p. 227) he states that "all those types of
> obligatory worship such as Salat, Syam, Zakat, and Hajj which Allah imposed
> and made the pillars of Islam, are not like the religious obligations of
> other religious denominations which, once accomplished, release one from
> one;sresponsibility. Rather, they have been imposed towards a huge objective
> and mighty end, .... [until he said] and in a nutshell, the reason for them
> is so as to bring out mankind from the human dominion and enter them into
> the dominion of Allah the One. Jihad is self-sacrifice and total striving
> towards that same goal, and Salat, Syam, Hajj, and Zakat are preparations
> for this one unique objective." In other words the Five Pillars are but a
> means towards a certain end - which was left unexplicited in the Qur'an and
> Sunna until Mawdudi came along to explicate it - and they are not needed in
> themselves.
It is stated very clearly in the Quran that Allah does not need our prayers,
fasting or alms, for Allah Himself says: "Allah is Self-sufficient, above any
need of the worlds," (Quran, 3.97). The five arkaan must have a purpose, they
cannot be a thing in themselves. They are there to make us better human beings
and for us to serve God, which is what Maududi is referring to.
> 7. He further clarifies that this "dominion of Allah the One" is "the
> State" - using that word in English - in the third volume (p. 93) of his
> book Siyasa Kashmakash: "The purpose of Religion is something near what is
> called today 'STATE'." In other words, the hadith of Gibril in which the
> Prophet (saws) concludes that "He [the angel] came to teach you your
> Religion", left out the most important part - the goal - and only mentioned
> the means and accessory parts.
Maududi's ideas on State were very well explained by Muqtedar Khan recently when
he stated: "Maududi conceived of the term Al-hakimiya, a derivative of an Arabic
word that means "to govern'". He introduced it in his work Al-Mustalahat
al-Arba'a fi'l-Quran. The term Al-hakimiya has been used by Islamic political
thinkers ever since to mean sovereignty. He argued that according to Islam,
sovereignty belonged to God. He alone was the law-giver and that believers could
neither resort to totally independent legislation, nor could they modify any law
laid down by God. He saw the Islamic state as a political agency set up to
enforce the laws of God. Herein lies the cardinal difference between the modern
and Islamic conceptions. While modernity made the state a repository of
sovereignty, in Islam the state was merely an agency of the sovereign. Thus the
Islamic state is conceptually weaker than the modern state. Maududi, also
recognized the vicegerency of man and explained that each believer was a
repository of the Khalifat (vicegerency). The Quran makes this explicitly clear
(45:12,13). Maududi's understanding of the Khalifat of Man is definitely in the
popular sense but he does not explain it in conjunction with sovereignty. Thus
sovereignty lies in God, state is an agency of the sovereign and every believer
is God's vicegerent on Earth. This however means that both the state and
believers can legitimately act on behalf of the sovereign. Thus in Maududi's
interpretation the sovereign has created dual agency in the Islamic state and
the Khalifat, creating a balance or division of power between state and society.
This mechanism can help ensure that both state and society follow the straight
path."
>
>
> Note that al-Binnuri characterized Mawdudi as primarily interested in
> politics, striving after power and possessing little concern with actual
> Religious knowledge and its requirements, to the point that both he and his
> followers fell into various pitfalls of error and misguidance, until they
> reached actual atheism and freethinking. This is most commonly verifiable
> today in the wholesale dismissal of the Ulema of Islam East and West by
> Mawdudi admirers, which leaves little room to doubt their apostasy.
Followers of Maududi have "reached actual atheism and freethinking?" That is the
most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. That by itself proves that al-Binnuri
had no idea what he was talking about and was merely passing judgments on
heresy.
>
> 8. In his Rasa'il Masa'il (p. 55) he states:"Everything that was narrated in
> the [mutawatir] hadiths of the Prophet (saws) in connection with the
> Anti-Christ - all of it - was mere opinion and conjecture on his part
> (saws)and he was undecided concerning it. One time he thought he would come
> out from Khurasan, another time from Asbahan, another timefrom between Sham
> and Iraq, and yet another time he though that the Anti-Christ was Ibn
> al-Sayyad in Madina. And one time he said something which was narrated from
> him by that Palestinian Christian Monk, Tamim al-Dari [in Sahih Muslim]."
The book Rasail-o-masail is actually Maududi's answers to objections raised by
Muslims and non-Muslims alike. What you have quoted is a completely bogus
translation of Maududi's answer to a question about his denial of the coming of
Dajjal. His actual answer was as follows:
"What I have called fiction is the suggestion that Dajjal is 'imprisoned'
somewhere. As far as what is reported in the Hadith concerning the trouble-maker
Dajjal, that I certainly believe.
"Upon studying ahadith concerning Dajjal, it becomes clear that the knowledge
which Prophet (s.a.w) had received from God concerning Dajjal was limited to the
following: that Dajjal would appear; what would be his nature; and what would
be his characteristics. However, he was not told when Dajjal would appear; where
he would appear; or whether he would come in the Prophet's time or in later
times. Regarding these issues, the different facts that are reported in the
ahadith reveal themselves, and words of the Prophet also suggest the same, that
he made those statements not due to some "wahi" but out of personal speculation.
At times, he thought that the Dajjal would rise up from Khurrasan, another time
he mentioned Isfahan,and another time he thought from the land between Syria and
Iraq. At one time he even suspected the Jew Ibn Sayyad who was probably born in
2 or 3 A.H. And the last tradition says that in 9 A.H. when a Palestinian
Christian monk Tamim Dari came and embraced Islam, he reported to the Prophet
(s.a.w) that when once he was traveling through the seas (the Mediterranean or
the Arabian), he arrived at a deserted island where he found a strange man who
told him that he was the Dajjal. At this report, the Prophet (s.a.w) did not
contradict him; however, he expressed some doubt by stating that according to
Tamim's report the Dajjal is either in the Mediterranean or the Arabia Sea
whereas he thought that the Dajjal would come from the East.
" Anybody who would take a collective look at these traditions and who is
familiar with the knowledge of Hadith and the "usuul" of "deen" would have no
problem understanding that the Prophet's statements consist of two points:
First, the Dajjal would come, he would have certain characteristics, and he
would create "fitna." These are absolutely correct predictions which the Prophet
(s.a.w) has conveyed from God. In that sense, none of the traditions contradict
each other. The second issue is, where and when Dajjal would appear and who
would he be. In this respect, the traditions are different and language
expressing doubt, suspicion, and circumstantial evidence is also found. For
example, note the Prophet's statement to Omar (r.a.) about Ibn Sayyad, "If he is
the Dajjal, then you are not his killer; if he is not, then you have no right to
kill a 'muahid.' " In another Hadith, he states, " If he [Dajjal] appears in my
life, I would fight against him; otherwise, God is the defender and cherisher of
every 'momin.' "
" It is obvious that this second point is not equivalent to the first one. And
anybody who includes all the details of this second issue as part of essential
Islamic beliefs is clearly mistaken. Furthermore, to insist that each detail of
this second issue is still valid is also not correct. The Prophet (s.a.w) had
suspected Ibn Sayyad and Omar (r.a.) had even sworn that Ibn Sayyad is the
Dajjal, but Ibn Sayyad became a Muslim, lived in Haramain, died as a Muslim and
his janaza prayer was performed by Muslims. Now, what excuse is there that one
should keep on suspecting Ibn Sayyad? The Prophet had almost believed the words
of Tameem Dari; however, but after nearly 1300 years, is it not proof enough
that Tameem Dari's report was not correct? The Prophet (s.a.w) thought that the
Dajjal may appear in his own times or immediately after him, so is it not true
that 1300 years have passed and Dajjal has not appeared? Now to report these
traditions as part of Islamic beliefs is neither representing Islam correctly
nor can be called a correct interpretation of Hadith. As I have stated before in
these matters, if something did not come about as the Prophet (s.a.w) had
suspected, then it is not a poor reflection on his Prophethood. It neither
brings into question the reputation of the Prophets nor does shari'ia require us
to have such beliefs. This principle has been well explained by the Hadith
relating to the grafting of date palm trees."
> 9. In the same book (p. 57): "The Messenger of Allah (saws) thought that the
> Dajjal would come out in his time or very near it and yet 1350 long years
> have passed and the Dajjal did not come out. So it is established that what
> he (saws) believed was untrue."
See my comments above.
>
>
In summary, I would say that you and al-Binnuri have been guilty of intellectual
dishonesty by using a completely wrong and distorted translation of Maududi's
writings. I do not always agree with Maududi's views; however, to me, truth is
important. In your case, it was severely lacking.
GF Haddad
news:9aghf9$f9a$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> See above comment. Criticism is also no sure sign of disrespect. See
> Qur'an 80:1-10, where Allah (swt) criticizes the Rasool (saws).
Nowhere in the Qur'an does Allah Most High criticize the Prophet (saws).
> Beware the thought police, especially religious thought police.
Beware of discussing the Qur'an without knowledge. Beware, especially, the
Prophet's warning for those who do.
Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad
news:9akjbp$a5k$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> It is true that most Muslims do not understand the true spirit of Islam.
No. What is true, is that *you* think most Muslims do not understand the
true spirit of Islam. You also think that you and Mawdoodeedoo.
The
> purpose of any religion is to make one a better person, not to train for
> rituals.
{And I did not create the Jinn and Humankind except so they worship Me.}
The
> objectives of Islam are given in the Quran and nowhere does it say that a
woman
> cannot be a head of state. If a woman can be a head of an estate and
employ men,
> why can't she be a head of state?
It is patent that you have a poor knowledge of the status of the Sunna as
one of the sine qua non sources of the Law in Islam. This is why you will
probably gain by learning it prior to engaging in debate on the heresy or
non-heresy of X from the Sunni viewpoint, let alone discussing the proper
commentary on the verses which you imprudently claim as evidence that
Prophets can make mistakes.
> In summary, I would say that you and al-Binnuri have been guilty of
intellectual
> dishonesty by using a completely wrong and distorted translation of
Maududi's
> writings. I do not always agree with Maududi's views; however, to me,
truth is
> important. In your case, it was severely lacking.
You need to correct your approach to the foundations before stepping
to staking out the truth. Your defenses of Mawdudi are fraught with
questionable beliefs. But you, I and al-Binnuri are unimportant. There are
many others besides the latter who took the same critical stances through
firsthand knowledge of the evidence and sifted it in the dispassionate light
of the Shari`a. Belie "most Muslims" to your heart;s content. The truth
will inevitably prevail in time, insha Allah.
Hajj Gibril
surayya
Omar Mirza <oam...@MailAndNews.com> writes
>A recommendation:this should be in the "Innovators" section at
>www.sunnah.org.
So www.sunnah.org should be placed in the innovators section, yes what a
great idea.
>Among other things, nonMuslims see Maududi being admired by Muslims,
> and they take him as an authority on Islam.
And this is the typical excuse that is given for dumping well-known
muslims into 'innovators sections'. All these well-known muslims have
made mistakes, really obvious glaring ones, therefore according to this
mentality they should all be dumped into innovators sections, including
the naqshibandis and their heros.
His assertion is false, non-muslims see Maududi being admired by mainly
Asian muslims, not muslims as a whole. If non-muslims of non-Asian
backgrounds were to read Maududi's books, they won't see what all the
fuss is about, and it probably wouldn't appeal to them, they will move
on to other literature. There isn't a huge risk to non-Asian non-
muslims, or non-Asian muslims.
Wa salam
sister Surayya
vmi...@yahoo.com
"GF Haddad" <Qas...@cyberia.net.lb> wrote:
> As-Salamu `alaykum:
>
> The following material by BrotherMasud Khan first appeared on SRI in
> October 1996 under the title "Maududi's Calumniations against the
> Prophets and Companions."
>
> Insha Allah I will be posting additional notes mostly translated from
> Shaykh Muhammad Yusuf al-Binnuri's introduction to Shaykh Muhammad
> Zakariyya Kandihlavi's book on Mawdudi.
Exactly as I had suspected, Hajj Gibril has once again resorted to
maligning the reputation of Maudoodi based on third hand information,
innuendos, half truths, and selective, out of context, quotations.
Like the Hajj, another old time admirer of the Lebanese Shaykh, Br.
Masud
Khan wrote from a biased and prejudicial frame of mind.
I have the books out of which the quotations have been taken, and I
shall,
InshaAllah, soon set the record straight.
This is disgusting; this shameless and unchecked display of arrogance
by
the pseuo-sufism pervading the SRI, in denigrating and dishonoring
those
with whom they disagree. Yet, in the eyes of some, anything goes as
long
as it is being done by those whom they admire, and directed at those
whom
they revile.
It may not be racism based on the color of skin, but it certainly is
racism based on a difference of view point. It has created a set of
un-named, yet discernible, cliques. Its adherents do not have the guts
to be independent; they revel in mutual adnmiration of each other.
What a shame! What a bankruptcy of character!
And they have the gall to offer us "advice".
Physician, heal thyself!
WasSalam
Viqar Ahmed
"vaa'e nakAmI, matA'e kArvAN jAtA rahA
kARvAN ke dil se ehsAs'e ziyAN jATA raha"
Woe failure, the most precious part of caravan's wealth is gone
For the caravan is bereft even of its own sense of loss.
(Mohammed Iqbal)
AL
>Exactly as I had suspected, Hajj Gibril has once again resorted to
>maligning the reputation of Maudoodi based on third hand information,
>innuendos, half truths, and selective, out of context, quotations.
Moudodi was a hypocrite. One of his deputies who left his Jamate Islami had
accused him that he (Moudodi) is only interested in power and not in religion.
He was not wrong. On behalf of the Premier of Punjab province who was
interested in overthrowing the national government, Moudodi had tried in 1953
to create civil disorder in the country. As a result Moudodi was awarded death
penalty which was later converted into the life imprisonment.
Imran Razi
> > See above comment. Criticism is also no sure sign of disrespect. See
> > Qur'an 80:1-10, where Allah (swt) criticizes the Rasool (saws).
>
> Nowhere in the Qur'an does Allah Most High criticize the Prophet (saws).
Well, I gave the reference. If there is some ambiguous or hidden
meaning of the apparently-straightforward Arabic terms, I would be
interested to know that. Otherwise, why don't you think it a
criticism?
> Beware of discussing the Qur'an without knowledge. Beware, especially, the
> Prophet's warning for those who do.
I am sincerely happy to learn more about the Qur'an, especially Surah
Abasa, which is a favorite passage of mine. So please consider me the
blind man, and I will consider you, well if not the Prophet, someone
high in knowledge indeed!
Funny how this all works out. Subhanullah, what an amazing man, our
Rasool! What an amazing Book, and how timeless its lessons!
wa salaam
Imran Razi
GF Haddad
> > > See above comment. Criticism is also no sure sign of disrespect. See
> > > Qur'an 80:1-10, where Allah (swt) criticizes the Rasool (saws).
> >
> > Nowhere in the Qur'an does Allah Most High criticize the Prophet (saws).
>
> Well, I gave the reference.
There is a difference between "reference" and "evidence." Where in that
reference is the word, or expression that you take to be criticism?
If there is some ambiguous or hidden
> meaning of the apparently-straightforward Arabic terms, I would be
> interested to know that.
If you possess some special knowledge of language whereby one or more Arabic
terms in your reference constitute criticism of the Prophet (saws) I would
be eager to learn it.
Otherwise, why don't you think it a
> criticism?
First, why do you think it is a criticism?
Was-Salam