Introduction

Among the most frequently used technical terms in Islam, the word ‘mujaddid’ is one of the foremost. Almost everyone knows its general meaning: a person who renews and revitalizes the dīn is a mujaddid. But very few people consider its detailed meaning. Few know what the significance of tajdīd—reform and renewal—is, what kind of work may properly be called complete tajdīd, how many categories this work has, or what partial tajdīd means. Because of this ignorance, ordinary people are unable to make an accurate assessment of the activities of the scholars called mujaddids in Islamic history. They know only that ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Imām al-Ghazālī, Ibn Taymiyyah, Shaykh Aḥmad Sirhindī, and Shāh Walīullāh were all mujaddids. But they do not know at what level each of them may be called a mujaddid, or what kind of reforming work each performed and what degree of merit it possessed. One major reason for this inability and negligence is that when words such as ‘Ḥaḍrat,’ ‘Imām,’ ‘Ḥujjat al-Islām,’ Quṭb al-ʿĀrifīn, and ‘Zubdat al-Sālikīn’ are attached to people’s names, the mind becomes so overwhelmed with reverence and respect for them that it becomes impossible thereafter to examine their activities independently and determine accurately who among them performed what degree and kind of work for this movement, and how much of that work was his own contribution. Generally, the activities of these scholars are described in poetic language mixed with reverence and respect rather than in the measured language of an investigator. Consequently, readers think—and this is perhaps also what the author has in mind—that the person being mentioned was a ‘perfect man,’ and that everything he did had, in every respect, reached the highest level of kamāliyat—perfection. Yet if we are to undertake any effort today for the reform and revival of the Islamic movement, such reverence, respect, and obscurity will not suffice. We must fully understand this reforming task. We must look into the pages of our past history and see how much work our leaders performed in past centuries and how they performed it, how much we can benefit from their activities, and which of their tasks remained incomplete—tasks to which we should now turn our attention.

A separate book is needed to discuss this subject. But where is the leisure to write a book? The subject of Shāh Walīullāh has arisen; that much is sufficient. For this reason, I have had the opportunity to discuss the matter briefly. Perhaps this brief discussion of mine will pave the way for some capable person to write a history of the reform and revival of Islam.

Although this essay is now being printed in book form, it was originally written for the Shāh Walīullāh issue of the Barelī journal Al-Qurʾān. Therefore, comparatively more detailed attention has been given here to Shāh Sahib’s reforming activities, while the activities of the other mujaddids have been described incidentally. While reading this essay, one should remember that its purpose is not to describe all the activities of all the mujaddids in full; rather, it discusses only those mujaddids who attained distinction in Islamic history. It should also be remembered that many people have carried out the work of tajdīd, and many do so in every age, but only a very few among them are entitled to receive the title ‘mujaddid.’

Abul Aʿla

February 1940

The mischief-makers of recent times have begun taking particular aim at this book. I therefore reviewed it a second time and clarified those statements from which various mischiefs were being generated. Along with this, I also supplied references for all the statements and quotations about which questions had been raised on the assumption that they might be my own fabrications. In addition, I have added various replies as an appendix at the end of the book. I had given these replies at different times to different questioners through Tarjumān al-Qurʾān. Even after this, the questioners will not be silenced. Nevertheless, the listener’s ear will be spared much deception.

Abul Aʿla

October 1960

The Ideological and Historical Conflict between Islam and Jāhiliyyah

Whatever system of life is constructed for human beings in this world must necessarily begin with matters relating to the supernatural or religion. No plan for life can be formulated until a clear and unambiguous conception has been formed of humanity and of this world in which people live. The questions of how people should behave in the world and how they should act here are in fact deeply connected with these further questions: What is a human being? What is humanity’s status in this world? What kind of system does this world possess, with which the human way of life must be made compatible? A particular view of morality will be established in light of the solution reached for these questions. Thereafter, various departments of human life will develop according to the nature of that doctrine. Within this framework, individual character and conduct, as well as collective relations and rules of behavior, will assume detailed form. Thus, ultimately, the magnificent edifice of civilization will be built upon all these foundations. Every religion and every ideology and way of life that has ever arisen for human life in this world has necessarily had to formulate its own distinctive fundamental philosophy and fundamental moral doctrine. It is these fundamental philosophy and moral outlook that distinguish one system from another, from its basic principles down to its minutest details. For every system of life has taken shape according to their nature. They are to the body of a system of life what the soul is to the body.

Four Doctrines Concerning Life

If we judge only in terms of fundamental principles, leaving aside details, four metaphysical doctrines concerning humanity and the universe may be identified. Every system of life found in the world has necessarily adopted one of these four.

Unmixed Jāhiliyyah

We may call the first doctrine unmixed jāhiliyyah. Its basic proposition is:

The order of the universe is merely the actual manifestation of a chance occurrence. No wisdom, benevolent will, or purpose operates behind it. It came into being spontaneously, is being governed spontaneously, and one day will suddenly end spontaneously, without any causative force. It has no God; and even if there is one, He has no connection with human life.

The human being is a kind of animal. Like other things, humanity probably arose here by chance. The question of who created human beings and why is irrelevant to us. We know only that people live on this earth and have certain hopes and desires, toward fulfilling which their nature presses them from within. They possess certain powers and several instruments that can become means of fulfilling those hopes and desires. Around them, spread across the vast breast of the world, are many objects and resources; by using their powers and instruments upon them, they can fulfill their hopes and desires. Therefore, human life has no purpose other than fulfilling the demands of its biological nature. And apart from acquiring better means and instruments for fulfilling those demands, human abilities have no other function.

There is no source of knowledge greater than humanity, nor any origin of good and truth from which people can obtain a code for their lives. Therefore, each person should formulate a system of life for himself by examining the surrounding environment, circumstances, signs, and his own history.

Outwardly, no government appears before which human beings must be accountable. Thus, people are naturally irresponsible creatures. And if they should somehow have to give an account, it must be before themselves or before an authority created from among humanity and established over humanity.

The consequences of actions are confined within the limits of this worldly life. There is no second life besides it. Therefore, right and wrong, harmful and beneficial, acceptable and unacceptable will be decided solely in light of the results manifested in this world.

When a person remains at the level of unmixed jāhiliyyah—that is, when he does not reach any truth beyond the range of his own perceptions, or does not wish to reach it because of his enslavement to the senses—his inner world comes entirely under the control of this doctrine. In every age, people blinded by the allure of worldly interests have adopted it. With only a few exceptions, kings and emperors, amīrs and nobles, courtiers, ruling classes, the wealthy, and those who devoted their lives to pursuing wealth have generally given preference to this doctrine. And among the nations whose advanced civilization and culture are praised in history, this doctrine was operative at the root of almost all their civilizations and cultures. It is also operative at the root of present-day Western civilization. Although not everyone in the Western countries denies God and the Hereafter, and not everyone is intellectually a supporter of materialist morality, the force active in the total system of their civilization and culture is nevertheless the force of denying God and the Hereafter and of materialist morality. This force has penetrated their lives so deeply that even those who acknowledge God and the Hereafter intellectually and follow a non-materialist outlook in morality are, unconsciously, nothing but atheists and materialists in their actual lives. For the doctrine they follow intellectually has no effective connection with their practical lives.

The condition of their earlier prosperous and God-forgetting people was similar. The prosperous people of Baghdad, Damascus, Delhi, and Granada did not deny God and the Hereafter, since they were Muslims. But all the programs of their lives were arranged as though God and the Hereafter did not exist, as though there were no question of answering to anyone or receiving instructions from anyone. In the world, only their desires, hopes, and ambitions existed. They were free to use any means and any method to fulfill those desires. The time granted for life in this world could be properly used only through ‘pleasure and luxury.’

As I have already said, the nature of this doctrine is such that a thoroughly materialistic moral system arises upon its basis. Whether it is written on the pages of books or merely depicted in the realm of the mind makes no difference. From this mentality then issue currents of knowledge, art, thought, and planning, and the subtler forces of atheism and materialism penetrate the entire educational system. Individual character is subsequently formed on this basis. According to this pattern, all the rules and methods governing human relations, conduct, and transactions take shape. The development and advancement of law and constitutions occur on this basis. The greatest deceivers, dishonest people, embezzlers, liars, frauds, cruel people, and the morally corrupt rise to the upper levels of such a society. Authority and power over the whole society, as well as responsibility for governing the state, are entrusted to them. Like unleashed tigers, freed from every fear and reckoning, they launch violent attacks upon humanity. Their entire diplomacy is built upon the politics of Machiavelli. In their law books, power is called ‘truth’ and weakness ‘falsehood.’ Wherever there is no material obstacle, nothing can restrain them from oppression. Within the state, this oppression assumes such a terrible form that the powerful class crushes the weaker classes of its own nation; beyond the country’s borders, it appears throughout the outside world as nationalism, imperialism, conquest of countries, and destruction of nations.

Jāhiliyyah Mixed with Shirk

The second metaphysical doctrine is founded upon shirk. Its essence is this: the order of the universe is not the manifestation of a chance occurrence, nor does it exist without a God; but it has not one God—rather, it has many gods.

This concept is based not on scientific evidence but purely on imagination. Therefore, no consensus has ever been established among the polytheists—and never can be—about relating the power of God to imaginary, perceptible, and visible objects. People lost in darkness have made whatever they laid their hands upon into a god. The list of gods has constantly increased and decreased. Angels, jinn, spirits, stars, living and dead people, trees, mountains, animals, rivers, the earth, fire, and everything else have been turned into deities. Many abstract ideas, such as love, desire, creative power, disease, war, Lakshmi, and power, have also been placed on the throne of divinity. Lion-men, fish-men, bird-men, four-headed beings, thousand-armed beings, elephant-trunked humans, and many others have likewise become objects of worship for the polytheists.

Around this divine pantheon, a magical world of imagination and mythology has also been created. Every uneducated and ignorant nation has offered such strange and amusing examples of its fertile mind and artistry here that one is compelled to marvel. Among nations where the concept of a chief God—that is, Allah—is clearly evident, Allah has established His authority as though Allah were a king and the other gods were His ministers, courtiers, companions, and officials. But since people are unable to reach that exalted king, all affairs are conducted through subordinate gods, and people maintain direct relations with them in every matter. On the other hand, among nations where the concept of a chief God is extremely vague or virtually nonexistent, all divine authority has been distributed among various powerful beings.

After unmixed jāhiliyyah comes this second kind of jāhiliyyah. From prehistoric times until today, humanity has been carried along by its current. People descend to this level whenever they are at the lowest stage of mental development. Where, under the influence of the teachings of God’s prophets, people acknowledged the authority of the One Almighty God, the existence of other gods was indeed abolished; yet the divine authority of prophets, saints, martyrs, ascetics, ghawths, quṭbs, scholars, pīrs, and sons of God nevertheless managed to find a place in religious belief in one form or another. Abandoning the gods of the polytheists, ignorant people firmly installed those righteous servants of Allah upon the throne of divinity whose entire lives had been spent in eliminating human authority and establishing the authority of Allah alone. On the one hand, in place of worship and ritual like that of the polytheists, a new sharīʿah was created, consisting of such religious practices as recitations of the Fātiḥah, shrine visitation, votive offerings, ʿurs festivals, placing chadars, making tāziyah, and many other similar acts. On the other hand, without any theoretical proof or evidence, a mythology was created concerning the births and deaths, appearances and disappearances, mystical revelations and miracles, powers and authority, and the manner of proximity to Allah’s court of those righteous people—one that corresponded in every respect with the mythology of idolatrous polytheists. Thirdly, behind the attractive cover of words such as ‘wasīlah,’ ‘rūḥānī,’ ‘madad,’ and ‘fayḍ,’ all relations between Allah and His servants were linked to those righteous people. Among these alleged monotheistic polytheists, the same condition effectively arose as among those polytheists who believe that people cannot reach the Lord of the universe and that all matters connected with human life are tied to officials and agents of lower rank. The only difference is that the former openly call these lower officials objects of worship, gods, incarnations, or sons of God, whereas the latter conceal them beneath terms such as ghawth, quṭb, abdāl, awliyāʾ, and ahlullāh.

This second type of jāhiliyyah has often been seen, throughout the ages, cooperating with the first type—namely, unmixed jāhiliyyah. In ancient times, these two forms of jāhiliyyah coexisted in the civilization and culture of Babylon, Egypt, Hindustan, Iran, Greece, Rome, and other countries. The same is true of Japanese civilization and culture in the present age. This cooperation has various causes, several of which I shall mention here.

First:

In jāhiliyyah mixed with shirk, the relationship between people and their objects of worship is that they regard them merely as powerful beings and masters of benefit and harm, and through various acts of worship and devotion they try to obtain their mercy and help in achieving worldly objectives. There is no possibility of receiving from them any moral guidance or laws concerning the conduct of life. For in reality, only if there were a God there could He give laws and commands. Thus, where such a thing is absent, the polytheists themselves inevitably formulate a moral doctrine, and on its basis they themselves devise a sharīʿah. In this way, the authority of unmixed jāhiliyyah is actually established. For this reason, the only difference between the civilizations and cultures of unmixed jāhiliyyah and jāhiliyyah mixed with shirk is that in one place temple worship and various forms of worship and veneration are practiced alongside jāhiliyyah, while in the other they are not. There is no difference between the two in moral character and conduct. This is also the sole reason for the resemblance between the moral nature and character of ancient Greece and pagan Rome and those of Europe today.

Second:

For education, art, philosophy, literature, politics, economics, and other fields, the doctrine mixed with shirk supplies no separate fundamental principles. In this respect too, the polytheist sets out upon the path of unmixed jāhiliyyah, and the entire mental and intellectual development of polytheistic society proceeds along the path of the social ideals of unmixed jāhiliyyah. The only difference is that the imagination of the polytheists is excessive, and their thought displays an abnormal predominance of imaginative tendencies. Atheists, by contrast, are more realistic and therefore have no interest in imagination-based philosophy. Yet when these atheists try to unravel the knot of the universe without God, the basis of their arguments becomes as absurd and irrational as the mythology of the polytheists. In short, there is practically no difference between shirk and unmixed jāhiliyyah. Present-day Europe is a vivid example. It has linked the roots of its modern doctrine so closely with ancient Greece and Rome that it appears to be their offspring.

Third:

Polytheistic society is fully prepared to adopt all the civilizational institutions adopted by a purely jāhilī society, although there is some difference between the methods of shirk and unmixed jāhiliyyah in forming society. Under the rule of shirk, kings are placed upon the thrones of gods. A class of spiritual and religious leaders becomes entitled to special honor. The royal dynasty and the religious leadership together form a theocratic state. A permanent doctrine is devised affirming the superiority and dominance of one lineage over another and of one class over another. In contrast, in a purely jāhilī society these defects take the forms of ancestor worship, race worship, national imperialism, dictatorship, capitalism, and class struggle. Yet in their vital force and fundamental impulse, both are alike in imposing human domination over people, dismembering humanity through human agency, and dividing humankind so that one class of society becomes bloodthirsty toward another.

Ascetic Jāhiliyyah

The third metaphysical doctrine is founded upon asceticism. Its summary is:

This earth and this worldly existence are, for human beings, a punishment like a prison. The soul of a person confined in the cage of the body is in fact a suffering prisoner. All pleasures and delights, desires and longings, tastes, and bodily needs are merely the chains and iron shackles of this prison. The more closely a person remains attached to this world and its material things, the more his entire being will be filled with filth, and the more he will become deserving of punishment. There is only one way to attain salvation and deliverance. For this, one must sever all ties with the joys and exultations of life. All desires and longings must be eradicated. Every form of enjoyment must be renounced. Bodily needs and the demands of the senses must be denied. Every affection, love, and attachment connected with worldly possessions and ties of flesh and blood must be completely removed from the heart. Above all, the enemy in the form of one’s body and senses must be tormented through renunciation and spiritual discipline, and tormented to such an extent that their authority can no longer remain established over the soul. In this way, the soul will become subtle, pure, and purified, and will acquire the strength to soar to the higher stations of salvation.

This is essentially an antisocial doctrine. Yet this doctrine exerts its influence on society, civilization, and culture in various ways. On its basis, a particular kind of philosophy of life develops. Its various forms are known by such names as Vedantism, Manuism, Platonism, Yoga, Tasawwuf, Christian asceticism, and Buddhism. Along with this philosophy comes into existence a moral system that is very little positive and, rather, overwhelmingly negative. Together, these two things penetrate literature, creed and belief, and moral and practical life. Wherever their influence reaches, they act like opium and cocaine.

This third kind of jahiliyyah generally cooperates with the first two kinds of jahiliyyah in three ways:

(1) This ascetic jahiliyyah frees the righteous and God-fearing from the troubles of the world and turns them into recluses, thereby clearing the way for people of evil character. The wicked gain authority and power in God’s world and freely spread mischief and disorder, while the righteous devote themselves to austerities and spiritual exercises, concerned with their own salvation and deliverance.

(2) Under the influence of this jahiliyyah, undesirable patience, forbearance, and a pessimistic outlook arise among the people, and they become its easy prey. For this reason, kings, rulers, amirs, nobles, and the religiously authoritative classes have always shown particular interest in propagating and spreading the moral ideals of this ascetic philosophy. Under their patronage, this doctrine has expanded without hindrance. History offers not even a single example of this ascetic philosophy ever coming into conflict with imperialism, capitalism, or papism.

(3) When this ascetic philosophy is defeated by human nature, it begins to seek various excuses. In some places, the principle of offering expiation is invented. Thus, on the one hand, one can commit sins to satisfy one’s desires, while on the other hand, one is not deprived of Paradise. In some places, bodily love is used as a pretext for gratifying sensual pleasure. As a result, fuel is added to the fire within, while at the same time no distinction is drawn between this and the purity of the ‘Huzur-e-Ala.’ Elsewhere, behind the veil of worldly renunciation, a spiritual web is spread through collusion with kings, rulers, and the wealthy. The most despicable forms of this were displayed by the popes of Rome and the kings and rulers of the Eastern world.

This jahiliyyah behaves in this manner toward its own kind. But its penetration among the communities of the prophets produces another scene. Its first assault on God’s religion is that, instead of presenting this world to people as a place of work, a place of trial, and the farmland of the Hereafter, it presents it as a ‘Dar al-Azab’ and a ‘web of illusion.’ Because of this fundamental change in outlook, people forget that they have been appointed God’s representatives on earth. They begin to think: ‘I have not come here to work and manage all the affairs of the earth; rather, I have been thrown amid filth and impurity. I must protect myself from it and withdraw far away. I must remain here as a non-cooperator and, instead of accepting responsibility, avoid it.’ As a result of this notion, people become strangely doubtful and frightened about the earth and all its affairs and, let alone accepting the responsibility of God’s representation, they even fear accepting responsibility for society. For them, the entire system of the Shariah becomes meaningless. They disregard the meaning that acts of worship and God’s commands and prohibitions prepare people to reform worldly life and fulfill the responsibility of God’s representation. Conversely, they begin to think that worship and certain special religious acts are expiation for the sins of life. Therefore, only these should be performed with complete attention and in the proper measure; then salvation and deliverance in the Hereafter will be attained.

This mentality has cast a part of the community of the prophets into the labyrinth of philosophical explanations of muraqabah, mushahadah, kashf, riyazat, forty-day retreats, recitation of wazifahs, amaliyat1, maqamat2, journeys, and haqiqat3. They have become more attentive to performing mustahabb and nafl acts than to the obligatory acts. Thus they have become heedless of the work of God’s representation for which the prophets came. On the other hand, another group has developed the disease of kashf and karamat, excessive zeal regarding the commands of religion, raising pointless questions, scrutinizing and measuring small matters in minute detail, and giving extraordinary attention and care to trivialities. God’s religion has even become, in their eyes, like a fragile glass vessel that shatters into pieces when jolted by the slightest word or the slightest matter. Consequently, they are perpetually anxious, as though their entire time passes in fear that the glass vessel placed above their heads might be slightly displaced and broken into fragments. Once this path of profound subtlety in religion was opened, stagnation, narrow-mindedness, and lack of courage inevitably arose. How, then, could any sign of superior ability remain among people? (1) As for amaliyat, humanity has not yet discovered a method of being more devoid of action than it. (2) Not worldly maqamat, but ruhani maqamat—the spiritual realm. (3) Take, for example, pantheism. How can one examine the greatest problems of human life from a worldview that merely observes the earth? How can one acquire full knowledge of Islam’s universal principles and minute details and lead humanity at every turn of the age and at every new stage?

Islam

The fourth supernatural doctrine was presented by the prophets of God. Its essence is as follows:

This created universe that surrounds us, of which we ourselves are also a part, is in reality the empire of a sovereign. He created it. He alone owns it. He alone is its ruler and director. No one else’s command operates in this empire; everyone obeys His command, and all power is entirely concentrated in the hands of that one Owner and Ruler.

In this empire, human beings are subjects by birth. That is, whether or not to be subjects does not depend on their will. Rather, they are born as subjects, and it is not possible for them to be anything other than subjects.

In this state system, there is no scope for human freedom or irresponsibility. By nature, this cannot be so either. Since a person is a subject by birth and a part of the empire, just as its other parts obey the command of the sovereign, so must he obey; there is no other path for him. He has no right to make a way of life for himself or determine his own duties. His sole task is to obey every command that comes from Malik al-Mulk, the Sovereign. The means by which these commands arrive is revelation, and those to whom these commands come are the prophets.

But the Great Lord has adopted a subtler method for testing human beings. He has concealed Himself and likewise concealed all the arrangements for issuing commands and administering His empire. This state operates in such a way that, outwardly, no ruler is visible and no official can be seen. People see only that a factory is operating, and within it they perceive their own existence. Through their external senses they do not feel that they are subordinate to anyone and must give an account to anyone. Among the objects surrounding them there is no clear sign on the basis of which the authority of the Ruler of the universe and their own subordination and responsibility could become manifest beyond all doubt, leaving them no alternative but to acknowledge it once revealed. Prophets come, but no one sees with his own eyes the revelation sent down to them, nor are they sent with any unmistakable sign that, once witnessed, leaves no alternative but to accept their prophethood. At the same time, within certain limits, people find themselves completely free. They are given the power to rebel, supplied with all the means for doing so, and granted a long period of opportunity. They encounter no obstacle even while reaching the utmost limits of wrongdoing and sin. If they wish to worship anyone other than the Master, they are not prevented from doing so either. Complete freedom is given: they may worship, serve, and obey whomever they choose. Whether they rebel or serve another, no difference appears in their provision; rather, they continue to receive provision as before. They continue to receive, quite adequately according to their station, all the necessities of life, the means and instruments of work, and the goods of comfort and ease, and they continue receiving these provisions until death. At no time has the supply of worldly equipment and necessities of life to a rebel against God or one who serves another been stopped because of that offense. This distinctive method has been adopted in dealing with human beings in the universe. Its sole purpose is that the Creator wishes to test human beings through the powers of conscience, reason, rationality, desire, and free will that He has given them, and through the kind of authority and power He has granted them over His countless creations. To complete this test, He has kept the truth hidden. In this way, human conscience and reason are tested. He has granted people unrestricted freedom of choice, so that after knowing the truth they may, without pressure or compulsion, willingly and eagerly obey it, or turn away from it by accepting servitude to their desires; this too is being tested. If the means of living, the means and instruments of work, and the opportunities for action were not provided, their abilities and inadequacies could not be tested.

This worldly life is a period of trial. Therefore, there is no reckoning here, and no punishment or reward! Whatever is given here is not a reward for a good deed, but material for the test; and the sorrows, hardships, and calamities that come are not punishment for an evil deed. Rather, they arise spontaneously, principally within the operation of the natural law on which the system of this world is established.1 The actual reckoning of deeds, their examination and assessment, and the time for judgment concerning them will come after this worldly life ends; that is called the Hereafter. Therefore, whatever consequences of deeds appear in this world cannot become the standard by which any method or deed is judged correct or incorrect, good or bad, acceptable or rejectable. The true standard is the result in the Hereafter. Knowledge of which methods and deeds will produce good or bad results in the Hereafter can be gained only through revelation sent by Allah to the prophets. Without entering into detailed discussion, in brief, the gain or loss of the Hereafter depends on this: first, whether a person can, through the correct use of subtle intelligence and reason, know that Allah the Exalted is his true Ruler and recognize the commands sent from Him; and second, after learning this truth, whether, despite possessing freedom of choice, he willingly and eagerly bows his head in submission before Allah’s authority and His commands.

(1) This does not mean that no system of retribution operates at all in this world. What I mean is that the retribution and recompense here are not unambiguous, final, or clear, and that the aspect of trial predominates over every kind of worldly punishment and reward. Therefore, the consequences of deeds that appear here cannot be regarded as the standard of moral good and evil. The prophets have presented this doctrine from the beginning of creation. On its basis, a complete explanation of all the events of the universe is possible. The clear meaning of the visible phenomena of the world can be understood. This doctrine cannot be proved false through any observation or experiment. On its basis, an independent philosophy of life develops, fundamentally distinct from the philosophy of life of jahiliyyah. This philosophy of life compiles and presents the vast body of information concerning the universe and human existence in a manner completely opposite to jahiliyyah. It creates an entirely different path for the development and progress of literature and art; the paths of literature and art created by jahiliyyah are completely opposed to it. In every matter of life, it creates a particular outlook and a particular purpose which, in vitality and originality, have no harmony with the purposes and outlook of jahiliyyah. It establishes a separate moral system that has no connection with jahili morality. Again, the edifice of civilization and culture built upon those theoretical and moral foundations is entirely different in nature from all jahili civilizations and cultures. To keep it established, a separate educational system is needed. The principles of this educational system are completely opposed to those of the educational system of jahiliyyah. In short, the vital force active in the veins and arteries of this civilization declares the authority of an all-powerful God, belief in the Hereafter, and human subordination and responsibility. In contrast, throughout the entire system of every jahili civilization there enters the impulse toward human unrestricted freedom, unrestrained and unruly impulses, and irresponsibility. Thus, the model of humanity produced through the civilization and culture established by the prophets is entirely different in shape, nature, form, and color from the model produced by jahili civilization and culture, and this difference is spontaneous in every part and every aspect of it.

Thereafter, the detailed form that civilization assumes on this basis becomes entirely different from all other patterns in the world. Purity, clothing and dress, food, ways of living, social customs, personal character, earning a livelihood, spending money, married life, domestic life, rules of social gatherings, the various forms of relations between people, transactions, distribution of wealth, administration of the state, formation of government, the status and responsibilities of the head of state, consultation, the organization of the civil service, the principles of law, the detailed regulations formulated on the basis of those principles, courts, police, accounting, taxation, finance, public welfare activities, industry, trade and commerce, news distribution, education and organization, and the principles of war and peace all possess a special and distinctive character in this civilization. In every part, a clear line of distinction separates it from other civilizations. From beginning to end, every matter within it is governed by a particular outlook, a particular purpose, and a particular moral conduct, all connected with the sovereign authority of one God, human subordination and servitude, and the destination of the Hereafter rather than this world.

What Is the Work of a Mujaddid??

Before analyzing the work of the mujaddids of the Muslim nation, one should acquire a proper understanding of the tajdid, or reformative activities, that they carry out.

The Difference Between Innovation and Reform

Generally, no distinction is made between an innovative work and a reformative work, and everyone who performs an innovative act is called a reformer or mujaddid. People think that whoever invents a new method and begins promoting it forcefully is a mujaddid. In particular, those who, witnessing the decline of the Muslim nation, strive to save it materially, compromise with the dominant jahiliyyah of the age, and create a novel ‘mixture’ of Islam and jahiliyyah—or, retaining nothing but the name Muslim, dye the entire nation completely in the color of jahiliyyah—are called mujaddids. Yet they are not mujaddids; they are mutajaddids, performers of innovative acts. They do not carry out any reformative work; they merely accomplish something new. The work of a mujaddid, however, is entirely different in nature. Discovering a method of compromising with jahiliyyah is not reform. Creating a novel mixture of Islam and jahiliyyah is not reformative work either. Rather, the work of a mujaddid is to filter Islam away from the polluted water of jahiliyyah and strive to advance it again, at one stage or another, in its true, unadulterated form. In this respect, a mujaddid possesses a firm, uncompromising attitude toward jahiliyyah. He does not support the existence of jahiliyyah in even the smallest part of life.

Definition of a Mujaddid

A mujaddid is not a prophet, but his nature is much closer to the nature of prophethood. A mujaddid possesses clear thought. A profound insight capable of perceiving truth is innate in him. His inner world is filled with a straightforward intellect free from every kind of distortion. His distinctive quality is the special ability to preserve his balance by following the middle path while remaining free from the danger of extremism. The ability to think free from the accumulated and established prejudices of his environment and century, the power and courage to struggle against the distorted current of the age, an innate capacity for leadership, and an extraordinary ability for ijtihad and reconstruction are the distinctive possessions of a mujaddid. In addition, he possesses complete and doubt-free knowledge of Islam. In outlook and in intellect and knowledge, he is a complete Muslim. It is the work of a mujaddid to distinguish Islam from jahiliyyah in the most subtle details and, through investigation, draw the truth out of the complex vortex accumulated over a long period. No person can be a mujaddid without possessing these special qualities. These qualities are found in a prophet as well, but there they exist to a far greater degree.

The Difference Between a Mujaddid and a Prophet

But one fundamental matter distinguishes a mujaddid from a prophet. A prophet is appointed to his path by divine command. He is aware of his own appointment. Revelation descends upon him. He begins his work by claiming prophethood. He calls people to himself. Whether people are believers or disbelievers depends on whether they accept or reject his da’wah. A mujaddid, by contrast, possesses none of these things. If a mujaddid is appointed, he is appointed through the operation of natural law—not by God’s command. Often he is not even aware that he is a mujaddid. Rather, after his death, people learn that he was a mujaddid by examining the works of his life. It is not essential that ilham (the emergence of knowledge in the mind from God) come to him. And even if he receives ilham, there is no certainty that he will necessarily be conscious of it. He does not begin his work by making any claim, nor does he have the right to do so. For there is no question of believing in him or disbelieving in him. The strong, righteous, and morally elevated people of his age gradually gather around him; only those whose nature is afflicted by some kind of distortion remain apart from him. Yet becoming a Muslim is not conditional upon acknowledging him.1 Despite all these differences, a mujaddid must, broadly speaking, perform work of the same order as a prophet.

The Work of a Mujaddid

The following divisions of the work of a mujaddid are noteworthy:

1. Accurately mapping one’s own environment. That is, after fully examining the situation, correctly understanding where and to what extent jahiliyyah has penetrated, by what route it arrived, where its roots lie and how far they extend, and at what stage Islam currently stands.

2. Formulating a plan for reform. That is, determining where a blow would currently break the bonds of jahiliyyah and give Islam an opportunity to regain authority over social life.

3. Determining one’s limits and scope. That is, accurately estimating how much strength one possesses and by what means one has the power to carry out reform.

(1) Many people ask in this connection whether any of the Mujaddids claimed to be a Mujaddid. For example, Mujaddid Alf-i Thani (may Allah have mercy on him) and Shah Waliullah (may Allah have mercy on him). But they forget that these two venerable Mujaddids merely expressed that they had been appointed to this position. They made no claim. Nothing in their actions proves that they called people toward themselves or demanded that people accept them as Mujaddids. Nor did they say that only those who accepted them as Mujaddids would be believers and attain salvation. 4. The effort to create a revolution in the realm of thought. That is, to change people’s thought, mold their beliefs, ideas and moral outlook in the pattern of Islam, reform the system of education and training, revive Islamic education, and generally reawaken the Islamic mentality in a new way.

5. Active reform efforts. That is, to abolish the customs and practices of Jahiliyyah, purify moral character and dispositions, rekindle among people a powerful incentive to obey the Shariah, and prepare people capable of providing complete Islamic leadership.

6. The effort to exercise ijtihad in various fields of the Din. That is, to comprehend the fundamental principles of the Din, determine accurately, from the Islamic point of view, the direction of contemporary civilizational conditions and development, and devise—within the framework of the principles of the Shariah—a method for changing the inherited old pattern of civilization, so that the essence of the Shariah remains intact, its objectives are fulfilled, and Islam becomes capable of leading the world in the sound development of civilization.

7. Defensive efforts. That is, to confront the political forces intent on suppressing or annihilating Islam, eliminate their power, and clear the way for Islam’s development.

8. The revival of the Islamic system. That is, to wrest the keys of authority from the hands of Jahiliyyah and once again establish government on the basis of the system that the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, called the Khilafah.

9. Creating a universal revolution. That is, not being content merely to establish the Islamic system in one country or only in those countries where Muslims already exist. Rather, to create such a powerful worldwide movement that Islam’s reformative and revolutionary call spreads among the masses, Islamic civilization and culture become capable of extending their dominance throughout the world, an Islamic revolution begins in the civilizational system of the entire world, and the moral and political leadership of humanity becomes concentrated in the hands of Islam.

A close examination of these categories shows that the first three are indispensable for those who undertake the work of Islamic revival. But each of the remaining six is not an indispensable condition for being a Mujaddid. Rather, if someone performs significant work in one, two, three or four of them, he may be regarded as a Mujaddid. Such a Mujaddid, however, will be a partial Mujaddid. A complete Mujaddid will be only the one who fully performs the work in every one of the stated categories and fulfills the right of inheriting the Prophethood.

The Complete or Ideal Mujaddid

A review of history shows that no complete Mujaddid has yet appeared. Hazrat Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (may Allah have mercy on him) was about to attain this rank, but he could not succeed. Every Mujaddid born after him worked in one particular category or in several categories; the place of the complete Mujaddid remains vacant. But reason, human nature and the conditions of the world demand the birth of such a leader. He may be born in this age or after thousands of cycles of the age. His name is Imam al-Mahdi. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) clearly foretold him in a hadith. 2

I cannot say what degree this hadith has with regard to its chain of transmission. But in meaning, it is consistent with all the other hadiths narrated on this subject. This hadith points to five stages in history. Three of those stages have passed, and the fourth is now underway. Regarding the final, fifth stage that was foretold, all the signs have proclaimed that human history is rapidly moving toward it. All the doctrines fashioned by humanity have been tested and have failed miserably. At present, exhausted and weary humanity has no alternative but to move toward Islam.

Nowadays many people, out of ignorance, wrinkle their noses as soon as they hear this name. Their complaint is that, in waiting for the ‘Perfect Man’ who is to come in the future, the energy of ignorant and uneducated Muslims has become inert. Thus, they believe that a truth whose mistaken interpretation causes uneducated people to become idle cannot truly be truth. Moreover, they say that among every religious nation there exists a belief in some person who will come from the unseen world. Therefore, this is merely a false notion. But I do not understand: if, like the final Prophet, Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa (peace be upon him), the other prophets also gave their nations the glad tidings that, before the end of humanity’s earthly life, Islam would once spread throughout the earth; that after the failure of all systems devised by humanity, people—overwhelmed by calamity and distress—would ultimately be compelled to seek refuge under the shade of this system devised by God; and that people would attain this divine system through the favor of such a great and magnificent leader, who would work in the manner of the prophets and establish Islam completely in its correct form, then where is the room for a false notion in this? Perhaps, after becoming detached from the message of the prophets, this matter spread among various nations of the world. Through ignorance, people then diverted it from its original conception and wrapped it in the covering of a false notion.

(2) Although these prophecies are mentioned in many places in works such as Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and Mustadrak, it will nevertheless be useful to mention here the hadith narrated by Imam Shatibi in his book al-Muwafaqat and by Mawlana Ismail Shahid in his book Mansab-i Imamat:

Arabic——————————————————————

“The beginning of your Din was through Prophethood and mercy, and it will remain among you for as long as Allah wills. Then Allah will take it away. Thereafter, the Khilafah according to the method of Prophethood will continue for as long as Allah wills. Then Allah will take that away as well.”

Then the era of biting monarchy will begin, and it will remain established for as long as Allah wills; then Allah will take that away as well.

Thereafter, a regime of oppression will begin, and it too will remain for as long as Allah wills; then Allah will take that away as well.

Thereafter, the Khilafah according to the method of Prophethood will be established again. It will operate among the people in accordance with the Prophet’s Sunnah. Islam will strengthen its footing in the world. All the inhabitants of the heavens and the earth will be pleased with that government. The sky will shower its blessings with an open heart, and the earth will disgorge all the hidden treasures in its belly.

Imam al-Mahdi

Those among the Muslims who believe in the coming of Imam al-Mahdi are living in considerable confusion, and their confusion is in no way less than that of the innovators, the Mutajaddids, who disbelieve in it. They imagine that Imam al-Mahdi will be some Sufi-type person from an earlier age. He will suddenly emerge from some madrasa or khanqah with a rosary in his hand. As soon as he comes out, he will announce in every direction, ‘Ana al-Mahdi’—I am the Mahdi. The ulema and shaykhs will rush to him with books tucked under their arms and recognize him by comparing his physical form with the written signs. Then the taking of the oath of allegiance will begin and jihad will be proclaimed. Spiritually accomplished dervishes and old-style orthodox believers will gather under his banner. The sword will need to be used only nominally, merely to fulfill the formal requirement; otherwise, everything will actually be accomplished through blessing and spiritual power. The war will be won through the force of supplications, blessings, remembrance and rosaries. Every unbeliever looked upon will writhe and lose consciousness, and tanks and fighter aircraft will be destroyed solely by the effect of a curse.

Among ordinary people, beliefs of roughly this kind are found concerning the appearance of the Mahdi. But from what I have understood, I find the matter to be completely the opposite. In my view, the person who comes will be a thoroughly modern type of leader of his own age. In all contemporary branches of knowledge and science, he will possess profound knowledge like a Mujtahid. He will understand all the major problems of life well. In political wisdom and discernment, and in proficiency in the art of war, he will prove himself superior throughout the world and more modern than all modern people. I fear that the maulvis and Sufi gentlemen will be the first to raise an outcry against his modernity. Moreover, in my view, his physical form will not differ from that of ordinary people, nor will he be identifiable by signs. He will not announce that he is the Mahdi either. Rather, he may not even know himself that he is the Mahdi. After his death, people will perhaps realize, by observing his works, that he was the Mahdi who established the Khilafah according to the method of Prophethood. It was his coming that had been foretold. 3

(3) The doubts raised here have been answered in the appendix to the book.

I have already said that no one except a prophet has the right to begin his work by making a claim, and no one except a prophet knows with certainty what service he has been appointed to perform. ‘Mahdism’ is not something to claim; it is something to demonstrate through one’s work and leave behind. In my view, those who make such claims and those who believe in them both display their limited knowledge and low mentality.

My understanding of the nature of the Mahdi’s work is also completely different from the views of these people. I see no place in any part of his work for miraculous abnormality, kashf, ilham, chilla, or mujahadah and muraqabah. I believe that, just as a revolutionary leader must pass through stages of conflict, struggle and effort in this world, the Mahdi too will have to pass through those stages. He will build a new school of thought on the foundation of pure Islam. He will change people’s thinking and mentality. He will build a vast and powerful movement. This movement will be both political and cultural at the same time. Jahiliyyah will try with all its power to crush it, but in the end it will overturn and cast away Jahiliyyah’s authority and establish a powerful Islamic state. In this state, on the one hand, the full vitality of Islam will be active, while on the other, scientific advancement will reach its highest stage. In this connection, a hadith states that under his rule the inhabitants of both heaven and earth will be pleased. The sky will send down its blessings upon him abundantly, and the earth will disgorge all the treasures preserved in its belly.

If the hope that Islam will one day exert a tremendous influence over the thought, civilization and politics of the entire world is true, then the birth of such a great leader is also certain—a leader under whose comprehensive and powerful leadership this revolution will take place. I am astonished at the intellect of those who are surprised to hear of the appearance of such a leader. If liars such as Lenin and Hitler could appear in God’s world, why is the appearance of a true imam of guidance regarded as so remote?

The Mission of the Prophets

The prophets were sent successively in order to establish this civilization and culture on earth.

Apart from ascetic civilization, all other civilizations of Jahiliyyah or Islam that embody a comprehensive ideal of life and possess an all-encompassing method for managing the affairs of the world naturally seek authority, control of power, direct assumption of governing power, and the creation of a design for life according to their own wishes. Presenting a code or doctrine without state power, or becoming its devotee, is utterly meaningless. The world-renouncing ascetic does not even wish to manage the affairs of the world. Rather, through a particular method of suluk, he remains absorbed in the thought of reaching, from outside this world, the station of his imaginary salvation. Thus he feels no need to acquire state power and does not seek it. But a civilization that claims a particular method for managing the affairs of the world and regards human welfare and salvation as lying in following that method has no alternative but to strive to seize the keys of its authority. For until it acquires the power to implement its design, that design cannot be established in the real world. Indeed, it cannot remain for long even in people’s minds or on the pages of books. The civilization that holds authority directs all the affairs of the world according to its design. It guides knowledge, science, thought, art and literature. It builds the framework of moral character. It arranges general education and training. The entire system of civilization is built on the basis of its laws. Its principles remain active in every sphere of life. Therefore, a civilization that has no state power of its own has no place anywhere in life. Even while the powerful authority of a victorious civilization remains established for a long time, conquered civilizations withdraw from the field of activity. Even those who possess a sympathetic outlook toward it begin to doubt whether its method can operate in the world. Its so-called bearers and custodians, and its self-styled heirs to leadership, also attempt to reach an agreement with the opposing civilization through compromise and limited give-and-take. Yet two civilizations and cultures that are fundamentally different in the question of authority cannot tolerate such partnership. To consider partnership and division possible is proof of feeble-mindedness; consent to it can arise only from lack of faith and courage.

Therefore, establishing Hukumat-i Ilahiyyah and fully establishing the system of life that the prophets had brought from God was the ultimate objective of their mission. 4 (4) In the present age, many pious people often say that acquiring state power is not the purpose of life; rather, it has been promised so that it may be granted. Those who say this have only the notion in their minds that state power is a reward bestowed by God. They have no conception that it is a duty and a service. They do not know that acquiring the state power necessary to establish the Din in reality is among the aims and purposes of God’s Shariah, and that striving for it is obligatory jihad.

They were prepared to grant the followers of Jahiliyyah the right to remain, if they wished, established upon their Jahili beliefs. But they were never prepared to hand the keys of authority to them or grant them the right to impose the laws of Jahiliyyah by force upon all matters of human life; naturally, they could not do so. For this reason, every prophet attempted to create a political revolution. For some, the effort went no further than preparing the ground—as with Hazrat Ibrahim, peace be upon him. Some actually began revolutionary movements, but their work ended before establishing Hukumat-i Ilahiyyah—as with Jesus, peace be upon him. Others brought this movement to the destination of success—as with Hazrat Yusuf, peace be upon him, Hazrat Musa, peace be upon him, and Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

The Work of the Prophet

When we examine the work of the prophets, we find, broadly speaking, the following points:

1. Creating a revolution in the thinking of ordinary people. A pure Islamic outlook, method of thought and moral disposition must be implanted in them to such an extent that their mode of thinking, purpose of life, standards of value and honor, and manner of action are completely molded in the pattern of Islam.

2. Forming a powerful group of people influenced by this teaching and striving to seize authority from the hands of Jahiliyyah, while making use in this effort of all the means and resources of contemporary civilization.

3. Establishing an Islamic state system and reconstructing every department of civilization on the foundation of pure Islam. For this purpose, adopting such a method that, on the one hand, the boundaries of the Islamic revolution continue to expand across the world and, on the other, the new members who continue to join the Islamic community through propagation and the growth of the community continue to receive mental and moral education according to the Islamic method.

The Rightly Guided Caliphate

The final Prophet, Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, fully accomplished all these tasks within twenty-three years. After him, Islam was fortunate to receive the leadership of two ideal leaders like Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) and Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him). Like the Messenger of Allah, they continued this all-encompassing work. Thereafter authority came into the hands of Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), and during the first several years the method established by the Messenger of Allah continued fully.

The Attack of Jahiliyyah

But on the one hand, the rapid expansion of the Islamic state was making the work increasingly difficult each day, while on the other, Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), upon whom the burden of this great work had fallen, did not possess all the qualities granted to his great predecessors. 5 (5) Some muftis have declared this sentence disrespectful toward Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). Yet my statement is only that Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) lacked certain qualities of administration that Hazrat Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) and Hazrat Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him) possessed in full measure. This is a subject for historical discussion, and students of history may express different views about it. It is not a subject of fiqh or kalam. Therefore, no ruling on it may be issued in the form of a fatwa by an institution that issues fatwas. Thus, during his caliphate, the social system of Jahiliyyah found an opportunity to enter the Islamic social system. Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) tried to block this danger by giving his own head, but it was not stopped. Thereafter Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) came forward. He made the utmost effort to rescue the political authority of Islam from the clutches of Jahiliyyah, but even by giving his life he could not block this counterrevolution. At last, the era of the Khilafah conducted according to the method of Prophethood came to an end. An autocratic monarchy took its place. Thus, instead of Islam, the foundation of the state was once again established upon Jahiliyyah.

After seizing state power, Jahiliyyah gradually began to spread its arms through the body of society like cancer. For the keys of authority were now in its hands instead of Islam, and after being deprived of state power, Islam no longer had the ability to halt the advance of its influence. The greatest difficulty was that Jahiliyyah did not appear openly, naked and uncovered; rather, it came in the guise of a Muslim. Confronting an open atheist, polytheist or unbeliever might have been easy. But here, at the outset, there was acknowledgment of Tawhid, acknowledgment of the Messengership, performance of prayer and fasting, and the acceptance of arguments from the Qur’an and Hadith, while behind these forms Jahiliyyah was carrying on its own work. The convergence of Islam and Jahiliyyah within the same entity created such a difficult complexity that confronting it has always proved more difficult than confronting naked Jahiliyyah. When one goes to war against naked Jahiliyyah, millions of mujahids will come forward to cooperate, shrouds tied around their heads, and no Muslim will be able to support Jahiliyyah publicly. But when one goes to war against this mixed Jahiliyyah, not only hypocrites but many sincere Muslims too will advance with their belts fastened in its support; moreover, the person fighting that Jahiliyyah will instead be blamed. Muslims seated on the thrones of Jahili leadership and the seats of Jahili politics, Muslims teaching in Jahili educational institutions, and Muslims sitting as spiritual guides on the seats of Jahiliyyah—this is nothing but a tremendous deception. Very few people can escape this deception.

The most terrible aspect of this counter-revolution is that all three forms of jahiliyyah began to put down roots under the cover of Islam, and their influence continued to spread each day. Unadulterated jahiliyyah seized control of the state and wealth. In name it was a caliphate, but in reality it was the very monarchy that Islam had come to abolish.

No one had the courage to call the king an ‘ilah’; therefore, ‘as-Sultanu Zillullah’⁶ was sought. Under this pretext, kings acquired the same right to obedience that belongs to the Ilah. Under the shelter of this monarchy, the outlook of more or less unadulterated jahiliyyah spread through the lives of the amirs and nobles, rulers, governors, armies, and influential people in society. This outlook completely destroyed their moral faculties and social conduct. Thereafter, quite naturally, the philosophy, literature, and art of jahiliyyah also continued to spread. Various sciences and disciplines likewise began to be compiled and written in this manner, because these things too depended on financial and state patronage. Where wealth and the state are under the control of jahiliyyah, its domination over them is inevitable. Thus Greek, non-Arab philosophy, learning, and literature found a way to infiltrate societies claiming to be associated with Islam. Under the influence of this literature, debates in the science of kalam began among Muslims, the Mu‘tazila doctrine arose, atheism and opposition to religion spread into numerous branches, and the subtlest intricacies of aqidah gave birth to new sects. Nor did it end there: among the peoples whom Islam had rescued from wholly jahili forms of art and culture such as dancing, singing, and painting, these practices began to be reestablished.⁷

(6) There is no doubt that this expression is mentioned in Hadith, but an entirely erroneous meaning has been attached to it. In Arabic, the original meaning of sultan is authority. For a person possessing authority, the word is used in a merely figurative sense. The Prophet (peace be upon him) used this word not figuratively but in its original sense. The meaning of the Noble Prophet’s (peace be upon him) saying is that state and authority are merely a reflection of Allah Almighty’s authority. If the person upon whom this reflection falls preserves its honor—that is, governs according to truth and justice—Allah Almighty will grant him honor. But whoever dishonors this shadow of God—that is, governs with oppression and self-interest—Allah will disgrace him. Distorting this wise saying of the Noble Prophet, people regarded the king as God’s reflection and, contrary to the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) intent, made it the foundation of king-worship. (7) People such as Maulana Shibli Nomani and Justice Ameer Ali regarded the activities of those kings as service to Islamic civilization and culture. Jahiliyyah mixed with shirk attacked the people, turning them away from the path of tawhid and scattering them along countless paths of misguidance. Only an overt form of idol worship could not be established; otherwise, there was no form of shirk that did not become prevalent among Muslims. Many of the people from nations believing in ancient jahili doctrines who entered the fold of Islam brought with them the concepts and doctrines of shirk. They had only to seek, in place of the ancient deities, a few new deities from among Muslim sages; to be content, in place of ancient monasteries and temples, with the graves of awliya and dervishes; and to devise new rites and ceremonies in place of the old forms of worship. The worldly ulama helped them greatly in this work and removed the obstacles that arose in the way of establishing shirk within Islam. With extraordinary audacity, they distorted Quranic verses and Hadith statements, making room in Islam for the worship of saints and graves. They borrowed words from Islamic terminology for acts of shirk and devised rites for this new shariah in such a way that it did not fall under manifest and major shirk. Without this subtle, artful assistance, shirk could never have found a way to infiltrate Islam.

Ascetic jahiliyyah attacked the ulama, mashayikh, Sufis, and pious people, and continued to spread among them the defects to which I referred earlier. Under the influence of this jahiliyyah, Platonist philosophy, ascetic moral ideals, and a pessimistic outlook on every sphere of life spread through Muslim society. This philosophy of life did not merely influence literature and the pursuit of knowledge; in reality, it injected the righteous people of society with morphine and rendered them inert, strengthened the jahili system of monarchy, produced inertia and narrow thinking in Islamic knowledge, science, and art, and confined the whole of religiousness to a few specific religious practices.

The Need for Mujaddids

The need for mujaddids arose in order to rescue Islam from the multitude of these three forms of jahiliyyah and make it strong and vigorous once again. It would be incorrect to conclude from this that Islam had been completely swept away in this flood of jahiliyyah and that jahiliyyah had achieved total victory. In truth, among the peoples who were influenced by Islam, or who later came under its influence, Islam’s reformative influence has always remained present in their lives to some degree. It was under Islam’s influence that great despotic and irresponsible kings sometimes trembled with fear and adopted the path of honesty and justice. It is because of Islam that, in various chapters of the dark history of monarchy, we observe brilliant flames of piety and moral integrity. Among royal families that considered themselves as powerful as God, Islam alone brought forth many devout, God-fearing, and just personalities who, despite possessing royal power, governed the state as responsibly as possible. Likewise, in royal courts, institutions of philosophy and science, centers of trade and industry, khanqahs devoted to purification of the heart and renunciation of the world, and other spheres of life, Islam continually exerted its indirect influence to varying degrees. Despite the infiltration of jahiliyyah mixed with shirk among the people, Islam has always maintained its influence in matters of creed, moral character, and social conduct, both in reformative and resistant ways; as a result, the moral condition of the Muslim nation has generally remained superior to that of non-Muslim nations. Moreover, in every age there have always been people who firmly followed Islamic principles and tried to keep Islamic knowledge and practice alive in their own lives and limited surroundings. But these two things were insufficient for the original purpose of the sending of the prophets. It was not enough that authority should remain in the hands of jahiliyyah while Islam functioned merely as a second-rate force; nor was it enough that here and there a few people should maintain Islam within limited spheres of life while, in the broader social order, elements combining Islam and jahiliyyah continued to spread. Therefore, in every age the religion has needed—and still needs—powerful individuals, groups, and institutions capable of changing a life-pattern led astray and setting it once again on the path of Islam.

Explanation of the Hadith ‘Man Yujaddidu Laha Dinaha’

The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) foretold this in one of his Hadiths. The Hadith was narrated in Abu Dawud by Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him). The Hadith is as follows:

————————————————–

‘At the beginning of every century, Allah Almighty will raise for this ummah someone who will renew and strengthen its religion for it.’

However, many people have acquired entirely mistaken ideas about tajdid and mujaddids from this Hadith. From ‘ala ra’s kulli mi’ah’—at the beginning of every century—they have understood that it means at the beginning or end of each century; and from ‘man yujaddidu laha dinaha’—someone who will renew and strengthen its religion for it—they have understood that this work must necessarily be done by one person. Thus they have searched the history of Islam for people who were born or died at the beginning or end of each century and who also carried out the work of reforming the religion. Yet ra’s does not mean the beginning or end. The clear meaning of sending an individual or group at the head of every century is that they will exert a distinct influence on the course of contemporary knowledge, science, thought, and action. The word man is used in Arabic for both singular and plural. Therefore, man may mean one person, many people, or even an entire institution. The clear meaning of the Prophet’s report is that, God willing, no century of Islamic history will be deprived of people who confront the storm of jahiliyyah and strive to reestablish Islam in its original spirit and form. There is no requirement that there be only one mujaddid in a century. Several individuals and groups may carry out this work in one century. Nor is there any requirement that there be only one mujaddid for the entire Muslim world. At the same time, different people in different countries may strive for the tajdid of the religion. Nor is it required that everyone who performs some work in this connection be given the title of mujaddid. This title may be given only to those who carry out some great and distinguished work for the tajdid of the religion.

Some of the Muslim Nation’s Great Mujaddids and Their Works

Breaking the sequence of history, I have mentioned the principal mujaddids of the future in advance. The reason is that people will already become aware of the rank and position of the perfect mujaddids. This will make it easier for them to understand the rank and place of the partial reformative works expected of them in comparison with that perfection. I shall now present a brief picture of the reformative works carried out up to this point.

Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

The first mujaddid of Islam was Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (may Allah have mercy on him).⁸ He was born into a royal family. When he came of age, he found that his father was governor of a vast country such as Egypt. As he grew older, he too was appointed governor under the Umayyad government. He and his family had a substantial share in the estates by which the Umayyad kings made their dynasty immensely wealthy. Indeed, the income from his personal property amounted to fifty thousand ashrafis a year. He lived with the pomp and splendor of a wealthy man. His clothing, food, homes, conveyances, habits, and character were all those of a prince. In this context, the work he later carried out had not even the remotest connection with his surroundings. But his mother was a granddaughter of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). (8) He was born in 61 AH and died in 101 AH. He was born fifty years after the death of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). Countless Companions and Tabi‘un were alive in his time. From an early age, he received a complete education in Hadith and fiqh. Indeed, he was regarded as one of the foremost mujaddids and possessed the qualification to exercise ijtihad in fiqh. Thus it was not at all difficult for him, theoretically, to know and understand upon what foundations civilization had been established in the time of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and what changes had taken place in those foundations after the caliphate had changed into monarchy. In practice, however, the very thing that could have obstructed his path was that his own family had created this jahili revolution. His family and relatives, he himself, and his children were benefiting fully and enormously from it. For the sake of his hereditary interests, personal desires, and the worldly welfare of his future descendants, he too ought to have entrenched himself on his throne like Pharaoh. It would have been better for him not to sacrifice his learning, intelligence, knowledge, and conscience in the face of purely material gain and enter the labyrinth of truth, justice, morality, and principle. But when, quite unexpectedly, at the age of thirty-seven he became the occupant of the throne and realized what an immense responsibility had been placed upon his shoulders, the course of his life suddenly changed. Without the slightest hesitation, he chose the path of Islam for himself in opposition to jahiliyyah, as though this had been a decision made beforehand.

He came to possess the throne through the hereditary system. But when receiving the bay‘ah, the oath of allegiance, he said plainly in the public assembly: ‘I release you from your bay‘ah to me; you may choose anyone you wish as caliph.’ Thereafter, when the people unanimously and eagerly said, ‘We choose you,’ he then personally assumed the responsibility of the caliphate.

Thereafter, he dismissed all royal pomp, Pharaoh’s method of rule, and the courtly customs of Caesar and Chosroes. From the very first day, he abandoned everything royal and adopted among the Muslims the manner befitting their caliph.

He then turned his attention to the privileges enjoyed by members of the royal dynasty. He brought them down in every respect to the level of ordinary Muslims and returned to the Bayt al-Mal all the estates held by the royal family, including his own. The extent of his personal loss from this change is sufficiently indicated by the fact that his annual income fell from fifty thousand to only two hundred ashrafis. He declared the funds of the Bayt al-Mal forbidden to himself and his family. He did not even accept a salary as caliph. He completely transformed the form of his life. That he had lived with royal pomp before becoming caliph and adopted a life of poverty immediately upon becoming caliph⁹ is certainly astonishing.

After reforming his household and relatives, he turned his attention to the state administration. He dismissed oppressive governors and sought out righteous people to carry out the governors’ responsibilities. The government’s administrative officials had freed themselves from regulations and assumed the right to interfere unlawfully with the lives, property, and honor of the subjects. He once again made them subject to law and order and established the rule of law. He completely changed the principles and regulations of taxation. He immediately abolished all the unlawful and other taxes imposed by the Umayyad kings, including excise duties. He revised the system for collecting zakat and once again dedicated the funds of the Bayt al-Mal to the welfare of ordinary Muslims. He immediately remedied the injustices committed against non-Muslim subjects. He returned to them the places of worship that had been wrongfully seized. (9) Biographers say that before becoming caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz did not like clothing worth a thousand dirhams, but after becoming caliph he considered even clothing worth four or five dirhams very costly for himself. He returned to them the lands that had been confiscated from them. He restored to them all the rights due to them under the Shariah. He freed the judiciary from subordination to the government’s executive administration. He established both the rules and the spirit of justice among the people, free from the influence of the government’s administrative machinery and on the basis of Islamic principles. Thus, through Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, the Islamic system of government was revived.

Thereafter, with the aid of political authority, he undertook to eradicate from the people’s mental, moral, and social lives the manifestations of jahiliyyah that had spread throughout society because of the jahili state system of half a century. He stopped the propagation and spread of distorted beliefs. He arranged widespread public education. He once again directed the intellectual class toward the study of the Quran, Hadith, and fiqh, and established a theoretical movement under whose influence mujtahids such as Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shafi‘i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal appeared in Islam. He newly revived among the people the motivation to obey the Shariah. He eradicated the diseases of drinking wine, painting, and luxury that had arisen through monarchy. And he broadly fulfilled the purposes for which Islam seeks to establish a state, namely

———————————————————-

Within a very short time, the effects of this governmental change began to appear in public life and the international situation. A narrator says that in the time of al-Walid, people discussed palaces and gardens in their conversations and gatherings. In the time of Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik, the people became attracted to sensual pleasures. But after Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz became caliph, such a situation arose that whenever four people gathered anywhere, discussion of prayer, fasting, and the Quran would begin there. This government had such an influence on the non-Muslim subjects that, within this short period, thousands of non-Muslims embraced Islam, and the revenue from jizyah suddenly declined so much that the state treasury was affected. Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz invited the non-Muslim states surrounding the Islamic state to Islam. Several of them embraced Islam. At that time, the greatest rival of the Islamic state was the Roman Empire. War with them had continued for nearly a century. Political conflict with them also continued during the time of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz. Yet he exerted a tremendous moral influence over the Roman Empire. This can be inferred from the comment made by the Roman emperor upon hearing of his death:

‘I am not at all astonished if an ascetic renounces the world, shuts his door, and devotes himself to worship. But I am astonished by the man at whose feet lay the immense wealth and property of the world, yet who cast it aside disdainfully and lived like a poor man.’

The first mujaddid of Islam was given only two and a half years to work. In this brief period he created a tremendous revolution. But every member of the Banu Umayyah became his enemy. Their death was contained within the life of Islam. How, then, could they tolerate this reformative work? At last, they conspired to poison him, and at only thirty-nine years of age this selfless servant of the religion and the community departed from the world. The reformative work he had initiated had come close to completion. Only the abolition of hereditary appointment and the establishment in its place of an elective caliphate remained. This reform plan was before him, and he had even made it public. But eliminating the influence of Umayyad rule from social life and preparing the moral and mental condition of ordinary Muslims to bear the burden of the caliphate was by no means easy. It could not have been accomplished within only two and a half years.

The Four Imams

After the death of the second Umar, the helm of political authority once again shifted from Islam toward jahiliyyah, and the work he had carried out was completely destroyed in the political sphere. Nevertheless, no one had the power to halt the progress of the awakening he had created in the Islamic consciousness and the theoretical movement whose foundations he had laid. The whips and bags of ashrafis of the Umayyads and Abbasids stood in the way of this movement, but all their stratagems proved futile. Under the influence of this movement, tremendous work was carried out in research, ijtihad, and the compilation and composition of principles and guidance in the sciences of the Quran and Hadith. Detailed Islamic law was derived from the fundamental principles of the religion, and almost every rule and procedure required to administer a comprehensive civilizational order according to the Islamic method was formulated, including its minutest details. This work continued with full force from the beginning of the second century until approximately the fourth century.

Among the mujaddids of this period, the names of four Imams alone are noteworthy. The four madhhabs of fiqh are associated with these four men. There were also many other mujtahids. But the reason their rank rose from that of mujtahids to that of mujaddids is this: first, through their profound insight and extraordinary intellect, they originated a mode of thought whose immense reservoir of strength continued to produce mujtahids for seven or eight centuries. (10) Imam Abu Hanifah was born in 80 AH (699 CE) and died in 150 AH (767 CE). Imam Malik was born in 95 AH (714 CE) and died in 179 AH (798 CE). Imam al-Shafi‘i was born in 150 AH (767 CE) and died in 240 AH (854 CE). Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was born in 164 AH (780 CE) and died in 214 AH (885 CE). They introduced such a universal method of deriving detailed matters from the fundamental principles of the religion and establishing the practical affairs of life upon the principles of the Shariah that, thereafter, all forms of ijtihad became possible on the basis of their method, and no related work in the future will be possible without their assistance.

Secondly, they carried out these tasks without the assistance of the royal government, freed from every kind of interference by it and, rather, confronting its interference fiercely. In this connection they endured such hardships that the body shudders even at the thought of them. Imam Abu Hanifa (رح) suffered flogging and imprisonment under both the Umayyads and the Abbasids. Ultimately, he was even killed by being given poison. During the reign of the Abbasid king Mansur, Imam Malik (رح) was given seventy lashes and tied so violently with his hands bound behind him that his arms became dislocated from his body. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was subjected to continual persecution throughout the reigns of al-Ma’mun, al-Mu’tasim, and al-Wathiq. He was beaten so severely that perhaps neither a camel nor an elephant could have survived such blows. Then, during the reign of al-Mutawakkil, such an arrangement was made for him to receive royal gifts, honors, and demonstrations of devotion and respect that he became alarmed and cried out:

———————-

“These are a greater trial for me than those beatings and imprisonment.” Nevertheless, these great men not only blocked royal influence and interference in the compilation and composition of religious knowledge; they also established a method by which, in later times, all works of ijtihad and original composition remained completely free from the influence of the royal court. As a result, among all the accurate and reliable books of Islamic law and Qur’anic and Hadith sciences that we possess today, there is not even the slightest scent of jahiliyyah. These works were transmitted through the generations in such a pure and untainted form that the flood of sensuality and luxury indulged in by kings and amirs and the moral decline of the common people, together with the flood of doctrinal and civilizational distortions, seems not even to have touched this storehouse of knowledge, and no effect of it can be observed in them.

Imam al-Ghazali (رح)

After Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, the reins of the state and politics permanently passed into the hands of jahiliyyah, and the age of the authority of kings from the Umayyads, the Abbasids, and then Turkish dynasties began. The substance of what these kings did was that, on the one hand, they introduced the jahili philosophies of Greece, Rome, and non-Arab lands among the Muslims without alteration; and, on the other, through their wealth and power they widely established in knowledge, science, art, culture, and social life every elaborate system of pre-Islamic jahiliyyah. The decline of the Abbasid dynasty further increased the damage. After the early Abbasid caliphs, those into whose hands the authority of the state passed were completely deprived of religious knowledge. They did not even possess the ability to select qualified people for the posts of qadi and mufti. Because of their ignorance and love of ease, they wished to implement the directives of the Shariah in such a conventional manner that no effort would be required. Blind following was therefore the suitable path. Moreover, self-interested scholars accustomed them to organizing sectarian disputation. Then, through royal favor and patronage, this disease spread so far that sectarianism, disagreement, and mutual strife spread throughout all Muslim states like an epidemic. For the amirs and kings, this was merely amusement and luxury. But for the common people it functioned like scissors, cutting their religious unity into pieces. By the time the fifth century was reached, the situation had come to this point:

(1) As a result of the spread of Greek philosophy, the foundation of doctrine and belief was shaken. The muhaddiths and jurists were completely ignorant of logic. They therefore could not explain the religion rationally in accordance with the demands of the age, and tried to suppress deviations in belief through intimidation. Those known as highly learned in logic were not masters only of the Islamic sciences; they also lacked the ability to perform ijtihad in logic. They were slaves to the Greek philosophers. Nor were there among them people of sufficiently penetrating vision to examine this Greek literature critically. Regarding Greek revelation as unchangeable, they accepted it exactly as it was and undertook to distort the heavenly revelation in order to cast it according to Greek revelation. Because of this situation, ordinary Muslims began to regard Islam as opposed to reason. Every one of its teachings appeared doubtful to them. They began to think that our religion was sensitive like a touch-me-not plant, wilting at the slightest touch of intellectual examination. Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari and his followers tried to change this trend. This group was acquainted with the science of kalam, but they were not at all aware of the weaknesses of logic. They therefore could not fully succeed in reversing this widespread distortion of belief at every level. Rather, out of opposition to the Mu’tazilah, they accepted many statements that did not actually form part of religious doctrine.

(2) Under the influence of ignorant rulers, and because the religious sciences were deprived of material means and resources, the stream of ijtihad dried up; the disease of blind following spread; differences among madhhabs became wider and more intense; new sects arose on the basis of minor issues; and the mutual conflict of these sects brought the Muslims to the condition of being placed upon a blazing furnace.

(3) Moral decline appeared throughout the Muslim world, from east to west. Not a single class remained free of its influence. Muslim social life became largely deprived of the light of the Qur’an and prophethood. The scholars, the amirs, and the common people all forgot that, in search of guidance and the right path, they ought to return to God’s Book and the Sunnah of the Messenger.

(4) In most places, the people suffered extreme hardship because of the luxurious life of the court, the royal family, and the ruling class, and because of self-interested wars. The burden of illegal taxes broke their economic backbone. The sciences and learning that genuinely benefited culture and civilization were being destroyed and damaged. In the royal court, only those arts were celebrated that were prestigious there but destructive to moral character and civilization. The conditions and signs all around clearly announced that the time of widespread destruction was near.

Imam al-Ghazali was born in such circumstances in the middle of the fifth century. The first education he received was the kind that could serve as a vehicle for worldly advancement in that age. He became proficient in the branches of knowledge that were in demand in the marketplace. Then, with this equipment, he reached precisely the position for which it had prepared him, attaining as much advancement as a scholar of that time could imagine.

He was appointed rector of Baghdad’s Nizamiyyah University, the greatest university in the world of his time. He gained an honored position at the courts of Nizam al-Mulk al-Tusi, Malik Shah the Seljuk, and the caliph of Baghdad. He exerted such influence on contemporary politics that his services were sought to resolve the disputes that arose between the Seljuk ruler and the Abbasid caliph. After reaching this height of worldly advancement, a sudden revolution took place in his life. The more deeply he observed the theoretical, moral, religious, political, and civilizational way of life of his age, the more the fire of revolt burned within him, and the more loudly his conscience began to say: swimming in this foul-smelling sea is not your task; your task is something else. At last he cast away with contempt all royal status, benefits, profits, and prestigious occupations, for these were what had put chains on his feet. He then set out traveling through the land in the guise of a faqir. He sat in forests, wildernesses, and secluded places, immersing himself in quiet reflection. Mixing with ordinary Muslims in various regions, he deeply observed their way of life. Through prolonged mujahadah and spiritual discipline, he continued purifying his soul. He left at the age of thirty-eight and returned ten full years later, at the age of forty-eight. After this long period of reflection and observation, he severed relations with the kings and stopped accepting their allowances. He swore to keep away from dispute and hostility. He declined to work in educational institutions run under governmental influence and established an independent institution of his own in Tus. Through this institution he wished to train selected people by a special method. But perhaps this effort could not accomplish any great revolutionary work, since his life allowed him no more than five or six years to work in this manner.

The work of reform carried out by Imam al-Ghazali (رح) may be summarized as follows:

One.

After studying Greek philosophy deeply, he criticized it—and criticized it with such force—that its superiority and power, which had overwhelmed the Muslims, were diminished. The real nature of the doctrines that people had accepted as ultimate truths, and which had made it seem that there was no way to save the religion except by molding the teachings of the Qur’an and Hadith to fit them, was to a large extent exposed before the people. The effect of the Imam’s criticism was not confined to Muslim countries; it reached Europe and contributed there to ending the authority of Greek philosophy and opening the door to the age of modern criticism and research.

Two.

He corrected the errors that the supporters of Islam were making against philosophers and theologians because they lacked deep knowledge of logic. The supporters of Islam were committing precisely the same kind of error that the priests of Europe later committed: they regarded the rational proofs of religious doctrine and belief as dependent on certain plainly irrational matters, needlessly treated those matters as principles, then included these invented principles among religious doctrines and declared those who denied them unbelievers; and they regarded as dangers to religion all proofs, evidence, experience, or observations that demonstrated the falsity of these fabricated principles. This very thing pushed Europe toward atheism. In Muslim lands it was working with great force and creating disbelief among the people. But Imam al-Ghazali corrected it in time. He informed the Muslims that the proofs of their religious doctrines did not depend on irrational matters; rather, suitable evidence existed behind them. Therefore, insisting on those matters was meaningless.

Three.

He presented such rational explanations of the doctrines and principles of Islam that, at least in his own age and for several generations afterward, no logic-based objection of any kind could be raised against them. At the same time, he explained the directives of the Shariah and the profound wisdom and rationale of worship, presenting Islam in such a way that the mistaken notion occupying people’s minds—that Islam could not withstand the test of reason and intellect—was dispelled.

Four.

He fully observed and examined all the contemporary sects of the madhhabs and their disagreements, and defined the separate boundaries of Islam and unbelief. He explained within which boundaries people were free to express and interpret opinions, crossing which boundary meant leaving Islam, what the true doctrines of Islam were, and which things had been needlessly included among Islamic beliefs. As a result of this examination, much of the explosive material was removed from the tunnels of the mutually disputing sects that branded one another unbelievers, and breadth was created in the Muslims’ outlook.

Five.

He revitalized and refreshed religious knowledge. He regarded lifeless religiosity as meaningless. He strongly opposed blind following. He again drew the people toward the source-stream of God’s Book and the Messenger’s Sunnah. He tried to revive the vitality of ijtihad, and, by criticizing the errors and weaknesses of nearly every group of his age, called upon them to reform themselves broadly.

Six.

He criticized the old, decayed educational system and presented a plan for a new one. Up to that time, two kinds of defects had been observed in the educational system prevalent among Muslims. The first was that the education of religion and the education of the world were separate. As a result, a separation arose between religion and worldly life, something Islam fundamentally considers erroneous. The second was that many subjects had been included in the curriculum as religious knowledge even though they were not important from the perspective of the Shariah. Consequently, people’s understanding of religion became filled with misconceptions, and sectarian disputes began because certain unnecessary subjects acquired importance. Imam al-Ghazali (رح) removed these defects and established a well-balanced system. His contemporaries fiercely opposed this great undertaking. Ultimately, however, this principle was accepted throughout all Muslim countries, and all educational systems established afterward followed the path laid down by the Imam. The basic design of all the books included in the curricula of Arabic madrasas up to the present day was prepared by Imam al-Ghazali (رح).

Seven.

He thoroughly examined the moral character of the common people. He had the opportunity to study the way of life of every class—ulama, shaykhs, amirs, kings, and the general public. He personally traveled and witnessed the condition of part of the Eastern world. His book Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din was the result of this study. In it, he criticized the moral condition of every class of Muslims, investigated the roots of every evil and its psychological and civilizational causes, and tried to present Islam’s sound and genuine moral standard.

Eight.

He also freely criticized the contemporary system of government. He continued directly urging the contemporary ruling group toward reform and, at the same time, tried to inspire the people to criticize freely rather than voluntarily submit to oppression and persecution. In one place in Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din he writes: ‘All or most of the wealth of the sultans of our age is unlawful.’ Elsewhere he writes that these sultans should neither show their faces to others nor look at the faces of others. It is obligatory for every person to hate their oppression, dislike their existence, maintain no relationship with them, and remain distant even from those associated with them. Elsewhere he criticizes the etiquette practiced at court and the worship of kings, condemns the social customs followed by kings and amirs, and even regards their buildings, clothing, household furnishings, and everything else as impure. He did not stop there; he wrote a detailed letter to the kings of his age. In the letter he called them toward the system of government introduced by Islam, explained the ruler’s responsibilities, and informed them that they were responsible for all the oppression occurring in their country, whether they themselves committed it or their subordinate officials did. Once, when he was compelled to go to the royal court, he said to the king directly in the course of conversation:

“So what if the back of your horse has not broken under the weight of gold ornaments? The backs of the Muslims, living on starvation or half rations, have broken.”

Toward the end of his life, he wrote to almost all the viziers who were appointed and drew their attention to the miserable condition of the people. He wrote to one vizier:

“Oppression has exceeded all limits. Since I had to witness these things with my own eyes, I have abandoned my residence in Tus for nearly a year in order not to witness the deeds of shameless and merciless oppressors.”

According to Ibn Khaldun’s account, it is known that he hoped to establish, in whatever region of the world it might be, an Islamic state founded upon pure Islamic principles and ideals. Thus, at his indication, one of his students established the Almohad state in the far West (Africa). But this political aspect and color in Imam al-Ghazali’s work was merely secondary. He conducted no systematic movement to bring about a political revolution and was unable to exert even the slightest influence over the system of government. After him, the condition of the Muslim nations under the authority of jahiliyyah continued to deteriorate. Indeed, a century later the Tatars swept across the Muslim countries like a storm and destroyed their entire civilization.

There were also certain theoretical and intellectual defects in the reform work of Imam al-Ghazali (رح). These may be divided into three categories. One kind of defect appeared in his work because of his weakness in the science of Hadith. A second kind arose in his intellect because of the authority of rationalism and logic. The third kind originated from his excessive inclination toward tasawwuf.

The person who overcame these weaknesses and advanced the essential work of Imam al-Ghazali (رح)—reviving Islam’s intellectual and moral power of proof and removing the signs of innovation and misguidance from the world of thought and civilizational life—was Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (رح).

12. In his book Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din, Imam al-Ghazali cited many Hadiths whose chains of transmission cannot be found. Taj al-Din al-Subki compiled them in his Tabaqat al-Shafi‘iyyah. (See Tabaqat, volume four, pages 145–182.)

Ibn Taymiyyah (رح)

One hundred and fifty years after Imam al-Ghazali (رح), Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (رح) was born in the latter half of the seventh Hijri century. At that time, the Muslim nation had been devastated by the attacks of the Tatars across the vast territory stretching from the Indus River to the banks of the Euphrates. They were now advancing toward Syria. Fifty years of continuous defeat, unrelenting terror, unrest, and disorder, together with the destruction of the centers of learning and civilization, had brought the Muslims down into an abyss of decline. Even Imam al-Ghazali had not witnessed such a degree of deterioration among them. Although the new Tatar invaders were accepting Islam, in matters of jahiliyyah these rulers were several steps ahead of their earlier Turkish rulers. Under their influence, the moral character of the people, the scholarly class, the shaykhs, the jurists, and the qadis deteriorated still further. Blind following reached such a stage that the various madhhabs based on jurisprudence and kalam seemed to become separate religions. Ijtihad became a sin. (13) He was born in 661 Hijri (1262 CE) and died in 728 Hijri (1327 CE). (14) The condition of the scholarly class of that time was so pitiable that, after Hulagu Khan conquered Baghdad, when he asked the scholars for a fatwa on whether a just unbelieving sultan or an oppressive Muslim sultan was superior, the scholars without hesitation issued the fatwa that the just unbelieving sultan was superior to the oppressive Muslim sultan. The condition of the leaders of society at that time was as follows: of the major Muslim states, only Egypt and Syria escaped the Tatars’ campaign of destruction. The laws of these two states were divided into two parts. First, personal law, whose field was limited to religious matters such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Decisions in these matters were made according to the Shariah. Second, state law, which applied to civil affairs and the entire administration of the country. Its foundation rested entirely on the laws and customs of Genghis. Moreover, the extent to which personal law from the Shariah was practiced in the country was only for the people. Although the ruling class was Muslim, in most cases even in personal matters it followed Genghis law instead of the Shariah of Muhammad. It is sufficient to indicate their un-Islamic outlook that, according to al-Maqrizi, they had broadly permitted the establishment of brothels within their territory. They imposed taxes on prostitutes, and all the money collected as this tax was deposited in the treasury of the Islamic state. Most of the scholars and Sufis contemporary with Ibn Taymiyyah were stipendiaries of these governments. The oppressed condition of God’s religion did not affect their hearts for even a moment. But when Ibn Taymiyyah advanced to reform the situation, their Islamic zeal suddenly awakened, and they began issuing fatwas that this man himself was misguided and was leading people astray; that he believed God had a body; that he had departed from the path of the predecessors; that he was an enemy of tasawwuf and its adherents; that he criticized the Companions and the Imams; that he was introducing new things into Islam; that it was unlawful to pray behind him; and that all his books ought to be burned. (15) To understand this situation, one example is sufficient. The founder of a madrasa in Damascus, Madrasa al-Rawwasiyyah, wrote in its endowment deed that Christians, Jews, and Hanbalis could not be admitted to the madrasa. From this it can be imagined how far disputes over the minutiae of jurisprudence and kalam had progressed: a Shafi‘i and Ash‘ari—an adherent of Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari, one of the Imams of kalam—did not hesitate to class the followers of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal together with Jews and Christians. Innovations and legendary matters became provisions of the Shariah. Clinging to the Qur’an and Sunnah was considered an unforgivable sin. At that time, the threefold alliance of the uneducated and misguided masses, the worldly or narrow-minded scholarly class, and the ignorant and oppressive ruling class became such a powerful force that advancing with a program of reform and correction against this united bloc was scarcely less than offering one’s neck beneath a butcher’s knife. For this reason, although there was no shortage of scholars possessing sound thought, broad vision, and true understanding, and although there were also sufficient numbers of truth-following scholars and genuine Sufis advancing upon the path of truth, despite all this, in that dark age only one servant of God had the courage to raise the banner of reform.

Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) possessed profound knowledge of the Qur’an. Indeed, Hafiz al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) testified that—in Qur’anic exegesis, Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) possessed immense knowledge. He was an imam of hadith. It was even said: “A hadith unknown to Ibn Taymiyyah is not a hadith at all.” His knowledge of fiqh was so deep that he unquestionably attained the rank of an independent mujtahid. Those who took pride in their profound knowledge of logic and kalam were regarded as children before him. His insight into Jewish and Christian literature and the disputes among their religious communities was so penetrating that, according to Goldziher, anyone wishing to discuss the persons mentioned in the Torah must depend on Ibn Taymiyyah’s research. Along with this profound learning, his courage and determination were unparalleled. He never feared any greater power when proclaiming the truth. For this reason he was imprisoned many times and ultimately breathed his last in prison. Thus he was able to advance Imam al-Ghazali’s abandoned work with still greater skill.

A brief summary of Ibn Taymiyyah’s reformative activities is as follows:

1. He criticized Greek logic and philosophy far more severely and forcefully than Imam al-Ghazali, exposing their weaknesses so thoroughly that their dominance in the realm of reason and intellect was weakened forever. The influence of the criticism of these two imams was not confined to the East; it reached the West as well. Thus, in Europe, the first voice of criticism against Aristotelian rationalism and the Greek-influenced philosophical system of Christian commentators arose two and a half centuries after Imam Ibn Taymiyyah.

2. In support of Islamic beliefs, injunctions, laws, and regulations, he advanced arguments and proofs that were more intelligible than those of Imam al-Ghazali and were far more advanced in conveying Islam’s true spiritual vitality. Imam al-Ghazali’s exposition and reasoning were greatly influenced by formal logic. Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) abandoned this approach and based exposition and argumentation on common understanding. This was more natural, more influential, and closer to the Qur’an and Sunnah. This new method differed completely from the earlier methods. Those who carried and transmitted the religion merely quoted the directives of the Shariah but could not understand them. Those trapped in the labyrinth of kalam, attempting to understand through philosophical sophistry and the terminology of formal logic, had more or less lost the higher spiritual substance of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) presented Islamic beliefs and the directives of the Shariah in their full original spiritual substance. He then adopted such a simple and natural method for understanding them that intellect had no alternative but to bow before it. In praising this great work of the imam, the hadith scholar Allamah al-Dhahabi said:

—————————————

That is, Ibn Taymiyyah supported the unalloyed Sunnah and the method of the early generations, and in its support he employed arguments, proofs, and an approach to which no one before him had ever turned his attention.

3. He did not stop at opposing blind imitation; he demonstrated ijtihad by following the path pursued by the mujahids of Islam’s earliest period. He gathered direct proofs from the Qur’an, Sunnah, and the lives of the Companions, and independently and fairly examined the disagreements among the various fiqh-based madhhabs, thereby addressing countless issues. As a result, the path of ijtihad was rediscovered, and people became capable of understanding how to use the power of ijtihad. Alongside this, he and his eminent disciple Ibn Qayyim conducted such subtle research into the wisdom of the Shariah and the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) method of legislating that its like is rare in the earlier literature of the Shariah. This literature has served, and will continue to serve, as an excellent guide for those who have undertaken ijtihad after them.

4. He waged a relentless struggle against bid‘ah, polytheistic customs and practices, and deviations in belief and morality. For this he faced severe dangers. Of all the turbid streams that had mingled with Islam’s clear spring, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah spared not a single one. He fought each of them fiercely, removed them one by one, and presented the method of unadulterated Islam separately before the world. In this criticism and examination he showed partiality toward no one. Even eminent and celebrated men—whose fame and achievements resounded throughout the Muslim world, before whose names people bowed their heads—were not spared his criticism. Many practices and methods that had assumed a religious character over centuries, for whose validity, indeed whose being recommended, arguments had been fabricated, and concerning which even the pious scholars had shown weakness, were deemed by Imam Ibn Taymiyyah wholly contrary to Islam, and he opposed them vigorously. Because of this frank and truthful speech, a vast portion of the world became his enemy, and the consequences of their hostility continue to this day. His contemporaries brought cases against him and sent him to prison repeatedly, while later generations satisfied themselves by issuing fatwas accusing him of unbelief and misguidance. Yet the trumpet he sounded in obedience to pure and genuine Islam created a lasting upheaval throughout the world, whose echo is still heard. Alongside these reformative activities, he also took up arms and entered the field of struggle against the barbarity and brutal oppression of the Tatars. At that time Egypt and Syria lay within the flood’s reach. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah awakened a sense of honor among the ordinary Muslims and the wealthy there and led them into struggle against the Tatars. His contemporaries testified that Muslims were so terrified of the Tatars that they trembled at their very name and feared taking the field against them. But Ibn Taymiyyah kindled the fire of jihad among them and awakened their dormant bravery. Nevertheless, it is true that he was unable to create a political movement that would initiate a revolution in the state system and transfer the keys of authority from the hands of a jahiliyyah state into the hands of Islam.

Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (may Allah have mercy on him)

In the seventh century after the Hijrah, the Tatar fitnah devastated the entire land beyond the Hindu Kush Mountains, but Hindustan was spared its evil bite. Because it escaped destruction, a mistaken notion arose in the minds of its discerning and leading classes. People dazzled by the outward glitter of the world have often fallen prey to this misconception. All the vices of Khurasan and Iraq began to flourish there. The king’s claim to godlike authority prevailed there as well. The luxury of the amirs and nobles, their unjust acquisition and expenditure of wealth, and the rule of oppression and persecution continued unchecked. A policy of heedlessness regarding God and distance from the simple, straightforward path of the religion became established. Gradually, under the reign of Emperor Akbar, misguidance reached its extreme limit.

At Akbar’s court, the notion was widespread and deeply entrenched that Islam had arisen among ignorant, uneducated fools and was unsuitable for any civilized and cultured nation. The fundamental Islamic beliefs in prophethood, revelation, resurrection, Paradise, and Hell became objects of ridicule. Doubt was cast on the Qur’an’s being the word of God. The descent of revelation was deemed contrary to reason. Punishment and reward after death were considered uncertain, while reincarnation was accepted as possible and true in every respect. The Prophet’s Mi‘raj was publicly declared impossible. The personality of the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was criticized. In particular, open objections were raised against the number of his wives and the jihads conducted under his leadership. Even the names Ahmad and Muhammad were found irritating, and the names of those bearing them were changed. Self-serving scholars stopped writing na‘t in the prefaces of their books. Many tyrants reached the height of insolence and discovered the signs of the Dajjal in the person of the great leader, Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). No one had the courage to pray in the royal hall. Abu’l-Fazl raised strong objections to prayer, fasting, Hajj, and other Islamic traditions and mocked them. The poets composed verses condemning these traditions, and these poems reached the common people as well.

The foundations of the Bahai doctrine were in fact laid during Akbar’s reign. At that time it was claimed that a thousand years had passed since Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and that the lifespan of this religion had also been one thousand years. Therefore, this religion had now become void and a new religion was needed in its place. The propagation of this doctrine began through coins, since in that age this was the most powerful medium of publicity. Then the foundation of a new religion and a new Shariah was laid. Its primary aim was to combine the religions of Hindus and Muslims into a new syncretic faith so that the government’s power might become stronger and more enduring. Hindu flatterers at court began relating prophecies from their religious leaders that, in a certain age, a great cow-protecting saint-king would be born. Similarly, money-worshipping scholars tried to establish Akbar as the Mahdi, creator of the age, mujtahid, imam, and so forth. A certain Tajul Arifin Sahib went so far as to proclaim Akbar, because he was an ideal human being and leader of the age, to be God’s reflection. To explain the matter to ordinary people, it was said that truth and honesty—the universal truth—exist in all the world’s religions. No single religion has a monopoly on truth. Therefore, a complete system should be formulated by combining all the truths found in every religion. The people should be broadly summoned to it so that the conflicts among all religions might end. This complete system was called Din-i Ilahi. “There is no deity but Allah; Akbar is Allah’s caliph” was designated as the creed of this new religion. Those who entered the new religion had to repent of the Islam they had inherited from their fathers and forefathers and enter Din-i Ilahi Akbar Shahi. After entering Din-i Ilahi, they were called chelas. The form of greeting was changed: the one offering the greeting was to say “Allahu Akbar,” and the respondent “Jalla Jalaluhu.” Remember that the emperor’s name was Jalaluddin and his title was Akbar. The chelas were given portraits of the emperor, which they attached to their turbans. Royal worship was part of this religion. Every morning people were to obtain an audience with the emperor. After gaining the fortune of seeing him, they prostrated themselves before him. The scholars and Sufis repeatedly prostrated themselves before this qiblah and Ka‘bah of their desires, concealing this manifest shirk beneath expressions such as “prostration of respect” and “kissing the earth.” The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) foretold this accursed deception, saying that an age would come when people would change the names of forbidden things and deem them lawful.

When this new religion was being established, it was said that the good teachings of all religions would be accepted into it impartially; in reality, every religion except Islam was given a place in it. Hatred and hostility were cultivated solely against Islam and Islamic laws. Fire worship was adopted from the fire worshippers. An everlasting fire was kept burning in the Akbari palace, and the custom of standing respectfully while lighting lamps was introduced. From the Christians they adopted bell-ringing, worship of images of the three lords, and several similar practices. Hinduism received the greatest favor, since it was the religion of the country’s majority and had to be placated to strengthen the foundation of royal rule. Thus beef was declared haram. Hindu festivals such as Diwali, Dussehra, Rakhi, Purnima, Shivaratri, and others were observed according to full Hindu custom. Havan was held daily in the royal palace. Sun worship was performed four times a day. A thousand names of the sun were recited. Whenever the sun’s name was uttered, it was immediately said that its power was great. A tilak was applied to the forehead. The sacred thread was worn around the waist and shoulder. Respect was shown to the cow. Reincarnation was accepted, and many other beliefs were learned from the Brahmins. Such treatment was given to religions other than Islam. Regarding Islam, every act of the emperor and his courtiers demonstrated that their hearts were filled with hostility toward it. Whatever followers of other religions presented against Islamic teachings, in the philosophical and Sufi language favored by the court, was treated as heavenly revelation, while Islamic teachings were rejected in response. If Muslim scholars said anything in Islam’s defense or opposed any misguidance, they were called faqih. In their special terminology this meant an obstructive person whose words need not be heeded. A committee of forty persons was formed to investigate the religions. It studied the various religions with great tolerance and devotion, but as soon as Islam was mentioned, mockery was directed at it; and if a supporter of Islam attempted to reply, he was silenced. Nor did the matter end with this treatment of Islam: Islamic directives were actually and openly altered and expanded on a broad scale. Interest, gambling, and wine were declared lawful. At the Nowruz festival, the use of wine at court was compulsory. Even qadis and muftis drank wine. The fashion of shaving the beard was introduced, and proofs were produced to justify it. Marriage to female cousins was declared forbidden. The marriageable age was set at sixteen for men and fourteen for women. Polygamy was prohibited. The use of silk and gold was deemed lawful. The flesh of lions and tigers was declared halal, and, out of defiance toward Islam, pigs were declared not merely pure but exceptionally sacred animals. Indeed, seeing a pig first thing after leaving one’s bed in the morning was considered highly auspicious. Burning a corpse or consigning it to water instead of burying it was considered preferable. If someone absolutely insisted on burial, he was advised to place the feet toward the qiblah. Out of defiance toward Islam, Akbar himself slept with his feet toward the qiblah. The government’s educational policy was also wholly anti-Islamic. The study of Arabic, fiqh, and hadith was disliked, and those who acquired this knowledge were disparaged. Instead of religious knowledge, philosophy, disputation, mathematics, history, and similar subjects received government patronage. There was particular interest in creating a Hindi style in the language. There was even a proposal to expel Arabic words from its bounds. Under these circumstances, the religious madrasas gradually became empty of students, and most scholars began to leave the country.

That was the condition of the government. On the other hand, the condition of the people was by no means better. Immigrants had brought with them the moral and doctrinal ailments of Iran and Khurasan. Those who had become Muslims in India had no special arrangements for Islamic education and practice. Consequently, they had absorbed many customs and practices of the old jahiliyyah into their thought and practical lives. The combined efforts of these two groups of Muslims produced a strange mixture, which was named Islamic civilization. It contained an admixture of shirk, distinctions of lineage and class, mythical and legendary ideas, and a new Shariah comprising newly invented customs and practices. The worldly scholars and shaykhs did not merely cooperate with this strange mixture; they also assumed the priesthood of this new ‘doctrine.’ The common people offered them gifts, and they presented the people with the gift of sectarian disputes.

Another disease also spread through the pirs. From a mixture of Neoplatonism, Stoicism, Manuism, and Vedanta arose a strange, philosophy-based form of Sufism. It was given a place in Islamic beliefs and moral order. Tariqah and haqiqah were regarded as separate from, and independent of, the Islamic Shariah. The realm of the inward was separated from the outward. In the law of this realm, the boundaries between halal and haram disappeared, Islamic restrictions were effectively annulled, and all authority was concentrated in the hands of sensual desire. Its defining feature was that any halal could be made haram and any haram halal at will. Even those among the ordinary pirs whose condition was better were influenced to some degree by this philosophy-based Sufism. In particular, the false doctrine of pantheism deprived people of all ability to act.

In such circumstances, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi was born in the early part of Akbar’s reign. He received instruction from people of the finest character of that era. Although they lacked the power to confront the corruption surrounding them, they had at least preserved their own faith and practice and corrected others to the best of their ability. Hazrat Shaykh Ahmad benefited most particularly from the company of Hazrat Baqi Billah. Hazrat Baqi Billah was one of the spiritually eminent elders of that age. Yet the Shaykh’s own ability was also boundless. When Hazrat Baqi Billah first established contact with him, he wrote the following letter about him to a friend:

“Recently a man named Shaykh Ahmad has come from Sirhind. He possesses immense religious knowledge and great capacity for action. This faqir has conversed with him for several days. In view of what I have observed of his condition during this time, it may be hoped that in the future this man will illuminate the entire world like a beacon.”

This prophecy was later proved true. At that time, many truthful scholars and Sufis were present in various parts of India. Yet he alone stepped forward to confront the contemporary fitnahs and support the Islamic Shariah. He alone led the struggle for Islamic revival against the power of the state. This helpless and penniless faqir single-handedly and openly confronted the misguidance supported by the government and defended the Shariah, which had fallen under the government’s displeasure. The government employed every weapon to suppress him and even sent him to prison. Ultimately, however, he succeeded in changing the direction of the fitnah. Because he refused to perform the “prostration of respect,” Jahangir sent him to Gwalior Fort. Eventually Jahangir himself became his devotee and enrolled his son Khurram—who later ascended the throne under the title Shah Jahan—as his disciple. Consequently, the government’s opposition and hostility toward Islam took on the form of respect. Din-i Ilahi Akbar Shahi departed, along with all the bid‘ahs created by its courtly authors of Shariah. The alterations and additions made to Islamic laws naturally became void. Although the government remained royalist, at least this much changed: regarding Islamic teachings and the laws of the Shariah, its attitude became one of devotion rather than unbelieving hostility. Alamgir was born three or four years after the Shaykh’s death. It was perhaps through the influence of the Shaykh’s extensive reformative activities that this prince of the Timurid dynasty received such intellectual and moral education that the great-grandson of a destroyer of the Shariah like Akbar became a servant of the Shariah.

The Shaykh’s activities were not limited to obstructing India’s state authority from moving wholly toward unbelief and changing the course of the great flood of fitnah that had swept through the land three or four hundred years ago in an attempt to erase every trace of Islam. He accomplished two further great tasks. First, he cleansed Sufism of the filth and refuse that had entered its pure stream through philosophical and ascetic deviations, and presented the genuine and original Sufism of Islam. Second, he strongly opposed the jahili customs and practices that had spread among the people of his time and, through spiritual leadership and reform, conducted a powerful movement for adherence to the Shariah. Thousands of highly capable workers of this movement reached not only various regions of India but also Central Asia, where they endeavored to reform the character and beliefs of the people. It was for these activities that Hazrat Shaykh Sirhindi gained a place among the Muslim mujaddids.

The Activities of Shah Waliullah Dehlawi

Hazrat Shah Waliullah was born in the suburbs of Delhi seventeen years after the death of Hazrat Mujaddid Alf-i Sani (may Allah have mercy on him) and four years before the death of Emperor Alamgir. When one considers, on the one hand, his age and environment and, on the other, his activities, one is astonished that a person of such profound vision, thought, and intellect could have been born in that era. Who does not know the India of Farrukh Siyar, Muhammad Shah Rangila, and Shah Alam? Having received his education in that dark age, a thinker and commentator endowed with independent judgment appeared before the public. Free from all the bonds of his age and environment, he thought independently; breaking through the bonds of obscured and stagnant knowledge and the crystallized prejudices of centuries, he cast the searching gaze of a mujtahid upon every problem of human life. He left behind a body of literature whose language, style of exposition, thought, ideals, researched subjects, and conclusions bore no imprint of the contemporary environment. Indeed, while reading his works, one does not even momentarily suspect that they were composed in a place surrounded by the unchecked rule of luxury, sensual worship, murder, plunder, oppression, persecution, unrest, and chaos.

Shah Waliullah belonged to that special class of leaders in human history who continually clear thought and research of the confusion of doctrines and construct a clean, straightforward highway for them; who create unrest in the mental world against the prevailing conditions and give birth to a movement aimed at destroying the ugliness newly created and reconstructing justice, truth, and beauty. Such a leader occasionally builds a movement himself according to his own thought and ideology and throws himself into the field of action to demolish the distorted world and construct a new one with his own hands. Examples of this are rare in history. The real task of such leaders is to sever, with the knife of criticism, the web of confusion accumulated over hundreds of years; to kindle a new flame of light in the world of knowledge and thought; and to break the distorted yet powerful structure of life, separate enduring truth from its ruins, and present it before the world. This task is immensely broad and great. Therefore, the person who performs it rarely gets the opportunity to descend into the field of action himself and devote himself practically to nation-building as well. Although Shah Waliullah gave some indication in one place in his Tafhimat-i Ilahiyyah that, if suitable to the time and place, he also possessed the ability to undertake practical reform through warfare18. In reality, however, he did no such work. All his strength was devoted to criticism and the reconstruction of thought. He had not even the slightest leisure from this immense task. He had no opportunity to take even the smallest step toward reforming his immediate surroundings. (17) Born in 1114 AH (1703 CE) and died in 1176 AH (1763 CE). (18) Tafhimat, vol. 1, p. 101: That is, if reforming people through warfare had been possible in that age, and the necessary means and resources could have been obtained, then this man (Shah Waliullah) would indeed have fought. He was also exceptionally skilled in warfare. The tactics and valor of the heroic Rustam and Asfandiyar would have seemed utterly insignificant to him. Later we shall discuss that, to make active efforts on the basis of the path he had cleared, another group of people was needed; and within only half a century they emerged into the field of action, gaining strength and maturity from his own school of teaching and training.

We may principally divide Shah Waliullah’s reformative activities into two parts: one, critical and corrective; and two, constructive. I shall describe these two activities separately.

Criticism and Correction

Shah Waliullah reviewed the entire history of Islam with the eye of a critic. To our knowledge, he was the first person whose vision reached the fundamental distinction between the history of Islam and the subtle history of the Muslims, and who criticized and reviewed Muslim history from the perspective of Islamic history. Thus he was the first to try to determine what Islam actually remained like among the peoples who accepted it in different centuries. This is a very delicate subject. Some people were misled about it in the past, and still are today. After Shah Waliullah, no one appeared who had any distinct conception of Islamic history apart from Muslim history. Clear indications of this occur in various parts of Shah Waliullah’s writings. In particular, from pages 122 to 158 of chapter six of Izalat al-Khafa19, he discusses Muslim history systematically. With great skill, while describing the distinctive features and trials of each age, he also cites the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) prophecies containing clear indications concerning them. This discussion points, broadly, to every form of jahiliyyah mixed into the Muslims’ creed and beliefs, education, character, civilization, and politics.

(19) I have presented this discussion from Izalat al-Khafa, published in Bareilly in 1286 AH. Thereafter, searching through the heap of errors, he tried to discover which fundamental errors had generated the streams of all the others. Finally, he pointed to two matters. One was the shift of political authority from the caliphate toward monarchy; the other was the death of the vitality of ijtihad and the overwhelming dominance of blind following over minds and intellects.

He discusses the first error in detail in Izalat. He explains the principled and terminological distinction between the caliphate and monarchy with such clarity, and interprets it with the help of hadith so effectively, that examples of this are rare in the writings of earlier authors. Likewise, his clear description of the consequences of this revolution is not found in the works of his predecessors. In one place he writes:

“A great error has appeared in establishing the pillars of Islam. … After Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), no ruler established the Hajj; rather, they continued sending their representatives. Yet establishing the Hajj is one of the essential matters of the caliphate. Just as ascending the throne, wearing the royal crown, and sitting in the place of former kings were regarded as signs of kingship for Caesar, so establishing the Hajj under one’s own authority became known in Islam as a sign of the caliphate.” 20

In another place he writes:

“Previously, both religious instruction and fatwas depended on the caliph’s judgment. No one besides the caliph had the right to issue instruction or fatwas; but after this revolution, both instruction and fatwas became free from supervision. Later, even consultation with a group of righteous people was not required for issuing fatwas.” 21

He then says:

“Their government is like the government of fire-worshippers. The only difference is that they pray and verbally recite the testimony of faith. We were born amid this transformation. I do not know what else Allah Most High wishes to show in the future.” 22

Regarding the second error, Shah Waliullah expresses his grief in Izalat al-Khafa, Hujjat Allah al-Balighah, Budur al-Bazighah, Tafhimat, Musaffa, Musawwa, and nearly all his other works.

In Izalat he says:

“Until the fall of the Syrian rulers (the Umayyad government), no one claimed to be Hanafi or Shafi‘i. Rather, everyone derived the proofs of the Shariah according to the methods of his imams and teachers. In the age of the Iraqi rulers (the Abbasid government), everyone adopted a particular designation for himself. Their condition reached the point that they would make no decision on the basis of evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah until they found an explicit ruling from the great leaders of their own madhhab. Thus, the disagreements that inevitably arose from interpreting the Qur’an and Sunnah were established on permanent foundations.” 23

“Then, after the fall of the Arab rulers—that is, during the Turkish period—people became scattered across various countries. Each person made whatever he could remember from his own fiqh-based madhhab into the original religion itself. What had previously been a madhhab derived from the sources of the Qur’an and hadith now became a permanent Sunnah. Their learning and knowledge then came to depend on collections of rulings gathered from the Qur’an and Sunnah, and on collecting minor details on the basis of minor details gathered from the Qur’an and Sunnah.” 24

In Musaffa he writes:

“The foolish people of our age become agitated in the name of ijtihad. A rope like a camel’s is tied to their noses. They do not know in which direction they are going. Their circumstances are of a different kind. These poor people do not even possess the ability to understand such matters.” 25

(20) Izalat al-Khafa, vol. 1, pp. 123–124.

(21) Izalat al-Khafa, vol. 1, p. 130.

(22) Izalat al-Khafa, vol. 1, p. 157.

(23) Izalat al-Khafa, vol. 1, p. 157.

(24) Izalat al-Khafa, vol. 1, p. 157.

(25) Musaffa, vol. 1, p. 11.

In the seventh chapter of Hujjat Allah al-Balighah and in Insaf, Shah Waliullah gives the complete history of this disease and points to all the defects it produced.

After his historical criticism, Shah Waliullah reviewed the contemporary situation and, naming individuals, described each person’s faults and defects.

In one place in Tafhimat he writes:

“This writer of these exhortations—that is, Shah Waliullah—was born in an age when people had mixed together three things:

(1) Sophistry: This arose through the mixing in of Greek sciences. People became absorbed in the debates of kalam. Even discussions concerning creed and belief contained pointless, reason-based disputation.

(2) Submission to sentiment: This arose because of the popularity of the Sufis and joining their circle of devotees. This phenomenon has spread throughout the entire East and West. The words and actions of these Sufis exercise greater influence over the minds of ordinary people than the Qur’an and Sunnah, indeed than everything else. Anyone who denies their doctrines and indications, or fails to act upon them, cannot gain popularity and is not counted among the righteous. There is no one who stands on the pulpit and delivers a sermon free of the Sufis’ signs and allusions. Nor is there any scholar teaching in a madrasa who does not believe in their words and hold firm conviction in them; otherwise he is considered foolish. Again, there is no gathering of amirs and umara in which Sufi poetry and doctrines are not widely used for sweetness, refined taste, and artistry.

(3) Obedience to God: This was indispensable for Muslims because they belonged to the Muslim ummah. “Another prominent disease of this age is that everyone follows his own opinion. They proceed without reins, for there is no control; they do not stop before any allegorical matter in the Qur’an and hadith, nor refrain from intruding into matters beyond their knowledge. Each person has used his own intellect to comprehend the meaning and significance of God’s and the Messenger’s instructions, and on the basis of what he has been able to understand, engages in debate and sophistry with others. In addition, another disease has appeared. Intense conflict is visible among the fiqh schools, such as the Hanbalis and Shafi‘is. Each regards his own method as the sole truth and raises objections against others. Every madhhab contains an excess of minute and exhaustive descriptions, and amid this abundance of detailed descriptions, the truth has become concealed.”

In another place in the same book he writes:

“I say to those descendants of pirs who have occupied their forefathers’ spiritual seats without any legitimate right: Why have you formed all these separate groups? Why does each of you follow his own path? Why have you abandoned the path Allah revealed to Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him? Each of you has made himself an imam, calling people toward yourselves. You consider yourselves guides and those who give guidance, although each of you is astray and leads people astray. We are not satisfied in the least with those who, for worldly interests, take oaths of allegiance from people. Nor are we satisfied with those who acquire knowledge for worldly interests, or who call people toward themselves in order to fulfill their worldly desires through them. They are all bandits, impostors, liars, deceivers, and deceived. …”

“I also say to the students of knowledge who call themselves ulama: You foolish people! You have become trapped in the labyrinth of Greek sciences, grammar, and rhetoric, and imagine that these are what knowledge and intellect mean. Yet knowledge lies in the clear verses of God’s Book or in the established Sunnah transmitted through His Messenger. … You have sunk into the minutiae and detailed descriptions of the earlier jurists. Do you not know that whatever Allah and His Messenger have said is the only ruling? The condition of most of you is that when a hadith of the Prophet reaches you, you do not act upon it. You say, ‘We act according to such-and-such madhhab, not according to hadith.’ Then you make the excuse: ‘Sir, understanding hadith and deriving rulings from it is the work of experts and people of complete knowledge; moreover, surely this hadith was not outside the view of the earlier imams. Therefore, there must certainly have been a reason why they abandoned it.’ Know that this is not the path of religion at all. If you believe in your Prophet (peace be upon him), then follow him, whether the matter accords with or opposes any madhhab. …”

“I say to the preachers and admonishers, the worshippers, and the residents of the khanqahs: O claimants to piety and abstinence! You run about everywhere, taking hold of everything good and bad. You call people toward false and fabricated matters. You have narrowed the sphere of life for God’s servants, although you were commanded not narrowness but breadth. You have accepted the words of deranged lovers of God as reliable, although such matters are not meant to scatter people but to bind them together and hold them firm. …”

“I say to the amirs and umara: Do you not fear God? Engrossed in the pursuit of perishable comforts, you are giving ordinary people ample opportunity to engage in conflict with one another. Wine is being consumed openly, yet you do not stop it. Adultery, wine-drinking, and gambling houses operate openly, yet you take no measures to close them. In this vast country, no one has been punished according to the law of the Shariah for a long time. You devour the one you consider weak and spare the one you consider powerful. You are immersed in tasting various foods, the quarrels and jealousies of wives, and the extravagance of houses and clothing. Do you never think of God? …”

“I say to the soldiers: Allah made you soldiers to perform jihad, raise high the word of truth, and destroy the power of shirk and the polytheists. Neglecting this duty, you have made horsemanship and the display of weapons your profession. At present you have no connection with the rules and purposes of jihad. You have joined the army to earn money. You drink bhang and wine, shave your beards and lengthen your moustaches, and oppress and persecute people. Among you, the distinction between lawful and unlawful earnings has disappeared. By God, one day you will have to leave this world; then Allah will inform you of what you have done. …”

“I say to the laborers and ordinary people: Trustworthiness and fidelity have departed from you. You have become heedless of serving your Lord and have fallen into shirk with God. You sacrifice for other than Allah and perform Hajj by going to the graves of Madar Sahib and Salar Sahib. These are among your worst deeds. Whoever among you becomes somewhat prosperous spends so much on food, drink, clothing, and adornment that his income is insufficient for him. He then usurps the rights of his family, or ruins both this world and the next through wine and prostitutes. …”

“Then, addressing the various groups of Muslims collectively, I say: O children of Adam! You are destroying your character. You have become enveloped in narrowness. Satan has become your protector. Your men have humiliated and trampled upon women. The lawful has become distasteful to you. …”

“O children of Adam! You have followed such vile customs that the religion itself has changed. For example, on the day of Ashura you gather and engage in evil acts. One group has turned that day into a day of mourning. Do you not know that Allah is the Lord of all days and that every calamity occurs by His will? If Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was martyred on that day, what day is there on which one of God’s beloved servants has not died? Some people have turned that day into a day of play. Then, on Shab-e-Barat, you amuse yourselves like ignorant nations. One group among you thinks that extra food should be sent to the dead on that day. If there is any truth behind this belief, present evidence supporting it and this practice. You have also invented customs that have made your way of life increasingly narrow: extravagance in marriage, turning divorce into a forbidden act, and keeping widowed girls unmarried. For the sake of these customs, you have wasted your lives and wealth. Instead, by abandoning them, you should have followed a path that is not difficult but easy. You have turned death and grief into Eid. It seems as though it has been made obligatory upon you that whenever someone dies, his relatives must hold a great feast. You have become heedless of prayer. Some are so busy with their work and business that they find no time to pray. Others are so absorbed in luxury and idle conversation that they forget prayer. You have become heedless of zakat. There is no wealthy person among you who has not taken responsibility for feeding many outsiders. They provide those people with food and clothing but never intend zakat or worship. You also neglect the fasts of Ramadan, offering various excuses. You have become utterly idle and thoughtless. Your livelihood has come to depend on royal stipends and official positions. When the treasuries of the kings become unable to bear your burden, they begin to inflict unjust oppression and persecution upon their subjects. …” 26

In another place in Tafhimat he says:

“Those who go to the grave of Ajmer or Salar Mas‘ud, or to similar places, to have their wishes fulfilled commit such a grave sin that, compared with it, the sins of murder and adultery are nothing. What distinction is there between this and one’s own invented deity? In what way does it differ from the conduct of those who prayed to Lat and Uzza? Yes, there is only this difference: unlike the former, we hesitate to call these people unbelievers in unequivocal terms, because there is no clear statement from the Noble Prophet concerning this particular matter. But whoever regards a dead person as living and prays to him for the fulfillment of a wish has, in principle, allowed his heart to become involved in sin. 27”

This quotation has become rather long. Nevertheless, I consider it absolutely necessary to present before readers several more quotations from the second volume of Tafhimat. Shah Waliullah says:

“It is reported in a hadith that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said: You will eventually follow the ways of the nations before you. You will follow exactly where they placed their feet. Even if they had entered a lizard’s hole, you would enter it too. The Companions asked, ‘O Messenger of God! By the earlier communities, do you mean the Jews and Christians?’ The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said, ‘Who else could they be?’ This hadith has been narrated by both al-Bukhari and Muslim.

“The Messenger of God (peace be upon him) spoke the truth. With my own eyes I have seen Muslims of weak faith who have made righteous people objects of worship instead of God and, like the Jews and Christians, prostrate before the graves of their saints. We have also seen people who distort the words of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) and claim that he himself said: ‘The righteous are for God, and the sinners are for me.’ This is like the Jews’ statement: ‘The Fire will never touch us, and even if it does, only for a few days.’ Truly, nowadays the tendency to distort the religion has spread among every group. Look at the Sufis: among them, statements are freely circulated that are incompatible with the Qur’an and Sunnah, especially concerning tawhid. Judging by their condition, they seem to have no regard for the Shariah. Look at the fiqh of the jurists: it contains statements whose sources cannot be found at all—for example, the matter of water in a space ten cubits long and ten cubits wide28, and the matter of purifying well water29. Besides this, the distortions of logicians, poets, the wealthy, and the general public are endless.” 30

From these quotations, one may gain a general idea of how extensively Shah Waliullah reviewed the past and present condition of the Muslims and how broadly he criticized it.

The inevitable result of such criticism is that the upright people in society—those whose life flows through conscience and faith and whose hearts retain the distinction between good and evil—become restless, along with their minds, at the deterioration of conditions. Their Islamic feeling grows more intense, and every sign of jahiliyyah in the life surrounding them pierces their eyes like a thorn. Their power of discrimination increases so greatly that they become eager to analyze the mixture of Islam and jahiliyyah in every aspect of life. Their faith awakens so powerfully that every thorn in the thorny wilderness of jahiliyyah makes them restless for reform and correction. It then becomes necessary for the mujaddid to place before them a clear plan for reconstruction, so that they may focus their vision on the new form that must be given by changing the present condition and devote all their actions and efforts to that purpose. Just as Shah Waliullah had previously performed the work of criticism broadly and excellently, he likewise performed this constructive work.

(26) Tafhimat-i Ilahiyyah, vol. 1, pp. 214–219.

(27) Tafhimat-i Ilahiyyah, vol. 2, p. 45.

(28) That is, unless a reservoir is ten cubits long and ten cubits wide, its water is not considered ma’ kathir, or a large quantity of water.

(29) That is, how many buckets of water must be removed if an animal falls into a well.

(30) Tafhimat-i Ilahiyyah, vol. 2, pp. 134–135.

Constructive Work

His first important constructive work was to present a reasoned middle course in jurisprudence. He showed no partiality toward one particular madhhab and no criticism of another. Like a profound investigator, he studied the principles and methods of all the jurisprudential madhhabs and formed his own judgments independently. He supported a position of a madhhab only because he found arguments and proofs in its favor; he did not support it because he was bound by a pledge to defend that madhhab. Similarly, when he opposed a particular position of a madhhab, it was because he found arguments and proofs against it—not because he harbored any hostility toward that madhhab. For this reason, he appears in some places as Hanafi, in others as Shafi‘i, in others as Maliki, and elsewhere as Hanbali. He also opposed those who had placed the yoke of a particular madhhab upon their shoulders and sworn to follow it in every matter. Likewise, he opposed those who had sworn to oppose one particular imam among the imams of the various madhhabs. Between these two paths, he proceeded along a balanced way on which every seeker of truth could find reassurance. This method is expressed in his book Insaf. The same view is repeated in his Musaffa and other books.

In one place in Tafhimat he writes:

“A thought has occurred to me that the madhhabs of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi‘i are the most widespread among the Muslim ummah. The greatest number of people follow these two madhhabs, and the largest number of books have also been written about them. Most jurists, hadith scholars, Qur’an commentators, theologians, and Sufis follow the Shafi‘i madhhab. On the other hand, most rulers and the general public follow the Hanafi madhhab. At present, the truth consistent with the heavenly order is this: to make these two madhhabs into one madhhab and examine the positions of both through the hadith of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). Whatever conforms to hadith should be retained, and whatever has no source should be rejected. After examination and scrutiny, if both madhhabs reach agreement on the positions that remain established, they must be held firmly, as though clenching them with one’s teeth. If they differ concerning them, then both opinions should be accepted, and implementing either of the two should be considered correct. Their disagreement would be comparable to the different readings of the Qur’an, or to the difference between rukhsah and ‘azimah, or to the difference between two ways of escaping a difficult matter—for example, the case of multiple expiations or two equally permissible methods. God willing, there is no fifth possibility beyond these four.” (33)

In Insaf, he presented his opinion in even greater detail. What he wrote particularly in the third chapter is of such importance that both Ahl al-Hadith (those who seek solutions to problems directly through hadith) and Ahl al-Takhrij (followers of the imams’ ijtihad) should reflect on and analyze it deeply. In this discussion, the method he gave priority to was informing both Ahl al-Hadith and Ahl al-Takhrij about the approaches of each. Likewise, his discussion of this subject in the seventh chapter of Hujjat Allah al-Balighah is also noteworthy.

Adopting this middle course brings an end to hostility, narrow-mindedness, blind imitation, and the waste of time in unnecessary lengthy discussions, and opens the way to investigation and ijtihad with a broad outlook. For this reason, Shah Waliullah also emphasized the need for ijtihad. In almost every one of his books, he encouraged ijtihad and investigation in various discussions and in various ways. As an example, I quote several sentences from the introduction to Musaffa:

“Ijtihad is a communal obligation in every age. Here, ijtihad means acquiring complete knowledge of the rulings of the Shariah, understanding the explanations of their details and particulars, and properly arranging and systematizing the laws of the Shariah; the person undertaking it may even be a follower of the founder of a particular madhhab. I have said that ijtihad is obligatory in every age because countless problems arise in every age. Knowing God’s ruling concerning them becomes obligatory. The matters previously recorded and compiled are not sufficient for this purpose; rather, they also contain various disagreements. These disagreements cannot be removed without returning to the fundamental principles of the Shariah. The method established by the mujtahids in this regard has also become almost disconnected midway. Therefore, in this matter there is no alternative to ijtihad.” (34)

Shah Waliullah did not merely emphasize ijtihad; he also described in detail its rules, principles, framework, and conditions. In books such as Izalat al-Khifa, Hujjat Allah al-Balighah, ‘Aqd al-Jid, Insaf, Budur al-Bazighah, and Musaffa, these are mentioned sometimes briefly and sometimes in detail. (31) The concession granted by the Shariah to refrain from an act is called rukhsah, while resolving firmly to perform that act despite the concession granted by the Shariah is called ‘azimah. Translator

(32) For example, if someone deliberately breaks a fast, the rule for offering expiation is that he must either fast for sixty consecutive days or feed sixty poor people. Either one of the two is sufficient.

(33) Tafhimat-i Ilahiyyah, vol. 1, pp. 211–212

(34) Musaffa, vol. 1, p. 11

Moreover, wherever he discussed a subject in his written works, he did so as a seeker of truth and a mujtahid. In other words, by studying his books, people would not merely learn the principles and rules of ijtihad; they would also receive instruction in this field. The two works mentioned above had also been undertaken by people before Shah Waliullah. But the work that no one before him had done was his attempt to present in written form the whole of Islam’s intellectual, moral, civilizational, and Shariah system. In this work he advanced far beyond his predecessors. Although many imams appeared during the first three or four centuries, and a review of their work clearly shows that their intellectual world contained a complete picture of the Islamic way of life, and although in the later centuries too there were many investigators of whom it cannot be imagined that this picture was absent from their thought, none of them turned his attention to recording the Islamic system as a system in a well-organized and rational manner. This honor was reserved for Shah Waliullah: he was to become the pioneer on this path. Among his works, this is the subject matter of Hujjat Allah and Budur al-Bazighah. The discussion is more detailed in the former, while the latter frequently incorporates a philosophical perspective.

In these books, he began his discussion with metaphysical subjects. For the first time in history, we see a person laying the foundations for recording Islamic philosophy. Before this, whatever Muslims had said and written about philosophy, people had, out of sheer ignorance, called “Islamic philosophy.” Yet it was not Islamic philosophy, but Muslim philosophy. Its ancestry was connected with Greece, Rome, Iran, and Hindustan. In fact, it was this Shaykh of Delhi who first laid the foundations of that which deserves to be called by this name. Although, in terminology, he relied on the vocabulary of ancient philosophy and theology, or of philosophy-based Sufism, and unconsciously adopted many of their thoughts and ideas—as naturally becomes unavoidable for every pioneer discovering a new path—this was nevertheless a tremendous effort in opening new avenues of research and investigation. Especially in such an age of extreme decline, the emergence of so powerful and rational a personality was a remarkable event.

In this philosophy, Shah Waliullah tried to develop a conception of humanity within the universe and the world that could be compatible and harmonious with Islam’s moral and civilizational system. In other words, if it is regarded as the trunk of the tree of Islam, no essential natural difference can be perceived between that trunk and the tree that grew from it. (35) I am astonished when I hear some people say, “Shah Waliullah tried to combine Vedantic philosophy with the principles of Islamic philosophy and gather a foundation of thought for a new Indian nationalism.” I have found no trace of such an effort in his works. And if I had truly found any such trace, then, by God, I would have removed Shah Sahib’s name from the list of mujaddids and placed him among the anti-mujaddids.

Upon the moral system, he constructed an edifice of social philosophy. He began its exposition under the heading ‘Irtiفاqat’ (the daily activities of human beings). In this connection, he discussed in detail the organization of family life, social etiquette, politics, the judicial system, taxation, governance of the country, military organization, and other matters; at the same time, he shed light on the causes that produce the collapse and distortion of social civilization.

He then presented a complete system of the Shariah, worship, legal rulings, and laws, and proceeded to explain the importance of each matter. The work Imam al-Ghazali (may God have mercy on him) had done before him was of the same order in this particular field. Naturally, however, he advanced much farther along this path than Imam al-Ghazali.

Toward the end, he turned his attention to the history and laws of various nations. At least to my knowledge, he was the first to present an indistinct conception of the historical conflict between Islam and jahiliyyah.

(35) The philosophy prevalent among Muslims had no connection with Islam’s practical moral and creedal system. Therefore, the more widespread it became, the more distorted Muslim life became. As faith weakened, character also weakened, and at the same time the power to act declined. This is the natural result of the conflict between contradictory ideas. The same result has appeared with the spread of modern Western philosophy, because Western philosophy can in no way become the foundation stone of Islamic thought and system.

Result

The presentation of such a rational and well-organized outline of the Islamic way of life means that it will become the life-goal of every sound-natured and rational person, while those among them who possess greater ability will devote their lives to attaining this goal. Whether a person advancing toward this goal actually leads such a movement or not will make little difference. But something even more stirring was that Shah Sahib clearly presented before the public the difference between a jahili state and an Islamic state. He did not stop at clarifying the characteristics of an Islamic state; rather, he presented the matter repeatedly in such a way that it became impossible for believers to sit idle without striving to abolish the jahili state and establish an Islamic state in its place. This subject appears to have been discussed at considerable length in Hujjat Allah al-Balighah. In this book, he proves through hadith that the Islamic caliphate and monarchy are two entirely different things. He then explains, on the one hand, how monarchy entered the collective life of Muslims over the course of the ages, and, on the other, presents the characteristics and conditions of the Islamic caliphate, as well as the benefits that in reality descended upon Muslims during the period of the Islamic caliphate. How, after this, could people possibly sit unconcerned?

Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi (may God have mercy on him) and Shah Ismail Shahid (may God have mercy on him)

For this reason, before half a century had passed after Shah Waliullah’s death, a movement arose in India. This movement followed the very goal that Shah Waliullah had made luminous before the eyes of the people. If one reads Sayyid Sahib’s letters and sayings, and Shah Ismail Shahid’s Mansab-i Imamat, Iqabat, Taqwiyat al-Iman, and other writings, Shah Waliullah’s own powerful voice will be heard in both places. What Shah Sahib actually did was create a large group of righteous and thoughtful people through the teachings of hadith and the Qur’an and the influence of his own personality. Then his four sons, especially Shah ‘Abd al-‘Aziz (may God have mercy on him), greatly expanded this group. Through his efforts, thousands of people spread throughout various regions of India. They carried Shah Waliullah’s thought; an accurate picture of Islam was imprinted upon their hearts. Through their learning, intelligence, and noble character, they became the means of establishing Shah Waliullah’s and his disciples’ influence among the common people. This indirectly prepared the ground for the movement that was awaiting birth not from among Shah Sahib’s circle of devotees, but from his own household.

() Sayyid Ahmad was born in 1201 AH (1786 CE) and attained martyrdom in 1246 AH (1831 CE). Shah Ismail Shahid was born in 1193 AH (1779 CE) and attained martyrdom in 1246 AH (1831 CE). The flame of a revolutionary movement was probably kindled within Sayyid Ahmad around 1810.

Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi (may God have mercy on him) and Shah Ismail Shahid (may God have mercy on him) possessed the same spiritual and intellectual identity. I do not regard this single identity as an independent mujaddid; rather, I regard it as a continuation of Shah Waliullah’s tajdid. The brief summary of their activities is as follows:

(1) They took responsibility for reforming the religion, character, conduct, dealings, and transactions of ordinary people. Wherever their influence reached, such a tremendous revolution took place in the way of life that the era of the Companions appeared before people’s eyes.

(2) In a declining country like India at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the extensive preparations they made for jihad, and the way they displayed the full extent of their organizational ability in making those preparations, were almost impossible. Then, with exceptional foresight, they selected northwestern India as the place to begin their work. Needless to say, geographically and politically this was the suitable place for the task. In this jihad they employed such principles of conduct and laws of war that, in comparison with a worldly, self-interested warrior, a jihad-fighter in the path of God was able to attain distinction. Thus they once again displayed before the world the true Islamic ideal and worldview. Their war was not centered on the interests of a country, nation, or worldly objective; rather, it was entirely in the path of God. Their sole purpose was to free God’s creation from the rule of jahiliyyah and establish over them the rule of the Creator and Owner of the universe. For this purpose, when they entered battle, they first invited people, in accordance with the prescribed rule, to Islam or to pay jizyah. Only after becoming completely assured on their own side did they take up arms. Once they took up arms, they fully obeyed Islam’s refined and elevated laws of war. They committed no oppressive or brutal act. Wherever they entered, they entered as reformers. Their army carried no wine, no bands played, no prostitutes’ detachments accompanied them, their encampments did not become haunts for adulterers, and there is no example of their troops passing through a place where its women lost their chastity and sat lamenting. Their soldiers were on horseback by day and on prayer mats by night. They feared God and kept the reckoning and accountability of the Hereafter constantly before them. In this matter they cared nothing for gain or loss. When defeated anywhere, they did not prove cowardly; and when victorious anywhere, they did not become cruel or arrogant. No such unadulterated Islamic jihad had taken place before or after them.

(3) They gained the opportunity to govern a state for a short period in a small area. During this time, they established the state according to the true method of the caliphate upon the prophetic way (Khilafah ‘ala Minhaj al-Nubuwwah). Through every aspect—rule characterized by simplicity, egalitarian consultation, assembly, justice, fairness, the law of the Shariah, collecting wealth according to right and spending it according to right, helping the oppressed even when weak, opposing the tyrant even when powerful, governing the country with God-consciousness, and conducting politics on the basis of honesty—they presented a complete model of the Islamic caliphate. They revived the image of the caliphate as it had existed in the eras of al-Siddiq and al-Faruq (may God be pleased with them).

They failed for certain worldly reasons. I shall describe these reasons later. (36) But the impact of the stir they created in the world of thought is still visible in Hindustan today, more than a century after their time.

(36) By failure is meant not true failure, but the failure that appears outwardly. The true success of Muslims is to strive to establish the religion to the utmost of their ability in order to attain God’s pleasure. In this respect, they were certainly successful. Their failure is apparent only in terms of worldly results. In practice, they could not eradicate the authority of jahiliyyah and establish the authority of Islam. We shall examine the causes of this, so that in future efforts to establish the religion it may be possible to remain alert to those causes.

 The Causes of Failure

Examining the causes of the failure of this latest reform movement is generally distasteful to those who prefer to discuss great men only with devotion. I therefore fear that what I present under the above heading will cause pain to many of my brothers. But if the purpose of this entire discussion is not merely to distribute words of praise for the sages of the past, and if our aim is instead to learn from their work for the future task of reforming the religion, then there is no alternative but to study history with a critical eye, analyze the work of these sages, and investigate the causes of their failure to achieve their objective. We are overwhelmed with wonder when we read how Shah Waliullah (may God have mercy on him) and his sons created a great group of scholars devoted to the truth and righteous people, and how Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi (may God have mercy on him) and Shah Ismail Shahid (may God have mercy on him) then formed an army of righteous and God-fearing people. It seems as though we are reading the lives and character of the Companions and the Successors of Islam’s first age. We are astonished to think that people of such extraordinarily elevated character appeared in an age so close to our own. Yet, at the same time, a natural question arises in our minds: Why were the leaders and workers of such a great reformist and revolutionary movement—people so righteous, God-fearing, and tireless in jihad—unable, despite their utmost efforts, to establish an Islamic state in Hindustan? In contrast, the English, who came from beyond seven seas and thirteen rivers, succeeded in establishing an unadulterated jahili state here. To refrain from answering this question, blinded by an outpouring of devotion, amounts to allowing people to continue believing that truth, righteousness, God-consciousness, and jihad possess little influence in reforming God’s world. This idea will make them despair: if the efforts of such righteous and God-fearing people achieved nothing, then nothing will be achieved in the future either. I have heard this kind of doubt from people’s mouths. Indeed, when I recently went to Aligarh, this very doubt was placed before me at a large gathering in Strachey Hall. I had to deliver a brief lecture to remove this doubt. Moreover, I know that even today most of the large body of scholars and righteous people among us are entirely unconcerned with this matter. Yet investigation into it can teach us lessons by whose light better and more accurate work may be accomplished in the future.

The First Cause

From the era of the Mujaddid of Sirhind through the time of Shah Waliullah and his representatives, the first thing that strikes me in all the reform efforts is that they did not fully understand the Muslims’ illness regarding Sufism, and unknowingly gave them again the very food from which they needed to be kept completely away. I have no objection to the basic structure of the Sufism they presented; indeed, in terms of its spirit, it is the true Sufism of Islam. This Sufism is not at all different from ihsan. But what I call unacceptable is the use of Sufi metaphors, similes, and language, and the continuation of methods compatible with Sufism. Needless to say, genuine Islamic Sufism does not depend on this particular shell. It has other forms as well. Other kinds of language may be used for it. It is possible to dispense with metaphors and figurative expressions. The pir-murid relationship and all its concrete forms may be abandoned and another form adopted. In that case, what need was there to impose acceptance of that old mold in which jahili Sufism had held sway for so long? The serious moral and creedal illnesses that its extensive and widespread propagation has produced among Muslims are not hidden from a discerning person. The situation has now reached such a point that no matter how accurate a teaching a person gives, the moment he uses this mold, the diseases that became associated with it through centuries of habitual usage reappear.

Thus, just as even a lawful substance such as water is declared forbidden for a patient when it proves harmful, this form too, despite being lawful in itself, is to be abandoned solely because opium addiction has been created among Muslims under its guise. As soon as they approach it, the old patients once again see in their minds the image of that lullaby which, for hundreds of years, has stroked their backs and put them to sleep. After pledging allegiance to a pir, a particular mentality develops among the murids, one that has been reserved exclusively for the pir-murid relationship. In other words, it is the mentality expressed in “Become colored in the color of Shirazi at the pir’s command,” after which no distinction remains between the pir sahib and ghayrullah. Their thought and vision become stagnant, their critical faculties inactive, and the use of reason and knowledge suspended. The shaykh’s worship gains such complete dominance over their minds that the shaykh comes to be regarded as their nourisher, and they as those nourished by the shaykh. Then, as discussion of kashf and ilham begins, the bonds of mental slavery grow still stronger. After that begins a flood of the Sufis’ allegories and metaphors. As a result, the murids’ imagination, like a horse lashed by a whip, races forward with them at lightning speed. In this state they travel every moment through a strange world of magic, while having very little opportunity to remain in the real world.

Hazrat Mujaddid Alf-i Thani and Hazrat Shah Waliullah were not unaware of this disease among the Muslims. Both criticized it in their writings. But perhaps they did not realize the extent of its spread. For this reason, they again gave these patients a remedy that had proved harmful for this disease. Consequently, those associated with both of them gradually became afflicted once more with that old disease.37 Although Maulana Shah Ismail Shaheed (r) properly understood this truth and followed the principles of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (r), Shah Waliullah’s writings contained ample material for it, and Shah Ismail’s writings too could not completely escape its influence. Thus, the pir-murid chain was also introduced into Sayyid Ahmad’s movement. Consequently, this movement too could not free itself from the harmful influence of Sufism. Indeed, immediately after Sayyid Ahmad attained martyrdom, a group arose among his supporters who believed, like the Shiites, that he had disappeared and who still await his reappearance.

Today, whoever wishes to undertake the work of renewing the faith must certainly keep Muslims away from every thing that recalls the language and terminology, allegories and metaphors, pir-murid relationship, and methods of the Sufis. In this matter, just as a diabetic is kept away from sugar, Muslims must similarly be kept away from the matters mentioned above.

(37) Shortly after the death of Hazrat Mujaddid Alf-i Thani, his supporters gave him the title “Qayyum-i Awwal” and his caliphs the title “Qayyum-i Sani.” Qayyum is an attribute of God.

The Second Reason

While studying this movement critically, the second thing I have realized is that Sayyid Ahmad and Shah Ismail Shaheed did not adequately prepare in advance for this revolution the region where they conducted jihad and established Islamic government. Their army had certainly received excellent moral and spiritual training. But its members had been gathered from various parts of India. Before carrying out a revolution in the northwestern region, the local people could first have been enabled to understand the Islamic state and become its helpers (Ansar). Both leaders were perhaps misled by the assumption that, since the people of the frontier were Muslims and were oppressed by non-Muslim rulers, they would therefore welcome Islamic rule. For this reason, as soon as they arrived there they began jihad, and wherever countries came under their authority, they established the caliphate in all of them. But ultimately, experience proved that treating Muslims in name as true Muslims, and expecting from them the work that true Muslims could perform, was sheer self-deception. They did not possess the strength to bear the burden of the caliphate. By placing this burden upon them, they themselves collapsed and brought down this sacred structure as well.

In every reformative endeavor in the future, it is necessary to keep this lesson of history before us: we should fully understand the truth that a political revolution whose roots have not penetrated deeply into the entirety of thought, character, and civilization can never succeed. Even if such a revolution is brought about somewhere by temporary force, it cannot endure. And when it disappears, it leaves no trace behind. 38

(38) This is why, despite much investigation, no influence of Hazrat Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed and Shah Ismail Shaheed can now be found in the Frontier Province. Indeed, the people there are learning their names only through various Urdu books currently in circulation.

The Third Reason

A question remains here: what superiority did the English, who came from several thousand miles away, possess over these venerable men that enabled them to establish an ignorant state here, while these men could not establish an Islamic state in their own country? No accurate answer can be found without keeping before us the history of Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth Christian centuries. Only by placing on one side of the scales the entire strength of the work performed by Shah Sahib and his followers for the reform of Islam, and on the other side the strength of the contemporary jahiliyyah, can we fully estimate, in light of the laws operating in this material world, what the proportional relationship between these two forces was. It would not be an exaggeration if I said that the relationship between these two forces was that of one tola to one maund. Therefore, the outcome that actually emerged could not have been different.

In the very age when Shah Waliullah, Shah Abdul Aziz, and Shah Ismail Shaheed were born in our country, Europe awoke from the sleep of the Middle Ages with new strength and new enthusiasm. So many seekers of knowledge and art, inventors, and discoverers were born there that, together, they transformed the face of the world. In this age philosophers such as Hume, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Comte, Schleiermacher, and Mill were born. They brought about a revolution throughout the branches of logic, philosophy, psychology, and rational thought. In this same age, scholars such as Galvani and Volta in physiology; Lavoisier, Priestley, Davy, and Berzelius in chemistry; and Linnaeus, Haller, Bichat, and Wolff in biology appeared. Their research not only advanced science but also gave birth to a new conception of the universe and humanity. In this age, through the research of Quesnay, Turgot, Adam Smith, and Malthus, the new science of economics emerged. In this same age, Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Denis Diderot, La Mettrie, Cabanis, Buffon, and Robinet were born in France; Thomas Paine, William Godwin, David Hartley, Joseph Priestley, and Erasmus Darwin in England; and Goethe, Herder, Schiller, Winckelmann, Lessing, Holbach, and many other researchers in Germany. They exerted immense influence over every branch of moral philosophy, literature, law, religion, politics, and sociology. Fearlessly criticizing ancient doctrines and modes of thought, they created a new world of thought.

Because of the use of the press, the abundance of publication, modern styles of expression, and the use of language understandable to ordinary people instead of difficult terminology, their ideas spread widely. They influenced not merely a handful of individuals but entire peoples. They brought about fundamental changes throughout the whole system of old mentality, moral attitudes and customs, education, ideals and ways of life, civilization, and politics.

The French Revolution took place in this age. From it a civilization was born. In this same age, the invention of machinery brought about an industrial revolution. As a result, a new civilization, new powers, and new problems of life emerged. Engineering also made extraordinary progress in this age. Consequently, Europe acquired powers that no nation had possessed before. In this age, new military doctrines, weapons, and methods of warfare replaced the old ones. The method of organizing soldiers through regular drill was adopted. As a result, armies moved on the battlefield like machines, and troops trained by the old methods could not withstand them. Enormous changes were made in the training of soldiers, the organization of armies, and the tactics of war, and efforts continued to improve this art constantly in light of the experience of each battle. Continuous invention brought immense changes in weapons. The rifle was invented. Light, rapidly transportable machine guns were produced, fortress-destroying machine guns were made more powerful than before, and above all, the invention of cartridges rendered the old powder guns completely useless against the new firearms. For this reason, the Turks in Europe and the native states in India suffered continual defeats at the hands of armies trained by modern methods and equipped with modern weapons, and Napoleon invaded the heartland of the Muslim world and conquered Egypt with the help of only a small number of soldiers.

A general glance at the pages of contemporary history will make it clear that, in our country, only a few individuals awakened. Here, only a little work was done in one area of life. There, however, rapid progress was made a thousandfold in every area of life. Here, Shah Waliullah and his sons wrote a few books on particular disciplines. These books reached only a very limited circle and remained confined there. In contrast, books were written on every science and art, filling library after library. Their books spread throughout the world and ultimately gained dominance over people’s minds. Here, discussion of laying new foundations in philosophy, moral ethics, social policy, politics, economics, and other disciplines remained at a very preliminary stage; afterward, no further work was done on it. There, meanwhile, complete systems of thought developed concerning these problems. These systems transformed the entire picture. Here, the sciences of physiology and physical forces remained at the same level as five hundred years earlier. There, these fields advanced so greatly, and Western power increased so much as a result, that it was entirely impossible to achieve success against them through the strength of old weapons and military equipment.

What is astonishing is that, during Shah Waliullah’s era, the English had expanded through Bengal and established their rule as far as Allahabad. Yet Shah Sahib made no effort to learn anything about this new rising power. During Shah Abdul Aziz’s era, the emperor of Delhi received a pension from the English, and English domination had been established over almost all of India. Yet it never occurred to him to ask how this nation was advancing so far and what force lay behind this new power. Sayyid Sahib and Shah Ismail Shaheed practically threw themselves into the field to create an Islamic revolution. They completed all the necessary arrangements and preparations. But they could not send a group of learned and discerning ulama to Europe to investigate what enabled this nation to advance with the speed of a storm and gain unprecedented power and progress through new tools, new methods, and new knowledge and sciences. What was the reason? What kinds of institutions had they established in their own country? What kinds of knowledge and sciences did they possess? On what basis had their civilization been built? And, in comparison with it, what did we lack? When they embarked on jihad, it was known to everyone that in India the real power was not that of the Sikhs but that of the English, and that opposition from the English could constitute the greatest obstacle to the path of an Islamic revolution. In the conflict between Islam and jahiliyyah, it was necessary to measure one’s own strength against the rival with whom one had to engage in conflict in order to reach a decisive conclusion, to understand one’s weaknesses, and to strive to remove them. I cannot understand how this important aspect of the matter remained hidden from the far-sighted vision of these venerable men. Needless to say, once they made this mistake, they could not escape the consequences of such a mistake in this world of cause and effect.

Conclusion

From the failure faced by this movement for Islamic revival in confronting Western jahiliyyah, we learn first that, for the revival of Islam, it is not enough merely to revive religious knowledge and revitalize the spirit of the Shariah; rather, a comprehensive and universal Islamic movement is necessary. This movement must extend its influence over all branches of knowledge and science, thought, industry, commerce, and every department of life, and must place every possible power at the service of Islam. We learn a second lesson from this: new ijtihadi power is needed today to carry out the work of tajdid. The ijtihadi power evident in the work of Shah Waliullah (r) and the mujaddids and mujtahids before him will not, by itself, be sufficient to solve the problems of the present age. Modern jahiliyyah has appeared with vast resources and has created countless problems of life. Shah Waliullah and those before him had no conception whatsoever of these matters. Only Allah, the Almighty and All-Knowing, and the Noble Prophet (s), through the knowledge granted to him, were aware of them. Therefore, in this age, guidance for reforming the millat can be received only from the sources of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. After accepting this guidance, however, an independent ijtihadi power is needed to formulate a broader program of action under present conditions—one that will not be bound by the knowledge, scholarship, or method of any particular mujtahid, but will certainly benefit from the ijtihad of each of them and neglect none.

Appendix

It was stated earlier in the preface to the fifth edition (Urdu) that an appendix had been added to this book. Its purpose is to gather together and present to readers the questions that were occasionally asked about the various subjects I raised in discussing this book, along with the answers I gave. I am quoting here, together with their answers, the questions that came to me from various people at different times. I hope that, after studying these, they will also prove sufficiently effective in resolving the questions and doubts of those who have such questions and doubts in their minds.

The Nature of Tajdid and Imam Mahdi

Question

Any discerning person can certainly judge how high a standard of discussion is contained in the book Islamic Renaissance Movement from the article entitled “What Is the Work of a Mujaddid?” and the detailed accounts of the activities of various mujaddids. Nevertheless, several aspects of it require explanation. I mention them below:

(1) Toward the end of your discussion of Imam Ghazali (R), you mentioned three weaknesses: (a) the Imam’s weakness in the science of hadith, (b) the domination of rationalism over him, and (c) his excessive inclination toward tasawwuf. Can evidence of these be found in the Imam’s famous works Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din and Kimiya-yi Sa‘adat? Is the tasawwuf he describes in these books not free of defects? Moreover, is the mujaddid of an age not granted more accurate knowledge than his contemporaries? Otherwise, why would he possess distinction throughout the age?

(2) Regarding Mujaddid Alf-i Thani and Shah Waliullah, you wrote that, in all the reformative work from the time of Mujaddid Alf-i Thani through the time of Shah Waliullah and his representatives, the first thing that strikes me is that they could not fully understand the Muslims’ ailment concerning tasawwuf and, unknowingly, once again gave them the very nourishment from which they needed to be kept completely away. It is difficult to accept that Mujaddid Sahib and Shah Sahib’s perception was so immature that they could not fully grasp the Muslims’ ailment concerning tasawwuf. Alongside worldly knowledge, they were also well versed in spiritual knowledge (through kashf and ilham). Furthermore, they also claimed to be mujaddids, as Maulana Azad mentions in his Tazkirah. In his letters, the revered Mujaddid wrote that he had come as a mujaddid one thousand years after prophethood. In light of these statements, the following questions naturally arise:

(a) Was the declaration by the revered Mujaddid and Shah Sahib that they were mujaddids not made in accordance with God’s command? Moreover, what is the significance of the kashf and ilham mentioned in their writings? Did they become mujaddids according to the law of Shariah, or according to natural law?

(b) Is the notion true that a mujaddid must be an eminent person of his age? That he must possess the greatest expertise in Shariah and religious theology? And that, at the same time, he must also be the person closest to God? Otherwise, why would he alone, to the exclusion of everyone else, be selected to carry out this immense task?

(c) What is the significance of the “Mubashshirat”—the glad tidings?

(d) Is the hadith not authentic that a mujaddid will appear at the beginning of every century? And will he not be aware that he himself is a mujaddid? Is that not necessary for him?

(3) Regarding Imam Mahdi, you wrote that he will be very different from the descriptions given by ordinary scholars. Yet I have heard from the scholars that, besides the Imam’s name and lineage, other signs are also mentioned in the hadith. He will appear in special circumstances with special signs. People will recognize him and, having pledged allegiance to him by force, will appoint him as ruler. Meanwhile, a voice will come from the heavens declaring, “This is Allah’s caliph, Imam Mahdi.” But you say that no one except a prophet has the right to begin a mission by making a claim, and that no one except a prophet knows with certainty what service he has been appointed to perform. Being the Mahdi is not something to claim; it is something to demonstrate through one’s work and leave behind. In my view, those who make such claims and those who believe in them both demonstrate their limited knowledge and low level of intellect.

My question is this: the signs and circumstances mentioned above have been described by many scholars (for example, see Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanawi’s book Behishti Zewar). Are their descriptions not based on authentic hadith? If they are, then what is the reasoning behind your description?

Answer

Rather than answering your questions, I consider it necessary to explain certain matters; after grasping them, you will find the answers to your various questions.

First: We have no means or instrument by which we can state with certainty that such-and-such a person was a mujaddid and such-and-such a person was not. Later generations, or the society contemporary with a person, have formed judgments about whether or not he was a mujaddid by observing his activities. Regarding many earlier figures, the scholarly community has judged that they were mujaddids. But many others have not acknowledged them as mujaddids. None of them possesses any sign by which their status can be determined.

2. Tajdid is not the name of any religious rank. Therefore, there is no question of anyone becoming a Mujaddid by appointment from Allah Almighty according to the law of the Shariah, and whether or not a person is acknowledged as a Mujaddid has no good or bad effect on anyone’s religious creed. It is a position of distinction, conferred on a person in view of his works. Anyone who performs an act of any degree for the revival of the religion may be called a Mujaddid. However, if someone else considers that person’s work unworthy of the stated rank, he may deny him the rank of Mujaddid. Thoughtless people have made this matter unnecessarily important. The news given by the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) was only that Allah Almighty would not allow this religion to disappear. Rather, at the beginning of every century He would bring forth a person or a group of persons who would clarify once again the obscure ideas of Islam. The word man mentioned in the Hadith is not used in Arabic only to mean one person; it can also mean several persons. Nor does the Hadith contain any word implying that it is obligatory to identify the Mujaddid as a Mujaddid.

3. A person’s being a Mujaddid does not mean that he is, in every respect, an ideal ‘Perfect Man’ and that his works are free from defects. To accept him as a Mujaddid, it is sufficient that his overall works testify that they are reformative. But after accepting someone as a Mujaddid, if we regard him as faultless and sinless and believe in every one of his words, we will be making a grave mistake. A Mujaddid is not sinless like a prophet.

4. My comments on the works of the Mujaddids of the Ummah are, of course, my personal opinions. Everyone has the right to disagree with any of my views. If you are convinced by the arguments on which I have based a view, that is good; and if you are not convinced, that is also of no consequence. But I certainly wish that you accept or reject a view on the basis of reason and investigation, not under the influence of a tendency to venerate religious elders.

5. In past ages, some eminent scholars certainly informed people, through kashf and ilham, that they were the Mujaddids of their own age. But they did not claim that it was obligatory for people to accept them as Mujaddids and that whoever did not acknowledge them would be misguided. Making such a claim, calling people to accept it, and trying to compel them to accept it is not at all the work of a Mujaddid. Whoever does this proves by this very act that he is not, in fact, a Mujaddid.

6. Kashf and ilham are not certain things like revelation. They never reach such a state that the person who experiences kashf can see as clearly as in broad daylight that this kashf or ilham is coming from God; there is room in them for considerable confusion. Therefore, the scholars acknowledge that no ruling of the Shariah can be established or proven through kashf and ilham. Knowledge acquired in this way is not evidence, and it is not permissible to obey what a person obtains through his kashf and ilham.

7. I have discussed Imam Mahdi in greater detail in my book Risail-o-Masail than what I have written here. Please consult that discussion. From it you will learn what investigation I have conducted concerning the detailed accounts given by the scholars regarding the aforementioned Hadiths. I sincerely respect all those scholars, but I am not accustomed to accepting every word of any scholar. (Tarjuman al-Qur’an, January–February 1951.) (39) See this discussion, extending from pages 161 to 172 of this book.

The Significance of Kashf and Ilham and the Claims of Certain Mujaddids

Question

In the January–February 1951 issue of your magazine Tarjuman al-Qur’an, in reply to a question, you wrote: ‘Some elders of past ages certainly informed people, through kashf and ilham, that they were the Mujaddids of their own age. But they did not claim that it was obligatory for those who accepted them to do so and that whoever did not accept them would be misguided.’ Your statement does not seem correct. For Hazrat Shah Waliullah readily claimed: ‘Allah Almighty has informed me that you are the Imam of this age. People should regard following you as a means of salvation.’ See, for example, Tafhimat-i Ilahiyyah, volume two, page 125. Was Hazrat Shah Sahib’s claim true? If his claim was true, then what you wrote after the statement quoted above is not true:

‘Making a claim, calling people to accept it, and trying to make them accept it is not at all the work of a Mujaddid. Again, after the sentence quoted above, you wrote: “The person who does this proves by his own act that he is not, in fact, a Mujaddid.”’

What is the basis of these statements of yours? The Noble Qur’an, the Hadith of the Noble Prophet, or a ruling based on your own ijtihad? In the same issue of the same magazine, on the same page, under number six, you wrote:

‘Kashf and ilham are not certain things like revelation. They never reach such a state that the person who experiences kashf can see as clearly as in broad daylight that this kashf or ilham is coming from God.’

Are you also stating this on the basis of your personal experience, or is this likewise your ijtihad? Or are you saying it on the basis of the Noble Qur’an or the Hadith of the Messenger?

If this is the condition of the kashf and ilham of the perfect men of the Muslim nation, then what is the condition of the nation that is said to be the best? Yet among earlier communities even women received revelation from God. There were also servants of God whose kashf and ilham had reached such an elevated level that even a great prophet had to be humbled by questioning them. But Subhanallah! The kashf and ilham of the perfect men of Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) Ummah were of such a strange kind that they did not know with certainty whether these came from Allah Almighty. If those kashf and ilham had no religious benefit, and if the faith of those upon whom they descended did not increase as a result—indeed, because they were already self-sufficient, these were a kind of affliction—then what need did Allah Almighty have to send such kashf and ilham down upon them?

Answer

You have erred by mixing together the various meanings of revelation and ilham. There is one kind of revelation called ‘jibilli,’ or natural revelation. Through it, Allah Almighty teaches every created thing its duty. Compared with human beings, this revelation descends more upon animals and perhaps even more upon plants and inanimate objects. The second kind is called partial revelation. Through it, at a particular time, Allah Almighty grants a servant knowledge, guidance, or some method concerning one of life’s problems. This revelation frequently descends upon ordinary people. It is through revelation that the great discoveries of the world have been made. Great and important theoretical developments have become possible through it. Its force can be seen operating in major historical events. At a particular time, without any thought or deliberation, an idea suddenly arises in a person’s mind, and through it he exerts an immense influence on the course of history. This kind of revelation descended upon the mother of Moses (peace be upon him). Completely distinct from these two kinds is another kind of revelation through which Allah Almighty informs one of His servants about matters of the unseen and gives him guidance concerning the way of life, so that he may convey that knowledge and guidance to ordinary people and enable them to leave darkness and enter the realm of light. This revelation descends only upon prophets. It is clear from the Qur’an that knowledge of this kind—whether it is called ilqa, kashf, or ilham, or whether it is termed revelation in the technical sense—descends upon no one except a Messenger or prophet. Moreover, this knowledge is given to prophets in such a way that they attain complete faith and certainty that it is granted by God, free from Satanic intrusion, and contains not the slightest trace of their personal thoughts, notions, wishes, or desires. This knowledge itself is the proof and evidence of the Shariah, and obedience to it is obligatory for every person. The prophets are appointed precisely to convey this knowledge to other people and to call all God’s servants to believe in it.

If a person other than a prophet ever attains the good fortune of receiving knowledge of this third kind, it remains at such a vague and obscure level of indications that it becomes essential to understand it in the light of the revelation sent down to the prophet—that is, to test its truth or falsehood by the standards of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and, if it is true, determine its intended meaning. Apart from this, a person who regards his ilham as an independent means of guidance, puts it into practice without testing it against the revelation sent down to the prophet, and calls others to follow it, is like a counterfeiter who operates his own mint and manufactures counterfeit coins in competition with the government mint. This very act proves that he did not actually receive ilham from God.

Everything I have said so far has been clearly described in various places in the Qur’an. In particular, this matter has been stated without the slightest ambiguity in the verses of Surah al-Jinn:

——————————————– If you try to understand this point, you will yourself learn why the righteous people engaged in reforming the Ummah are not granted kashf and ilham like prophets. Allah Almighty did not grant the first matter because it is on this basis that a distinction has been established between prophets and the Ummah. How, then, could that distinction be removed? The reason for granting the second matter is that those who strive to continue the work of the prophet after him are dependent on profound insight into the Islamic commandments and on correct guidance from God for establishing Islam. This is granted unconsciously to every sincere servant of Islam possessing sound thought. But if it is consciously granted to someone, then it is a reward from God.

Your second fundamental error is that you have not understood at all the principled distinction between the status of a prophet and that of a non-prophet. According to the Qur’an, only a prophet possesses the status of being appointed by God in accordance with the law of the Shariah, and only he has the right to call people to believe in him and accept his obedience. Indeed, whoever does not believe in him becomes a disbeliever, despite acknowledging God. In the religious system, no one other than a prophet possesses this status. If someone claims this status, we will not have to produce evidence against his claim; rather, he should produce evidence in support of it. He must be asked where the Qur’an and Hadith grant anyone other than a prophet the right to claim before people that he has been established in this office and to call them to accept that claim. Furthermore, he must prove that whoever does not accept this claim will become an inhabitant of Hell and a disbeliever merely for refusing to accept the claimant’s claim.

If, in reply, someone cites ———– or presents the Hadiths concerning the coming of the Mahdi, I will say that nowhere therein has the aforementioned right been granted to a Mujaddid or the Mahdi. Does it say there that they will claim to be the Mujaddid or the Mahdi, that only those who accept this claim will remain Muslims, and that everyone else will become disbelievers?

Moreover, it is also unsound to say in reply that failing to cooperate with, and opposing, a person who is actively striving to revive and establish the religion cannot be a cause of salvation. There is no doubt that such work always becomes a means of distinguishing truth from falsehood. Cooperating in this work is a sign that a person stands for the truth. However, this distinction is based on the principle that striving to revive and establish the religion is obligatory for every Muslim. There is no such rule that accepting a claimant’s claim is a requirement of faith, or that a person must be deprived of salvation merely because he does not accept an individual’s claim to be the Mujaddid or the Mahdi.

Let us now turn to the claims of Shah Waliullah and Mujaddid Alf Thani. I am sufficiently criticized because I do not regard earlier eminent scholars as sinless; while calling their correct works correct, I also call their mistakes mistakes. I fear that if we discuss this matter unambiguously as well, another charge will be added to the list of my offenses. But one should fear God more than people. Therefore, whatever anyone may say, I cannot refrain from stating that one of the faults of both these eminent scholars was their claim, regarding themselves, to be Mujaddids and their repeated presentation of their statements with references to kashf and ilham. It was this fault of theirs that later encouraged many narrow-minded people to make various claims and create new discord in the Ummah. If someone receives the opportunity to perform an act for the Islamic revival, he should perform it and then leave to God the decision concerning his rank before Him. The true rank of a person is the rank Allah Almighty grants him in the Hereafter by accepting his intentions and works according to their nature and through His mercy. The rank a person claims for himself, or the rank people grant him, is not his true rank. Determining titles and offices for oneself, stating them as claims, and proclaiming one’s own rank with one’s own mouth are not good practices. Later, Sufi-like attitudes and tastes tolerated this and gave it an air of excellence. Even great people saw nothing wrong with it. But it did not exist during the time of the Companions, the Tabi‘in, the Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in, and the Mujtahid Imams. I hold the works of Shah Sahib and Mujaddid Sahib in the highest respect, and I do not respect them any less than any of their devotees. But this is one of the things among their works that I have been unable to understand. In truth, I have never accepted any statement of theirs merely because they presented it with a reference to kashf and ilham. Rather, whenever I accepted one, it was only because it had strong evidence behind it or seemed true in terms of reason and facts. Similarly, my acceptance of them as Mujaddids is also my personal opinion. I reached this judgment personally after observing their works. I did not accept it as a creed on the basis of their claims.

Tasawwuf and Meditating on the Shaykh

Question

I have studied your call with complete sincerity and loyalty. Although I am a Salafi (not a follower of the school of any of the four Imams), I consider myself a humble servant and supporter of your Islamic movement, and I also strive, to the best of my ability, to spread this movement. Recently, certain matters concerning immersion in tasawwuf and meditation on the shaykh have raised various questions in my mind. You have regarded non-Arab innovation as mubah, although all your previous writings have strongly protested against it. Establishing Islam is the central point of our entire call. If, God forbid, we accept any innovation, this would mean giving all innovations an opportunity to enter this movement. Please consider my points and inform me, in the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah, of your opinion concerning immersion in tasawwuf and meditation on the shaykh, and of the proper approach in this matter. I hope you will discuss the subject in detail in Tarjuman al-Qur’an.

Answer

The doubt that arose in your mind from one of my statements would never have arisen if you had also read my other clear writings on this subject. Nevertheless, I will give a clear and concise answer to your questions.

(1) Tasawwuf is not the name of one particular thing; rather, many different things have been called by this name. The tasawwuf whose validity we acknowledge is one thing, while that which we oppose is another. Again, the tasawwuf that we seek to reform is a third thing, different from both of these:

A form of tasawwuf existed among the Sufis of the early period of Islam. For example, Fudayl ibn ‘Iyad, Ibrahim ibn Adham, and Ma‘ruf al-Karkhi had no separate philosophy and no separate method. Their thought and conduct were based on the Qur’an and Sunnah, and the purpose of all their thought and conduct was the purpose of the Qur’an—that is, to center everything on God and do it solely for God.

——————————————-

We acknowledge the validity of this tasawwuf. We do not merely acknowledge its validity; we want to revive it and spread it.

The second type of tasawwuf contains a mixture of Greek philosophy, asceticism, Zoroastrian doctrine, and Vedantic philosophy. The methods of Christian and Hindu yogis have entered into it. Ideas and practices mixed with shirk have also been incorporated into it. Here, Shariah, tariqah, and ma‘rifah are separate matters. Their relationship with one another has been more or less severed; indeed, in many cases they have become opposed to one another. Here, instead of preparing people to fulfill the responsibility of being God’s khalifahs on earth, they are prepared for an entirely different task. We oppose this tasawwuf. In our view, eliminating it is as essential to establishing God’s religion as eliminating modern jahiliyyah.

Besides these two, there is a third type of tasawwuf. It contains some elements of the first type mixed with some elements of the second. Its methods were formulated by certain scholars who were learned and well-intentioned, but were not entirely protected from the influence of earlier ages and the dominant matters of their own time. They made every effort to understand the true tasawwuf of Islam and free its methods from the mixture of jahili tasawwuf. Nevertheless, some influence of jahili tasawwuf remained in their doctrines, and some influence of external practices remained in their works. They came to believe that these things did not oppose the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah, or at least that they could be regarded as compatible through interpretation. Moreover, the purpose and results of this tasawwuf also differ, to some extent, from the purpose of Islam and its necessary results. Its purpose is not to prepare people clearly to fulfill the responsibility of khilafah, nor is it to produce what the Qur’anic verses describe. It has not produced people who understand the complete nature of the religion, can think about establishing it, and possess the ability to establish it. We neither completely oppose nor completely support this third type of tasawwuf. Rather, our request to its supporters and adherents is this: while keeping respect for eminent people in its proper place, please examine this tasawwuf critically in the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah and try to direct it onto the correct path. Moreover, if someone disagrees with any aspect of this tasawwuf because he sees it as opposed to the Qur’an and Sunnah, whether you disagree with or support his view, you cannot deny his right to criticize it. Nor can you needlessly become vocal in condemning him.

(2) My view concerning meditation on the shaykh’s form is that two aspects may be discussed in this connection. The first is as an act, and the second is as a means of drawing near to God.

In the first case, the question concerns only whether this act is permissible or impermissible. The ruling depends on the intention with which a person performs it. There is one intention in view of which it cannot be called anything but haram. There is another intention in view of which it becomes difficult for a jurist to call it impermissible. The example is as follows: suppose I saw a man staring continuously at an unfamiliar woman and asked him, ‘What are you doing?’ He replied, ‘I am satisfying my thirst for beauty.’ Needless to say, I would have to tell him, ‘You are certainly doing something wrong.’ Seeing another man doing the same thing, I asked him about it, and he replied, ‘I intend to marry her.’ In that case, I would be obliged to say that your act is not impermissible, because he has stated a reason that cannot be called impermissible in the view of the Shariah.

I have never had any doubt about the second method of contemplating the Shaykh’s image, nor do I have any today; and although its connection with many great people may be demonstrated, the act performed in this manner is wholly unlawful. In my view, Allah and His Messenger never made any error in explaining the means of establishing and strengthening a relationship with Allah. Why, then, should we not rely solely on the means they explained? Why should we try to devise a means that is filled with uncertainty and concerning which the slightest carelessness may lead a person toward certain and manifest misguidance?

In this connection, it is fundamentally irrelevant to argue that, since we have the right to adopt permissible means for reaching our objectives in all other matters under the Shariah, why should we not have the right to use such means for self-purification and attaining nearness to Allah? This argument is fundamentally flawed, because the two divisions of the religion are different in nature. One division concerns our relationship with Allah, while the second concerns our relationship with people and the world. The principle of the first division is that we should rely on the forms of worship and methods prescribed by Allah and His Messenger. We have no right to add anything to them or subtract anything from them, because apart from the Quran and Sunnah we have no third means of acquiring knowledge of Allah and of the method of establishing a relationship with Him. Every addition or reduction in this matter is an innovation, and every innovation is another name for misguidance. The principle that whatever is not forbidden is permissible does not apply here. Rather, the principle here is the opposite: whatever is not based on the Quran and Sunnah is an innovation. Even if a matter is established here through analogy, it must certainly have some basis in the Quran and Sunnah. By contrast, permissible matters are evident in the divisions concerning relations with people and with the world. Obey whatever command has been given; refrain from whatever has been prohibited. If no command has been given concerning a matter, but a command is found concerning something similar, apply analogy to it. Or, if analogy is not possible, then, in accordance with the general principles of Islam, accept from among the permissible matters the matter and method that you find compatible with the character of the Islamic system. The reason we have been granted this freedom in this division is that we should acquire at least enough rational and theoretical means for obtaining knowledge about the earth, people, and worldly matters to enable us, after receiving the guidance of Allah’s Book and the Messenger’s Sunnah, to distinguish good from evil and truth from falsehood. Therefore, this freedom should remain limited to that division alone. To extend it to the first division, to consider whatever is not forbidden permissible, and thereby to invent new methods of establishing a relationship with Allah or to adopt methods acquired from others, is a fundamental error. It was because of this error that the Christians invented monasticism, which the Quran has condemned. (Tarjumanul Quran, Jumada al-Awwal 1371 AH, February 1952 CE.)

A False Accusation and Its Answer

Question

You are accused of actually claiming to be the Mujaddid or the Mahdi, or of trying from behind the scenes to have yourself acknowledged as the Mujaddid or the Mahdi. What is the significance of this accusation?

Answer

This accusation has been refuted many times in Tarjumanul Quran. Therefore, instead of giving a new answer this time, I am quoting my earlier answers.

The first to express this suspicion to me, in a subdued voice and out of compassion, was Maulana Munazir Ahsan Gilani in 1941. In reply, I wrote in an article entitled “Dispelling My Suspicion”:

“Perhaps my courageous words led you to think that I consider myself something great and entertain hopes of some great status. Yet everything I am doing, I am doing only to have my sins forgiven. I know my own worth very well. Far from attaining any great status, I would consider it beyond my expectations merely to escape punishment.”

(Tarjumanul Quran, September, October, November 1941)

Later, Maulana Syed Sulaiman Nadwi (may Allah have mercy on him) distorted one of my sentences and tried to derive from it the meaning that I claimed to be the Mujaddid. In that sentence, however, I had counted my insignificant efforts as one effort among the efforts to renew the religion. In response to this explicit accusation, I said:

“Calling an act an act of renewal does not mean that the person who performs it must also be given the title of Mujaddid. To be the Mujaddid of a century is an even greater matter. Lifting bricks and building a wall is certainly constructive work. But this does not mean that a person who lifts and places a few bricks will be called an engineer—and not an ordinary engineer, but the engineer of the century! Likewise, when a person calls his work a work or effort of renewal, and in reality performs it with the aim of renewing the religion, this is merely a statement of an actual fact. It does not mean that he is claiming to be the Mujaddid or seeking to become the Mujaddid of his century. Small-minded people do make great claims after doing little work; indeed, they desire to work in the form of claims. But one cannot expect a learned person to make mere claims instead of doing the work. Many people have worked for the renewal of the religion in India and outside India. We also count the Maulana Sahib (the accuser) among them. I too have tried, according to my ability, to participate in this work, and at present a number of servants of the religion are trying to carry it out as a group. The person whose work Allah blesses so greatly that, through him, the work of truly renewing Allah’s religion is completed will in fact be the Mujaddid. Making a claim or granting someone in the world the title of Mujaddid is not the real issue. The real issue is that a person must perform such work that he reaches his true Master and is able there to attain the status of a Mujaddid. This is what I pray for the Maulana. And it would be better if he too prayed for others that Allah may accomplish, through their help, such works for the religion. I am amazed that many Islamic terms have been needlessly turned into bogeys. When someone appears claiming to restore the glory of the Roman nation, the worshippers of Roman nationalism welcome him. When someone advances claiming to revive Vedic civilization, the Hindus support him. When someone comes forward wishing to revive Greek art, art lovers encourage him. Among all these reformative activities, is the reform of Allah’s religion the one crime whose name must be uttered with shame, so that whenever anyone expresses such a thought, the worshippers of Allah will hound him?” — (Tarjumanul Quran, December 1941, January and February 1942)

Even after this clear explanation, our religious leaders did not stop their campaign. For the purpose of inciting Muslims against me, raising the accusation that I was making some kind of claim was one of the weapons that had to be used against me. Thus, throughout 1945 and 1946, the suspicion was repeatedly spread everywhere that this man was preparing to claim to be the Mahdi. In this regard I wrote in the June 1946 issue of Tarjumanul Quran:

“I have decided to give those who, by entertaining such suspicions, are trying to keep people away from the call of Jamaat-e-Islami such a terrible punishment that they will never be able to escape it. That punishment is this: God willing, I will appear before my Lord free of every kind of claim, and then I will see what defense they offer before Allah for these suspicions of theirs and for preventing people from advancing on the path of truth by publicizing them.”

If these people had even a little fear of Allah and belief in the Hereafter, this accusation would not have been heard from them again after my reply. Yet everyone can see how fearlessly those accusations are being spread again today. Even after studying what I have written about this in the recent issues of Tarjumanul Quran, none of them seems at all restrained from spreading slander. The judgment of the Hereafter is certainly in Allah’s hands, but tell me: can the honor of the learned religious community be expected to remain established in this world as a result of such conduct?

The amusing thing is that these suspicions have been based on various sentences in the book The Islamic Renaissance Movement, and excerpts from it have been highlighted in different colors and presented publicly to mislead the people. Yet on its very pages are these words of mine:

“No one except a prophet has the right to begin an undertaking by making a claim, and no one except a prophet knows with certainty that he has been commanded to undertake a particular task. The Mahdi is not something to be claimed. In my view, those who make such a claim and those who believe in it both demonstrate their limited knowledge and mental decline.”

Ask those who today present excerpts from my book whether the statements mentioned in that book escaped their notice, or whether they have deliberately concealed them? — (Tarjumanul Quran, Dhu al-Qadah, Dhu al-Hijjah 1370 AH; September 1951 CE)

The Signs of al-Mahdi and His Nature in the Islamic System

Question

There is room for disagreement concerning what you wrote about the appearance of Imam Mahdi in The Islamic Renaissance Movement. You are unwilling to acknowledge any particular signs of the Mahdi. Yet the hadith clearly mention signs of the Mahdi. In this matter, how is it possible to disregard these hadiths?

Answer

Hadith critics have criticized the reports concerning the appearance of Imam Mahdi so severely that one group among them does not accept the appearance of Imam Mahdi at all. After examining the narrators of these hadiths, it becomes clear that most of them belonged to the Shia sect. Historical review also shows that every group used these hadiths to advance its political and religious interests and tried to attach the relevant signs to one of its own people. For these reasons, I have reached the conclusion that the reports are authentic regarding the mere appearance of Imam Mahdi, but that most of the reports concerning detailed signs are probably fabricated, and self-interested people probably added them later to the original words of the Noble Prophet. The books of those who falsely claimed to be the Mahdi in various ages also show that these reports supplied the basis for all the mischief they created.

After deeply studying the prophecies of the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him), I have found that their nature is never like that of the hadiths concerning the appearance of the Mahdi. The Noble Prophet never described the signs of an arriving person or thing in this detailed manner. He certainly described major foundational signs, but giving minute details was not his method.

Question

The necessity of the Mahdi’s coming has been acknowledged in The Islamic Renaissance Movement, but an attempt has been made to describe what the Mahdi’s work will be merely in your own words, without citing hadiths. It would be appropriate to describe these matters in the light of hadith. Moreover, no discussion has been offered concerning the Mahdi’s status, characteristics, or the necessity of obeying him, and he has been counted among ordinary Mujaddids. Although the division into perfect and immature Mujaddids may suggest that the word Mujaddid was perhaps used here in its lexical sense rather than its technical sense, nevertheless, since a Mujaddid is not free from sin whereas the Mahdi must be free from sin, how can the Mahdi be counted among the Mujaddids despite this clear distinction?

Answer

First, we should consider the word Mahdi as used in the hadith. The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) used the word Mahdi. Its meaning is one who is rightly guided; the word Hadi, meaning one who guides to the right path, was not used. Every person who follows the right path may be a Mahdi. At most, the word al-Mahdi was used to establish a distinctive characteristic. Its real purpose is to express a particular quality of the one who will come. The hadith state concerning this quality that, after the system of caliphate according to the method of prophethood has been shattered and the earth has been filled with oppression and persecution, the one who comes will reestablish the caliphate according to the method of prophethood and fill the earth with justice and fairness. For the purpose of giving him this distinctive quality, the definite article al was prefixed to the word Mahdi. But it is wrong to think that Islam has created a prestigious office called the Mahdi, and that believing in him and acquiring knowledge about him is a condition for salvation, Islam, and faith, like believing in the prophets and obeying them. Moreover, the idea that the Mahdi will be an infallible Imam has no basis in the hadith or elsewhere. In reality, this idea that non-prophets are infallible is purely a Shia doctrine. It has no mention in the Quran or Sunnah.

It should be clearly understood that Allah has taken upon Himself the responsibility of stating those things upon which faith and disbelief depend and those matters upon which human salvation depends. They have been stated in the Quran. Nor have they been stated in the Quran merely through hints and indications; rather, they have been stated clearly and explicitly, in unambiguous language. Allah Himself says: “The responsibility for guiding people to the right path is Mine.” Therefore, any matter that reaches this level in Islam must be proved from the Quran. The thing upon which faith and disbelief depend cannot be based solely on hadith. A hadith reaches some people through a chain of other people. At most, this can yield a sound probability, not certain knowledge. Needless to say, Allah does not wish to put His servants in difficulty. A matter so important to Him that it creates the distinction between faith and disbelief cannot be left to the reports of only a few people. Matters of such importance will certainly be stated by Allah in His Book in unambiguous language. Allah’s Messenger will proclaim them broadly and publicly, considering this part of the essential task of his prophethood, and they will be conveyed to every Muslim in a manner completely free of doubt.

However forcibly the matter of the Mahdi may be interpreted, everyone can see that his status in Islam is not such that a person’s being Muslim or attaining salvation depends on knowing and acknowledging him. Had he held such a status, it would have been stated in the Quran in unambiguous language, and the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) would not have considered it sufficient to tell only two, four, or a few people; rather, he would have made every possible effort to convey it to the entire Ummah. We would have seen him proclaiming this matter in exactly the same way that we see him proclaiming monotheism and the Hereafter. In fact, anyone with even a little depth of insight into Islamic knowledge cannot believe for a moment that a matter of such great importance in Islam could be left to a solitary report—one whose chain of narrators at some point narrows to one, two, or three people. Even solitary reports are of such a status that hadith scholars like Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) did not consider it desirable to include them in their compilations. (Tarjumanul Quran, Rabi al-Awwal, Jumada al-Akhirah 1364 AH; March–June 1945 CE)

The Mahdi Problem

Question

Some pious and sincere people have raised, in the light of hadith, objections to your accounts concerning Imam Mahdi in The Islamic Renaissance Movement. I am presenting their objections to you. Behind my saying this is the conviction that obedience to the Shariah is essential throughout the entire work of calling people to establish the religion. Therefore, everything produced by your pen must conform to the Shariah. And if your pen ever expresses an erroneous view, there should be no hesitation in correcting it.

(1) What you have written about Imam Mahdi on pages 31 to 33 is, according to our knowledge, contrary to hadith. In this connection I have studied all the hadiths in Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud. It is known from them that some hadith narrators were certainly Kharijites or members of the Shia sect; but Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi certainly contain hadiths whose narrators are trustworthy and truthful. They do not prove the truth of your view; rather, they refute it. As an example, consider the hadith in Abu Dawud:

————————————————————-

(1) Read from page 23 through page 25 of the current edition, from this hadith to the final hadith. You will see that all the narrators are trustworthy. Moreover, a report of Bayhaqi has been narrated in Mishkat’s Book of Tribulations:

The Mahdi will be unaware that he is the Mahdi. The hadiths mentioned above contradict this statement of yours. In particular, consider these words:

Moreover, consider these words from a report in Tirmidhi:

—————————————

(2) You have said that the Mahdi will be a modern-type leader, and so on. You have no hadith to support this claim. If you do, write and inform us of it. The practical evidence supporting those who express a view contrary to yours is that all the Mujaddids who have appeared until now have primarily belonged to the Sufi class.

(3) Because of your statement that he will be a modern-type leader, the suspicion is being entertained that you yourself will claim to be Imam Mahdi.

(4) In the book Signs of the Resurrection (author: Maulana Shah Rafiuddin; translator: Maulvi Nur Muhammad), several hadiths concerning Imam Mahdi have been narrated with references to Muslim and Bukhari. But after investigating, I have found no such hadith in Muslim or Bukhari. One hadith quoted in this book says that, at the time of pledging allegiance to Mahdi, a voice will call out from the sky:

—————————–

What is your opinion regarding this hadith?

Answer

(1) I have previously presented a summary of my investigation concerning the hadiths about Imam Mahdi recorded in various hadith books. Those who consider it sufficient, in order to accept any statement about Imam Mahdi, that the statement be mentioned in some hadith book, or who consider it sufficient, for fulfilling the obligation of investigation, merely to know whether the narrators were truthful, may legitimately hold the belief they have found in the hadiths. But for those who compile all these hadiths, study them comparatively, and find contradictions among them in many cases—those who also have before them the complete history of the conflicts among the Banu Fatimah, the Banu Abbas, and the Banu Umayyah, and clearly see that this conflict produced countless hadiths in support of the various parties, while most of the narrators were people who had an overt connection with one side or another—it is difficult to accept every detailed part of these hadiths as accurate. Among the hadiths you yourself have narrated, there is also———–that is, a reference to black banners. History tells us that the black banner was the emblem of the Banu Abbas. History also tells us that hadiths of this kind were presented in an attempt to prove the Abbasid ruler al-Mahdi to be the promised Mahdi. Now, if anyone insists on accepting this matter, he may accept it and reject the view I expressed in the book The Islamic Renaissance Movement. There is no rule that my opinion must be accepted by everyone on every historical, theoretical, or jurisprudential matter. Nor is it correct to say that if anyone finds one of my investigations on these matters unacceptable, it thereby becomes unlawful for him to cooperate with me in striving to establish Islam. The emergence of differing opinions among scholars in the disciplines of hadith, tafsir, jurisprudence, and others is by no means a new phenomenon.

(2) When I say that the promised Mahdi will be a leader of the modern type, I do not mean that he will shave off his beard, wear a suit and coat, and move about in up-to-date fashion. Rather, I mean that he will be fully aware of the knowledge, sciences, conditions, and needs of the age in which he is born. He will adopt practical courses of action suited to his contemporary era, and will use the instruments, devices, and means discovered through contemporary scientific research and investigation. This is an incontrovertible, rational statement. No hadith is needed for it. If the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) could use the trenches, battering rams, stone-throwing machines, and the like of his age, then in whatever future age a person advances to fulfill the obligations of succeeding the Noble Prophet, he certainly cannot work while remaining disconnected from tanks, airplanes, knowledge, science, and the conditions and affairs of his time. Acquiring the most modern means and instruments of power, and using modern knowledge, science, industry, and methods of work to extend one’s influence, is the natural way for any group to achieve its objective and for any movement to attain victory.

(3) In response to what you said—that this is giving rise to the suspicion that you yourself will claim to be Imam Mahdi—I can say nothing more than this: expressing such a suspicion cannot be the act of a person who fears God, feels his responsibility before God, and remembers God’s command:———–that is, “Stay away from most suspicion; indeed, some suspicion is sinful.” I have resolved to impose upon those who have expressed such suspicions and tried to keep people away from the call of the Jamaat-e-Islami a terrible punishment from which they can in no way escape. That punishment is this: God willing, I shall reach God’s presence having freed myself from every kind of claim. Then I shall see what defense these people offer before God for their suspicions and for obstructing people from the path of truth by expressing them.

(4) Regarding the hadith mentioned in the book Signs of the Resurrection, I can say nothing either positive or negative. If it is authentic, and if the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) truly gave the information that, when allegiance is pledged to Mahdi, a voice will come from the sky saying—that is, “This is God’s caliph, Mahdi; listen to him and obey him”—then the opinion I presented on this matter in the book The Islamic Renaissance Movement is wrong. But I do not expect that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) would say such a thing. From studying the Noble Qur’an, it is known that no such voice came from the sky at the advent of any prophet. After the Last Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him), there will be no second opportunity to establish a distinction between faith and disbelief; nevertheless, no such voice was heard from the sky at his advent. The polytheists of Makkah kept demanding that an angel must accompany you and inform them that this man was God’s prophet, or that there must be some clear sign from which your prophethood could be known without ambiguity. But Allah rejected all these demands of theirs and explained in various places in the Qur’an the reasons for not accepting them: to expose the truth completely, leaving no room for an intellectual test, is contrary to God’s wisdom. How, then, can it be accepted that Allah would alter this practice of His only in the case of Imam Mahdi and, at the time of his pledge of allegiance, cause a voice to come from the sky saying, “This is God’s caliph, Mahdi; listen to him and obey him”? (Tarjuman al-Qur’an, Rajab 1365 AH, June 1946 CE)

The End