Page 1 of 11
Tuesday, 19 Muharram 1431
Mawdudi's slandering of Islamic belief and
the Ahlus-Sunnah Ulema
and its answer
Mawdudi, in the first edition of this book The Revivalist Movement in Islam, slandered the Islamic faith and the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars. Muslims with right belief in Pakistan began to defend themselves and refuted his slanders and heretical thoughts with documents. Mawdudi, altogether confused with these righteous criticisms, had to tidy his book up. Changing some parts of it and attempting to explain away some others stupidly, he published it again. In order to save his face, he wrote in the preface, "Reviewing the parts which are misunderstood, I have tried to prevent the heartbreaking criticisms.1" Yet, in the same book, he did not give up speaking ill of the words of reverence such as 'al-Imam', 'Hujjat al-Islam', 'Qutb al-'arifin' and 'Shaikh al-Islam', that had been presented to the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars by Muslims, and proclaimed that he did not regard the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars worth these high titles. But, in praising Ibn Taymiyya and 'Abduh, who are documentedly proved to have had departed from the Ahl as-Sunnat, the right path, he himself did not neglect to write the words 'Imam' and 'Ustadh' (master) in front of their names. The words of reverence, which he deems too much for the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars are given freely to them by him. It is written detailedly on page 487 of the fifth volume of Ibn 'Abidin's Radd al-mukhtar for whom and which words of reverence can be used. At the beginning of The Revivalist Movement in Islam, Mawdudi says: "Islamic faith puts forth its own philosophy, which greatly differs from irreligious philosophies. Its knowledge about the Universe and mankind is quite opposite to the knowledge of the irreligious." He means that there is philosophy in Islam and that Muslim scholars are philosophers. His deductions are similar to the Europeans' understanding of Islam by looking at it from the outside. As explained in detail in our book Se'adet-i Ebediyye, one's degrading Muslim scholars down to the degree of philosophers shows his misunderstanding of them. Islamic knowledge is divided into two parts: religious and scientific. Scientific knowledge in Islam is obtained by observation, close examination and experimentation, as is the knowledge of the irreligious in Europe and America about the Universe and man. The science Muslims learn is seen as "quite opposite" by Mawdudi, which means to deny that there is scientific knowledge in Islam. And this is to spoil the lot instead of being useful. It is pertinent to quote the exalted Islamic scholar al-Imam al-Ghazali here: "It will not be useful but harmful to the religion for the ignorant to attempt to help the religion."
Mawdudi says on the thirty-third page of his book:
"One of the two reasons why the institution of khalifate weakened was because Hadrat 'Uthman did not have as much quality of a leader as his predecessors had had."
With these words, he tries to blemish Hadrat 'Uthman's (radi-Allahu 'anh) governance. Sayyid Qutb, a Freemason Egyptian writer, also attacks Hadrad 'Uthman (radi-Allahu anh) thus presumptuously in his book Al-'adalat al-ijtima'iyyata fi 'l-islam. Speaking ill of Hadrat 'Uthman Dhi 'n-nurain (radi-Allahu 'anh), who was recommended by Hadrat 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anh) and elected by the Prophet's ('alaihi 's-salam) companions unanimously and whose superiority had been declared in many hadiths is a symbol of being too ignorant to understand that it is a grave sin to speak ill of him or a symbol of attempting to demolish Islam insidiously from behind the screen. Each of the Sahabat al-kiram was a hero honored by being praised in the hadiths, "The highest people are those who live in my time," and "My companions are like the stars in the sky. If you follow any one of them, you will find the right path," and in the ayat, "They are very strong against disbelievers." To misrepresent 'Uthman (radi-Allahu 'anh) as the cause of weakening of the institution of khalifate can be done only by those who cannot comprehend their honors. The history is obvious. The extent of lands conquered in the time of Hadrat 'Uthman (radi-Allahu 'anh) was much greater than the former. Muslim lands enlarged from Philippines to Tunisia. The capacity of this book does not suffice to tell about the improvements he made in administrative, military and social fields. His attempts and achievements in administrative, military and economic fields are told in detail in the fifth chapter of the Turkish Hak Sozun Vesikalari. Those who misrepresent Hadrat 'Uthman's (radi-Allahu 'anh) martyrdom as a defect for him reveal what they think about the prophets whom the Bani Israil had martyred and about the hadith, "No Nabi suffered as much torture as I have." Evidently, the reason why they do not speak ill of Hadrat 'Umar's (radi-Allahu 'anh) martyrdom by his servant is because they cannot find the favorable opportunity. Let us tell these ignorant people again that each of the Sahabat al-kiram was a perfect leader and a courageous mujahid. From Hadrat Habib (radi-Allahu 'anh), who challenged the enemies in his speech on the tripod of gallows in Mecca, up to Abu 'Ubaida (radi-Allahu 'anh), the Conqueror of Damascus, and to Hadrat Khalid (radi-Allahu 'anh), who was amongst the fighters of the army that came Constantinople, it would make a long legend to write about the superiority of each of them in every respect.
"Khalifate, which had the qualities of prophethood, was passed on to cruel sovereigns. Thus, once more, administration was seized by those who were against Allah. Islam was pushed away from the power. Atheism seized the power and domination under the name of khalifate. Rulers were said to be the shade of Allah on the earth."
Words of this kind do not befit the mouths and pens of believers. These absurd, crazy words against Muawiya (radi-Allahu 'anh), one of the prominent Sahabis, disgrace with unbelief all the khalifs up to Sultan Muhammad Vahidaddin Khan, the last khalif of Muslims, and, therefore, are not worth answering. His attempt to interpret wrongly the hadith stating that Muslim rulers are zill-Allah (Allahu ta'ala's shade) and his considering Muslims so stupid as to suppose that Allahu ta'ala is a material being that makes a shade cannot rescue him from the ditch in which he has fallen. All Islamic khalifs were Muslims. Especially the Ottoman khalifs held on to Islam in everything they did and were proud of their devotion to Islam. Those who read the written will of 'Uthman Ghazi, the founder of the Ottoman Empire, which is written in many books, for example, in Qisas-i Anbiya', will understand the truth.
"It was the above-given conditions that incited the scholastic duel, which gave birth to various madhhabs, the Mutazila creed and the atheistic and skeptical inclinations."
It is surprising that he relates the birth of Madhhabs to the movements of fitna (mischief, disunion). Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) foretold it and praised beforehand the four madhhabs in that their birth was Allahu ta'ala's compassion. They did not arise from worldly conditions. They arose from religious, divine reasons pertaining to knowledge. Those who look at Islam from the outside and cannot penetrate into its essence strive to end up the sacred, spiritual manifestations by the substance and appearance.