MOULANA MAUDUDI Part 2


DIFFERENCES IN THE UMMAT AND SIRAAT-E- MUSTAQEEM, Fiqh / Saturday, February 19th, 2011

After the Ambiyaa (alaihimus salaam), the most sacred group is that of the Sahaabah (radhiAllaahu anhum),especially the four rightly guided caliphs. They form the medium between the Ambiyaa and the Ummat like that of Barzakh. Whatever has emanated from Maududi‟s pen in his books “Tajdeed Wa Ahyaa-e-Deen”, “Khilaafat Wa Mulukiyat”, “Tafheemul Qur`aan” etc. regarding Sayyidina Uthmaan, Ali, Talha, Zubair, Aishah, Muawiyah, Abu Moosa Ash`ari, Amr bil Aas, Uqbah and other Sahaabah, I regard as pure Shiasm. After studying Moulana‟s writings I have come to the conclusion that just as he is unaware of the reverence of prophethood, similarly is he unaware of the ranks of the Sahaabah. I wish he could have at least remembered one statement of Mujaddid Alfe Thaani:

“No Wali can reach the status of the Sahaabah. Hadhrat Uwais Qarni (rahmatullahi alaih) with all his loftiness could not match the lowest Sahaabi because he did not achieve the benefaction of the company of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam). Someone asked Abdullaah bin Mubarak (rahmatullahi alaih) as to who is nobler, Hadhrat Muawiyah or Umar bin Abdil Azeez. He replied:“The dust that settled in the nose of Muawiyah‟s horse in the company of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) is by far better than Umar bin Abdil Azeez (rahmatullahi alaih).”

At this stage it is essential to point out that all the actions of the entire Ummat cannot match the merit of the Sahaabah‟s companionship with Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam). Just visualize the two Rakaats of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) which the Sahaabah were fortunate to witness. Can the Salaat of the entire Ummat collectively match those two Rakaats? If the latter part of the Ummat gives a mountain of gold in charity, can they equal the virtue achieved by a Sahaabi who gave a little barley in the path of Allaah? Measure and analyse every good deed in this fashion.

Surpassing the virtue of companionship is the fact that the Sahaabah were the students of that Madrasah whose teacher and guide was Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) and whose syllabus was prepared in the heavens. Their nurturing was carried out by heavenly revelation. Their examinations were taken by the Knower of the unseen. After they were tried and tested in every aspect of their learning and spiritual nurturing, Allaah granted them the degree of radhiAllaahu anhum i.e. Allaah is pleased with them and they with him. Thereafter he gave them the title of being the best of mankind, who were chosen for the guidance of man. If you reflect carefully you will notice that after the Ambiyaa, the upbringing of the Sahaabah was also done under the guidance and supervision of Divine Revelation and their certificate of virtue was also granted by Allaah Ta`ala Himself.

The followers of Maududi try to side step the issue by saying that whatever he wrote was extracted from historical sources and that it is a testimony of the excellence of his pen, that he has collected scattered bits of information and formulated a flowing history. I respectfully wish to inform them that their statements are wrong for several reasons:

Firstly, whatever Moulana wrote is neither historical truth nor a true picture of the lives of the Sahaabah (radhiAllaahu anhum) but rather a brew formed by his theories and imaginations. Today fiction is common. Generally people do not express so much interest in historical truth as they do in colourful fictitious tales. Hence Moulana has written a fictitious tale of the Sahaabah in the name of Khilaafat wa Mulukiyat (name of his book).

Secondly, a devious attempt is being made in Europe to distort, besmirch and degrade the noble personalities of Islaam. The energies of the Jewish orientalists are being spent on this task. They are also collating the scattered bits of history to form a hypothetical picture. They are convincing the world that they are presenting the realities of history without any mixture of prejudice. However contrary to their claims, their prejudice and enmity towards Islaam cannot be concealed due to the manner in which they express simple, straightforward statements incorrectly and draw the unwary into their traps and ploys.

It is totally inconceivable that a person who believes in Allaah and his Rasool (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) could follow the way of the orientalists, but unfortunately Maududi‟s book “Khilaafat wa Mulukiyat” has adopted this style. The poor reader is led to think that Moulana is gathering true historical facts but he does not realize what the prejudices of the author are, viz. adding and deleting from his own side. In short, just as the orientalists failed in concealing their enmity for Islaam, notwithstanding all the deceptions, Moulana also could not conceal his enmity for the Sahaabah in his work. If the interpretations of Maududi are correct, then the achievements of the orientalists are more rightful to be called correct. If the method of the Jewish Orientalists is incorrect, then by the same token will Maududi‟s work be incorrect.

Thirdly, one must realize that the Sahaabah were human beings, not angels. They were not free from sins. Leave aside minor slips and mistakes, they even committed major sins. What kind of Deen is it not to admit their faults? Firstly, it must be noted that Maududi had to take recourse to Waqidi and Kalbi (historians) etc. to sift out the errors of the Sahaabah, whereas Allaah the Knower of the unseen was well aware of their internal and external conditions. He knew the condition of their hearts and minds. He also knew that they were humans who are not flawless and that they will commit sins in the future. In spite of comprehensively knowing all this, Allaah granted them the honourable title of “radhiAllaahu anhum waradhu anh”, because one fault of theirs was better than a hundred correct actions of ours. What right has Maududi to criticize these great personalities? Is this not an open confrontation with Allaah Ta`ala that He has announced His eternal pleasure notwithstanding for them all their faults, yet Maududi is not prepared to show his satisfaction for them.

Secondly, let us accept that they did commit sins, and bearing in mind that Allaah is pleased with them because of their inherent virtue, then what can be achieved by preparing a list of their crimes after 1400 years, except despoiling one‟s own book of deeds?

Had these personalities been present today, he could have informed them of their faults. However now after 1400 years have passed an now to nitpick and every sin of theirs, it seems that the underlying aim of selecting their faults from incorrect sources and presenting this whole heap of nonsense to the people can only be to remove the love which the Muslims have for the Sahaabah (radhiAllaahu anhum) and replace it with enmity and hatred. Is this the requirement of Deen and Imaan?

Fourthly, the delicate subject which Maududi has touched upon in his work “Khilaafat wa Mulukiyat” is called “Mushajaratus Sahaabah” or difference of opinion among the Sahaabah in the books of scholastic theology. This chapter of Imaan is a most delicate bridge which is sharper than a sword and thinner than a strand of hair. Accordingly the pious predecessors have at this occasion always maintained respect and advised control of the tongue and the pen, because not only later generations, but also the contemporaries of the Sahaabah have lost their Imaan in this delicate ground. The elders of the Ummat have always cleared the way of the thorns which the irreligious people have placed, but Maududi disregards them calling them “representatives of defence”. He reject s their statements as “unnecessary oratory” and “illogical interpretations” and accumulates all these thorns by means of which the Khawarij and Shiahs lost their Imaan and presents them to the latter generation. Is this a service to Islaam or is it the blowing of a new spirit into Kharijiyat and Shiasm?

Does Maududi and his followers hope to be raised with the Ahle Sunnat after this achievement, and not with the Kharijites and Shiahs? I ponder a thousand times to try and figure out whether Maududi has written this book to guide the new generation or to divert them from the straight path.

Fifthly, perhaps the most troublesome idea is that Maududi has established a Shar`i court of „investigation. for incidents that occurred 1400 years ago and appoints himself the judge. The elite Sahaabah are brought into this court as criminals. Testimony is taken from the likes of Waqidi and Kalbi etc. the chief prosecutor is the judge himself. If the pious predecessors plead for their innocence and present evidence then he rejects it by calling it unnecessary and illogical interpretations. After this one-sided case Maududi prepares his investigative report and presents it to the people in the name of “Khilaafat wa Mulukiyat”.

Irrespective of the integrity and honesty that was considered in these investigations, how much care was taken in critically examining the evidence and how impartial “the judge” was in narrating the incidents including his own ideas, I must respectfully question Maududi.s right to pass judgement in his self made court. On what ground does he consider himself as having the status or right or to convict the students of Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam)? I do not know what opinion Maududi or his followers have in this regard, but would like to point out that the hearing of the case of the Sahaabah (radhiAllaahu anhum) can only be done by someone superior to them viz. Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) or The Judge of all judges (Allaah Ta`ala) Himself and definitely not Maududi! No individual in the Ummat has the authority of interfering in the affairs of this sacred group. The example of someone uttering anything against the Sahaabah is that of a street-sweeper arranging a court in the marketplace and giving judgement against the members of parliament.

The sixth point that should be well understood is that Allaah Ta`ala granted the Sahaabah the honour and rank of being guides and guardians of the Ummat. We are commanded to love and follow in their footsteps. This is stressed upon in the Qur`aan. It is not only impermissible or Haraam to criticise them, but it is also an act which necessitates the Curse of Allaah Ta`ala.

Maududi himself admits:

“In my opinion the person who criticises the Sahaabah is not only a flagrant sinner (Faasiq), but his Imaan is also in doubt. „Whoever has hatred for them, it is because he has hatred for me [Hadith]..”

Whoever has read Maududi.s book “Khilaafat wa Mulukiyat” will testify that the Sahaabah (radhiAllaahu anhum) are openly degraded in it and the author.s animosity for the Sahaabah (radhiAllaahu anhum) is quite apparent. Under the title “Termination of the superiority of the law”, Maududi writes:

(a) “Another abominable innovation that originated in the rise of Muawiyah is that he and the governors under his command used to vilify and swear Hadhrat Ali (radhiAllaahu anhu) from the pulpit, to such an extent that in Masjidun Nabawi on the mimbar of Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) right in front of Rowdah-e-Nabawi, the beloved cousin of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) was vilified. The descendants and relatives of Ali (radhiAllaahu anhu) used to bear abuse. To swear any person after his death is ethically despicable. To pollute the Jumuah sermon with this filth an extremely repulsive act.” [Khilaafat Wa Mulukiyat, page 147]

(b) “Hadhrat Muawiyah (radhiAllaahu anhu) openly violated the Qur`aan and Sunnah in the matter of the distribution of the booty. According to the Qur`aan the Hadith one fifth of the total spoils of war were to be given to public treasury and the remaining four portions were to be distributed amongst the army that participated in the battle. But Muawiyah gave the order that the gold and silver were to be first taken out for him and the remaining distributed according to the Shar`i rule.” [Ibid]

(c) “The enrolling of Ziyad ibn Sumayah was also one of the acts of Muawiyah which he perpetrated for political aims and thereby contravened an accepted law of Shariah. This was a completely unlawful act.” [Ibid, page 175]

(d) “Hadhrat Muawiyah (radhiAllaahu anhu) regarded his governors as above the law and openly rejected Shar`i proceedings against their violations.” [Ibid.]

The abovementioned texts of Maududi where Sayyidina Muawiyah (radhiAllaahu anhu) has been accused are totally unfounded and baseless. The Ulama have clarified the true facts. I only want to ask whether the people who believe in these tales of Maududi have love or hatred for Hadhrat Muawiyah (radhiAllaahu anhu) and the other Sahaabah and Tabieen of that era? Do they feel proud of following them or do they curse them?

Has Maududi in these texts insulted Hadhrat Muawiyah (radhiAllaahu anhu) or sang couplets of praise? Let us consider his (Maududi‟s) own statement that “not only is he (one who vilifies the Sahaabah) a flagrant sinner but his Imaan is also in doubt.” Has he not flagrantly violated the Sahaabah and does he not fall within the purview of his own declaration? I do not feel that Maududi will ever regret this fault of his but let me reiterate that the result of his stubbornness is extremely dangerous.

It has been mentioned that a Shiah Aalim viz. Muhaqqiq Tusi vilified the Sahaabah in the conclusion of his book “Tajreedul Aqaaid”. At the time of his death impurities were expelled from his mouth as had happened to Ghulaam Ahmed Qadiani. He pointed to it asking:“What is this?” A learned scholar who was present replied:“This is the same filth which you had partaken at the conclusion of „Tajreed‟”.

May Allaah Ta`ala protect us from such blasphemy. Ameen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *