Nadim Asrar, former AMU Students' Union president has written an open letter to Shehla Rashid, a former JNU Students' Union vice president.
Here I shall quote the original letter in blue and give my response to his perfidy.
Let me express my deep sense of shock and disgust over an FIR filed against you in Aligarh.
Nadim Asrar
20-02-2017
(1) Here is the background. Shehla Rashid wrote a Facebook post about right wing abuses against beloved Prophet of Islam, may peace and blessings of Allah SWT be upon him.
(2) A lower level official, a girl, of AMU Students' Union filed an FIR against Shehla Rashid.
(3) Then the social media took over.
Hello comrade,
I insist on addressing you like that - not only because you and many
amazing young minds before you in JNU have been my comrades for more
than two decades now - but also because the word comes from the root
"camaraderie", the idea that defines student politics in general, and
the strong bonds that JNU and AMU students have built for a progressive
polity in particular.
Despite what has happened, those bonds must endure.
(1) It is true that there is mostly good communication between AMUSU and JNUSU.(2) In spite of that it should not be and can not be forgotten that the character of JNUSU is mostly leftist and that of AMUSU is Muslim.(3) Nadim Asrar himself was of leftist disposition.
Let me, therefore, at the outset, express my deep sense of shock and
disgust over a first information report (FIR) filed against you in
Aligarh by the AMU Students Union, which claims you insulted Prophet
Mohammad in a Facebook post - a 1000-word statement that those students,
in the age of 140-word tweets and emoticonned Whatsapp conversations,
were too ignorant to understand. The other possibility is they are
deliberately misreading the post and claiming being hurt to "fix" you
for speaking your mind.
(1) The accusation is two fold here. AMU students are seriously hampered by emoticonned texts of Whatsapp and 140 character messages to understand a 1000 word Facebook message. The impression is that AMU students are technically incompetent. (2) Or AMUSU is deliberately misreading Shehla Rashid to fix her for speaking her mind. The impression is two fold again: AMUSU and hence AMU students and hence Muslims do not like women to have their own opinion and secondly they have ill motivation to fix a girl who dared to speak her mind.
The men in Aligarh are not used to women speaking their minds, let
alone having one. With you, it becomes worse. It's not only your gender
that they despise, it's your left-liberal political persuasion too.
Aligarh in general has never been comfortable with liberal and
progressive forces, despite being one of the major centres of
progressive writers and academics in the country.
(1) The FIR against Shehla Rashid was filed by a girl student. To hurl an accusation against all AMU men is clearly a false premise. The least Mr Asrar is erring on is the inherent assumption that the FIR filing girl is incompetent to make her own opinion. In this case it is Mr Asrar who simply can not take a Muslim woman taking a stand that does not go well with his favourite ideology. (2) Another accusation in first sentence of the above quoted paragraph is that Aligarh men are not used to women having minds of their own. Clearly by Aligarh men he meant Muslims for Professor Irfan Habib, in spite of being an Aligarh man, will certainly be a paragon of all virtue for Mr Asrar. To be good, right, virtuous and proper you have to be a Marxist. Being a Muslim is a total and complete disqualification if you want to be That the police complaint against you came only two days after you
and other comrades from JNU, Delhi University, and Allahabad University
were invited by the same AMU Students Union for a symposium on the role
of student leaders in "building contemporary society" is one of the many
unfortunate ironies that AMU has long been used to revel in.
In the horribly misinterpreted January 9 post on Facebook, you had
attempted a more nuanced understanding of hate speech by asserting a
rational mind’s democratic right to ask questions and raise doubts, even
if they involve religious figures like Ram or Mohammad. There is
difference between inquiry and incitement, you argued in that post, with
considerable sensibility and success.
Zia Nomani in youthkiawaaz.com was right. “The post quoted some
controversial phrases like "Ram was an asshole" and "Mohammad was a
paedophile" to distinguish between hate speech and "hateful" speech.
It’s a paradox that the ex-JNUSU vice-president Shehla was accused of
hate speech in her Facebook post, which was meant to condemn it in the
first place,” he wrote.
However, allow me to put this controversy in some context. Far from
being an isolated hounding
Hello comrade,
I insist on addressing you like that - not only because you and many
amazing young minds before you in JNU have been my comrades for more
than two decades now - but also because the word comes from the root
"camaraderie", the idea that defines student politics in general, and
the strong bonds that JNU and AMU students have built for a progressive
polity in particular.
Despite what has happened, those bonds must endure.
of a Muslim woman studying in another
university, it actually fits into a long trope of myopia, misogyny and
mindset that defines not only AMU, but even the average Muslim man.
Student politics in Aligarh, unlike your university or most others,
is ad-hoc and devoid of affiliations from the mainstream political
parties. That emptying of politics from politics per se ends up creating
student leaders, whose only claim to electoral positions is the most
banal slogan you can ever hear in a university: "tempo high hai".
Please don't ask me what it means. I don't know either and have
remained intrigued for long. But it is this singular slogan that has set
the agenda and decided student elections in Aligarh for nearly a
century now. It is "tempo high hai" that has created leaders from
Aligarh, whatever little it has produced.
It is this political and intellectual bankruptcy that has marked
student politics in AMU. In the absence of political education and
atmosphere that an institution of higher education is supposed to
provide, more so in a campus like Aligarh, student leaders are left to
fend for themselves. Teachers either don't mentor or are too scared to
do it. The administration run by former Army generals or senior
bureaucrats does all it can to ensure the campus remains depoliticised.
I don't know if you have noticed, but AMU and Jamia Millia Islamia
are the only two central universities in India often run by
non-academics. While that trend is set to hopefully stop soon, it's
appalling why nobody within the community or outside questioned and
resisted it for decades.
Such administrators despise progressive politics, victimise teachers
or students who dare to do it, and end up undermining the legitimate
and democratic right of students to call elections or form political
alliances.
What happens in such a depoliticised campus is that student leaders
end up pandering to populist notions of religion, tradition or
victimhood. Easy and regressive slogans take over more pressing issues
like the recent University Grants Commission gazette notification you
also questioned AMU about. Politics of emotion takes over politics of
consequence. The FIR against you over alleged disrespect to the Prophet
explains that.
"I doubt if AMUSU has any sentiments left, let alone religious!" you
said in another angry Facebook post after the police case was filed. I
have to agree with you on that. Moreover, religious sentiments have no
place in an academic insitution.
If AMU or its student leaders claim a religious right over their
campus and dictate who gets to enter it, they are failing the very idea
of Aligarh and its long history of liberal and alternate politics.
As you so aptly put it in the same Facebook post: "Pehle insaan
baniye, phir musalman banne ka dawa kariye." For me, as long as you are a
student, insaaniyat (humanism) is all that matters.
(The author is a former president of AMU Students Union.)
Disagreement accompanied by arguments is OK but
sarcasm that Zamanat nahee bacha saktey are not decent words.Actually
knowledge of history is essential which our friends dont like to learn. Indian general election,1951-1st Lok Sabha Jansangh prent party of BJP won only 3 seats Indian general election, 1962 3rd Lok Sabha 14 Increase 10 Indian general election, 1962 3rd Lok Sabha 14 Increase 10 6.44 [5][6] Indian general election, 1967 4th Lok Sabha 35 Increase 21 Indian
general election, 1971 5th Lok Sabha 22 Decrease 13 .It took them over
half a century to come to power and lost again until PM Modi's charisma
won and took power with 33% votes only....They are destined to lose
again and many may not even protect Zamanat. It is a matter of ideology and contribution towards constructive activities,refraining from insulting others. I
am not an active participant with Mr Saleem Peerzada,but,I highly
appreciate his knowledge,high vocabulary & its delivery with
consistency of efforts for over a decade.He may not win,he may loose
zamanat in elections but he leaves an impact on the minds of people,both
educated and otherwise. Mohammad Adeeb justified his
presence in Rajya Sabha,took up several big issues,which none else did
in last 3 decades,yet he lost in election.It doesnt mean that he should
be teased and insulted for loosing. He remains in high esteem in hearts
of people due to his services for community. My dears
,electoral compaigns,victory or losses are temporary;They are events
occurring as part of a sequence and incidents which should be
considered a period in isolation. PERMANENT;We dont look for permanent solutions of empowerment. We rise for events and then land in deep slumber. We need a SOCIETAL CHANGE. I have written earlier on this issue............ If some one likes to discuss,please feel free to call me cell 0091 8126039175 Dr Mohsin Raza Senior Consultant General Surgeon
MuftiSays 887 Posts Sunni Forum 8000 Posts An Alig's Armchair 1188 Posts Thus Spake Hazrat Shaikh 2240 Posts Kamalat-e-Kalimia : Adjust in Inflating SF Posts
This will be about 12000 posts.
In this the 2240 posts on Thus Spake are really one paragraph posts
because these are reporting on the the sayings of my Shaikh. Rest of the
posts could be a long article of a few pages or simply a link or a
comment or a paragraph. It is difficult to average out these to
calculate the amount of the material I have produced myself.
Add to this thousands of posts on the FB in last few years.
If I am allowed to shun humility for a moment then it will amount to
prodigious output. It will be like 14000 paragraphs of dense material.
Assuming that seven such paragraphs would be enough to fill a page it
means that I might have written about 2000 densely packed pages on
non-leisure material. Of course this is certainly an under estimation
but that is alright.
Of course it amounts to nothing in concrete
terms for all of this is either on the net or disappeared even from
there (all the SF posts).
I suppose I should write down those
2000 pages in print form. If I had already done that then it would have
taken a load off my mind - I would have cheated myself into believing
that I have done a part of my duty as a Earthian. Alas that is not true.
So be friendly and push me to do that - write books. Apart from papers, those dry Physics kind papers.
Due to the letters and questions regarding some of the incorrect
ideologies and thoughts and the questionable Bayaans of Janaab Moulana
Saad Saheb Kandhelwi received from within the country as well as from
beyond, with the signatures of senior Asaatizah Kiraam and the panel of
Muftis, an official stance has been taken.
However, before releasing this document, it was brought to our notice
that a delegation wishes to come to Darul-Uloom and discuss matters on
behalf of Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb. Hence, the delegation came and
delivered the message on behalf of Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb that he
is ready to make Rujoo’ (retract). Therefore, the unanimous stance was
sent with the delegation to Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb. A reply was
then received from him, however, Darul-Uloom Deoband was not satisfied
with his reply completely, upon which some explanation was sent to
Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb in the form of a letter.
In order to protect the blessed effort of Tableegh started by the
Akaabir Ulema of Darul-uloom Deoband from becoming mixed up with
incorrect ideologies, to keep it on the pattern of the Akaabir and also
in order for its benefit and to keep the reliance of the Ulema-e-Haq
upon this effort, it is regarded as a Deeni responsibility to present
our unanimous standpoint to the Ahl-e-Madaaris, Ahl-e-Ilm and the
unbiased people. May Allah Ta’ala protect this blessed effort in every
way and grant all of us the ability to remain ideologically and
practically on the path of truth.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمد لله رب العالمين، والصلاة والسلام على سيد الأنبياء والمرسلين، محمد وآله وأصحابه أجمعين. أما بعد:
Recently a request has been received from many Ulema and Mashaaikh
that Dar-uloom Deoband present its stance regarding the ideologies of
Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb khandhelwi. Very recently, letters have been
received from the reliable Ulema of Bangladesh and some Ulema from our
neighbouring country (Pakistan), together with which various Istiftaas
[requests for Fatwas] have come to the Darul-Ifta at Dar-uloom Deoband
from within the country.
Without getting involved in the disagreements within the Jamaat and
the administrative matters, we wish to say that since the last few
years, the ideologies of Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb khandhelwi were
received in the form of letters and Istiftaas. Now, after investigation,
it has been proven that, in his Bayaans, incorrect or unfavourable
explanation of the Qur’aan and Hadeeth, incorrect analogies and Tafsir
bir Ray’ [interpretations based on self-opinion in conflict with Qur’an
and Hadith] are found. Some statements amount to disrespect of the
Ambiyaa’ (alayhis salaam) whilst many statements are such, wherein he
moves beyond the bounds of the majority and Ijmaa’ of the Salaf.
In some Fiqhi matters also, without any basis, he contradicts the
unanimous Fatwa of reliable Darul-Iftas and emphasises his new view upon
the general people. He also stresses upon the importance of the effort
of Tableegh in such a manner that other branches of Deen are criticised
and belittled.
The method of doing Tableegh by the Salaf is also opposed, due to
which the respect of the Akaabir and Aslaaf is lessened, rather, they
are belittled. His conduct is in stark contrast to the previous
Zimm-e-Daars of Tableegh, viz; Hazrat Moulana Ilyas Saheb (rahmatullahi
alayh), Hazrat Moulana Yusuf Saheb (rahmatullahi alayh) and Hazrat
Moulana In’aamul Hasan Saheb (rahmatullahi alayh).
Hereunder are some of the quotations we have received from the
Bayaans of Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb which have been proven to have
been said by him:
* “ Hazrat Moosa (alayhis salaam) left his nation and went in
seclusion to engage in Munaajaat with Allah Ta’aala, due to which 188
000 individuals went astray. The Asl was Moosa (alayhis salaam), he was
the Zimme-Daar. The Asl was supposed to remain. Haroon (alayhis salaam)
was a helper and partner.”
* “Naql-o-Harkat is for the completion and perfection of Taubah.
People know of the three conditions of Taubah, they don’t know the
fourth. They have forgotten it. What is it? Khurooj! [i.e. coming out
specifically for Tabligh]. People have forgotten this condition. A
person killed 99 people. He first met a monk. The monk made him despair.
He then met an Aalim. The Aalim told him to go to a certain locality.
This killer did Khurooj, therefore Allah Ta’aala accepted his Taubah.
From this it is understood that Khurooj is a condition of Taubah.
Without it, Taubah is not accepted. People have forgotten this
condition. Three conditions of Taubah are mentioned. The fourth
condition, i.e. Khurooj is forgotten.”
* “There is no place for getting Hidaayat except the Masjid.
Those branches of Deen where Deen is taught, if their connection is not
with the Masjid, then, by the oath of Allah Ta’aala there will be no
Deen in it. Yes the Ta’leem of Deen will take place, not Deen.”
(In this quotation, by connection with the Masjid, his intention is
not going to perform Salaah in the Masjid. This is because he said this
while talking about the importance of the Masjid and talking about Deen
only after bringing a person to the Masjid. He said it while speaking
about his specific ideology, the details of which is in the audio. His
ideology is thus: to speak about Deen outside of the Masjid is contrary
to the Sunnah, and contrary to the manner of the Ambiyaa’ (alayhis
salaam) and the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum))
* “To teach Deen for a wage is to sell Deen. People who commit Zina will enter Jannah before those who teach Qur’aan for a wage.”
* “According to me Salaah with a camera phone in ones’ pocket is
invalid. Get as many Fatwas as you want from the Ulema. Listening to and
reciting Qur’aan on a camera phone is a disgrace to the Qur’aan, there
will be no reward for it. A person will be sinful by doing so. No reward
will be attained. Because of doing so Allah Ta’aala will deprive one
from the ability of practising on the Qur’aan. Those Ulema who give the
Fatwa of permissibility in this regard, according to me they are
Ulema-e-Soo, Ulema-e-Soo’. Their hearts and minds have become affected
by the Christians and Jews. They are completely ignorant Ulema.
According to me, whichever Aalim gives the Fatwa of permissibility, by
Allah Ta’aala his heart is devoid of the greatness of the Kalaam of
Allah Ta’aala. I am saying this because one big Aalim said to me: “What
is wrong with it?” I said that the heart of this Aalim is devoid of the
greatness of Allah Ta’aala even if he knows Bukhari. Even non-Muslims
may know Bukhari.”
* “It is Waajib upon every Muslim to read the Qur’aan with
understanding it. It is Waajib. It is Waajib. Whoever leaves out this
Waajib act will get the sin of leaving out a Waajib act.”
* “I am astonished that it is asked: “With whom do you have
Islaahi Ta’alluq?” Why is it not said, that my Islaahi Ta’alluq is with
this effort? My Islaahi Ta’alluq is with Da’wat. Have Yaqeen that the
A’maal of Da’wat is not just enough for reformation, rather, it
guarantees reformation. I have contemplated deeply, this is the reason
why those involved in the effort do not stay steadfast. I am saddened
over those people who sit here and say that six points is not complete
Deen. The person who himself says his milk is sour cannot do business. I
was completely shocked when one of our own Saathis asked for leave for a
month saying that he wanted to spend I’tikaaf in the company of so and
so Sheikh. I said that until now you people have not joined Da’wat and
Ibaadat. You have spent at least 40 years in Tableegh. After spending 40
years in Tableegh a person says that he wants leave because he wants to
go for one month I’tikaaf. I said that the person who requests leave
from Da’wat in order to do Ibaadat, how can he improve his Ibaadat
without Da’wat? I am saying it very clearly that the difference between
the A’maal of Nubuwwat and the A’maal of Wilaayat, the difference is
only that of not engaging in Naql-o-Harkat. I am saying it extremely
clearly that we do not make Tashkeel to merely go out to learn Deen,
because there are other avenues of learning Deen. Why is it necessary to
go out in Tableegh only? The object is to learn Deen. Learn in a
Madrasah. Learn in a Khaanqah.”
Some quotations from his Bayaans have also been received from which
it becomes apparent that Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb khandhelwi regards
the vast meaning of Da’wat to be confined to the current form present in
the Tableegh Jamaat. Only this form is expressed as the manner of the
Ambiyaa’ (alayhis salaam) and the Sahaabah (radhiyallaahu anhum). Only
this specific form is regarded to be Sunnah and the effort of the
Ambiyaa’ (alayhis salaam), whereas it is the unanimous viewpoint of the
majority of the Ummah that Da’wah and Tableegh is a universal command,
regarding which the Shariah has not stipulated any specific form, which,
if left out, will equate to leaving out the Sunnah.
In different eras Da’wat and Tableegh took on different forms. In no
era was the divine command of Da’wat completely ignored. After the
Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum), the Taabi’een, Tab-e-Taabi’een, A’immah
Mujtahideen, Fuqahaa’, Muhadditheen, Mashaaikh, Awliyaa’ of Allah and in
recent times our Akaabir made an effort in different ways to bring Deen
alive on a global scale.
In order to maintain brevity we have only mentioned a few things.
Besides these, many other points have been received that go beyond the
scope of the Jumhoor Ulema and have taken the shape of a new ideology.
These things being incorrect is very apparent, therefore, a detailed
treatise is not required here.
Before this, on numerous occasions, attention was drawn to this in
the form of letters sent from Darul-Uloom Deoband. It was also brought
to the attention of the delegations from “Bangla Wali Masjid” on the
occasion of the Tableeghi Ijtimaa’. To date no reply to the letters was
received.
Jamaat-e-Tableegh is a purely Deeni Jamaat, which cannot be left to
operate in a manner that is ideologically and practically apart from the
majority of the Ummah and the Akaabir (rahmatullahi alayhim). The
Ulema-e-Haq can never be unanimous nor can they adopt silence over
disrespect to the Ambiyaa’ (alayhis salaam), deviant ideologies, Tafsir
Bir Raay and whimsical explanation of the Ahaadeeth and Aathaar,
because, these types of ideologies will later on cause the entire group
to deviate from the path of truth as has happened to some Deeni and
Islaahi Jamaats.
This is why we consider it our Deeni responsibility to inform the
Ummah in general and the Tableeghi brothers specifically in light of
these points that:-
Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb khandhelwi Saheb, due to a lack of knowledge
has strayed from the path of the majority of the Ulema of the Ahlus
Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah in his ideologies and his explanation of Qur’aan and
Hadeeth, which is undoubtedly the path of deviation. Therefore, silence
cannot be adopted regarding these matters, because, even though these
ideologies are those of a single person, they are spreading with great
speed among the general masses.
The influential and accomplished Zimme-Daars of Jamaat who are
moderate and composed also wish to turn our attention that an effort
needs to be made that this Jamaat which was established by the Akaabir
be kept upon the pattern of the majority of the Ummah and that of the
previous Zimme-Daars. An effort also needs to made so that the incorrect
ideologies of Molvi Saad that have spread amongst the general masses
may be rectified. If immediate action is not taken, there is fear that a
great portion of the Ummah, which is affiliated to the Tableegh Jamaat
will succumb to deviance and take on the form of a Firqah Baatilah.
We all make Du’aa that Allah Ta’aala protect this Jamaat and keep the
Jamaat-e-Tableegh alive and flourishing with Ikhlaas upon the manner of
the Akaabir. Aameen. Thumma Aameen.
Note: These types of inappropriate statements were made previously by
some individuals connected to the Tableegh Jamaat, upon which the Ulema
of that time, for example, Hazrat Sheikhul Islam (rahmatullahi alayh)
etc. cautioned them after which those individuals desisted from such
statements. Now, however, the Zimme-Daars [i.e. the leaders of Tabligh
Jama’at] themselves are saying such things, rather, even worse things
are being said, as is apparent from the above quotations. They were
cautioned, however, they did not heed the caution, due to which this
decision and Fatwa is being approved, in order to save the people from
deviance.
[END OF STATEMENT FROM DARUL ULOOM DEOBAND]
The original Urdu version is available at this link: http://www.darulifta-deoband.com/home/ur/Dawah–Tableeg/147286 THE KUFR IDEOLOGY OF MOLVI SA’D (Detailed Analysis by Majlisul Ulama) QUESTION:Maulana Sa’d of the Tablighi Jamaat,
had in a bayaan made some serious claims which have caused some
consternation and confusion. Kindly listen to his bayaan and guide us.
Are the views expressed by him in conformity with the belief of the
Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah? He claimed: 1. Khurooj (emerging and travelling in
Tabligh) is the Asal (actual objective). He basis his view on the Hadith
of Hadhrat Ubay Bin Ka’b (Radhiyallahu anhu). 2. Allah and His Rasool are displeased with those who do not make khurooj in Tabligh. 3. The greatest calamity of this age is that Muslims do not consider it a crime to abstain from khurooj. 4. Hidaayat is not in the Hands of Allah Ta’ala. He had therefore sent the Ambiya to impart Hidaayat. 5. Hidaayat is the effect of mehnet (effort). People had received hidaayat because of the mehnet of the Ambiya. 6. The Ambiya did not spread hidaayat with their tawajjuh and roohaaniyat. ANSWER Ghulu’ (nafsaani extremism) is a satanic affliction bringing bid’ah and even kufr in its wake. A person suffering from the affliction of ghulu’ disgorges any rubbish without applying his mind and without reflecting on the consequences of his stupidities.
Molvi Sa’d is guilty of ghulu’ (haraam extremism). Unfortunately, the Tabligh Jamaat in general has slipped into ghulu’. He believes that the specific methodology of the Tabligh Jamaat is Waajib whereas it is not so. The Tabligh Jamaat’s method is mubah (permissible), and will remain mubah as long as ghulu’ and bid’ah do not overtake and destroy the Jamaat by deflecting it from its original path.
He is confusing or intentionally misusing the Jihaad campaigns of the Sahaabah with the Tabligh Jamaat’s specific methodology, especially of its ‘khurooj’ method. He is equating Tabligh Jamaat khurooj to the Khurooj of the Sahaabah whose Khurooj was for Jihaad – Qitaal – to subjugate the lands of the kuffaar and to open and prepare the way for the conversion of the kuffaar
nations of the world. In contrast, the methodology of the Tabligh
Jamaat excludes non-Muslims. Its field of activity is limited to
Muslims. While there is nothing wrong with this, it is wrong and not
permissible to find a basis for the specific method of the Tabligh
Jamaat in the Jihaad campaigns of the Sahaabah. There is no resemblance.
The analogy is fallacious. There is no resemblance between the Tabligh
Jamaat’s khurooj and the Jihaad campaigns of the Sahaabah. The Tabligh Jamaat’s khurooj groups do not encounter a thousandth of the hardships, dangers and trials which the Sahaabah had to face and bear in their Jihaad campaigns. The Tabligh Jamaat’s khurooj groups move and live in comfort and even luxury.
The claim that Allah and His Rasool are displeased with those who do not make khurooj in
Tabligh, is a monstrous lie fabricated on Allah Ta’ala and Rasulullah
(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Did Molvi Sa’d receive wahi with which he could back up his preposterous falsehood? This contumacious claim comes within the purview of the Hadith: “He who intentionally speaks a lie on me, should prepare his abode in the Fire.”
His ghulu’ has constrained him to disgorge this haraam
flotsam. The baseless premises on which he has raised this palpable
falsehood is that the only method of tabligh is the Tabligh Jamaat’s
methodology. Allah Ta’ala and Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi
wasallam) are not displeased with anyone who does not adopt
the methods of the Tabligh Jamaat.Sa’d has absolutely no Shar’i evidence for substantiating his preposterous claim of ghulu’.
His claim: The greatest calamity of this age is that Muslims do not consider it a crime to abstain from khurooj, is nafsaani drivel disgorged without applying the mind. The greatest calamity of the Ummah is gross disobedience fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and even kufr. This is the actual cause for the fall and disgrace of the Ummah, not non-participation in Tabligh Jamaat activities. The Shariah has not ordained Tabligh Jamaat participation as an obligation. The Jamaat’s specific methodology is mubah as long as it is not disfigured with ghulu’ and bid’ah. Presenting it as ‘waajib’ and even ‘fardh ain’, is ultimately destroy the dangerous. This ghulu’
will original Tabligh Jamaat. It will then become a deviant sect. With
the Sa’d character, the process of deviation has gained much momentum.
The Tabligh Jamaat elders have the incumbent obligation of arresting
the slide of the Jamaat into deviation.
His claim: Hidaayat is not in the Hands of Allah Ta’ala. He had therefore sent the Ambiya to impart Hidaayat is tantamount to kufr. This is the most dangerous of Sa’d’s claims. He is clearly espousing an entirely new concept of kufr. The Qur’aan Majeed is replete with aayaat which categorically state that Hidaayat comes from only Allah Ta’ala. Some random Qur’aanic aayaat follow to show the gross and dangerous deviation which Sa’d has introduced under cover of the Tabligh Jamaat.
(a) “Verily you (O Muhammad!) cannot give
hidaayat to those whom you love. But Allah gives hidaayat to whomever He
wills, and He knows best who are to be guided.”
This Aayat explicitly negates the ability of granting hidaayat from Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
(b) “And, We have guided them (given them hidaayat) to Siraatul Mustaqeem. This is Allah’s Huda (guidance/hidaayat) with which He guides whomever He wills from His servants. [Al-An’aam, Aayat 89]
It is Allah, Alone who provides hidaayat.
(c) “If Allah had willed, then they would not have committed shirk. And, We did not make you (O Muhammad!) a protector over them nor are you over them a guard.”
The obligation of the Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was to only deliver the Message – the Deen. Providing hidaayat was beyond the capability of the Ambiya, hence the Qur’aan repeatedly instructs them to say: “Upon us is only to deliver the Clear Message.”
(d) “Thus, Allah leads astray whomever He wills, and He guides (gives hidaayat) to whomever He wills.” [Ibraaheem, Aayat 4]
(e) “Therefore, on the Messengers it is only the Clear Delivery (of the Deen) Verily, We have sent for every Ummat
a Rasool so that they (their people) worship Allah and abstain from
(worshipping) the devil. Thus, from them are those whom Allah guided,
and among them are those upon whom dhalaal (the deviation of kufr) has been confirmed.” [An-Nahl, Aayats 35 and 36]
(f) “(Even) if you (O Muhammad!) ardently
desire that they be guided, then too, verily Allah does not guide those
whom He has caused to go astray, and for them there is no helper.” [An-Nahl]
(g) “If Allah had so wished, He would have made you all one Ummah, but He misleads whoever He wills and He guides whomever He wills.” [An-Nahl, Aayat 93]
(h) “And, if your Rabb had willed, He would have made all mankind one Ummah, then they would not have differed.” [Hood, Aayat 118]
(i) “If Allah had willed, He would have
gathered them on guidance. Therefore never be among the jaahileen
(believing that you can guide them all).” [An-Aaam, Aayat 35]
(j) “Whomever Allah wishes, He leads him astray, and whomever He wishes, he establishes him on Siraat-e-Mustaqeem.” [An-Aaam, Aayat 39]
(k) “If Allah had so desired, they would not
have committed shirk. And, We did not make you (O Muhammad!) a guard
over them, nor are you for them a protector.” [An-Aam, Aayat 107]
(l) “If He had willed, then most certainly He would have guided you all.” (An-Aam, Aayat 150)
(m) “If your Rabb had desired, then all people on earth would have accepted Imaan. What! Do you want to compel people until they become Mu’mineen?” [Yoonus, Aayat 99]
(n) “And, whomever Allah misleads, there will be no guide forhim.” [Ra’d, Aayat 33]
The aforementioned are merely some Qur’aanic Aayaat chosen at random for the edification of Molvi Sa’d. The Qur’aan, replete with Aayaat of this kind, categorically confirms that Hidaayat is a prerogative exclusively of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Hidaayat is in entirety reliant on Allah Ta’ala, NOT on mehnet (effort) as Molvi Sa’d contends. Apportioning Hidaayat
to human beings is ordained by Allah Ta’ala. It is not the effect of
the effort of the Ambiya, and to a greater extent not the effect of mehnet of the Tabligh Jamaat.
While all people are required to strive and struggle in whatever
occupation/profession they are involved, the end result, its
success or failure, is the decree of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Thus, a man
makes mehnet in the quest of his Rizq; in the quest of Knowledge, and in many other pursuits. But the final result is Allah’s decree. The Rizq we received is not on account of our effort. It is not permissible, and it is nugatory of Imaan to believe that the consequences of Taqdeer are reliant on personal and not on Divine Directive.
The Qur’aan repeatedly declares that Hidaayat effort, is Allah’s prerogative, not the effect of the was mehnet of the Ambiya. If mehnet is the criterion and imperative requisite for Hidaayat,
Rasulullah’s uncle Abu Talib, Hadhrat Nooh’s wife and son,
Hadhrat Loot’s wife, Hadhrat Ibraaheem’s father and innumerable
others closely associated with the Ambiya would not have perished as kuffaar.
They would all have acquired the treasure of Imaan as a direct effect of the supreme Ambiya. Thus, Sa’d’s contention that mehnet of the Hidaayat is not in the control of Allah Azza Wa Jal is blatant kufr. He must renew his Imaan. It is haraam for the Tabligh Jamaat elders to tolerate such a deviate within the ranks of the Jamaat.
Molvi Sa’d with his jahaalat, pivots hidaayat on mehnet (struggle/striving). This is a capital blunder which is the effect of ignorance. If the basis of hidaayat was mehnet, then his argument will imply that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had, nauthubillah, failed in his duty of mehnet because there were many who did not accept Imaan despite all the efforts of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). And the same ‘failure’ stemming from the kufr view of Sa’d, will apply to all the Ambiya.
On the death occasion of his beloved uncle, Abu Taalib,
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) pleaded with all his heart in
the effort to guide his uncle. But Abu Talib rebuffed Rasulullah’s mehnet, and died without Imaan. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) spared no effort – he left no stone unturned in his mehnet to guide people. But, many remained mushrikeen and rebuffed all his efforts. It is palpably clear that hidaayat is not the consequence of the muballigh’s mehnet. It is the effect of Allah’s Will. He guides whomever He wills. The Qur’aan is categorical in this averment.
This Sa’d character is incapable of understanding even simple Qur’aanic aayaat
and the facts of reality. The Nabi was Allah’s Messenger. His duty was
to only discharge the obligation of delivering the message of Allah
Ta’ala. Hence the Qur’aan repeatedly instructs the Ambiya to say: “Upon us is to only deliver the Message.”
The Maqsood is not mehnet. The Maqsood (Objective) is to discharge the obligation with which the Bandah has been entrusted. Whether a person will be guided or not, is beyond the control and ability of the muballigh. Hidaayat is the prerogative of Allah Ta’ala.
Molvi Sa’d claims that the deception of Muslims is their belief that change in the Ummah will occur by way of the spiritual state (Roohaaniyat)
of the Auliya. This is obviously wishful thinking and the charge is
false. No one entertains this idea. It is merely Sa’d’s hallucination.
The Ummah’s condition will change only if Muslims obey Allah’s Shariat whether they make Tablighi Jamaat type of khurooj or not. The Ummah’s
rotten state is not because Muslims do not participate in Tabligh
Jamaat activities. It is because of the flagrant transgression of fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr in which the Ummah is sinking.
Abstention from Tabligh Jamaat activities is not sinful. Participation is not Waajib. Non-participation in Tabligh Jamaat activities never was the cause of the fall and humiliation of the Ummah. In fact, the Ummah had scraped the dregs of the barrel of disgrace and degeneration many centuries before the birth of the Tabligh Jamaat.
The Khurooj during the era of the Salf-e-Saaliheen and even thereafter was always only for the purpose of Jihaad – Qitaal Fi Sabeelillaah. There never ever was mass khurooj for tabligh. While khurooj for tabligh is permissible and meritorious, it is not Waajib and the idea of it being waajib is haraam ghulu’ which culminates in Sa’d type dhalaal and kufr. Applying to the Tabligh Jamaat activities the narrations which relate explicitly to Jihaad, is dangerous deviation. The thawaab
of tabligh –i.e. tabligh of any method, not of only the Tabligh Jamaat,
is immense. But to mislead the masses by presenting the Jihaad
narrations as if they apply to the specific methodology of the Tabligh
Jamaat is not permissible. It is a fabrication for which there is no
basis in the Shariah.
Molvi Sa’d’s istidlaal from Hadhrat Ka’b’s Hadith is utterly baseless. His interpretation of the Hadith is baseless and erroneous. He is gumraah (astray) and leading others into gumraahi. Firstly, his claim that Khurooj whether it is khurooj in actual Jihad, or khurooj for Tabligh Jamaat activity, is the asal (i.e. actual objective), is manifestly baatil, baseless and corrupt. The objective of Jihaad is I’laa Kalimatullah for the sole purpose of gaining Allah’s Pleasure. This is the Asal, not khurooj. Khurooj is merely a method for the acquisition of the Asal. But, Sa’d has placed the cart in front of the horse.
The displeasure incurred by Hadhrat Ka’b (Radhiyallahu anhu) for failure to participate in the specific Jihad
campaign of Tabook, was ‘disobedience’. He had failed to observe the
command to emerge. He had unilaterally without valid reason decided to
remain behind. This was his error for which Rasulullah (Sallallahu
alayhi wasallam) had ordered the boycott.
Furthermore, Hadhrat Ka’b’s error pertained to Khurooj related to actual Jihaad – Qitaal fi Sabeelillaah. It was not a khurooj
for the specific method of tabligh which the Tabligh Jamaat had
innovated some decades ago. If Sa’d’s logic is to be accorded any
credibility and validity, it will follow that the Hadhrat Ka’b’s
failure to make Khurooj consequences of should be extended to
all those who refuse to make khurooj for Tabligh
Jamaat activity. The logical result would be to boycott the almost
3 billion Muslims of this era who not only do not participate in
Tabligh Jamaat khurooj, but they also deny the essentiality of participation in the specific methodology of the Tabligh Jamaat.
A grave error of the Tabligh Jamaat is the predication of all the Jihaad narrations to their specific method of tabligh, whilst there is absolutely no affinity between the Tabligh Jamaat and Jihaad, i.e. the type of Jihaad of the Sahaabah. Whilst the absence of this affinity is not sinful, the appropriation of the Hadith narrations pertaining to Jihaad is inappropriate and not permissible. The Tabligh Jamaat has as its goal the reformation of Imaan and the impartation of the basic teachings of the Deen. Qitaal
in our era for the acquisition of these
fundamental requisites is not a condition as it was during the era
of the Sahaabah. Qitaal was imperative to subjugate the lands of the kuffaar for removing the obstacles in the path of establishing the Deen. But this method of Qitaal
does not form part of the Tabligh While the Tabligh
Jamaat’s methodology. Jamaat may not be criticized for this, the
criticism for misusing the Jihaad narrations is valid.
Molvi Sa’d’s claim:“In this age people do not regard as a crime and a sin reduction in emerging in the Tabligh Jamaat’s way (of khurooj).”, is another stupid fallacy. There is no Shar’i basis for believing that it is a crime and sinful to refrain from the specific khurooj methodology of the Tabligh Jamaat. Sa’d has no affinity with the Ilm of the Deen, hence he acquits himself as do the juhala, disgorging just any drivel of his nafs.
He presents the fallacious analogy of gheebat, speaking lies, theft, zina and riba in his ludicrous attempt to liken the so-called ‘sin and crime’ of non-participation in Tabligh Jamaat khurooj the aforementioned kabeerah sins.
This is a monstrous lie fabricated against the Shariah. The major sins of zina, riba, liquor, etc. are substantiated by Nusoos of the Qat’i category, while the contention of abstaining from Tabligh Jamaat khurooj being a crime and a sin is the horrid product of corrupt personal opinion stemming from ghulu’.
He finds fault with those who say that it is sinful to indulge in zina, liquor and gheebat, but not sinful to abstain from the Tabligh Jamaat khurooj. This haraam opinion is scandalously baatil.
Sa’d’s ideology is scandalous. He constitutes a grave danger for proper
functioning of the Tabligh Jamaat. The deviation from the
Jamaat’s original principals bodes evil for the Tabligh Jamaat. It is
Waajib for the elders of the Tabligh Jamaat to eradicate the evil
and eliminate the rot which is gnawing at the foundations of the
Jamaat.
This sinner was in a conference at the Physics Department of the
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India. My better half, that is the
fashionable euphamism for wife, received a hectic call from her sister
around nine pm on November 8, 2016. The Prime Minister of India, Mr
Narendra Modi, had declared that the highest denomination currency
notes, Rs 500 and Rs 1000, will no longer be legal tender.
The great demonetization juggernaut of India rolled out. And brought
India to a near stand still and the condensation continues unabated.
Here are few of the current head lines.
If you wanted a worse CV you would be hard pressed.
The intended purpose was to leave the the corrupt people, hording
literally tons of cash in their houses, with useless paper in their
hands.
It did not work. Plus negative effects have already been serious enough to stop talking of gains.
Prime Minister's home state of Gujrat (remember that?) was top most in googling about how to convert black money into white.
Since no one was ready for the sudden shock we can suppose that internet was not of much help to the corrupt.
They themselves were of immense help for themselves.
Bank managers must have made a fortune by dispensing the new currency to the corrupt.
There have been about fifty arrents of people with huge amounts of new currency with them.
Millions and billions of rupees, incredible as it may sound.
All of these people happened to be from BJP, Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian People's Party), the ruling party.
What must have happened is the following. The black money don walks
upto the bank manager. Hands him over the old currency. Walks away with
new currency, minus the manager's commission. That commission could
begin with ten and end up with thirty or more. But less than fifty.
Fifty was government rate. This fifty percent government commission was
one of the umpteen `micro'-management measures implemented by the
government to control the fall out of the demonetization measure.
Clearly the `greedy' black money don who did not want to depart with
fifty percent of his `hard' earned money had to go through another
hardship because the government, or the RBI, the Reserve Bank of India,
the monetary authority, was clamping down on managers who must have
already made their fortunes. The dons simply hired large number of
common people to deposit a quarter of a million rupees each in their
account to change old currency into new. This too with the range of ten
to thirty percent commission.
This ended in obscenely long queues out side the banks - who could
differentiate between the genuininely suffering cashless populace from
the minions of the black money dons?
Of course neither the RBI nor the government was sleeping. They
issues rule number 9584 that accounter that deposited about quarter of a
milllion after demonetization move will be frozen.
India in the meantime came to a stand still, a slow death. First
thing to dry was the kitchen cash. Then came the supply sector. The
truck drivers ran out of the teb rupee notes they had to give to the
policeman at every corner to pass through populated areas and at the
hundred rupee notes to have a meal on the cheap road side hotel and the
five hundred rupee notes to give at the tolls. Government intitially
focussed on printing Rs 2000 note. No one had the change to return after
small purchase.
Then the goverment discovered cashless economy. Use PayTM and debit
and credit cards and use e-commerce, they said. Strange in a country
where all of these things comined account for a miniscule of economy.
It was weeks before the RBI governor could be seen in public and talking about the problems that brought India to a halt.
It turned out that he was all the time in the know. In fact he was
amongst the few who were trusted by the Prime Minister. The RBI
Governor, Mr Urjit Patel, happens to be a Gujrati, just like the Prime
Minister. The chemistry was so designed that the most effective people
in the task force that was supervising the move were from that state and
they would talk in Gujrati. whatever synergy it might have created was
not enough to ease the pain of the common people, industry, economy,
finance and business. News from big industry is yet to filter in.
By now about hundred fifty people have died either in queues or
because of the stress generated by demonetization. Most of the India is
functioning on credit. Banks are dispensing only that money that the
traders have been depositing from their greatly reduced volumes of
trading.
The Primie Minister intially thought it would be over in few days.
One wonders what the task force saw and analysed to miss such a long
term debacle. Then he asked for fity days. Then his finance minister
informed the public about the grand news that the things will be alright
in a quarter or two. Paul Krugman gave a very caliberated, cautious and
controlled non-assessment. ( Thanks for the concern Nobel Laureate.)
Private banks intially gave the allowed Rs 24000 to their customers
at the first come first serve basis and these were the first ones to go
dry. Queues were the longest on State Bank of India counters. They
initially dispensed Rs 10000 per customer but very quickly came down to
Rs 2000. Queues became longer. ATMs, that had the country wide initial
problems of caliberation for new curreny, soon went cashless. The bank
staff would move around and try to put cash in the ATM randomly and very
quickly the first three or four people will drain the precious Rs
15000, the total in the ATM, for all of them are now moving with
multiple credit cards - largest one reported was a man with 24 ATM
cards. The customer code is written in the form of a telephone number of
ten digits. Which four numbers are the real code is of course known
only to the bearer.
The BJP goons, these are called Bhakts in India today, the devotees,
intimidated anyone in the queue who tried to complain about the
demonetization pain and sorrow. Sorrow for there have been heart rending
episodes of people ending their lives for want of cash.
One of the much touted goals of demonetization was to control
terrorism. How does that come into picture? Easy-peasy. Pakistan was
sending terrorists into India with counterfeit currency. The new
currency would put an end to that sabotage of Indian currency.
I have written a lot about a friend, late Dr Farhan Mujib, on this blog. Once, while browsing books in a section of the Maulana Azad Library of the Aligarh Muslim University, he said that Maripat don't you think that one I shall get a book that will change my life. He had spoken the truth. I was always looking for such a book. I did not know that the same was the case with him.
Only much later I realized that the most relevant book in that category is the Noble Qur'an. I also did not know that any other book will be far behind of the divine revelation. These two points must be kept in mind before exploring the type of lists that this blog post is about.
Such lists are not entirely useless. These do serve a purpose but your grounding in Islam must be strong enough before you can take optimum advantage of such offerings.
For the moment I offer my views of the books in the linked list - 27 books that can change your life for ever.
'The Road' by Cormac McCarthy
This book at the moment has 4223 customer reviews on Amazon. That says a lot about a book. It is a Pulitzer Prize winning book that also was classified as a notable book by the New York Times. It is about how a father an son duo face life in war ravaged America when the civilization is destroyed and lawless bands prowl.
America is just five centuries old for us and it has gathered in that small duration of time enormous amount of experience that it aspires to dominate the human social psyche. Hence every experience from there is supposed to be ultimate and the last word in that walk of life about which they choose to talk. Muslim experience never comes to their radar, same for Indian experience or Asian experience. Even European experience is a second grade loser. They certainly assert universality for their experience combined with superiority. their universality is tempered by the fact that they borrowed orientalist mindset about the Muslim world from Europe. Their superiority is their own biased construct.
Moreover the US is superpower in an advance state of decline. Keeping that in mind we can always have a look at their experience. They had no right to dominate the world for half a century but the fact remains that they did. Even today we do not have a substitute for what they have been. For a 2006 book the present novel is hugely successful. On my part I do not wish to change my life for ever on the basis of a depressing narrative of devastation even if it full of love's dedication and the narrative is lyrical.
The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff
This one has more than five hundred Amazon reviews. Not bad at all. Tao of Something can be taken as a synonymous of Secrets of Something. It is about Chinese wisdom. As seen by the west. You see the west is so magnanimous. They are ready to take wisdom even if it lies with Asia, including China. Of course Islam is a big no.
So what is the wisdom here?
Well there are calculating people amongst us. Like the Rabbit.
Then there are Piglets amongst us who hesitate. You see what a disarming and charming way to call you a pig.
Then there Eeyores who fret.
Owls amongst us pontificate.
But the day is saved by Winnie-the-Pooh who just is.
So just be.
Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
In War and Peace Leo Tolstoy destroyed the historical process for us.
Whatever you do historically it becomes irrelevant very soon.
In Anna Karenina he makes an argument for being moral and better person.
We know Immanuel Kant told us that morality is good in itself.
But this does not take us much farther. Purposeless morality is blind. You need Islam to give direction to your life.
To some extant I am. But it is very difficult to be that.
Mostly people are not.
What is the ideal or the optimal or the practical or the pragmatic level of nonchalance? My personal impression is that tis can be decided experimentally.
Make effort for worldly blessings and then see how much He gives you.
Theologically we know the answer. Apart from a place to live, clothes to wear and a dry bread to eat a believer has no rights. That, of course, is scary. It is more so because we simply do not pay due attention to demands that Islam makes on our attitudes. I, for one, feel ever so lonely in these matters.
[1] As it seems to be the
opinion of some of the gentlemen who compose the Committee of Public Instruction
that the course which they have hitherto pursued was strictly prescribed
by the British Parliament in 1813 and as, if that opinion be correct, a
legislative act will be necessary to warrant a change, I have thought it
right to refrain from taking any part in the preparation of the adverse
statements which are.now before us, and to reserve what I had to say on
the subject till it should come before me as a Member of the Council of
India.
[2] It does not appear to
me that the Act of Parliament can by any art of contraction be made to
bear the meaning which has been assigned to it. It contains nothing about
the particular languages or sciences which are to be studied. A sum is
set apart "for the revival and promotion of literature, and the encouragement
of the learned natives of India, and for the introduction and promotion
of a knowledge of the sciences among the inhabitants of the British territories."
It is argued, or rather taken for granted, that by literature the Parliament
can have meant only Arabic and Sanscrit literature; that they never would
have given the honourable appellation of "a learned native" to a native
who was familiar with the poetry of Milton, the metaphysics of Locke, and
the physics of Newton; but that they meant to designate by that name only
such persons as might have studied in the sacred books of the Hindoos all
the uses of cusa-grass, and all the mysteries of absorption into the Deity.
This does not appear to be a very satisfactory interpretation. To take
a parallel case: Suppose that the Pacha of Egypt, a country once superior
in knowledge to the nations of Europe, but now sunk far below them, were
to appropriate a sum for the purpose "of reviving and promoting literature,
and encouraging learned natives of Egypt," would any body infer that he
meant the youth of his Pachalik to give years to the study of hieroglyphics,
to search into all the doctrines disguised under the fable of Osiris, and
to ascertain with all possible accuracy the ritual with which cats and
onions were anciently adored? Would he be justly charged with inconsistency
if, instead of employing his young subjects in deciphering obelisks, he
were to order them to be instructed in the English and French languages,
and in all the sciences to which those languages are the chief keys?
[3] The words on which the
supporters of the old system rely do not bear them out, and other words
follow which seem to be quite decisive on the other side. This lakh of
rupees is set apart not only for "reviving literature in India," the phrase
on which their whole interpretation is founded, but also "for the introduction
and promotion of a knowledge of the sciences among the inhabitants of the
British territories"-- words which are alone sufficient to authorize all
the changes for which I contend.
[4] If the Council agree
in my construction no legislative act will be necessary. If they differ
from me, I will propose a short act rescinding that I clause of the Charter
of 1813 from which the difficulty arises.
[5] The argument which I
have been considering affects only the form of proceeding. But the admirers
of the oriental system of education have used another argument, which,
if we admit it to be valid, is decisive against all change. They conceive
that the public faith is pledged to the present system, and that to alter
the appropriation of any of the funds which have hitherto been spent in
encouraging the study of Arabic and Sanscrit would be downright spoliation.
It is not easy to understand by what process of reasoning they can have
arrived at this conclusion. The grants which are made from the public purse
for the encouragement of literature differ in no respect from the grants
which are made from the same purse for other objects of real or supposed
utility. We found a sanitarium on a spot which we suppose to be healthy.
Do we thereby pledge ourselves to keep a sanitarium there if the result
should not answer our expectations? We commence the erection of a pier.
Is it a violation of the public faith to stop the works, if we afterwards
see reason to believe that the building will be useless? The rights of
property are undoubtedly sacred. But nothing endangers those rights so
much as the practice, now unhappily too common, of attributing them to
things to which they do not belong. Those who would impart to abuses the
sanctity of property are in truth imparting to the institution of property
the unpopularity and the fragility of abuses. If the Government has given
to any person a formal assurance-- nay, if the Government has excited in
any person's mind a reasonable expectation-- that he shall receive a certain
income as a teacher or a learner of Sanscrit or Arabic, I would respect
that person's pecuniary interests. I would rather err on the side of liberality
to individuals than suffer the public faith to be called in question. But
to talk of a Government pledging itself to teach certain languages and
certain sciences, though those languages may become useless, though those
sciences may be exploded, seems to me quite unmeaning. There is not a single
word in any public instrument from which it can be inferred that the Indian
Government ever intended to give any pledge on this subject, or ever considered
the destination of these funds as unalterably fixed. But, had it been otherwise,
I should have denied the competence of our predecessors to bind us by any
pledge on such a subject. Suppose that a Government had in the last century
enacted in the most solemn manner that all its subjects should, to the
end of time, be inoculated for the small-pox, would that Government be
bound to persist in the practice after Jenner's discovery? These promises
of which nobody claims the performance, and from which nobody can grant
a release, these vested rights which vest in nobody, this property without
proprietors, this robbery which makes nobody poorer, may be comprehended
by persons of higher faculties than mine. I consider this plea merely as
a set form of words, regularly used both in England and in India, in defence
of every abuse for which no other plea can be set up.
[6] I hold this lakh of rupees
to be quite at the disposal of the Governor-General in Council for the
purpose of promoting learning in India in any way which may be thought
most advisable. I hold his Lordship to be quite as free to direct that
it shall no longer be employed in encouraging Arabic and Sanscrit, as he
is to direct that the reward for killing tigers in Mysore shall be diminished,
or that no more public money shall be expended on the chaunting at the
cathedral.
[7] We now come to the gist
of the matter. We have a fund to be employed as Government shall direct
for the intellectual improvement of the people of this country. The simple
question is, what is the most useful way of employing it?
[8] All parties seem to be
agreed on one point, that the dialects commonly spoken among the natives
of this part of India contain neither literary nor scientific information,
and are moreover so poor and rude that, until they are enriched from some
other quarter, it will not be easy to translate any valuable work into
them. It seems to be admitted on all sides, that the intellectual
improvement of those classes of the people who have the means of pursuing
higher studies can at present be affected only by means of some language
not vernacular amongst them.
[9] What then shall that
language be? One-half of the committee maintain that it should be the English.
The other half strongly recommend the Arabic and Sanscrit. The whole question
seems to me to be-- which language is the best worth knowing?
[10] I have no knowledge
of either Sanscrit or Arabic. But I have done what I could to form a correct
estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated
Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have conversed, both here and at home, with
men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite
ready to take the oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists
themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single
shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature
of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature
is indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee who support
the oriental plan of education.
[11] It will hardly be disputed,
I suppose, that the department of literature in which the Eastern writers
stand highest is poetry. And I certainly never met with any orientalist
who ventured to maintain that the Arabic and Sanscrit poetry could be compared
to that of the great European nations. But when we pass from works of imagination
to works in which facts are recorded and general principles investigated,
the superiority of the Europeans becomes absolutely immeasurable. It is,
I believe, no exaggeration to say that all the historical information which
has been collected from all the books written in the Sanscrit language
is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgments
used at preparatory schools in England. In every branch of physical or
moral philosophy, the relative position of the two nations is nearly the
same.
[12] How then stands the
case? We have to educate a people who cannot at present be educated by
means of their mother-tongue. We must teach them some foreign language.
The claims of our own language it is hardly necessary to recapitulate.
It stands pre-eminent even among the languages of the West. It abounds
with works of imagination not inferior to the noblest which Greece has
bequeathed to us, --with models of every species of eloquence, --with historical
composition, which, considered merely as narratives, have seldom been surpassed,
and which, considered as vehicles of ethical and political instruction,
have never been equaled-- with just and lively representations of human
life and human nature, --with the most profound speculations on metaphysics,
morals, government, jurisprudence, trade, --with full and correct information
respecting every experimental science which tends to preserve the health,
to increase the comfort, or to expand the intellect of man. Whoever knows
that language has ready access to all the vast intellectual wealth which
all the wisest nations of the earth have created and hoarded in the course
of ninety generations. It may safely be said that the literature now extant
in that language is of greater value than all the literature which three
hundred years ago was extant in all the languages of the world together.
Nor is this all. In India, English is the language spoken by the ruling
class. It is spoken by the higher class of natives at the seats of Government.
It is likely to become the language of commerce throughout the seas of
the East. It is the language of two great European communities which are
rising, the one in the south of Africa, the other in Australia, --communities
which are every year becoming more important and more closely connected
with our Indian empire. Whether we look at the intrinsic value of our literature,
or at the particular situation of this country, we shall see the strongest
reason to think that, of all foreign tongues, the English tongue is that
which would be the most useful to our native subjects.
[13] The question now before
us is simply whether, when it is in our power to teach this language, we
shall teach languages in which, by universal confession, there are no books
on any subject which deserve to be compared to our own, whether, when we
can teach European science, we shall teach systems which, by universal
confession, wherever they differ from those of Europe differ for the worse,
and whether, when we can patronize sound philosophy and true history, we
shall countenance, at the public expense, medical doctrines which would
disgrace an English farrier, astronomy which would move laughter in girls
at an English boarding school, history abounding with kings thirty feet
high and reigns thirty thousand years long, and geography made of seas
of treacle and seas of butter.
[14] We are not without experience
to guide us. History furnishes several analogous cases, and they all teach
the same lesson. There are, in modern times, to go no further, two memorable
instances of a great impulse given to the mind of a whole society, of prejudices
overthrown, of knowledge diffused, of taste purified, of arts and sciences
planted in countries which had recently been ignorant and barbarous.
[15] The first instance to
which I refer is the great revival of letters among the Western nations
at the close of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century.
At that time almost everything that was worth reading was contained in
the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Had our ancestors acted
as the Committee of Public Instruction has hitherto noted, had they neglected
the language of Thucydides and Plato, and the language of Cicero and Tacitus,
had they confined their attention to the old dialects of our own island,
had they printed nothing and taught nothing at the universities but chronicles
in Anglo-Saxon and romances in Norman French, --would England ever have
been what she now is? What the Greek and Latin were to the contemporaries
of More and Ascham, our tongue is to the people of India. The literature
of England is now more valuable than that of classical antiquity. I doubt
whether the Sanscrit literature be as valuable as that of our Saxon and
Norman progenitors. In some departments-- in history for example-- I am
certain that it is much less so.
[16] Another instance may
be said to be still before our eyes. Within the last hundred and twenty
years, a nation which had previously been in a state as barbarous as that
in which our ancestors were before the Crusades has gradually emerged from
the ignorance in which it was sunk, and has taken its place among civilized
communities. I speak of Russia. There is now in that country a large educated
class abounding with persons fit to serve the State in the highest functions,
and in nowise inferior to the most accomplished men who adorn the best
circles of Paris and London. There is reason to hope that this vast empire
which, in the time of our grandfathers, was probably behind the Punjab,
may in the time of our grandchildren, be pressing close on France and Britain
in the career of improvement. And how was this change effected? Not by
flattering national prejudices; not by feeding the mind of the young Muscovite
with the old women's stories which his rude fathers had believed; not by
filling his head with lying legends about St. Nicholas; not by encouraging
him to study the great question, whether the world was or not created on
the 13th of September; not by calling him "a learned native" when he had
mastered all these points of knowledge; but by teaching him those foreign
languages in which the greatest mass of information had been laid up, and
thus putting all that information within his reach. The languages of western
Europe civilised Russia. I cannot doubt that they will do for the Hindoo
what they have done for the Tartar.
[17] And what are the arguments
against that course which seems to be alike recommended by theory and by
experience? It is said that we ought to secure the co-operation of the
native public, and that we can do this only by teaching Sanscrit and Arabic.
[18] I can by no means admit
that, when a nation of high intellectual attainments undertakes to superintend
the education of a nation comparatively ignorant, the learners are absolutely
to prescribe the course which is to be taken by the teachers. It is not
necessary however to say anything on this subject. For it is proved by
unanswerable evidence, that we are not at present securing the co-operation
of the natives. It would be bad enough to consult their intellectual taste
at the expense of their intellectual health. But we are consulting neither.
We are withholding from them the learning which is palatable to them. We
are forcing on them the mock learning which they nauseate.
[19] This is proved by the
fact that we are forced to pay our Arabic and Sanscrit students while those
who learn English are willing to pay us. All the declamations in the world
about the love and reverence of the natives for their sacred dialects will
never, in the mind of any impartial person, outweigh this undisputed fact,
that we cannot find in all our vast empire a single student who will let
us teach him those dialects, unless we will pay him.
[20] I have now before me
the accounts of the Mudrassa for one month, the month of December, 1833.
The Arabic students appear to have been seventy-seven in number. All receive
stipends from the public. The whole amount paid to them is above 500 rupees
a month. On the other side of the account stands the following item:
Deduct amount realized from
the out-students of English for the months of May, June, and July last--
103 rupees.
[21] I have been told that
it is merely from want of local experience that I am surprised at these
phenomena, and that it is not the fashion for students in India to study
at their own charges. This only confirms me in my opinions. Nothing is
more certain than that it never can in any part of the world be necessary
to pay men for doing what they think pleasant or profitable. India is no
exception to this rule. The people of India do not require to be paid for
eating rice when they are hungry, or for wearing woollen cloth in the cold
season. To come nearer to the case before us: --The children who learn
their letters and a little elementary arithmetic from the village schoolmaster
are not paid by him. He is paid for teaching them. Why then is it necessary
to pay people to learn Sanscrit and Arabic? Evidently because it is universally
felt that the Sanscrit and Arabic are languages the knowledge of which
does not compensate for the trouble of acquiring them. On all such subjects
the state of the market is the detective test.
[22] Other evidence is not
wanting, if other evidence were required. A petition was presented last
year to the committee by several ex-students of the Sanscrit College. The
petitioners stated that they had studied in the college ten or twelve years,
that they had made themselves acquainted with Hindoo literature and science,
that they had received certificates of proficiency. And what is the fruit
of all this? "Notwithstanding such testimonials," they say, "we have but
little prospect of bettering our condition without the kind assistance
of your honourable committee, the indifference with which we are generally
looked upon by our countrymen leaving no hope of encouragement and assistance
from them." They therefore beg that they may be recommended to the Governor-General
for places under the Government-- not places of high dignity or emolument,
but such as may just enable them to exist. "We want means," they say, "for
a decent living, and for our progressive improvement, which, however, we
cannot obtain without the assistance of Government, by whom we have been
educated and maintained from childhood." They conclude by representing
very pathetically that they are sure that it was never the intention of
Government, after behaving so liberally to them during their education,
to abandon them to destitution and neglect.
[23] I have been used to
see petitions to Government for compensation. All those petitions, even
the most unreasonable of them, proceeded on the supposition that some loss
had been sustained, that some wrong had been inflicted. These are surely
the first petitioners who ever demanded compensation for having been educated
gratis, for having been supported by the public during twelve years, and
then sent forth into the world well furnished with literature and science.
They represent their education as an injury which gives them a claim on
the Government for redress, as an injury for which the stipends paid to
them during the infliction were a very inadequate compensation. And I doubt
not that they are in the right. They have wasted the best years of life
in learning what procures for them neither bread nor respect. Surely we
might with advantage have saved the cost of making these persons useless
and miserable. Surely, men may be brought up to be burdens to the public
and objects of contempt to their neighbours at a somewhat smaller charge
to the State. But such is our policy. We do not even stand neuter in the
contest between truth and falsehood. We are not content to leave the natives
to the influence of their own hereditary prejudices. To the natural difficulties
which obstruct the progress of sound science in the East, we add great
difficulties of our own making. Bounties and premiums, such as ought not
to be given even for the propagation of truth, we lavish on false texts
and false philosophy.
[24] By acting thus we create
the very evil which we fear. We are making that opposition which we do
not find. What we spend on the Arabic and Sanscrit Colleges is not merely
a dead loss to the cause of truth. It is bounty-money paid to raise up
champions of error. It goes to form a nest not merely of helpless placehunters
but of bigots prompted alike by passion and by interest to raise a cry
against every useful scheme of education. If there should be any opposition
among the natives to the change which I recommend, that opposition will
be the effect of our own system. It will be headed by persons supported
by our stipends and trained in our colleges. The longer we persevere in
our present course, the more formidable will that opposition be. It will
be every year reinforced by recruits whom we are paying. From the native
society, left to itself, we have no difficulties to apprehend. All the
murmuring will come from that oriental interest which we have, by artificial
means, called into being and nursed into strength.
[25] There is yet another
fact which is alone sufficient to prove that the feeling of the native
public, when left to itself, is not such as the supporters of the old system
represent it to be. The committee have thought fit to lay out above a lakh
of rupees in printing Arabic and Sanscrit books. Those books find no purchasers.
It is very rarely that a single copy is disposed of. Twenty-three thousand
volumes, most of them folios and quartos, fill the libraries or rather
the lumber-rooms of this body. The committee contrive to get rid of some
portion of their vast stock of oriental literature by giving books away.
But they cannot give so fast as they print. About twenty thousand rupees
a year are spent in adding fresh masses of waste paper to a hoard which,
one should think, is already sufficiently ample. During the last three
years about sixty thousand rupees have been expended in this manner. The
sale of Arabic and Sanscrit books during those three years has not yielded
quite one thousand rupees. In the meantime, the School Book Society is
selling seven or eight thousand English volumes every year, and not only
pays the expenses of printing but realizes a profit of twenty per cent.
on its outlay.
[30] The fact that the Hindoo
law is to be learned chiefly from Sanscrit books, and the Mahometan law
from Arabic books, has been much insisted on, but seems not to bear at
all on the question. We are commanded by Parliament to ascertain and digest
the laws of India. The assistance of a Law Commission has been given to
us for that purpose. As soon as the Code is promulgated the Shasters and
the Hedaya will be useless to a moonsiff or a Sudder Ameen. I hope and
trust that, before the boys who are now entering at the Mudrassa and the
Sanscrit College have completed their studies, this great work will be
finished. It would be manifestly absurd to educate the rising generation
with a view to a state of things which we mean to alter before they reach
manhood.
[31] But there is yet another
argument which seems even more untenable. It is said that the Sanscrit
and the Arabic are the languages in which the sacred books of a hundred
millions of people are written, and that they are on that account entitled
to peculiar encouragement. Assuredly it is the duty of the British Government
in India to be not only tolerant but neutral on all religious questions.
But to encourage the study of a literature, admitted to be of small intrinsic
value, only because that literature inculcated the most serious errors
on the most important subjects, is a course hardly reconcilable with reason,
with morality, or even with that very neutrality which ought, as we all
agree, to be sacredly preserved. It is confined that a language is barren
of useful knowledge. We are to teach it because it is fruitful of monstrous
superstitions. We are to teach false history, false astronomy, false medicine,
because we find them in company with a false religion. We abstain, and
I trust shall always abstain, from giving any public encouragement to those
who are engaged in the work of converting the natives to Christianity.
And while we act thus, can we reasonably or decently bribe men, out of
the revenues of the State, to waste their youth in learning how they are
to purify themselves after touching an ass or what texts of the Vedas they
are to repeat to expiate the crime of killing a goat?
[32] It is taken for granted
by the advocates of oriental learning that no native of this country can
possibly attain more than a mere smattering of English. They do not attempt
to prove this. But they perpetually insinuate it. They designate the education
which their opponents recommend as a mere spelling-book education. They
assume it as undeniable that the question is between a profound knowledge
of Hindoo and Arabian literature and science on the one side, and superficial
knowledge of the rudiments of English on the other. This is not merely
an assumption, but an assumption contrary to all reason and experience.
We know that foreigners of all nations do learn our language sufficiently
to have access to all the most abstruse knowledge which it contains sufficiently
to relish even the more delicate graces of our most idiomatic writers.
There are in this very town natives who are quite competent to discuss
political or scientific questions with fluency and precision in the English
language. I have heard the very question on which I am now writing discussed
by native gentlemen with a liberality and an intelligence which would do
credit to any member of the Committee of Public Instruction. Indeed it
is unusual to find, even in the literary circles of the Continent, any
foreigner who can express himself in English with so much facility and
correctness as we find in many Hindoos. Nobody, I suppose, will contend
that English is so difficult to a Hindoo as Greek to an Englishman. Yet
an intelligent English youth, in a much smaller number of years than our
unfortunate pupils pass at the Sanscrit College, becomes able to read,
to enjoy, and even to imitate not unhappily the compositions of the best
Greek authors. Less than half the time which enables an English youth to
read Herodotus and Sophocles ought to enable a Hindoo to read Hume and
Milton.
[33] To sum up what I have
said. I think it clear that we are not fettered by the Act of Parliament
of 1813, that we are not fettered by any pledge expressed or implied, that
we are free to employ our funds as we choose, that we ought to employ them
in teaching what is best worth knowing, that English is better worth knowing
than Sanscrit or Arabic, that the natives are desirous to be taught English,
and are not desirous to be taught Sanscrit or Arabic, that neither as the
languages of law nor as the languages of religion have the Sanscrit and
Arabic any peculiar claim to our encouragement, that it is possible to
make natives of this country thoroughly good English scholars, and that
to this end our efforts ought to be directed.
[34] In one point I fully
agree with the gentlemen to whose general views I am opposed. I feel with
them that it is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to
educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form
a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern,
--a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes,
in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it
to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects
with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render
them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass
of the population.
[35] I would strictly respect
all existing interests. I would deal even generously with all individuals
who have had fair reason to expect a pecuniary provision. But I would strike
at the root of the bad system which has hitherto been fostered by us. I
would at once stop the printing of Arabic and Sanscrit books. I would abolish
the Mudrassa and the Sanscrit College at Calcutta. Benares is the great
seat of Brahminical learning; Delhi of Arabic learning. If we retain the
Sanscrit College at Bonares and the Mahometan College at Delhi we do enough
and much more than enough in my opinion, for the Eastern languages. If
the Benares and Delhi Colleges should be retained, I would at least recommend
that no stipends shall be given to any students who may hereafter repair
thither, but that the people shall be left to make their own choice between
the rival systems of education without being bribed by us to learn what
they have no desire to know. The funds which would thus be placed at our
disposal would enable us to give larger encouragement to the Hindoo College
at Calcutta, and establish in the principal cities throughout the Presidencies
of Fort William and Agra schools in which the English language might be
well and thoroughly taught.
[36] If the decision of His
Lordship in Council should be such as I anticipate, I shall enter on the
performance of my duties with the greatest zeal and alacrity. If, on the
other hand, it be the opinion of the Government that the present system
ought to remain unchanged, I beg that I may be permitted to retire from
the chair of the Committee. I feel that I could not be of the smallest
use there. I feel also that I should be lending my countenance to what
I firmly believe to be a mere delusion. I believe that the present system
tends not to accelerate the progress of truth but to delay the natural
death of expiring errors. I conceive that we have at present no right to
the respectable name of a Board of Public Instruction. We are a Board for
wasting the public money, for printing books which are of less value than
the paper on which they are printed was while it was blank-- for giving
artificial encouragement to absurd history, absurd metaphysics, absurd
physics, absurd theology-- for raising up a breed of scholars who find
their scholarship an incumbrance and blemish, who live on the public while
they are receiving their education, and whose education is so utterly useless
to them that, when they have received it, they must either starve or live
on the public all the rest of their lives. Entertaining these opinions,
I am naturally desirous to decline all share in the responsibility of a
body which, unless it alters its whole mode of proceedings, I must consider,
not merely as useless, but as positively noxious.
T[homas] B[abington] MACAULAY
2nd February 1835.
I give my entire concurrence to the sentiments
expressed in this Minute.
W[illiam] C[avendish] BENTINCK.
Alig are mulling over this question. The starting salvo has the following assertion:
Earlier Honoris causa were awarded to persons of eminence like
C.V. Raman, Shah of Iran, King Saud, Obaid Siddiqi, but now it is being awarded
to Nouveau riche whose only claim to fame is that they donated a piece of land
or some money. What a downfall.
If university decide to honor people
like Narayanmurthy, Harsh Mander, Teesta Setalvad, Salman Khan (USA) of online
tutorial fame, Sania Mirza, Raghuram Rajan, Sam Pitroda, Mukesh Ambani then it
will enhance the prestige of AMU also.
I am puzzled at these views.
What was so praiseworthy with Shah of Iran? Or King Saud? Unless these are used to balance against each other. Somehow some sort of colonial mindset dominates Aligarh thinking even today to pathetic levels. AMU is a university and its prime concern must remain academics. It is not the Caliphate of Aligarh to think in terms of Shahs and Kings. Even Governors and Chief Ministers should never feature in our list of honorary degrees, unless these have made their mark in some other field that is worth recognizing by us. In this regard a few honorary degrees dished out by Mahmoodur Rahman regime were the most pathetic ones.
Then again why Mukesh Ambani? Of course if he is desirous of building bridges with the huge minority community of India by donating funds to our university I am not the one to withdraw my hand. I shall not bother about those who do bickering about degrees for sale and the like.
But why Sania Mirza? May be to inspire girl athletes of AMU. I am sorry they already remain inspired by Sania. I am not going to waste my precious honorary degree on her. Sorry to be in-your-face-pragmatic.
AMU is a precious resource that Muslims of India have with them. It must be used judiciously. The writer of above remarks is certainly concerned with a fruitful utilization of this blessing of God. I do not doubt that even for a moment. But I am not convinced by the overall wisdom of his choice. In last seven decades, of independent India, Muslims have shown a singular lack of an accurate understanding of the ground reality and hence they have not taken steps to remedy their miserable state. Aligarh, being an intellectual hub of Indian Muslims, should have been a better place in this regard. unfortunately that is not true.
AMU should have been a place, from day one after Independence, to make an accurate assessment of overall political, economic, social, cultural, business, industrial and scientific and technological state of the country. we should also have taken requisite steps to improve the lot of Indian Muslims in all of these fields so that we would have been contributing to the nation building at something like equal level. Here I must clarify that this includes the possibility that we should have by now achieved equity with the rest of the country.
Identifying suitable honorary degree candidates is merely a cog in that wheel.
Unfortunately we simply do not think in a comprehensive manner.