WHY CALLED “A’LA HADRAT” 

The first and foremost charge levelled by the Deobandis is that the followers of the great Mujaddid call him “A’la Hadrat”. He is called “A’la Hadrat”, whereas the Holy Prophet is simply called “Hadrat”. “Hadrat” means “person” and “A’la Hadrat” means “great”, “A’la Hadrat” means “a great person”. Thus, according to them, to call him A’la Hadrat would mean that Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) is greater than the Holy Prophet (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). How wrong is it, they add. 

Apparently, the charge seems to be forceful. It creates some sort of misunderstanding in the minds of people. But, as a matter of fact, it is far from being forceful. It is too weak. If it is wrong to call anyone “A’la Hadrat”, is it wrong only in case of Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) of Bareilly? Is it all free and fair in case of A’la Hadrat of Deoband? Those who criticize Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah)for the name of “A’la Hadrat” must know that they have had so many A’la Hadrat’s of their own. What about them, let them decide first. 

No literary arguments need be made. No annotation of words need be made. Haji Imdadullah Saheb is the top saint of the Deobandi savants. Maulvi Ashiq Ilahi of Meerut is one of the top savants of Deoband. In his book “Tazkaratur Rashid” part II, on page 237, and 238, he has called Haji Imdadullah Saheb “A’la Hadrat” four times each. In part I of this book on page 128, a letter of Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi has been published wherein he calls Haji Imdadullah Saheb “A’la Hadrat” twice. On page 130, 132 & 136 of this part, Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi has used “A’la Hadrat” thrice in the honour of Haji Imdadullah Saheb. Not only this, on page 9 of “Tohfat al-Qadyan”, Maulvi Saifullah, a well-known preacher of Deobandi thoughts, has used “A’la Hadrat” for Qari Taiyab Saheb of Madarsa Deoband. It is thus clear that those who do not like the word “A’la Hadrat” to be used for Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (alaihir rahmah), very much like it to be used for Haji Imdadullah Saheb and Qari Taiyab Saheb. Does it not mean greater than Holy Prophet (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) then? 

Actually there is nothing wrong to use “A’la Hadrat” for Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (alaihir rahmah). Nor is it wrong for Haji Imdadullah Saheb as it is used to denote the greatness amongst the contemporaries only. Similarly, it is all proper to call Imam-i-‘Azam, Ghauth-i-‘Azam, Mufti-i-‘Azam (radi Allahu anhum)and so on. 

MY RELIGION 

The next charge against the great Mujaddid Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) is that he founded a new religion. The Bareilly or the Bareillvi religion, they assert. In support of this charge, reference is invited to the booklet “Wasaya Shareef” wherein A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) is claimed to have said, “My religion which is apparent from my books”. Every stress is laid upon the words “My religion”. According to these opponents, my religion means the religion given birth by me. No doubt, A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) while on his death-bed advised, “Stick strongly to my religion which is apparent from my books. It is imperative”. 

This great scholar of Islam is giving maximum importance to religion. To which religion, he has himself clarified that the religion, which is apparent from his books, that is, the religion which he has practiced and preached as per his books. In his books the great Imam has nowhere stated that he is espousing any new religion. He has simply followed the religion of Imam-i-‘Azam, Ghauth-i-‘Azam, Imam Ghazali, Shah Abd al-Haq, Khwaja Gharib Nawaaz, Hadrat Nizam al-din Awliya (radi Allahu anhum) and so forth. He has followed all Sunni saints and savants. What is new with him? Actually, it is A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) who has opposed the “new” as brought by Mr. Muhammad Bin Abd al-Wahab, who was born in 1699 and his Indian counterpart Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi, who was born in 1799. 

There is nothing wrong with the words “My religion”. Usually it is questioned: “What is your religion”. It is answered: “My religion is Islam”. It does not mean that the religion, which has been founded or given birth by me, is Islam. It is said my cat, my dog and so on. Does it mean that the cat or dog I have given birth to. Not only this, so often it is said “My Allah” Then what would it mean? Thus, “My religion” speaks of no regency on the part of A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah).

Bareilly is no religion. In 1986, the acting Mufti-i-‘Azam of India Allama Akhtar Raza Khan, the grandson of the great Imam during his Hajj pilgrimage, declared in Saudi Arabia that Bareilly is no religion. And, if it is a religion, he is averse to it, he made clear. The fact is that neither Bareilly nor Deoband is a religion. Both are different Schools of Thought. Imam Ahmad Raza (alaihir rahmah) was the Torch Bearer of Ahl-i-Sunnat wa Jama‘at. He was deadly against disintegrating the unity of Ahl-i-Sunnat. He fought for this aim through out his whole life. 

NON-CONDEMNATION OF MAULVI ISMAIL AS KAAFIR 

There is raised an objection that the great Imam (alaihir rahmah) did not declare Ismail Dehlawi Kaafir. He abstained from doing so. I would like to say one thing to such people: You have got an objection that Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi was not declared Kaafir by the Mujaddid Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah). In other words, it means that you wanted Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi to have been declared Kaafir by Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah). He did not want to declare him Kaafir and, hence, he did not declare him Kaafir. He has merely observed Kafe Lisan (silence) over the issue. If you wish to call him Kaafir, you may call him Kaafir. Who prevents you from calling him Kaafir? You want neither this nor that. If A’la Hadrat (alaihir rahmah) has declared some people Kaafir, you have got objection. But if he has spared somebody such as Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi from declaring him Kaafir, even then you have got objection. It is fantastic, instead of raising any objection, actually you must have thanked the great Imam at least on this ground. As a matter of fact, such an objection itself goes against the very people who raise it. 

One thing is important. The great Imam has not declared Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi Kaafir but he has duly declared Kufria (Kufr leading) his various writings which were objectionable. Why so? The obvious reason is that Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi was not a contemporary of the great Imam. Just a quarter century had passed since the death of Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi when A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) was born. It had become popular that Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi had apologized for his objectionable and disgraceful writings. But no proof was available. Whether it was reality or rumour, it could not be verified by Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah). Thus, a case of benefit of doubt did exist. Every judicious person would appreciate that A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) was very correct in refraining from declaring Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi Kafir by allowing him benefit of doubt. Non-declaration was quite in order. His decision is not a matter of objection but of appreciation, not a matter of tears but cheers. How cautious, just and judicious was the great Imam. 

OPPOSITION OF LOW-CASTE MUSLIMS 

Much hue and cry is made over the issue that Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) has written against Ansari community. It is a dangerous move to defame him. Whatever he has written is all on paper. Nothing to conceal and nothing can be concealed. Read one book or all the books written by the great Mujaddid of Islam. You will get only one thing that except Sayyids to whom he paid and wanted to be paid greater respect, he has kept the rest alike. He has written nothing to degrade or upgrade any particular community. In this connection, Qari Amanat Rasùl Saheb of Pilibhit has written a booklet named “A’la Hadrat Ki Bargah Men Ansariyon Ka Muqam” (Place of Ansar is in the eyes of A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza - radi Allahu anhu). Qari Saheb himself belongs to Ansari community. In this booklet, it has been made clear that according to The great Imam, the measurement of superiority is piety and piety only. The bookletsays that an Ansari having more piety (Taqwah) would lead the Namaaz and the Pathans and Shaykh would follow him. I hope it would dispel the misunderstanding, if any. 

One thing more which is an ample proof of whether the great Imam was anti-Ansari or pro-Ansari. As per “Wasaya Shareef” The great Imam has directed that his Namaaz-i-Janaza be led by Maulana Amjad Ali (alaihir rahmah). Who was this Maulana Amjad Ali (alaihir rahmah), solves all the problem. All know and if not, then must know that Hadrat Amjad Ali (alaihir rahmah) is the writer of voluminous “Bahar-i-Shari'at” and is Ansari by caste. It proves beyond any doubt how much A’la Hadrat loved and respected Hadrat Amjad Ali (alaihir rahmah) regardless of his caste. Not to speak of Hadrat Amjad Ali, even today hundreds of savants are Ansari by caste and all are ready to sacrifice their lives upon Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah). After all, why? – because Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) has written against them or just because Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) has given something to them. Ask any Ansari savant if A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) has written against Ansari community. He would say, “No, not at all.” Then does it mean that the great Imam has written against Ansari community that is not known to the Ansari savants and that it is known only to the opponents of Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) to reproach him. Please judge yourself as to where lies the truth. 

STUDENT OF MIRZA GHULAM QADIR BEG 

There is a charge against A’la Hadrat that he was a student of Mirza Ghulam Qàdir Beg and Mirza Ghulam Qàdir Beg was brother of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadyani, who was false Prophet. 

Here, there is nothing but confusion-confusion in the name of similar names. The name of one of the teachers of the great Mujaddid was Mirza Ghulam Qàdir Beg. But he had nothing to do with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadyani and his so-called brother, Mirza Ghulam Qàdir Beg. This Mirza Ghulam Qàdir Beg was a Thanedar and died in 1883 at the age of 55, while Mirza Ghulam Qàdir Beg of A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) was a Maulvi and he died at the age of more than 80. In 1897, that is, after 14 years of death of the brother of Qadyani, Mirza Ghulam Qàdir Beg of the great Imam had sent a letter to the great Imam, which duly finds its place in Fatwa-i-Razviyya vol. III. It is thus clear that the teacher of A’la Hadrat (alaihir rahmah) and the brother of Qadyani were two different persons. The opponents of A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) also very well know this fact, but only to misguide people, they raise such objection. 

Even if this objection is taken as correct, it makes no difference. In any case, Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) cannot be said to be Qadyani because he has written five separate books in condemnation of Qadyanism. A person who is castigating, condemning and criticizing Qadyanism, cannot be called a Qadyani. Those who try to take benefit of these similar names and those who try to create confusion in the minds of the people, cannot show even a single sentence or a single word, written by the great Imam in favour of Qadyanism. Maulvi Hashmat Ali Khan (alaihir rahmah), a great Sunni savant was admittedly a pupil of Wahabi savants. It is no insult on the part of Maulvi Hashmat Ali Khan. The insult, if any, is of the teacher whose teachings proved futile. Similarly, even if the great Imam is taken as a student of Mirza Ghulam Qadir Beg of Qadyani group, even so it is no insult of A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah). The real insult is of Mirza Saheb whose teachings proved so hollow, ineffective and useless. 

HARSH BY NATURE 

The opponents of Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) unleash a charge against him that he was harsh by nature. Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) was not harsh by nature. Rather the objection is harsh by nature. He was a great poet and a poet usually does not happen to be harsh by nature. More so, how would he beg excuse from the palanquin-bearer, who was a Sayyid if he were harsh by nature. How would he beg excuse from Sayyid Saheb whom he requested not to intervene in his home affairs, if he were harsh by nature. How would he refrain from declaring Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi Kaafir, if he were harsh by nature. 

He was very very kind. He was harsh only for those who were back-friends of Islam. Actually, he was a person strict not harsh. Friends of Islam always found the great Imam at their disposal. But fiends of Islam could not be his buttonhole. The opponents of Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) should not be harsh enough to call him harsh by nature. First, they must be kind enough themselves not to call him harsh. 

BRITISH AGENT 

Another charge against the great Mujaddid of Islam is that he was an agent of the Britishers. Such a charge is framed by only those who charge for framing charges against Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah). They discharge their duty. They have nothing to do with the background or base. 

Nobody can say that A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) has ever written a single word in support of the Britishers. Nobody can say that he has ever spoken even a single word in favour of the British. Nobody can say that he has ever attended any meeting of the Britishers. Nobody can say that he ever invited any Britisher in any of his functions or ever otherwise. It was Imam Ahmed Raza who never allowed any interview to the British. He hated the British so much that he used to affix postage stamps on the envelope in such a way that the head of Queen Victoria, Edward VIII and George V were downwards. He carried out this practice not only in case of envelopes but he also wrote address on that postcard by keeping the picture-head of the Queen and King downwards. Such envelopes and postcards of A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) can be seen in the libraries of Prof. Dr. Mukhtar al-din Arzu at Aligarh. Some photocopies from the collection of Dr. Mukhtar al-din Arzu being presented here for the readers.

A’la Hadrat (alaihir rahmah) usually spoke and wrote against the British. His four point economic programme released in 1912 was a big challenge to the British Govt. and their interest in India. Prof. Mas‘ud Dehlawi has written a separate book “Gunahe be Gunahi” in this respect. Through his book “Ulèma-i-Deoband Ki Angrez Dosti” published from Allahabad (UP). Allama Mushtaq Ahmad Nizami has proved that, in fact, bonds of friendship existed amid Ulèma of Deoband and the British Government. Both were hand and glove with each other. Of late, Hadrat Abd al-Naim Azizi, Ex-editor of Sunni Dunya, Bareilly has compiled and published a thrilling book, “Humphery Kay e‘trafat”. (Memoirs of Mr. Humphery, the English spy in Islamic countries) which unmasks that the real British agent was Mr. Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahab. The book is a severe blow to the Wahabi world.

Allama Arshadul Qàdri has given a unique challenge to the opponents of the great Imam in this regard. He said to the opponents, “What to say of proving this charge from the books of A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza or his followers, you cannot prove this even from your own authentic books.” It is a challenge as well as an advice. Let such people find out such a charge in the books of Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Maulvi Khalil Ahmad Ambethvi etc. who were contemporaries of the great Imam. If they fail to prove from their own books, then they should at least be kind enough to feel sorry and withdraw this charge. 

CREATION OF DIFFERENCES AMONGST MUSLIMS 

Another big charge against A’la Hadrat (alaihir rahmah) is that he created differences amongst Muslims. The sole basis of this allegation is that the Mujaddid of Islam condemned Ghulam Ahmad Qadyani, Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Maulvi Khalil Ahmad Ambethvi, Maulvi Qasim Nanutvi and Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi as Kaafir. It was but natural for these leaders and their supporters to turn against Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah). Had he supported or agreed to the cause of these leaders, certainly there would have been no schism amongst the Muslims. This is what the opponents of A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) want to impress upon the people. Here, the following points arise:- 

(i) Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) had differences with Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi but he had no differences with Shah Abd al-Aziz Muhaddith Dehlawi (alaihir rahmah). Shah Abd al-Aziz was admittedly an uncle of Maulvi Ismail. Had Maulvi Ismail agreed to or supported the cause of Shah Abd al-Aziz, certainly there would have been no rift amongst the Muslims. It is also a point to think over. 

(ii) Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) had differences with Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi and Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi but he had no differences with Haji Imdadullah Sahib. Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi and Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi happened to be a Mureed of Haji Imdadullah Muhajir-i-Makki. Maulvi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi and Maulvi Ashraf Ali Thanvi agreed to or supported the cause of his own Peer, Haji Imdadullah Saheb, certainly there would have been no split amongst the Muslims. It is also a point to give importance to. 

(iii) Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) had differences with Abu al-Kalaam Azad but he had no differences with Mawlana Khair al-din, the father of Abu al-Kalaam Azad. Had Mr. Abu al-Kalaam Azad agreed to or supported the cause of his own father, certainly there would have been no differeces amongst Muslims. It is also a point to give rating to. 

(iv) Why A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) alone? It always takes two to shake together. If A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) is to be blamed for criticizing Deobandism, then the so-called leaders of Deoband are equally to be blamed for criticizing Sunnism. Who made a start, is the only deciding factor. Now it must be remembered that Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi lashed out at Sunnism and laid the foundation of Deobandism in India at a time when the great Imam (alaihir rahmah) was not born. Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi died in 1830 and A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) took birth in 1856. 

If books not men are to be counted then “Taqviat-al-Iman” of Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi was published in 1824 and “Al-Motamad al-Mustanad” of Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) was published in 1902. Who started first, is now clear. Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi was the first person in India who created differences amongst Muslims by criticizing Sunni ideology and introducing “Deobandi” ideology. Taqviat-al-Iman was the first book in India, which brought about such tumult. Over and above, even if the condemnation of Deobandism alone is taken as the root cause for Muslim split-up, even then, it shall have to be seen if Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) was the first person in this sphere? It cannot be gainsaid the Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi was first opposed by Shah Abd al-Aziz Dehlawi, Shah Makhsoos Ullah Saheb (nephew of Shah Abd al-Aziz) and Shah Munawwar al-din Saheb (grandfather of Mr. Abu al-Kalaam Azad) All these savants were contemporaries of Maulvi Ismail Dehlawi and Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) was not born by then. It cannot be gainsaid that Hadrat Fazle Haq Khairabadi condemned “Deobandism”, wrote “Tahqiq al-Fatwa”, Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) was not born by then. It cannot be gainsaid that Hadrat Fazle-i-Rasùl Budayooni condemned Deobandism wrote “Saif al-Jabbar” and Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) was not born by then. As a number of savants condemned Deobandism and as a number of books were written over this issue before the birth of A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah), he cannot be said to the first person to condemn Deobandism and thereby create differences amongst Muslims. Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) only followed Sunni savants and endorsed their views in regard to propagation of Sunnism and condemnation of Deobandism. For detailed study of various charges leveled against A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) at and their befitting replies, please see “Adhere say ujale tuk” written by Hadrat Muhammad Abd al-Hakim Qàdri, published from Markazi Majlis Raza, Lahore.

Thus, it would be seen that it was not A’la Hadrat Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) but the above named kingpins of Deoband who opened the floodgates of differences amongst Muslims. No doubt Imam Ahmed Raza (alaihir rahmah) was the Torch Bearer of Ahl-i-Sunnat wa Jama‘at in the subcontinent. He fought for the Unity of Muslim Ummah.