Charges Leveled

Against Imam Ahmed

Raza
Zahoor Afsar

A thorough refutation of some Allegations upon Ala Hazrat by Deobandis and other heretics by
Zahoor Afsar
www.thesunniway.com

Table of Contents

Why Called “A’la Hadrat” ........................................................................................................................ 2

My Religion ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Non-Condemnation Of Maulvi Ismail As Kaafir ...................................................................................... 4
Opposition of Low-Caste Muslims .......................................................................................................... 5
Student of Mirza Ghulam Qadir Beg ....................................................................................................... 6
Harsh By Nature ...................................................................................................................................... 7
British Agent............................................................................................................................................ 8
Creation of Differences amongst Muslims ........................................................................................... 10
www.thesunniway.com

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.
www.thesunniway.com

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 throughout his
whole life.
www.thesunniway.com

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.
www.thesunniway.com

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.
www.thesunniway.com

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.
www.thesunniway.com

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.
www.thesunniway.com

British Agent

Another charge against the great Mujaddid of Islam is that he was an agent of the British.
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.
www.thesunniway.com
www.thesunniway.com

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
www.thesunniway.com

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.