Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Tarikh' started by Ibn Rida Safdar, Dec 10, 2018.
Another video by Mufti Zameel & co.
hopefully someone has archived it.
i took screenshots and backup of zameel's article. just in case...
deobandis attack mawlana faDl al-Haqq because the history of their own leaders is not so savoury.
take for example, rashid ahmad gangohi. in tazkiratu'r rasheed, as reported by ashiq ilahi mirathi, vol.1 / p.80:
ashiq ilahi meerathi says: [rashid ahmed] was of the understanding that 'when I am in reality, obedient to the government, then not a hair of mine will be harmed on the basis of false accusations; and if i am even killed, then the government is the master, and they have the choice to do whatever they wish.
the point is not that rashid ahmad was a servant of the government. the point is that he was NOT a revolutionary and expressly absolved himself from any subversive activity. see on p84-85:
the author asserts that rashid gangohi said truthfully and plainly without doing any taqiyyah:
whatever he said, he told the truth; and whatever he answer he gave, he answered with the belief that Allah taala is Ever-Present and Ever-Watching, and said it absolutely according to what had occured.
with this, let us read the sample Q/A:
Q: rashid ahmad, did you support the revolutionaries (lit. mischief-makers, rioters / mufsidin) or did you indulge in any subversive activity?
A: our job is not to do mischief, nor are we companions of mischief-makers.
Q: did you carry weapons against the government (sarkar)
A: [pointing towards his rosary he would say:] "this is our weapon"
see, if the author (ashiq-ilahi) had just mentioned this exchange, we could have interpreted it as tawriya, or taqiyyah. but he abnegated it expressly. so rashid ahmed neither took part in the struggle/revolution, nor did he support them.
if one says, rashid was talking about mufsidin in general and not the revolutionaries, answering the judge - the claim that he did not hide anything becomes false.
there are other stories too. do look up: angrez dosti ki kahani, angrez doston ki zabani by mawlana akhtar shahjahanpuri.
now, zameel says:
filibuster is the favourite method of devbandis - a simple statement will be said in a verbose manner with multiple clauses that an unsuspecting reader is deceived in thinking that he may have a point. anyway, when we discuss historical events, issues - what matters is the overall conclusion, not exact citations; nevertheless, we ought to be careful in citation - that is what differentiates us from deobandi fairy tales.
a case in point is the criticism above: indeed, the biographical notice of shaykh fadl al-haqq khayrabadi, in nuz'hatu'l khawatir, does not mention that shah fadl al-haqq was being paid by the british, and his revolt was due to non-payment. i cannot speak for sh. asrar, if he read it somewhere in nuzh'ah itself in another place, or was mistaken about the source - because devbandi literature is full of such nonsensical fantasies, it is difficult to keep track of which low-life slandered sunni ulama in which book. the key point is that deobandis slander allamah fadl al-Haqq and try to erase his contribution to the freedom movement.
this is evident in zameel's critique itself. while he highlights that such an accusation against shah fadl al-Haqq was not present in nu'zhah of abdu'l Hayy, he does not disagree with the conclusion itself.
so you see, the hue and cry and about inaccuracy is just to make a noise - while he quietly agrees with conclusion; isn't this the point shaykh asrar made, and for his argument mentioned nuz'hah as evidence? zameel agrees with shaykh asrar's accusation that deobandis attempt to diminish or erase the role of shaykh fadl al-Haqq khayrabadi in the revolution just because he refuted their taghut, ismayil dihlawi.
homework for zameel: what was rashid gangohi doing at this time? if faDl al-haqq was a faithful employee of the british and a worldly man like deobandis paint him, why didn't he ask for pardon by presenting himself as a 'faithful servant of the british'?
2nd assignment: who is attributed with the saying: 'i am obedient to the government' and who reported it?
older members of our forum can recall, that there was a video of khalid mahmud, where he told a couple of young devbandis (i don't know, but it was claimed that zameel was one of them) that thanawi had a servant who was chided by thanawi for something; and he got angry and said, 'alright i will make you pay for it' and then he went to alahazrat and became his servant. there he instigated alahazrat to refute thanawi. this fairy tale was linked on our forum here:
we didn't even think that it merited a refutation; some time later, the video was removed.
now, zameel quotes a contemporary scholar as proof to besmirch shah fadl al-Haqq's name. he says:
i have not seen the paper by jamal malik, so i do not want to comment on it at the moment. however, look at the key clauses used by dishonest people in their screeds to discredit people:
1. zameel says: 'reliable sketch' - my question, how can it be termed 'reliable' when it is the opinion of a contemporary scholar and wrote this (in 2006) 145 years after the death of the person?
2. i have not seen the original paper cited; but let us assume zameel is quoting faithfully - just tell me, how valid is the assertion that the man was NOT involved in subversive activities (meaning revolted against the british) on the basis of his poems and letters etc?
i find it incredibly stupid that such an assertion is made on the above basis!
let us retrace this idiotic revision of history, and examine on the basis of facts; facts, that everyone agrees with:
a) we have FH, a well-known personality, a man of letters, author, poet etc. in the time when british were grabbing power in the country.
b) there is an insurrection against the british.
c) after initial defeat and a short-lived period of ouster, british troops and 'company' officials return to delhi and gain control.
d) in the aftermath, and retribution that followed, many people are executed, many other hunted down, caught, imprisoned and tortured.
e) some others are sent down to a remote island away from mainland india, that is the andaman islands, on which is a notorious prison known for it horrific conditions, solitary imprisonment and other assorted cruel conditions only white-christians of the west could have dreamt of and implemented. (this is a broadside, i agree; there are kind christians among whites too; but am saying this to show my indignation, and white is only a label for the imperialists; guantanamo and abu ghraib are only recent examples of their cruelty)
f) this punishment is considered very severe - where people were put in chains and subject to hard manual labour - on a wild island where it is impossible to escape. check a few links:
g) FH is one of the few prisoners sent to this place and held in inhuman conditions.
h) eventually, FH dies on this island, as a prisoner.
NOW, 145 years later, a historian wants to know why he didn't write letters describing his ordeal? after all, it is 1861 and he had ball point pens and plenty of paper available. to boot, why didn't he tweet his situation or write long notes on facebook? he could have taken a video of the conditions and sent it to us on whatsapp. if he was so afraid that he would be caught, he could have sent it through telegram. and the guards and officers - at least didn't they give the prisoners a comfortable cell to live in, with a well-stocked library? then why did he not write about his rise against the british? like say, nehru did. what stopped faDl al-Haqq from doing the same?
wow. so if the prisoner did not write about his ordeal, it is safe to deny that he was a revolutionary. because all revolutionaries maintain journals, and if they do not have pens, they make pens out of spoons and write with their own blood as most authorities do.
we won't leave it here, but first let me get hold of the paper fist.
-----let us assume that this is a gold standard for evaluating historic figures. let me restate the gold standard:
Apart from the claims of his followers, there is no definitive evidence about the extent of Khairabadi's alleged involvement in subversive activities, and no such claims could be supported on the basis of the available material, i.e., letters, poems, autobiographical accounts.
my question: shall we examine isma'yil dihlawi and his being branded a shaheed according to the same yardstick and gold standard?
Apart from the claims of his followers, there is no definitive evidence about the extent of Ismail Dihlawi's alleged martyrdom, and no such claims could be supported on the basis of the available material, i.e., letters, poems, autobiographical accounts.
I believe Zameel Deobandi is referring to this talk of Sh. Asrar
shocked and surprised to read Uthman Nabulsi is a student of Sh. Said Fowdah.
This Uthman Nabulsi is a rabid wahhabi-deobandi
what does this prove? so what if he wasn't executed? this minor detail, even if inaccurate, does not dramatically alter the fact that he passed away in imprisonment in harsh living conditions, died a maZlum and hence can be called a martyr, in sha'Allah.
the point is that his books refuting the accursed accusations of tafwiyatu'l iman, and it despicable author ismayil dihlawi, are irrefutable.
zameel devbandi brazenly treads in the footsteps of his elders on the path of lies and slander. a brother sent me a link to this:
but the interesting thing about devbandis is that they give extreme importance to errors made by others in inconsequential details and ignore big and glaring blunders by themselves or their own ilk. zameel says in the article (link above):
so i looked up a few biographies etc. poor zameel cannot bear an erroneous charge leveled at the british, though he or his elders can make all kinds of false accusations and indulge in character assassination of sunni ulama without causing zameel any heartburn.
i must point out here that our recently released poster on the conflict also shows that allamah fazl e haq was hanged. i acknowledge that it is inaccurate; and it was an extrapolation of mawlana abdul hakim sharaf qadri's statement in the preface of the book: 'tahqiq al-fatwa' where he says: "finally, he drank the draught of martyrdom on the island of andaman". [this has been corrected now.]
upon re-reading, it is implied martyrdom [shahadat] and not execution per se. i usually look up cross references, but i didn't do the due diligence. so yes, it is was an error, but it just one of mere detail, and not a hugely consequential one. many such errors can be found in books of history - and even books of rijal, where something is attributed to someone else. and so long as it is not intentional, it is an error - not a distortion. such mistakes and mixups abound in books of rijal and tarikh. besides, it is a fact that allamah was incarcerated in the cellular jail, which was notorious for the harsh treatment of prisoners. and certainly it is not that allamah passed away in the comfort of his home, surrounded by well-wishers, as zameel may want one to imagine, when he says: 'died a natural death after being imprisoned on the Andaman islands'.
distortion is WILFUL manipulation of facts, or fantasies presented as facts - like that of siddiq hasan khan's notice in abjad al-ulum (which abdu'l Hayy copied).
that was about allamah fadl al-Haq's 'execution' which wasn't. now where is the irrefutable evidence from contemporaries or eye-witnesses that ismayil was martyred?
zameel presents siddiq hasan khan as a 'contemporary' without disclosing that he was a wahabi (meaning held the bidat-bidat barking of wahabis close to his heart) and that he was enamoured of ismayil dihlawi and his notice in abjad al-ulum, is a manifestation of this disease.
he writes about shah abdul haqq: "he dressed in the fashion of noblemen, instead of the attire of scholars". most deobandis repeat this, and abdul hayy/abulhasan-nadwi in nuz'hat faithfully copied him. this is a vague statement and quite rich, coming from the royal consort of the sultana of bhopal - a nobleman himself chiding a scholar for 'dressing/behaving like a nobleman'.
in the book: fazl e haqq khyrabadi aur san satawan (57), the author analyzes such accusations and answers them.
if zameel wants to see examples of forged history and distortions, let him read Hayat e Tayyibah of mirza hayrat who was neither a contemporary, nor reports from contemporaries, but has written dialogues that occurred between parties and contents of letters!
[in sha'Allah, we will examine zameel's article, but i wanted to mention that the error is corrected in our infographic now.]
Allah ta'ala knows best.