on p63: By performing this ritual, Ahmad Riza was fulfilling one of the so-called “pillars” of Islam, a necessary step before he could assume his role as the leader and Renewer of his community. In this sense, he was undertaking a rite of passage, a transformative event which allowed him to return to Bareilly with greater authority fantasy. one goes on hajj because it is an obligation. here the woman imputes ulterior motives and as she says: 'rite of passage' to become a mujaddid. absolute nonsense. alahazrat was barely in his early twenties and was not even "aiming" for the top job. it is parts like these, where an otherwise common event is repainted with motives and multiple rabbits produced from an empty hat. "so-called" is such a bad choice of words. is it sneering? is it disbelief or incredulity? is it refutation? hajj IS a pillar of islam - a muslim baby would know. ---
yes. it is written by someone who has superficial understanding of islam, superficial knowledge of alahazrat, superficial knowledge of history and muslim culture - like most modern indian hindus and muslims who have studied in english schools. i positively detest it. and it is poorly written from the perspective of an accurate biography. sadly, since we had no other alternative, this book found currency and filled the vaccum. her other book "devotional islam" is even more shallow and cringe inducing. sometime in the future, in sha'Allah, i will write a critical analysis of her both works. also, it is not all usha sanyal's fault - she relies upon other works by muslims and non-muslims (robinson, metcalf, etc) and takes their views as facts and builds upon that - so the sources she has consulted and cites are flawed and frankly, are products of half-baked knowledge. as for urdu works she has referenced - from hayat e alahazrat to alahazrat himself, clearly, she has not understood them well. think of it as trump's advisors on tariffs and the formula they produced for the tariffs. it sounds profound, but it crumbles under analysis. --- this is why i wrote a quick biography of alahazrat - even though an extensive bio was planned based on hayat e alahazrat of malik al-ulama (upon the suggestion of a dear friend who also frequents this forum). right now, it is on hold. wa billahi't tawfiq. --- about sayyid ahmad barelwi, she says: p.31 citing metcalf: He traveled as a young man from his hometown to Lucknow in search of work, and then to Delhi, where he studied under Shah ‘Abd ul-Qadir (Shah ‘Abd ul-‘Aziz’s brother) of the Madrasa-i Rahimiyya from 1805 to 1811. sayyid ahmad barelwi was an illiterate - ismayil dihlawi has himself attested to this and he is his disciple. thanesari in his tawarikh e ajibah cites a story where in he (i.e. sayyid ahmad) began studying but he couldn't read any book - a miracle according to thanesari - sayyid ahmad could see everything else, but when he opened a book, he could not see the letters but only blacked out pages. --- p.57 Maulana Fazl-e Haqq – taking a position known as imtina’-e nazir, or impossibility of an equal – argued that even God could not produce another prophet like the Prophet Muhammad. factually incorrect. --- p. 58 Other stories claim that at four,Ahmad Riza had memorized the entire Qur’an by heart, no biographer among his students or their students has claimed this. --- p.59 Robinson goes so far as to say that the Farangi Mahalli family’s “impact in northern India ... was intensified by the development of a powerful offshoot, another great school specializing in ma‘qulat scholarship, that of Khayrabad in western Awadh,whose notable scholars [included] Fazl-e Haqq Khairabadi” (Robinson, 2001: 67) our brothers at the khayrabadi institute will be royally offended - because according to them, the khayrabadi tradition is farangi mahalli and goes up until sharif jurjani and taftazani and descends down until alahazrat and beyond. robinson makes it into three: farangi mahalli, dihlawi, khayrabadi and ushya sanyal makes the fourth, beign alahazrat and his father.
Sanyal’s book on Alahazrat is, for the most part, commendable and informative; there is little within it that we, as Sunnis, would find contentious. Do you hold a different view?
this is not correct. alahazrat only said that one doesn't become a wahabi merely because he deems sayyid ahmad a 'buzurg'. while this is sufficient proof against those who revel in the guilt-by-association fallacy, it does not mean that alahazrat deemed sayyid ahmad a buzurg. wAllahu a'alam.
Unfortunately, no. the single reply to that comment was: "We will do this when he accepts my invitation to sit down but his intention is with Shaykh Asrar Rashid who he is obsessed with by his actions if you see the ridiculous videos he releases. He must waste hours and hours going through Shaykh Asrar Rashids videos to see if they make one breath out of sync" The one replying(he teaches at a local Fultoli madrasa in Birmingham) makes it seem he is aware of such reference.
I came across a comment on a FB post stating Syed Ahmad Raebarelwi is mentioned in Fatwa E Rizvia Sharif. The commenter wrote: "You should send him the fatwa of Ahmad Raza Khan stating that Sayid Ahmed Shaheed was a Buzurg. It could be found in fatwa razaviyyah"
https://aalequtub.com/hazrat-syed-ahmad-shaheed-qutbi-r-a/ A Muslim perspective (the author views him favorably). The sources are questionable. Edit another one: https://archive.org/details/sayyida...agacyfromthepukhtunperspectivebydr.altafqadir
there is plenty of literature in urdu by our ulama. but unfortunately, they do not write in english. and sunnis who have crisp english do not seem to care (which is partly the reason mediocre translators like myself have a place). this ought to change. sunnis with a flair for writing and gifted with good expression should select books and translate. but where do we start? ---- --- watch this space.
barbara metcalf and usha sanyal writing about wahabis, alahazrat or devbandis and barelwis is like cyril radcliffe drawing out the partition of india. and due to the absence of quality literature among sunnis on these aspsects - metcalf and sanyal are quoted as authorities and their superficial knowledge as historical insights. same thing with the robinson fellow who is an expert without even reading about alahazrat. same thing about the guy faizan interviewed - who wrote a book without even learning about alahazrat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Ahmad_Barelvi from wikipedia: also from wikipedia https://todayspointonline.com/syed-ahmed-barelvi-and-his-jihad-movement/ https://www.firstpost.com/india/sye...ement-in-the-indian-subcontinent-2790982.html https://pscpesh.org/PDFs/PJ/Volume_50/12_Syed.pdf https://archive.org/details/SyedAhm...ushmanByInayatUllahChishtiChakralavi/mode/2up https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...t-as-jihad-launchpad/articleshow/68176836.cms came across this while googling - https://archive.org/details/hindu-society-under-siege-by-sita-ram-goel/page/n12/mode/1up ----- didn't read all the linked articles but one of them seems to suggest that he was more anti-british and anti-sikh rather than just being a blazing wahabi (i could be wrong regarding comprehension of that one piece). i remember reading about him in school but can't seem to find the history textbook online, if i remember well, he was portrayed as a freedom fighter of sorts (pre-2000's NCERT textbooks), and one of the above articles alludes to it that he's to be seen as anti-hindu rather than a freedom fighter - parking the booklist here for perhaps a later search/investigation (i wanna compare the books of pre-bjp era and post-2000) - https://ncert.nic.in/ncertldd/collection/pdf/archive_eng.pdf
