Shah Waliullah al-Dahlawi (1703 – 1762) was a renowned Indian scholar of Islam. Fluent in Arabic and Persian, he is credited with being the first to translate the Quran into Persian in the Indian subcontinent. He is considered the great fountainhead of Indian hadith scholarship. His acceptance and pivotal role in representing the Ahl al-Sunnah of India is in need of no introduction. He had complete command over the four schools of Fiqh and is considered as the revived of the Salafi-Athari da’wah in the Indian subcontinent in the 18th century.
A thorough pan-Islamist at heart, he invited the Muslim ruler of Afghanistan, Ahmed Shah Abdali, to overcome the growing Maratha rebellion and also to curb the Rafidi Shi’ites in India.
The Ahl al-Hadith consider him to be the reformer of the Ahl al-Hadith methodology in the Indian subcontinent for a good reason as Shah Waliullah was heavily influenced by the likes of Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) and defended him in his works. His sons were raised by their father as upright Sunnis, Ahl al-Hadith, to the extent they opened institutions in India which exist to this day and are upon the methodology of Ahl al-Hadith.
Due to the fact that most of the chains of transmission and ijazat pass through Shah Waliullah Dehlawi in the Indian subcontinent, some of the Sufis in the Indian subcontinent attempt to prove their heretical folklore religion by citing some of the works of Shah Waliullah Dehlawi, seemingly haven forgotten that their own scholars accused Shah Waliullah Dehlawi of being a ‘Wahhabi’ (due to his anti-personality and anti-grave veneration stances).
Shah Waliullah went through many stages in his life. He lived around the time of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab where excessive grave and saint veneration were rampant in Arabia (so imagine what was going on in the Indian subcontinent back then). Many of his teachers were extremist Sufis from whom he inherited quasi-Rafidi beliefs and rituals
The Quburi Sufis (such as the Barelvis) argue that Shah Waliullah endorsed the (Rafidi) prayer ‘Nadi Ali‘ which is a late Rafidi fabrication that extremist Sufis (and Rafidis) attribute to Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (ironically, it can’t be proven as sahih even per Rafidi standards, but that doesn’t prevent their ‘Ayatullahs’ to endorse it of course).
The Afghan Sunni theologian, Mulla ‘Ali Qari (d. 1014) was the first individual to ever cite this alleged supplication. In his collection of fabricated reports, Al-Asrar Al-Marfu’ah fi Al-Ahadith Al-Mawdu’ah, he said:
“Another appalling fabrication of the Shia is the hadith: ‘call upon Ali the manifestor of wonders…’ (Qari 385).” [Qari, Mulla Ali. Al-Asrar Al-Marfu’ah fi Al-Akhbar Al-Mawdu’ah. Edited by Muhammad Al-Sabbagh, Dar Al-Amanah]
A late Rafidi fabrication without an isnad and with a 1000+ year-long gap in its transmission was picked up and chanted by the Sufi pirs in pre-‘Wahhabi’ Arabia and the Indian Subcontinent and beyond, and this is supposed to be the ‘ultimate’ argument against the ‘Wahhabis’ by the Sufis… *facepalm*.
The Sufis provide evidence that Shah Waliullah Dehlawi himself recited and even received an ijazah from his (Sufi) pirs in transmitting the hideous ‘Nadi Ali‘ supplication. According to their logic, ghuluw (based on a Rafidi fabrication!) can’t be labeled as such because some 18th-century Sufi pirs endorsed some Rafidi fabrication (which somehow doesn’t prove the influence of Rafidism on them and Sufism because Sufis don’t vilify the Sahabah. As if vilifying the Sahabah alone makes one a Rafidi but chanting a Rafidi prayer doesn’t!).
Unsurprisingly, the batini Rafidi Isma’ilis also endorse this zandaqah:
However, in the later stage of his life, Shah Waliullah Dehlawi published works such as Hujjatullah al-Balighah, which is pro-Ahl al-Hadith and very critical of Sufi-Rafidi practices. In fact, he is often described as the vanguard of ‘Wahhabism‘ and a quasi-‘Wahhabi’ in India. And as the famous Islamic principle goes:
إﻧﻤﺎ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﺨﻮﺍﺗﻴﻢ
Actions are by their endings
And Ibn Taymiyyah said:
ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺮﺓ ﺑﻜﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺎﺕ ﻻ ﺑﻨﻘﺺ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺎﺕ
What matters the most are excellent endings, not the faulty beginnings
He, may Allah have mercy upon him, lived during a time when the da’wah of Tawhid was slowly returning in Sindh/India, and people were trying to call out the shirk and bid’ah that was taking place.
Shah Waliullah comments on the prophetic reports that mention the prohibition of traveling to mosques other than al-Masjid al-Haraam [in Makkah], al-Masjid al-Aqsa [in al-Quds/Jerusalem] and al-Masjid al-Nabawiy [in Madinah]:
“I say: the people in the Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic period of ignorance and paganism) took places that were sacred according to them and visited them and sought blessings. In this, there is distortion and depravity that are not hidden to anybody. This is why the Prophet (ﷺ) blocked the means to depravity so that such places are not turned into revered spots and so that the worship of other than Allah is prevented. To me, the truth is that visiting (and journeying to) graves, a place of worship of the Awliya (saints) and the mountain of Tur are prohibited and their prohibition is the same.”
Source: Hujjatullah al-Balighah by Shah Waliullah Dehlawi
Elsewhere in the same book he states:
ومنها أنهم كانوا يستغيثون بغير الله في حوائجهم من شفاء المريض وغناء الفقير وينذرون لهم يتوقعون إنجاح مقاصدهم بتلك النذور ويتلون أسماءهم رجاء بركتها فأوجب الله تعالى عليهم أن يقولوا في صلاتهم: “إياك نعبد وإياك نستعين” وقال تعالى “فلا تدعوا مع الله أحدا” وليس المراد من الدعاء العبادة كما قال المفسرون بل هو الاستغاثة
“And from these [embodiments and forms of shirk] is that they would seek help from other than Allah for their needs, of healing the sick and enriching the poor, and they would vow to them expecting the fulfillment of their objectives through those vows, and they would recite their names hoping for their blessing. So Allah made it obligatory on them to say in their Salah: ‘You alone we worship and You alone we ask for help.’ (Qur’an 1:5) And He, Exalted is He, said: ‘And do not call on any besides Allah.’ (Qur’an 72:18) The meaning of ‘call’ is not ‘worship’ as the exegetes have said but is ‘asking for help’ (istighathah).”
Source: Hujjatullah al-Balighah, 1:120-1
This is the exact stance of ‘Wahhabis‘ today. Also, note that Shah Waliullah wrote the above in his most famous work and he compiled other works warning against Sufi-Rafidi grave and saint veneration:
The Reality of Shirk, its Manifestations and its Types
In fact, some high-ranking Sufi Barelvi ‘scholars’ have openly lambasted Shah Waliullah for his anti-Ghuluw (‘Wahhabi’) stances, some evidence has been gathered here:
There is a clear tension between Shāh Waliyyullāh’s opposition to excessive personality-veneration/innovated practices and Barelwī support of them. Thus we find some clear opposition to Shāh Waliyyullāh amongst Barelwī scholars.
Aḥmad Riḍā Khān himself stopped short of directly attacking Shāh Waliyyullāh Dehlawī and his sons, but he regarded Shāh Muḥammad Ismā‘īl Dehlawī (1779 – 1831) and Shāh Muḥammad Isḥaq Dehlawī (1783 – 1846), prominent members of the family and direct students/successors of Shāh ‘Abdul ‘Azīz Dehlawī (1746 – 1824), to be the progenitors of the “Wahhābīs”, referring to their followers/admirers as “Ismā‘īlī Wahhābīs” and “Isḥāqī Wahhābīs” respectively. (e.g. Fatawa Riḍawiyya, Riḍā Foundation, 15:236; 20:246) This was probably more for practical, rather than principled reasons, however, because the views of Shāh Ismā‘īl Dehlawī he took issue with are traceable to his predecessors like Shāh Waliyyullāh, Shāh ‘Abdul ‘Azīz and Qāḍī Thanā’ullāh Pānipatī. See al-Junnah li Ahl al-Sunnah by Muftī ‘Abdul Ghanī Patialvī and the writings of Mawlānā Sarfrāz Khān Ṣafdar for documentation.
Muḥammad ‘Umar Icharwī
Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s opposition to the Waliyyullāh family, of course, opened the door to attacks on Shāh Waliyyullāh himself. Muḥammad Umar Icharvī (1902 – 1971) is a well-known Barelwī “scholar”. He is a student of one of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān’s students, regarded as “Munāẓir e Islām” in Barelwī circles and greatly admired by them as a defender of their “maslak” (see: Tazkirah Akābir Ahl e Sunnat by ‘Abd al-Ḥakīm Sharaf, p. 498 – 500).
In his work Miqyās e Ḥanafiyyat, he wrote against Shāh Waliyyullāh claiming he was directly influenced by Muḥammad ibn al-Wahhāb (1703 – 1792) while he was in the Ḥijāz. As a result, he claims Shāh Waliyyullāh became a Wahhābī and promoted Wahhābī ideas in his books. He claims his sons reverted to the way of their grandfather (Shāh Waliyyullāh’s father), but were influenced by some of the Wahhābī ideas of their father. (Miqyās e Ḥanafiyyat, p. 575-7)
Of course the claim that Shāh Waliyyullāh was directly influenced by Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb is completely without foundation. What this does demonstrate however is that Barelwīs oppose the ideas of Shāh Waliyyullāh himself and regard them to be “Wahhābī”. Some, like ‘Umar Icharwī, are honest in this respect, while others like Aḥmad Riḍā Khān try to skirt the issue.
Mukammal Tārīkh Wahhābiyyah
In 1968, a Barelwī by the name of Muḥammad Ramaḍān ‘Alī Qādrī wrote a “complete history of Wahhābīs” (Mukammal Tārīkh Wahhābiyyah), at the behest of famous Barelwī leader Shāh Turāb al-Ḥaqq (successor of Muṣtafā Riḍā Khān, son of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān). According to the “research” of the author, he believes just like Muḥammad ‘Umar Icharvī, that Shāḥ Walīullāh became Wahhābī after meeting Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb in the Ḥijāz and spread Wahhābī ideas in India. See pages 89-98 of the book, here.
Because Barelwī mythology is rooted in the idea that their version of Islām, comprising of exaggerated personality-veneration and innovations, is true Sunnism, they characterise all genuine Sunnī opposition to them as being “Wahhābī” in origin, and thus have to somehow force a link between Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb and the Indian “Wahhābīs”. Icharwī does so by falsely claiming a direct link between Shāh Waliyyullāh and Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb. Aḥmad Riḍā Khān does so by falsely claiming a direct link between Shāh Ismā‘īl and the ideas of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, even making the preposterous and resoundingly false claim that Taqwiyat al-Īmān is a translation of Kitāb al-Tawḥīd! Such myths and fables are used to fortify the psuedo-Sunnī Barelwī religion against valid criticism – by simply throwing them off as being “Wahhābī” in origin. The reality of course is that genuine Sunnī scholars have always written against exaggerated personality-veneration and innovations, and this is not peculiar to Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb or Wahhābīs.
The aforementioned is not a lone opinion among Indian and Pakistani Sunni circles.
Before Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi, Fazl-e-Rasul Badayuni (d. 1272AH) wrote in his Persian book Al-Bawāriq al-Muḥammadiyya bi Rajmī al-Shayātīn al-Najdiyya (The Muḥammadan Lightning in Striking The Najdī Satans):
“The conclusion of everything that Shāh Walī Allāh has written shows that he is against the Ahl al-Sunnat wa al-Jamāʿat.”
According to the Sufi opponents of Shah Waliullah, the Shaykh played a key role in the radicalisation of Sunni Muslims by converting them into ‘Wahhabi‘ and semi-‘Wahhabi‘ (what the Deobandis are often called) radical sects.
Shah Waliullah Dehlawi’s opposition to excessive personality, saint, and grave veneration can be clearly observed in the books that he compiled at the later stage of his life. Sufis might argue that Shah Waliullah Dehlawi upheld beliefs such as invoking the saints for aid and blessings even in the last stage of his life, however, those statements contradict his words in his most famous books which he filled with condemnation of Sufi beliefs and rituals.
Keeping the above in mind, the Atharis/Salafis have good reasons for having Husn al-Dhann (good opinion) for Shah Waliullah Dehlawi, believing that he did not endorse the Rafidi supplication of ‘Nadi Ali’ in the later stage of his life, thus quoting his old works is no proof in itself.
أقوال العلماء يحتج لها لا بها
The statements of the scholars are not proof in and by themselves, rather they need to be backed with proof
In fact, the Sufi-Rafidi nonsense (‘Nadi Ali’) that Shah Waliullah endorsed at one point in his life (due to the heavy Sufi influence in his lands) is no proof for the validity of that fabricated prayer even if Shah Waliullah Dehlawi died whilst recording himself in 4K chanting that Rafidi abomination seconds before he died, this is because our religion is not based on the words of fallible men, let alone late scholars of the 18th century CE who ate one point of their life endorsed Sufi-Rafidi fabrication via a silsalah of Sufi pirs in one of the most superstition-infested regions of the Muslim world.
But rest assured, the ‘pirs‘ and ‘molvis‘ of the extremist Sufis will continue to endorse and propagate Rafidi fabrications such as the ‘Call upon Ali’ prayer in the name of ‘Tasawwuf‘ and ‘love of Ahl al-Bayt‘ (who will denounce them and their Rafidi brother for attributing ghuluw and lies to them), this is because it is not the truth that they are concerned; what they are concerned with is the defense of their elders and a long list of pirs who have advocated such ghuluw throughout centuries and this must make it somehow right or at least a valid difference of opinions. And Allah is the One whose help is sought (الله المستعان).
EBNHUSSEIN.COM 