1. Military Organization commander and advisory council

2. The soldiers (individual members)

3. A clearly defined strategy

1. Forged documents and counterfeit currency

2. Apartments and hiding places

3. Communication means

4. Transportation means

5. Information

6. Arms and ammunition

7. Transport

1. Gathering information about the enemy, the land, the installations, and the neighbors.

2. Kidnapping enemy personnel, documents, secrets, and arms.

3. Assassinating enemy personnel as well as foreign tourists.

4. Freeing the brothers who are captured by the enemy.

5. Spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy.

6. Blasting and destroying the places of amusement, immorality, and sin; not a vital target.

7. Blasting and destroying the embassies and attacking vital economic centers.

8. Blasting and destroying bridges leading into and out of the cities.

1. Removal of those personalities that block the call’s path.

2. All types of military and civilian intellectuals and thinkers for the state.

3. Proper utilization of the individuals’ unused capabilities.

4. Precision in performing tasks, and using collective views on completing a job from all aspects, not just one.

5. Controlling the work and not fragmenting it or deviating from it.

6. Achieving long-term goals such as the establishment of an Islamic state and short-term goals such as operations against enemy individuals and sectors.

7. Establishing the conditions for possible confrontation with the regressive regimes and their persistence.

8. Achieving discipline in secrecy and through tasks.

1. Keeping the passport in a safe place so it would not be seized by the security apparatus, and the brother it belongs to would have to negotiate its return (I’ll give you your passport if you give me information)

2. All documents of the undercover brother, such as identity cards and passport, should be falsified.

3. When the undercover brother is travelling with a certain identity card or passport, he should know all pertinent [information] such as the name, profession, and place of residence.

4. The brother who has special work status (commander, communication link,…) should have more than one identity card and passport. He should learn the contents of each, the nature of the [indicated] profession, and the dialect of the residence area listed in the document.

5. The photograph of the brother in these documents should be without a beard. It is preferable that the brother’s public photograph [on these documents] be also without a beard. If he already has one [document] showing a photograph with a beard, he should replace it.

6. When using an identity document in different names, no more than one such document should be carried at one time.

7. The validity of the falsified travel documents should always be confirmed.

8. All falsification matters should be carried out through the command and not haphazardly (procedure control)

9. Married brothers should not add their wives to their passports.

10. When a brother is carrying the forged passport of a certain country, he should not travel to that country. It is easy to detect forgery at the airport, and the dialect of the brother is different from that of the people from that country.

1. Distance from the populated areas with the availability of living necessities.

2. Availability of medical services during the training.

3. The place should be suitable for the type of training (physical fitness, shooting, and tactics).

4. No one except the trainers and trainees should know about the place.

5. The place should have many roads and entrances.

6. The place should be visited at suitable times.

7. Hiding any training traces immediately after the training.

8. Guarding the place during the training.

9. Appropriateness of the existing facilities for the number of training members.

10. Exclusion of anyone who is not connected with the training.

11. Taking all security measures regarding the establishment.

12. Distance of the place from police stations, public establishments, and the eyes of informants.

13. The place should not be situated in such a way that the training and trainees can be seen from another location.

1. Before proceeding to the training place, all security measures connected with an undercover individual should be taken. Meanwhile, during training at the place, personnel safety should be ensured.

2. Selecting the trainees carefully.

3. The trainees should not know one another.

4. The small size of groups that should be together during the training (7-10 individuals).

5. The trainees should not know the training place.

6. Establishing a training plan for each trainee.

1. Fewness of the trainers in the training place. Only those conducting the training should be there, in order not to subject the training team to the risk of security exposure.

2. Not revealing the identity of the trainer to trainees.

3. Keeping a small ratio of trainees to trainer.

4. The training team members should not know one another.” (Source-LeT classroom training manual-amalgamated with al Qaeda training manual).

• Number of secondary and higher madrasas: 6,000

• Senior and graduate level madrasas: 4,335

• Deobandi madrasas: 2,333

• Barelvi madrasas: 1,625

• Ahl-i-Hadith madrasas: 224

• Shia madrasas: 163

• Number of all students: 604,421

• Local students (Pakistani): 586,604

• Foreign students: 17,817

• Afghan students: 16,598

• Pre-1947– Madrasas: 137

• 1950–Madrasas: 210

• 1960– Madrasas: 472/ Number of teachers: 1,846/ Number of Students: 40,239

• 1971–Madrasas: 908/ Number of teachers: 3,185/ Number of Students: 45,238

• 1979–Madrasas: 1,745/ Number of teachers: 5,005/ Number of Students: 99,041

• 1984– Madrasas: 1,953

• 1986– Madrasas: 2,261/ Number of teachers: 12,625/ Number of Students: 316,380

• 2001– Madrasas: 4,345 */ Number of Students: 604,421

Muslim Terrorists Manufactured by the Media

By Yoginder Sikand

It is not just the loony vernacular media, as many are given to believe, but even the respectable, mainstream, national English-language press in India that have sedulously cultivated the notion of Islamic terrorism, so much so that the image of Muslims in general being either terrorists or their sympathizers enjoys wide currency today. While it is true that some of the most dastardly terror attacks that India has witnessed in recent years have been the handiwork of some Muslims and this is something that the vast majority of the Indian Muslims themselves deplore it is also undeniable that Muslims have been unfairly blamed for many other attacks or alleged terror plots by the police as well as the media in which they have had no role to play at all. Many Muslims and others, too believe that these false allegations are not innocent errors, but can be said to represent a deliberate and concerted effort to defame and demonise an entire community and the religion with which it is associated.

That, precisely, is what a recently-released report, brought out by a team of secular, leftist non-Muslim activists from Karnataka argues. Titled Media on Terror, and issued by the activist group Column 9 [so named, the report says, because in a standard newspaper of eight columns, issues and perspectives that deserve a column of their own generally go missing), it is a detailed examination of the coverage and projection of terrorism in the state of Karnataka. It is based on an analysis of the reporting of terrorism in the Bangalore editions of leading Kannada and English newspapers over several months in 2008, supplemented with in-depth interviews with journalists, stringers and police officials in Honnali, Davangere, Hubli, Kalghatgi and Bangalore places where, the media had reported, terrorists all of them incidentally Muslims had been apprehended. This was a period when the media was awash with stories of Muslim terrorists allegedly plotting to take over the whole of Karnataka.

A striking finding of the report is that the media in Karnataka, both Kannada and English, dangerously seemed to pronounce judgments on those arrested, much before the due process of law was played out. In fact, the report says, there was no material basis to most of the news reports. The tone of their reporting was sharply jingoistic, and none of the standards expected of professional journalism seemed to be in evidence. Alleged terrorists in many cases innocent Muslim youths arbitrarily picked up by the police were subjected to media trials based simply on unsubstantiated police claims. The report speaks of the blurring of lines between police officials and investigative journalists, who seemed to preempt official investigation. The language and rhetoric used in the reporting reflected, the report says, an obvious and deep-rooted bias against Muslims, and a deliberate effort to create a sense of siege among Hindus.

Scores of sensational stories of Muslims being picked up for being suspected terrorists published in the Karnataka media were based on information allegedly received from what were routinely called highly placed police officials or intelligence bureau officials. Predictably, the report says, the names of these police or investigating officials were not provided, which meant that these stories many of which were patently fabricatedcould not be substantiated by these officials. In numerous instances, the reports were based on news wholly manufactured by reporters and stringers, as evidenced from the denials that emerged from the police officials themselves a day after these reports were published, which many papers chose to ignore. In almost all such cases, the newspapers did not bother to issue an apology despite irrefutable confirmation of their falsity. In most instances where the stories about alleged Muslim terrorists were based on information supplied by the police, journalists simply asked no questions at all as to the process of investigation that took place within the police stations despite it being common knowledge that torture is widely used by the police in such cases to extract information or else to force detainees to admit to crimes that they have had no hand in. Consequently, the arrested Muslims were uncritically presented in the media as hardcore Islamist terrorists, even without the courts having made their judgments. By presenting no version other than that of the police, the report remarks, the investigative aspect of journalism in Karnataka on the matter of alleged Muslim involvement in terrorism has in fact been reduced to what it calls stenographic reporting. The report adds that the few journalists who tried to balance the stories with the other views about reported incidents about Muslim terrorism or foiled terrorist plots rarely found space in the newspapers.

In this regard, it is significant to note that, as the report says, it was mainly at the lower-rungs of the police that journalists depended for their stories (often, for a price it suggests). The journalists interviewed by the team that commissioned the report confirmed that to sustain their relations with police constables they needed to keep them happy and desist from undertaking any steps to antagonize them. This, the report points out, greatly affected the credibility of their reports since they assumed the police version as valid and often failed to critique or to ask any questions about that version. The report adds:

Across the board, journalists specifically mentioned lower rung police officials, including constables and head constables within the concerned police stations, as sources of information. The journalists access to these police officials was determined entirely on the basis of their personal rapport and connections staked out within the police stations. It was fairly obvious that the journalists nurtured these relationships with the officials very carefully since the relationships were the base for a potential exclusive story. Despite the teams repeated questions seeking names of police officials who acted as sources of information, not a single reporter was willing to share these details.

Another alarming finding of the report was the arbitrary branding by both the police and the media of literature and CDs allegedly seized by the police from the Muslims who had been arrested as jihadi materials. These were presented as proof of those arrested as being behind acts of terror or even as would-be terrorists. In many cases, the police officials simply refused to share the material with journalists, at most showing them only photos of the covers of books seized from the arrested Muslims. Amazingly, the report relates, according to the journalists they interviewed, evidence of the books indeed being jihadi materials lay in the fact that most were books written in Urdu. In one location where alleged Muslim terrorists had been arrested and so-called jihadi material recovered from them, journalists interviewed by the team mentioned that the police had produced a panel of Urdu experts at a press briefing to confirm that the seized materials were indeed jihadi. Strikingly, none of the journalists had any clue about the identity of these so-called Urdu experts. A journalist in Honnali spoke about a particular CD that was seized by the police from an arrested Muslim, whom the police and the media had alleged was a terrorist. Far from being incendiary material, as was alleged, the CD, it turned out, was actually about an orphanage. Another journalist provided the team that had prepared the report a photograph taken on a mobile phone, where they could read the titles of two books since they were printed in English one of these was The Spirit of Islam and the other was the Holy Quran, books that, needless to say, are not proscribed and are readily available in the market. In this regard, the report rightly asks, How can possession of the Holy Koran be presented as proof that the people owning them are suspected terrorists? Why werent any questions or objections raised about this new tendency of the Indian police who chose to present the possession of the Holy Koran as proof of possible terrorism?. Thus, the report argues, It was very clear that the journalists had labeled books and other seized materials primarily on the basis of their interactions with the police and, to some extent, on the basis of internalized personal prejudice.

Yet another striking finding of the report is that not a single journalist whom the team met and who had reported on the arrest of alleged Muslim terrorists had received clear instructions or editorial guidelines pertaining to coverage of sensitive issues such as terrorism from their respective editorial chiefs. Many journalists spoke of the pressure to meet the evening deadlines for daily reports, and so, they admitted, there were several occasions when they did not have the time to verify the claims of police officials in cases of real or alleged terrorist attacks or plots, and merely carried police version without cross-checking. Equally distressingly, the report unveiled, reporters located in regions that usually received no print space or attention in the press found themselves catapulted to attention through the sensationalist, and often false, reports that they filed during the time of the arrests and got front page coverage. The reporters also mentioned the pressure exerted on them by the state bureau chiefs to file reports that were exclusive to the organisation. This conduced, the report says, to sensationalism and even to the fabrication of reports. As the report puts it, In the consequent one-upmanship created by the pressure to perform within the confines of a profit-driven industry, the journalists admitted to several compromises on the articles authenticity and their contents. Some journalists interviewed unanimously admitted that the reports they had filed were intentionally sensationalist in nature. According to them, what was of paramount importance was for them to prove that the arrested persons were in fact guilty, that they were in fact members of Islamist terrorist organisations, even much before the courts were given the chance to lay down their verdicts. Sadly, as the report says, these reporters saw their sensationalist reporting, not as a crime, but, rather, as a service that they were rendering to the nation they claimed that in this way they were exposing hardened criminals and potential terrorists who were capable of inflicting much harm to society.

One of the persons interviewed by the team, the reporter for the Kannada Prabha in Hubli, openly admitted that 60% of the reports that he had filed were false and inaccurate. Similarly, the Hubli reporter for the Times of India admitted to using a photograph of an unrelated dargah with his report about an alleged Muslim terrorist camp, and and falsely described the flag near the dargah as a Pakistani one. In fact, it so turned out, the correspondent himself had never been to the location. In an incident in coastal Karnataka, after two Muslim men were paraded naked and brutally assaulted in public by Hindu Yuva Sena activists for transporting cows, a Muslim protest rally was taken out in Udipi. Kannada papers falsely alleged that the demonstrators had unfurled a Pakistani flag and raised pro-Pakistan slogans and, without any evidence, accused them of being linked to Al-Qaeda and the Lashkar-e Tayyeba. Although the police denied these claims, the papers pressed on with their accusations. In another bizarre case, a Muslim man from Bangalore associated with the Muslim IT Association was wrongly accused by the Times of India of being linked to a terrorist organization. Despite these blatant falsehoods, the report notes with distress, in the overwhelming majority of cases the newspapers did not issue any apologies or acknowledge their (possibly deliberate) errors.

The team also met with senior police officials in Bangalore and Davangere. It found that they appeared to be less concerned and engaged with the prevention of biased media reporting and introspection into the role of the police. They argued that it was not the responsibility of the police to challenge inaccurate reports filed by journalists, and that this was also time-consuming. The SP of Davangere, the report says, readily acknowledged the leakage of information to the press through the lower rung officials though they were expressly forbidden from doing so. She admitted its continuance despite the issuing of a whip asking all police officials below the rank of SP to refrain from interactions with journalists, and suggested that journalists should depend on official press communiques released by SPs.

Among the many cases of false framing of Muslims as terrorists in Karnataka that the report highlights, one deserves special mention to indicate the deep-rootedness of anti-Muslim prejudices in the state machinery, particularly since the BJP emerged as such a powerful force in Karnataka. The team met with judicial officer Jinaralkar at the judicial magistrates first class court at Honnali, where two Muslim youths, Abdullah and Nasir, had been arrested on grounds of allegedly being terrorists. Jinaralkar defended his awarding of the two to police custody, although they were initially arrested and presented as bike thieves, a decision the media highlighted and lauded, crediting the judge with foresight in identifying the arrested duo as suspected terrorists. The judge explained his decision by stating that the material seized from them when they were arrested indicated that they might in fact have been terrorists, rather than bike-robbers as was initially claimed: duplicate identity cards, a dagger, a map of south India with red marks against Udupi and Goa, an American dollar, two pieces of paper, with the phrase www.com written on one and Jungle King Behind Back Me on another.

The judge told the team, When I looked at these materials in their entirety, several things were clear to me. I felt that these were definitely not just bike thieves why would bike thieves carry around duplicate identity cards and a map of south India? The fact that they had an American dollar seemed to indicate their international links, while the paper with www.com indicated that they were tech-savvy. Definitely enough grounds in my opinion to grant the police their custody to facilitate their further investigations .The report indicates that journalists in Karnataka (and this probably holds true for the rest of the country) typically see terrorism as a specifically Muslim phenomenon, and do not even consider the possibility of Hindu terrorists, although, as the report points out, in Karnataka today, particularly with the rise of the BJP, scores of incidents of terror against Muslims (as well as Dalits) by Hindu groups have been recorded. Predictably, the media does not describe these as instances of Hindu terrorism. This points to what the report terms as the dangerously marked internalisation of Hindu nationalism by media professionals in Karnataka, and the projection by the media of the Hindutva lobby as the presumed sole representative of the Hindus.

{Media on Terror can be procured from Column 9, No. 51, 29th Cross, 9th Main, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bangalore 560070. Price: Rs. 25.}

[Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Social Policy at the National Law School, Bangalore. He can be contacted on ysikand@yahoo.com]

Stop Subsidising Pilgrimages

The Haj should be financed from private charity

By Atanu Dey

In theory, according to its Constitution, the Indian state is secular; in practice, unfortunately, it is far from it. Indian governments routinely meddle in religious affairs and do not treat all its citizens as equal in matters of religion. They involve themselves in matters such as temple administration, fund management of temple donations, and subsiding pilgrimages. The most blatant example of such gratuitous meddling is the subsidy given to Muslims for going for haj to Saudi Arabia. In 2008, Indian taxpayers paid around Rs 700 crores (US$140 million) for Muslims to travel to Saudi Arabia.

Is that a reasonable thing for the government of India to do? No: it is bad in principle, economically inefficient and morally wrong. The government of a secular state must not concern itself with religious matters. India would do well to consider the example of the United States.

The first item of the US Bill of Rights, authored principally by James Madison and adopted in 1791, begins with the injunction that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” The absence of sectarian strife in the US is at least in part attributable to that amendment which, in the words of James Madison establishes a wall of “total separation of the church from the state.”

Something like the first amendment is vitally important and must be among the core set of rules of all civilized states. It traces its origins to the ideas of John Locke who held that each individual is free and equal, and that the job of the government of a civilized society is to protect the property rights of its citizens. The US strictly maintains that separation, as it should since it claims to be a secular state. It contrasts sharply with what goes on in India.

The rationale behind the Indian government’s Haj subsidy goes against any notion of social justice, fairness, and economic reasoning. Firstly, religion is a purely private affair and the government of a purportedly secular state should not get into the business of promoting any religion. Subsidizing the Haj is discriminatory and tantamount to endorsement of Islam. No other country on earth – including Islamic states – subsidizes haj.

Second, the subsidy is unfair. Fairness is the cornerstone of justice. It is unfair — and therefore unjust — for the government to force non-Muslims to subsidize the Haj because ultimately it is the taxpayers’ money that the government hands out. For an Islamic state to tax its non-Muslim subjects is understandable since Islam dictates that non-Muslims pay jizya — “a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to the laws enforced by the Muslim State.” The Indian government is not Islamic and therefore must not impose jizya on its citizens.

Third, the haj subsidy politicizes a purely religious matter. Political parties attempt to woo Muslim votes by increasing the subsidy. They are in effect robbing non-Muslims to pay Muslim, thus attempting to gain the endorsement of Muslims. This is totally unconscionable.

From an economic point of view, subsidies and taxes are sometimes justified. For instance, revenues required for the provision of public goods have to be raised in some way and taxes are one way of doing so. Subsidies are justified in cases where markets fail to provide the socially optimal quantities of public goods. Even then, from an economic efficiency point of view, the taxes required for balancing the subsidies should be paid by the beneficiaries of the public good in question.

A case can even be made for the tax-funded public provisioning of some non-public goods and services, as when very high transaction costs are involved. Collective provisioning through taxes of a private good is justified when it is too expensive to determine individual quantity consumed for apportioning costs among a very large number of users.

The haj subsidy paid for from general tax revenues cannot be justified on the economic grounds mentioned above. The Haj is a not a public good; there is no market failure in its supply; the apportioning of costs is simple and efficient.

Can the Haj subsidy be justified on the grounds that it is charity? It is said that charity begins at home. And that is where it should stay. As a general principle, governments must not appropriate for itself the purely personal decision of its citizens on the matter of which charitable activity to support and to what extent. It is a matter of property rights: one has a right to spend one’s income as one sees fit. Using tax money to support discretionary spending is tantamount to extortion under the threat of violence, since one can be imprisoned for refusing to pay taxes.

Finally, there is the pernicious endowment effect: once an unearned benefit is granted, it is very difficult to remove it without incurring the wrath of the beneficiaries. No government would like to run the risk of removing the subsidy and antagonizing a large voting constituency.

The problem has a straightforward solution: move the funding of the haj subsidy from the public domain to the private domain. Constitute a non-governmental body whose task is to raise funds from private citizens. It is possible to do so in this day and age of low transactions costs due to the Internet and mobile telephony. When people voluntarily contribute to fund the subsidy, it moves from the realm of coercion and becomes truly charitable.

This also takes the politics out of the whole matter and reduces the temptation that politicians have in robbing one group to gain the support of another group. By making this entirely voluntary, it removes the deep resentment many non-Muslims feel regarding the matter.

But there is a larger point which goes to the heart of what the job of a government is. Protecting the lives and property of its citizens is the primary reason for its existence. Everything else is secondary. Citizens should be on guard and prevent the government from usurping the freedoms that rightfully belong to them. When the government intrudes into such personal matters as whether or not to support the religious activities of some specific group, the state moves a little bit closer to fascism.

India needs to become a truly secular state since it is multi-religious. Its government has to be constitutionally directed to maintain a strict distinction between matters of religion and matters of state. If this requires a constitutional amendment, then it is time to introduce such a bill. The Indian government has to stop riding roughshod over the basic inalienable rights of its citizens – that of the rights to personal property and equality before the law. India needs the equivalent of the first amendment to the constitution of the United States of America.

[Courtesy: Pragati – The National Interest Review, August 2009 Issue; pragati.nationalinterest.in]

The Truth behind Deobandi-Barailavi differences

By Maulana Nadeemul Wajidee

(Translated from Urdu by Syed Raihan Ahmad Nezami)

Sectarian violence is a regular occurrence in Pakistan, but unfortunately, in recent times, it is being promoted in our country too. In a recent incident, the way the Deobandi and the Barailavi scholars and clerics have unearthed their disputes and demonstrated their verbal and muscular power is not only shameful; it is strongly condemnable. Every Muslim knows the mosques are for prayers only – its use for the settlement of disputes and differences is not only unfair and depressing, but it’s a great sin towards Allah-e-Kareem. Indian Muslims are already facing numerous insurmountable problems and difficulties in their country which are boundlessly rising to the alarming level, such conflicts will further deteriorate the situation.

Does it suit our Islamic scholars and the general people to quarrel over sectarian conflicts, which have been there for over 150 years? Pakistan is a different case as it is heading towards eventual destruction. In regard to the dispute over the mosque, I see no harm if the same is accepted and used by both the fighting factions. They should have gone one step further to find an amiable solution and handed over the management to the other sect and kept offering prayers one after another. Even they can reach a solution if they are wise enough to sit at a conference table with a positive frame of mind and compromising attitude. Resorting to violence has never yielded a satisfactory result at any level, nor will it do so in future. Yet both groups are quarrelling powerfully with each other to give vent to their anger. It’s quite possible that there is a foreign hand behind the ruckus created by the ugly designs of the community with vested interest to ignite the conspiracy, which has been as old as the history of modern conflict.

The differences, in general, are not unavoidable. There may be differences over political, social or intellectual points of view. These should be discussed and resolved amicably within certain limits. A difference over the points of view being transformed into a controversy has been prohibited by the Quran-e-Kareem in the following words.

“And fall into no disputes, lest ye lose heart and your power depart” (Surah Al-Anfal: 46)

On the other hand, such a difference in opinion is acceptable and reasonable, which may be honest and based on scholarly clarification with an aim to enrich knowledge and learning. Difference of opinion has been cropping up in Islam since the beginning. It had taken place among the Sahaba-e-Karam (May Allah be pleased with them) and the people thereafter, but it was never transformed into a controversy. It is a very dirty game which maligns the religious character of the Muslims by abusing or falsely blaming the other party with ugly intentions.

The Sahaba-e-Karam (May Allah be pleased with them) too, had different points of view, but they never resorted to violence or tried to tarnish other’s image by passing out derogatory remarks, or by issuing “Fatawahs” of “Kufr”, “Fasque”, or “Fajra”. Even the intellectual Islamic reasoning became the basis of the differences in Fiqah which later on, became instrumental in forming the four different schools of Islamic thought and learning, numerous Fuqaha-e-Karam related to these schools of Fiqah differ over certain points, but they never used derogatory remarks, insulted others or delivered “Fatawahs” excluding others from Islam. The differences may occur even among the scholars of the same school of thought. Imam Muhammad (ra) and Imam Abu Yusuf (ra), the favorite followers of Hazrat Imam-e-Azam Abu Haneefa (ra), occasionally differed with him, or on certain points, confronted each other but, not in a scornful manner but rather with full respect and regard. Neither the teacher showed any disrespect nor they had any loathing for one another.

The rivalry between Allamah Sakhavi (ra) and Allamah Jalaluddin Seyuti (ra) is famous in the intellectual history. They had often commented on each other a lot in their respective writings, the differences are even found between a religious scholar and a learned person like Sufi Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani (ra) and Allamah Ibn Aljouzee who was a renowned writer, muhaddith and reformer. In the same way, Nawab Siddique Hassan Khan Qannouji (ra) and Maulana Abdul Hai Firangi Mahli (ra) too, were involved in scholarly debate without any scornful remarks and insulting expression. All the above mentioned negative elements are prevalent in the differences between Deobandi and the Barailvi scholars only who have diminished their scholarly figure and taken this conflict to the limits of “Takfeer” (Disbelief).

Let’s see! Who is responsible for this degradation to “Takfeer” (Disbelief) and “Tafseeque” (rebellion) - Deobandees or Barailvees which has taken the shape of differences among the Muslim community?

Maulana Ahmed Raza Khan, the founder of the Barailvi school of thought was politically inclined towards the British rulers. He had inherited this predilection. He heaped a lot of praise over them, and delivered “Fatawahs” for the prohibition of Jihad and opposed the Khilafat movement. He was the disciple of Maulana Fazal Rasool Badayuni and associated with Maulana Fazal Haque Khairabadi. Both the teacher and the pupil were strongly opposed to Shah Ismail Shaheed and the other Soofian-e-Karam of Delhi. Maulana Fazal Haque Khairabadi had gone to the extent of getting Shah Ismail Shaheed’s speech banned from being delivered in the Jama Masjid of Delhi. Maulana Ahmed Raza Khan was the intellectual heir of the above-mentioned two Islamic scholars.

As far as the religious background is concerned, he belonged to a Shia family. His forefather Kazim Ali Khan had played a pivotal role in connivance with Shujauddaulah, the Shia Nawab of Awadh and the British to convince and assimilate the Ruhailkhand, the Sunni state of the time. Highly impressed with the Shia culture – an influence that was quite dominant in his writings too - he had many Shia scholars among his disciple too.

I have explained all the three aspects of the background to help readers understand the root cause of conflict between Maulana Ahmed Raza Khan and the clerics of Deoband.

It has been a historical truth concerning the scholars of Deoband who worked robustly to materialize the “Fatwa-e-Jihad” of Hazrat Shah Abdul Aziz. Their miraculous acts of bravery are spread over the volumes of history of Jihad in 1857, though in the end it proved to be futile. Later on, after the Darul Uloom was established, the scholars of Deoband again took the initiative for the sake of their country and underwent physical and mental tortures and atrocities in British prisons. Ultimately, the freedom struggle met its destination and succeeded in the mission. Maulana Ahmed Raza Khan who was the well-wisher of the British, didn’t like the revolutionary deeds of the Deobandis. The Deobandis had great affinity and regard for the families of Shah Abdul Aziz and other scholars whereas Maulana Ahmed Raza Khan opposed them vehemently due to being the disciple of Maulana Fazal Rasool Badayuni. The same has been the point of discord since then and has acted as a factor in creating further rift between the two sects.

Another reason for this discord is that Hazrat Shah Abdul Aziz had vehemently criticized the Shia community in his religious speeches as well as through his erudition in books like “Tohfata Asna Ashrafiah” and “Asrarul Jaleel fi Mastaul Tafzeel” igniting the Shias to great fury. Later on, in continuation of the same, Hujjatul Islam Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanautavi, the founder of Darul Uloom Deoband, penned “ Bidayatul Shooja”, Fayooz Qasmiya”, “Intibahul Mumeneen” and “Ajooba Arbaeen”, his fellow Hazrat Maulana Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi authored the scholarly but controversial “Hidayatul Shia” which highly infuriated Maulana Ahmed Raza Khan. He delivered a “Fatwah” against Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanautavi, “Qasmiya lanatahumullah is Maloon and Murtid (rebellion)”(Fatwah Rizwiya – 59/5).

Later on, he gave another “Fatwah” on reading the books of Maulana Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi, “He should be thrown into Hell and the Hell Fire will burn him”. (Khalisul Aetaqad, Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan Barailavi, Page-62)

These two factors added fuel to the fire which enraged Maulana Ahmed Raza Khan, the founder of the Barailavi school of thought to take the path of enmity, condemnation and denouncement. This kept increasing every passing day, till it took the form of promoting divisions within the Muslim community and getting Muslims declared Kafir (Tafreeq Bainul Muslemeen and Takfeerul Muslemeen) to the extent that he didn’t even slightly waver from distorting or deforming anyone’s writing. For instance, Tahzeerul Naas is a small magazine by Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanautavi. It contains intellectual arguments on the issue of the final prophethood (Khatm-e-Nabooat) of the prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be upon Him). Maulana Ahmed Raza Khan deleted some portions of the content from the pages 14, 28 and 30 to recompile a distorted passage. After this condemnable activity, he went to Makkah and Madina to get a “Fatwah” issued by the scholars of Hijaz. The new passage recompiled by him is given below.

“Even if it is assumed, there might be any other prophet in the reign of the prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be upon Him), His status as the last prophet of Islam is intact, but even if it is assumed – that in the later age of His prophethood, any other prophet appears, there will be no effect on the status of the prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be upon Him). In the view of common Muslims, the final prophethood of the prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) means that he is the last prophet among all those who have been sent to this world, but in the eyes of scholars it is clear that no particular significance attaches to a prophet coming before or after. (Husamul Harmain, Page 101).

The last sentence of this passage, “In the view of common Muslims” is at page 30 in the original book, the first sentence is at page 14 and the middle sentence at the page 28. The way Maulana Ahmed Raza Khan has joined the three sentences into a single passage gives the impression that Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanautavi is rejects the finality of prophethood. In the Arabic translation, he deleted the word “Bilzat” and included “Aslan” at its place which totally changed the meaning of the content. By deletion and addition in the writings of Deoband, he got “Fatwa-e-Kufr” from the scholars of Najad-o-Majaz against the Deobandi ulema and returned to India in high spirits. God knows if someone asked him or not – what benefits did he obtain from such “Fatawahs”? What service did he do to Islam by dividing the Muslims in two groups?

On the other hand, the scholars of Deoband continued to seek to express their feelings. Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanautavi asserted, “The culmination of the prophethood with Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) is part of our belief and faith. But nothing can be done to stave off false criticism. (Jawabat Mahzoorat, page 29)

“There is no possibility of any other prophet after Rasoolullah (Peace be upon Him) is my faith and “Iman”, I consider him a disbeliever who has a slight suspicion over it (Maktoobat Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanautavi, Page 103). In a similar vein, Maulana Ahmed Raza Khan Sb Barailavi blamed Qolubul Arshad Maulana Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi – that according to him, “Allah-e-Kareem is a liar (Nauz Billah) This assertion is famous like “Imkan-e-Kizb” based on a fake and baseless “Fatawah” delivered by Maulana Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi, yet it is not proved till today, when and where was the concerned “Fatwah” delivered? Maulana Ahmed Raza Khan has referred to this baseless “Fatwah” in Husamul Harmain on page 102 and asserted that he himself had seen the “Fatawah”, later on he mentioned on page 29 that a Photostat of the “Fatwah” is preserved in Madina. Unfortunately, no Barailavi cleric or scholar has so far presented even the photocopy of the “Fatawah”, not to talk of the original document.

Hazrat Maulana Khaleel Ahmed Sahab and Hakeemul Ummat Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Ashraf Ali Thanavi too, could not be spared from this hateful campaign of “Takfeer”. The former was blamed that he considered Satan more learned than the prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) and the latter, as it is alleged, faced the accusation that animals as learned as prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be upon Him). Maulana Khaleel Ahmed responded to the accusation, “I and even my teachers consider the person “Kafir”, “Murtid” and “Mal’oon” who assumes that any person or any creature is greater in knowledge than the prophet Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be upon Him), not to talk of the Satan. It means that Khan Sahab Barailavi’s allegation is a pure lie and false assumption. I never assumed as if any angel or “Wali”, not to talk of a Satan, may be greater in learning than Him (Peace be upon Him), although he may be greater in education. Of all the wrong charges that Khan Sahab has leveled on me I will seek justification from him on the Day of Judgment. I am absolutely not responsible for it”.(Fatawah Darul Uloom, Deoband – 38/2)

Hakeemul Ummat Hazrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanavi got a magazine published in response to the “Fatwah-e-Takfeer” and made it the foreword of his book “Hifzul Eman”, He wrote, “I have never penned such an ugly article in my book, and cannot think of writing such rubbish. I have never imagined such an ugly topic and seriously consider that the person should be excluded from Islam who possesses such Faith, or even without having Faith, says even by any means. My Faith as well as my forefathers’ or the teachers’ faith has been on his being the most exalted and excellent person among all kinds of creatures concerning all the branches of knowledge theoretically or practically. In short, after Allah-e-Kareem, the Prophet (Peace be upon Him) is the only eminent and erudite person on earth. (Fatawah Darul Uloom, Deoband – 48-49/2)

Even after all the clarification given by the Deobandi clerics and scholars, the Barailavi community still insists that the Deobandi clerics have asserted the “Kufriya versions” so they are “Kafirs”, although they are fully aware of the fact, the people who refute the blames of disbelieving should not be called “Kafir” or “Murtid”. Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan and his followers have not targeted the above-mentioned few scholars, rather they have asserted the following “Fatawahs” too. “Wahabi”, “Deobandi”, “Qadiyani”, “Chakralavi” and “Nichri” are unsanctioned and dead, though they may recite the name of Allah-e-Kareem a thousand times or they may be very pious or religious people, but they will remain Murtadeen”. (Ahkam-e-Shareef, 122). It’s binding on “Wahabiyah” to consider their each and every person “Kafir”; it means that “Dehlavi”, “Gangohi”, “Nanautavi” and “Thanavi” are certainly “Kafir” or “Murtid”. (Al-Istamdad Ala Ajyalul Irtedad, Page-51)

Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan Sb was obsessed with denunciation and delivering “Fatwah-e-Kufr”, so that no famous scholarly, religious or political personality had been spared from being declared “Kafir” by him. Sir Syed, Hali, Allama Iqbal and Md Ali Jinnah etc. too, were declared “Kafir” because they were directly or indirectly associated with the clerics of Deoband with reference to “Tajanib ahlul Sunnah” and “Mehar Munir” etc.

In contrast, the Deobandi clerics take consider matters in a serious manner and never deliver a verdict of “Kufr” based on any minor passage ignoring the meaning and the sense of the speaker in which context it was spoken and the entire content as a whole; rather they consider them guilty who deal with any such sensitive matter as abruptly like this. For instance, a particular “Fatwah” of Darul Uloom concerning Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan and his followers is being given below. “To consider Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan and his pupils “Kafir” is not reasonable as there may be any defect in their statements. Earlier too, the Fuqaha-e-Islam have observed extreme caution in “Takfeer-e-Muslemeen” and are of the same opinion, if there are 99 elements of “Kufr” present in a person’s writing and even one element of weak Islam, the Muftees should deliver the “Fatawahs “ on the ground of the weak element – means he should be considered a Muslim. (Fatawah Darul Uloom, Deoband – 54-55/2)

Now, good sense has started prevailing among the Barailavi clerics and scholars too. They have realized that the Mission-Kufriat was unimportant and rather, it has harmed them as well. The statement of Barailavi scholar further clarifies the point in a better way.

“The sensible intellectuals of the present time hesitate to tread over this sphere. It is generally believed now that Imam Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan used to declare the Muslims “Kafir” and he had established a Kufriat-producing factory in Bareilly. (Al-Meezan monthly, Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan No.29)

The Barilavi scholars too, have admitted the truth that the Barailawiat remained confined to the circle of the illiterate people only due to such “Fatawahs” and explanations. (Al-Meezan monthly, Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan No.28-29, Fazil Barailvi and Tark-e-Mawalat, Page-5)

Tragically till today, the good Barailavi scholars are still busy in realizing their “Mission-Takfeer”. The situation will certainly worsen if they openly declare the Deobandis “Kafir” and “Murtid” through their speech and writings. The need is to mind their own business forgetting the old ‘Fatawahs” and assertions, only then an atmosphere of peace and harmony can be created but throughout the country. Presently the protection and the defence of Deen-e-Islam is of utmost significance which is being hampered by the differences and the rift created in the Ummat-e-Islamia and the Muslim community.

Have the Barailavi clerics ever pondered over the issue seriously from this viewpoint too?

(Courtesy: NewAgeIslam.org)