Aṭiyya Fayḍī, a well-known figure from an affluent Mumbai family, was a distinguished scholar. She holds the distinction of being the first Indian woman to travel to England for higher education. Passionate about arts and sciences, she deeply admired Shiblī’s extensive academic prowess and Iqbal’s exceptional poetry and literature.
During that era, Samuel Rahamin, a renowned Jewish artist, fell in love with her and proposed marriage. However, Aṭiyya, being a Muslim, rejected his proposal, stating, “I am a Muslim and you are not. There is no connection between us. I cannot even imagine marrying a disbeliever.” Rahamin, earnest in his intentions, promptly embraced Islam. The news of Rahamin’s conversion and marriage to Aṭiyya brought joy to Shiblī Nu‘mānī, who exclaimed in excitement with the following verse:
“Idols of India would convert Muslims into disbelievers. Fortunately, Aṭiyya has converted a disbeliever into a Muslim.”
Shiblī’s faith was so profound that news of a disbeliever converting to Islam would stir uncontrollable excitement within him. However, unbeknownst to him, other Indian scholars would vehemently accuse
What constitutes kufr (disbelief) and who are disbelievers? Linguists have attributed various meanings to the term kufr, such as concealment, spread of darkness, ingratitude, forgiveness, atonement for sins, denial of the oneness of God, prophethood, and Shariah, or all of these. Considering the above meanings, it is evident that “concealing” is the common factor and serves as the focal point for interpreting the word. One must clearly understand that the literal meaning of the word kufr is to conceal.
him and Imām Ḥamīd Uddīn Farāhī, an accomplished scholar of Quranic teachings and a symbol of piety and God-consciousness, of adulterating religion through al-Kalam and ‘Ilm al-Kalām.
Mawlānā Ashraf Ali Thanvi and Mawlānā Shabbīr Ahmad Uthmānī were among the scholars who initially signed a 32-page fatwa against Shiblī and Farāhī. Later, they retracted their stance, realizing their misunderstandings.
Winds come and go, and similarly, this fatwa against Shiblī and Farāhī amounted to nothing more than a futile effort. The fatwa stormed in like a tempest and disappeared in the annals of time. In response to this fatwa, the writings produced by the scholars of truth not only revealed the treasures of profound knowledge but also illuminated the distinction between disbelief and faith.
While it’s not prudent to resurrect past disputes, one must endeavor to unearth the truth. The statements upon which the allegations against Shiblī were based will be scrutinized later. For now, let’s delve into the story of Ḥamīd Uddīn Farāhī to understand why some of his companions, particularly religious scholars, issued a fatwa of disbelief against him for a transgression he never committed: “He was killed for something he never did.”
Some individuals find it convenient to label someone a disbeliever. The term ‘disbeliever’ is harsh, and despite being aware that labeling a Muslim as a disbeliever is a greater sin than declaring a disbeliever a Muslim, we Muslims have stubbornly clung to the belief that our school of thought is the only correct version of Islam. Anyone opposing it is deemed a disbeliever devoid of faith.
The monthly magazine “Al-Iṣlāḥ” represented Madrasah al-Iṣlāḥ, Azamgarh. It was a well-respected publication where high-quality religious articles were featured. Another distinctive feature of the journal was the publication of thoughts and ideas of Farāhī. Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī, a notable student of Imām Farāhī, served as its editor.
Arabs often refer to farmers as kāfir simply because they bury seeds in the soil. According to Shari’ah, denying any fundamental aspect of the soundest religion constitutes disbelief. A person who follows any religion other than the religion of the last messenger of God is a disbeliever. After the Holy Prophet’s death, Hazrat Abū Bakr Siddīq, the first Caliph, fought against Muslims who refused to pay zakāh, just as Muslims would fight against infidels. A true disbeliever is someone who rejects the truth in his heart and with his tongue. Whoever openly proclaims disbelief in Allah is also a disbeliever because one’s tongue is a reflection of their heart.
Imām Ḥamīd Uddīn Farāhī stands as one of the eminent scholars produced by the Islamic world of the 20th century. His critical analysis, precision, insightful perspectives, and scholarly thinking style are widely acknowledged. According to Syed Sulaiman Nadvi, Farāhī was a master of the Arabic language and could be compared to a ‘Nightingale of Shīrāz’ when it came to the Persian language. He was a treasure trove of Arabic language and an art and literature critic. He embodied the knowledge and style of Imām Razi, Ghazālī, Ibn Taymiyah, and Zamaḥsharī of his time.
What wrong had Farāhī committed that led some scholars to go to such lengths as to declare him a disbeliever? This was attributed by so-called learned scholars to an article written by Farāhī intended for his personal memoirs. Through this article, Farāhī aimed to highlight the challenges people face while translating the Quranic text. The article was merely a fragment of his memoirs, not intended for publication, and lacked proofreading, editing, revision, and organization necessary for writings intended for a general audience. However, reading between the lines, every sentence in the article glorifies the magnificence and grandeur of the Holy Quran.
From this article by Imām Farāhī and quotations from al-Kalām and ‘Ilm al-kalām, two books by Allama Shiblī, some clerics extracted elements to formulate a 32-page fatwa of takfīr. They declared not only Shiblī and Farāhī as disbelievers but also teachers, students, and workers associated with Madrasah al-Iṣlāḥ. Even if we were to suppose that Shiblī and Farāhī were disbelievers, how could the teachers and others associated with Madrasah al-Iṣlāḥ be declared as such? The fatwa claimed that the scholars and teachers of Madrasah al-Iṣlāḥ were infidels because they held respect for Maulana Shiblī and Farāhī. If they disassociated themselves from these individuals and condemned them, they would be considered believers again. It was heartening to note that the Muftis left an avenue open for the redemption of the scholars and teachers of Madrasah al-Iṣlāḥ.
Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī published all of Imām Farāhī’s private memoirs in “Al- Iṣlāḥ” in February 1936 under the title. “Thoughts about translation of Quranic Text” and cautioned that the article was “incomplete, had incomplete sentences, and carried multiple ambiguities. Hence, the audience should read it carefully.” This warning implied that while translating the Quran, one should derive meaning from the valuable portions of this article, leaving what was not understood, considering the writing as incomplete. If any flaws were found in the words and texts, they were to be overlooked, awaiting the author’s revision and correction.
However, the muftis engaged in deception and dishonesty while building a case against Shiblī and misrepresenting his words. The original text of Shiblī was describing the viewpoints of atheists. The excommunicators used these views and presented them as Shiblī’s beliefs. While Shiblī was representing the views of others, the excommunicators declared them as his own.
In some instances, he accepted the views of his opponents for the sake of argument. However, the excommunicators used these instances as his personal views. In short, all the excerpts were taken out of context, completely distorted, & were presented to merciless excommunicators to enable them to issue a fatwa of takfīr against a person who not only authored al- Kalām and Ilm al-Kalām but also wrote al-Fārūq and Sīrah al-Nabī.
The heartless Muftis mercilessly attacked the epitome of knowledge and research.
The indictment of Imām Farāhī was based on his incomplete memoirs published in “Al-Iṣlāḥ” under the title “Athnā’i Tarjumah al-Quran.” Two aspects were considered for Farāhī’s takfīr from this article, neither of which justifies excommunication. One aspect that caused the controversy was Farāhī’s statement that, considering the fluency of the text and the requirement of the rhyming scheme, the Holy Quran sometimes deviates from the traditional grammatical approach or reverses the word order. Imām Farāhī emphasized the need to follow the order adopted by the Holy Quran while translating its text. The memoirs indicated that some people wished to study each Sūrah of the Quran as a complete, coherent, and unified topic. Additionally, they believed that the title of each Surah described the subject matter of that Surah. This often led to confusion among average readers because, in reality, the titles of Surahs have no correlation with their subject matter or meaning. The titles of Surahs serve to differentiate them and are derived from a specific subject discussed within them. This was the traditional approach of Arabs in assigning titles to Quranic Surahs.
Similarly, the division of the Quran into parts and Rukū‘s was misconstrued by some students who believed that this division marked the start or end of a topic. However, the Quran is divided into thirty parts, and each Rukū‘ consists of around ten verses. This division is not based on semantics but is a literal division.
Its purpose is to help people read a fair amount of Quranic text in each prayer. Many articles in Imām Farāhī’s memoirs were based on similar scholarly topics, and some self-proclaimed scholars found it difficult to comprehend them.
To interpret the articles of Shiblī and Farāhī, “Al-Iṣlāḥ” published articles by Syed Sulaiman Nadvi, Mawlānā Badr al-Dīn Iṣlāḥī, Abu al-Layth Iṣlāḥī Nadvi, and Mawlānā Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī.
“Your responses have completely satisfied me, and the doubts and ambiguities that formed in my mind after seeing the assumptions of Mawlānā Farooq and other scholars have completely vanished. I wonder why these people have taken such a hard line as to resort to excommunication of believers despite being aware of strict warnings and admonitions against such an act. Do personal grudges allow for fabrications and slander to be used to obtain fatwas of excommunication?
Mawlānā Abd al-Mājid Daryā Ābādī extensively addressed the issue in his publication “al-Sidq.” Some scholars rightly pointed out that the excommunicators of Shiblī and Farāhī did not deliberate on the context of Farāhī’s articles. Had they paid sufficient attention to the context of the text, they would not have faced such confusion.
The news of the fatwa against Shiblī and Farāhī shook the entire Muslim community in India. Mawlānā Syed Hussain Ahmad Madani visited Madrasah al-Iṣlāḥ along with other Deoband scholars. Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī welcomed the Deoband delegation to the madrasah with the following words:
Mawlānā Madanī addressed the audience at Madrasah, appreciating the madrasah’s services and management. He offered valuable advice and suggestions to the students, teachers, workers, and other attendees of the event. He also shared his views on the writings of Shiblī and Farāhī, which were later published in “Al-Iṣlāḥ”. The compilation of Mawlānā Madani’s writings, titled “Maktūbāt Shaykh al-Islam,” was published in four volumes. The compilation was organized by Mawlānā Najm al-Dīn Iṣlāḥī during Mawlānā Madani’s lifetime. In one of the letters within this compilation, Mawlānā Madani expressed his views on the issue of excommunication (takfir):
“Come, if there is someone like-minded, someone of the same heart, someone to speak for me, O people, bring them before me, Because in this foreign city, there are many things to say and hear for this stranger.”
After receiving the letter from Iṣlāḥī, Abdul Mājid Daryā Ābādī wrote a detailed letter to Mawlānā Ashraf Ali Thanvi. In this letter, he expressed his inability to accept the fatwa against Shiblī and Farāhī. Mawlānā Thanvi responded to the letter and informed about his new stance on the fatwa.
To Allah we belong and to Him we shall return. I have seen the articles published in al-Iṣlāḥ and could not find anything for which we could not find a solution (Maktūbāt Shaykh al-Islam 2/319-20).”
After mentioning this letter from Mawlānā Madani, Mawlānā Najm ul-Dīn Iṣlāḥī wrote a footnote, stating: “This decisive statement from Mawlānā Madani has uprooted every pillar and brick of the grave of takīir. It entirely destroyed the noise of excommunicators and the tradition of declaring others disbelievers. Mawlānā Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Mawlānā Shabbir Ahmad Uthmānī, and some other Muftis of India read the explanatory articles and reverted from their stance on takfīr following Mawlānā Madani’s decision (Maktūbāt Shaykh al-Islam 2/319-20).”
Mawlānā Abd al-Mājid Daryā Ābādī was an intimate friend of Ashraf Ali Thanvi. He was a renowned exegete, author, and editor of the monthly “Sidq.” Mawlānā Iṣlāḥī wrote a letter to him, stating: “Mawlānā Thanvi’s fatwa has arrived, stating that Mawlānā Shiblī and Mawlānā Ḥamīd Uddīn Farāhī are infidels. Since Madrasah al-Iṣlāḥ is based on their mission, it is a school of disbelief and heresy, and all its affiliates are heretics and disbelievers. Even the scholars who attend the meetings of this madrasa are atheists and unbelievers. Sadly, I could not find the original text of the fatwa. Otherwise, I could have sent it or a copy of it to you. The complaint by the common clerics is futile. Nothing better was expected from them.
However, Mawlānā Thanvi has caused great disappointment. Though the two passages upon which excommunication of Farāhī are very clear to me, I have published their explanation as per your advice in the recent copy of al-Iṣlāḥ (Ḥakīm al-Ummat az Mawlānā Abd al-Mājid Daryā Ābādī 418).”
“Mawlānā Ḥamīd Uddīn Farāhī was not only unique in knowledge and grace but also a rare personality of the ummah in terms of his health, faith, and piety.” This fatwa was not only regrettable but also a matter of shame for Muslim scholars.
Daryā Ābādī included this story in his book “Ḥakīm al-Ummat.” In this book, he took credit for making Thanvi change his mind about the excommunication of Farāhī and Shiblī. It is possible that both Mawlānā Madani and Mawlānā Daryā Ābādī may have played a role.
Upon learning about the fatwa, Mawlānā Abu al-Kalām Azād expressed his annoyance and wrote: “The late Maulana Hamid-ud-Din Farāhī, on whose text this uproar has been made, was one of those scholars whose specialty is not only knowledge but also their actions. Particularly, the rarity of the people who excel in the piety of their action is not hidden. Whenever I met him, I was influenced more by his practical piety than by his knowledge. He was a pious and upright man in all senses. The purity of his heart and the purity of his soul inspired awe.”
Mawlānā Syed Sulaiman Nadvi stated:
Mawlānā Maududi openly opposed this fatwa. In his article “Tarjumān al-Quran” (July 1936), he wrote: “Excommunication of a believer should follow as much care as one takes while issuing an edict to kill a believer. Instead, the fatwa of takfīr is far more serious. It is because while killing someone, one does not incur the sin of disbelief. However, in declaring a believing person a kāfir, it is feared that if the targeted person is not actually a disbeliever and there is even an iota of faith in his heart, then the slander will bounce back to the issuer of the fatwa. Therefore, whoever fears Allah in his heart and has any sense of it, can never dare to declare a Muslim a disbeliever.
The person who excommunicates a Muslim actually runs scissors on the rope of Allah through which Muslims have been united into a nation. Now we see that Muslims are less interested in converting non-Muslims into Muslims than declaring other Muslims infidels.”
Mawlānā Iṣlāḥī wrote in his article published in “Al-Iṣlāḥ” (September 1936): “How painful it is that our scholars have completely lost their greatest strength through their carelessness. There were times when turning away by the Messenger of Allah and his companions from someone meant that the heavens and the earth would also turn away from him. Dozens of such incidents are mentioned in hadith literature and biographies. Now is the time when people make fun of fatwas of takfīr issued by our scholars, and the people who are excommunicated receive congratulations and appreciation from others. We do not look at this matter as a matter of an individual. Rather, we consider its collective outcome. It is very sad to see this revolutionary change. It is not our desire that issuing fatwa should lose its importance, but it is our heartfelt desire that the scholars should attain their rightful position and establish the right dignity of fatwa among the Muslims. But what can be expected from those who have not yet been able to decide the disbelief and faith of Mawlānā Shiblī and Mawlānā Farāhī? I don’t want to write anything about this issue at the moment. Insha’Allah, when finding enough time on disposal, we will discuss in detail the status of issuing fatwa in the light of the Book and Sunnah and its conditions. For the time being, we will only ask the scholars to consider themselves as representatives of the Court of Allah and should announce their decisions in the light of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger. God has declared Quran and the Messenger as decisive authorities (Ḥakam). He did not command us to follow Alamgiriah and Tarkhania.”
Fortunately, later Mawlānā Thanvi and other scholars realized their shortcomings and withdrew the fatwa. Imām Farāhī and Shiblī (may Allah have mercy on them) have taken refuge in the mercy of Allah, and their case is entrusted to His court, who knows the secrets of the hearts and is the most just of all judges.