Home » Hanafi Fiqh » Askimam.org » Is calling Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani “ Ghous-e-Azam” considered shirk?

Is calling Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani “ Ghous-e-Azam” considered shirk?

Answered as per Hanafi Fiqh by Askimam.org

As salamo alaikum… There is one ghair muqallid who told me that using the title of ghaus-e-azam is shirk because the meaning of ghaus-e-azam is helper an d our helper is only Allah but I heard that ashraf ali thanvi and shaykh ul hadith muhammad zakariya kandhlavi use to call him ghaus-e-azam, I wanna know that it is true that meaning of ghaus-e-azam is helper or there is also another meaning of it? If the meaning is indeed helper so why both of these scholars are called akabir of deoband if they call abdul qadir jilani as a helper, I think they use to call them ghaus-e-azam with the another non shirkiya meaning like calling Maula ali is not always shirk… Please tell me the real meaning of ghaus-e-azam, I am really really confused and started questioning deobandiyat

Answer

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.

Brother in Islam.

The word Ghaus is a terminology in Sufism. It is a category from amongst the Awliya; a spiritual rank of a high esteemed Qutub. Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani (Rahimahullah), due to his piety and Allah-consciousness was famously known as Ghous e Azam. He was one of the greatest Wali of Allah Ta’ala. Calling him Ghous e Azam will not constitute shirk unless someone attributes the qualities of Allah Ta’ala towards him or calls out his name seeking help.[i] [ii] [iii]

Hazrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Shaikh Zakariyya Kandhalvi and likewise many of our Deobandi Ulama (Rahimahumullah) on several occasions discussed Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani(Rahimahullah) and referred him by the name of Ghous e Azam. The word “Ghous e Azam” was not used in its colloquial or linguistic sense, rather these Ulama used it either to define the term itself or to refer him using his well-known title. The word Ghous e Azam was not used with a corrupt belief and hence there is no blame on them.

Do not pay heed to the words of the Ahle-hadith person that you are referring to. Infact, their Ulama have also used the word “Ghous e Azam” in their books. Miya Siddique Hasan Khan Sahib(1250H-1307H), who is recognized as one of the founding fathers of the Ahle hadith movement in the sub-continent and is seen in high regards by the followers of the Ahle hadith sect, has done the same. He, in his book “Al-Hitta fee zikr al-sihhah al-sitta”, brings a quote from Shaikh Abd al-Haq al-Dahalwi in which he refers Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani as “Al-Ghous Al-Azam”.[iv]( See endnote)

If calling someone a “Ghous e Azam” was tantamount to shirk, then Shaikh Abd al-haq al-Dahalwi(Rahimahullah) would also be considered a mushrik (Na’auzbillah). Worse than that, Miya Siddique Hasan Khan Sahib should be considered as a greater Mushrik because he quoted Shaikh Abd al-Haq al-Dahawli in his book without any problem whatsoever.

If these Ulama cannot be accused of committing Shirk for using the word ‘Ghous e Azam’ in general, then why should the Ulama of Deoband be accused of the same?

 

And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best

Naved Akhtar Ibn Shabbir.

Student – Darul Iftaa

Shillong, India. 

Checked and Approved by,

Mufti Ebrahim Desai.

 


 

 


[i] دارالافتاء : جامعہ علوم اسلامیہ علامہ محمد یوسف بنوری ٹاؤن

صورت مسئولہ میں اگر کوئی شخص کسی ولی اللہ کو اس عقیدے کے ساتھ پکارتا ہے کہ یہ میری مشکل اور پریشانی حل کر سکتا ہے تواس طرح کا عقیدہ رکھنا شرک کے زمرے میں آتا ہے،اور اگر صرف عام مروج لفظ ہونے کی وجہ سے کسی کو غوث اعظم کہہ دیتاہے اور باطل عقیدہ نہیں رکھتا تو صرف اس لفظ کے کہنے سے شرک لازم نہیں آتا۔

فتوی نمبر : 143101200691

 

[ii] Fatawa Faridiyya, Vol-1, Pg: 190

[iii] دارالافتاء، دارالعلوم دیوبند

غوث کی صفت یہ ہے کہ وہ عالم ربانی ہو، متبع سنت ہو، شرک وبدعت سے اجتناب کرتا ہو، علم باطنی میں کامل ہو، صوفیہ کی اصطلاح میں غوث ولایت کا ایک مقام ہے اورغوث اس مستجاب الدعوات ہستی کو کہتے ہیں جو اللہ تعالیٰ سے دعا اور فریاد کرتا ہے، شیخ عبدالقادر جیلانی بھی اسی منصب پر فائز تھے، باقی ان کے متعلق یہ عقیدہ رکھنا یہ کوئی مافوق الفطرت متصرف خود مختار، نافع وضار، عالم الغیب حاضر وناظر یا مسجودِ خلائق ہستیاں ہیں جن کو غائبانہ فریادرسی کے لیے پکارنا جائز ہو، جیسا کہ بعض اہل بدعت نے سمجھا ہے۔ صحیح نہیں ہے۔

(fatwa no: 36045)

[iv] الحطة في ذكر الصحاح الستة (ص: 260)

قَالَ الشَّيْخ عبد الْحق الدهلوي فِي أشعة اللمعات مَا نَصه بِالْعَرَبِيَّةِ كَانَ أَحْمد قدوة فِي الحَدِيث وَالْفِقْه والزهد والورع وَالْعِبَادَة وَبِه عرف الصَّحِيح من السقيم والمجروح من الْمعدل قَالَ أَحْمد بن سعيد الدَّارمِيّ مَا رَأَيْت شَابًّا أحفظ مِنْهُ لحَدِيث رَسُول الله صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم وَقَالَ أَبُو دَاوُد المجالسة مَعَ أَحْمد مجالسة الْآخِرَة لم يكن شَيْء يذكر من أُمُور الدُّنْيَا فِي مَجْلِسه قيل اخْتَار الْفقر وصبر عَلَيْهِ سبعين سنة وَلم يقبل فِي تِلْكَ الْمدَّة قطّ شَيْئا من أحد قَالَ مُحَمَّد بن مُوسَى أرسل من مصر إِلَى حسن بن عبد الْعَزِيز بِبَغْدَاد مِيرَاثه مائَة ألف دِينَار فأهدى مِنْهُ ثَلَاثمِائَة دِينَار إِلَى أَحْمد وَقَالَ إِن هَذَا المَال وصل إِلَيّ مِيرَاثا من وَجه الْحَلَال فَخذه وانفقه فِي عِيَالك قَالَ مَالِي إِلَيْهِ حَاجَة وَلم يَأْخُذ مِنْهُ شَيْئا وَمن أقوى الْحجَج وأسنى الْبَرَاهِين على علو مقَام هَذَا الإِمَام الْأَجَل الأكرم ورفعة مَكَانَهُ وَقُوَّة مذْهبه واجتهاده أَن الْغَوْث الْأَعْظَم والقطب الأفخم الشَّيْخ عبد الْقَادِر الجيلاني رَضِي الله عَنهُ حَامِل مذْهبه وتابع أَقْوَاله وَلذَلِك ثَبت ذكره فِي الْحَنَابِلَة وَكَانَ حنبليا على الْمَشْهُور الْمُقَرّر انْتهى

This answer was collected from Askimam.org, which is operated under the supervision of Mufti Ebrahim Desai from South Africa.

Read answers with similar topics: