Imam
Ahmad Raza Khan Qadiri
As a
Scientist
[Mathematician,
Physicist, Economist, Astronomer]
As
a Mathematician
Professor
Zia Aldin was the Vice Chancellor of Aligarh University and
Sayyid Sulayman Ashraf was Professor of Islamic Studies. Prof.
Zia Aldin was a noted Mathematician of India. Once he got confused
over a question of mathematics. The question was so complicated
that despite all efforts, it remained unsolved. Insofar as,
Prof. Zia Aldin made up his mind to go to Germany in order to
consult his German counterparts. Meanwhile, Prof. Sulayman Ashraf
advised him to approach Alahazrat at Bareilly on this issue.
Prof. Zia Aldin raised certain queries about Alahazrat. On being
told that Alahazrat was Mawlavi, he paid no heed and began to
make all arrangements for his trip to Germany. However Prof.
Sulayman Ashraf did not change his stand and went on insisting
that he should visit Bareilly. Upon this, Prof. Zia Aldin said:
"I admit what you say. I admit that he is a great man.
But it is not a question of Islamic science; it is a question
of mathematics. What has a Mawlawi to do with mathematics? What
a deriding it is to go to him for such a question which is a
gordian knot even for mathematicians". (For more details,
please refer to "Hayat-e-Alahazrat" by Mawlana Zafar
Aldin Bihari). Even so Prof. Sulayman Ashraf did not retract
at all and argued: "As compared to Germany, Bareilly is
at an arm's length and direct train is there. What ails you
if you go there first for my sake? If you get satisfaction,
all well. If not, you are at liberty to proceed to Germany or
anywhere you like". Then, Prof. Zia Aldin said: "If
you so insist, let me see Alahazrat".
Finally
both gentlemen reached Bareilly and met Alahazrat. Alahazrat
was running somewhat indisposed. However, Alahazrat asked Prof.
Zia Aldin: "What brings you here?" "In connection
with a question of mathematics", he replied. "What
is that", Alahazrat asked. Prof. Zia Aldin said: "The
question is not so easy. I shall tell you when you are at ease",
"Even so, what is that?" Alahazrat remarked. Prof.
Zia Aldin then went on putting up his lengthy and uphill question.
By the time the question was finished, Alahazrat replied forthwith:
"Its answer is such and such". Hearing the answer
at such a slip shod, Prof. Zia Aldin was all-agape. He was overwhelmed
with the charisma of Alahazrat talent. He said: "I heard
of Ilm-e-Ladunni (inspired knowledge), but today I have seen
it with my own eyes. Glorious mathematicians are vainglorious.
The real genius is Alahazrat who took no time to solve an insoluble
question for which I have been languishing since long".
Prof. Zia Aldin, thus, took sigh of relief and thanked Prof.
Sulayman Ashraf for his kind and fruitful guidance.
Ala
Hazrat as an Astronomer
Thrilling
news appeared in the English daily "Express" of the
18th October 1919 published from Bankipur, Patna (Bihar). It
was regarding a unique and dreadful forecast made by Prof. Albert
of USA, who happened to be an astronomer and mathematician of
international repute. Its gist was as under:
"On
17th December, 1919, six planets which are most powerful viz.
Jupiter, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn and Neptune will be in
conjunction and the Sun will come in opposite direction of these
planets. These planets will fetch the Sun towards them with
all their gravity. The result will be that the magnetic properties
of these planets will pierce into the Sun and it will inflict
hole into the sun, which will be in the shape of a big dagger.
And, such a stain on the sun will be visible which everybody
would see on the 17 th December 1919 with naked eyes. Prof.
Albert further predicted that conjunction of such planets, which
was not witnessed for the last twenty centuries, would cause
disorder in the air and it would bring about big storms, terrible
rains and powerful earthquakes. The earth will return to its
normal position after several weeks".
The
news spread like wild fire. Panic gripped the whole world. Some
of the Muslims fell prey to it as well. Mawlana Zafaruddin of
Bihar, a disciple and caliph of Alahazrat apprised Alahazrat
of such forecast of Prof. Albert. Thereupon, Alahazrat wrote
an article belying the forecast tooth and nail brandishing it
as baseless and bogus, which was published in the monthly "Al
Raza" of Bareilly. This contradictory article too gained
equal publicity. Alahazrat was challenging Prof. Albert. A Mawlawi
was challenging an astronomer. An Indian was challenging an
American. It was towards the middle of November and the people
were waiting impatiently for 17 th December. In order to allay
the fear on the part of his Muslim brethren, Alahazrat rose
to the occasion and chose to get his article published. Alahazrat
consoled the frightened Muslims and advised them:
"Muslims,
be afraid of Allah. Don't be afraid of Albert. His forecast
is false and baseless. It is neither desirable nor permissible
for you to pay any heed to it". Interestingly enough, Alahazrat
gave as many as seventeen arguments to disprove the said forecast.
The arguments advanced by Alahazrat are astronomical and technical.
Men of common understanding cannot understand. So, it is of
no use to reproduce them in full. However, those who can and
those who wish to make a deep study of these arguments, may
please go through the booklet " Prof. Albert F. Porta Ki
Peshin Goi Ka Rad" published from Maktaba Gharib Nawaz,
Allahabad.
However,
to present something for a common man, I would like to point
out that Alahazrat argued vehemently that the very basis of
such forecast was wrong. The forecast was based on the principle
that the "sun is stationary and the earth moves around
the sun". In the light of the Holy Quran, Alahazrat declared:
"The sun and moon do move according to their course. They
are sailing within a circle. It is earth (not sun) that is stationary
around which the sun and other planets revolve".
According
to the working of Prof. Albert, the mutual distance of six planets
as on 17th December 1919, worked out to 26 degree, whereas Alahazrat
presented a detailed chart depicting the real position of such
planets as on 17 th December, according to which, such mutual
distance worked out to 112 degree. There was such a lot of difference
between the two.
Prof.
Albert gave all the weigh to Law of Gravitation. Confuting it,
Alahazrat argued that the said conjunction did not conform with
the Law of Gravitation as well. Either of the two shall have
to be discarded then. Have all the planets made a pact to attack
the sun alone? Why will they not attack each other, Alahazrat
quipped? If the Law of Gravitation is correct, it is bound to
affect all ¨C more effect upon what is nearer and sharper
effect upon what is weaker. When the attack of six planets can
cause such an injury to the sun, then why the Saturn could not
be destroyed by the gravity of the remaining five planets, especially
when the Saturn is smaller than Sun by thousand times, Alahazrat
asked.
Mars
is smaller than Saturn. Mercury is the smallest of all. So in
this way, these are bound to be shattered into pieces. What
an absurd it is to believe that the weaker might not suffer
at all and the strongest (sun) will lose the battle, Alahazrat
argued. Even on the basis of the Law of Gravitation, there can
be no such conjunction of planets, Alahazrat declared. That
is Alahazrat beat Albert from both ends.
By
and by, the time passed and the crucial day of 17th December
arrived. As the sun rose, the panic-stricken people began to
take it as Doomsday. The routine life went to standstill. Clouds
of horror hovered heavily. Some people laid hope in Albert.
Some people laid hope in Alahazrat. The names of Albert and
Alahazrat were running on the lips and tips of one and all.
By the grace of Almighty Allah, the day went off peacefully.
The sun set setting the pandemonium at rest. Nothing untoward
took place anywhere. The position of Albert was all burst.
Everybody
witnessed that what Alahazrat had observed and declared, came
true word by word. It bagged three cheers for Alahazrat. Prof.
Albert also conceded the talent of Alahazrat in the field of
astronomy.
Alahazrat
as a Scientist
The
earth moves constantly about its own axis and also round the
sun, which is stationary. This theory espoused by Copernicus,
Kelper and Galileo, gained popularity all over the world. The
theory says that the speed of rotation of earth is 1036 miles
per hour i.e. 17.26 miles per minutes i.e. 30389 yards per minute
i.e. 506.4 yards per second. Against this theory, nobody could
speak. It was Alahazrat who challenged it and declared:
"The
Islamic principle is that the sky and earth are stationary and
the planets rotate. It is the sun that moves round the earth,
it is not the earth that moves round the sun".
in
order to substantiate it, Alahazrat put forward two-tier arguments.
First, he quoted a number of verses from the Holy Quran and
Hadith, the translation of some of which is given below:
The
movement of the sun and moon is according to a course (Surah
Rahman, verse 5).
The sun and the moon are sailing within a circle (Surah Yasin,
verse 40).
The moon and the sun were besieged for you, which are constantly
moving (Surah Ibrahim, verse 33).
(For detailed please refer to "Nuzool-e-Ayat-e-Furqaan
Besukoon-e-Zameen-o-Asman" of Alahazrat written in 1339
A.H., published from Raza Academy, Bombay).
It
is thus; quite clear that the sun moves and it is obligatory
upon every Muslim to believe it because it is what Allah ordains
us to believe. In light of the Holy Quran and Hadith, the theory
of rotation of earth is absolutely wrong. Such arguments were
more than enough for Muslims but for Muslims only. For others,
Alahazrat presented a number of arguments based on scientific
understanding ¨C technical and otherwise. Alahazrat wrote
several books on this subject. In 1920, he presented his book
" Fauz-e-Mubin Dar Radd-e-Harkat-e-Zamin", published
from Idara Sunni Dunia, Saudagaran, Bareilly. This book contains
105 arguments, dozens of diagrams and lots of calculations in
refuting the said theory. Out of 105, I am giving below gist
of only five logical and axiomatic arguments which are quite
easy and which can be understood by a man of average intelligence.
If
a heavy stone is thrown up straight, it would fall on the same
place from where it was thrown, whereas according to the theory
of movement of earth, it must not happen. According to it, if
the earth were moving towards east, the stone would fall in
west because during the time it went up and came down, that
place of earth from where the stone was thrown up, due to movement
of earth, would slip away towards east. Suppose, the process
of stone going up and coming down took a time of 5 seconds,
then according to the said speed of movement of earth, that
is 506.4 yards per second, the earth would slip away towards
east by 2532 yards i.e. about one and a half miles. In other
words, the stone must fall in the west of that place (place
of throwing up the stone) at a distance of about one and a half
miles but actually it would fall on the same place from where
it was thrown up. It shows that the said theory of movement
of earth is wrong.
If two stones are thrown away at the same time and with the
same power ¨C one towards east and the other towards west,
then what should happen according to the said theory of movement
of earth, is that the stone going towards west must appear to
be going very fast and that the stone going towards east very
lazy. Suppose the power of throwing the stone is 19 yards within
three seconds, then the respective stones would fall in the
east and west at a distance of 19 yards only but according to
the said theory, by the time the westward stone would cover
a distance of 19 yards in three seconds, the place from where
the stones were thrown, would slip away towards east by 1519
yards ( 506.4 §ç 3). In this way, it must fall at
a distance of 1519 + 19 i.e. 1538 yards, whereas it would actually
fall only at a distance of 19 yards. Similarly, the other stone
going towards east must fall in the west at a distance of 1519
¨C 19 i.e. 1500 yards, whereas actually it would fall in
the very east at a distance of 19 yards only. It shows that
the said theory of movement of earth is wrong.
Suppose,
from a tree, two birds fly with equal speed and for equal period,
one of them goes towards east and the other towards west. Now
if their flying speed is equal to the speed of movement of earth,
that is, if they fly at a speed of 1036 miles per hour, then
according to the said theory, the bird going towards west must
fly at a speed of 1036 + 1036 i.e. 2072 miles per hour (being
its own speed added by the speed of movement of earth), while
the bird going towards east would not be able to move even an
inch as its speed after adjusting the speed of movement of earth
(both being equal) would become zero. On the contrary, what
would actually happen is that the bird going eastward would
go in the east to a distance of 1036 miles during an hour and
the bird going westward would go in the west at a distance of
1036 miles. It shows that the said theory of movement of earth
is wrong. For a bird, the abnormal speed of flight of 1036 miles
per hour has been assumed only to bring it parallel to the speed
of movement of earth and simply to prove that according to the
said theory, the bird flying towards east would not be able
to cover any distance even if it comes abreast of a plane in
the matter of speed and flies at a rate of 1036 miles per hour.
If it is intended to kill a bird appearing at a distance of
10 yards in the air from a particular place and suppose it takes
two seconds in stringing the bow and shooting the arrow, then
by the time the arrow is shot, that particular place would slip
away within these two seconds at a distance of 1013 yards at
a speed of 506.4 yards per second being the speed of movement
of earth and thus the arrow can never reach the target, whereas
it may be taken for granted that the arrow would hit the target.
It shows that the theory of movement of earth is wrong.
If a bird is sitting on a pillar near its nest just at a distance
of one yard, even then it can never reach the nest, because
in order to reach the nest, the bird shall have to fly ¨C
may it be for a second or part thereof. The fact is that, the
bird can never surpass the speed of 1036 miles per hour, which
is said to be the speed of movement of earth. It shows that
the theory of movement of the earth is wrong.
Need you go yet for further arguments? Go on thinking over plane,
gun, cannon, missile and so forth.
Thus,
we can come to the conclusion that a person who challenged the
great scientists like Copernicus Kelper, Galileo, and Newton
etc. must have been a great genius himself. I would like to
add that what is required to disprove the theories of these
scientists, Alahazrat has done ahead of it but sooner or later
its credit will be bagged by someone else who will win the fight
in the name of a scientist for, Alahazrat is better known as
a Muslim theologian rather than a scientist.
Alahazrat
as an Economist
Economics
is the science of wealth, as says Adam Smith, who is called
the Father of Economics. Adam Smith wrote a book entitled "Wealth
of Nations" which was published in 1176. For centuries,
this subject was taken as dry and no interest was shown in it.
It was only around 1940 that this subject gained popularity,
and International depression was the main cause behind it. During
the time of Alahazrat (1856 ¨C 1921) economics was a subject,
which was not given much importance. Nevertheless, Alahazrat
through his book published in 1912, presented four peerless
points for the economic development of Muslim brethren. These
are:
Barring
the affairs wherein Government is involved, the Muslims should
decide all their disputes mutually so that millions of rupees,
which are being spent over litigations, may be saved.
The affluent Muslims of Bombay, Calcutta, Rangoon, Madras and
Hyderabad should open banks for other poor Muslims.
Muslims should not purchase anything from anybody except Muslims.
The sciences of Islam should be propagated and publicized.
At the instance Prof. Rafiullah Siddiqui Chairman Board of Intermediate
and Secondary Education Hyderabad (Sind), has written an article
"Fazil-e-Bareillvi Kay Char Ma'ashi Nikaat", published
from Maktaba-e-Chashm-e-Rahmat, Balrampur (UP), India. Prof.
Siddiqui has beautifully explained all the four points at length;
I have had all the appreciation for Prof. Siddiqui and his article.
Through
his first point, Alahazrat has propounded the theory of savings.
He has realized the significance of savings and has made people
to realize it. In most of the underdeveloped countries, the
rate of saving varies from 5 to 8 %. Now the economic experts
have declared that for economic development of the country,
saving to the tune of 15 % of the national income is a must.
The importance of savings overshadowed the world in 1936 when
Lord J.M. Kaynez of England presented his "Theory of Savings
& Investment", which proved successful in overcoming
the international depression. In short, according to Kaynez,
saving is all. It is equal to investment according to his equation.
Thus, more saving, more investment; more investment, more development.
For this theory of Saving & Investment, Prof. J.M. Kaynez
was honored by England and the most prestigious title of "Lord"
was conferred on him. Prof. Rafiullah Siddiqui has so nicely
and so rightly quipped that Prof. J.M. Kaynez was honored in
1936 for what was already pointed out by Alahazrat in 1912.
Who deserved and who bagged the honor, is thus to be seen. Yet,
it may be taken for granted that Alahazrat would not accept
such an honor from British even if he were presented one.
Secondly,
Alahazrat presented the theory of opening banks. Needless to
mention that banks in the eyes of Alahazrat were meant to be
interest-free banks. History of banking is known to all of us.
Alahazrat suggested and talked of opening banks at a time when
banks played no significant role the country. In 1912, there
were only a few banks in India, in big cities, and nobody could
foresee then that after a lapse of three or four decades, the
importance of banks would assume so much proportion. No doubt,
it was Alahazrat who was able to peep into future and suggest
boosting up the banking industry before hand.
A
bank is an institution through which the savings of the masses
are deployed over productive investment. It is bank that collects
pennies but provides pounds. Banks help the people create tendency
of saving. Being a great economist, Alahazrat well realized
the hazards of hoarding and advocated for the development of
banking industry.
The
third point of Alahazrat is that Muslims should purchase each
and every thing from Muslims only. Apparently, this point appears
to be based on somewhat narrow-minded. But it is not so if we
go deep. What Alahazrat says is that Muslims should purchase
fro Muslims only. It is not restricted to a particular place,
locality or province. It means that Muslims countries should
purchase from Muslims countries only. It means that Alahazrat
has opposed the free-trade theory as espoused by Adam Smith
and suggested Trade Protection so as to withstand the competition
in the international market. Fredrick List, a noted German economist
has emphatically supported the Trade Protection Policy. Prof.
Rafiullah Siddiqui has very much appreciated this point of Alahazrat.
According to him, Alahazrat wanted to provide economic protection
to Muslims but the Muslims neglected the economic acumen highlighted
by their own savant, Alahazrat.
To
the misfortune of Muslims, what was pinpointed by Alahazrat
for the benefit of Muslims, was utilized by non-Muslims. Second
World War had badly ruined Germany, France, and Italy etc. The
economy of these European countries was crippled. European Common
Market ( E.C.M.) consisting of six European countries came into
existence. It achieved marvelous success and the entire World
witnessed that it changed the entire story. The staggering economy
of these countries mustered a sudden boom and the German mark
became the powerful currency of the world. After all, what was
this E.C.M.? It was a practical shape of the guidelines given
by Alahazrat just on the lines that Muslims should make purchases
from Muslims only. Even today, if the Muslims countries unite
and follow such a policy, luck will smile upon them.
Now
come to the fourth point. It is regarding the publicity of Islamic
sciences. When theories of economics are going on, how far it
is desirable to talk of Islamic sciences or religion. A Mawlawi
always remains a Mawlawa-some people may think. Prof. Siddiqui
has duly appreciated the importance of knowledge of Islamic
sciences but meanwhile he has gone to say that this fourth point
is not in regard to economics. With due respect to Prof. Siddiqui,
I would like to say that he has hastened to observe like so,
perhaps because of is appearance. Prof. Siddiqui has succeeded
in realizing the importance of this point but has failed to
link it with economic theories.
To
my mind, this point is all the more important. Everybody knows
that there is lot of difference between theory and practice.
Implementation is an upheaval task. The first three points of
Alahazrat provide a theoretical approach. The fourth one provides
a pragmatic approach. It must be borne in mind that Alahazrat
has introduced what we may call Muslim Economics. He has talked
of benefit and betterment of only Muslims. From this angle,
all the four points are inter-connected. The first point of
Alahazrat is regarding mutual settlement of their disputes.
The idea is so nice but its implementation is fairly difficult.
As says Adam Smith: "man is the born servant of self interest".
Everybody wants to gain. Nobody wants to lose. In quest of gain,
man runs after the courts headlong. He runs and runs towards
the courts till he gets a gain what he call justice. Such a
race towards the gain makes the litigation time consuming as
well as money consuming. Now Alahazrat speaks of preaching and
teaching Islamic sciences to the people. He means to say hat
spirit of Islam must prevail upon the Muslims. Alahazrat goes
to say hat such an abrupt race of litigation can be controlled
only with the spirit of Islam. Under true spirit of Islam, Muslims
shall prefer to get their disputes decided only by their Muftis
whom they would consider as heirs of the Holy Prophet (Peace
and Blessing be Upon Him), and regarding the Holy Prophet (Peace
and Blessing be Upon Him) the Holy Qur'an declares: "By
Allah, they shall not be Muslims unless they make You Hakim
in matter of their disputes and unless they accept your decision
by heart and feel no hindrance whatsoever there from in their
hearts". (Surah 4; Verse 65)
Thus,
a true Muslim shall be duly satisfied with the decision of a
Mufti regardless of the fact whether he remains a gainer or
loser. He would accept the decision by heart. Nor would he take
it as point of prestige, as true Muslim wants nothing but what
Allah and His Holy Prophet (Peace and Blessing be Upon Him)
want for him. He would not knock at the doors of the court at
all. A short meeting with a Mufti can solve a long dispute.
Thus, it would be seen that the fourth point advanced by Alahazrat
is very much linked with the theory of mutual settlements of
Muslims by avoiding litigation with a view to ensuring large
savings.
The
second point is of opening Muslims banks. Muslims would like
to help Muslims only when they are taught to help them in terms
of Islamic sciences, that is, in light of Holy Quran and Hadith.
Interest is a prize of exploitation. Muslims would refrain from
accepting interest if they were told that usury is haram (strictly
forbidden) according to Holy Quran and whosoever accepts interest,
should be ready to fight with Allah on the Day of Judgment.
Only through the injunction of Islamic spirit, which flows from
the knowledge of Islamic sciences attained through the study
of Islamic books or through the company of Islamic savants,
Muslims can agree to opening of interest-free banks and usury
can be put an end to. If the rich people open banks out of their
riches, the poor people will get rid of their poverty to a great
extent. First, the poor will be able to get employment in various
projects financed by banks. Secondly, the poor section will
be able to secure interest-free loans from the banks, which
they would get otherwise at a heavy rate of interest. Thus,
the second and fourth points of Alahazrat are well linked together.
Muslims
should make purchases from Muslims only ¨C is the third
point. It does not purport to say that Muslims should sell to
Muslims only. Alahazrat is restricting outgoings only to Muslims.
Unless the Muslims are taught their religion, nothing can be
achieved in this field. A person, who has no knowledge of Islamic
studies, is western-minded, would hardly purchase anything from
Muslims. He would be addicted to using foreign goods and would
not hesitate to purchase them from any corner. Nowadays, it
is seen that those who have craze for using foreign goods, may
it be, cigarette, wine or anything like, help the foreign companies
to earn a lot of foreign exchange. A Muslim would make purchases
from Muslims only when it is impressed upon him that the Holy
Qu'an declares:
"Innam
Al-Mo'minoona Ikhwatun" (Surah Hujrat, verse 10)
That
is "Muslim and a Muslim are brethren". Unless he treats
the other Muslim as his brother, he would not extend him a brotherly-treatment.
Moreover the teachings of Islam shall bear wide repercussions
on the standard of trade. No trader would like to give short
weight as it is forbidden in Islam. No trader would make any
adulteration of any kind, as it is forbidden in Islam. No trader
would try to conceal defect, if any, in his commodity as it
is forbidden in Islam. No trader would resort to unnecessary
hoarding of stock as it is forbidden in Islam. No trader would
allow unnecessary bargaining in price as it is forbidden in
Islam. In this manner, under the yoke of Islam, trade will wear
a bloomy look. If Muslims undertake to make purchases from Muslims
only and if Islamic spirit prevails, then a Muslim will not
be able to get wine, because no Muslim would like to sell it
as it is forbidden in Islam. In this way, not only the trade
will flourish but it will also bring about a flawless society.
So,
it is evident that all the four points of Alahazrat are coherent
and correlated insofar as Muslim Economics is concerned. As
I have been associated with Economics for the last twenty years,
I had a right to study Alahazrat in this field and so I did.
I have no hesitation to say that before the insight Alahazrat
in the field of Economics, I find myself no better than a big
zero.
|