THE CONSEQUENCES OF IGNORING CRITICISM
In 1831, Syed Ahmed Shaheed Barelvi (1786-1831) led a jihad against Maharaja Ranjit Singh with a Muslim army. This campaign took place in Balakot (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa). In the ensuing battle, Syed Ahmed Shaheed Barelvi and most of his Companions were killed by Ranjit Singh’s forces. Ultimately, this fervent jihad ended in complete failure from a practical standpoint.
Most of the individuals in Syed Ahmed Shaheed Barelvi’s army were his devoted followers. Among them was Maulana Mir Mahboob Ali Dehlvi (d. 1280 AH), a distinguished scholar of his time. He joined Syed Ahmed Shaheed Barelvi’s army and travelled with them. The group camped at a location called Charsadda (now in Pakistan). Upon reaching there, Maulana Mir Mahboob Ali had a disagreement with Syed Ahmed Shaheed Barelvi.
Maulana Mir Mahboob Ali documented this disagreement in his Arabic book, Tareekh-ul-Aimma fi Khulafa-ul-Ummah, which is preserved in the library of Jamia Hamdard (Tughlaqabad), Delhi. According to this account, Maulana Mir Mahboob Ali had a private meeting with Syed Ahmed Shaheed Barelvi at Charsadda. During their discussion, he asked Syed Ahmed on what basis he had decided to launch a jihad against the Sikhs. Syed Ahmed replied that his decision was based on divine inspiration and dreams. Maulana Mir Mahboob Ali responded that such decisions could not be made solely on the basis of dreams and visions. He cited the Quranic verse: “And their affairs are conducted by mutual consultation among themselves” (42:38). He emphasized that the Prophet Muhammad always made decisions regarding jihad through consultation. Therefore, Syed Ahmed should consult others and carefully investigate the situation before taking any action.
However, Syed Ahmed Shaheed Barelvi rejected Maulana Mir Mahboob Ali’s advice. He argued that such criticism was undermining his mission and insisted that Maulana’s obedience should be as unwavering as the mountain in front of them. As a result, Maulana Mir Mahboob Ali chose to return to Delhi. Syed Ahmed reacted strongly to this decision, declaring: “Whoever leaves me and returns to his homeland has abandoned his faith.” (Maulana Ismail Dehlvi aur Taqwiyat-ul-Imaan by Maulana Shah Abu-al-Hasan Zaid Farooqi, pp. 86-87).
In some texts, this incident has been portrayed as evidence of Maulana Mir Mahboob Ali’s deviation. Maulana Syed Abdul Hai Hasani (1869-1923), the former principal of Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow, wrote that Maulana Mir Mahboob Ali was among the eminent scholars of his time. He pledged allegiance to jihad under Syed Ahmed Shaheed Barelvi and travelled to Yaghistan to support him. However, the devil planted doubt in his heart, leading him to abandon Syed Ahmed and return to India (Nuzhat-ul-Khawatir by Syed Abdul Hai, Vol. 7, pp. 406-407).
Syed Ahmed Shaheed Barelvi did not consult anyone regarding his decision. He failed to verify reports of the desecration of Islamic symbols in Punjab. Additionally, he did not assess the military strength of Maharaja Ranjit Singh or the capacity of his own untrained followers to face such a formidable force. Driven by blind faith, he entered Ranjit Singh’s territory without a complete understanding of the geography. Unsurprisingly, the result was that Syed Ahmed and most of his Companions were killed by Ranjit Singh’s army. This campaign ended in a unilateral disaster for the Muslims.
This example underscores the critical importance of allowing the articulation of differing opinions in order to arrive at sound decisions in collective matters. Criticism should be welcomed with an open heart, and efforts should be made to reach the best decisions through scholarly discussions and debates.
In conclusion, listening to criticism and fostering open dialogue are essential for making informed and effective decisions. These processes ensure that actions are taken based on thorough investigation and mutual consultation. Ignoring criticism and suppressing dissent leads to disastrous outcomes, as demonstrated in the case of Syed Ahmed Shaheed Barelvi. Therefore, creating an environment that encourages open dialogue and constructive criticism is vital for the progress and success of any community.
