India, Iraq and Europe

While in Hijaz, al-Hilālī had realized that he could not fulfil his ambitions unless he obtained a university diploma. For him, a scholar without a diploma was like a traveller without a passport (“anna al-ʿālim bi-lā shahāda ka-l-musāfir bi-dūn jawāz safar”).³⁴⁶ Thus, for the above-mentioned reasons, India suited his situation best. In 1349/1930 he went to Lucknow and taught there for the following three years, and while he could not succeed in obtaining an offıcial diploma, he did manage to master English,³⁴⁷ which would prove helpful in encouraging him to go to Europe.

As soon as he took on the task of teaching Arabic and Arabic grammar in Nadwat al-ʿUlamāʾ, he introduced a new teaching technique, which, compared to the traditional one, proved much more efficient.³⁴⁸ In short, he rejected the method of teaching the language through translation to the local Urdu and started to use Arabic as the medium of teaching and, in a brief time, he succeeded to reap the fruits of his efforts as the students started speaking fluent Arabic. He is thus credited with playing a pioneering role in spreading the Berlitzian method for learning the Arabic language.³⁴⁹ In order to maximize the efficiency of the students’ own efforts, he established al-Ḍiyāʾ, the first Arabic journal in India, to provide students with the opportunity to hone their

345 His having recourse to the help of the French made him notorious in the eyes of Saudis, including the chief judge.

The latter purportedly denigrated his former employee for having done so. Al-Hilālī would later explain his reasons in a letter he sent from Mumbai, but to which the chief qāḍī never responded. For a detailed story, see: Henri Lauzière, The Making of Salafism, pp. 91-92.

346 Al-Hilālī, al-Daʿwa ilā Allāh fi aqṭār mukhtalifa, p. 240.

347 Muḥammad al-Majdhūb, ʿUlamāʾ wa-mafakkirūn ʿaraftuhum, vol. I, p. 198.

348 Al-Hilālī states in his autobiography that he was inspired to implement the new technique bu the well-known German pedagogue Maximilian Berlitz (d. 1921 CE). Chanfi Ahmed, West African ʿUlamāʾ and Salafism in Mecca and Medina, p. 173; Henri Lauzière, The Making of Salafism, p. 107.

349 See, for example: Hayreddin Karaman, İslami Hareket Öncüleri, where he introduces al-Hilālī as the teacher of Abū l-Ḥasan ʿAlī al-Nadawī. As above, al-Hilālī relates that he used the Berlitzian method, which is based on the active usage of the target language itself as the medium of teaching it. On the details of the method as applied, see:

al-Hilālī, al-Daʿwa ilā Allāh fi aqṭār mukhtalifa, pp. 240-241.

106

Arabic skills.³⁵⁰ The journal, which also received significant contributions from outside the Indian subcontinent, would indeed play a crucial role in shaping and sharpening some of al-Hilālī’s students, some of whom would later become outstanding religious figures, such as Abu l-Ḥasan ʿAlī al-Nadawī (d. 1420/1999)³⁵¹ and Masʿūd ʿĀlim al-Nadawī (d. 1373/1954).³⁵² The Moroccan would stress the significance of Arabic on many occasions: for him, Indian Muslims’ lack of familiarity with the language of revelation manifested itself in the form of their accepting innovations and heretical movements.³⁵³

Al-Hilālī’s own strong emphasis on language-learning was not confined to Arabic alone. He came to realize the importance of learning English if one wanted to proselytize for Islam and continue the daʿwa mission. His personal motivation for learning English was evoked by two incidents: the unsatisfactory English pronunciation of the students at Nadwat al-ʿUlamāʾ, and the effective use of the English language by the Ahmadiyya Community to enhance its own missionary activities.

He therefore started to take private lessons from an evangelical pastor in Lucknow, who would agree to teach him only if al-Hilālī would attend church sessions held in English. During the process, the Moroccan Salafī became embroiled in yet another dispute, this time with a young American minister who had been very critical of the Qurʾān. Meanwhile, the Islamic messianic movement of Aḥmadiyya, founded by Ghulām Aḥmad al-Qādiyānī (d. 1326/1908), had already begun to spread its daʿwa through missionary work in many parts of the world, including Europe, and had printed a new English translation of the Qurʾān.³⁵⁴ These two incidents pushed al-Hilālī to realize the undeniable significance of foreign languages in opening up new audiences and parts of the globe to proselytization. He wrote a substantial number of articles on the subject, explaining the necessity for Muslims to learn foreign languages, going so far as to declare this farḍ kifāya (a

350 Muḥammad al-Majdhūb, ʿUlamāʾ wa-mafakkirūn ʿaraftuhum, vol. I, p. 202; al-Hilālī, al-Daʿwa ilā Allāh fi aqṭār mukhtalifa, p. 180.

351 For detailed information on the life and works of Abu l-Ḥasan ʿAlī al-Nadawī, see: Hayreddin Karaman, İslami Hareket Öncüleri, İz Yayıncılık, Istanbul, 2012, pp. 387-432 and Muḥammad al-Majdhūb, ʿUlamāʾ wa-mafakkirūn ʿaraftuhum, vol. I, pp. 135-154.

352 Muḥammad Nāẓim al-Nadawī and Abū l-Layth Shir Muḥammad al-Nadawī are other famous personalities who were taught by al-Hilālī in Nadwat al-ʿUlamāʾ. Al-Hilālī, al-Daʿwa ilā Allāh fi aqṭār mukhtalifa, p. 241.

353 Henri Lauzière, The Making of Salafism, pp. 107. Al-Hilālī’s stress on proper Arabic is linked with his attitude towards the Ahmadi movement which he claimed had thrived on the Indian subcontinent because of Indian Muslims’ lack of familiarity with Arabic, and thus their inability to read the original authoritative texts of the religion in the language of revelation.

354 Henri Lauzière, “The Evolution of the Salafiyya in the Twentieth Century”, pp. 217-218.

107

technical term for a religious duty incumbent upon the Muslim community, deemed to be fulfilled when performed by some members of the community).³⁵⁵

His second stay in India coincided with important religious and political incidents in neighbouring Afghanistan. King Amān Allāh Khān (d. 1379/1960)³⁵⁶ is claimed to have attempted to forbid the Islamic code of dress for women and introduce Western-style of clothing instead, as part of his modernization policies. Due to popular opposition to such policies, coupled with increasing corruption in the government, the king lost his throne. Nādir Khān, his successor, then reversed his secular policies in line with the demands of the people. Being curious enough to find out about the situation of the Muslims in Afghanistan, al-Hilālī decided to undertake a journey, arriving in Kabul in 1933 CE. In his short stay of fifty days in Afghanistan, he met with high Afghan officials, including the king himself. In addition to his warm reception by the authorities, he came to gather with prominent scholars such as Shaykh Sayf al-Raḥmān, Shaykh Manṣūr and Muḥammad ʿUmar al-Afghānī. While his portrayal of Afghan society is positive over all, he was shocked by two aspects: the widespread adherence to Sufism in the region, and the blind imitation of the Ḥanafī legal school. Afghans were fond of Sufism to the extent that the Moroccan Salafī supposed that only westernized and secular Afghans were not its adherents.³⁵⁷ For most of the Afghans, the Ḥanafī legal school was equivalent to the religion itself. The legal sectarianism the Moroccan noticed in Afghanistan was deeply disturbing to him, to the extent that his activities in Afghanistan were restricted to the task of informing the inhabitants that the legal opinions of the Ḥanafī scholars

355 In refutation of the Christian doctrine, Hilālī wrote the treatise Barāhīn injīliyya ʿalā anna ʿIsā ʿalayhi al-salām dakhīl fī l-ʿubūdiyya wa-la haẓẓa lahu fī l-uluhiyya. On Qādiyānīs, he wrote a paper called al-Qādiyaniyuūn:

baʿḍ mā lahum wa-mā ʿalayhim, published in the Egyptian journal of Fatḥ in 1932. For further information on al-Hilālī’s encounter with the evangelical pastor, his subsequent debate with the American minister, his attitude toward the Aḥmadiyya movement and his endeavour to encourage Muslims to master foreign languages to use them as means of proselytization of their religion, See: Henri Lauzière, The Making of Salafism, p, 112.

356 King Amān Allāh Khan was greatly influenced by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk of Turkey (and to lesser extent by Iranian Shah) who had earlier implemented similar practices and laws in order to secularize the Muslim society of Turkey. While Atatürk had achieved his mission to a significant extent, King Amān Allāh failed in the face of heated revolts against his policies by the Afghans. See for example: Nazif M. Shahrani, “Afghanistan from 1919”, in: Francis Robinson (ed.), The New Cambridge History of Islam vol. 5, The Islamic World in the Age of Western Dominance, Cambridge Histories Online: Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 542-547, (see pp. 542-45).

357 He relates that the Mujaddidiyya and Qādiriyya were the two most widespread Sufi brotherhoods among Afghans. King Nādir Khān himself did not hold back from kissing the hand of the Mujaddidī shaykh who was assaigned even the post of minister of justice. The post was initially rejected by the shaykh, since he would be obliged to attend official assemblies alongside other ministers, which purportedly would reduce the reverence held for him among the people. He then accepted the post, provided that his brother-in-law would appear on his behalf at official gatherings. Al-Hilālī, al-Daʿwa ilā Allāh fi aqṭār mukhtalifa, pp. 248-249.

108

were not equivalent with Islam per se, and that other schools of jurisprudence had to be viewed as valid interpretations of the religion.³⁵⁸

Upon his return to India al-Hilālī fell victim to the malaria that was threatening the subcontinent at the time. He then travelled to Basra where he would spend the following three years teaching in the Madrasat al-Najāt (The Salvation Lerning Center) before leaving for Geneva.³⁵⁹ In Basra he continued his daʿwa work during which he came to debate another prominent Shīʿī scholar, Mahdī al-Qazwīnī (d. 1358/1939) who seemingly enjoyed a widespread reputation as mujtahid (a technical term for one who can apply the independent reasoning called ijtihād). Unlike al-Kaẓimī, whom al-Hilālī had debated during his first stay in Iraq, al-Qazwīnī denied any altercation of the Qurʾān at the hand of the Quraysh. The debate with him evolved around the issues concerning domes built on shrines which al-Hilālī dismissed as innovations. The Shīʿī shaykh seems to have condoned such domes provided that the buildings shouldn’t be turned into objects of worship, while according to the Moroccan, no lenient opinions could be condoned pertaining to the issue at hand, which, for him, touched upon the very core of the belief. A Shīʿī author who had previously explained the matter in one of his writings in the journal of al-Manār by quoting Prophetic traditions³⁶⁰ on the authority of the Jaʿfarī imams, reportedly proved that there was no difference of opinion between Sunnīs and the imāms of the Shīʿa. The Moroccan had thus collected these respective Prophetic statements and sent them to al-Qazwīnī, asking whether these accounts were considered authentic in Shīʿī traditions. If yes, why would he, al-Qazwīnī, remain silent about the domes built on shrines in the cities of Najaf, Karbala, and Kazim among others? The latter could not dismiss the ḥadīths, which meant an implicit victory for his adversary; rather, he condemned the author of the article and denigrated Rashīd Riḍā for having published it. In addition, he asked al-Hilālī to undertake the task of judging between him and the Egyptian. Thereupon, the Moroccan wrote seven articles under the title al-Qāḍī al-ʿadl fī ḥukm al-bināʾ ʿalā l-qubūr (The Just Judge

358 He offers a detailed account of how strong a hold sectarianism had on the Afghan society. On more than one occasion, his rafʿ al-yadayn (the practice of moving the hands upwards during certain intervals in the prayers) was viewed by many as a sign of portent. For a full account of Hilālī’s journey to Afghanistan, see: Hilālī, al-Daʿwa ilā Allāh fi aqṭār mukhtalifa, pp. 244-262. On his view of the legal schools, see: Henri Lauzière, “The Evolution of Salafiyya in the Twentieth Century”, pp. 225-226.

359 Muḥammad al-Majdhūb, ʿUlamāʾ wa-mafakkirūn ʿaraftuhum, vol. I, pp. 198, 215.

360 One of those ḥadīths, according to al-Hilālī, is to be found in Bukhārī and Muslim, the two ḥadīth sources accepted by Sunnīs as the best of the books after the holy Qurʾān. It reads: “May Allah curse [those] Jews and Christians [those of them] who took the graves of their prophets as places of worship”, (“laʿana Allah al-yahūd wa-l-naṣārā ittakhadhu qubūr anbiyāʾihim masājid”).

109

Concerning the legal Status of Constructions on Graves) to be published in al-Manār, upholding the side of Riḍā. The articles were later published as a book under the subsidization of King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz.³⁶¹

After a stay of three years in Iraq, his second home and the home of his wife, al-Hilālī was ready to undertake another journey, quite different than the previous ones. Thus, in 1936 CE he left, first for Syria, where he stopped by Bahjat al-Bayṭār (d. 1396/1976). The Syrian Muslim press praised him as a renowned writer and many Arab diplomats visited him there, including Iḥsān Sāmi Ḥaqqī, a Syrian-born Palestinian journalist who arranged the Moroccan’s trip to Europe via the help of the Swiss ambassador in Damascus. Al-Hilālī left Syria for Alexandria and from there to Switzerland via Italy.³⁶² In Geneva, he was received by Shakib Arslan (d. 1366/1946), a prominent modernist Salafī known for his efforts to modernize Muslims along the lines of Islamic nationalism. He acted as the second mentor, after Riḍā, of al-Hilālī. The Moroccan thus held him in high esteem, to the extent that he named his first son after him.³⁶³ As al-Hilālī’s aim was to obtain a university degree, Shakib Arslan contacted Curt Prüfer (d. 1959 CE), a high-ranking officer in German Foreign Office, who in turn introduced the Moroccan to the German Orientalist Paul Kahle (d. 1964 CE), head of the Oriental Seminar at the University of Bonn. Thus, in 1936–

1937 CE al-Hilālī was admitted to that university as a student of Oriental Studies, devoting his first year to obtain a diploma attesting to his proficiency in the German language and the following two years to his PhD dissertation while additionally teaching Arabic literature courses. His collaboration with Kahle on projects of translating old Arabic texts would prove fruitful, for which the German Orientalist would later praise his student on several occasions.³⁶⁴ However, the Nazi’s anti-Jewish policies forced the Jewish Professor Kahle to leave for Great Britain in 1939 CE. This was the beginning of a problematic period for the Moroccan as well: Kahle’s successor Wilhelm Heffening (d. 1944 CE) rejected his thesis, and he had to face the increasingly unfriendly attitude

361 Muḥammad al-Majdhūb, ʿUlamāʾ wa-mafakkirūn ʿaraftuhum, vol. I, pp. 215-216; al-Hilālī, al-Daʿwa ilā Allāh fi aqṭār mukhtalifa, pp. 202-205.

362 Umar Ryad, “A Salafi Student, Orientalist Scholarship and Radio Berlin in Nazi Germany: Taqi al-Din al-Hilali and His Experiences in the West”, in Ryad, Umar.; Nordbruch, Götz. (eds.), Transnational Islam in Interwar Europe: Muslim Activists and Thinkers, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, pp. 107-156, (see p. 112-113).

363 On the Islamic nationalism of Shakib Arslan see: William L. Cleveland, Islam Against the West: Shakib Arslan and the Campaign for Islamic Nationalism, London: al-Saqi Books, 1985.

364 Muhamma al-Majdhūb, ʿUlamāʾ wa-mafakkirūn ʿaraftuhum, vol. I, pp. 188-189. For details on his cooperation with Kahle and the latter’s praise, see: Umar Ryad, “A Salafi Student, Orientalist Scholarship and Radio Berlin in Nazi Germany: Taqi al-Din al-Hilali and His Experiences in the West”, pp. 113-116.

110

of some of his colleagues. When the German ministry of propaganda offered him a job at the newly inaugurated Berlin Arabic Radio station, he left for Berlin. There, besides working in radio as a linguistic authority, he was a university lecturer and student under the supervision of Richard Hartmann (d. 1965 CE). Working in radio provided him with the opportunity to take his anti-colonial sentiments to his audiences at a larger scale.³⁶⁵ In 1940 CE, he defended his dissertation at the university before a committee of ten highly qualified Western scholars, including the famous twentieth-century German Orientalist Carl Brockelmann (d. 1956 CE). The topic of his dissertation was an annotated translation of the preface of al-Jamāhīr fī maʿrifat al-jawāhir (The Messes in the Knowledge of Gems) by al-Bīrūnī (d. 440/1048). In it, by al-Hilālī’s own account, he successfully debunked the convictions of both Carl Brockelmann and Martin Hartmann (d. 1918 CE). The members of the dissertation committee approved al-Hilālī’s stance and decided to pay the printing costs of the dissertation themselves.³⁶⁶