Is Calling Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani “Ghaus-e-Azam” Shirk? Meaning and Islamic Ruling
Answered by Mufti Naved Akhtar ·
Question
Assalamu Alaikum,
A person associated with the Ahl-e-Hadith school of thought recently told me that referring to Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani (Rahimahullah) as Ghaus-e-Azam constitutes Shirk, because the term means “the greatest helper,” whereas Allah alone is the ultimate source of help.
However, I have heard that prominent Deobandi scholars, including Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and Shaykh Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhlawi (Rahimahumullah), also referred to Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani by this title.
Does Ghaus-e-Azam necessarily imply that the person possesses divine powers or can independently provide assistance? Or does the expression have a different meaning in Islamic scholarly and Sufi terminology?
If the title literally refers to someone who provides help, how should we understand its use by such respected scholars? Is it similar to expressions such as Maula Ali, where the intended meaning and context determine whether the expression is permissible?
I am genuinely confused by this issue, particularly because it has led me to question the beliefs and teachings of the Deobandi scholars.
I would appreciate a clear explanation of the meaning of Ghaus-e-Azam and whether using this title for Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani constitutes Shirk.
Response
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh.
Dear Brother in Islam,
Your concern appears to arise from a misunderstanding of the distinction between the linguistic meaning of a word, its technical usage, and the beliefs associated with it. These distinctions are essential when determining whether a particular expression is permissible or objectionable.
The Arabic word Ghaus (غوث) is associated with assistance, relief and responding to someone in distress. However, within the terminology of Tasawwuf, it is also used to denote a particular spiritual rank among the Awliya (the pious servants of Allah).
In this technical sense, a Ghaus refers to an exceptionally pious individual who has attained a distinguished spiritual rank and whose supplications are regarded as being accepted by Allah. The designation is closely associated with the concept of Qutb in Sufi terminology.
Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani (Rahimahullah), who was renowned for his knowledge, piety and devotion to Allah, became widely recognised by the honorific title Ghaus-e-Azam (الغوث الأعظم).
The use of this title, in itself, does not amount to Shirk. What matters is the meaning intended and the beliefs attributed to the person bearing it.
If the title is used merely as an established honorific, without attributing divine qualities or powers to Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani, there is no basis for declaring its usage an act of Shirk.
However, if a person believes that Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani possesses independent supernatural authority, can exercise control over the universe, or has divine powers to remove difficulties and fulfil people's needs, such beliefs are contrary to Tawhid.
Similarly, invoking him for supernatural assistance on the assumption that he possesses the powers belonging exclusively to Allah is impermissible.
The distinction between using an established title and subscribing to an erroneous belief is explicitly recognised in the fatawa of several leading Hanafi institutions.[1][2][3]
Why Did the Scholars of Deoband Use This Title?
Prominent scholars of Deoband, including Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and Shaykh Muhammad Zakariyya Kandhlawi (Rahimahumullah), have referred to Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani by the title Ghaus-e-Azam.
Their usage should be understood in its established technical and historical context, rather than interpreted as an affirmation of divine attributes in a human being.
Referring to an individual by a title through which he has become widely known does not necessarily imply endorsement of every meaning that might be attached to its individual words.
For example, the word Maula can convey different meanings depending on its context. It would be incorrect to assume that every occurrence of the word carries a meaning that compromises Tawhid.
Likewise, the title Ghaus-e-Azam must be understood according to its intended usage.
These scholars did not employ the expression with the belief that Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani possessed the independent powers of Allah. Rather, they used it as an established honorific associated with his recognised spiritual status.
It would therefore be unjustified to accuse them of Shirk merely because they used this title.
An Important Reference from an Ahl-e-Hadith Scholar
There is another point that deserves consideration. The use of the title Ghaus-e-Azam is not confined to Deobandi literature.
Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan (1250–1307 AH), a prominent scholar associated with the Ahl-e-Hadith movement in the Indian subcontinent, also records this expression in his scholarly writings.
In his book Al-Hittah fi Dhikr al-Sihah al-Sittah, he quotes Shaykh Abdul Haq al-Dihlawi (Rahimahullah), who refers to Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani in the following words:
أَنَّ الْغَوْثَ الْأَعْظَمَ وَالْقُطْبَ الْأَفْخَمَ الشَّيْخَ عَبْدَ الْقَادِرِ الْجِيلَانِيَّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ حَامِلُ مَذْهَبِهِ وَتَابِعُ أَقْوَالِهِ
“Indeed, al-Ghaus al-Azam, the eminent Qutb, Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani (may Allah be pleased with him), adhered to his school of thought and followed his opinions.”
The passage occurs in a discussion of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani's affiliation with the Hanbali school of jurisprudence.[4]
This reference is particularly relevant because Siddiq Hasan Khan reproduced the expression in his own work while quoting an earlier scholar.
Admittedly, quoting an expression does not necessarily establish an author's personal endorsement of every implication associated with it. Nevertheless, its occurrence in this scholarly context demonstrates why such expressions must be understood with due regard to their usage rather than judged solely through an isolated literal meaning.
If the mere occurrence of the title “Ghaus-e-Azam” were sufficient to establish Shirk, would the same accusation be levelled against Shaykh Abdul Haq al-Dihlawi for employing it, or against Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan for reproducing it?
Surely, such an approach would be unreasonable.
The same principle must therefore be applied consistently when evaluating the writings of Deobandi scholars.
It is neither academically sound nor Islamically responsible to condemn one group of scholars for employing a recognised expression while overlooking its occurrence in the writings of scholars belonging to another school of thought.
Conclusion
The issue is not whether the word Ghaus possesses a linguistic association with assistance. Rather, the question is what the expression signifies in the context in which it is used.
Calling Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani Ghaus-e-Azam, merely as a recognised honorific denoting his spiritual distinction, does not constitute Shirk.
However, attributing divine qualities, independent supernatural authority, or powers exclusive to Allah to him is unquestionably contrary to Tawhid.
The distinction is between honouring a pious servant of Allah and attributing to that servant what belongs exclusively to Allah.
It is therefore incorrect to condemn the scholars of Deoband merely for using this title, particularly when the same expression is documented in the writings of other respected Muslim scholars.
You should not allow an argument based on an isolated expression, without proper consideration of its meaning and context, to undermine your confidence in the scholarship of our respected Ulama.
And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best.
References
[1] Darul Iftaa, Jamia Uloom Islamia Allama Muhammad Yusuf Banuri Town
Fatwa No. 143101200691
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۔
https://www.banuri.edu.pk/readquestion/143101200691/01-01-2010
[2] Fatawa Faridiyyah
Vol. 1, p. 190.
[3] Darul Iftaa, Darul Uloom Deoband
Fatwa No. 36045
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۔
https://darulifta-deoband.com/home/ur/Tasawwuf/36045
[4] Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan, Al-Hittah fi Dhikr al-Sihah al-Sittah
Page 260 (edition cited in the original fatwa).
قَالَ الشَّيْخ عبد الْحق الدهلوي فِي أشعة اللمعات مَا نَصه بِالْعَرَبِيَّةِ كَانَ أَحْمد قدوة فِي الحَدِيث وَالْفِقْه والزهد والورع وَالْعِبَادة 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