Malfuz Shah Wasi Allah: 'Amal is Easier than 'Ilm

I'm currently reading a book comprising of two condensed biographies of my Hazrat's Shaikhs: Shah Wasi Allah Fatehpuri, who also happens to be his father-in-law, and Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad Partapgari. The book has been compiled by his son Moulana Mahbub Ahmed and is titled, Shaykhan: 'Aynan Tajriyan.

Each biography is supplemented with select utterances, commonly referred to as "malfuzat", of the personages introduced. This Hazrat notes is to imbibe practice because "the purpose of knowledge is practice."

As I was browsing through the book, I came across an interesting proposition from Shah Wasi Allah that has made me reconsider my own thought with regards to this issue. Shah Wasi Allah requires no introduction and I will hopefully post a brief overview of his bio later insha Allah. Suffice it to note here that he is one of the senior Khulafa' of Moulana Ashraf 'Ali Thanvi.

The compiler of Shah Wasi Allah's malfuzat deserves mention. He is Dr. 'Ali Malpa Bhatkali and is one of Shah Wasi Allah's khulafa. I had the pleasure of meeting him at his residence in Bhatkal, thanks to my fellow classmate and host at Bhatkal, soon-to-be Dr. Habib Mohtisham Nadwi. I'm not sure if Fazil Malpa (that's how he was referred to by those close to him) is still alive, he was quite frail and ill when I visited him in 06. I pray that Allah's mercy be with him in either state.

Here is a translation of the Malfuz:

'Amal is easier than 'Ilm

I gave a talk in Allahabad once in which I stated that knowledge ('ilm) is difficult and observance (amal) is easy.

People were taken aback, primarily because they have the exact opposite in their heads.

I explained that knowledge has various categories and sciences. Furthermore there is one science that is exoteric (zahir) and another esoteric (batin), and the grasp of each is difficult.

This is not the case with observance ('amal) because it concerns the Self (nafs, or soul). So long as it remains lethargic it seizes to practise but once the lethargy is fought off and is prepared/determined to undertake action, then observance becomes easy and no longer remains difficult.

It is for this reason devout worshippers are visible everywhere, yet it is difficult to find a talented scholar. Towns and districts are empty of erudite scholars even though the Qur'an and Hadith bear explicit and exclusive virtues for acquiring knowledge and the people of knowledge.

Take, for example, the Hadith, "the virtue/excellence of a scholar over the worshipper is that of my virtue/excellence over the lowest amongst you." (فضل العالم على العابد كفضلي على أدناكم) (Tirmidhi 2685) Subhan Allah, what an incredible virtue this is. Only the Prophet, and none other, could have made such a statement. Now who would have the audacity to disparage this position set by the Prophet himself?

It is worth mentioning, however, that this virtue is only for the true God-fearing scholar (alim-e-rabbani), not the ostentatious and name-sake scholar. This is because Jewish scholars who gave in to material temptations have been despised in the Qur'an on numerous occasions. The Quran says about such a people: "Will you command others to piety and forget yourselves..." (2:44)

The author of ruh al-bayan (Alusi) submits the following exegesis under the cited verse, each scholar should reflect deeply upon it and judge himself individually:

ثم إن هذا التوبيخ والتقريع وإن كان خطابا لبني إسرائيل، إلا أنه عام من حيث المعنى لكل واعظ يأمر ولا يأتمر ويزجر ولا ينجزر، ينادي الناس البدار البدار ويرضى لنفسه التخلف والبوار، ويدعو الخلق إلى الحق وينفر عنه، ويطالب العوام بالحقائق ولا يشم ريحها منه، وهذا هو الذي يُبدأ بعذابه قبل عبدة الأوثان ويعظم ما يلقى لوفور تقصيره يوم لا حاكم إلا الملك الديان

"Although the reproach [of verse 2:44] is addressing the Jews, it is nonetheless general in its meaning. It encompasses the speaker who commands but does not follow suit himself; who disciplines others but not himself; who calls upon people to follow quickly and impatiently and yet is contented with himself lagging behind and leading to destruction; who invites the creation of Allah to the truth and excuses himself from it; who demands truths from the public, yet not even its scent is found with him. The torment of such a person will begin even before the Idolaters, the severity of which is increased due to his paramount neglect, on the day when there will be no Judge except the Just Rewarding Ruler."

وعن محمد بن واسع قال: بلغني أن أناسا من أهل الجنة اطلعوا على ناس من أهل النار، فقالوا لهم: قد كنتم تأمروننا بأشياء عملناها فدخلنا الجنة، قالوا: كنا نأمرهم بها ونخالف إلى غيرها

"It is reported from Muhammad ibn Wasi' that he said: it has reached me that the dwellers of Paradise will encounter people in Hell and say to them: you used to command us of things we observed and entered Paradise as a consequence. They will say: we used to command people with these things but would contradict them ourselves."

This penalisation is worth thinking about. The unobserving scholar will receive torment even before the Idolaters. Can there be greater admonishment for scholars beyond this? And is this not enough to call upon scholars to fill their hearts with fear? If this is not, then what will?

Therefore and, in conclusion, the scholar is more worthy of observing fear and austerity than others. Furthermore, and by extension, it necessitates that he acquires thorough knowledge of right and wrong (ma'ruf wa munkar), so that he can observe the right and abstain from wrong himself as well as guide others accordingly. This will bring [much-needed] reformation (islah). And Allah is the Custodian of Assistance.

A Friend's Review of Arguments for Homosexuality

At the root of the acceptance of homosexuality are three basic arguments: 1. It is a private act and not a public one. Therefore it should be judged against private or individual standards of morality. 2. It is a permanent state of identity with an indeterminate cause, which falls outside of genetic or environmental exclusivity. Therefore if it just “happens” irreversibly then it is an act of nature. And to deny it or to act in contradiction to it would be artificial, unnatural and futile. Furthermore, if this phenomenon fulfils characteristics with which one can classify it as natural then, as with other “natural” acts, it is morally acceptable. 3. As a society we promote the actualisation of individual desires where one is free of moral absolutism. Expression of sexual preference falls within this category. Therefore given points 1 and 2 and the centrality of moral relativism in the predominant liberal movement, homosexuality should be protected in line with other characteristics such as gender, race and religion; Or indeed any other characteristic that has suffered from moral absolutism. I have tried to sketch out in a short space the arguments which form the root of the acceptance of homosexuality in a liberal philosophical environment. I will leave it to the reader to work out how various, fuller arguments follow from these basic premises. The purpose at my attempt to reduce these arguments to this basic level is to show that the acceptance of these fundamental arguments requires the acceptance of certain subjective principles and that acceptance of these subjective principles does not occur in traditions outside of the western liberal framework. Therefore it would be unreasonable for us to expect that other moral frameworks will as readily adopt homosexuality. The first argument rests upon the distinction between public and private domains. [what is the implication of this]. As Raymond Guess argues in his book “public goods, private goods”, our demarcation between “public” and “private” is subjective. Geuss gives the example of Diogenes of Sinope’s masturbation in the marketplace and how the expulsion of bodily fluid is seen as morally wrong. Clearly, masturbation or the expulsion of bodily fluid is a private act but when conducted in a public forum it becomes a public act and judged to a different moral code. If we are to claim that homosexuality is a private act what are we to make of it when it enters the public domain. For example, do we adopt the public moral code when we see to homosexuals display affection on the street? Or even less obviously what is the appropriate code for any outward displays of homosexuality? By this I mean any outward symbolism, say clothing, mannerisms, language or even congregation at places. Clearly, a line has to be drawn somewhere for one cannot expect to be a homosexual and have zero outward symbols. For me this highlights a problem; is there in actual fact a public and private section of a moral code and if there is can we apply realistically apply them? To me it is evident that this demarcation of public and private an arbitrary one that is useful in applying the moral framework of the liberal tradition. It cannot be shown that this is a necessary or even a universal feature of moral frameworks. Argument 2 above has been a little difficult to summarise for it tries to encompass a sprawling range of arguments. What I have tried to capture are arguments that essentially rest on the idea that moral responsibility derives from actions of free will. Such arguments are given force by intrinsically arguing that the world is deterministic to a degree that is acceptable. If the world is deterministic to a degree then one cannot be held accountable for one’s actions to that degree. For example if I am inclined to homosexuality then this is determined by my mental proclivity, which is beyond my control, therefore is it right to hold me morally accountable for this which is beyond my control? When faced with such a proposition it is easier to cede this ground than to accept that the entire basis for our moral framework, as implied by a fully deterministic world, is not based on firm foundations. This argument is helped further by the modern creation of the homosexual identity. For it is more easily accepted that there is no moral responsibility for what one “is” rather than for what one “does. I hope that it is clear that argument 2 rests on ideas that are particular to the western liberal thought; a deterministic world and a moral framework wrought from the foundations of divine providence. The final argument is perhaps the most difficult to assess but it is more straightforward when trying to show that homosexuality can only thrive in an ideological framework particular to liberalism in the west. It is very difficult to pin down what this amorphous idea of “Liberalism” truly is but the key idea that is relevant to our discussion here is that within Liberalism is something akin to moral relativism developed (in large part by John Rawls) from a Kantian tradition. Here, the absolutist or universalist idea of morality as underpinned by divine authority is replaced by the acceptance that there is no universal moral standard by which we should judge the actions of people. I accept that such a position is not satisfactory in helping to build a moral framework and as such much effort has been expended on developing a system based on other ideas such as “justice” or “human rights”. Whatever the successes of such attempts, it is this idea that different moral codes can and should exist that is relevant to our discussion. For it is only because of this can we have the public/private dichotomy in argument 1 or allow individual actualisation of freedoms in argument 3. At this point perhaps it is important to make clear for my support of the acceptance of homosexuality in the western liberal tradition. I may think that the public/private demarcation is without real basis; that it is odd that we accept arguments based on the deterministic nature of free will for homosexuality but not for other behaviours; and that we are yet to build a coherent moral framework following our demolition of a divinely inspired one. Yet these choices that we have made have been important so that we can build a pluralistic society and avoid falling to the abyss of moral nihilism. However, I hope it is clear that within say an Islamic framework the current arguments of homosexuality have no grounds. In Islam there is no separation between the public and private when it comes to morality; moral responsibility of action does not rely on the deterministic nature of free will and there cannot be an acceptance that for a Muslim there is any other moral framework than that proscribed by God. Therefore if these tenets do not exist how can we expect an adoption of the acceptance of homosexuality? Indeed, taking this view it is counterproductive to attack the religion for its non-acceptance. To do so goes against the Liberal tradition as we are compelling them to accept philosophical artifices that are particular to the western liberal tradition.

On Disagreement

Imam Abul-Mudhaffar as-Sam'ani (Died: 489 Hijrii) writes in his ‘Support of the People of Hadith’:

Every issue that emerged in Islam which preoccupied the people and upon which they disagreed in a way that did it not cause enmity, hatred or division between them, and instead kept intact mutual cordiality, sincerity, mercy and compassion, we understood it to be amongst the issues that are permissible to look into and select one of the many positions cited in its regards. For it does not necessitate condemnations of heresy (tabdi’) or excommunication (takfir), and this is similar to the differing of the Companions and the Followers who kept amiability and love amongst them.

Conversely, every issue that emerged and in which people differed in a way that resulted in repulsion, mutual boycotting and estrangement - perhaps even takfir - I understood the issue has no place in religion whatsoever. Rather, it is incumbent upon every intelligent person to steer away from it. This is because Allah has conditioned to our adherence to Islam that we remain in its fold as brothers. Allah says:

“...and remember Allâh's Favour on you when you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren” (3:103)

فكل مسألة حدثت في الإسلام فخاض فيها الناس فتفرقوا واختلفوا فلم يورث ذلك الاختلاف بينهم عداوة ولا بغضا ولا تفرقا وبقيت بينهم

الألفة والنصيحة والمودة والرحمة والشفقة علمنا أن ذلك من مسائل الإسلام يحل النظر فيها والأخذ بقول من تلك الأقوال لا يوجب تبديعا

ولا تكفيرا كما ظهر مثل هذا الاختلاف بين الصحابة والتابعين مع بقاء الألفة والمودة

وكل مسألة حدثت فاختلفوا فيها فأورث اختلافهم في ذلك التولي والإعراض والتدابر والتقاطع وربما ارتقى إلى التكفير علمت أن ذلك

ليس من أمر الدين في شيء بل يجب على كل ذي عقل أن يجتنبها ويعرض عن الخوض فيها لأن الله شرط في تمسكنا بالإسلام أنا نصبح في ذلك إخوانا فقال تعالى:

واذكروا نعمة الله عليكم إذ كنتم أعداء فألف بين قلوبكم فأصبحتم بنعمته إخوانا

Ibn al-Jawzi's Comparison Between the Scholars of the World and the Hereafter

Below is an important exposition the prolific Ibn al-Jawzi has captured in his “sayd al-khatir” (lit. captivating thoughts). I had read it some time ago and felt that it was worth sharing. I am not perfect by any means and I do not claim pietistic superiority in noting this. Rather, in the words of al-Shafi’i:

أحب الصالحين ولست منهم

لعلي أن أنال بهم شفاعة

I love the pious and I'm not one of them

I hope to obtain intercession through them.

I pray that Allah make me amongst them.

This post is not directed at anyone in particular, except for myself and perhaps to whoever else identifies his or herself under the broad rubric of al-‘ulama.

A gentle reminder to folks who find themselves part of a long journey and who realise they are sailors of a ship in dangerous waters that needs saving to the shore (these are similes used by the author below). It is they who will most benefit from this, which brings to mind an Urdu couplet:

"Tufan Hey Darya Mein, Awr Na-Khuda Sowtey Hey!?

Kashti Key Muhafiz Hi Kashti Ko Dabotey Hey"

There is a storm in the ocean, and the captain is fast asleep!?

It is always those in charge of protecting the ship who are the cause of its wreckage.

----------------------------------

Chapter: A Comparison Between The Scholars of This World and Those of The Hereafter

I pondered upon the jealousy between scholars and found its source is the love of this world. The scholars of the Hereafter are full of love and do not habour jealousy. As the Lord says, “... and they have no grudge in their heart for what others are given ...” [59:9]

He also says, “And those who came after them invoking, ‘Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith, and do not place in our hearts any rancour against those who believe...'” [59:10]

The Companion Abu al-Darda’ used to pray for a group of brothers every night. Imam Ahmed said to Imam al-Shafi’i’s son, “your father is amongst the six I pray for each night before dawn.”

The deciding factor between the two camps is that the scholars of the world have their eyes fixed on power and are obsessed in accumulating wealth and praise. The scholars of the Hereafter abstain from preferring this. They fear it [i.e. power, wealth and praise] and pity those that are burdened with it.

Al-Nakh’i would not sit by a pillar (sign of a scholar, point of reference for people). ‘Alqamah said, “I dislike that my heel should be treaded upon (i.e. I do not like that people visit me). Others would stand and leave if more than four people came to sit with them. They would ask to be excused when sought for legal verdicts and preferred inconspicuity instead.

The example of these people is that of a sailor caught in the storm, he is preoccupied until he can ensure safety. And as the days follow the nights in that long journey, they pray for one another and they get help from one another because they form part of the same crew to paradise.

فصل

المقارنة بين علماء الدنيا وعلماء الآخرة

تأملت التحاسد بين العلماء، فرأيت منشأه من حب الدنيا، فإن علماء الآخرة يتوادون ولا يتحاسدون كما قال عز وجل: ((ولا يجدون في صدورهم حاجة مما أوتوا)) وقال تعالى: ((والذين جاءوا من بعدهم يقولون: ربنا اغفرلنا ولإخواننا الذين سبقونا بالإيمان، ولا تجعل في قلوبنا غلا للذين آمنوا)).

وقد كان أبو الدرداء يدعو كل ليلة لجماعة من إخوانه، وقال الإمام أحمد بن حنبل لولد الشافعي: (أبوك من الستة الذين أدعو لهم كل ليلة وقت السحر).

والأمر الفارق بين الفئتين: أن علماء الدنيا ينظرون إلى الرياسة فيها، ويحبون كثرة الجمع والثناء. وعلماء الآخرة بمعزل من إيثار ذلك، وقد كانوا يتخوفونه ويرحمون من بُلي به.

وكان النخعي لا يستند إلى سارية. وقال علقمة: (أكره أن يوطأ عقبي). وكان بعضهم إذا جلس إليه أكثر من أربعة قام عنهم، وكانوا يتدافعون الفتوى ويحبون الخمول، مثل القوم كمثل راكب البحر، وقد خِب، فعنده شغل إلى أن يوقن بالنجاة.

وإنما كان بعضهم يدعوا لبعض، ويستفيد منه لأنهم ركب تصاحبوا فتوادوا، فالأيام والليالي مراحلهم إلى سفر الجنة.

Ibn 'Arabi on the People of Hadith (Ahl al-Hadith)

Ash-Shaykh al-Akbar, Ibn ʿArabī, writes in chapter 313 of his Futūḥāt:

“The inheritors have a share spreading the message. This is why Muʿādh [ibn Jabal] and others were known as ‘the Messenger’s messenger’ – may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. No one has acquired this distinction, in addition to the privilege of being raised with the Messengers, save the Ḥadīth scholars who transmit Ḥadīth back to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessing be upon him, one generation to another through uninterrupted chains. They have a share in the Prophethood (i.e. in the duty of imparting the message). They are transmitters of revelation, and inheritors of the Prophets in conveying the message. And the jurists, if they do not obtain a share in Ḥadīth transmission then they are not of this status. They will not be resurrected with the Prophets, rather they will be raised with the masses. The title of ‘the knowledgeable’ (al-ʿulamā’) only applies to the people of Ḥadīth in all actuality.”

“And the same goes for the people of austerity (zuhd), devotion (ʿibādah) and the Hereafter. From them, those that are not amongst the people of Ḥadīth are no different to the jurists. They have no distinction in the ranks of inheritors, nor will they be resurrected with the Messengers. Rather, they too will be raised with the masses.”

وقال الشيخ محي الدين بن عربي في فتوحاته في الباب (313):

((وللورثة حظ من الرسالة، ولهذا قيل في معاذ وغيره: رسول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وما فاز بهذه المرتبة ويُحشر يوم القيامة مع الرسل إلا المحدثون الذين يروون الأحاديث بالأسانيد المتصلة بالرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم في كل أمة، فلهم حظ في الرسالة، وهم نقلة الوحي، وهم ورثة الأنبياء في التبليغ، والفقهاء إذا لم يكن لهم نصيب في رواية الحديث فليست لهم هذه الدرجة ولا يحشرون مع الرسل بل يحشرون في عامة الناس ولا ينطلق اسم العلماء إلا على أهل الحديث على الحقيقة))

((وكذلك الزهاد والعباد وأهل الآخرة ومن لم يكن من أهل الحديث منهم كان حكمه حكم الفقهاء لا يتميزون في الورثة ولا يحشرون مع الرسل بل يحشرون مع عموم الناس))

Obituary: Sheikh Ahmed Ali Lajpuri Surti (1919-2011)

http://bit.ly/mFgsDn

This obituary came into being within some weeks after the Sheikh's unfortunate demise (he passed away on March 10 2011). It began as an English transcript for Dr. Akram Nadwi's Urdu speech, which he gave at a commemorative Mosque gathering a day after the burial. His talk can be heard and downloaded from here: http://bit.ly/k6S1am

I had felt the talk left certain areas that are key to an obituary untouched and since his talk was exhortative in nature and loosely structured as an obituary, I found this understandable.

This brought about the desire to write up a fresh piece. However, while one side of me - the greedy talib al-'ilm - had managed to develop this grievance, another was fixated on my limitations - my own damned and incapable self.

The constant and troubling to-and-fro of this complex lead to an unsteady finish leaving the piece to undergo review. Unfortunately, while I'm grateful to the esteemed Mr. Suliman Qazi and Shaykh Andrew Booso for their quick edits, this never did happen. Work, commitments, travel and more importantly, the unforgiving realisation that there are individuals better suited to write up an obituary kept me tied down.

It is the unflinching determination of my friend Dr. Imran Satya to see this obituary materialise and circulated, in addition to the legal maxim "what cannot be acquired in its totality should not be discarded entirely either" (ما لا يدرك كله، لا يترك جله) that has forced me to think this out differently.

This post would remain incomplete without his full and proper acknowledgement. It is his unceasing encouragement and assistance that brought all of this about. Fa Jazahu Allah Khayran.

I carry the burden of guilt in this piece reflecting some of my own readings of the Shaykh. These may run counter to the perception others have of him, each writer is bound by his frame-of-reference. I take responsibility for all errors. I pray to Allah that He bless us life and death with faith. From Him we came and to Him we shall return.

Dua's,
Uwais

The Statement of Justice

There's an Arabic phrase that has its roots ascribed to early Muslim piety, if not the Prophet himself. It goes along the lines of, "Allah will help the just state even it it is non-Muslim and will not help the unjust state even if it happens to be Muslim". Whether historical critical rigour can successfully validate such an attribution is questionable but no one can deny that it has been used freely by Muslim theologians either. The overall objective of the Shar'iah, we are informed, is justice and mercy. Why should this not be the case then?

In any case, here's part of a transcript from the Victorian Muhammed Marmaduke Pickthall's lecture, 'causes of rise and decline'. It serves as a practical commentary of the phrase.

Enjoy!

"But before I come to my conclusion, I must mention one great assertion of the universal nature of Islam which occurred in the darkest hour that Muslims ever knew. You will find it narrated in the first chapter of Kitab-ul-Fakhri, where the author speaks of the importance of justice as a quality of the ruler according to the teaching of Islam, that when Sultan Hulaqu had taken Baghdad and held the unfortunate but worthless person of the Abbasid Khalifa at his mercy, he put a question to the Ulama who had assembled at his bidding at the Mustansiriyah --- a question calling for a fatwa of the Learned, a question upon the answer to which depended the fate of the Khilafat: "which is preferable (according to the Shari'ah) the disbelieving ruler who is just or the Muslim ruler who is unjust?"

أيهما أفضل: السلطان الكافر العادل أو السلطان المسلم الجائر؟

The Ulama were sitting all aghast, at a loss what to write, when Rizauddin Ali ibn Tawas, the greatest and most respected Aalim of his time, arose and took the question paper and signed his name to the answer:

السلطان الكافر العادل

"The disbelieving ruler who is just." All the others signed after him. All knew that it was the right answer, for the Muslims cannot keep two standards, one for the professed believer and the other for the disbeliever, when Allah, as His messenger proclaimed, maintains one standard only. His standard and His judgement are the same for all. He has no favourites. The favoured of Allah are those, whoever and wherever they may be, who keep His Laws. The test is not the profession of a particular creed, nor the observance of a particular set of ceremonies; it is nothing that can be said or performed by anybody as a charm, excusing his or her shortcomings. The test is Conduct. The result of good conduct is good, and the result of evil conduct is evil, for the nation as for the individual. That is the teaching of Islam, and never has its virtue been more plainly illustrated than in the history of the rise and decline of Muslim civilisation." [end quote]

'Birds of a Feather Flock Together'

Previously a Pakistani Minister who failed to recite chapter 112 of the Quran correctly, that's Surah al-Ikhlas, created much furore amongst ordinary Muslims. Of equal disappointment was his enunciation of the 'basmalah' too, that is the 'bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim' during a statement he gave after the murder of his friend Salman Taseer.

Rahman Malik is the Interior Minister of Pakistan. His Surah al-Ikhlas and Basmalah can be viewed on the following links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=305bHHvGh4o&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uS6r9Oarl8

The purpose of mentioning this here is to remind us that he is not alone. I understand politicians and leaders are not expected to outdo leading academics, although if they could I believe that would only work to their advantage, but not knowing the basics - and I mean rudimentary basics here - is shameful at the very least.

On Friday, the heroic Egyptian public had succeeded in its historic protests demanding the resignation of President Husni Mubarak. This all important news was brought to the world by none other than Omar Suleiman, the vice president. His speech concluded with a mispronunciation that was essentially blasphemous. His last words were Wa Allah al-Muwaffaq wa al-Musta'aan, which basically implies that God is in need of guidance!

I'm guessing the contents of his statement were so timely that it had people overlook this mistake, sending them into instant merry making instead. Either that, or grammar consciousness died a long time ago. I fully understand Egyptian colloquial is founded on breaking Arabic grammar rules with 110% precision but blasphemous readings of this nature come across as more of a conspiracy than acceptable variant colloquialisms. I'm sorry but it's simply wrong and whatever the case, an 'Ajmi 'Arab like myself who was taught Arabic militarily (through physical abuse) has no plans on giving up aspirations of becoming a grammar bully just yet!

Wa Allah al-Muwaffiq (fa'il, agent), not al-Muwaffaq (maf'ul, patient), is the correct fixation.

Here's his statement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8GxGWAucWk

So while Minister Rahman's blunder received millions of pounds of coverage, Suleiman's has gone unnoticed. It shouldn't have. Both are jahil and who knows may have many other things in common.

Birds of a feather flock together.