zameel in his update still fails to answer when can he comment on those explicit thanawi statements... he is aware or you want sh asrar to make it aware during the debate run run run deo wahhabi
in short, if Muhanad lays down the principles for the Deobandi school (an objective reader would be sceptical) then that is the standard that they should use to analyse the works of Sunni scholars and the statements that Imam Ahmad Raza took the Deo elders task for need to be objectively (in the context they were written and not in the context they have been presented) analysed using the same principles.
The underlying issue with the marsiya about Gangohi and similar statements found in the biographical works of the Deobandi elders is how the statements do not concur with the principles laid down by the deobandi school with regards to reverence to the holy prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and other saintly figures. What the likes of Zameel and co need to answer is how do these statements differ from what they routinely accuse sunnis of and how do these statements fit in with the 'official' position of the school (whatever that is as it seems to shift when convenient to do so) and an apt example of this is the marsiya itself should be problematic for deos when the very person the marsiya is written about is against the concept of it. This is where the crux of the issue lies and why I cannot see a positive outcome from any future debate. This unwillingness to see anything in an objective manner, which was evident in Pakistan when Allamah Saeed Asad had a discussion with Ilyas Ghuman. Allamah Sahib's stance was that the dispute is essentially based on 3 accusations, two from the deo side (brelwis are guilty of shirk and bida) and one from the sunni side (the fatwa of kufr on the 4 deo elders) so there needs to be an objective discussion on all three based on agreed upon principles, which in my opinion is the correct methodology in dealing with this dispute. However, Ghumman's point of view was that any criticism of his elders would not be acceptable to him, which is why this issue has dragged on for so long. The irony is that as Shaykh Asrar alluded to in his discussion with an impressionable (won't be surprised if he has been 'spoken to') deo student that the elder's statements (those that alahazrat and other sunni scholars gripped them for) stemmed mainly from a partisan/non-objective defence of incorrect beliefs promoted by the likes of Ismail Dehlwi and other Wahabi scholars. Deos just do not seem to learn their lesson, which is why we see a long list of apologists. (that even contradict each other) those that will forego (or wilfully forget) their own principles just to defend their revered personalities. The sunni school of thought has stood the test of time because it is in agreement with the principles of the religion and where 'personalities' have dissented from these principles; they were refuted but when these erroneous positions started getting traction that is where we get the birth of sects. For example, Ibn Taymiya held some heterodox positions that were roundly refuted by sunni scholars but when Ibn Abdul Wahab (with the support of Ibn Saud and possibly the British) actualised these beliefs, we got the birth of the Wahabi sect. The same principle applies with the deos, i.e. the defence and actualisation of the incorrect positions held by Ismail Dehlwi and his students such as imkan e Kizb and imkan e nazeer. if one looks objectively at the works of Imam Ahmad Raza (not random individual statements that are mainly taken out context) especially with regards to positions that he vociferously defended then one could see all the hallmarks of a reviver of the pristine principles of the Sunni school of thought and not the signs of a reformer who dissents from the body of sunni scholarship and from the consensus of its pious predecessors. The issue is a lack of objectivity coupled with a perpetuation and spurious explanations for incorrect beliefs by apologists that is resulting in this centuries old dispute.
he claims that i have 'misunderstood' some verse - and he does not respond to all of them. just zameel's shamelessness on display. there is nothing to respond. zameel's justifications cannot be swallowed by anyone except people like bhakts (of modi). who have emptied their heads and filled it with devbandi pir-worship. so criticising blasphemous poetry is extremism? but getting a heart ache when RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is praised, calling it ghuluww; but they praise their molvis to the skies and shamelessly try to explain it away as poetry. if this is the case, no deobandi should ever attempt to criticise ANY verse by a sunni scholar. read zameel's explanation and go to bed. --- zameel says: you see zameel has sold his soul to the devil. the marsiya line says: phiren the ka'abah mein bhi poochtey gangoh kaa rasta jo rakhte apne seenon mein the zawq o shawq e irfani even in the ka'abah, they turned asking directions for the road to gangoh (where rashid gangohi was born/lived) those who had in their bosoms, the taste and yearning of gnosis (irfan). now, where does it say: 'zawq o shawq e fiqh-ani', to explain it as searching for masayil in zubdat al-manasik? it is easy to say: abu hasan misunderstood this line. but show it to any non-partisan urdu-speaker and get their feedback. to my sunni brothers, here is the answer to all of devbandi lies: just tell them to go jump off the cliff because they haven't understood it. no need for any reasonable or plausible explanation. btw, i am a native urdu speaker. urdu is my mother-tongue. zameel's explanation is utter nonsense that only a devbandi can come up with and only a devbandi can publicly proclaim it and defend it. any other person with some shame or sense of justice would feel embarrassed. --- zameel says: very well. then what does this line mean? --- as for the link about distortion of qur'an translation: zameel will answer Allah ta'ala. i have already acknowledged that mistake (it was an inadvertent mistake; and when pointed out, we didn't make excuses like devbandis do. we corrected it pronto and even in revised editions, we have a footnote pointing it out. if zameel's heart is so constricted and his mind so petty that he cannot let go of a mistake acknowledged and accepted, it is not my problem. ----
Apparently, zameel al deobandi is going to debate sh. asrar , look at this https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2018/11/30/marsiyah-of-mawlana-rashid-ahmad-gangohi/ May be someone should show zameel the literal statements of elders of deoband and I want to see how he responds to that. Poetry ok, you say you have excuse, but what about literal statements found in the books of elders of deoband
analysis here: marsiya e gangohi ulama e devband ki nazar mein. (see attached PDF. someone upload to resources) marthiyah gangohi by mahmud al-hasan devbandi: download PDF here.
our esteemed brother noori is referring to the marthiyah (elegy) written by mahmud al-hasan devbandi. here are a few excerpts: unlike devbandis who write two pages or talk for twenty minutes elucidating their own opinion and slander ulama e ahl e sunnat; and then quote one or a half snipped line for proof, we show documentary proof first and talk later. murdon ko zinda kiya - zindon ko marne na diya is masiHayi ko dekheN zari ibn e mariyam (gangohi) brought the dead to life - and he stopped the living from dying o ibn e mariyam - see this kind of healing! [the linguistic howler, zari instead of zara is one thing; here he taunts ibn e mariyam alayhi's salam saying that the healing of gangohi will amaze you. al-iyadhu billah. in fact, there is implied superiority of gangohi.] ---- zaban par ahl e ahwa ki hai kyuN "a'alu hubal"; shayad uTha aalam se koyi bani e islam ka saani why, on the tongues of the heretics (ahl e ahwa), is "glory of hubal"? perhaps - from this world has gone, someone who is second to the founder of islam. this is reference to the hadith about the battle of uhud in which abu sufyan thought that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and prominent companions were killed; and he said: 'praise hubal' or it means: 'hubal has prevailed' [see fat'h al-bari, 9/119; #4043] perhaps there were heretics who worshipped hubal that the devbandi was familiar with; that is not the point. the point is gangohi is termed 'thani' second or next to the founder of islam! yea, this is no ghuluww. see bukhari (portion of hadith quoted below) #4043: ---- gharib o aajiz o beykas kareN kya aur kidhar ja'yen huwi hai mezban-e-khalq ki jannat mein mihmani Hawa'ij deen o dunya ke kahan le jayen hum ya rabb gaya woh qiblah e haajaat e ruuhani o jismaani poor and weak and destitute; what will they do and where will they go? the host of the creation (khalq) is now being treated as a guest in paradise (Hawayij) needs of religion and worldly needs, O our Lord, where shall we take them (i.e. for resolution, succour) the qibla of needs - for the soul and for the body (note: two letters have been erased from Hajaat, and appears as 'jaat' but it is clear that it is haajaat). no ghuluww here ----- phiren the ka'abah mein bhi poochtey gangoh kaa rasta jo rakhte apne seenon mein the zawq o shawq e irfani even in the ka'abah, they turned asking directions for the road to gangoh (where rashid gangohi was born/lived) those who had in their bosoms, the taste and yearning of gnosis (irfan). so, those who become gnostics search for gangoh and gangohi even inside the ka'abah. sub'HanAllah. ----- wafat e sarwar e aalam ka naqshah aap ki riHlat thi hasti gar nazeer e hasti e maHbub e sub'Hani the passing of gangohi was a picture of the passing of the leader of the world (i.e. RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) it was him, if there was a similitude for the the Beloved of Allah. (maHbub e sub'Hani). ----- faqat ik aap ke dam se nazar aate the sab zindah bukhari o ghazali baSri o shibli o shaybani only on your account, did all these (scholars) appear alive: bukhari ghazali (Hasan) baSri shibli and (muhammad ibn Hasan) shaybani. ---- marthiyah gangohi by mahmud al-hasan devbandi: download PDF here.
