Don't get me wrong; I appreciate your concern for Muslims. But I disagree that factionalism (as if barelwis are the ones to have deviated from sawaad-e-azam) if cured (or wished away) will bring the confused folks back. These same simple folks go to great length researching the specifications to minutiae when buying the latest gadget/mobile/car, but wouldn't be bothered to understand the basics and practices of Islam. If only they aplied the same diligence to understand the polemics, their imaan would be strengthened and they would be better guided! On the persistent moon-sighting controversy in the UK, one of my acquaintances remarked that he was too confused by the scholarly fuss and invariably such confusion always led him to follow Saudi moonsighting (and never the other way round)! I had to counter him that when it came to making business decisions or deciding which mortgage to take would he follow the same path and take the first one available?
You’ve distorted what I said and clearly got the wrong end of the stick: I did not say the “Barelwi” label is responsible for secularisation or for young Muslims struggling with belief. What I said was: most Muslims are laypeople, many young Muslims are already weak in practice, and adding inherited factional labels on top of that confuses and alienates them. Those are not the same claims. “Who’s responsible for their struggle?” is a red herring. That question has nothing to do with the point being made. This isn’t about assigning blame for secularisation. It’s about whether importing a historically scholarly dispute into mass identity formation helps or hinders lay Muslims today. I don't know whether you were being facetious. But, "So they jump to wahhabism or atheism?” is a false dilemma. Rejecting factionalism/needless labelling does not mean abandoning Sunni Islam. Many Muslims simply want to practise the basics without inheriting subcontinental polemics. Presenting only two exits is not an argument; it’s rhetoric. In fact many of the Ummah do practice Islam without involving them in subcontinental polemics. My opinion still stands - most Muslims are laypeople, many young Muslims are already struggling, and turning what was once a scholarly debate into a mass identity label does more harm than good. Calling that concern “confusion” misses the reality on the ground.
in fact, 'barelwis' are the easiest to use as punching bags. anything non-shariah is easily added to 'barelwis' account without second thought, even by some scholars who ought to know better. the monumental effort in all fields of writing, teaching etc - by scholars who are proud to wear the badge of 'barelwi' indicating that we closely follow alahazrat. i will repost an old post. am i a barelwi? yes, of course. "but on occasions, you have said that you are sunni and not barelwi - so why the change of heart?" ---- there is no change of heart. alahazrat is a barelwi by his domicile. by extension, his followers are known as barelwi. alahazrat imam ahmad rida khan was an imam of ahl al-sunnah and identified himself as a sunni. anyway, as it happens in this world, certain appellations catch on, and sunnis are known as barelwis in the subcontinent. the enemies of ahl al-sunnah - wahabis, devbandis etc. - began to use the term 'barelwi' as a pejorative and tried to push it as a term for a sect, or for those who have deviated from the sunnah. in fact, antics of sufi-claimants and ugly innovations are all attributed to 'barelwism' without second thought. for example a madcap heretic like tahir jhangvi is termed a 'barelwi' and insisted upon, whereas neither are his actions are permitted by alahazrat, nor does the person (i.e. tahir himself) wishes to be called a barelwi. ---- when ISIS or some other terrorist group commits some outrage, kuffar routinely blame islam and muslims. then, everybody takes pains to make the differentiation between islam and the 'islam-claimed-by-terrorists'. yet, these people do not hesitate when slandering alahazrat or sunnis from the subcontinent. alahazrat or "barelwis" should be measured by the fatawa of their imam and not by what some followers do or say. ---- nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah. --------- when some attack - terrorist or otherwise - happens in the world, people proudly proclaim that they stand together with the victims by slogans such as: 'we are all parisian". f'example, see here. when ahl al-sunnah is attacked by defaming and slandering 'barelwis' or the followers of alahazrat; and by implication, the imam of ahl al-sunnah - sunnis should stand together in solidarity with the sunnis from the subcontinent. yes, i am a barelwi. (posted in 2017, see post #2 in this very thread)
people have been whining about this for decades now. they are 'troubled' by the label - as if they are moving the mountains or draining the ocean for the betterment of the ummah! whether you like it or not, barelwi is a term here to stay - that identifies the proper sunnis from the subcontinent. sunnis who are maturidis adn NOT sympathetic to wahabis, rafizis, tafzilis, minhajis, maududis and anyone that is not compatible with the aqidah of ahl al-sunnah. i don't know whether it is jealousy or lack of foresight - but if you have been following trends over the past 50 years - various scholars who claimed to be sunni, and went astray and were quick to doff the 'barelwi' label. it was easy for the multitude to identify them and stay away from them.
Your diagnosis of the "real" problem is incorrect, hence your suggested remedy is even worse. What has "barelwi" term got to do with "young Muslims already struggling to hold onto basic practice and belief in a secular society"? Who's responsible for their struggle? At the same time, these confused young folks also want to steer clear of factionalism? So they do what, jump to wahhabism or atheism? I have personally met hundreds of people who claim to be very non-partisan, express distaste for factionalism (not just deobandi-barelwi, but even salafi-sunni-shia), and want to be just pure, unhyphenated "Muslims". Tell you what, these very people don't even know ABC of Islam, rarely perform salah etc. - and invariably these are closet non-sunnis. Is it just the barelwi label that is causing confusion? Would these young, confused folks also be less alienated (and better guided) if "sunni" label is also done away with?
It is a general rule of taxonomy (the science of classification and systematics) that when a new sub-species is found, then the existing/original species also gets relabelled (or hyphenated) and re-designated as the nominotypical subspecies, which formally includes the original species name in its trinomen (three-part name). This convention ensures that the newly recognised variant is deemed separate from the original one. So after deobandi (i.e. -maturidi-wahhabi) were discovered in certain land (Indian subcontinent), the "original" sunnis of that land were redesignated as sunni-maturidi-barelwi Labels have purpose. No need to be defensive about it.
I’m not sure why you highlighted that I’m apparently “very concerned about laypeople.” I’d argue it’s the reality on the ground. I’m speaking from what I actually see around me. There is a large and growing number of British Muslim youth who are actively questioning the whole Barelwi/Deobandi dispute to the point that they don’t want to attach themselves to it at all. Not because they’re confused, but because they see it as inherited factionalism that does nothing for their Iman. Most Muslims are laypeople. Most young Muslims are already struggling to hold onto basic practice and belief in a secular society. To brush that off with “if it grates laypeople, so be it” isn’t some hard headed, principled stance - it’s detached from reality. If a term consistently alienates ordinary Muslims and causes them to switch off from Sunni discourse altogether, dismissing that concern is nonsensical.
Forgive me - I’m not sure what “devbandis” is meant to refer to. If you mean Deobandis that have been deemed deviant, that’s already another label, which rather proves my wider point here. I’m not an expert on the Barelwi/Deobandi history, but I’ve read enough to understand what’s going on. I deliberately didn’t go deeper because there are more important aspects of Islam I’d rather focus on. I partially accept the argument that the term was “imposed upon us.” However, from my own experience growing up in Britain with Pakistani parents, I’ve often seen the term used proudly and even boasted about as an identity marker. At that point, people are no longer merely enduring a label - they are actively adopting and promoting it. It be interesting to head the number of British Muslims that use the term Once a label is adopted in that way, it will inevitably be used loosely and unfairly. That isn’t upside down logic; it’s simply how labels function in the real world. Needing a “differentiator” doesn’t automatically justify this differentiator. Barelwi is a sociological tag, not a creedal school. It doesn’t clarify disputed points for laypeople. Unfortunately, it mostly signals my camp vs. yours. It’s also worth noting, having reread your post, that there’s a tension in your position. On the one hand, you say the term Barelwi was imposed upon you by others. On the other hand, you argue that it’s a necessary differentiator. Those two claims pull in opposite directions!
I would argue that the label "barelwi" is a necessity. Because wolves started wearing sheep's clothings, sheep needed to dye their wool or get "wool-mark"ed differently. Otherwise, the risk of getting their lamb eaten/stolen becomes very high. This is a time-honoured tradition of addressing any new fitna that arises. Who are these laypeople you are worried about? Are these arabs or sunnis outside sub-continent? If so, then we "barelwis" always go about with sunni label; but if that layman confuses deobandis to be sunni too, we bring out the barelwi card. As you see, "barelwi" label is not to cause confusion, but to remove it and to disambiguate. We are not people of taqiyya, so we don't hesitate to take the card/badge when needed. If by laypeople you mean those less well-versed, simpletons, then I would say that such layman wouldn't even know what being maturidi means. As @abu Hasan mentioned this label was accorded to us by dayabina. Other labels are quburis, raza khanis etc., but "barelwi" is the one we are happy and very proud to wear. If it grates laypeople (who you're very concerned about), so be it! On one hand, you profess ignorance about the differences; on the other, you have convinced yourself that the tag is sociological! How have you arrived at such conclusion, despite ignorance? No, the tag is creedal, since the differences with deobandis is creedal.
maturidi means i follow imam abu mansur maturidi. and when devbandis also claim to be maturidi, we have an additional differentiator: barelwi. i.e. among those who call themselves maturidi, we are followers of imam ahmad rida khan barelwi. fair enough. you are entitled to your opinion. but you don't seem to know the history. we have always referred to ourselves as sunnis. devbandis and others began to term us barelwis we did not create this label. it was imposed upon us. you got your logic upside down. this is why i suspected that you may not be aware of history. read some of the older posts in this thread - and also watch a video in which shaykhul islam madani miyan explains the matter.
I don't think your logic works either. Maturīdi is not a place label in the casual sense. It refers to a defined, classical Sunni creed preserved by a recognised scholarly tradition. Saying “I’m Maturīdi” makes a clear theological claim, regardless of where you were born. I don't believe “Barelwi” functions like that. I guess a more accurate comparison would be: An imam follows the Maturīdi creed, teaches it in Birmingham, becomes influential, and later his followers start calling themselves “Birminghamis.” That label clearly tells you nothing new about aqīdah or even fiqh. It’s sociological, not theological and entirely unnecessary. The term Barelwi is needless, in my opinion. We already have clear and meaningful identifiers: Sunni - Ashʿarī/Maturīdi. Imams who preach this label and go around promoting it would be better served teaching the actual creed that Imam Ahmad Rida Khan followed, and making it clear that he was firmly and unquestionably Sunni. There is far more value in that than in defending or shouting a label that adds no theological clarity and only confuses people. For laypeople, the term only creates confusion. Labels create groups, and extra group labels inevitably create fault lines, even when no new beliefs are being introduced. Whatever the intention, that’s the practical outcome on the ground. And there’s another issue: if you choose to adopt and defend a label, you can’t then be shocked when others use that same label - sometimes loosely, sometimes unfairly. That is the predictable consequence of normalising it.
The "barelwi" label's existence is entirely dependant on the existence of deobandis, if deobandis did not exist, we would simply be known as the maturidis of hind even if other deviant groups like the shias & wahabis existed. But on the flipside, if barelwis didn't exist, deobandis would still not be known as the traditional normative maturidis of hind, because of their takfeer on istighaathah, belief in imkanul kizb, belief that Allah is everywhere, tabdee' of Mawlid celebration etc, they would still have been the black sheep
All those who tried to avoid 'barelwism' in the name of fighting sectarianism ended up creating their own sect, adding one more division to the ummah (plumberis, minhajis, ghaamidis, maudidi) Not a single Individual mended ties between the ummah by Rejecting Ala Hazrat and that's simply because maslake ala hazrat IS sunnism in the Subcontinent As shk abu Hasan beautifully quotes mulla Ali qari; "Ever if there remains a single faqih (upright Sunni scholar) who is on a mountain peak, it is as if HE is the jama’ah"
@AbdalQadir I agree with what you said and what the son of Syed Ahmad Saeed Kazmi said. It's not for us to prove our legitimacy or being Sunni because we never deviated. The 'barelwi' title is only relevant in the context of distinguishing between deos and the wahabis, and that relevance is limited to a very specific context, especially geographically. Our Aqaid is commensurate with Sunnis across the world, so no need to identify ourselves with anything else apart from being Sunni. If we focus on that, we will be in a better position to dispel the misinformation of our detractors.
i agree with the first mufti saab in the clip in the past, at least until 2000, it was us who identified ourselves as Sunnis and Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama3ah - both in india and elsewhere. i know for a fact even in the heart of UP, proper tanatan Ridawis used to insist on using the title of Sunni or Ahlus Sunnah, as opposed to Barelwis. the wahabis used to call themselves salafi da3wah. it was only after 911 that the khaleeji wahabis hijacked the title of Ahlus Sunnah, devbandis a few years later than them too wahabi and deobandi were pejoratives we used. it's ironic (imho) that they've hijacked our rightful approach by calling themselves Sunnis and we are gradually backing off (not from Sunniyat itself, but using the right labels) i prefer to use the title of Sunni/Ahlus Sunnah coupled with Maslake Ala Hazrat or Maslake Raza for sectarian or intra Sunni identification (Hanafi Qadri Ridawi), rather than just the short cut of Barelwi, which implies the same thing - because i know the title will not sit well with some other Sunnis too (in our times) due to peer politics, as is evident from the Ridawi, Chishti, Ashrafi, Sabri, Naqshbandi etc salasil peerzada politics. yes, ideally peer politics is anti-tasawwuf and anti-Sunni, but we need to look at and deal with the real world. peer politics between various aastanas is a reality of the present day and in such circumstances using the Barelwi title only causes us to be more isolated and insular, and also fragments the desi and/or broader Sunni community. i only prefer to use the Barelwi title inside india, if needed circumstantially, to distinguish ourselves from devbandis or wahabis. not even in pakistan another thing is some brothers insist that because we are desis and Sunnis, we ought to talk the talk and walk the walk and call ourselves what we are - Barelwis. we dare not undo our (supposed) desiness! firstly - how long is it before those of us born and raised outside the subcontinent, can rid ourselves of the 'desi' or 'subcontinental' label? what's the cutoff timeline? or are our generations to come also destined to be identified as desis/subcontinentals till judgement come? we have Syeds, Siddiquis, Ansaris, Farooqis, who have Arab ancestry, Baigs who have Turkish ancestry (i think), and so many others who are from central Asia and Afghanistan etc. it was apparently a fair deal when all those "invaders" as the hindus cry, started identifying themselves as ethnically hindustanis after a couple of generations. other European Muslims like Albanians, Kosovans, Bosnians etc. identify as Turks in the 2nd or 3rd generations if their fathers/grandfathers migrated there. they of course don't deny their ancestry or heritage, but identify as Turks. same with some "Malays" and "Indonesians" whose ancestors actually migrated from Yemen. i know many Syrians who actually have Turkish, Russian, Kurdish etc. heritage but don't identify as such and have assimilated into Syrian Arabic language and culture. so what's the cutoff time limit before we stop identifying as desi/subcontinental and its associated baggage, or what's the criteria? or is that door shut? do "Deccan" people from Barkas still have a chance of being identified as Yemenis (not just claiming ancestry/heritage) again if they ever move to Yemen or are we bound to call them Hyderabadi? i have relatives in Karachi whose parents were Tamil Muslim migrants to Pak, but they don't know a word of Tamil, and i probably eat more Tamil food than them. do they have the license to call themselves "Urdu-speaking" as they do? like most people on the forum, i have met a whole lot of people (desis) born and raised in Middle East, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Canada, USA, Germany, Holland, Uganda, Kenya, South Africa, Mauritius, Fiji etc. they range from 3rd generation people still holding on to Urdu shayari, and desi food and clothing, to those who only have Islam (or Islamic names), the ancestry and brown skin and nothing more. even with kafirs, you see sikhs who are settled in the west since 1850s and still hold on to their language, food and traditions, to hindus from Fiji whose language, food, and clothing is an unrecognizable mishmash of a bunch of things desi and nondesi. it's not about trying to act western white or black; or western or eastern Arab, or a pacific islander. it's about being ourselves. in the case of many many "subcontinentals" who don't have any or very little connection to Urdu, a necessity to understand the Barelwi-deobandi issue, it's not just futile, but rather counter-productive to use any title other than Sunni or Ahlus Sunnah. outside of the subcontinent, it should be this demographic that should be considered as the default "subcontinental/desi" demographic. just my 2 cents. i don't have anything against anyone who doesn't agree. Allah knows best.
