Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Topics' started by AbdalQadir, Jan 7, 2019.
End of December, I believe.
Does anyone know when the pre-debate dialogue will take place and if it will be recorded.
They have been working with utmost dedication from a couple of years now. Most of them are still studying yet they take out time to go through the books of their aqabir, translate and pen-down articles. They have a blog dedicated against the Subcontinental sunnis, a discussion forum, an active presence on facebook with regular interaction with non-subcontinental shuyukh and laymen alike.
For instance, during the recent arguments between the Najdi-Awnis followed by the Istighatha debate b/w Sh.AR and ARH, they were pretty active in engaging with the Najdis/Awnis and even came up with articles departing from the traditional deobandi position that the Kuffar of Makkah had Tawhid-ar-Rububiyyah. How many of sunni students of knowledge are actively engaged in answering this deobandi group or leveraging the Najdi-Awni split? I appreciate their sincerity in isolating themselves from anything that serves as a distraction to their studies. However, we cannot deny the importance of answering deobandi lies in form of such videos and articles mainly directed at the non-subcontinental audience. I find very few learned individuals like Abu Hasan who take out time from their busy schedules for this communal obligation.
I am not saying that this group stands a chance against Sh AR in the debate, if it happens, however, they are better prepared than other deobandi sub-groups simply because they have been doing their homework behind closed doors from quite some time now.
The gang is becoming bolder. After 100 years they have a mouth with which to speak. We need to stop them in their tracks.
Is this available online?
Is this a part of the book? Or a separate document? Is this available anywhere? This should be translated and shown to some of the non-Indo/Pak Sunni ulema who have a love for Taqi Usmani...
I agree with @ramiz.noorie in that our side need to highlight the contradictions and the inconsistent narrative that the deos are known to provide but only in relation to the main issues.
The hayati/mamati is an internal issue for the deos so best to let themselves squabble on that as our focus needs to be on the statements that their elders made and were taken to task for.
I would not even bother with how they treated Shaykh Alawi because that is an aside and the deos would love to turn the debate into a sideshow.
Our main issue with them is the statements their elders made so lets press them on those using agreed upon principles.
Their main issue with us is that our beliefs are innovative or according to some akin to shirk ,so again they have the right to press us on this issue but again using agreed upon principles.
There needs to be an objective standard to the key issues and no need to discuss isolated statements because that is the game the deos want to play. Playing them at their own game is smart but not objective and nor will it render the desired outcome.
I disagree with you, Deobandis have rejected the fatwa of Kufr by playing linguistic gymnastics.
* wrote but did not mean it
* wrote but have denied it
* wrote while playing golf but was not focused
and they came up with new scheme, that is, attack on ahle sunnah, now they are equating ILM AL GHAYB = KUFR
so there is a paradigm shift
however they cannot escape this one:http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/the-deobandiyya.10228/
(3) Syed Muhammad Ibn Alavi al Maliki(rah),from whom i had Ijaza ,did study Hadith from Deobandi Zakariyyak khandelavi,in his youth ,when he was unaware of their true beliefs.It is an old story.Still,the respected sayyed .did not take Sufi Path,from them,but it was from Qutb eMadina,Shaykh Diyayudheen Madani (qs),who was a khalifa of A'ala hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (qs).Ater ,he had written his Mafaheem,deobandis had become very hostile to him.See what was written,in their infamous forum:
Hafiz Safaraz Hassan Khan - ustad at Jamia Madania Bahawalpur, grandson of Imam Ahl al-Sunnah ‘Allamah Sarfaraz Khan Safdar (may Allah have mercy on him) writes,
"It is known to all that my grandfather (may Allah have mercy upon him) used to have strong attachment and association with the maslak of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah. He did not tolerate minor flexibility in this regard and was a perfect embodiment of “la yakhafuna laumata layim” (who do not fear the accusation of the accusers). An Arab from Makkah, Muhammad bin 'Alawi Maliki Sahib (who is by maslak a Barelwi), wrote two books namely Al-Zakhayir al-Muhammadiyyah and Hawl al-Ihtifal bi Zikra Mawlid al-Nabwi al-Sharif. Many of the contents of these books were objected by Shaykh Abd Allah bin Sulayman bin Mani’, member of Ulama Board of Saudi Arabia and Qadhi of Makkah Mukarramah, and he published a book in his refutation in 1403 named Hiwar ma’a al-Maliki fi rad Munkaratihi wa Dhalalatih. After the publication of the book, when the supporters of Alawi published Islah-i-Mafahim the Urdu version of Mafahim Yajibu an Tusahhah, it struck the Ahl Haq that the innovations (bid’ahs) and polytheism (shirk) is presented as pure religion. So, the elder scholars raised objections and warned the people in their articles, fatawas and letters against it that ‘Islah-i-Mafahim’ is a collection of beliefs and practices based on polytheism and bid’ah which was cunningly labeled with tawhid and sunnah. As per his custom and taste, my grandfather sided with haq and the Ahl Haq and distanced himself from Islah-i-Mafahim and other false ideas mentioned in the books of Alawi. Once I asked him about Alawi Maliki Sahib, he said: 'I have the same views which Hadhrat Qadi [‘Qaid Ahl al-Sunnah ‘Allamah Qadi Mazhar Hussain, khalifa mujaz of Shaykh al-Islam Mawlana Madani, may Allah have mercy on them] had.' Then, I read for him a treatise of Dr. Mufti Abd al-Wahid (Mufti of Jamia Madaniyyah, Lahore) namely Muhammad Alawi Maliki kay ‘Aqaid unki Tahrirat kay Ayine main [Beliefs of Muhammad Alawi Maliki in the light of his works]. Having listened some texts, he spoke out: 'He is more bid’ati than Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi'.
'Ulama of Deoband warned against some of his books in particular Mafahim. Many scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamah Deoband wrote refutation of numerous 'aqaid and masa'il in Mafahim. All that was published together in a book called Tahqiqi Nazar. This book was compiled by Mufti Muhammad Abu Bakr Alawi, a graduate of Dar al-Ulum Karachi, at the instructions of Mawlana Muhammad Ismail Badat Madani, khalifa of Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Zakariyya (may Allah have mercy on him). It was published by Madrassah Khuddam Ahl al-Sunnat, Lahore.
‘Ulama of Deoband wrote detailed refutation of ‘aqiad of Muhammad Alawi Maliki mentioned in Mafahim and his other books; declared him mubtadi and outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamah because of the beliefs he promoted in his books.
Those scholars who wrote detailed rebuttal include:
1. ‘Allamah Qadi Mazhar Hussain, Chakwal.
2. Shaykh Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianwi Shahid, Karachi.
3. Mufti Sayyid Abd al-Shakur Tirmidhi, Sargodha.
4. Mufti Abd al-Sattar, Khayr al-Madaris Multan.
5. Dr. Mufti Abd al-Wahid, Lahore.
After Mufti 'Abd al-Sattar, head of Majlis Tahqiqati Islami Pakistan (Islamic Research Academy), wrote refutation of Muhammad Alwi Maliki following scholars signed the document and fully agreed with Mufti 'Abd al-Sattar.
1. Mufti Jamil Ahmad Thanwi, Jamia Ashrafiyyah Lahore
2. Mufti Taqi Usmani, Karachi.
3. Mufti Rafi Usmani, Karachi.
4. Dr. ‘Allamah Khalid Mahmud, U.K.
5. Shaykh Sayyid Nafis Shah al-Hussaini, Lahore.
6. Mawlana Amin Safdar Okarwi, Khayr al-Madaris Multan.
7. 'Allamah Abd al-Qayyum Haqqani, Dar al-Ulum Haqqania Akora Khattak.
8. Mufti Sher Muhammad Alawi, Jamia Ashrafiyya Lahore.
9. Mawlana Ashiq Ilhaqi Bulandshahri, Madina.
10. Mufti Muhammad Farid, Akora Khattak.
11. Mawlana Muhammad Ismail Badat Madani, Madina.
12. Mufti Nazir Ahmad, Jamia Imdadiyya Faisalabad.
13. Mufti Abd al-Salam Chatgami, Banuri Town Karachi.
14. Mawlana Muhammad Akbar, Qasim al-Ulum Multan.
15. Mawlana Faidh Ahmad, Qasim al-Ulum Multan.
16. Mawlana Abd al-Ghani, Jamia Madania Lahore.
17. Mawlana Jamal Ahmad, Dar al-Ulum Faisalabad.
18. Mawlana Javed Hussain Shah.
@Unbeknown has put what I wanted to say in a concise and more eloquent manner.
Both sides have the right to uphold the sanctity of their scholars but must do so within the parameters of agreed upon principles. Otherwise the debate will be counter productive or even just take on a cultish edge.
Principles over personalities is the only way to have a meaningful debate.
The debate should have the following conditions:
1. both sides acknowledge that devbandi books contain statements which the sunni scholars have been denouncing as kufr for more than a century.
2.both sides acknowledge that devbandis have defended these statements for just as long and have been forwarding various explanations for them.
3. both sides should list the books/periodicals and the authors/speakers they stand by and endorse in their entirety as representing their respective sides in the correct light - and whose contents/arguments they are willing to defend anytime.
4. both sides should be allowed to name the books of the opposite side and seek either their approval or disavowal of some or all of their contents - reasons need not be elucidated.
5. finally, both sides should declare beforehand if the issues they will be discussing are new and have not been discussed in the past century or whether they have already been raised and answered/unanswered in the aforesaid works.
this will ensure a solid baseline for the debate and give the relevant historical context for it - for those who are unaware or willfully refuse to find out the backstory for this age old dispute.
each side will get a chance to tell their side of the story to both audiences and the claims made therein can be quoted and discussed during the debate that follows.
failing this, it will most likely turn out to be another attempt at devbandi-myth-making in the guise of 'civil debate'.
if you look at their latest comments, these wahhabi mamati deos are twisting, now they are claiming our own scholars supported the author of tahzeerun nas.
how about your own one Amin Okarvi supporting our scholars.
we need to organize material and get it ready before the debate.
mamati vs hayati deobandis
sarfaraz safdar khan vs other deos
also remember deos wrote against Sh M. Alawi Maliki and accused him of shirk. this could be good material.
brother waqar, you make good points. but i suppose you must write in shorter sentences for clarity.
CIFIA website has been using nefarious tactics, especially in the portrayal of Sunni scholars, over the last few years. It seems to be run by some unsavoury characters. However, reading the latest comments from the deos during the week, it is clear that they have no interest in debating real issues. They will rely solely on picking up subsidiary issues or isolated statements (and out of context too) to 'win' the debate. A case in point is the ridiculous notion that Shaykh Asrar cannot quote Deo texts, when the crux of their argument is that Alahazrat anathematised their elders because, they 'refuted' his purportedly anti-Islamic practices. But then, if it is revealed that approval of such practices or beliefs can be sourced in Deo texts...what will that do the deo argument?
This website has been using nefarious tactics especially in the portrayal of Sunni scholars over the last few years and it seems to be run by some unsavoury characters. However, reading the latest comments from the deos during the week, it is clear that they have no interest in debating the real issues and will rely solely on picking up subsidiary issues or isolated statements (out of context too) to 'win' the debate. The casing example is the ridiculous notion that Shaykh Asrar cannot quote Deo texts when surely the crux of their argument is that Alahazrat anathematised their elders because they 'refuted' his anti-Islamic practices but then if it is revealed that approval of these practices or beliefs can be sourced in Deo texts...what does that do the deo argument?
This condition in my opinion highlights two things: firstly, in reality the Deos have no confidence in the texts of their elders which is why they are refusing for those texts to be discussed and secondly it is just another attempt to divert the attention away from the real issues, especially with regards to the statements made by their elders. From my limited understanding but keen interest in the issue, I have noted this constant reinventing of the narrative in which they make spurious claims of why Alahazrat passed the fatwa such as the lie about him and Thanwi studying at the same madrassa or that he was a 'master forger' who for example when presenting 'Tahzeer un Naas' to the Arab ulema put three statements together to form one passage. If one unpicks this claim then it is clear the order of the statements or how they are presented is irrelevant and why would a 'master forger' put together three statements when two of the statements are pretty much identical and why is that Deos do not critically explain Alahazrat's concoction makes it kufr but not when the statements are read separately. The reason is they have no confidence in objectively attempting to exonerate or clarify so must resort to diverting attention and revising the narrative. The update in this formula is now is as what Shaykh Asrar calls the 'paradigm shift', which in this context is the Deo attempt to find isolated statements in the works of Sunni scholars and use them to 'turn the tables' in this centuries old conflict but in reality it is just another attempt to revise the narrative.
if the deos are truthful in their claims in defending their elders and in their 'concerns' with the works and beliefs of Sunnis then they should be willing to have an open and objective discussion about the statements that Alahazrat took their elders to task for and if they do have issues with the works of Sunni scholars or some of our beliefs then it is only fair and correct to judge their own works and scholars using the same standard. This is what our side needs to get across in the preliminary discussion and not attempt to engage in a tit for tat discussion over isolated statements, which is what the Deo side wants as it deflects the attention away from the real issues.
However, it is clear that they will look to employ dirty tricks and attempt to ambush our side, which should be sufficient for the objective observer to know that these people have no interest in upholding or even attempting to establish Haq no matter if they appendage haq to their name literally or to their youtube channel for symbolic purposes. Nothing more than a hype job or a charade , which is why our side should utilise the preliminary discussion to gauge whether it is even worth giving these charlatans the time or exposure because it is clear they are merely looking to emulate their elders in revising the narrative. Maybe that is what the debate should be about- critically analysing the statements of the apologists as that would really expose the contradictions and deceptive culture that pervades the deo scholarship in relation to polemics.
is zameel deobandi and his team taking material from here
i read the introduction and it looked ok, but once i read the full article same arguments are used against us.
i implore sh asrar & sh abu hasan to work on this before the debate.
They should debate on both the Deobandi elders and our scholars so Sheikh Asrar can expose them...they way usman iqbal is orchestrating the Debate is very deceitful but we can expect this from devbandis...we could do the same thing zameel and usman are doing in response to them but us real sunnis are more patient and mature .
The Deobandis have now removed all comments on their Youtube videos and have disabled the comments
Furthermore, they are demanding that Shaykh Asrar not use Deobandi texts
what did i tell you. quote zameel's post and go home.
The challenger uploaded another video:
A Deobandi quoted out of context the statement of Mawlana Naqi Ali Khan rahmatullahi alayh where he states:
Firstly, Mawlana Naqi Ali has not denied hadhir wa nadhir because hadhir wa nadhir refers to the Prophet salAllahu alayhi wa salam being hadhir wa nadhir although by Allah's ata, this can be given to the Awliya al-kamilin as well but the Awliya al-kamilin hear through kashf rather than through qati` sources. What Mawlana Naqi Ali is negating is the hearing/seeing being qati` not "the belief that saints are “hazir nazir” or are able to hear from a distance.". Hearing from afar itself is different than hearing from afar always without intiqta'.
Secondly, this ibarat does not support the Deobandis because Mawlana Naqi Ali rahmatullahi alayh states that if he considers their power to be created from the power of Allah then this is not shirk.
During the predebate dialogue the dobbies should present the books and passages they are going to use...otherwise they might try pull something on us.
this is subterfuge. makkari for which deoband is famous for.
sh. asrar rashid is not the sole representative of ahl al-sunnah. irrespective of whether he is able to answer the lies and deceit of deobandis, the outcome does not mean that deobandis did not blaspheme or that deobandis are not wahabis.
as for our elders, charges of blasphemy are concocted by the faithless deobandis. if not, then why are they hiding it? it is a religious duty to discuss it publicly and show it to everyone. refute it publicly. is this a matter of personal give and take? did we not indulge you (deobandis) and let you give your ta'wilat, (which were then refuted by our ulama)? perhaps you have misunderstood some passage - show it to us and we might be able to explain it to you. upright people don't behave like thugs, hiding in the shadows to ambush unsuspecting and unarmed people.
so go ahead and explain; not that you do not have a habit of doing such things. take your verbose mufti, zameel devbandi, who writes pages upon pages to prove trumped up charges. if your claim had any truth, you would be writing all over the place. we encourage you to present your charges and evidence, so we can examine objectively.
if you do not do it or CANNOT do it, that only means you are insincere, faithless and using it as a subterfuge to deflect legit criticism of your quasi-wahabi cult of ismayil.
i think the video was taken down because they realised some major error in the video. many of us had only seen small parts, a few minutes of the video here and there. so they must've realised that it could be a noose around their necks and hence decided to take it down.
Allah ta'ala knows best.