Is the problem only with Barelwis?

Discussion in 'Bickering' started by shahnawazgm, Feb 4, 2022.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. shahnawazgm

    shahnawazgm Veteran

    This is accurate as they claim nisbat to Bareilly shareef. The ones Shaykh Asrar has been referencing have nothing to do with Bareilly shareef.

    For example, we have videos of stupid mureeds dancing in front of their pir, TUQ. Deobandis call TUQ a Bareilvi when the fact is that he has nothing to do with Ala Hazrat. TUQ calls himself a Qadri, not a Bareilvi or Razavi.

    Just like Deobandis do he used blanket Bareilvi to address all Sunnis (including the fakes) of the subcontinent when these people he was referencing weren't Bareilvi nor Razavi. As a matter of fact Shaykh Asrar does not like to put Bareilvi or Razavi against his own name even though he is a subcontinent Sunni, so why does he want to use a blanket Bareilvi for all the non deobandi population? Sticking to this logic even though incorrect it would still have been more accurate to use the term Asraris when addressing these people as both don't associate with being Bareilvi or Razavi.

    And then when mufti Qasim Sahib met with him and they uploaded the video of the same we can see Mufti Sahib stating something in the lines of (referring to Shaykh Asrar) "Yeh Sunni Razavi hai". So are we saying he has now become a Razavi?

    For those in the UK that aren't aware in India a huge amount of Hindus also visit the shrines of Awliya. Can we also brandish them as being Bareilvis if they do not know the etiquette of what to do and not to do at the mazaar?

    Please note I have not taken any personal issue with Shaykh Asrar whom I respect as a Sunni alim who is doing a lot of good for the Sunni cause Alhamdulillah. Just a criticism of the unfair association of deviencies and innovations with the name of Ala Hazrat, which is unfair as Ala Hazrat was the breaker of innovations. And just to point out there are much worse deviencies and innovations than doing tawaf of graves, such as the heresies of the Wahhabiyyah and Deobandis!
  2. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    This category can further be divided into two groups:

    1. those who, despite not attributing themselves to Alahazrat, still respect him as a towering sunni scholar - and are themselves sunni in aqida and practice (such as the Sunnis of Southern India).
    2. Those who have hatred for Alahazrat or deem Alahazrat as "not worth following".
    It is very rare for this second type to be Sunnis. They are usually closet shia or open tafdilis/sulh kullis.

    This is so because, a subcont sunni who knows what Alahazrat stood for, cannot but respect him.

    If he doesn't - there is some hitch in his belief/amal.

    The only exception would be fanatic mureeds of some salasil who mistakenly believe that Alahazrat or his khulafa had disagreements with their pirs and therefore should not be respected.

    These are again, a tiny minority among a minority - and if they aren't bid'atis already, they are very close to falling into bid'ah (because of keeping aloof from the true "barailwis").

    wa Allahu a'alam
  3. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    @Sharani @shahnawazgm

    I guess we have both types which is why we should abandon blanket labels.

    There are people who have no relation to Alahazrat - they are only following their local pirs/babas/cults - they cannot be called either barailwis or pseudo-barailwis - because they themselves don't claim at all or reject the label of brailwis.

    For example, during the infamous sufi conference, a person named sayyid tahir hashmi said: "for us the gumbad of khawaja sahib is enough. We do not need any other gumbad" - he meant that he doesn't want to be called barailwi or rizvi.

    Now if people like him or his followers do anything anti-shari'ah - they cannot be called pseudo barailwis - it wouldn't make sense.

    However, such people are few in number.

    The other category is people like, say, obaidullah azmi, who claim to be barailvis but are then found involved in innovations of one kind or another. These are pseudo-barailwis - because while claiming a nisbat to Alahazrat, they publicly flout his teachings and bring the maslak a bad name and are not it's true reps.

    These people are few in number too.

    The majority of sub-cont sunnis, know, love and admire Alahazrat. But does that mean any wrong action they do should be added to the account of "barailwis"?

    Ofc not. Among them too will be found people involved in innovation, because of their ignorance. And despite their love and respect for Alahazrat - and following one of the four madhabs etc. - they nevertheless commit actions contrary to the teachings of their Imam.

    We will not label such people as pseudo barailvis as these are merely ignorant common sunni Muslims. We should try to educate them and bring them up to scratch on the essential aqaid and practice of ahl al sunnah.

    So the upshot is:

    Q1: Does the group of people claim a nisbat to Alahazrat?

    If no: They are neither barailvi nor pseudo barailwis - they might be sunnis depending on their beliefs and practices.

    If Yes:

    Q: Do they flout the teachings of Alahazrat in key issues of aqida and practice?
    If no: They are good practising sunnis (aka baraiwis)

    If Yes:

    Q. Are they leaders, pirs, callers to innovation?
    If no: They are just ignorant sunnis of subcont - like the ignorant sunnis of Egypt or the Levant or Africa. No difference. We will not oust them from sunniyat.

    If yes: They are pseudo barailvis. They must be refuted and exposed and their phony calims of nisbat to Alahazrat should be rejected.

    Now, devandits use the label of brailvi for all of the above categories - indeed and especially for any practicing sunni - such as sayyid muhammad bin alawi maliki or sh. abu-bakr musliyar shafi'i etc.

    Thus the devbanditii are the true nincompoomps of the subcont.
    Sharani and shahnawazgm like this.
  4. shahnawazgm

    shahnawazgm Veteran

    You have once again confirmed that it is incorrect to use Pseudo Bareilvi. I will only assume that you are born and brought up in the UK so are not familiar with the reality in the subcontinent.

    You have put a condition "if the sunni followers of Shaykh Asrar or the latter generations ...." then you will have no problem. So are you saying that the term Pseudo Bareilvi is okay as they are the sunni followers of Ala Hazrat or the latter generations of his followers and fell into innovations? What proof do you have that these people are Ala Hazrat's followers or these innovations started later from amongst his followers? If these innovations started later then why did Ala Hazrat refute them?

    All these jahils claim to follow Islam, so will you or Shaykh Asrar call them Pseudo Muslims? In spite of their ignorance at the end of the day they are still Muslims, prostrating to a person or a grave is haram, but does not take one out of the folds of Islam!

    Trust me, these people before calling themselves Bareilvi or Razavi would first say "We are Muslims'!

    Walekumas Salaam, enough is said let's end it here.
    Unbeknown likes this.
  5. Sharani

    Sharani New Member

    If this is the case, then indeed shaykh asrar made a mistake in labelling these people as such. I was under the impression that shaykh asrar called them pseudobarelwis from the start. I a still have slight disagreement over the term pseudobarelwi itself but ultimately the terms used isn't of huge significance. May Allah Almighty guide us all.
  6. shahnawazgm

    shahnawazgm Veteran

    This is precisely your fallacy. These people whom shaykh Asrar claimed pseudo Bareilvis are NOT from his followers. As a matter of fact these aren't even amongst the latter generations of his followers. Such types even existed at the time of Ala Hazrat, even before his time, and this is exactly why Ala Hazrat himself refuted them.

    I have pointed out earlier as well, these people don't even add Bareilvi to their titles. However they do add various sufi orders. The deobandis spread lies that these are Bareilvis (owing to their hatred of him, even today Ala Hazrat's spear has pierced hard through their hearts), then Shaykh Asrar calls them Bareilvis. Pseudo Bareilvi was a clarification by Shaykh Asrar later after all the turmoil was done.

    Even in a gathering in front with Mufti Aslam he called them barelvis and that the barelvis need to do more to stop these practices! There are other examples as well.

    We ought to stop being a cult when our shaykh gets questioned on his mistake. We still respect shaykh Asrar as he is an alim but let's not make him above and beyond justifiable criticism!
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2022
    Unbeknown, Abdullah Ahmed and Sharani like this.
  7. Sharani

    Sharani New Member

    Shaykh asrar was referring to those who call themselves barelwis whilst simultaneously carrying out these actions, which of course contradict the teachings of Imam Ahmed Raza Khan. The key point here is either they themselves or the deobandis from their regions refer to them as barelwis, as you yourself said. The prefix pseudo would simply negate their claims. Your same argument could be applied to the modern day salafiyyah. The salafis term themselves as such due to their delusion that they are upon the path of the salaf. If we now call them pseudosalafis, would that mean that we are conceding that they are indeed upon the path of the salaf, purely because the term "salaf" is within the label? Of course not.
    If the sunni followers of shaykh asrar began to call themselves asraris and a faction of those people, after generations had passed, fell into ignorance and adopted haram innovations, whilst still claiming to follow shaykh asrar and it became common that wahabis disingenuously began to refer to these people as asraris, then i see no problem in calling them pseudoasraris
    Unbeknown likes this.
  8. shahnawazgm

    shahnawazgm Veteran

    I grew up in India and am very much versed with the ground situation over there, unlike many of the clueless westerners over here who think it is okay to sing the deobandi song of associating all fake sufis and juhala with Bareilvi (which refers to Ala Hazrat).

    Take Shaykh Asrar's refutation of the fake sufis for example. So if today people start labelling all these jahils as Pseudo Asraris would that be fair? After all Shaykh Asrar is a sunni and these jahils are sunni too, therefore we can equate the two together as Sunnism is the common denominator amongst the two! Shaykh Asrar has refuted these practices and way before him Ala Hazrat has done the same and therefore using these terms is not fair.

    Just like these jahils exist today and even before Shaykh Asrar's time, these same people existed before the time of Ala Hazrat. Were these people his disciples or even studied under him?

    Are the Bareilvis responsible for the famous Current Shah baba? The deobandis start spreading lies that these fake people are Bareilvi and unfortunately Shaykh Asrar has played to their tune, that is his mistake.

    Having said that he is a sunni alim e deen, he has made a mistake, and we pray that InshaAllah he no longer plays to the deobandi tune.
    Unbeknown and Abdullah Ahmed like this.
  9. Sharani

    Sharani New Member

    Shaykh asrar said something to the effect of what you have mentioned in his video with mufti qasim zia. Also, I dont understand your issue with the term "pseudobarelwi". Doesn't the prefix "pseudo" resolve the very issue which you are complaining about? Doesn't it demonstrate that these people (performing these innovations) arent true barelwis? Is shaykh asrar supposed to say "such people are not Bareilvi, this is a practice of a few ignorants who are not associated in any way to Ala Hazrat, the deobandis are carrying out their usual practice of lying to associate such bad practices with Ala Hazrat who himself refuted such practices" everytime he mentions this group?
    I understand your frustration at shaykh asrars initial usage of the term barelwi. I also feel as though shaykh asrar's position on not labelling himself a barelwi caused some confusion on where he stood, although there is no issue with him taking this position. People felt as though he was distancing himself from the barelwi sect and elders. However, after the shaykh has retracted the initial video and made a follow up video clarifying his intentions, is it still fair to be this harsh on him for a (minor) mistake
  10. shahnawazgm

    shahnawazgm Veteran

    Where did he accept his mistake? He simply played with words with a clarification on what he actually meant. If he has explicitly stated that he made a mistake by associating such people with Bareilvi then I stand corrected. This is not the only occasion where he has done the same. And no one here is objecting to him being a sunni, so bringing in husam etc is irrelevant.

    And just to point out in spite of all the blunders made by Shahid Sahib (which he continues to do so unfortunately) he too is still a sunni.

    P. S. By the same logic we can name these jahils as Pseudo Asraris. This is still much better than associating them to a mujaddid! And by his followers standards this should be acceptable as in any case these jahils are Pseudo Asraris as they don't adhere to Shaykh Asrars ideology.
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2022
  11. Sharani

    Sharani New Member

    Some people, although a very small minority, do believe this.
  12. shahnawazgm

    shahnawazgm Veteran

    So is he still bringing barelvi in the mix? Why does he still think its necessary to add some or pseudo against Bareilvi? Ala Hazrat refuted this practice even in his time and these people were not called Bareilvis then. Why does he still insist on using some form of association to Bareilvi?

    Instead of using an association of such jahils to Bareilvi in his speaches wouldn't it have been much better if he stayed something to the effect of "such people are not Bareilvi, this is a practice of a few ignorants who are not associated in any way to Ala Hazrat, the deobandis are carrying out their usual practice of lying to associate such bad practices with Ala Hazrat who himself refuted such practices"?
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2022
    Abdullah Ahmed and abu Hasan like this.
  13. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    He did. He said he meant some Barelwis. Pseudo Barelwis.
  14. shahnawazgm

    shahnawazgm Veteran

    If Shaykh Asrar Sahib would have actually spent a few moments thinking before speaking about these "Bareilvis" he would have realized that these issues that he rightfully highlighted used to happen even before and in Ala Hazrats time (example prostration at maqams and tawaf of graves by a few jahils). Ala Hazrat himself refuted these practices. These practices do not happen at Ala Hazrats grave. So what justification did he have by associating these bidati jahils with the breaker of innovations of his era, Ala Hazrat? The Bareilvi term itself is associated with Ala Hazrat and Shaykh Asrar should have held his hand up and admitted his mistake. One doesn't become smaller by admitting ones mistake.

    I agree totally with your paragraph about his verbal gymnastics!
  15. birmingy

    birmingy New Member

    So it's been about a month since I asked for some evidence now and no-one has provided any proof whatsoever to support their claims. Can we agree that it's all just how asrari-non-barelvis feel about barelvis without an any relation to reality? @TheRidawiWay @Juwayni @barelwi
  16. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    who asked who for proofs of what claims?

    in post # 25 i asked you re the major kalam error that Asrar Rashid committed, only out of curiosity because you hinted to it, but you didn't respond till now.
  17. birmingy

    birmingy New Member

    Not sure where everyone is gone. Funny coincidence that normally active members are absent after someone asked them for some proof for their claims Anyone else care to provide the same? @AbdalQadir perhaps? I will respond to queries directed to me after that.
  18. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    Furthermore, the restrictions placed on Jalali Sahib are not just limited to travel. They have now had to focus on an issue that should really be kept in scholarly circles and can't devote their energies on moving Sunnis forward on a wider level despite having the requisite qualities. Jalali Sahib should be one of the leading lights but unfortunately have been bogged down by intra-Sunni Barelwi issues in the last few years.
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2021
  19. Waqar786

    Waqar786 Veteran

    I have an issue with how 'refutations' are done in our circles (Sunni Barelwi) generally. Rarely it seems like it is done with wisdom or with a genuine attempt to resolve the issue. Sunnis should be able to sit down in a conducive environment to discuss/debate issues, especially at the inception of these issues. Quite often these things start off as a misunderstanding, but as divisions get deeper, the issue gets greater as both sides dig their heels in. Particularly, on the side of the one who may hold a problematic position.

    The classic example is the Sunni/deo issue. The origin of the conflict can be traced back to maybe even before Shah Ismail. However, where the deos went completely off track was when they became obstinate in their defence of problematic positions held by the likes of Shah Ismail. Shah Ismail himself mentions the harsh nature of his book and his followers who decided to defend and call it 'part of faith' that ended up writing a lot worse. The sad thing is that the elders of Deoband awoke a fitna that the ulema who countered Shah Ismail had done a good job of stopping. What has been the result? A dispute that hamstrung Sunni progress for over a century.

    This is why when an issue arises, it needs to be nipped in the bud in a decisive and mature manner. It requires sincerity and the parties involved to consider the bigger picture.

    What it really comes down to is the absence of leadership within our ranks. We saw that with the Jalali Sahib issue too because that was an issue that could've been resolved in one sitting had there been sincerity and wisdom deployed. Look at where we are one year later... Restrictions placed on Jalali Sahib and the Tafdhlis getting bolder. Both sides becoming more entrenched when a year before, they could easily have sat down.
  20. AbdalQadir

    AbdalQadir time to move along! will check pm's.

    that is wrong and unfair, especially when the wrong and right is done by the same group/person. Aqdas does something cool - masha Allah he's such an exemplary Hanafi; Aqdas does something bad - he's just a stupid Barelwi. that's unfair.

    to use or not use a label should be a matter of principle or maslaha/mafsada.

    i don't like and don't prefer to use the 'Barelwi' label outside of the subcontinent (and even in the subcontinent, at least india, in the current situation when the godi media tries to portray Barelwis and Sufis as sort of supporters of hindu-Muslim love and bollywood murtads like shahrukh or salman khan are projected as close to this maslak or on it, and poster boys for "moderate Muslims" and "Sufis"), but also don't support using it as a punching bag.
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2021
    Unbeknown likes this.

Share This Page