Is the problem only with Barelwis?

Discussion in 'Bickering' started by abu Hasan, Dec 25, 2021.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. AbdalQadir

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

    sure. i just picked on that comment by @birmingy not for defending Shaykh Asrar, but because of the teaser. no point hinting to some major kalam error by Asrar Rashid or anyone else, and not saying what that error is.

    as mentioned previously too, the other thing birmingy inadvertently displayed was this 'processing time' to expose people's errors in these kind of situations where people are rightly or wrongly exposed as sulah kulli or tafzili or wahabi etc.

    to be fair, even tahir's many wrong actions were exposed and fatwa-ed late by Sunnis.

    if the delay is organic and due to natural issues of ulama being busy, or the error becoming viral only after x number of months/yrs, or one scholar unable to reach another for clarification etc., then that's understandable, but as far as i'm concerned, if someone hides those real or perceived errors as bargaining/blackmailing chips to use later, then they are exactly as wrong as the person whose errors they've noted down in their journals only to bargain or blackmail them later by it or to expose them on a later date. the only other people who pull such stunts are politicians.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2021
    Waqar786 likes this.
  2. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    this is the crux of why combining the barelwi nisbat with the khariji label is so bad.

    The only people whom I have heard using the words "barailvi" and "khariji" in the same breath are the dayabina and the zanadiqah who literally hate us from the depths of their beings because the brailwis never miss an opportunity for exposing their heresies - and because of the hatred they harbor for Alahazrat (qaddasa Allahu sirruhu).

    Khariji is a loaded word with a history that goes back to the era of the noble companions who fought battles against them.

    Infact there is a deal of sunni literature linking some of the extant groups to the khawarij because of overwhelming similarity between them.

    So don't be surprised if unsuspecting awaam think you are a sulh-kull for calling sunnis 'khwarij'.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2021
  3. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    Yeh, so let it be very, very clear:

    We aren't against criticism of Barelwis.* Do it. We need these wake up calls. But don't be selective. Be objective. Apply the same standards. Be uniform. Don't cite expedience when it comes to sidis and sulh types but then unleash your wrath on Barelwis alone. When it comes to Arabs/sidis/sulh types, if you say, 'we don't need to name names, we should just refute the idea' - then how come you name Barelwis at the drop of a hat?

    All this negativity towards Barelwis alone sets the backdrop for sulhs and deviants. You're doing their work for them.

    Some who identify as Barelwis may commit wrongs. But they do less than the sulh types you entertain.

    Be fair.

    ---
    * this is actually another praiseworthy trait. Other groups cry when refuted.
     
  4. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    am with you.
    sh. asrar is a sunni scholar irrespective of what he chooses to call himself because of his adherence to the ahlu's sunnah and (to the best of my knowledge) no aberrations from the aqidah of sunnis (AKA 'barelwis'). and let us extend the same courtesy to his critics howsoever unjust or incorrect they might be - what aberration in kalam issues have they made to deserve being called kharijis?

    ----
    imam subki's mention is relevant too. he claimed the whole ummah to be ash'ari; and to explain that, he said - it is the mu'taqad of ash'ari - so the hanafis and hanbalis are also ash'ari regardless of what they call themselves.

    if you think about it, citing subki would be in our favour!

    sbki nuniya.png
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2021
    barelwi, Unbeknown and Aqdas like this.
  5. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    I'm not denying problems exist. I'm saying, play fair. Critique Barelwis but don't have double standards.

    Barelwis are an easy scapegoat or target. Let's see you slam:

    * Habayib for Jifri and his followers
    * Shadhilis for the sulh kullism of Shaykh Yaqubi and the kufr of Keller
    * Punjabis for all those closet shiah pirs and molwis
    * Haqqanis for the innovations of Shaykh Nazim

    At least the Barelwis you often smash are Sunni and not committing haram and bidah. Or is actual bidah and actual sulh kullism lesser in your eyes than wrongly calling someone out as sulh kulli?

    People are so expedient with those who associate with deviants and sulh kullis but don't have space in their hearts for Barelwis. Wah wah.

    This is called an inferiority complex.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2021
    Mubashar Luqman and Unbeknown like this.
  6. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    My stance:

    1. Yes, some who claim to be Barelwis are extreme in their criticism of other Sunnis, e.g. wrongly labelling them sulh kulli or making tafsiq of them on furuyi matters, e.g. salah using microphone.

    This is a problem and it exists.

    2. But, their claim to be being Barelwi is just that: a claim. If they can't show that Alahazrat or his students and khulafa held the positions they espouse, then they aren't true Barelwis. You can say they're pseudo-Barelwis. These are the types @TheRidawiWay alluded to.

    Why do people quickly generalise Barelwis but don't do the same for others? Because they're easy targets. Barelwis are fair game for all.

    3. But then, who is a Barelwi?

    3.1. a Sunni who isn't a devbandi.
    By this definition, we're all Barelwis.

    3.2. someone who follows Alahazrat in all matters of aqidah but not all his fiqh positions, e.g. black hair dye.

    3.3. someone who follows Alahazrat in all matters of aqidah AND all his fiqh positions too.

    3.4. someone who isn't devbandi but doesn't follow Alahazrat in all his aqidah positions, e.g. tafzilis. They're not Barelwis.

    3.5. someone who follows Alahazrat in all darūrī aqidahs but not all non-essential aqidahs, e.g. iman of Abu Talib.

    3.6. someone who follows Alahazrat in all darūrī aqidahs and may or may not in all non-essential aqidahs and does not follow the way of Alahazrat, e.g. not abstaining from deviants, e.g. Sunnis who associate with people like Tahir ul and Hamza.

    3.7. anyone who calls himself a Barelwi.

    There are more categories you can add.

    So, tell me, which of these is a Barelwi?

    It seems, on the ground, Barelwi is a very broad term and people misappropriate the term when they want to be negative about any Sunni or group.

    'Something is wrong with a Sunni or a group. Quick, let's say Barelwis do xyz wrong. But when it's positive, let's say Asharis/Sunnis do xyz so well. Let's not use Barelwis positively.'

    4. Like I said in 1, problems exist. My posts in another thread weren't to deny that. My point was to show that those who throw the Barelwi card so quickly are themselves often embroiled in worse.

    I wanted to make a point of setting the record straight: that these people are basically hypocrites.

    "Barelwis" are too easy a target and I wanted to show the other side of the coin, that, 'hold on, you're guilty of worse. At least "Barelwis" can cite a reason for abstaining from certain shaykhs whereas your only reason for tarnishing "Barelwis" is for calling out your shaykh!'

    E.g. Zayd identifies as a Barelwi. He stays away from Shaykh Bakr because he feels he calls to sulh kullism. But those who accuse Zayd of extremism stay away from him me, why? Not because Zayd has done a public haram like their shaykh but because he calls the shaykh out. So in fact, those who threw the extremism card at Zayd are actually the ones who are extreme.

    Yes, the accusation of Zayd will be measured against the works of Alahazrat. If they match, Zayd might be true to his claim of being a Barelwi.

    So those who lambast "Barelwis" are well aware there is no haram or bidah committed by them. At most, they do wrong by incorrectly deeming someone a sulh kulli or fasiq.

    There are clearly double standards by those who attack Barelwis.

    5. So you have to do what @abu Hasan said:

    Identify who is a true Barelwi. When you do, you'll see that they're close to the sunnah.

    The rest, don't attribute them to Alahazrat. He is free from their wrongdoing.
     
    Mubashar Luqman and Unbeknown like this.
  7. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i do not disapprove of criticism of barelwis or anyone for that matter. putting them down and using the 'barelwi' label, only in a negative manner, is annoying.

    i am not against criticism. you have misunderstood my stance.

    criticism of a position, a statement, method, approach, action, book, speech, interpretation, way of thinking, etc are all fine. but dealing with ad hominems amongst ourselves or harsh criticism of trivial things is not sensible nor wise. shahid sahib's "criticism" of sh. asrar is a case in point.

    for those who deserve. so a hanafi-mutazili is ACTUALLY a mutazili with mutazili beliefs. whereas those you accuse of being khariji-barelwis do not have khariji positions. and you have in fact acknowledged that you feel the label is used only because these individuals/groups have similar 'traits' and are not kharijis per se.

    not related: when ismayil dihlawi was confronted by his sympathisers for his taqwiyatu'l iman, he acknowledged that "in some places i have been harsh and categorised lesser shirk as major shirk"

    please don't mind, but this is amusing.

    imam subki was talking about ash'aris and said the ummah follows the 'mu`taqad of ash'ari' except those among hanafis who followed the mu'tazilah. here, imam subki was talking about actual mutazilis.

    as for imam dhahabi, there are some hanafis, who are indeed mutazilis and they deserve that label; and about some others, whom dhahabi classed as 'mutazilis', but who are not mutazilis in reality, this was a result of propaganda against sunni imams which imam dhahabi copied and circulated without questioning the source. imam dhahabi is well known for his animosity of the ash'aris.

    - if you are following imam subki, you are accusing these people of being kharijis. if you have evidence for that, you have the right to do so.
    - if you are following imam dhahabi, you are either accusing them, OR circulating false allegations against SUNNI ulama!​

    which brings us to the question: what have these people done to deserve to be called as khawarij?

    ====
    clarification: i agree with TRW's posts except in one or two places where i felt the logic is inconsistent. and of course, the label, which is again not a big thing. otherwise, he makes excellent points which are relevant and very much real in our day and age. let us not throw the baby with the bathwater.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2021
  8. AbdalQadir

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

    I was hoping this thread would be at a general level, not involving Asrar Rashid and Shahid Ali. But anyway, since you mentioned it now, may i ask what was the major error Asrar Rashid made in kalam? No need to play hide n seek like this. I'm just curious.

    Another point you raised inadvertently - a lot of times these real or perceived defenders of the maslak raise issues years later despite knowing about them at the time of the incident.

    Jalali's khata issue was in fact raised quite fast (albeit by closet rawafid) 6 months after his speech.

    Or maybe that's just the standard turnaround time for us subcontinentals.

    Genuinely curious again. Are you saying that imams Subki and Dhahabi didn't use the appellations TRW said they did? I don't know either way, so I'm curious.
     
  9. AbdalQadir

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

    Actually, that's a good example of getting one's priorities right and focusing on context.

    Wish we can all apply it in our routine lives too with each other, not just when being quizzed by the fbi.
     
  10. birmingy

    birmingy New Member

    Interesting exchange between a scholar and the FBI:



    Are terms like Sunni, Sunni-Hanafi, Hanafi-Maturidi jami and mani enough any more?

    Are these labels *tauqifi? Can new ones be developed over time or are they permanant from the salaf? Who decides? Urf?

    *Is that the right use of the word? (I see the irony)
     
  11. birmingy

    birmingy New Member

    Please could you give examples on all of these issues

    We need to warn people about these things. Who is this mufti? Has he been approached and told about his mistakes? What was his response?

    Also, while we're making others aware of these people and their dangers, asrar has also made a serious error in kalam. I haven't seen anyone say anything about it so far, even shahid hasn't said anything even though it occured years ago.

    I know for a fact this isn't the main criticism from those people. Actually I've been told they deem photography haram too!

    I think you've just lost all credibility with this argument.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2021
  12. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    as close as apples and oranges - nevermind the incorrect reasoning.

    I am beginning to feel that you are as wedded to your opinions as your critics and further discussions will only lead us in circles.

    Takes two to tango.

    Salaam.
     
  13. TheRidawiWay

    TheRidawiWay New Member

    I understand that people do not prefer my choice of words but there is no use in being overly emotional over it at the expense of the actual points I have raised. I have already stated that I am open to better suggestions if someone provided one.

    If 'Pseudo-Barelwis' floats your boat or 'incompetent extremists', then so be it. Whatever the term, the problem and the people exist.

    Secondly, the term ‘Khariji-Barelwi’ may not be the best but then again scholars from the Ahl al-Sunnah have used labels such as 'Hanafi-Mu'tazili', 'Shafi'i-Mu'tazili', 'Hanbali-Mujassim', 'Ja'fari' etc. and continue to do so. Examples include Imam al-Subki and Imam al-Dhahabi. This is even though Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam al-Shafi'i, Imam Ahmad and Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq etc. are completely free from these followers and their various wrongdoings.

    The terms Hanafi, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Ja'fari etc. refer to a nominal affiliation here rather than actual adherence to the teachings of the respective Imams in real-terms.

    Similarly, the term ‘Barelwi-Khariji’ is a way to denote a nominal affiliation to Imam Ahmad Raza Khan even though the Imam is free from those in question and their wrongdoings. Their words and actions are misrepresentations of his true way.

    Calling Sunni scholars "Sulh-Kullis" mindlessly, causing disunity (iftiraq), undermining Sunni organisations, being heedless of decorum (Adab al-Ikhtilaf) and negligent of proper work etc. all based on flimsy grounds are misrepresentations of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan.
     
    AbdalQadir and Hassan_0123 like this.
  14. barelwi

    barelwi New Member

    This thread is/was (d)evolving into one of those conversations that seem as though would be much more clear in person.

    From an outside perspective, it appears as if most of us are really on the same page but coming at it from different angles, and perhaps being lost in digital translation.

    The three main discussants I allude to being, Shaykh @abu Hasan , Mawlana @Aqdas and @TheRidawiWay .

    TheRidawiWay has used contentious language that has gone overboard, but some of the sentiment that the language takes aim at is valid. Particularly in some parts of the UK, though not limited to it, there are factions of Sunnis who take it upon themselves to name those who do not adhere to each and every one of Ala Hazrat's opinions as misguided. This is done in their circles, WhatsApp groups, and the like, and so most people if not living in surrounding areas (much like most of the people on the forum) are unaware of the realities.

    As @Unbeknown mentions, it is fair enough, and even possibly beneficial for people to restrict themselves to Ala Hazrat, as this makes it easy for them to determine who is to be trustworthy and on Sahih Aqidah, as well as to have some certainty within themselves. But when it's scholars who know the rulings of points of dispute, and differences of opinion, and still use it to look down upon those who take different stances on furuyi matters, it only leads to further confuse the masses. The condemnation of other scholars for furuyi issues is not beneficial to anyone. Unbeknown, similar to Mawlana Aqdas, goes on to mention how all groups have this notion of "othering", but the reason it is more personal to us here is that those who are being discriminated against are our Barelwi brethren and esteemed scholars themselves.

    There are plenty of Ulama in the UK doing lots of great work, from just local Imams to scholars such as Mawlana Kaleem, Mawlana Husein, Shaykh Asrar etc. Yet, no one is spared from the wrath of the more aptly termed pseudo-Barelwis, who are quick to condemn anyone.

    Concerning the brothers Mawlana Kaleem and Mawlana Husein, it cannot be denied that they are followers of Ala Hazrat, nor would they ever claim not to be Barelwis. I am certain they proudly wear it as a badge of honour, but there are circles within the UK and around the world that look down upon them from their noses after being condemned by these pseudo-Barelwis for issues such as photography, which is the frustration I relate to with TheRidawiWay. It is totally fine and fair enough to agree with the ruling of impermissibility of photography, but to condemn scholars and advise the public to stay away from those who take a different stance is shooting the collective Barelwi in the foot. This only serves to slow the advancement of our communities.

    A similar point to one Shaykh Abu Hasan once spoke about in another thread: to be a Barelwi necessitates being a Sunni, and so by following Ala Hazrat you can be sure to be on the right path. However, Barelwi is a subset of Sunni, and not the only one, meaning one must not necessarily agree with all of Ala Hazrat's opinions, in particular in matters of fiqh. This means being a Barelwi doesn't give us the right to say it is the correct path, it is a correct path on the larger collective correct path.

    Please correct me if mistaken, but Shaykh Abu Hasan and Mawlana Aqdas seem to disapprove of the criticism of Barelwis, but as I mentioned, I think all three of you are coming from the same place — that being wanting to uphold and protect the honour and integrity of the Maslak e Ala Hazrat — and subsequently, the wider community of Barelwis as well as it's scholars.

    TheRidawiWay's posts become confusing due to how many different points he is talking about but the gist of the matters he talks about seem as though he is frustrated at the groups of pseudo-Barelwis for inwardly thwarting the wider Barelwi community. He is correct that there is a plague of people who under the guise of being staunch Barelwis condemn all other Barewlis for not being as Barelwli as them, thereby creating an exclusive collective of people who view all others as misguided.

    Shaykh Abu Hasan rightly does not like the insulting words hurled and targeted at Barelwis and directs us to the point of not shaming people for identifying as Barelwis. He further talks about there being plenty of scholars who have done work on Ala Hazrat who have no problem being called Barelwi. He is correct in his judgement of upholding the integrity of being a Barelwi.

    Mawlana Aqdas is similar to Shaykh Abu Hasan, in that he does not like the banding of Barelwis as being bad people who have Khariji tendencies, and he mentions that other sects and groups are similar. Once again, he is correct in that Barelwis shouldn't be painted as bad people, and that many other groups have similar issues.

    The point is, it is evident that we are all here (most notably the three mentioned) for a common goal of defending Ala Hazrat, defending Barelwis, and working hard to protect the name of Barelwis from being tainted.

    In which case, why would we concern ourselves with the actions of other groups? Shaykh Abu Hasan does not wish for criticism of those who wish to be staunch Barelwis, Mawlana Aqdas wishes for fairness before painting Barelwis as having a Khariji mentality, and TheRidawiWay wishes for pseudo-Barelwis to not poison the well and adopt a holier than thou attitude towards other Barelwis.

    The loss of translation seems to be here, where all three of the brothers are attempting to defend the honour of Barewlis, TheRidawiWay's lack of judgement in finding a better term than Khariji-Barelwi gives a bad impression, when in fact, it makes much more sense when we look at it through the lens of targeting pseudo-Barelwis, after which it seems more clear that you are all really on the same page.

    Much like Unbeknown mentions, being an extreme Barelwi is fine until you begin to use it to discriminate against others and use it to look down upon them, these are the pseudo-Barelwis we are discussing, and they are more common than we may think. It is also the reason we aren't talking about other groups having the same problems, as the problem within our Barelwi group negatively affects other Barelwis, whereas the problem in other groups has no effect on us.

    A parent doesn't stop parenting their child because all children misbehave, that isn't the point. Whether other children misbehave or not is irrelevant to the parent, the parent scolds their child for his own betterment, regardless of others. Perhaps an analogy with scolding your child in public is more suitable here but the point still holds.

    I think all three of the brothers would describe themselves as staunch Barelwis and have no issue with being staunch Barelwis, or even extreme Barelwis, but there is a line I believe.

    I hope we can all find some points of agreement and have some fruitful discussion. I only wish for our communities to grow larger, be more successful, and unite on the correct path.

    Please forgive me if I made any wrongful assumptions, Allah knows best.
     
    Unbeknown likes this.
  15. Alf

    Alf Active Member

    Can we agree, though, that using the term barelwi or maslak e ala hazrat before neutral folks is not such a good idea? The TJ, and through them the deobandi maslak, became popular with people because they only talked about namaz and tabligh.
     
    Hassan_0123 likes this.
  16. AbdalQadir

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

    No man. It's just an exercise in letting off some steam between brothers and issues are getting conflated.

    We need to be clear first - are we specifically discussing Shahid vs Asrar here or Barelwi-on-Barelwi (intellectual) violence in general...(or subcont Sunni on subcont Sunni)

    I have some thoughts on the latter that i had saved for the Barelwi thread that i don't really know if they'll be beneficial or not
     
    Unbeknown and Aqdas like this.
  17. AbdalQadir

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

    Someone introduced a telegram group titled 'reality of deobandis' on this forum.

    This was doing the rounds on that group 2-3 days back

    Screenshot_20211228-141319~2.png
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2021
    Unbeknown likes this.
  18. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    I think we are forgetting that most, if not all of these, are pan-ummah problems - which has to do with declining standards in knowledge and practice of fiqh and taswwuf.

    One could make a similar case for "all Muslims are like that".

    It would seem that all negative traits have become concentrated in subcont sunnis (aka barailvis).

    But do we have statistics to prove this?

    When Irfan shah exited the ahlussunnah and tried to dilute it's principles, by sneaking in rifd and tafzeel under the guise of hubb ahlul bayt - the subcont scholars rose to the challenge like one body, and hastened to head him off and expose his subterfuge - at great personal cost.

    At the forefront where Alahazrat's works - and those of his legatees.

    And among those who took him head on were the very same muftis and scholars who are being called khariji by those who limited themselves to a few general statements against irfan shah.

    The same goes for the minhaji fitnah - who were the ones who flooded the internet with anti-padri material - if not these very same, loathed "barailvi-bigots"?

    Apparently, those whom sh. asrar respects (dr. g.f haddad and ayaz qadhi), have praised tahir ul-padri (and well-known devbandi taqi uthmaani) even after his heresies became apparent like the mid-day sun.

    Does @TheRidawiWay have some scathing labels for them? How about rafidi-ash'ari or mu'tazili-maturidi?

    Hanson should be called a perennialist-asha'ari and his teacher (Abdullah bin Bayah) should be called something-bad-maliki.

    And all ash'aris should be condemned for hiding the true teachings of Imam ash'ari for the sins of a handful of turn-coats.

    why not?

    ---

    The methodology of Alahazrat and indeed the entire Sunni tradition is to only refute the wrong and no more.

    Ulaama have even taken pains to point out what can and cannot be said about a tyrant like yazid.

    as mawlana abu Hasan said, fairness and justice are among the first principles of our shari'ah.

    We neither praise nor condemn wholesale.

    Allah knows best.
     
  19. birmingy

    birmingy New Member

    How is all the monologuing about the state of alleged Barelwi affairs etc or any of the recent posts relevant to Shahid Ali's spat and my post isn't? Not a rhetorical question.

    Edit: that post doesn't even belong in the thread it was moved to from here. Can the moderator who did so explain his reasoning??
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2021
  20. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    Easy targets, just calling someone Barelwi. Do these people slam Asharis for people like Habib Jifri and Hamza?

    The "Barelwis" they slam aren't even molwis. Whereas Jifri and Hamza are seen as the leading ones. Even more reason to NOT use Barelwi for jahils and to use Ashari for sellouts.

    This is similar to what our ulama have been saying to devbandis for ages: our contentions with you are upon your elders. Yours upon us are upon jahil villagers.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2021

Share This Page