Is the problem only with Barelwis?

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

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator


    1. barelwi is defined by alahazrat
    2. alahazrat is known by his books, his work

    ---> vide his wasiyyah and common sense.

    the simple evaluation method is:

    if anyone who claims barelwi this, barelwi that
    ask: ---> show us where alahazrat or his khulafa said so?

    same goes for those who accuse barelwis of this and that.
    ask: ---> show us where alahazrat or his khulafa said so?

    now sh.asrar said:
    if that is the case, then why do people invoke 'barelwis' when they have to deride a group of people who are 'chuff-chuff' peers and fake-pirs and ignoramuses doing sajdah of graves?

    why aren't they simply called as "sunnis" - will anyone say: "oh these ash'ari sufis are so full of bidah" "oh the ash'ari sufis go dancing in discos"?

    the moot point is: the apparent 'institutional problems', are they within the 'barelwis' OR the 'sunnis' OR the 'ash'ari-maturidis'?

    then why do you call them "barelwis"? only if you have to associate the juhala with? when did the chuff-chuff peer ever claim he is linked to the baraylawi chain or that he reads alahazrat's books or those of his students? isn't it rich that those who claim to adhere strictly to the maslak of alahazrat are slammed for being extremists while rejecting their claim of being 'barelwis' for not being academic enough to be called barelwis; yet, liberally call juhala as barelwis even if they have not touched alahazrat's books or fatawa with a 20-ft pole.

    as for those who claim to be 'barelwis' but are not true to alahazrat's manhaj, we say that alahazrat or barelwis have nothing to do with them. they are pseudo-barelwis.

    Last edited: Dec 27, 2021
  2. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    and so is it with the term "barailvi" - the authenticity of the nisbat shall be measured by the yardstick of its source and not vice-versa.
    Aqdas likes this.
  3. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    it won't happen.
    once again: it won't happen, in sha'Allah.
    alahazrat has left so much written material in so many topics, that it is difficult for anyone to misrepresent him or misappropriate his legacy. any claim can be verified by reading his books/fatawa. our responsibility is to preserve his works - those who come after will not be misled by the excesses of our generation.

    every great man will have fanatical followers and alahazrat is not an exception. but in alahazrat's case, his corpus will speak for him - interlocutors may claim otherwise, but so long as his works are easily available, those who claim to be 'closer' to him or 'belonging to his maslak' will be verified by alahazrat's own works.

    let us not get caught in the whirpool of overthinking.
  4. Juwayni

    Juwayni Veteran

    To recap: find another word to describe these individuals, but that being said their fitna is still an issue.

    One concern I have is how this sort of intra-Hanafi exclusivist mentality will affect how future generations connect with their past, particularly as it it may be seen through a highly selective lens.

    Alahazrat did not exist on a desert island but rather, was a star of scholarship situated in a brilliant constellation of individuals from his colleagues, teachers, and students. Once a group tries to make it about Alahazrat and only Alahazrat to the exclusion of other notables, such an approach may lead to detractors depicting Barelvis as a cult.

    One might say 'who cares, mera Imam mujaddid hain' but that's not the point here. It's an injustice to the Imam to depict him in a way that he was not and to further selectively transmit his legacy to push forth a certain point of view.

    In essence, the cost of yielding to these extremists is losing sight of Alahazrat and his œuvre.
  5. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    looks like we have finally reached the end.

    the forum is due for upgrade. the errors are due to mismatch in forum software and php version. for the time being i will try to downgrade the php ver.
  6. TheRidawiWay

    TheRidawiWay New Member

    I have been trying all day to post this as a single thread however I kept encountering server errors. There was a brief period where I was allowed to post but the errors started again. If the moderators could, please combine these into one post if possible.
  7. TheRidawiWay

    TheRidawiWay New Member

    Due server errors, what I intended to post:


    Attached Files:

    Osman Patel likes this.
  8. TheRidawiWay

    TheRidawiWay New Member

    Note: I am unable to post in single posts due to some sort of server errors that are preventing me from posting.
  9. TheRidawiWay

    TheRidawiWay New Member

    I agree, because I do not consider them Non-Sunni Kharijis. It is a mindset and a pattern of behaviour. Just as the usage of the term Sulh-Kulli is used both in belief and action, the Khariji term here is likewise used for those who exhibit actions and mannerisms similar to that of extremist Khawarij. I am open for a better word to describe the phenomenon.

    To reiterate my position, I have not declared anyone outside of the fold of ahl al-Sunnah nor was it my intention to do so.

    I agree, each to their own.
  10. TheRidawiWay

    TheRidawiWay New Member

    Sure, that’s fine. Though just because the term is off-putting does not make the problem that I have been highlighting vanish.

    I am not using the term as a judgement that would mean those who are labelled as such are Non-Sunni. I have never made that claim, so I do not need to defend it. This is unlike these people who intend marginalising their opponents as outside Maslak-e AlaHazrat or Ahl al-Sunnah with no due basis. I have used this label for lack of a better term to signify some traits that these individuals exhibit. You could call it characteristics.

    These individuals make unjust tabdi’ of Sunni scholars.
    These individuals make tafsiq and tabdi’ of common Muslims for furu’ actions that they deem are mujma’ ‘alayh usuli etc. and core aspects of the “Maslak” which they are yet to simply define.

    These individuals are prepared to character assassinate and slander fellow Sunni Muslims who do not agree with them.

    These individuals are also hyper-literalist nitpickers who strip statements completely from context to shoehorn a fellow Sunni into a heresy, as has been outlined.

    I have shown in my posts how Mawlana Shahid Ali and his allies continue to misrepresent Shaykh Asrar Rashid via their sensationalist headlines and comments.

    I am not here to co-sign everything done or said by Shaykh Asrar Rashid. I have said this before. However, Shaykh Asrar Rashid has not unjustly kicked a Sunni Muslim from Ahl al-Sunnah. He has only made comments about their incompetence and idiocy. These two criticisms are not of the same kind. I am happy to be corrected if he has done the former.

    I have never made this claim, nor is it one that I hold. Shaykh Asrar Rashid is not immune from criticism. Nor is criticising him a sufficient condition to be a Khariji. The criticism Shaykh Asrar Rashid has received as being a Sulh-Kulli is unjustified however, and is one manifestation of the toxicity of these types. My usage of the term was not aimed at any one individual but rather to anyone in general who exhibits these traits. I can furnish my case with more examples.
    Osman Patel likes this.
  11. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    on the contrary, many ulama who have done a lot of work on alahazrat, have no hesitation in being called barelwi. i agree with him that sh. asrar has been at the forefront of refuting deviants in the past 10-12 years (in the UK). now, the brother has also included me in lavish praise - which i do not deserve.

    but we must also not forget many others who are contributing to the cause in their own ways. we must not dismiss others, no matter how insignificant it may seem to us. i may criticise translators and translations, but i do not doubt their intentions. who am i to? and how would i know? perhaps they may get a higher reward for a purer intention irrespective of the results.

    nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2021
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i don't like this term. and i request brothers to not use this.

    while TRW makes good points, this label is off-putting. on one hand you have a lengthy protest post for sh.asrar being called sulh-kulli, but you do not hesitate a bit to call the 'other' side 'khawarij' even though sulh is lesser than khuruj.

    among our brothers are those who are moderate and some who are a bit extreme and some others more extreme. but none of them deserve the label khariji. especially coupled with the word barelwi. it is insulting.

    something like: "hey imbecile, don't call me stupid. it is not nice".

    if sh.asrar or others do not like to be call themselves as "barelwi", it is their choice. but don't put down those who do. for instance, i have no hesitation in calling myself barelwi, because like it or not, that has become the de-facto marker of sunnis in the subcontinent. sh. asrar can travel the length and breadth of the subcontinent - friends and foes identify 'barelwi' with those who celebrate milad, accept istighatha and istimdad and follow hanafi fiqh. it began as a pejorative, but has now become an identifier.

    if not, let the scholars who feel offended by the term, proudly declare they are 'non-barelwis'. go ahead and put on your status that you are "NOT A BARELWI" and see whether you have acceptance in sunni circles (from the sub-con of course).

    in that meeting (that probably set the ball rolling) where he spoke against x,y or z in shahid sahib's graduation ceremony, he also put down 'barelwis'. when books of hadith are translated, commentaries written, extensive work in fiqh and usul are compiled - those ridawi ulama (who often added rizwi to their names) are not barelwi; but the ignorant commoner who prostrates to graves, or the worldly-peer is a 'barelwi' just for his association or claim to be a barelwi.

    sh. gibril, in spite of the incompatibilities of his shaykh and grandshaykh, should be measured on his own merit and his contribution to sunniyat (which in itself is scholarly, no doubt).

    why the double standards?

    if sh. asrar is defended (rightfully) against the charge of sulh-kullism, so too should those who are not happy with him, but are generously labeled as 'khariji'. in other words, criticising sh.asrar - howsoever unjustified - is enough to be a khariji! sub'HanAllah.

    i always remind myself, my friends and anyone who cares to listen to me: be just. ask yourselves whether you are just. and hold yourselves to justice.


    what are the traits of kharijis?

    - kharijis made takfir of sahabah.

    - they made takfir of common muslims for actions that they deemed were shirk/kufr, which the modern wahabis (hence khariji progeny) did/do in similar manner

    - the kharijis were prepared to kill those who did not agree with them and deemed their blood as permissible to spill.

    - kharijis were literalists and explained texts in a literal manner, often sans-context.​

    which of sh.asrar's detractors do this? by the way, sh. asrar has also retorted in kind, in not-so-kind words for as small a matter as hand sanitisers.

    i agree with your overall argument that sh.asrar has contributed to the sunni cause more than others (in the UK and among those who are prominently visible) and hence he cannot be called sulh-kulli. and that he has not gone against any fundamental aspect of sunniyat to be called a sulh-kulli. this is the gist of the argument. but what have others done AGAINST SUNNIYAT to deserve being called 'kharijis'?

    this is less offensive. and does not imply that the 'other' folk are kharijis.

    TRW, went further and said:
    perhaps, he has said this in his pent up frustration. i can understand the outburst. however, this needs to be clarified:

    if the dash is meant as a comma, then he is dumping 'barelwis' with the deviant groups. and if he meant those barelwis "who act like" ahbash-khariji-wahabi, even then he is being unfair.

    the ahbash disrespect sahabah and their shaykh has major deviance in aqidah; he contradicts major sunni ulama and muhaddithin. apart from his dishonesty and tampering of books of our elders (also a trait of wahabis).

    no barelwi does that. they may consider you out of ahl al-sunnah for a furuyi matter, which is WRONG. i agree. but you are chucking them out for even lesser such as unfair criticism and poor judgement.

    kufr se kufr baghalgeer nazar aata hai
    kyun nahin hote musalman bhi musalman ke qareeb

    wAllahu a'alam.
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2021

Share This Page