Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh ؒ and his silence on deoband?

Not available

 

Mehr e Muneer page 142

 

one should not offer an opinion or solution in a matter one does not understand.

the practice of our salaf was to say: 'i do not know.' one should keep quiet or admit one's inability in taking a position instead of posing as if they have all the answers and exuding confidence in spite of not having clarity.

---
may Allah ta'ala give guidance.

 

Pir Mehr Ali Shah refutes Ismail Dehlawi's belief in Fatawa Mehriyyah

 

What would Hasan Spiker know? He's also now acknowledged he can't understand enough urdu to really speak on the topic.

https://x.com/RealHasanSpiker/status/1798231721441116330?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

 

So according to this Urdu excerpt, Peer Mehr Ali Shah (since he hadn’t personally seen/read the ibarat himself and since he trusted Mawlana Khadim Muhammad) asked Mawlana Khadim Muhammad regarding the ibarat of the deobandis and if they were truly gustakhi. Mawlana affirmed that this truly was the case and confirmed the kufr. Peer Mehr Ali Shah then responded that if such is the case then the fatwa of kufr is correct.

 

Shaykh Hasan Spiker said Pir Mehr Ali Shah refused to do takfir of deo akabireen
https://x.com/RealHasanSpiker/status/1798085004289048682

These excerpts from this book is interesting

 

From the link you pasted

I'm not well read on the works of Pir Mihir Ali Shah sahib rahimahullah other than knowing he was a great Sunni savant

But didn't Mihir Ali Shah sahib blast Ismail Dehlvi and ripped apart his taqwiyatul iman in I3lae Kalimtullah and the preface or Sayfe Chishtiyai? (Per video posted in post #3)

 

I came across this article today:
https://friendsofdeoband.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/pir-mahr-ali-shah-and-the-ulama-of-deoband/

 

!سُبْحَانَ اللہ! مَا اجْمَلَکَ, مَا اَحْسَنَکَ مَا اَکمَلَکَ

is an eloquent refutation of the devbandi doctrine of unexceptionality in regards to our Master (صل الله عليه وسلم).

echoing down the generations, it still refreshes the imaan of the true believers.

and to the munkir it says: mutu bi ghayzi kum

 

@Ali_Bash

wa'alaykum al salam

at the moment I do not have time to look up the malfuzat of hazrat mihr sahib, maybe the brother who posted the reference will oblige you.

my claim so far has not been that shah saab remaining silent is a rumor or a fabrication.

my point is that even if it is established beyond the shadow of a doubt that he remained silent about the devbandis, there is no positive evidence to interpret it as a tacit belief in their staying Muslims even after authoring the blasphemous passages.

Ata Bandyalvi saab might indeed have correctly reported that shah saab did not participate in any public anathematization of the dayabina.

But that silence does not benefit the claim of our opponents - which is the crux of the matter - that he considered them Muslims.

Why not?

because there is counter balancing evidence in his works that tells us he would never have countenanced anything that impinged on the honor of our Master (صلى الله عليه وسلم), or indeed of Allah (جل جلاله), let alone explicit bad mouthing that the dayabina are guilty of.

absence of explicit condemnation (if indeed such absence is proven) is not evidence for exoneration.

and this remains to be conclusively proven. Because if the malfuz is authentic, then it will prove that he fully endorsed the fatawa in Hussam-ul-Harmayn.

so the balance of probability remains in our favor.

Allah knows best.

 

Asalām ʿalā’īkum my brother

Hope you are well,

Could you provide the page number for the Malfuzat Mehria as this would then clear all doubts and we would indeed know that Pir Mehr ʿAlī Shāh did Tasdeeq of Husām which would point out that he never stayed silent. The thread got sidetracked by me for bringing Naṣīruddīn Naṣīr's video for which I apologise. The whole focus should have been on ʿAllāmah Aṭā' Muḥammads passage. As for the page number if it could be provided would destroy all claims of Pīr Ṣaḥib supposed silence which would then bring this thread to an end.

Jazakallah Khair

 

I am sorry brother, your response does not touch my argument against yours at all - anything naseer sab might have said cannot be accepted at face value - and I mean *anything* - unless he brings solid verifiable evidence to the table. His lineage adds no weight to his words, because the subject under discussion has got nothing to do with family.

you misunderstood me - what I meant to say is if the quote from the book is indeed by bandyalvi saab (i.e. it's not an interpolation or a misattribution) - then we must try to interpret it in the light of other evidence (see below).

Which brings me to my final point:

there is no corroboration.

Naseer sab is painting a picture in which hazrat mihr is bon homie with devbandis (and the undercurrent is that, this was despite him knowing about the blasphemous passages - an unsubstantiated claim).

Ata saab's claim is much more conservative - that he adopted silence.

Thirdly, if you pay attention to the conext of ata sab's passage, he is trying to prove that hazrat mihr ali was not hasty in takfir and did not encourage people to do takfir. And yet, he does not say that: our master considered the deobandis Muslims because he did not believe the controversial passages to be blasphemous. No. Even though, such an unambiguous assertion would have bolstered his argument far beyond merely saying that he chose silence over the matter.

This measured statement further shows that the case is not so crystal clear as our opponents would have us believe.

Add to it, his direct disciple's statement thah shah saab seconded the fataawa in Hussam al Haramayn.

the recorder of the malfuz clearly says: Hussam-ul-Haramayn ki ta'eed karte hue faramaya.

So zameel can't make that inane interpretation, or at least he wouldn't, if he were not so utterly be-ghayrat.

Then again, what was mihr ali saab teaching alongside Hussam al Haramayn? Futuhaat al Makkiyah? Isn't that full of kufr according to these fanatic literalists, and their elder brothers, the wahabis?

Mihr ali saab's high regard for the futuhaat is well known.

Deobandis had better find a more suitable advocate.
---

The evidence so far leans in the favor of sunnis whereas the dayabina are merely clutching at straws as usual. An incurable malady of theirs.

 

Let us leave it at this then

 

the only thing that proves is that he MAY or MAY NOT have seen their blasphemous passages. which means we're back to square one.

anything anyone claims is only based on circumstantial evidence;

having connections with devbandis doesn't necessitate that they show Mehr Ali Shah sahab their dirty laundry!

from their point of view, even Shah sahab's saying that he will teach Hussam ul Haramayn next day (the passage quoted by brother Nawaz) doesn't necessitate that he attests to the Barelwi side. zameel can come back and say, 'who knows, maybe Shah sahab found 300 mistakes in it and wanted to highlight them to his students!'

HOWEVER, our circumstantial evidence is much stronger given that he has torn apart taqwiatul iman of ismail dehlvi whom the devbandis love so much!

otherwise, let anyone say on oath that it is intrinsically impossible for Mehr Ali Shah sahab to have cozy relations with devbandis without knowing their kufriya sayings...

or let them say on oath that Mehr Ali Shah sahab certainly saw those blasphemous passages that caused Ala Hazrat to do takfir.

the argument applies equally to anyone be it Mehr Ali Shah sahab's descendants, or outsiders, scholars, or commoners

 

Akhi you totally missing the point. Is there any proof that somebody presented Ḥusām al-Haramayn to Pir Sahib and then Pir sahib did not takfir them.

There are two side to this, one where Atā Muhammad bandyalvi and Naṣīruddīn Naṣīr claim Pir sahib did not takfir them and another side which says He did takfir them when fatwa is presented to him and also his eldest son spoke in favour of later.

Here one side doesnt mention about fatwa being presented to Pir saheb while other side say when its presented he did takfir them. This does makes sense considering how Pir sahib criticized the Ismail dehlvi's book. There is no conclusive proof about whether Pir saheb really takfir them or he remained silent. All we have is secondary sources.

We say to deobandis to bring a conclusive proof which shows Pir sahib did not takfir them even after learning about the fatwa or else shut your mouth. You wanna only accept those statements which favour your argument. This is just one being intellectually dishonest.

I personally think we shouldn't waste our energy and time on these kind of trivial issues, Thats why brother Aqdas reply and Muzzafar Shah saheb's video is more than enough to clarifying the issue. As Al-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, said, “Among the degradation of knowledge is that you debate everyone who debates you, or you argue with everyone who argues with you.”

 

Asalam Alaikum Brother,

First, the reason for presenting the video of Naṣīruddīn Naṣīr was because in the video of Pir Syed Muzaffar Shāh he said Pir Ṣaḥib was cutting the jarḥ (the foundations) how could he like the fruits that bear from it (i.e deobandis) whereas in the video of Naṣīruddīn Naṣīr he said about Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh having Taʿaluq with the deobandis and even being taught by them. That was were the question of "whos word is weightier popped up from" one who is from Pir Ṣaḥibs direct lineage or Syed Muzaffar Shāh this is where the thread had become sidetracked unfortunately
Second why would ʿAllāmah Aṭā' Muḥammad write this in his book if he didnt believe it to be authentic. The reason I bring up this issue of silence is because we see it get used against us. Especially by the likes of Tahir ul and the deobandi's. The point was how do we answer this and why did Aṭā' muhamamd bandyalvi write this.

We both believe the fatwa of takfir ʿala Hadhrat and ʿulamā' of the harimain gave upon the deobandi elders was absolutely rightful for ʿala Hadhrat gave them many chances to do ruju and they were too prideful to do so.

 

hardly the case, as @Mohammed Nawaz pointed out.

according to some ulama, there is sukut (silence) on the imaan of yazeed - meaning that neither did they do takfir of yazeed, nor did they positively attest to his Islam.

 

please don't shift the goal post, read again the lines I have quoted. I was responding to your emphasis on his lineage, which supposedly makes his word weightier than that of Muzaffar Shah - in this matter.

Besides, you are comparing apples to oranges - Muzaffar saab did not say that pir mihr definitely made takfir of the deobandi four. Nor did he make any allusions to something that only a family member would be privy to - he simply quoted pir mihr's own work against tafwiyat-ul-imaan - which is a published work, not some private manuscript or a confidential correspondence which would require corroboration from someone in the inner circle. So where does the question of "who's word is weightier" pop up from?

As for nasir saab mentioning his sanad - who's to authenticate it, given that he himself is unreliable?

---

Assuming that the quote from bandyalivi saab is authentic, what is your point anyway?