Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh ؒ and his silence on deoband?

Its from the Malfūzāt. Thats what friend who shared this told me. I did not cross verify it.

 

Nāṣiruddīn Nāṣir cleary quoted his "chain" that Mufti AbdusShakur Hazarwi said that his teacher Maulana Muhib al-Nabi said Pir Mehr ʿAlī Shāh did not do takfir of any deobandi. Nāṣiruddīn Nāṣir is controversial and i get that but he was corroborated by ʿAllāmah Aṭā' Muḥammad Bandyalvi who is murīd of Pir Mehr ʿAlī Shāh according to introduction of the book Saif ul Aṭā' who said "ʿAla Hahrat ؒ and the ʿulamā' of Harimain did takfīr of the Gustakhs of Deoband whilst Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh kept silent and did not do takfir of any of them."

the scan our brother @Mohammed Nawaz provided could you tell me what book that is from.

 

which principle says that?

being a family member, that too two generations removed, is no guarantee of being 'aadil in testimony or even having more knowledge than upright and reliable direct witnesses.

also consider, if pir sahib blasted tafwiyatul-imaan, penned as it was, by the scion of a venerable scholarly family, what are the chances he would not find deoband's four ass-men (with no pedigree worth speaking of) worse?

It's just another asinine fantasy from Deobandi mythology.

 

In the book Saif ul-Aṭā' the first page and pg.5 it says (please correct me if i am wrong) He (Aṭā' Muḥammad) was a disciple (murīd) of Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh ؒ whic means what he wrote was first hand knowledge, could i also ask what book your scan was taken from. Jaazakallah Khair

 

This is interesting, how can a student of Pir Mehr Ali Shah Sheb considered statements of Deoband akabir to be blasphemous yet his teacher did not. It does beg a question.

I have no knowledge about Allamah Ata Muhammad Bandyalwi being direct student of Pir saheb.

 

Moulana Ghulam Mehmood Palanpuri who is disciple of Pir Meher Ali Shah Sahib رحمه الل said this

 

Two options then arise fro this either one of them is lying (which is unlikely) or one of them does not know and i believe in this instance Nizāmuddīn Jāmi is the one does not know for his father is stating otherwise and affirming. Jāmi himself has multiple issues regarding the afadilyat of Abū Bakr and frees himself from being called a barelwi.
ʿAllāmah Aṭā' Muḥammad Bandyalwi is clearly stating that "ʿAla Hahrat ؒ and the ʿulamā' of Harimain did takfīr of the Gustakhs of Deoband whilst Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh kept silent and did not do takfir of any of them." If you do not do takfir of anyone you are of course considering them to be muslim (even if you consider them to be innovators). ʿAllāmah Aṭā' Muḥammad is a direct student of the student of Pir Mehr ʿAlī Shāh.

 

Syed Ghulam Nizamuddin Jami Gilani, the eldest son of Pir Syed Nasiruddin Nasir Sahib, had regularly declared that Hazrat Syedna Pir Meher Ali Shah Sahib رحمه الل had no connection whatsoever with the Deobandis. The belief is the same as that of Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Sahib رحمه الل

Moreover being silent doesn't mean you are considering those 4 hoursemen to be Muslims. First you gotta prove otherwise. Burden of proof is on those people who say Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh considered elders of Deoband's to be Muslims when he was made aware of their blasphemy.
Until then its all speculative.

 

If anything ʿAla Hadhrat was most careful when he placed the fatawa on the four horsemen. Agreed he did alot of wobbling, my point of providing his video was cause he from the direct household of Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh, he would have more knowledge regarding this than Syed Muzaffar Shāh Ṣaḥib would. In regard to anything else we will always take from Syed Muzaffar Shāh first.

Jazakallah Khair for providing the attached

 

When did Barelvi's made mass takfir on entire deobandis!! so much of wobbling without anything substantial.
In this case its better to take from a scholar like Syed Muzzafar Shah saheb than someone who loves giving condescending answers.

 

thread piqued my curiosity, so i looked and found the book

https://archive.org/details/SaifUlAtaByAllamaAtaMauhammadBandiyalvi/page/n65/mode/1up?view=theater

pg 114-115 are attached

 

Asalam Alaikum

It does not let me link the pic or attach it
The reference for it is Saif al-Aṭā' pg.114
Even though this scan does not say he saw the passages (which is good) the next question would be Did ʿAllāmah Aṭā' Muhamamd Bandyalwi perceive the time of Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh if not who did he get this from (Muhib al-Nabi he was the student of Pir Mehr ʿAlī Shāh) Allāh Knows best

@Mohammed Nawaz Asalam Alaikum Brother in response to this i have seen a video of Naṣīruddīn Naṣīr





This is coming from his great grandson (which usually tends to hold more weight) than what Pīr Syed Muzaffar Shāh Ṣaḥib said. Even so I have my problems with Naṣīruddīn Naṣīr he held Tafḍīlī views and according to ʿAllāmah Saʿīd Asad he turned wahabi at the end and Allāh Knows Best. So when you have his great grandson saying he had ties with "scholars" from deoband and his grand student saying he kept silent on this issue you see where the confusion will come from for the awām. Imo this is an issue in which silence is not to be kept.

 

This might give you some clarity

 

@abu Hasan @Aqdas and anyone who can give an answer to this

I came across a scan of book authored by Aṭā' Muḥammad Bandyalwi ؒ named Saif al-Aṭā' in which he states that Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh stayed silent on the issue of the deobandis and the only one he did takfir is Mirza Qadiyani

My question is what would be the reason Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh stayed silent on these issues when we know it was the likes of Qāsim Nanotvi who had "paved the way" in what he wrote in tahzir al-nās for the like's of Qadiyani?
We also see the like of Tahir ul and even deobandi's who use the silence of Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh against us, how should we respond to this?

Jazakumullahu Khair