Sh. Nuh Keller on Deoband VS Barelwi Conflict

Discussion in 'Refutation' started by Clueless, Mar 19, 2007.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Clueless

    Clueless Guest


    If any "official" refutation (if appropriate) is to be drafted, it can only be written by those who equal or exceed the station (in terms of language, adab, comprehension and elegance) of Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller in order for such a work to be taken seriously. Otherwise, there is danger that a response will be seen as comparing Ihya and Mr. Ben!

    Here ends the lesson for today! :)

    Wa salam.
  2. absalih

    absalih Active Member


    edit: welcome to sunniport. please try to write in lower case.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2007

    CHISHTI Well-Known Member

    Fortunate indeed

    Salaam All, yes brother i am very fortunate i was guided to Islaam, the Islaam that has been practised for 1428 years, the Islaam given to the noble Sahaba and those that followed them, the aimma i mujtaahideen, Aulya, ulema and the likes of Hazrat Pir Mehr Ali Shah Sahib, Ala Hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib, Pir Jamaat Ali Shah Sahib and all the other diamonds from amongst the treasure chest of Ahle Sunnah. I converted in Small Heath in Birmingham which is now looking like najd because of the high population of wahhabis and is only kept at bay by the likes of Hazrat Sufi Abdullah Khan Naqshbandi, Mufti Gul Rahman Qadiri, Dawati islami and hard working brothers and sisters.
  4. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    Brother Chisti, you are a fortunate convert, who belong to Ahle-Sunnah. It is real shame that so many converts end up being salafis/tablighis/deobandis.

    I ardently hope that somebody responds pointedly and directly to Sh. Nuh Keller's article. Unless the response reaches Sh. Nuh Keller directly, justice wouldn't be done to Ala Hazrat's mission to expose deobandis/wahabis.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 2, 2007

    CHISHTI Well-Known Member

    Salaam everyone, i'm new to the forum and a convert so please forgive me if (when) i make a mistake, I really love Sheikh Nuh but his conclusion about the decree of Ahlus Sunnah against the deviant wahhabi influenced group from the Darul Uloom Deoband has saddened me alot, for instance
    Sheikh Nuh Says:

    "To conclude, the Barelwi response to the Deobandis was probably far worse than the initial provocation, raising for the first time in Indian history the banner of takfir of one major group of Hanafi Muslims by another"

    but i'm sure that the issue of takfir was first raised by ismail dehlvi with his book taqwiatal iman which put brother against brother and this was done before the birth of Ala Hazrat. The deobandis who surround the Arab Ulema and convert Ulema like Sheikh Nuh, Sheikh Hamza etc are having a profound effect on their thinking. Everyone has to understand that this isn't just a silly squabble between two indian groups who are in need of rectification by Arab Ulema, made to shake hands and agree to disagree, this is about Imaan or Kufr and the absolute unwillingness of present day deobandi ulema to condemn their forefathers in favour of the Haq. I believe that this is the essence of sectarianism and hypocrisy. Ghazaali i Zamaan Rahmatullahi Alay said:

    "concerning the issue of kufr, our fundamental practice has always been that if any individual commits the act of kufr through his statements or actions, we do not delay in rendering him a kaafir. Whether he is a deobandi or a berelvi, belongs to the league or to the congress, nachrey or nadvi, we do not differentiate from among them or from our own" (Allama Syed Ahmad Saeed Kazmi Shah Sahib Rahmatullahi Alay)

    and the quote you've just read shows a true belief in Islaam and impartiality to anything other than the Haq. Basically if somebody makes a statement of kufr the Ulema, after judging the mans mental state, pronounce takfir without basing their judgement on whether he's one of ours or one of theirs and the deobandi ulema haven't done this and stubbornly support their cause in the face of the truth. Ala Hazrat Rahmatullahi Aley is a Mujjadid which is higher than any Mufti, Maulana or Sheikh, and to assume that He hadn't understood the nuance of a certain word or phrase in Arabic or had taken the meaning of the word from Urdu/Hindi is a slander. Ala Hazrat, as has been pointed out by many on this forum, wrote to Thanwi for many years which was ample time to make Ala Hazrat "understand" the meaning, but Ala Hazrat received no such response and as a Sunni Mufti and ardent Lover of Holy Prophet Sall Allaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam then had to write the Fatwa of kufr.

    I'm a convert so i really understand how difficult it is to give up your beliefs and upbringing for something new, but when Allaah guides you and you see the light you have to change, whether it will upset your parents, friends, culture etc becomes irrelevent as only the Haq matters and this is a concept the deobandis have to address. Don't just side with the Ulema you were bought up with through thick or thin, evaluate what they have said in the light of truth and "convert" your viewpoint to the Haq, its hard but well worth it,

    often non Muslims ask me "don't you miss alcohol, pork, clubbing" and i say that if you look at what you've gained you won't miss any of your past.
  6. Wadood

    Wadood Veteran

    mashaAllah mashaAllah mashaAllah

    Allah u Akbar!
  7. Wadood

    Wadood Veteran

    Sidi Hamza KaramAli is a GENIUS.
  8. Wadood

    Wadood Veteran

    There are many many other places where Shaykh Nuh has commented on this issue before. This article is no BIG FISH.

    Faqir no matter how much he denies, is obsessed with the Deobandit/Sunni issue.

    Though I like his new website, especially the name "ma'rifah"
  9. Wadood

    Wadood Veteran

    Sidi Yaseen, Shaykh NuH calls Lahore a Sufi city. Him being greeted at Data Darbar and his smile on his blessed face and his sitting in LUMS University Defence teaching is 100% proof that he loved the Muslims in the Sub Continent.

    It is the same passion I saw in the eyes, voice and right hand of Sayyidi Shaykh MuHammad al-Ya'qoubi HafiZUuhuAllah ta'ala

    He was to me in such happiness upon looking at the multitude of sincere lovers of RasulAllah :sas: at the massive Mawlid gathering organized by Shaykh Tahir ul Qadiri over there


    He like Shaykh NuH loves live for the Love of Allah ta'ala

    Sidi Hamza KaramAli from my city, Toronto, is a young master. Yes he is sympathetic to Deobandis, as Toronto is FULL OF DEOBANDIS. And he is sympathetic TO ANY HUMAN BEING. And he does not get into this issue at all and he is a very very busy man.

    Allah bless him and his family and make his stay in Jordan as Sidi Hamza wishes.

    There are at least 70 Sunni Masjids in Toronto and at most 40 of them are controlled and runned by Gujarati Deobandis (most of them extremely anti-Barelwi) from the area around the city of Surat and also from the district of Baroda and some from other northern areas where Mufti Desai comes from.

    These masjids and musallahs have pamphlets labelling Sunnis in South Africa and India as "qabar pujari" and "Mian log" (Mian People) and I do not know what exactly does Mian People mean.
  10. abu nibras

    abu nibras Staff Member

    Assalam `alaikum,

    I urge and request our brothers NOT to respond to this article or any deobandi comments, how ever Ibn Arabi or the likes of the basiar guy ( who atleast speaks the actual position of deoband on some issues without ibn-adam/cont-chisti style romance ) are free to comment.

    {This does not mean that we agree or promote whatever they are saying here, its only a way to get the other side's "logic"}

    Any reply that we give without scans, exact quotes ,thorough reasoning with sound grounding in the `ulum of Islam will only muddy the water as there are a lot of people who want to say something or the other.

    you will be amazed if you see the web traffic to this thread alone.

    and what is the benefit in it for you or me if we cannot change anything in this matter with what we say.

    and if someone can reply, whom Allah has given the capability and resources, I think he will inshallah, in time, what is the hurry ?

    was salam

    Last edited: Feb 27, 2007
  11. Yaseen

    Yaseen Active Member

    Could you enlighten me on this. Jazakallah
  12. My comments:
    1. Is it even allowed to believe that lying for Allah is hypothetically possible ie. Not intrinsically impossible?? Logically that is the same as believing that lying is intrinsically possible for Allah (since if something is not intrinsically impossible it must therefore be intrinsically possible since the inverse of not impossible is possible). Which scholars of the past amongst the Salaf have had this belief?
    2. Why ‘seems to’?

    I ask with all due respect:
    1. What is the evidence that Ala Hazrat’s translation was mistaken?. You are implying that a scholar of that calibre would make such a simple but crucial mistake in a matter of this import. On what basis is this conclusion made? Furthermore, both Ala Hazrat and Gangohi would have been communicating in Urdu so the possibility of misunderstanding the Urdu term ‘imkan e kizb’ is impossible. Are you suggesting that ‘imkan e kizb’ and imkan al –kadhib are two different things? Again this is a charge not only on the quality of Ala Hazrat’s intelligence but also his knowledge of Urdu-a language in which he is an acknowledged master.
    2. Does not Gangohi’s statement itself contradict your assertion that ‘neither Rashid Gangohi…holds this belief’? since you are acquitting him of the very charge for which he is on trial for on the basis that ‘no Muslim’ could have such a belief. Wasn’t that the very crux of the matter?
    3. What was unfortunate was that Gangohi could write something like that of which even you do not approve.

    1. Again you are assuming it was mistaken based on the assumption that Ala Hazrat misunderstood what Gangohi really had meant. This again is slander of the Imam who was scrupulous on matters of takfir and casting aspersions on his deductive abilities.

    1. This paragraph is remarkable for although it clearly admits that was Khalil wrote was an enormity against the Messenger, Shaykh Nuh it seems cannot bring himself to admit the logical and obvious conclusion. If abusing the Prophet like this is just ‘disadvantageous’ (to whom one asks? Khalil’s iman perhaps?) one shudders to think what is an insult. Shaykh Nuh graciously admits that few Muslims can accept it. Ala Hazrat (and 500 ulema of Hind plus 33 of Hijaz ) did not accept it as the fatawa indicate. But the supporters of Khalil continue to accept it. Why? This insult to the Habib is just ‘badly stumbling’! Finally why should Muslims in India be any different? They too found (and still find) his words deeply repugnant and unacceptable. Even Shaykh Nuh by the words in this passage admits no Muslim could accept these words for the Beloved Prophet..

    !. The Shaykh again merely considers this insult to the Prophet ‘artless’ coming from Thanawi. What then I ask constitutes an insult to the Prophet if any time a Deobandi insults him it is just brushed aside as artless or stumbling?

    Ala Hazrat’s Fatwa
    Now, the temperament of Ahmad Reza Khan, with his acknowledged brilliance, doubtless played a role in this judgement, as did his love of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), which entailed withering scorn of those who did not share his somewhat exotic prophetology, and finally outright anathema (takfir) of those who had emphasized the Prophet’s humanity (Allah bless him and give him peace) with what appeared to be at the expense of his dignity.

    1. What is the evidence that Ala Hazrat’s temperament ‘no doubt’ had anything to do with his fatwa. The facts belie this convenient excuse which Deobandis always use. He waited over a decade after these words of the Deobandis before issuing his fatwa, and he wrote to them repeatedly informing them of the kufr in their words and asking them to repent. Only after such a long time and their adamant refusal did he do what he had to do as a Mufti. So this is slandering him by accusing him of being rash. The facts are totally the opposite. I wish the Shaykh [Nuh] had taken this into account.
    3. What is ‘exotic’ about Ala Hazrat’s prophetology. I hope the Shaykh will care to explain. In which way did Ala Hazrat’s belief about the Messenger differ from that of traditional Sunni Islam to make it ‘exotic’.
    4. That the Deobandis wrote their repugnant words to ‘emphasize the Prophet’s humanity’ is again Shaykh Nuh’s own inference. What is his evidence for this other than the apparent desire to devolve Deobandi scholars of responsibility. A kind of posthumous acquittal if you will!
    5. ‘Appeared to be’ at the expense of his dignity only! We shall come to this later.


    1, The Shaykh makes the assumption that Ala Hazrat, a great faqih and scholar of his time, acknowledge by all and sundry, including the likes of Sayyid Yusuf al Nabahani and many others, a star of his time, a mujaddid, was unaware of something as basic as that opinion of Imam Haskafi when he wrote his fatawa! It is being unfair to the Imam.

    Deos’ Intentions
    1. Again what is the evidence that Ala Hazrat did not consider all possible interpretations? He is on record has having said that if a statement of apparent kufr can be interpreted as kufr in 99 ways but there is one possible meaning for it to be not kufr the fatwa of kufr should be withheld. This is not an ordinary scholar we are talking about. He was very hesitant to give fatwas of takfir.
    2. Is it permissible to be ‘crude’ when discussing the Prophet of Allah?
    3. Why did they not give these explanations to Ala Hazrat when he wrote to them for a whole decade?

    1. If the words were ‘not acceptable’ and they were used about the Prophet is that not in itself an insult to the Prophet about whom we are ordered to be extra careful and not even raise our voices when addressing? Does Sharia deem it permissible to insult Allah’s Habib with unacceptable and repugnant words in order to retort against ‘bida’?
    2. If Ala Hazrat did not have any shirk in his position and the Deobandis accused him of shirk what does it mean for those who make the accusation using the same hadith you quote about accusing another Muslim of kufr?
    3. Deobandis of this day, still continue to call Muslims mushriks!

    1. Here the Shaykh has admitted that the words used are ‘indefensible breaches of proper respect’ towards the Prophet but he then tries to defend them! If someone insults the Prophet in an indefensible manner what do we call that? Or does this imply that there is (naudhubillah) a defensible manner in which to do that? (We seek Allah’s refuge).
    2. Alhamdulillah Muslims still do not suffer such comparisons to be made.
    3. The whole argument of Shaykh Nuh is based on this point that although the words of Thanawi and Co. were indefensible breaches of respect for the Habib of Allah we cannot call them kafir because their intention was not to insult. Let us examine this claim since the rest of his essay essentially repeats this claim: he admits what the Deobandis wrote were ‘offensive’ but insists they are not kafirs since they didn’t intend to be offensive.
    Qadi Iyad says in his Shifa’:
    4. Deobandis and others still think people are mushriks and view it as a dangerous threat so using this logic it should be okay for anyone to insult Allah's Habib as long as he is doing it to defend against the threat of shirk! Astaghfirullah.

    Qadi Iyad wrote:

    Therefore this excuse for the Deobandi scholars does not apply to the Prophet and that is also what I have heard from other scholars. When it comes to Allah’s Habib there is no excuse.
    Indeed Gangohi himself admits this in his Shihab al Thaqib where he writes that even if someone unintentionally insults the Prophet the ruling on him is still that he is a kafir.
    Therefore I, personally, do not see this attempt by Shaykh Nuh to exonerate the Deobandis as anything other than an apologia even though he is sincere enough to admit that what the Deobandis wrote was unacceptable and insulting to the dignity of Allah’s Messenger (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam). He excuses them on their intention but as we have seen that is not a valid excuse when it comes to the Prophet as many scholars have written as I’m sure Shaykh Nuh is aware. Why then does he insist on not applying the same standards to Gangohi and the other Deobandis? Allah and His Messenger know best.
  13. So finally the cat is out from the bag...

    but who cares what Shaykh Nuh Keller says ? He is no expert on this issue. He is dependent on what Faraz Rabbani or someone else's translations.

    and why is Shaykh Keller so interested in Deobandi and Barelwi issue ?

    Allahul Mustaan
  14. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    is something few Muslims can accept. why?
    Muslims would have found his words repugnant and unacceptable. why?

    dear muslims! for one second, close your eyes. bring the noble prophet sallAllahu 'alaihi wasallam into your thoughts and then ask yourself with total honesty: is it disrespectful to compare him sallAllahu 'alaihi wasallam to the lowest creation?
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2007
  15. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    no kufr - no takfir
  16. ali

    ali New Member

    Unfortunately, the article is completely one-sided and fails to present any points from the Sunni (Barelvi) point of view. Shaykh Nuh should have acquainted himself with Ala Hadrat's methodology in passing these verdicts of kufr before writing about this issue. Ala Hadrat was a faqih of an immense stature as acknowledged by the Arab scholars of his time and even today. He was certainly well versed in the classical books of Hanafi fiqh and knew the rulings of pronouncing someone a kafir. The fact that he withheld from issuing a ruling of kufr on Thanwi's Hifzul Iman for over a decade has not been mentioned. The fact that he withheld from issuing a ruling of kufr on Ismail Dehlvi despite his numerous statements of kufr in Taqwiyatul Iman is not mentioned. Even Ala Hadrat acknowledged that one should find as many excuses and look into the possibility of other explanations before pronouncing someone as kafir. This has not been mentioned at all. Instead one obtains a picture of a scholar who was not well versed in the rulings of kufr and was not cautious in issuing them.

    Even Shaykh GF Haddad adamantly defended the Deobandi elders in the beginning and made excuses for their statements but after reading about Ala Hadrat's methodology in issuing these fatwas and his reasons for calling them kafirs, he started to change and developed more respect for the Imam.

    Shaykh Nuh's information about this issue seems to be coming from his Deobandi mureeds along with Faraz Rabbani and Hamza Karamali, two individuals known to be sympathetic to Deobandis. Using these sources, the article can hardly be considered unbiased and neutral.
  17. sherkhan

    sherkhan Veteran

    faqir at it again!

    Faqir has raked the issue again. Sh Nuh Keller's and Hamza Karamali's locus standi on this issue was discussed at length in the following earlier thread:

    My points are still outstanding. Has Sh. Nuh Keller ever heard the Barelwi standpoint? That Hamza Karamali and Faraz Rabbani are busy getting edicts from Arab scholars to exonerate the elders of Deoband, doesn't surprise me one bit. Like I said before, all the "perfume of Arabia" (to borrow from 'Macbeth') will not ever wash the sins of deobandis.

    The best riposte that I can provide on this issue is the following:

    For quite sometime (i.e. before 2002-3), Sh. Gibril Haddad disparaged Imam Ahmad Raza (rahmatullah alaihi) and his efforts to expose deobandi scholars. Soon Sh. Haddad discovered the real shaitan 'lurking' (pun intended) behind the Sunni facade of Deoband school. These days, Sh. Haddad actively attends the majalis organized by Barelwis. I know that he has been to Barelwi events in New Jersey and Sunni Dawat-e-Islami ijtema at Leabridge Mosque, Walthamstow (London). Now Sh. Haddad is busy refuting the fatwas of Rashid Gangohi and Nanotwi. What a turn-around!

    Moral of the story is that Sh. Nuh Keller's apologia will be short-lived. May Allah (azza wa'jal) give him taufiq to differentiate between haq and baatil.
  18. there are just so many excuses made for the deos in this essay from implying ala hazrat's arabic wasn't prhaps nuanced enough to saying that since the deos didn't mean to insult the prophet fatwa it is okay, effectively. if we apply this principle in retrospective how many insulters will have said, ' i wsn't intentionally trying to insult...' and he also writes that ala hazrat--wasn't aware of this principle on which he exonerates the deo elders.

    i will insha allah write my detailed response and post it today.
    ya Allah! deobandis have no shame. the principle is (for them): use any excuse, however flimsy, present only some of the facts if you have to, but at any cost--even if it means accepting the insults to the prophet--exonerate our scholars.

    la hawla wa la quwwata.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 25, 2007
  19. Abdallah

    Abdallah Guest


    The article is very long to read all of it and a bit confusing for me. The book Al-Muhannad is quoted many times. Was just wondering is that in arabic or urdu. Anyone know?
  20. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    oh, wow. here is another statement:

    [FONT=&quot]Whether this mistranslation was due to Ahmad Reza Khan’s honest misapprehension of Gangohi’s position, or directly carrying into Arabic a similar Urdu phrase without understanding the resultant nuance in Arabic, or some other reason, is not clear. [/FONT]
    it is a pity that shaykh nuH reduces a man like alaHazrat to that of a blundering translator and a newbie scholar who has yet to understand basics of kalam - and that too in such an important matter as takfir. while shaykh nuH is confident about articulating the deobandi position and in much detail [what khalil or gangohi wished to say], his comments about alaHazrat seem to be so very cursory and dismissive.

    as someone else mentioned, it is standard deobandi apologia.

    shaykh nuH might probably want to first learn who imam ahmed riDa khan was [i am even piqued with the 'reza' spelling, which is not the usual one: do a google if you want] before making an analysis of his [supposed] mistakes.

    Last edited: Feb 25, 2007

Share This Page