Sulh kulli Noor ud Deen Rashid

i must have said this before. most arab ulama of our time are flexible - they may criticise wahabis - but very few display the staunchness and refusal to compromise . the reason why ordinary arabs do not have the same fervour as sunnis from the subcontinent is because ulama are very lax - very few ulama are outspoken and have the courage to take a stand, much less advocate their stance.

they will go anywhere and everywehre - smile and pose for photographs and do not express their displeasure. this was never the way of our salaf. our salaf would reproach heretics and made it clear that they would not socialise with them. common people followed them and remained within boundaries. heretics were humiliated and that is the way heresies will be effaced.

there is this mistaken notion - among modern ulama - that if you are candid about your affiliation and wear your heart on your sleeve, you may alienate a section of people whom you wish to attract. and they think that appearing "not extreme" and trying to brush away or ignore certain important issues as 'secondary' will draw them to the fold and then we can apprise them.

i think it is detrimental. if we lose our reputation as a point of reference, we will be seen as free-floating rafts instead of lighthouses for wayward ships to find their way. and that is not a good thing.


------
in the past 50-60 years - sunnis from the subcontinent, known as baraylawis/barelvis have lost the narrative and some reasons are:

- scholars abandoning the platform of learning and teaching - speechmakers and 'peers' who keep flogging dead horses.

- scholars have diligently been working producing translations and fatawa and other works but the general public is not pushed towards reading learning by those who have the ear of the masses - speechmakers and celebrity scholars.

- speeches are excessively focused on refutation, which are also mostly rhetorical and lack substance.

- speechmakers do not seem to have updated their knowledge on myriad issues; they still speak as if they are in 1930s.

- speechmakers keep their 2-3 hours of engagement free of knowledge, but fill it with feel-good and self-congratulatory bluster. alternative and 'halal' form of entertainment to the public - but net learning is zero.

- sunni scholars lost contact with arab/turkish scholars for years. this space was quickly filled by deos and closet-deos who deplore mawlid among compatriots, but become the foremost mawlid-reciters among arabs. this hypocrisy earned them goodwill. our folk were nowhere to be seen to call out this hypocrisy. and the consequences of which are suspicion about our imam by some of the staunchest sunni ulama among arabs!

- our gatherings were reduced to mawlid, tawassul, awliya and naats.

and then the betrayals. the big names like irfan shah and before him abdul qadir shah, tahir padri etc turncoats - who came up using the name of alahazrat and then strayed and went their way.​

there are always exceptions - but these are the main reasons, in my opinion. i may be wrong. wAllahu a'alam.

 

The debate should be paused for a moment just to show the flaw in the reasoning.

His opening remarks and what he calls towards is that Ahl Sunnah are those who follow classical scholars and that many people who are followers of more recent scholars seem to be the fringe/extreme.

But then for the side of the Sunnis (barelwis) all three examples are from classical scholars thereby answering his own question as to which of the two groups are Ahl Sunnah rather than fringe/extreme.

Side note: Such discussions reinforce what some scholars have been warning against for a long time. Barelwi is not a new group and therefore we are not barelwi but Sunnis. Deobandis are a new group and therefore are rightfully called by a name which befits their belief system. Yes, using the term barelwi to differentiate from a deobandi is valid, however the context in which it is used must be considered.

 

Don't forget that many modern Arab shuyukh like Ali Jifry and those who support him are just politically correct liberals and government agents. Arab shaykh doesn't mean a principled shaykh. That, and what @Khanah said.

 

No doubt whenever this topic of the Arab scholars is brought up, many of the same points are repeated. But one thing you notice when you see these arab scholars speak of the deobandis, is that they seem to have read at least a few of their works in Arabic. It's not just that deos meet them in person and poison their minds but that they read these books and feel impressed and whatnot.

I think the idea of shaykh asrar to translate many of the top barelwi works into Arabic is going to go a long way in turning the tide. Such works should be sent for free to Arab scholars and madrassah libraries and we, the lay public, should fund such efforts.

This would impress upon their minds that the imams of the barelwis are intellectually rigorous and perhaps prod them to think that this is more than just a misunderstanding.

 

I'm curious about why nobody ever mentions Shaykh Muhammad Awammah's extensive praise of the Deobandi elders and contemporary scholars from Darul Ulum Deoband, despite being aware of their statements and mistakes especially considering that he is the most senior person featured in the video compilation.

The same can be said with regards to Shaykh Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda

 

As per deobandi theology, Habib 'Ali Jifri is also a mushrik - as are all those who are present with him - for accepting his words and praising Allah for them:



Watch from start - but especially from 6 minutes on. Habib Ali is explaining the kayfiyyah with which one should greet the Prophet (peace be upon him) in tashahhud. If this is not istighraaq - I don't know what is.

 

In the case of Sh Samir al-Nass, I wrote the following:


Correcting Shaykh Samir on the Deobandi issue:


Shaykh Dr Samir al-Nass is a famed personality in the West, mostly popularized by the youth due to his classes that are accessible. Here is a brief introduction to Sh. Samir by an internet site that promotes his classes:"Shaykh Samir al-Nass was born in Damascus, Syria, where he studied at the College of Medicine of the University of Damascus. He went on to study in the United States where he qualified in internal medicine.The Shaykh has studied under some of the great ‘ulama of the Levant (Shaam) and the Arabian peninsula. He has a traditional license to teach (ijazah) in the ten styles of recitation of the narration of the Shatibiyyah and the Durra from Shaykh Muhammad Sukkar. He received an ijazah in the ten styles of recitation of the narration of Tayyibah from the Egyptian Shaykh Ahmad Mustafa in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, himself a student of Shaykh Abd al-Aziz al-Zayyat of Egypt. Shaykh Samir has a traditional license to teach (ijazah) in Islamic law (fiqh) and theology and creed (‘aqida) from the previous Mufti of Syria, Shaykh Abu Yusr Ibn Abidin, Shaykh Lutfi al-Fayumi, and the late Hanafi Mufti, Shaykh Adib al-Kallas.Shaykh Samir was honoured to study hadith in Mecca with the great Indonesian-Meccan Shaykh Yasin al-Fadani, and with Shaykh Nur ud-dinItr of Syria. He also has an ijazah in Prophetic traditions (hadith) from the late Shaykh Abd Allah Siraj al-Din of Aleppo, Syria.Shaykh Samir is presently a teacher in the al-Fatih al-Islami University in Damascus, teaching the Hanafi fiqh manual Al-Hidayah in the department of Islamic Law (Shariah), and lecturer on the ten recitations of the Qur'an in the MA programme. The Shaykh teaches Qur'anic recitation (tajwid) after fajr prayers daily in the blessed mosque of Shaykh IbnArabi, a post given to him by his Shaykh and father-in-law, one of the illustrious Shaykhs of Quran in the Levant (Sham), the late Shaykh Muhammad Sukkar. Shaykh Samir has been teaching various Islamic studies intensive courses in England and North America since 2000."


Shaykh Samir quotes the hadith of Sayyida Ai`sha al-Siddiqa radhiyAllahu ta`ala anha where she radhiyAllahu anha is referring to is dhati ilm al-ghayb whereas Deobandiyyah deny atai ilm al-ghayb and even make blasphemous comparisons. To add, the Shaykh denies that the Deobandiyyah made a statement in Hifz al-Iman, insulting the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa salim and comparing his knowledge. Shaykh Samir al-Nass has denied that the Deobandiyyah ever made this statement and this is very incorrect and unfactual. When one reads the original books of the Deobandiyya, one can see that this comparison was made and even the Deobandiyyah admit this on their sites and in their books. A famous Deobandi propoganda site, Deobandi.org, translated the passage from Hifz al-Iman of Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi:

"This usage is not permissible even if it was with a [particular] interpretation, because it conceives of shirk, just as the usage of their statement ra’ina was prohibited in the Qur’an (2:104)[1] and their statement “my male slave” (‘abdi) and “my female slave” (amati) [was prohibited] in the hadith, as transmitted by Muslim in his Sahih (Kitab al-Alfaz min al-Adab wa Ghayriha); since the general [usage of the term] ghayb in the legal usages is that for which no proof was erected and there is no means or path to its perception. [Based] on this, Allah (Exalted is He) said, “Say: None in the heavens or on earth, except Allah, knows the ghayb” (27:65), “Had I knowledge of the ghayb, I should have abundance of wealth” (7:188) and other verses. If this were allowed by interpretation, it would entail that it would be correct to use khaliq (Creator), raziq (Sustainer), malik (Master), ma’bud (Deity) and other attributes of Allah (Exalted is He), exclusive to His (Exalted is He) Essence, for the creation by an interpretation. It would also imply that by another interpretation the use of the term ‘alim al ghayb would be negated from Allah (Exalted is He), since He (Exalted is He) is not the knower of ghayb by means of a medium or by accident, so would any sane religious person allow its negation [from Him]? Far be it, of course not.Moreover, if this usage were correct for his holy essence (Allah bless him and grant him peace) according to the statement of a questioner, we will ask for clarification from him: what does he mean by this ghayb? Does he mean every particular from the particulars of ghayb or a part of it, whichever part it may be? If he intended a part of the ghayb, there is no speciality in this for the Chief of Messengers (Allah bless him and grant him peace), since the knowledge of some ghayb, even if it is little, is attainable by Zayd and ‘Amr, rather every child and madman, rather all animals and beasts, because every one of them knows something another does not know and [something that is] hidden from him. Hence, if the questioner permits the usage [of the term] ‘alim al ghayb for one because of his knowledge of a part of the ghayb, it would be necessary for him to allow its usage for all those mentioned, and if that was the case, it would not then be from the perfections of prophethood because they all share in it; and if it is not the case, he will be asked for a distinction, and will find no path to it" (Taken from http://www.deoband.o...the-innovators/).The following is the Urdu transliteration of this:"Moreover, if this usage were correct for his holy essence (Allah bless him and grant him peace) according to the statement of a questioner, we will ask for clarification from him: what does he mean by this ghayb? Does he mean every particular from the particulars of ghayb or a part of it, whichever part it may be? If he intended a part of the ghayb, there is no speciality in this for the Chief of Messengers (Allah bless him and grant him peace), since the knowledge of some ghayb, even if it is little, is attainable by Zayd and ‘Amr, rather every child and madman, rather all animals and beasts, because every one of them knows something another does not know and [something that is] hidden from him.""phir yê ke âp kî dhât muqaddasa parilm-e-ghayb kâ hukm kiyâ jânâ agar be qawl zayd sahîh hô tô daryâfat talab amri yê hê ke us ghayb se murâd ba`z [ba`D] ghayb hê yâ kul ghayb agar ba`z ulûm ghaybiyya murâd hê tô is mê Huzûr hi ki kyâ takhsîs hê AYSÂilm-e-ghayb tô zayd-o-`amr-o-balke har sabî-o-majnûn balke jamî`Haywânât-o-bahâhum ke liye bhi Hâsil hê kayûn kê har shakhs kô kisî ne kisî aysî bât kâ ilm hôtâ hê jô dusrê shakhs se makhfi hê)"

Please note that after Ashraf Ali Thanawi wrote such a blasphemous comparison and Imam Ahmad Ridha rahmatullahi taala alayh and the Ulama of the Haramayn al-Sharifayn did takfir of him, still--the followers of the Deobandiyyah attempted to make false excuses and in the process, ultimately made takfir of themselves.

Manzur Ahmad Sambhali his book "Fath e Bareilly ka Dilkash Nazara" writes on pg. 32 that "aysa here is not used for tashbih but rather it is used in the meaning of "itna" and he continues on pg 35 that "to say it is tashbih is kufr". The same is written by him on pg. 40 and 48 of the same book and by Murtaza Dharbangi (known commonly as Chanpuri) in his book "Tawzih al-Bayan fi Hifz al-Iman" on pgs 8 and 17.Now, this ii contradicted by another Deobandi, Husayn Ahmad Tandwi in his Shihab al-Thaqib, pg. 108 where he says that to say that "aysa" in Urdu means "itna" (as much) is kufr.

2. The usage of the hadith of Sayyida Aisha radhiAllahu ta`ala anha by Shaykh Samir

Shaykh Samir quotes a hadith of Sayyida A`isha as-Siddiqa radhiyAllahu anha in regards to the ilm al-ghayb issue. The Shaykh states that Sayyida A`isha radhiAllahu anha denied that the Prophet sal Allahu ta`ala alayhi wa salim has ilm al-ghayb whereas the Ahlus Sunna say that Sayyida A`isha radhiyAllahu anha was not denying ilm al-ghayb atai but was speaking about ilm al-ghayb dhaati and it is probable that is what Shaykh Samir meant.The full hadith is as follows:حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يُوسُفَ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، عَنِ الشَّعْبِيِّ، عَنْ مَسْرُوقٍ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها ـ قَالَتْ مَنْ حَدَّثَكَ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا صلى الله عليه وسلم رَأَى رَبَّهُ فَقَدْ كَذَبَ وَهْوَ يَقُولُ {لاَ تُدْرِكُهُ الأَبْصَارُ} وَمَنْ حَدَّثَكَ أَنَّهُ يَعْلَمُ الْغَيْبَ فَقَدْ كَذَبَ، وَهْوَ يَقُولُ لاَ يَعْلَمُ الْغَيْبَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ.Please note: The tatbiq (reconciliation) between the hadith of Sayyida Aisha radhiAllahu anha and the other ahadith affirming ilm al-ghayb is that the hadith of Sayyida Aisha radhiAllahu anha is referring to dhati ilm al-ghayb (that which is known in and of itself) and the ahadith al mubarakah affirmingilm al-ghayb refers to ata`i ilm al-ghayb (that which is given by Allah ta`ala). We, as Ahl al-Sunna, believe that the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa salim, hasilm al-ghayb, by the ata` (granting) of Allah ta`ala.Imam Abu Nu`aym narrates in Hilyat al-Awliya a sahih hadith :حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ ، ثَنَا بَكْرُ بْنُ سَهْلٍ ، ثَنَا نُعَيْمُ بْنُ حَمَّادٍ ، ثَنَا بَقِيَّةُ ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ سِنَانٍ ، ثَنَا أَبُو الزَّاهِرِيَّةِ ، عَنْ كَثِيرِ بْنِ مُرَّةَ ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : " إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ قَدْ رَفَعَ لِيَ الدُّنْيَا فَأَنَا أَنْظُرُ إِلَيْهَا وَإِلَى مَا هُوَ كَائِنٌ فِيهَا إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ كَأَنَّمَا أَنْظُرُ إِلَى كَفِّي هَذِهِ ، جَلِيَّانِ مِنْ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ جَلاهُ لِنَبِيِّهِ كَمَا جَلاهُ لِلنَّبِيِّينَ قَبْلَهُ Translation: Rasulallah Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam said: Verily AllahAzza Wa Jall raised the world for me so that I could see all that was therein and all that is going to happen till Judgement day and I could see it (as clearly and plainly) as I could see my hand.This hadith clearly affirms the ata`i ilm of the Prophet sal Allahualayhi wa salim. Another hadith in Sahih Muslim is as follows:وحَدَّثَنِي يَعْقُوبُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الدَّوْرَقِيُّ ، وَحَجَّاجُ بْنُ الشَّاعِرِ جَمِيعًا ، عَنْ أَبِي عَاصِمٍ ، قَالَ حَجَّاجٌ ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَاصِمٍ ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَزْرَةُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ ، أَخْبَرَنَا عِلْبَاءُ بْنُ أَحْمَرَ ، حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو زَيْدٍ يَعْنِي عَمْرَو بْنَ أَخْطَبَ ، قَالَ : " صَلَّى بِنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الْفَجْرَ وَصَعِدَ الْمِنْبَرَ ، فَخَطَبَنَا حَتَّى حَضَرَتِ الظُّهْرُ ، فَنَزَلَ فَصَلَّى ثُمَّ صَعِدَ الْمِنْبَرَ ، فَخَطَبَنَا حَتَّى حَضَرَتِ الْعَصْرُ ثُمَّ نَزَلَ ، فَصَلَّى ثُمَّ صَعِدَ الْمِنْبَرَ ، فَخَطَبَنَا حَتَّى غَرَبَتِ الشَّمْسُ ، فَأَخْبَرَنَا بِمَا كَانَ وَبِمَا هُوَ كَائِنٌ فَأَعْلَمُنَا أَحْفَظُنَا " .Translation: Rasulallah Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam did his Fajr Salaah one day and rose upon the pulpit and gave us a sermon until the DHuhr time arrived; He got down and did his DHuhr Salaah and rose upon the pulpit (again) and gave us a sermon until theAsr time arrived; He got down and did his ASr Salaah and rose upon the pulpit and gave us a sermon until the sun set. So, (therein) he told us of (gave us the news) all things that would happen till judgement day. The narrator said: the most knowledgeable amongst us is he who remembers the most. Another note: there is a principle that affirmation takes precedence over rejection, entailing that the affirmation of the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa salam's ilm takes precedence over any outward rejection. Imam al-Nawawi writes: والمثبت مقدم على النافي(Sharh Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Iman)

The Deobandiyya reject the ilm al-ghayb atai of Sayyidina Rasul Allah صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ and this can be seen in the books, Taqwiyat al-Iman of Isma`il Dehlwi and Itmam al-Burhan of Sarafaraz Safdar Gakharwi

Video of Shaykh Samir an-Nass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltDNTxn-29M&feature=youtu.be

 

I'm not Sh Abu Hasan but generally, they are excused even if they wrongly pass judgement. But not in the case of Sh Sa'id who openly wrote a whole book on the topic of imkan al-kadhib just to come to a similar conclusion as Deobandis even if they say imkan al-kadhib is muhal 'aqlan themselves.

Or if they defend the Deobandi ibaraat openly.

 

Mawlana @abu Hasan - What are your thoughts about this where Arab ulema side with Deobandis? Are they excused as they do not understand urdu? And if this is the case then why do they even pass their judgement on the issue without thorough investigation? In any court a judge hears both sides and thoroughly examines evidences presented by each side before passing judgement.

 

Habib Umar ibn Hafiz is mistaken but ....at least not as much as Sh Sa'id.

Sh Sa'id Foudah wrote a whole book on the topic of imkan al-kadhib just to come to a similar conclusion as Nuh Ha Mim Keller

 

If someone calls himself Deobandi but rejects all of this, is he still considered a deviant?

From what i understood from Shaykh Noor ud Deen, he still calls someone who holds the views 1-2-3-5 as deviant, as he did for al-Kawthari.

Is it still fair to say that he is sulh kulli? I may be misunderstanding either what he said or what sulh kullism is, but i am pretty new here so looking forward to having a better understanding inshaAllah.

BarakAllahu fikum

 

A common trait of sulla kullis is that their hearts are void of the true love of the Messenger of Allah (saws). This is the exact reason why they find excuses in defending blasphemer groups with heretic ideologies such as Wahhabiyyah and Devbandiyyah. Contrast that with the Sahabah and our pious predecessors who used to...

This Noor ud Deen is no different and is clearly evident from his speeches. Sounds more like a politician that sullah kullis are!

 

If this individual has himmat, tell him to make a video on Shaykh Qasim Kuzaym and Shaykh Abd al-Aziz al-Khatib.

We don't want your advice Noor ud Deen Rashid.

Keep it to yourself.


Shaykh Qasim Kuzaym:


Shaykh Abd al-Aziz al-Khatib



This Noor ud Deen is not only sullah kulli. He is a liar.


As for Tadhkirat al-Awliya and Saba Sanabil, these books have tampering.