i personally think they didn't publicly attest. similar to many arab sunni ulama today - who are 100% congruent with us, but they just stop at takfir.
@abu Hasan would Mawlana Anwarullah Farooqi and other Ulema who abstained from Takfir come under the ruling من شك في كفره و عذابه فقد كفر؟
may Allah ta'ala forgive him, but he side-stepped takfir partly because the devbandi group were his pir-brothers. shaykh anwarullah faruqi was the murid and khalifah of haji imdadullah muhajir makki. all of his aqayid and practices were concordant with sunni ulama and he respected alahazrat. --- there was a to-and-fro between alahazrat and shaykh anwarullah faruqi on the issue of "adhaan in the masjid", which was an issue on which ulama of bada'un also differed. mawlana muyinuddin, principal of darul ulum muyiniyyah usmaniyyah wrote a risalah: "al qawl al-az'har fi ma yata'llaqu bi'l adhaani inda'l minbar" in which he claimed that it is ijmaa to say the adhaan in front of the minbar. this risalah was claimed as being written upon the "command of fazilat jung anwarullah faruqi" --- when this risalah came to alahazrat, he wrote to shaykh anwarullah asking him whether it was indeed the case. shaykh anwarullah replied that: 'the risalah was shown to him and there was nothing new in it, and when asked about it, he permitted it being printed - but they added: 'by the command of". anyway it is a fiqh issue and though alahazrat ignored some of the errors of shaykh anwarullah due to his stature, mawlana hamid raza refuted him nevertheless. in the following risalah: ajlaa anwar e raza. ---- notice how alahazrat and fazeelat jung allamah anwarullah faruqi address each other:
Utilizing the insights from Jamia Nizamiya Deccan's ulama and traditions to elucidate why the Takfir of the Deobandi Akabir was made. Anwar ulla Farooqi rahimaullah serves as an exemplary figure who never resorted to takfir of the Deoband elders. Instead, he meticulously referenced their works to illustrate where their beliefs may be erroneous, possibly bordering on kufr. This approach fostered a more nuanced understanding among the graduates of Jamia Nizamiya, leading to compromises on foundational matters (usooli) and a noticeable proliferation of Deobandi doctrine in masjids across Deccan.It's evident that many graduates of Jamia Nizamiya now view the Sunni-Deobandi disagreement as primarily pertaining to subsidiary (furu) matters. Moreover, the influence of Tablighi Jamaat has led to a convergence towards a lifestyle and certain beliefs reminiscent of Wahhabism, albeit veiled under Deobandi taqiyya.
Give them the story of Dhul-Khuwaysara - He was a man who asked the Prophet ﷺ to be fair when distributing to which the Prophet ﷺ said: "Woe to you! Who will be fair if I am not fair? You will be doomed and lost if I am not fair." ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb also asked for permission to behead him.... the Prophet ﷺ said:They will pass out of Islam as an arrow passes out of the prey. Then look at the case with Jahm bin Safwan, he was declared a Kafir by Imām Abū Ḥanīfa. What was the reason: because he had negated the attributes of Allāh ﷻ. The question to this person should be asked what is his position on those who declared Hadhrat Ali رضي الله عنه to be Kafir, does he consider them to be muslim or out of the fold of Islam. If it is the latter then he has no case for the deobandis as they insulted one who is greater than ʿAlī, the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ. Ask him the question on what his position is one who attributes lying to Allāh ﷻ Ask him the question one who attacks the Finality of Prophet Hood what is his position on such a person (and this paved the way for Mirza Ghulam of Qadiyan) Ask him the question on what his position is on some who compares the knowledge of the Prophet ﷺ to Satan or even madmen and animals.(Naudhubillah) Better yet send him a copy of Shaykh Abū Ḥasans The Killer Mistake and let him have read of that and it will show ʿAla Hadhrats fatwa and those who followed him in this is in fact correct. Allāh Knows Best
I think the Barelwis are more correct than the Deobandis in most issues. But their takfir of the Deobandis is completely unwarranted. If they didn't takfir I would have supported them but, takfir is a big thing and its not to be taken lightly— Afala_taqilun (@afala_taqilun) April 11, 2024 Someone qualified should give a calm and collected answer to this tweet, highlighting as to why the Takfir of the Deobandi Akabir was made
https://x.com/almuntasirin/status/1776053255011012789 Hisham Kabbani randomly inventing a hadith and Gibril Haddad casually sitting there.
Yes, they seem to have Deo backgrounds and some brothers have described them as Awnists. This channel is comprised of I think three members. Recently they have tried to portray Alahazrat as a takfiri.
I already responded. He was proven wrong. I offered to send him the full PDF but he wasn't willing to read it. I showed him clearly the question which mentions the statement of Barahin e Qatiah and then I showed him Shaykh Attar mentioning the statement himself. I showed him I didn't mistranslate as I have the full fatwa himself and I responded to his claim of his signature in Al Muhannad.
They dont need to write books in arabic. That is not their target audience. It is like saying why dont the sunni scholars in the arab world write a book in urdu. ʿala hadhrats fatawa is testament to how great of a scholar he is. If this is criticism from the dev side then the only reason their scholars wrote work in arabic was in refutation of Mubarakfuri and Azimabadi. Even so he wrote al-Dawla tul-Makkiyah at the request of the Arab Scholars. Allāh knows best
Q: Why not take a more conciliatory approach, and pretend tawassul is ḥarām, or at least that it is better for the sake of waraʿ to avoid it?A: The conciliatory approach on such issues has led to the dominance of bāṭil, and the justification for casting aspersions on the…— Hasan Spiker (@RealHasanSpiker) January 26, 2024 Q: Why not take a more conciliatory approach, and pretend tawassul is ḥarām, or at least that it is better for the sake of waraʿ to avoid it? A: The conciliatory approach on such issues has led to the dominance of bāṭil, and the justification for casting aspersions on the majority of our umma for the majority of its history. A few aqwāl shādhdha do not constitute sufficient grounds to leave an act which the vast majority of ʿulamāʾ have historically considered sound. The conciliatory approach is a wonderful thing, when it is conciliation between sound differences of opinion. Otherwise, it ultimately leads to the disfigurement of our pure dīn and the creation of a false picture of the dīn where almost everything becomes a legitimate target for suspicion and bidʿa. Overwhelming evidence shows that this way of paranoia and suspicion was not the way of the Prophet ﷺ, nor of the ṣaḥāba, and thus itself constitutes amongst the most egregious of forms of bidʿa. Now, let me be reconciliatory: Many of those who describe themselves as Salafis are sincere Muslims who love the glorious Qur'an and Sunna as we do. May Allah help you to realize the immense harm that is caused by casting aspersions on the whole history of our umma by insinuating that the vast majority of Muslims were misled for the vast majority of our history, and that only an 18th century reformist movement set us on our feet again. The sheer absurdity of that claim should be self-evident to anyone who reflects on خيرُ القرونِ قرْني, ثمَّ الَّذين يلونَهم, ثمَّ الَّذين يلونَهم Another age of the Salaf suddenly reappears after over a millennium of shirk and decline? This is my final word on the topic. For more, please read al-Sayyid al-ʿAlawī al-Mālikī's مفاهيم يجب ان تصحح with an open mind and heart, and please desist from casting aspersions on our Umma. athabat.net/static/uploads…مفاهيم%20يجب%20أن%20تص%26%23%286%29.pdf
Questioner: Don’t you think it’s better to say such things in private? (Istigatha) Hasan Spiker says https://x.com/RealHasanSpiker/status/1750917107213062150
Respected shaykh, I think there are a lot of inaccuracies in what you stated. (Thread) https://t.co/8D9Vca3N21— zuno~ (@mogheess_) December 23, 2023
https://x.com/TheUsuli/status/1738626446539493703 1. Neo-deobandis who attended a western deoband school never saw how sunnis saw them in the 1970s and 1990s, or how their amirs and imams promoted their doctrine to laypeople. These days, all they stand for is a rosy version of their deobandi doctrine that they picked up from their shyakh. 2. Deos, like rawafidhs, are well-known for their taqiya. Deoband theology, like wahabi theology, is inconsistent. It varies according to geographical location. As a result, it is easier for them to abandon particular ideas when it becomes more difficult to be acknowledged in ahle sunnah wa jamaat. We call them Tonda, which means "lizard." They are well-known for changing color based on the situation and time. 3. Why is it that no one discusses how their tableegh jamaat persuaded jahil layman, causing uproar in families and society, and ushering in a new level of fitna in Sunni communities? Instead of addressing laymen's incorrect bidas, these deobandis made them detest from Ahle Sunnah wa Jamaat and causing him to transgress. Every unlearned, jahil, corrupted peer was referred to as barelvi. How they instilled hatred in Sunni people. While preaching the najdi concept of Islam through hanafi jurisprudence. 4. These neo-Deobandis lack comprehension; their shyakh were only human, and they committed grave mistakes in doctrine. This man is asking us to justify their master rather than correcting them. Why stand up for Namus e Rishalat when you can let your master off the hook? However, they are free to discredit and vilify Barelvi ahle Sunnah scholars. With lies, most of the time.
so these are abominations which have grown feeding upon khalid mahmud's filth - that liar who deserved la'anat - who would shamelessly lie and had all the qualities of being a spokesman in israeli terrorist forces. khalid - alayhi ma alayhi - had the same energy, now he is dead and rotted away. nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah. -- someone tell this devbandi pipsqueak to debunk the table. let him disprove this table is incorrect, false or factually incorrect instead of crowing like a monkey.
