devbandi debates from 100 years

The Deobandis have now removed all comments on their Youtube videos and have disabled the comments
Furthermore, they are demanding that Shaykh Asrar not use Deobandi texts

They should debate on both the Deobandi elders and our scholars so Sheikh Asrar can expose them...they way usman iqbal is orchestrating the Debate is very deceitful but we can expect this from devbandis...we could do the same thing zameel and usman are doing in response to them but us real sunnis are more patient and mature .
 
Last edited:
This website has been using nefarious tactics especially in the portrayal of Sunni scholars over the last few years and it seems to be run by some unsavoury characters. However, reading the latest comments from the deos during the week, it is clear that they have no interest in debating the real issues and will rely solely on picking up subsidiary issues or isolated statements (out of context too) to 'win' the debate. The casing example is the ridiculous notion that Shaykh Asrar cannot quote Deo texts when surely the crux of their argument is that Alahazrat anathematised their elders because they 'refuted' his anti-Islamic practices but then if it is revealed that approval of these practices or beliefs can be sourced in Deo texts...what does that do the deo argument?

This condition in my opinion highlights two things: firstly, in reality the Deos have no confidence in the texts of their elders which is why they are refusing for those texts to be discussed and secondly it is just another attempt to divert the attention away from the real issues, especially with regards to the statements made by their elders. From my limited understanding but keen interest in the issue, I have noted this constant reinventing of the narrative in which they make spurious claims of why Alahazrat passed the fatwa such as the lie about him and Thanwi studying at the same madrassa or that he was a 'master forger' who for example when presenting 'Tahzeer un Naas' to the Arab ulema put three statements together to form one passage. If one unpicks this claim then it is clear the order of the statements or how they are presented is irrelevant and why would a 'master forger' put together three statements when two of the statements are pretty much identical and why is that Deos do not critically explain Alahazrat's concoction makes it kufr but not when the statements are read separately. The reason is they have no confidence in objectively attempting to exonerate or clarify so must resort to diverting attention and revising the narrative. The update in this formula is now is as what Shaykh Asrar calls the 'paradigm shift', which in this context is the Deo attempt to find isolated statements in the works of Sunni scholars and use them to 'turn the tables' in this centuries old conflict but in reality it is just another attempt to revise the narrative.

if the deos are truthful in their claims in defending their elders and in their 'concerns' with the works and beliefs of Sunnis then they should be willing to have an open and objective discussion about the statements that Alahazrat took their elders to task for and if they do have issues with the works of Sunni scholars or some of our beliefs then it is only fair and correct to judge their own works and scholars using the same standard. This is what our side needs to get across in the preliminary discussion and not attempt to engage in a tit for tat discussion over isolated statements, which is what the Deo side wants as it deflects the attention away from the real issues.

However, it is clear that they will look to employ dirty tricks and attempt to ambush our side, which should be sufficient for the objective observer to know that these people have no interest in upholding or even attempting to establish Haq no matter if they appendage haq to their name literally or to their youtube channel for symbolic purposes. Nothing more than a hype job or a charade , which is why our side should utilise the preliminary discussion to gauge whether it is even worth giving these charlatans the time or exposure because it is clear they are merely looking to emulate their elders in revising the narrative. Maybe that is what the debate should be about- critically analysing the statements of the apologists as that would really expose the contradictions and deceptive culture that pervades the deo scholarship in relation to polemics.
 
brother waqar, you make good points. but i suppose you must write in shorter sentences for clarity.

---
CIFIA website has been using nefarious tactics, especially in the portrayal of Sunni scholars, over the last few years. It seems to be run by some unsavoury characters. However, reading the latest comments from the deos during the week, it is clear that they have no interest in debating real issues. They will rely solely on picking up subsidiary issues or isolated statements (and out of context too) to 'win' the debate. A case in point is the ridiculous notion that Shaykh Asrar cannot quote Deo texts, when the crux of their argument is that Alahazrat anathematised their elders because, they 'refuted' his purportedly anti-Islamic practices. But then, if it is revealed that approval of such practices or beliefs can be sourced in Deo texts...what will that do the deo argument?​
 
if you look at their latest comments, these wahhabi mamati deos are twisting, now they are claiming our own scholars supported the author of tahzeerun nas.

how about your own one Amin Okarvi supporting our scholars.

we need to organize material and get it ready before the debate.

mamati vs hayati deobandis

sarfaraz safdar khan vs other deos

also remember deos wrote against Sh M. Alawi Maliki and accused him of shirk. this could be good material.
 
The reason is they have no confidence in objectively attempting to exonerate or clarify so must resort to diverting attention and revising the narrative.

The debate should have the following conditions:

1. both sides acknowledge that devbandi books contain statements which the sunni scholars have been denouncing as kufr for more than a century.

2.both sides acknowledge that devbandis have defended these statements for just as long and have been forwarding various explanations for them.

3. both sides should list the books/periodicals and the authors/speakers they stand by and endorse in their entirety as representing their respective sides in the correct light - and whose contents/arguments they are willing to defend anytime.

4. both sides should be allowed to name the books of the opposite side and seek either their approval or disavowal of some or all of their contents - reasons need not be elucidated.

5. finally, both sides should declare beforehand if the issues they will be discussing are new and have not been discussed in the past century or whether they have already been raised and answered/unanswered in the aforesaid works.

this will ensure a solid baseline for the debate and give the relevant historical context for it - for those who are unaware or willfully refuse to find out the backstory for this age old dispute.

each side will get a chance to tell their side of the story to both audiences and the claims made therein can be quoted and discussed during the debate that follows.

failing this, it will most likely turn out to be another attempt at devbandi-myth-making in the guise of 'civil debate'.
 
@Unbeknown has put what I wanted to say in a concise and more eloquent manner.
Both sides have the right to uphold the sanctity of their scholars but must do so within the parameters of agreed upon principles. Otherwise the debate will be counter productive or even just take on a cultish edge.
Principles over personalities is the only way to have a meaningful debate.
 
@Waqar786

I disagree with you, Deobandis have rejected the fatwa of Kufr by playing linguistic gymnastics.
* wrote but did not mean it
* wrote but have denied it
* wrote while playing golf but was not focused

and they came up with new scheme, that is, attack on ahle sunnah, now they are equating ILM AL GHAYB = KUFR
so there is a paradigm shift

however they cannot escape this one:http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/the-deobandiyya.10228/

(3) Syed Muhammad Ibn Alavi al Maliki(rah),from whom i had Ijaza ,did study Hadith from Deobandi Zakariyyak khandelavi,in his youth ,when he was unaware of their true beliefs.It is an old story.Still,the respected sayyed .did not take Sufi Path,from them,but it was from Qutb eMadina,Shaykh Diyayudheen Madani (qs),who was a khalifa of A'ala hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (qs).Ater ,he had written his Mafaheem,deobandis had become very hostile to him.See what was written,in their infamous forum:
Hafiz Safaraz Hassan Khan - ustad at Jamia Madania Bahawalpur, grandson of Imam Ahl al-Sunnah ‘Allamah Sarfaraz Khan Safdar (may Allah have mercy on him) writes,

"It is known to all that my grandfather (may Allah have mercy upon him) used to have strong attachment and association with the maslak of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah. He did not tolerate minor flexibility in this regard and was a perfect embodiment of “la yakhafuna laumata layim” (who do not fear the accusation of the accusers). An Arab from Makkah, Muhammad bin 'Alawi Maliki Sahib (who is by maslak a Barelwi), wrote two books namely Al-Zakhayir al-Muhammadiyyah and Hawl al-Ihtifal bi Zikra Mawlid al-Nabwi al-Sharif. Many of the contents of these books were objected by Shaykh Abd Allah bin Sulayman bin Mani’, member of Ulama Board of Saudi Arabia and Qadhi of Makkah Mukarramah, and he published a book in his refutation in 1403 named Hiwar ma’a al-Maliki fi rad Munkaratihi wa Dhalalatih. After the publication of the book, when the supporters of Alawi published Islah-i-Mafahim the Urdu version of Mafahim Yajibu an Tusahhah, it struck the Ahl Haq that the innovations (bid’ahs) and polytheism (shirk) is presented as pure religion. So, the elder scholars raised objections and warned the people in their articles, fatawas and letters against it that ‘Islah-i-Mafahim’ is a collection of beliefs and practices based on polytheism and bid’ah which was cunningly labeled with tawhid and sunnah. As per his custom and taste, my grandfather sided with haq and the Ahl Haq and distanced himself from Islah-i-Mafahim and other false ideas mentioned in the books of Alawi. Once I asked him about Alawi Maliki Sahib, he said: 'I have the same views which Hadhrat Qadi [‘Qaid Ahl al-Sunnah ‘Allamah Qadi Mazhar Hussain, khalifa mujaz of Shaykh al-Islam Mawlana Madani, may Allah have mercy on them] had.' Then, I read for him a treatise of Dr. Mufti Abd al-Wahid (Mufti of Jamia Madaniyyah, Lahore) namely Muhammad Alawi Maliki kay ‘Aqaid unki Tahrirat kay Ayine main [Beliefs of Muhammad Alawi Maliki in the light of his works]. Having listened some texts, he spoke out: 'He is more bid’ati than Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi'.

sarfraz-alwi-bidat1.jpg


'Ulama of Deoband warned against some of his books in particular Mafahim. Many scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamah Deoband wrote refutation of numerous 'aqaid and masa'il in Mafahim. All that was published together in a book called Tahqiqi Nazar. This book was compiled by Mufti Muhammad Abu Bakr Alawi, a graduate of Dar al-Ulum Karachi, at the instructions of Mawlana Muhammad Ismail Badat Madani, khalifa of Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Zakariyya (may Allah have mercy on him). It was published by Madrassah Khuddam Ahl al-Sunnat, Lahore.

‘Ulama of Deoband wrote detailed refutation of ‘aqiad of Muhammad Alawi Maliki mentioned in Mafahim and his other books; declared him mubtadi and outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamah because of the beliefs he promoted in his books.

Those scholars who wrote detailed rebuttal include:

1. ‘Allamah Qadi Mazhar Hussain, Chakwal.
2. Shaykh Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianwi Shahid, Karachi.
3. Mufti Sayyid Abd al-Shakur Tirmidhi, Sargodha.
4. Mufti Abd al-Sattar, Khayr al-Madaris Multan.
5. Dr. Mufti Abd al-Wahid, Lahore.

After Mufti 'Abd al-Sattar, head of Majlis Tahqiqati Islami Pakistan (Islamic Research Academy), wrote refutation of Muhammad Alwi Maliki following scholars signed the document and fully agreed with Mufti 'Abd al-Sattar.

1. Mufti Jamil Ahmad Thanwi, Jamia Ashrafiyyah Lahore
2. Mufti Taqi Usmani, Karachi.
3. Mufti Rafi Usmani, Karachi.
4. Dr. ‘Allamah Khalid Mahmud, U.K.
5. Shaykh Sayyid Nafis Shah al-Hussaini, Lahore.
6. Mawlana Amin Safdar Okarwi, Khayr al-Madaris Multan.
7. 'Allamah Abd al-Qayyum Haqqani, Dar al-Ulum Haqqania Akora Khattak.
8. Mufti Sher Muhammad Alawi, Jamia Ashrafiyya Lahore.
9. Mawlana Ashiq Ilhaqi Bulandshahri, Madina.
10. Mufti Muhammad Farid, Akora Khattak.
11. Mawlana Muhammad Ismail Badat Madani, Madina.
12. Mufti Nazir Ahmad, Jamia Imdadiyya Faisalabad.
13. Mufti Abd al-Salam Chatgami, Banuri Town Karachi.
14. Mawlana Muhammad Akbar, Qasim al-Ulum Multan.
15. Mawlana Faidh Ahmad, Qasim al-Ulum Multan.
16. Mawlana Abd al-Ghani, Jamia Madania Lahore.
17. Mawlana Jamal Ahmad, Dar al-Ulum Faisalabad.
18. Mawlana Javed Hussain Shah.
[SF]
 
I agree with @ramiz.noorie in that our side need to highlight the contradictions and the inconsistent narrative that the deos are known to provide but only in relation to the main issues.
The hayati/mamati is an internal issue for the deos so best to let themselves squabble on that as our focus needs to be on the statements that their elders made and were taken to task for.
I would not even bother with how they treated Shaykh Alawi because that is an aside and the deos would love to turn the debate into a sideshow.
Our main issue with them is the statements their elders made so lets press them on those using agreed upon principles.
Their main issue with us is that our beliefs are innovative or according to some akin to shirk ,so again they have the right to press us on this issue but again using agreed upon principles.
There needs to be an objective standard to the key issues and no need to discuss isolated statements because that is the game the deos want to play. Playing them at their own game is smart but not objective and nor will it render the desired outcome.
 
'Ulama of Deoband warned against some of his books in particular Mafahim. Many scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamah Deoband wrote refutation of numerous 'aqaid and masa'il in Mafahim. All that was published together in a book called Tahqiqi Nazar. This book was compiled by Mufti Muhammad Abu Bakr Alawi, a graduate of Dar al-Ulum Karachi, at the instructions of Mawlana Muhammad Ismail Badat Madani, khalifa of Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Zakariyya (may Allah have mercy on him). It was published by Madrassah Khuddam Ahl al-Sunnat, Lahore.

Is this available online?


After Mufti 'Abd al-Sattar, head of Majlis Tahqiqati Islami Pakistan (Islamic Research Academy), wrote refutation of Muhammad Alwi Maliki following scholars signed the document and fully agreed with Mufti 'Abd al-Sattar.

...
2. Mufti Taqi Usmani, Karachi.

Is this a part of the book? Or a separate document? Is this available anywhere? This should be translated and shown to some of the non-Indo/Pak Sunni ulema who have a love for Taqi Usmani...
 
The gang is becoming bolder. After 100 years they have a mouth with which to speak. We need to stop them in their tracks.

They have been working with utmost dedication from a couple of years now. Most of them are still studying yet they take out time to go through the books of their aqabir, translate and pen-down articles. They have a blog dedicated against the Subcontinental sunnis, a discussion forum, an active presence on facebook with regular interaction with non-subcontinental shuyukh and laymen alike.

For instance, during the recent arguments between the Najdi-Awnis followed by the Istighatha debate b/w Sh.AR and ARH, they were pretty active in engaging with the Najdis/Awnis and even came up with articles departing from the traditional deobandi position that the Kuffar of Makkah had Tawhid-ar-Rububiyyah. How many of sunni students of knowledge are actively engaged in answering this deobandi group or leveraging the Najdi-Awni split? I appreciate their sincerity in isolating themselves from anything that serves as a distraction to their studies. However, we cannot deny the importance of answering deobandi lies in form of such videos and articles mainly directed at the non-subcontinental audience. I find very few learned individuals like Abu Hasan who take out time from their busy schedules for this communal obligation.

I am not saying that this group stands a chance against Sh AR in the debate, if it happens, however, they are better prepared than other deobandi sub-groups simply because they have been doing their homework behind closed doors from quite some time now.
 
Allama Saghir Ahmad Jokhanpuri (Khalifa e Mufti e Azam e Hind) will be in the UK soon. He is one of our senior debators in India alongside Muhaddith e Kabir and Mufti Muti ur Rahman. He was present in the famous Itarsi debate and Bihar debate. Perhaps someone can organise a meeting between Shaykh Asrar and Allama Saghir Ahmed Jokhanpuri. He is our learned elder and from our senior scholars in India who has debated the Deobandis.
 
Another video by Mufti Zameel & co.

the sad reality of things is that this dispute is a 100+ years old and it's not doing justice to the awam by overwhelming them with the forensics of he said this, he replied that, he counter-replied with that, and so on.

i'm not suggesting Shaykh Asrar is not aware of the literature of both sides, but it is easy for someone to fumble on matters of what was said in which book in the last 100 yrs; notwithstanding that such talk is dry and boring to the awam and adds further to their confusion. one minor and inconsequential slip on andaman & nicobar being southwest or southeast of the indian peninsula will invite howls of "Asrar Rashid is a liar".

deobandis are champions of sleaziness and diverting the topic and doing their utmost to spread misguidance. they will do their utmost to sidetrack the debate

in my humble opinion, any Sunni-devbandi debate should be only at a conceptual level and about actual aqidah points and concepts, with other Sunni ulema as judges (like Arab Sunnis) with some basic guidelines like -

1. whoever violates the daruriyat is a kafir
2. whoever violates ijma3 is also kafir or heretic
3. disputes on intra-Sunni matters of non-ijma3 are acceptable, be they detailed aqaid related matters (like Ash3aris and Maturidis) or fiqh matters.

the above guidelines and the points of discussion should be proven from the works of celebrated Sunni akabir along with the obvious proofs from Quran and Ahadith

and then general declarations on such points must be handed over in writing from both sides

for example - a person who says that the knowledge of the Prophet, 3alaihis salam, is like that of kids and madmen (wal 3eyadhu billah), such a person is more worthless, useless and uglier to Muslims than a statue of ganpatti and he and his books should be visarjan-ed into the sewer! no need to prove thanvi did or didn't say it.


this is the only way it will benefit the awam and offer them some clarity, rather than citing refutations and counter refutations and counter counter refutations in Urdu from the last 100 years worth of literature. it won't benefit the awam much.

plus the initial call to debate (video deleted) was the devbandi's claim that Imam Ahmad Rida is gustakhe Rasool, 3alaihis salam, wal 3eyadhu billah.

Asrar Rashid should impose to the devs that he will debate only this point for now and the rest of the points will be debated only after a closure is reached on this. anything other than this, and Asrar would be falling into the devbandis trap of sidetracking and goalpost shifting and confusing the awam.


it doesn't have to be in the same venue

the dev can live stream his allegations in a specified time slot (2 hrs are sufficient) on a specific date. then Asrar Rashid can live stream his response for an equal amount of time, on the same day.

about 3 sessions of such to-and-fro are enough, probably.

if the dev has the first word, Asrar should have the last.

=======

plus it will also help Sunnis to get the raw devbandi creed straight from the devbandis mouth, by combing through their official positions officially stated on their website. it's amazing how such openly available devbandi positions are hidden from non-desi Sunni scholars

if that devbandi has any shame or courage, tell him to take these fatawa to Arab and Turkish or other Sunnis

http://www.darulifta-deoband.com/home/ur/Islamic-Beliefs/8732

ہ مسئلہ توسیع قدرت کا مسئلہ ہے کہ اللہ تعالیٰ کو تمام ممکنات پر قدرت حاصل ہے یا نہیں۔ اس کا عنوان بگاڑکر لوگوں کے لیے وحشت ونفرت پھیلائی جارہی ہے۔ ہم بھی یہ عقیدہ رکھتے ہیں کہ اللہ تعالیٰ کی ذات کذب کی صفت سے پاک اور منزہ ہے، اس کے کلام میں کذب کا شائبہ بھی نہیں وَمَنْ اَصْدَقُ مِنَ اللّٰہِ قِیْلاً جو شخص اللہ کے بارے میں یہ عقیدہ رکھے کہ اللہ جھوٹ بولتا ہے، وہ کافر وملعون ہے، قرآن وحدیث اور اجماعِ امت کا مخالف ہے۔ آپ نے امکان کذب اور وقوعِ کذب کو ایک سمجھ لیا ہے۔ محض ممکن پر قدرت اس کے صدور کو مستلزم نہیں اور صدور نہ ہونے سے قدرت کا سلب لازم نہیں آتا۔ اگر ممکنات پر اللہ کی قدرت نہ مانی جائے تو اللہ تعالیٰ کا عجز لازم آتا ہے، جو اِنَّ اللّٰہَ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیْءٍ قَدِیْرٌ کے خلاف ہے۔ ظاہر ہے اس کا کوئی بھی قائل نہیں۔

واللہ تعالیٰ اعلم

http://www.darulifta-deoband.com/home/ur/Islamic-Beliefs/1886

this mardood has properly said "intrinsically possible" with his "mumkin bidh-dhaat" as opposed to keller's "not intrinsically impossible"

قدرت علی الکذب مستلزم صدور نہیں، کذبِ باری تعالیٰ ممکن بالذات یا ممتنع بالغیر ہے کذب چونکہ قبیح ہے اس لیے اس کا صدور باری تعالی سے نہ کبھی ہوا ور نہ کبھی ہوگا إن اللہ تعالی منزّہ من أن یتصف بصفة الکذب ولیست في کلامہ شائبة الکذب أبدا کما قال اللہ تعالی: وَمَنْ اَصْدَقُ مِنَ اللّٰہِ قِیْلاً (المھند علی المفند: ص۵۵)جو شخص ذاتِ باری سے صدورِ کذب کا قائل ہو وہ کافر ہے، لیکن صدور نہ ہونے سے قدرت کا سلب لازم نہیں آتا، اگر قدرت نہ مانی جائے تو عجز لازم آتا ہے کہ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیْءٍ قَدِیْرٌ کے خلاف ہے، اس سے معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ کذب پر قدرت ضرور ہے کیونکہ اگر قدرت نہ ہو تو وہ صدق پر مجبور ہوگا اور عجز و مجبوری اللہ کی ذات سے بہت بعید ہے۔ غرضیکہ فعل قبیح تو قبیح ہوتا ہے لیکن فعل قبیح پر قدرت قبیح نہیں ہوتی وقوع قبیح ہوتا ہے جو کہ ذاتِ باری سے ممکن نہیں ہے۔ إن أمثال ھذہ الأشیاء مقدور قطعاً لکنہ غیر جائز الوقوع عند أھل السنة والجماعة من الأشاعرة (المھند علی المفند: ص۵۹)

http://www.darulifta-deoband.com/home/en/Innovations--Customs/20428

Celebrating Eid Meelad al-nabi (the birthday of the Prophet) is not proved by Hadith and Quran. The companions of the holy Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) who held great respect and love for holy Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم), they never celebrated Eid Meelad. It is the invention of Christians which was invented following six hundred years after the holy Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم). We are not asked to celebrate the birthday or death-day of anyone. This day should be spent like other days.

let them take this fatwa to the Arab Sunni scholars and lambaste them for following a christian invention

http://www.darulifta-deoband.com/home/ur/Innovations--Customs/69520

let them lecture the Sunnis of the world regarding "tamam musalmano par is se ijtenab zaroori hai" if they have any decency.

(۱- ۵) /۱۲ ربیع الاول کو حضور صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی ولادت با سعادت کا دن سمجھ کر عید میلاد النبی (صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) منانا مذہب اسلام میں بے اصل، ناجائز اور بدعت ہے ، تمام مسلمانوں پر اس سے اجتناب ضروری ہے ، کیوں کہ:

http://www.darulifta-deoband.com/home/ur/Interest--Insurance/59260

once again, "mumkin bidh-dhaat" - and don't talk about it in front of awam! keller wept.

(۴) قرآن پاک میں ہے: اللہ تعالیٰ ہرچیز پر قادر ہیں“ پس کذب بھی باری تعالیٰ کی قدرت کے تحت داخل ہے، وہ اس سے عاجز بے بس نہیں ہیں، مثلاً: اللہ تعالیٰ نے قرآن پاک میں ایمان والوں کے لیے جو وعدے فرمائے ہیں اور کفار ومشرکین کو جو دھمکیاں دی ہیں، اللہ تعالیٰ ان کے خلاف پر بھی قادر ہیں، ایسا نہیں ہے کہ وہ وعدہ اور وعید کی وجہ سے ان کے خلاف سے عاجز وبے بس ہوگئے، باقی یہ اور بات ہے کہ اللہ تعالیٰ سے کذب کا وقوع نہ ہوا اور نہ ہوگا؛ کیونکہ کسی چیز کا امکان اس کے وقوع کو مستلزم نہیں ہوتا، ایسا عین ممکن ہے کہ کوئی چیز ممکن بالذات ہو اور کسی وجہ خارجی سے اس کا وقوع نہ ہو۔ چوں کہ یہ مسئلہ نہایت دقیق وباریک ہے، ہرایک کے لیے اس کی پوری حقیقت سمجھنا دشوار ہے؛ اس لیے عوام کے سامنے ذکر نہیں کرنا چاہیے۔ (مستفاد: فتاوی رشیدیہ ص۹۶، ۹۷ مطبوعہ: گلستاں کتاب گھر، دیوبند)

http://www.darulifta-deoband.com/home/ur/Innovations--Customs/147952

this poor soul didn't hear anything about kanhaiya

سوال # 147952

کیا کبھی ایسا ہوا ہے کہ ہمارے کسی علماء حق نے یہ کہا ہو کہ اللہ کے نبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کا جنم دن منانا ایسا ہی ہے جیسے کسن کنہیا کا جنم دن منانا، اور پھر اس پر علماء حرمین نے فتوی دیا ہو کہ ایسے کہنے والے لوگ کافر ہیں، اور پھر حرمین علماء نے صفائی پیش کی ہو، اگر ایسا ہوا ہے تو پوری تفصیلی سے معاملہ بھیجیں۔ اللہ آپ کو اور مجھے حق پر جمائے رکھے۔ آمین
Published on: Mar 9, 2017

جواب # 147952

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


Fatwa ID: 204-424/sd=6/1438



اسلام میں کسی کی ولادت پر خوشی منانے کا کوئی ثبوت نہیں ہے، اگر سرور عالم حضرت محمد مصطفی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی ولادت با سعادت کا دن خوشی کے لیے مقرر ہوتا، تو دور نبوت اوردور صحابہ کرام رضی اللہ عنہم میں اس کا ضرور ثبوت ہوتا، صحابہٴ کرام رضی اللہ عنہم حضور اکرم صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کے سچے عاشق اور جاں نثار تھے، اس کے باوجود دور صحابہ یا اس کے بعد کبھی بھی آپ کے ولادت کے دن کو تہوار کے طور پر نہیں منایا گیا۔ باقی سوال میں آپ نے جو تفصیلات لکھیں ہیں ہمیں ان کے بارے میں نہیں ہیں۔ إن عمل المولد بدعة لم یقل بہ ولم یفعل رسول اللّٰہ ا والخلفاء والأئمة۔ (الشرعیة الإلٰہیة بحوالہ: راہ سنت ۱۶۴) ومن جملة ما أحد ثوہ من البدع مع اعتقادہم أن ذلک من أکبر العبادات وإظہار الشرائع یفعلونہ في شہر ربیع الأول من المولد وقد احتوی علی بدع ومحرمات جمة الخ۔ (المدخل ۲/۳بحوالہ: فتاویٰ محمودیہ ڈابھیل ۳/۱۶۵)

whereas this chap did- https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/another-example-of-abu-hasans-distortions/#comments

he cites his high priest thusly (his citation and his translation)

And then he says:

Ya yeh wajh he ke ruh pak ‘alayhissalam ki ‘alam e arwah se ‘alam e shahadat meh tashrif lae is ki tazim ko qiyam he to yeh bhi mahz hamaqat he kyun ke is wajh meh qiyam kurna waqt wuqu wiladat sharifah ke hona chahiyeh ab hur roz konsi wiladat mukarrar hoti he? Pus yeh hur roz iadah wiladat ka to misl hunud keh sang kanhaya…

“Or the justification is that the pure spirit [of the Prophet] (upon him peace) came from the world of spirits to the world of seeing, so in reverence of this, one stands. This too is pure idiocy because in this justification, standing is to be done at the moment of the noble birth. Now, each day, which birth is being repeated? Thus, the re-enactment of birth is like the festival of Kanhaya of the Hindus…” (p. 152)

Allahu Musta3an.
 
this is the only way it will benefit the awam and offer them some clarity, rather than citing refutations and counter refutations and counter counter refutations in Urdu from the last 100 years worth of literature. it won't benefit the awam much.

While I agree with this the other fact is that the fatawaa of takfeer were passed on specific individuals with their names and their affiliations to the Madrasah at devband clearly spelled out. Sunni literature is awash with references to these individuals.

This is a dagger struck right deep into the breast of dayabina and they will keep screeching in pain at frequent intervals of years.

So besides learning the hukm on the utterances, the awaam is also faced with the question - were these names really guilty of such heinous crimes against Islam?

So the necessity of naming names cannot be discounted - sunnis have two sets of things to prove. Until then the awaam will remain in a state of confusion and skepticism, even suspicion, against sunni scholars.

Besides, our scholars down the ages have been naming the offenders due to necessity - an example closer in time would be ibn abdul wahhab najdi.

Allah knows best.
 
This is a dagger struck right deep into the breast of dayabina and they will keep screeching in pain at frequent intervals of years.

this will certainly happen even if we follow the strategy of clarifying the concepts first and foremost.

our aim for debates is not/should not be to convert the established bhakts of deoband. if it happens, it's great, but that's not our primary aim.

our primary aim is to safeguard the neutral and/or confused awam's imaniyat.

So besides learning the hukm on the utterances, the awaam is also faced with the question - were these names really guilty of such heinous crimes against Islam?

once the hukm is made aware, this will automatically happen as the next step, either by further in-depth study into Sunniyat, or by stumbling upon devbandi literature themselves. but the first and most important step is safeguarding the awam's aqidah thought process.

if a man dies not knowing what ashraf ali said, nothing's lost. but if he dies believing what ashraf ali did, regardless if he knows of dayabina or not, his hereafter is doomed.

===

our dna is not the strategy we employ. our dna is the manhaj of the Ahlus Sunnah.

will you go to Hajj by a ship and camel caravan, taking the sacrificial animal with you? will you go to war with swords and horses or even a 1950's rifle or would you set a semi-automatic as a bare minimum standard?

likewise, their dna is kufr and dalalah, not the strategy they employ.

just look at their modus operandi. they never badmouth the qabarpujaris when they recruit a new novice to their jamat. they attack him at a conceptual level, teach him their flawed manhaj. once the person is solidly grounded in their manhaj, then he is made into a bhakt of their akabir, and only after that is he taught how to be sleazy with the qabarpujaris, starting with his own family! do you see tariq jameel propagating these devbandi fatawa at large gatherings on tv? in fact he congratulates people on Mawlid!

Until then the awaam will remain in a state of confusion and skepticism, even suspicion, against sunni scholars.

if our aqidah and manhaj of the last 1440 years and the sayings of the celebrated Sunni akabir is made crystal clear to them, it will never happen.

it won't take more than 10 minutes for them to read a passage from the works of our Sunni elders, and place it against the works of the imams of kufr of deoband, and see who's right and who's wrong

===

do this social experiment - on any random friday, pick any 10 random common guys from a random deobandi mosque, and pick any 10 random common guys from a random "Barelvi" mosque (i use inverted commas not to be sarcastic at ourselves, but rather at them - to emphasize that we are Ahlus Sunnah and they euphemistically call us "Barelvis")

ask these 20 people

1. can you read and write proper Urdu? how good is your vocabulary in Urdu?
2. do you know what exactly the Barelvi-devbandi conflict is about? can you give a definition of a Sunni?
3. do you know the major works of your elders on this topic and can you explain them to another common guy from the crowd?
4. are you aware of the other side's major refutations on these works?
5. have you read and understood those refutations, regardless whether you agree with them or not?

if you so wish, repeat with a larger sample size for proper empirical evidence! at least get 500 Barelvis and 500 deobandis from each of the 10 major Muslim populated cities of india.

my hunch is that 70-90% of the people wouldn't answer a yes just to the first question, regardless of which side they're on. Urdu is orphaned in india, like it or not. don't fool yourself into thinking it's not the case after watching a youtube video of rahat indori's mushayra. it is no longer the elite status symbol it once was, when even kafirs took pride in knowing Urdu. i've personally met old hindus and sikhs who used to write letters in Urdu to members of their own immediate family. these days it's hard to find common Muslims who can read a translation of the Quran in Urdu, and i'm talking UP-walas!! especially anyone born in the 1970's and onward, in fact most 1960's born people i know are equally as bad! the situation with the west is worse, which is what Asrar Rashid is dealing with!

with such a level of Urdu, do you honestly expect people to grasp the length and breadth of the conflict? they'll probably turn to nuh keller for a judgment!

assuming you get past the first handicap, what do you think most people will say in response to the next 4 questions? how many people actually read religious books? we'll talk about understanding later.

pakistanis are not lacking on Urdu, but i'm not too hopeful that majority of their awam will properly answer the next 4 questions, regardless of which side they're on.

Allah knows best. was-salam.
 
if a man dies not knowing what ashraf ali said, nothing's lost. but if he dies believing what ashraf ali did, regardless if he knows of dayabina or not, his hereafter is doomed.

As Salamu 'Alaykum,

Good to see that you're still alive and kicking. Slightly different context I'm in. West, university scene, barely any Urdu speakers let alone young readers who can confirm that the kaafir 4 actually said what they said in the books they wrote.

In this case would it be sufficient for them to believe *if* the kaafir 4 said this stuff then they're definitely kaafir but otherwise withhold judgment as they can't verify for themselves?
 
Back
Top