Mehmet Sekil
sunniport user
Nasiha to Barelwis
- Thread starter Mehmet Sekil
- Start date
"Shaykh Asrar was wrong for using the epithet 'Barelwi' here because real Barelwis do not associate themselves with the people mentioned in the video and definitely don't circumabulate graves. In fact 'Barelwi' scholars have refuted the innovations that are widespread..."
dunno if i didn't get it properly - but in regards to the hadith of the blind man - i know for a fact even many Arab shuyukh prescribe that as Salatul Hajat for a need.
perhaps he should clarify his thoughts on when and how we can act on the hadith of the blind man.
i understand his point about learning proper aadaab for dua and addressing Allah, but if he brings up tawassul and istighatha, he should mention their proper aadaab too, just as he touched upon the primary shart for tabarruk.
speaking of tabarruk, at least for Prophetic relics, Kaukab Noorani sahab once said in a gathering i was present in, that when the Blessed Hair of the Prophet 3alaihis salam is presented, no one should think to himself if this is authentic or not. i asked the brother next to me why so as authenticity is important for us, and the brother replied that because it is attributed to the Prophet 3alaihis salam, your job is to now respect it as you have no way to ascertain the authenticity, and it's better to err on the side of respect and caution. i understand saying that to a congregation of people.
but maybe those close to the person who claims to inherit the relic can be investigated by responsible people, as per Shaykh @Asrar Rashid video?
yes the title too is incorrect in my opinion. in india,the devbandis and wahabis call all these bogus people as Barelwis, and it actually makes our job tough when we have to clarify that those things are detested by us too. for example, qawaalis or women going to dargahs is not something promoted by any self-respecting Ridawi.
i personally see zero spiritual or worldly value (and now detest personally due to sadd e zarae3) in this business of chadars at mazars, especially now that hindus too have developed a penchant for it and the hindu-muslim bhai-bhai mob of bollywood fans has this reciprocity mantra of them visiting our dargahs (itself a crime) and zanadiqah honoring hindu artefacts. in Turkey or Morocco for example, graves of pious might have one sheet placed on it permanently by the caretakers for identification or covering purposes, but not the way desis do it as offerings. Barelwi and Ridawi ulama should be the first people to speak against this madness rather than the standard line of "but it's mibah and we won't take this right away from people". i feel the hindutvawadis are a lesser evil than this liberal hindu-muslim bhai-bhai evil, the former is an open enemy only after life and property, the latter is much more sneaky and attacks iman
nonetheless, in my estimation it's wrong to use that title for the video; despite the fact that i do agree that Ahlus Sunnah is a broad term and Barelwis are only a subset of it and that in general the appellation is more counter productive for desi Sunnis than beneficial, although the deciding factor to use or not use it is the circumstance and context.
perhaps he should clarify his thoughts on when and how we can act on the hadith of the blind man.
i understand his point about learning proper aadaab for dua and addressing Allah, but if he brings up tawassul and istighatha, he should mention their proper aadaab too, just as he touched upon the primary shart for tabarruk.
speaking of tabarruk, at least for Prophetic relics, Kaukab Noorani sahab once said in a gathering i was present in, that when the Blessed Hair of the Prophet 3alaihis salam is presented, no one should think to himself if this is authentic or not. i asked the brother next to me why so as authenticity is important for us, and the brother replied that because it is attributed to the Prophet 3alaihis salam, your job is to now respect it as you have no way to ascertain the authenticity, and it's better to err on the side of respect and caution. i understand saying that to a congregation of people.
but maybe those close to the person who claims to inherit the relic can be investigated by responsible people, as per Shaykh @Asrar Rashid video?
yes the title too is incorrect in my opinion. in india,the devbandis and wahabis call all these bogus people as Barelwis, and it actually makes our job tough when we have to clarify that those things are detested by us too. for example, qawaalis or women going to dargahs is not something promoted by any self-respecting Ridawi.
i personally see zero spiritual or worldly value (and now detest personally due to sadd e zarae3) in this business of chadars at mazars, especially now that hindus too have developed a penchant for it and the hindu-muslim bhai-bhai mob of bollywood fans has this reciprocity mantra of them visiting our dargahs (itself a crime) and zanadiqah honoring hindu artefacts. in Turkey or Morocco for example, graves of pious might have one sheet placed on it permanently by the caretakers for identification or covering purposes, but not the way desis do it as offerings. Barelwi and Ridawi ulama should be the first people to speak against this madness rather than the standard line of "but it's mibah and we won't take this right away from people". i feel the hindutvawadis are a lesser evil than this liberal hindu-muslim bhai-bhai evil, the former is an open enemy only after life and property, the latter is much more sneaky and attacks iman
nonetheless, in my estimation it's wrong to use that title for the video; despite the fact that i do agree that Ahlus Sunnah is a broad term and Barelwis are only a subset of it and that in general the appellation is more counter productive for desi Sunnis than beneficial, although the deciding factor to use or not use it is the circumstance and context.
Last edited:
responsible people close to the person who claims to inherit the relics can investigate the authenticity. sorry couldn't correct sentence.
abu Hasan
Administrator
why doesn't sh. asrar declare himself an apologist of albani and bin bozo if he is so bedazzled by them? so when is he coming out open to declare that he is a salafi? looks like shaykh sahib has got himself all confused and began speaking in the language of taqwiyatu'l iman.
---
he is playing fast and loose with words. am sorry to note that it is one of the most incoherent speech i have heard. he makes wild allegations and generalisations unbecoming of a scholar. who are these people that commit these bid'ahs? and why does he so generously brand them baraylwis?
---
it is sad to note that shaykh asrar forcibly tries to impose his categorisation of everyone as asharis, because in his definition he can include everyone as an ash'ari - but if we say that baraylwi is a label that defines sunnis in our time, he grabs his thobe and tiptoes to the corner as if the desi label would sully his expensive moroccan thobe. it is ok if you do not want to be identified as a baraylawi - but do not label every evil in your eyes as belonging to baraylawis, just because you have an axe to grind with some baraylawis. forgive us mawlana, but one ought to be just.
====
what gives sh. asrar the right to put those bidyis in the category of baraylawis? why doesn't he ever recall any sunni aalim from the subcontinent, for scholarship? perhaps he doesn't read urdu books or is not aware of sunni ulama from the third world. fair enough. but should he look down upon sunni ulama from the subcontinent?
he is unjust and casually indulges in iftiraa against the ahl al-sunnah.
in the talk he even blamed the scholar whom albani cross questioned and he didn't give him the hadith as 'baraylawi' and if i remember well, he said: 'there are baraylwis in every country' and he meant it as a pejorative. is this the way of a scholar? may Allah guide him. it is clear that he has an agenda against baraylawis, and i won't be surprised if he comes out attacking alahazrat even.
sadly, this is the modus operandi of many british ulama (the same way asrar sahib generalises the pakistani-indian sunnis; same coin) - they use the name of alahazrat to come up and then try to undermine the maslak and act as if they are somehow superior to desi ulama. and he doesn't even understand the position of nablusi in his khulasah al-tahqiq and did a selective reading to suit his agenda of promoting the new madh'hab-e-cocktail!
=====
true, there are bid'ahs rife in the society. but it is not the fault of sunni scholars. one does not attribute the erroneous ways of the awaam and allege that the scholars are responsible for this.
and let this be known once again: it is ONLY the scholars claiming relation to alahazrat who have the courage to call out anyone, INCLUDING our own. shaykh asrar's accusation is utterly false that we do not refute our own. if there is one maslak which stands for principle and is willing to let go of ANYONE - it is those with the barakah of alahazrat. there are no sacred cows.
allamah abdul hakim sharaf qadiri was a proud baraylawi aalim and he called out these bid'ahs long ago.
read his excellent book: khuda ko yad kar pyare. and oh yes, he was a barelwi aalim.
all that shykh asrar says - i have heard it from my own teacher and i have myself been telling fellow-sunnis for decades. it is true that the awam is ignorant and they need to be taught. but asrar sahib wants to add every negative aspect to the account of barelwis.
this is unfair and if sh.asrar continues to throw 'baraylwis' under the bus, we also know how to count, and we too can take out time to analyse his speeches.
-------
the amount of work done by sunnis - aka baraylwis - is immense. unfortunately, they are not well known because of the constraints we work in and the lack of support from the awaam. rich people throw money on naat khwans - and poor ulama struggling to spread the true teachings of ahl al-sunnah struggle to survive. but our mawlana will be quick to label the FORMER ones as baraylwis, and call the LATTER ones as plain sunni ulama.
wah! how convenient. but baraylwis are here to stay.
---
he is playing fast and loose with words. am sorry to note that it is one of the most incoherent speech i have heard. he makes wild allegations and generalisations unbecoming of a scholar. who are these people that commit these bid'ahs? and why does he so generously brand them baraylwis?
---
it is sad to note that shaykh asrar forcibly tries to impose his categorisation of everyone as asharis, because in his definition he can include everyone as an ash'ari - but if we say that baraylwi is a label that defines sunnis in our time, he grabs his thobe and tiptoes to the corner as if the desi label would sully his expensive moroccan thobe. it is ok if you do not want to be identified as a baraylawi - but do not label every evil in your eyes as belonging to baraylawis, just because you have an axe to grind with some baraylawis. forgive us mawlana, but one ought to be just.
====
what gives sh. asrar the right to put those bidyis in the category of baraylawis? why doesn't he ever recall any sunni aalim from the subcontinent, for scholarship? perhaps he doesn't read urdu books or is not aware of sunni ulama from the third world. fair enough. but should he look down upon sunni ulama from the subcontinent?
he is unjust and casually indulges in iftiraa against the ahl al-sunnah.
in the talk he even blamed the scholar whom albani cross questioned and he didn't give him the hadith as 'baraylawi' and if i remember well, he said: 'there are baraylwis in every country' and he meant it as a pejorative. is this the way of a scholar? may Allah guide him. it is clear that he has an agenda against baraylawis, and i won't be surprised if he comes out attacking alahazrat even.
sadly, this is the modus operandi of many british ulama (the same way asrar sahib generalises the pakistani-indian sunnis; same coin) - they use the name of alahazrat to come up and then try to undermine the maslak and act as if they are somehow superior to desi ulama. and he doesn't even understand the position of nablusi in his khulasah al-tahqiq and did a selective reading to suit his agenda of promoting the new madh'hab-e-cocktail!
=====
true, there are bid'ahs rife in the society. but it is not the fault of sunni scholars. one does not attribute the erroneous ways of the awaam and allege that the scholars are responsible for this.
and let this be known once again: it is ONLY the scholars claiming relation to alahazrat who have the courage to call out anyone, INCLUDING our own. shaykh asrar's accusation is utterly false that we do not refute our own. if there is one maslak which stands for principle and is willing to let go of ANYONE - it is those with the barakah of alahazrat. there are no sacred cows.
allamah abdul hakim sharaf qadiri was a proud baraylawi aalim and he called out these bid'ahs long ago.
read his excellent book: khuda ko yad kar pyare. and oh yes, he was a barelwi aalim.
all that shykh asrar says - i have heard it from my own teacher and i have myself been telling fellow-sunnis for decades. it is true that the awam is ignorant and they need to be taught. but asrar sahib wants to add every negative aspect to the account of barelwis.
this is unfair and if sh.asrar continues to throw 'baraylwis' under the bus, we also know how to count, and we too can take out time to analyse his speeches.
-------
the amount of work done by sunnis - aka baraylwis - is immense. unfortunately, they are not well known because of the constraints we work in and the lack of support from the awaam. rich people throw money on naat khwans - and poor ulama struggling to spread the true teachings of ahl al-sunnah struggle to survive. but our mawlana will be quick to label the FORMER ones as baraylwis, and call the LATTER ones as plain sunni ulama.
wah! how convenient. but baraylwis are here to stay.
Last edited:
abu Hasan
Administrator
perhaps the shaykh didn't get the time to visit the various graveyards in damascus or the various maqams in syria which are all high enough. the names of shaykh nuruddin itr and others that he takes with such respect - none of them felt the need to level the graves of imam nawawi and others.
sub'HanAllah!
sub'HanAllah!
i'm wondering from husn az-zann pov if the Barelwi eponym is lavishly abused by bogus peers and cults in the uk, perhaps to the extent of tawatur amongst them (the bogus lot), in which case that should have been specified.
abu Hasan
Administrator
so it is sh.asrar's responsibility to clarify.
i will show you who baraylwis are. in sha'Allah, you just wait.
I always believed that when shaykh talks about barelwis in that context, he is talking about those claiming to be barelwis but are essentially fake jahils.
In the same way, haven't other ulema criticised sufis despite being sufi themselves? The context being that they're criticising dodgy claimants to sufism rather than the real deal. Didn't ibn jawzi and others criticise 'the sufis' in broad terms despite being sufi themselves i.e they weren't criticising the real sufis.
Shaykh asrar actually does the same thing somewhere in this overall lecture i.e makes some broad complaint about 'the sufis' without specifying that he's talking about the dodgy ones. I therefore, from the context, understood his complaints about the barelwis to be made in the same manner. That's just how I saw it
I do understand the frustrations of others though. We get enough stick from wahabi deobandi etc where they make the same false allegations against us as presented in this video and we're always fighting them off on the defensive, explaining this is not actually our maslak. Even though I believe shaykh asrar is using the term as per the above, it doesn't help us at all. Just makes barelwism more of a pejorative as opposed to what he could have done i.e distinguish, elaborate and explain what a real barelwi is as opposed to ascribing chuff chuff to us.
In the same way, haven't other ulema criticised sufis despite being sufi themselves? The context being that they're criticising dodgy claimants to sufism rather than the real deal. Didn't ibn jawzi and others criticise 'the sufis' in broad terms despite being sufi themselves i.e they weren't criticising the real sufis.
Shaykh asrar actually does the same thing somewhere in this overall lecture i.e makes some broad complaint about 'the sufis' without specifying that he's talking about the dodgy ones. I therefore, from the context, understood his complaints about the barelwis to be made in the same manner. That's just how I saw it
I do understand the frustrations of others though. We get enough stick from wahabi deobandi etc where they make the same false allegations against us as presented in this video and we're always fighting them off on the defensive, explaining this is not actually our maslak. Even though I believe shaykh asrar is using the term as per the above, it doesn't help us at all. Just makes barelwism more of a pejorative as opposed to what he could have done i.e distinguish, elaborate and explain what a real barelwi is as opposed to ascribing chuff chuff to us.
who me? i'm not on the side of the speech. i started with wanting/wishing clarifications on application of the hadith of blind man, and aadaab of tawassul and istighatha that he alluded to.
i was just thinking loudly (post # 8), coz to me this seemed like a one-off over the top speech by Shaykh Asrar. (i may be wrong coz i don't routinely follow everyone's every speech)
i'm not from an 3ilmi family like some of the people on this forum, just average middle class common folks (deen-wise and duniya-wise), but fwiw, from my 6 immediate parents and grand-parents (ammi-abba, nani-nana, dadi-dada), 3 were born and raised in Bareilly (Ala Hazrat's Bareilly, not Raebareilly, and maternal side are mohajirs into karachi much after partition), and 5 are/were murids of Sayyidi Mufti Aazam Hind rahimahullah. i just have my own idea of maslaha/mafsada on the usage of the eponym Barelwi. i can't use the demonym Barelwi as i'm not born and raised or living in Bareilly
Last edited:
even then, the talk on istighatha and tawassul was unsubstantiated, just as the talk on graves was. it can be easily misconstrued by any non-desi Sunni as anti-Sufi talk (the real, Ash3ari ones). wahabis too don't deny the hadith of the blind man, they just say the command is restricted to the blind man himself for then and there (taqayyud) and not mutlaqan to every ummati
i see your point though, as in his Q&A thread, he did allude to "real 'Barelwism'"
https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/shaykh-asrar-q-a.15045/page-2 (post # 31)
Last edited:
Yeah, I also didn't agree with that and don't think it necessarily made sense.
I also think one problem is that shaykh asrar doesn't identify as barelwi. What I mean by that is, if some sufi shaykh criticised sufis but openly professed to be sufi himself... The context would be clearer i.e he's not talking about all sufis, just the dodgy ones.
If an openly barelwi shaykh criticised barelwis, I think people would also understand it in the same light.
Shaykh asrar openly says he is Not barelwi. As a result, when he criticises barelwis, it APPEARS as if he's criticising the entire manhaj even if he isn't.
It's kind of like when we say 'the sunnis have such and such a problem'. We're not criticising true sunnis neither are we criticising the manhaj. When people say such a thing, it is clear what we actually mean. But that's because we openly profess to be sunni (or at least we hope it will be accepted from us). We're saying it as insiders. Whereas shaykh asrars criticism is coming from an outsider (as he says he's not barelwi).
Abdullah Ahmed
sunniport user
Ultimately, doing such a thing makes it easier for wahabis and deobandis to recruit ppl in to their ranks.
After hearing Shaykh Asrars talk, an uninformed person will automatically associate Barelwis with bidaa and negativity.
And then later when this same individual comes across actual Deos and wahabis criticizing Barelwis and Ala Hazrat, he will then makes this assumption that Barelwis are a fringe group to stay away from.
After hearing Shaykh Asrars talk, an uninformed person will automatically associate Barelwis with bidaa and negativity.
And then later when this same individual comes across actual Deos and wahabis criticizing Barelwis and Ala Hazrat, he will then makes this assumption that Barelwis are a fringe group to stay away from.
Unbeknown
sunniport user
abu Hasan
Administrator
i still consider shaykh asrar as a sunni scholar.
but how does it feel when clubbed with deviants? how does it feel if we begin to refer to salafis as "sh.asrar's friends"? [even that is lesser than what he accuses 'baraylawis' of].
jam' karte ho kyun raqibon ko
ik tamasha huwa gila na huwa
why doesn't he call them ash'aris? or damascenes? or moroccans? or even plain sunnis?
why does sh.asrar use the term 'barelwi' freely to describe any deviant bida'h act?
not you brother.
fair enough. but please don't term any bid'ati you wish to denounce as a 'barelwi'. i don't mind if someone does not want to call themselves a barelwi. but do not call every bid'ah act in the subcontinent as the 'doing of barelwis'.
the circumambulation of graves, the chuff-chuff peers, the 1001 bid'ah acts are all wrong. no barelwi aalim - howsoever ignorant he may be or incompetent assembly-line muftis that you scorn - i do not think any of them will praise those actions or deem them right. then why defame the 'barelwis'? isn't this the habit of the deobandis and the ahl-hadith?
=====
you can apologise for sh. asrar, but he has deliberately inserted the term 'barelwi' to mean 'extremists' and 'ignorants' and 'bidyis'.
i don't know why people cannot see this.
=====
most people do not read and they do not have historical context or have an idea of the geography.
before alahazrat's time, sunnis were mostly the ulama of khayrabad, bada'un and delhi. in alahazrat's time, sunnis were mostly identified as the scholars of bareilly, badaun and rampur. this was not because sunnis didn't live in other places - it was just incidental that the ulama living in these cities were the most vocal and active; writing books, refuting heresies and so forth.
thereafter, people aligned towards two broad terms: barelwi and deobandi.
those who supported the sunni manhaj - the same thing which shaykh asrar ostensibly espouses by listing down a dozen names of arab scholars - i.e. tawassul, istigatha, following a madh'hab, doing mawlid etc. came to be known as baraylawis (barelwi, barelvi).
those who opposed mawlid, called tawassul/istighatha as shirk, venerated ibn abdul wahab najdi and ismayil dihlawi were the 'wahabis' a broad term to include madh'hab following wahabis such as deobandis, and laa-madh'habi wahabis such as the ahl-hadith.
-----
our ulama (i.e. ulama aligned to the manhaj/maslak of alahazrat) commonly referred to themselves as sunnis. and in fact, it is still the predominant usage. sunnis/tablighis; sunnis/deobandi; sunni/ahl-e-hadees are still prevalent. deobandis on the other hand often used the term: ulama-e-deoband.
the devbandi munazirs began to term us as raza-khanis, to create an impression that we were a sect, but it did not catch on.
Allah's damnation is upon liars - and one filthy liar was ihsan ilahi zaheer. this -alayhi ma alayhi - scoundrel slandered alahazrat in his book "al-baraylwiyyah."
after all, a person without shame can do whatever he wishes. so he lied, accused, reviled to his heart's content in his shameless work. and this brought the term 'baraylawi' to a new phase.
those associated with alahazrat were termed as baraylawis/barelwis. and since they couldn't find muck to stick upon alahazrat, they conflated the term to describe the numerous khurafat/heresies in the subcontinent. and deflected this upon alahazrat.
thus:
first: they associated the term 'baraylawi' barelwi with alahazrat.
second: they associated the term 'barelwi' with all the bid'ats that happen in the subcontinent: going around graves, the false sufis, those who do not pray etc.
third: they did not clarify that alahazrat or his (true) followers never permitted these khurafat/evil innovations. obviously, why would our enemies hell-bent on defaming and slandering alahazrat care to point out the distinction or clarify? one does not expect justice from them.
fourth: they condemn 'baraylawis' for all these bidah acts. of course, baraylawi ulama also condemn the bid'ah acts of the awaam.
fifth: people abul hasan nadwi and ihsan ilahi zaheer and taqi usmani shamelessly lied in their books and insinuated and attributed positions to alahazrat which he never held and used the term 'baraylawi' to give an impression that alahazrat created a sect and those who admire him or follow him belong to that 'sect'. i.e. the 'baraylawi'.
sixth: a person who has no idea of the scholarship of baraylawis, nor any idea of their history, their contribution or their books now equates the bid'ah of the awam as somehow encouraged or abetted by 'baraylawi' scholars.
HOWEVER, when we criticise deobandis, we criticise their scholars, their books, the aqidah they espouse - and repeat in fatawa, speeches, and books.
وإلى الله المشتكى
i do not know of any sunni scholar - aka baraylawi - who encourages or abets these bid'ah. there are people who claim affiliation but if you attribute the aqidah to a group, it should be THAT which is described, explained and written in the books of the leaders of that group.
seventh: they kept promoting a lie that sunnis/baraylawis do nothing other than meelad and na'at khwani (gathering of nashid parties) while deobandis write books and have seminaries and etc. etc.
it is these reasons why the term baraylawi is broadly used to describe people committing bid'ahs. even when those accused of being baraylawis refused to be termed this. take tahir jhangvi - deos and salafis term him 'baraylawi', even though he himself refuses to be known as a baraylawi?
indeed, justice has flown to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason.
-----
our enemies help perpetuate these lies. unfortunately, our so-called friends are buying it from our enemies and distributing among our friends!second: they associated the term 'barelwi' with all the bid'ats that happen in the subcontinent: going around graves, the false sufis, those who do not pray etc.
third: they did not clarify that alahazrat or his (true) followers never permitted these khurafat/evil innovations. obviously, why would our enemies hell-bent on defaming and slandering alahazrat care to point out the distinction or clarify? one does not expect justice from them.
fourth: they condemn 'baraylawis' for all these bidah acts. of course, baraylawi ulama also condemn the bid'ah acts of the awaam.
fifth: people abul hasan nadwi and ihsan ilahi zaheer and taqi usmani shamelessly lied in their books and insinuated and attributed positions to alahazrat which he never held and used the term 'baraylawi' to give an impression that alahazrat created a sect and those who admire him or follow him belong to that 'sect'. i.e. the 'baraylawi'.
sixth: a person who has no idea of the scholarship of baraylawis, nor any idea of their history, their contribution or their books now equates the bid'ah of the awam as somehow encouraged or abetted by 'baraylawi' scholars.
HOWEVER, when we criticise deobandis, we criticise their scholars, their books, the aqidah they espouse - and repeat in fatawa, speeches, and books.
وإلى الله المشتكى
i do not know of any sunni scholar - aka baraylawi - who encourages or abets these bid'ah. there are people who claim affiliation but if you attribute the aqidah to a group, it should be THAT which is described, explained and written in the books of the leaders of that group.
seventh: they kept promoting a lie that sunnis/baraylawis do nothing other than meelad and na'at khwani (gathering of nashid parties) while deobandis write books and have seminaries and etc. etc.
it is these reasons why the term baraylawi is broadly used to describe people committing bid'ahs. even when those accused of being baraylawis refused to be termed this. take tahir jhangvi - deos and salafis term him 'baraylawi', even though he himself refuses to be known as a baraylawi?
indeed, justice has flown to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason.
-----
it is like the time when the mutazilahs were termed as hanafis by non-hanafi scholars. just because mutazilis claimed affiliation to imam abu hanifah, they were lazily termed as hanafis. and some towering hanafi ulama were unfairly accused of being mutazilis - and the charge repeated without critical examination by the likes of imam dhahabi.
----
shaykh asrar is doing the same mistake. if you have a problem with bid'yis, refute them without generously awarding them with the title of 'baraylawis'. and in this talk, he extends the term to mean extremists, ignoramuses or heretics wherever in the world!
hum aah bhi karte hain to ho jate hain badnaam
woh qatl bhi karte hain to charcha nahin hotaa.
=====
if shaykh asrar does not want to be called a barelwi, it is fine. no one started an online campaign to force him to use this appellation.
if shaykh asrar wants to refute heresies, call out the many bid'ahs - let him. it is his duty and we support him, but for the love of Allah, why does he call the 'undesirables' as baraylawis? what affiliation do these heretics and juhala have with alahazrat?
who are the baraylawis?
baraylawis are ulama who wrote fatawa, translated hadith books, translated tasawwuf works, translated books of usul, wrote commentaries, built schools and seminaries. people who merely claim to be baraylawis will not become the identifiers of the group.
dawat e islami and SDI are two of the major grassroots baraylawi movements which emphasise on salat and sawm. why don't you count their contribution of building mosques, teaching basics to millions of muslims?
why doesn't shaykh asrar call THEM as baraylawis and instead reserve the term only to describe THOSE who cannot be called baraylawi in any way?
---
then why should sh. asrar use that word to describe people in pakistan or damascus or his latest accusation: 'in every country'?
if one does not want to use baraylawi to describe sunnis, then why be so generous to extend it for heretics, ignoramuses and illiterate folk?
[not you AQ; but those who do].
aata hai ek parah e dil har fughan ke saath
taar e nafas kamand e shikaar e asar hai aaj
---
wAllahu a'alam.
abu Hasan
Administrator
so?
first of all shaykh asrar refuses to be identified as a barelwi - and i have reiterated that it not a problem. criticising those committing bid'ah is also fine. i am not against that either. but what is the rationale to call any bidati in the subcontinent as barelwi? or even those committing bid'ah near graves as 'baraylawis'?
henceforth, we should start calling salafis in the UK as "friends of asrar rashid".
WHY? for the same reason asrar rashid labels any extremist or bidyi as a baraylawi.
spot on.
this was a lie introduced by deobandis and that scoundrel ihsan ilahi - alayhi ma alayhi. shaykh asrar is promoting this. and we don't like it a bit.
---
i have been reading sh.nuruddin itr's books for more than a decade. some 8-10 years ago, a reliable syrian scholar told me that he (sh.nuruddin) disliked alahazrat. and the love i had for him vanished from my heart. i still consider him a sunni scholar and respect him; may Allah forgive him, he was a good academic and has written beneficial notes on hadith works. but i cannot find the love i have for awliya, like his noble uncle sayyidi abdullah sirajuddin raHimahullah.
WHY did shaykh nuruddin dislike alahazrat (if it is indeed true)? mostly because of the canard spread by our enemies - "baraylwis this, baraylwis that". even though, his own shaykh and uncle, mawlana abdullah sirajuddin rahimahullah said and did almost all the things that deobandis criticise alahazrat for!
taqi usmani in his fatawa lied that alahazrat did takfir of deobandi elders because they prohibited bidah practices!
---
in such an environment, it is the duty of sunnis to clear this name instead of joining our enemies in sullying this nisbat. as i have said earlier, such sunni ulama should learn from the kafirs the art of standing together with one's own. after the paris attacks, many people became parisians.
no, there is no reason to criticise barelwis just because the awaam ka'l an'aam commits bid'ah.
take mawlana asrar sahib's own stance in going to deobandi mosques. his heart is so big that he will forgive them for their ignorance, even though he himself does not pray behind the deobandis. the awaam are excused. BUT if the same awaam go to qawwali and commit other bid'ah, our beloved shaykh sahib will slam the 'barelwis' without hesitation. suddenly they have become baraylawi, while those going to mosques were not even hanafi/shafiyi by virtue of their being awaam!
why?
===
but on what basis does he class the juhala of pakistan/india as 'barelwis'?
shaykh asrar sahib is not responsible for those followers who hang around him and he is not responsible for their posts on social media. he cannot control them and he cannot be criticised for their actions. can we call them asraris? no. but "barelwis"? anyone committing bid'ah can be casually termed a 'baraylawi'. is this fair?
alahazrat was a baraylawi by domicile. it is his appellation. bukhari, maturidi are all identifiers. whether you like it or not, a group of people in the subcontinent affiliated to alahazrat are identified as baraylawis. and they are the true sunnis - those who refute wahabis and salafis and hold fast unto the manhaj as articulated by imams of ahl al-sunnah.
insiders or outsiders - no one has the right to throw dirt on that term just because it is convenient for them to do so. it is not fair.
if you have problems with those who call themselves 'baraylawis' deal with them as you wish. but don't say that 'baraylawis' are this or that.
if a few british scholars are sell-outs to the israel lobby, can we say: "british muslim scholars are all israeli apologists".
brother, why generalise?
Last edited:
abu Hasan
Administrator
sound bites to just absolve oneself is not enough.
if he is sincere about the 'REAL barelwism' he should qualify the rest that he criticises and scorns as: 'PSEUDO barelwism'.
barelwis are sunnis. period.
Shaykh Asrar has been going on tangents for a very long time now.
It seems that he thinks he can appeal to salafis and deos by ripping into his own people and embarrassing them. What a shame. Because wobblers and deos label him as a Barelwi it eats him up inside and he just wants to be a sunni now.
It seems that he thinks he can appeal to salafis and deos by ripping into his own people and embarrassing them. What a shame. Because wobblers and deos label him as a Barelwi it eats him up inside and he just wants to be a sunni now.
I can understand where Sh Asrar and Mawlana Abu Hasan both are coming from and I think both have a valid point to a certain extent.
Sh Asrar should not use the term Barelwi in such a casual manner such that it gives the impression that all those with the term barelwi affiliated to them are indulging in Bida'h. It is like saying that the Maturidiyyah must stop assimilating with the wahhabi creed just because the deobandis claim to be maturidis but then break every rule in the book.
On the other hand it is necessary to recognise that those who are esteemed within the Barelwi circles many times fall far shorter than their expectations. For example, Pir hassen Din shah sat with chuff chuff and said I give guarantee for what he does. Pir haseen din i believe is now with the irfan shah group but this was long before that. Likewise Owais Qadri (whom i respect a lot as he has made the kalaam of Alahazrat Radi Allahu Anh common amongst the masses) is many times seen with the likes of Haseebi and naqeebi. Yes, he is not a scholar but he is a central figure to the Barelwis in this age. This gives credence to the pseudo-barelwis whether they intend to do that or not. This is a reality which if ignored or not refuted will further tarnish the term Barelwi.
There should be a middle path where such juhaal are refuted as well and the term Barelwi is purified from such individuals who try and use it to further their career interests.
Allah knows best.
Sh Asrar should not use the term Barelwi in such a casual manner such that it gives the impression that all those with the term barelwi affiliated to them are indulging in Bida'h. It is like saying that the Maturidiyyah must stop assimilating with the wahhabi creed just because the deobandis claim to be maturidis but then break every rule in the book.
On the other hand it is necessary to recognise that those who are esteemed within the Barelwi circles many times fall far shorter than their expectations. For example, Pir hassen Din shah sat with chuff chuff and said I give guarantee for what he does. Pir haseen din i believe is now with the irfan shah group but this was long before that. Likewise Owais Qadri (whom i respect a lot as he has made the kalaam of Alahazrat Radi Allahu Anh common amongst the masses) is many times seen with the likes of Haseebi and naqeebi. Yes, he is not a scholar but he is a central figure to the Barelwis in this age. This gives credence to the pseudo-barelwis whether they intend to do that or not. This is a reality which if ignored or not refuted will further tarnish the term Barelwi.
There should be a middle path where such juhaal are refuted as well and the term Barelwi is purified from such individuals who try and use it to further their career interests.
Allah knows best.