Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh ؒ and his silence on deoband?

Ali_Bash

Ali_Bash

sunniport user
@abu Hasan @Aqdas and anyone who can give an answer to this

I came across a scan of book authored by Aṭā' Muḥammad Bandyalwi ؒ named Saif al-Aṭā' in which he states that Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh stayed silent on the issue of the deobandis and the only one he did takfir is Mirza Qadiyani

My question is what would be the reason Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh stayed silent on these issues when we know it was the likes of Qāsim Nanotvi who had "paved the way" in what he wrote in tahzir al-nās for the like's of Qadiyani?
We also see the like of Tahir ul and even deobandi's who use the silence of Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh against us, how should we respond to this?

Jazakumullahu Khair
 
Ali_Bash said:
I came across a scan of book authored by Aṭā' Muḥammad Bandyalwi ؒ named Saif al-Aṭā' in which he states that Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh stayed silent on the issue of the deobandis and the only one he did takfir is Mirza Qadiyani

My question is what would be the reason Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh stayed silent on these issues when we know it was the likes of Qāsim Nanotvi who had "paved the way" in what he wrote in tahzir al-nās for the like's of Qadiyani?
We also see the like of Tahir ul and even deobandi's who use the silence of Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh against us, how should we respond to this?

Jazakumullahu Khair
Click to expand...

This might give you some clarity

 
Aqdas said:
Post it here.

Prove that he saw the passages.
Click to expand...

Saif%20ul-At%CC%A3a%CC%84'%201.png

Saif%20ul-At%CC%A3a%CC%84'%202.png

Asalam Alaikum

It does not let me link the pic or attach it
The reference for it is Saif al-Aṭā' pg.114
Even though this scan does not say he saw the passages (which is good) the next question would be Did ʿAllāmah Aṭā' Muhamamd Bandyalwi perceive the time of Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh if not who did he get this from (Muhib al-Nabi he was the student of Pir Mehr ʿAlī Shāh) Allāh Knows best
Mohammed Nawaz said:
This might give you some clarity

Click to expand...

@Mohammed Nawaz Asalam Alaikum Brother in response to this i have seen a video of Naṣīruddīn Naṣīr



This is coming from his great grandson (which usually tends to hold more weight) than what Pīr Syed Muzaffar Shāh Ṣaḥib said. Even so I have my problems with Naṣīruddīn Naṣīr he held Tafḍīlī views and according to ʿAllāmah Saʿīd Asad he turned wahabi at the end and Allāh Knows Best. So when you have his great grandson saying he had ties with "scholars" from deoband and his grand student saying he kept silent on this issue you see where the confusion will come from for the awām. Imo this is an issue in which silence is not to be kept.
 
Last edited:
Ali_Bash said:
Saif%20ul-At%CC%A3a%CC%84'%201.png

Saif%20ul-At%CC%A3a%CC%84'%202.png



This is coming from his great grandson (which usually tends to hold more weight) than what Pīr Syed Muzaffar Shāh Ṣaḥib said. . So when you have his great grandson saying he had ties with "scholars" from deoband and his grand student saying he kept silent on this issue you see where the confusion will come from for the awām. Imo this is an issue in which silence is not to be kept.
Click to expand...


When did Barelvi's made mass takfir on entire deobandis!! so much of wobbling without anything substantial.
In this case its better to take from a scholar like Syed Muzzafar Shah saheb than someone who loves giving condescending answers.
 
Mohammed Nawaz said:
When did Barelvi's made mass takfir on entire deobandis!! so much of wobbling without anything substantial.
Click to expand...
If anything ʿAla Hadhrat was most careful when he placed the fatawa on the four horsemen. Agreed he did alot of wobbling, my point of providing his video was cause he from the direct household of Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh, he would have more knowledge regarding this than Syed Muzaffar Shāh Ṣaḥib would. In regard to anything else we will always take from Syed Muzaffar Shāh first.

AbdalQadir said:
thread piqued my curiosity, so i looked and found the book

https://archive.org/details/SaifUlAtaByAllamaAtaMauhammadBandiyalvi/page/n65/mode/1up?view=theater

pg 114-115 are attached
Click to expand...

Jazakallah Khair for providing the attached
 
Ali_Bash said:
If anything ʿAla Hadhrat was most careful when he placed the fatawa on the four horsemen. Agreed he did alot of wobbling, my point of providing his video was cause he from the direct household of Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh, he would have more knowledge regarding this than Syed Muzaffar Shāh Ṣaḥib would. In regard to anything else we will always take from Syed Muzaffar Shāh first.
Click to expand...

Syed Ghulam Nizamuddin Jami Gilani, the eldest son of Pir Syed Nasiruddin Nasir Sahib, had regularly declared that Hazrat Syedna Pir Meher Ali Shah Sahib رحمه الل had no connection whatsoever with the Deobandis. The belief is the same as that of Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Sahib رحمه الل

Moreover being silent doesn't mean you are considering those 4 hoursemen to be Muslims. First you gotta prove otherwise. Burden of proof is on those people who say Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh considered elders of Deoband's to be Muslims when he was made aware of their blasphemy.
Until then its all speculative.
 
Mohammed Nawaz said:
Syed Ghulam Nizamuddin Jami Gilani, the eldest son of Pir Syed Nasiruddin Nasir Sahib, had regularly declared that Hazrat Syedna Pir Meher Ali Shah Sahib رحمه الل had no connection whatsoever with the Deobandis.



The belief is the same as that of Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Sahib رحمه الل

Moreover being silent doesn't mean you are considering those 4 hoursemen to be Muslims. First you gotta prove otherwise. Burden of proof is on those people who say Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh considered elders of Deoband's to be Muslims when he was made aware of their blasphemy.
Until then its all speculative.
Click to expand...

Two options then arise fro this either one of them is lying (which is unlikely) or one of them does not know and i believe in this instance Nizāmuddīn Jāmi is the one does not know for his father is stating otherwise and affirming. Jāmi himself has multiple issues regarding the afadilyat of Abū Bakr and frees himself from being called a barelwi.
ʿAllāmah Aṭā' Muḥammad Bandyalwi is clearly stating that "ʿAla Hahrat ؒ and the ʿulamā' of Harimain did takfīr of the Gustakhs of Deoband whilst Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh kept silent and did not do takfir of any of them." If you do not do takfir of anyone you are of course considering them to be muslim (even if you consider them to be innovators). ʿAllāmah Aṭā' Muḥammad is a direct student of the student of Pir Mehr ʿAlī Shāh.
 
Ali_Bash said:
ʿAllāmah Aṭā' Muḥammad Bandyalwi is clearly stating that "ʿAla Hazrat ؒ and the ʿulamā' of Harimain did takfīr of the Gustakhs of Deoband whilst Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh kept silent and did not do takfir of any of them." If you do not do takfir of anyone you are of course considering them to be muslim (even if you consider them to be innovators). ʿAllāmah Aṭā' Muḥammad is a direct student of the student of Pir Mehr ʿAlī Shāh.
Click to expand...

This is interesting, how can a student of Pir Mehr Ali Shah Sheb considered statements of Deoband akabir to be blasphemous yet his teacher did not. It does beg a question.

I have no knowledge about Allamah Ata Muhammad Bandyalwi being direct student of Pir saheb.
 
Mohammed Nawaz said:
This is interesting, how can a student of Pir Mehr Ali Shah Sheb considered statements of Deoband akabir to be blasphemous yet his teacher did not. It does beg a question.

I have no knowledge about Allamah Ata Muhammad Bandyalwi being direct student of Pir saheb.
Click to expand...
In the book Saif ul-Aṭā' the first page and pg.5 it says (please correct me if i am wrong) He (Aṭā' Muḥammad) was a disciple (murīd) of Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh ؒ whic means what he wrote was first hand knowledge, could i also ask what book your scan was taken from. Jaazakallah Khair
 
Ali_Bash said:
This is coming from his great grandson (which usually tends to hold more weight) than what Pīr Syed Muzaffar Shāh Ṣaḥib said.
Click to expand...
Ali_Bash said:
Agreed he did alot of wobbling, my point of providing his video was cause he from the direct household of Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh, he would have more knowledge regarding this than Syed Muzaffar Shāh Ṣaḥib would. In regard to anything else we will always take from Syed Muzaffar Shāh first.
Click to expand...

which principle says that?

being a family member, that too two generations removed, is no guarantee of being 'aadil in testimony or even having more knowledge than upright and reliable direct witnesses.

also consider, if pir sahib blasted tafwiyatul-imaan, penned as it was, by the scion of a venerable scholarly family, what are the chances he would not find deoband's four ass-men (with no pedigree worth speaking of) worse?

It's just another asinine fantasy from Deobandi mythology.
 
Unbeknown said:
which principle says that?

being a family member, that too two generations removed, is no guarantee of being 'aadil in testimony or even having more knowledge than upright and reliable direct witnesses.

also consider, if pir sahib blasted tafwiyatul-imaan, penned as it was, by the scion of a venerable scholarly family, what are the chances he would not find deoband's four ass-men (with no pedigree worth speaking of) worse?

It's just another asinine fantasy from Deobandi mythology.
Click to expand...

Nāṣiruddīn Nāṣir cleary quoted his "chain" that Mufti AbdusShakur Hazarwi said that his teacher Maulana Muhib al-Nabi said Pir Mehr ʿAlī Shāh did not do takfir of any deobandi. Nāṣiruddīn Nāṣir is controversial and i get that but he was corroborated by ʿAllāmah Aṭā' Muḥammad Bandyalvi who is murīd of Pir Mehr ʿAlī Shāh according to introduction of the book Saif ul Aṭā' who said "ʿAla Hahrat ؒ and the ʿulamā' of Harimain did takfīr of the Gustakhs of Deoband whilst Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh kept silent and did not do takfir of any of them."

the scan our brother @Mohammed Nawaz provided could you tell me what book that is from.
 
Ali_Bash said:
Nāṣiruddīn Nāṣir cleary quoted his "chain" that Mufti AbdusShakur Hazarwi said that his teacher Maulana Muhib al-Nabi said Pir Mehr ʿAlī Shāh did not do takfir of any deobandi. Nāṣiruddīn Nāṣir is controversial and i get that but he was corroborated by ʿAllāmah Aṭā' Muḥammad Bandyalvi who is murīd of Pir Mehr ʿAlī Shāh according to introduction of the book Saif ul Aṭā' who said "ʿAla Hahrat ؒ and the ʿulamā' of Harimain did takfīr of the Gustakhs of Deoband whilst Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh kept silent and did not do takfir of any of them."

the scan our brother @Mohammed Nawaz provided could you tell me what book that is from.
Click to expand...

Its from the Malfūzāt. Thats what friend who shared this told me. I did not cross verify it.
 
Mohammed Nawaz said:
Its from the Malfūzāt. In the screenshot shared by AbdulQadir brother Allāmah Aṭā' Muḥammad Bandyalvi says "Sayyed Hazrat Pir Meher Ali Shah رحمه الل remained silent on this and did not takfir anyone"

But Pir Mehr Ali Shah رحمه الل did takfir Qadiyanis and rafidhis. To say he never did takfir is contrary to the reality.
Click to expand...
Asalām Alaikum my brother, a few lines above it states Pir Mehr ʿAlī Shāh only did Takfir of Qadiani's then below that it states as i stated previously. The quote is like this;

"Aside from Mirza Qadiyānī, ʿala Hadhrat (by this he means Pir Mehr ʿAlī Shāh) did not to takfir of anyone, evne to the point there is adiifrence on takfir between the Barelwis (Sunnis) and the deobandis. Some of the deobandi's (four donkeys) insulted our prophet ﷺ and Fadele Barelwi (i.e ʿala Hadhrat) and the Ulama of the Harimain did takfir of them, but Sayyiduna Hadhrat Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh رضي الله عنه stayed silent on this and did not do takfir of anyone"

My brother could you share the page number my brother or even the pdf on here.

Jazakallah Khair
 
Ali_Bash said:
Asalām Alaikum my brother, a few lines above it states Pir Mehr ʿAlī Shāh only did Takfir of Qadiani's then below that it states as i stated previously. The quote is like this;

"Aside from Mirza Qadiyānī, ʿala Hadhrat (by this he means Pir Mehr ʿAlī Shāh) did not to takfir of anyone, evne to the point there is adiifrence on takfir between the Barelwis (Sunnis) and the deobandis. Some of the deobandi's (four donkeys) insulted our prophet ﷺ and Fadele Barelwi (i.e ʿala Hadhrat) and the Ulama of the Harimain did takfir of them, but Sayyiduna Hadhrat Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh رضي الله عنه stayed silent on this and did not do takfir of anyone"


Jazakallah Khair
Click to expand...
Walaikumassalam
Yeah i realised and edited my reply
 
Ali_Bash said:
Nāṣiruddīn Nāṣir cleary quoted his "chain" that Mufti AbdusShakur Hazarwi said that his teacher Maulana Muhib al-Nabi said
Click to expand...

please don't shift the goal post, read again the lines I have quoted. I was responding to your emphasis on his lineage, which supposedly makes his word weightier than that of Muzaffar Shah - in this matter.

Besides, you are comparing apples to oranges - Muzaffar saab did not say that pir mihr definitely made takfir of the deobandi four. Nor did he make any allusions to something that only a family member would be privy to - he simply quoted pir mihr's own work against tafwiyat-ul-imaan - which is a published work, not some private manuscript or a confidential correspondence which would require corroboration from someone in the inner circle. So where does the question of "who's word is weightier" pop up from?

As for nasir saab mentioning his sanad - who's to authenticate it, given that he himself is unreliable?

---

Assuming that the quote from bandyalivi saab is authentic, what is your point anyway?
 
Ali_Bash said:
whilst Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh kept silent and did not do takfir of any of them." If you do not do takfir of anyone you are of course considering them to be muslim
Click to expand...

hardly the case, as @Mohammed Nawaz pointed out.

according to some ulama, there is sukut (silence) on the imaan of yazeed - meaning that neither did they do takfir of yazeed, nor did they positively attest to his Islam.
 
Unbeknown said:
please don't shift the goal post, read again the lines I have quoted. I was responding to your emphasis on his lineage, which supposedly makes his word weightier than that of Muzaffar Shah - in this matter.

Besides, you are comparing apples to oranges - Muzaffar saab did not say that pir mihr definitely made takfir of the deobandi four. Nor did he make any allusions to something that only a family member would be privy to - he simply quoted pir mihr's own work against tafwiyat-ul-imaan - which is a published work, not some private manuscript or a confidential correspondence which would require corroboration from someone in the inner circle. So where does the question of "who's word is weightier" pop up from?

As for nasir saab mentioning his sanad - who's to authenticate it, given that he himself is unreliable?

---

Assuming that the quote from bandyalivi saab is authentic, what is your point anyway?
Click to expand...


Asalam Alaikum Brother,

First, the reason for presenting the video of Naṣīruddīn Naṣīr was because in the video of Pir Syed Muzaffar Shāh he said Pir Ṣaḥib was cutting the jarḥ (the foundations) how could he like the fruits that bear from it (i.e deobandis) whereas in the video of Naṣīruddīn Naṣīr he said about Pīr Mehr ʿAlī Shāh having Taʿaluq with the deobandis and even being taught by them. That was were the question of "whos word is weightier popped up from" one who is from Pir Ṣaḥibs direct lineage or Syed Muzaffar Shāh this is where the thread had become sidetracked unfortunately
Second why would ʿAllāmah Aṭā' Muḥammad write this in his book if he didnt believe it to be authentic. The reason I bring up this issue of silence is because we see it get used against us. Especially by the likes of Tahir ul and the deobandi's. The point was how do we answer this and why did Aṭā' muhamamd bandyalvi write this.

We both believe the fatwa of takfir ʿala Hadhrat and ʿulamā' of the harimain gave upon the deobandi elders was absolutely rightful for ʿala Hadhrat gave them many chances to do ruju and they were too prideful to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top