Recently, a person who seems to be a covert deobandi apologist attempted to club together both Barelwis and deobandis as two groups who defend statements of kufr.
He's right regarding deobandis but couldn't be further from the truth regarding Barelwis.
He gave 3 examples from the deobandis:
1. Ismayil Dihlawi's donkey statement
2. Nanotwi writing followers can surpass prophets عليهم السلام in deeds
3. Thanwi comparing the knowledge of RasulAllah ﷺ to lowly beings
These 3 are kufr. And even the speaker agreed they are abhorrent.
---
The 3 "Barelwi" examples:
1. Bayazid and the flag: if he did say it, it was in a state of ecstasy, haal. We don't do takfir because it was in this state but we certainly *reject* the statement.
Similar to the incident in Bukhari about the man who finds his lost camel.
2. Chishti RasulAllah: we say it's kufr. Alahazrat said the book it is originally in is doctored. We *reject* it.
3. Kashf al-Mahjub: on RasulAllah ﷺ seeing an unrelated woman. This is mentioned in numerous hadith works. Sayyid Ali Hujwayri actually mentions the incident very briefly compared to the detail in books like Sahih Muslim.
Data Ali Hujwayri doesn't even mention the incident of Dawud عليه السلام.
---
Now, the disingenuity and sleight of hand was,
He said neither the devbandis nor the Barelwis reject the kufr attributed to them.
That's either ignorance or purposeful misrepresentation.
I've said sleight of hand because this individual has been spoken to and the matter has been explained as above.
---
In summary,
Barelwis reject any kufr.
Deobandis don't.
We are not the same.
He's right regarding deobandis but couldn't be further from the truth regarding Barelwis.
He gave 3 examples from the deobandis:
1. Ismayil Dihlawi's donkey statement
2. Nanotwi writing followers can surpass prophets عليهم السلام in deeds
3. Thanwi comparing the knowledge of RasulAllah ﷺ to lowly beings
These 3 are kufr. And even the speaker agreed they are abhorrent.
---
The 3 "Barelwi" examples:
1. Bayazid and the flag: if he did say it, it was in a state of ecstasy, haal. We don't do takfir because it was in this state but we certainly *reject* the statement.
Similar to the incident in Bukhari about the man who finds his lost camel.
2. Chishti RasulAllah: we say it's kufr. Alahazrat said the book it is originally in is doctored. We *reject* it.
3. Kashf al-Mahjub: on RasulAllah ﷺ seeing an unrelated woman. This is mentioned in numerous hadith works. Sayyid Ali Hujwayri actually mentions the incident very briefly compared to the detail in books like Sahih Muslim.
Data Ali Hujwayri doesn't even mention the incident of Dawud عليه السلام.
---
Now, the disingenuity and sleight of hand was,
He said neither the devbandis nor the Barelwis reject the kufr attributed to them.
That's either ignorance or purposeful misrepresentation.
I've said sleight of hand because this individual has been spoken to and the matter has been explained as above.
---
In summary,
Barelwis reject any kufr.
Deobandis don't.
We are not the same.
Last edited:
These are some notes I made after speaking with the deobandi apologist.
---
What the disingenuous and seemingly insincere devbandi apologist was doing was,
Classic diversion.
We renounced the flag and Chishti RasulAllah statements repeatedly. Everyone saw.
Yet he didn't acknowledge it once.
And it seems he did that because he was hoping we don't reject those matters and when we don't, he can say, 'Devbandis don't repudiate their statements either so you're both the same'
'So let us move past the statements and unite.'
---
Did he once acknowledge that there is a major difference between Barelwis and devbandis:
Leading Barelwis will openly and immediately reject statements of kufr, even if found in their "own" books.
However, representatives of the Deobandi school have never done so with their own statements.
---
He cites 6 examples in his video.
All 3 devbandi examples are kufr but which notable devbandi has ever rejected them?
---
Notice, they attribute Bayazid Bistami to Barelwis.
And all praise is to Allah!
They admit the awliya belong to Barelwis.
---
Notice, they attribute Data Ali Hujwayri to Barelwis even though even devbandis have translated Kashf!
Praise to Allah. Again, they admit he belongs to Barelwis.
---
What the disingenuous and seemingly insincere devbandi apologist was doing was,
Classic diversion.
We renounced the flag and Chishti RasulAllah statements repeatedly. Everyone saw.
Yet he didn't acknowledge it once.
And it seems he did that because he was hoping we don't reject those matters and when we don't, he can say, 'Devbandis don't repudiate their statements either so you're both the same'
'So let us move past the statements and unite.'
---
Did he once acknowledge that there is a major difference between Barelwis and devbandis:
Leading Barelwis will openly and immediately reject statements of kufr, even if found in their "own" books.
However, representatives of the Deobandi school have never done so with their own statements.
---
He cites 6 examples in his video.
All 3 devbandi examples are kufr but which notable devbandi has ever rejected them?
---
Notice, they attribute Bayazid Bistami to Barelwis.
And all praise is to Allah!
They admit the awliya belong to Barelwis.
---
Notice, they attribute Data Ali Hujwayri to Barelwis even though even devbandis have translated Kashf!
Praise to Allah. Again, they admit he belongs to Barelwis.
The debate should be paused for a moment just to show the flaw in the reasoning.
His opening remarks and what he calls towards is that Ahl Sunnah are those who follow classical scholars and that many people who are followers of more recent scholars seem to be the fringe/extreme.
But then for the side of the Sunnis (barelwis) all three examples are from classical scholars thereby answering his own question as to which of the two groups are Ahl Sunnah rather than fringe/extreme.
Side note: Such discussions reinforce what some scholars have been warning against for a long time. Barelwi is not a new group and therefore we are not barelwi but Sunnis. Deobandis are a new group and therefore are rightfully called by a name which befits their belief system. Yes, using the term barelwi to differentiate from a deobandi is valid, however the context in which it is used must be considered.
His opening remarks and what he calls towards is that Ahl Sunnah are those who follow classical scholars and that many people who are followers of more recent scholars seem to be the fringe/extreme.
But then for the side of the Sunnis (barelwis) all three examples are from classical scholars thereby answering his own question as to which of the two groups are Ahl Sunnah rather than fringe/extreme.
Side note: Such discussions reinforce what some scholars have been warning against for a long time. Barelwi is not a new group and therefore we are not barelwi but Sunnis. Deobandis are a new group and therefore are rightfully called by a name which befits their belief system. Yes, using the term barelwi to differentiate from a deobandi is valid, however the context in which it is used must be considered.
abu Hasan
Administrator
i must have said this before. most arab ulama of our time are flexible - they may criticise wahabis - but very few display the staunchness and refusal to compromise . the reason why ordinary arabs do not have the same fervour as sunnis from the subcontinent is because ulama are very lax - very few ulama are outspoken and have the courage to take a stand, much less advocate their stance.
they will go anywhere and everywehre - smile and pose for photographs and do not express their displeasure. this was never the way of our salaf. our salaf would reproach heretics and made it clear that they would not socialise with them. common people followed them and remained within boundaries. heretics were humiliated and that is the way heresies will be effaced.
there is this mistaken notion - among modern ulama - that if you are candid about your affiliation and wear your heart on your sleeve, you may alienate a section of people whom you wish to attract. and they think that appearing "not extreme" and trying to brush away or ignore certain important issues as 'secondary' will draw them to the fold and then we can apprise them.
i think it is detrimental. if we lose our reputation as a point of reference, we will be seen as free-floating rafts instead of lighthouses for wayward ships to find their way. and that is not a good thing.
------
in the past 50-60 years - sunnis from the subcontinent, known as baraylawis/barelvis have lost the narrative and some reasons are:
there are always exceptions - but these are the main reasons, in my opinion. i may be wrong. wAllahu a'alam.
they will go anywhere and everywehre - smile and pose for photographs and do not express their displeasure. this was never the way of our salaf. our salaf would reproach heretics and made it clear that they would not socialise with them. common people followed them and remained within boundaries. heretics were humiliated and that is the way heresies will be effaced.
there is this mistaken notion - among modern ulama - that if you are candid about your affiliation and wear your heart on your sleeve, you may alienate a section of people whom you wish to attract. and they think that appearing "not extreme" and trying to brush away or ignore certain important issues as 'secondary' will draw them to the fold and then we can apprise them.
i think it is detrimental. if we lose our reputation as a point of reference, we will be seen as free-floating rafts instead of lighthouses for wayward ships to find their way. and that is not a good thing.
------
in the past 50-60 years - sunnis from the subcontinent, known as baraylawis/barelvis have lost the narrative and some reasons are:
- scholars abandoning the platform of learning and teaching - speechmakers and 'peers' who keep flogging dead horses.
- scholars have diligently been working producing translations and fatawa and other works but the general public is not pushed towards reading learning by those who have the ear of the masses - speechmakers and celebrity scholars.
- speeches are excessively focused on refutation, which are also mostly rhetorical and lack substance.
- speechmakers do not seem to have updated their knowledge on myriad issues; they still speak as if they are in 1930s.
- speechmakers keep their 2-3 hours of engagement free of knowledge, but fill it with feel-good and self-congratulatory bluster. alternative and 'halal' form of entertainment to the public - but net learning is zero.
- sunni scholars lost contact with arab/turkish scholars for years. this space was quickly filled by deos and closet-deos who deplore mawlid among compatriots, but become the foremost mawlid-reciters among arabs. this hypocrisy earned them goodwill. our folk were nowhere to be seen to call out this hypocrisy. and the consequences of which are suspicion about our imam by some of the staunchest sunni ulama among arabs!
- our gatherings were reduced to mawlid, tawassul, awliya and naats.
and then the betrayals. the big names like irfan shah and before him abdul qadir shah, tahir padri etc turncoats - who came up using the name of alahazrat and then strayed and went their way.
- scholars have diligently been working producing translations and fatawa and other works but the general public is not pushed towards reading learning by those who have the ear of the masses - speechmakers and celebrity scholars.
- speeches are excessively focused on refutation, which are also mostly rhetorical and lack substance.
- speechmakers do not seem to have updated their knowledge on myriad issues; they still speak as if they are in 1930s.
- speechmakers keep their 2-3 hours of engagement free of knowledge, but fill it with feel-good and self-congratulatory bluster. alternative and 'halal' form of entertainment to the public - but net learning is zero.
- sunni scholars lost contact with arab/turkish scholars for years. this space was quickly filled by deos and closet-deos who deplore mawlid among compatriots, but become the foremost mawlid-reciters among arabs. this hypocrisy earned them goodwill. our folk were nowhere to be seen to call out this hypocrisy. and the consequences of which are suspicion about our imam by some of the staunchest sunni ulama among arabs!
- our gatherings were reduced to mawlid, tawassul, awliya and naats.
and then the betrayals. the big names like irfan shah and before him abdul qadir shah, tahir padri etc turncoats - who came up using the name of alahazrat and then strayed and went their way.
there are always exceptions - but these are the main reasons, in my opinion. i may be wrong. wAllahu a'alam.
Last edited:
abu Hasan
Administrator
he was a devbandi and i think, along with abulhasan nadwi, was instrumental in shaping the opinion of arab ulama.
i have had conversations with elderly scholars from syria, egypt and as far as sudan and they are shocked to say the least when i tell them that abulhasan-nadwi was a wahabi. they immediately remonstrate: but he is hanafi-sufi?
when i read out the heresies of deobandis - they reject immediately and find it incredible. are you sure? they ask.
one syrian scholar in his seventies asked me about abul-bala mardudi and when i gave him a sample of his opinions, he was in disgusted, walked up to his shelf, took out a books of maududi and handed them to me - get rid of them as you please - he said.
Sunni By Nature
sunniport user
This reminds me of the recent Sahih al-Bukhari recital that took place in Tripoli, Lebanon which was attended by Ashari, Maturidi, Salafi, Deyobandi and Ashbash scholars and towards the end they cancelled the remainder of the recital because of a comment made by Shaykh Idris al-Fasi al-Fihri regarding the Asharis & Maturidis which angered the Athari Salafis that were in attendance.
@abu Hasan posts have much value masha Allah, but if any brother or sister wants to witness first hand the state of the present day and popular Arab ulama and gain immediate empirical evidence, just get on X (twitter) and see for yourself the circus they've become -
from government stooges supporting perennialism and christianity, like Ali Jifry and Bin Bayyah, to the wahabi-friendly all-rounders (leave alone devbandi-friendly), to the severe infighting among the wahabis between the government stooge madkhalis (who BTW deem devbandis as qubooriyyeen and terrorists and have proscribed tablighi jamat) and qutubis and sahwis, to the modernists. it is as much of a circus as desi khateebs and peers, illa masha Allah the sincere Sunnis
You won't find worthy ulama, desi or pardesi, easily on Google and YouTube.
from government stooges supporting perennialism and christianity, like Ali Jifry and Bin Bayyah, to the wahabi-friendly all-rounders (leave alone devbandi-friendly), to the severe infighting among the wahabis between the government stooge madkhalis (who BTW deem devbandis as qubooriyyeen and terrorists and have proscribed tablighi jamat) and qutubis and sahwis, to the modernists. it is as much of a circus as desi khateebs and peers, illa masha Allah the sincere Sunnis
You won't find worthy ulama, desi or pardesi, easily on Google and YouTube.
Abdullah91
sunniport user
If yourself, Sheikh @abu Hasan and other brothers could name some contemporary Arab scholars whose lessons/speeches you like listening to and whose books are worth reading that would be appreciated.
And if it is not too much trouble, perhaps a list of scholars, from anywhere in the world, who you believe to be from amongst the truly authoritative Ulema of our time.
abu Hasan
Administrator
generally i don't read contemporary ulama - and am also usually guarded about them. however, once in a while (when i cannot read - due to doing something or driving etc) i listen to shaykh buti's sharh al-hikam. durus of shaykh abdullah sirajuddin raHimahullah - and i like his books, some of which i am in the process of translation.
abu Hasan
Administrator
generally i don't read contemporary ulama - and am also usually guarded about them. however, once in a while (when i cannot read - due to doing something or driving etc) i listen to shaykh buti's sharh al-hikam. durus of shaykh abdullah sirajuddin raHimahullah - and i like his books, some of which i am translating.
shaykh salik was good - raHimahullah - he has now passed to the mercy of Allah.
there are some other good ulama - what i have seen until now - i watched half a dozen clips of shaykh ahmad sharif from al-azhar and i like his mince-no-words attitude. he is a charismatic speaker. another is shaykh yusri jabr. there are also clips of shaykh abdul-aziz al-khaTib from syria.
---
another is shaykh abdul qadir husain who is also uncompromising when it comes to wahabi-salafis; and then there is sh. sayid foudah.
---
i watched a few durus on aqidah by shaykh ahmad sharif - and found him well-informed. he has also a lengthy video praising alahazrat and he has called out devbandis for what they are.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
ramiz.noorie
sunniport user
question all four madhhabs talk about beard
why do arab scholars don't have beard look at saed fudah or anyone else. most of them are lax when it comes to akham of deen but good at theoritical stuff..
also not talking about shiah shows really lack of wisdom, countries in africa have been shiah due to heavy funding by iran
anyway, these arab scholars aren't any different than indo pak. the inferiority complex is the issue here while hadith says there is no difference between arab and ajam yet some seek to please them for whatever reasons
why do arab scholars don't have beard look at saed fudah or anyone else. most of them are lax when it comes to akham of deen but good at theoritical stuff..
also not talking about shiah shows really lack of wisdom, countries in africa have been shiah due to heavy funding by iran
anyway, these arab scholars aren't any different than indo pak. the inferiority complex is the issue here while hadith says there is no difference between arab and ajam yet some seek to please them for whatever reasons
present day ones, and a sizable majority, yes
yes, but it also says (alludes) that deen will be preserved by them, and also that love of them is a part of iman, and getting irked by them is nifaq, and that they are the afdal race by virtue of the Master of Prophets, 3alaihimus salam, being from them
as a desi, i'm not at all ashamed to say that i'd love for them to function as impartial jury over our issues with devbandis. that's what Ala Hazrat also did in practice. imam Mehdi will be Arab and not a subcontinental or Turk or Chinese. reverence for Arabs is akin to reverence for Sayyids with the caveat of Ahlus Sunnah
the problem we face are the harsh times we're in and the ummah as a whole is in dire straits on a whole host of issues
why do you see Muzaffar Shah Saab blasting qadianis and not the juhala murtaddeen in tucson arizona following the dead dajjal rashad khalifa or louis farrakhan's so-called nation of Islam confined to some ghettos of harlem? (see links)
https://www.masjidtucson.org/submission/faq/rashad_khalifa_summary.htm
https://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/devices/ch9.html (see at the end, the dajjal denied 2 verses of the Quran)
horses for courses bro. if you're suffering from high blood pressure, it might be good to know about diabetes, but your immediate concern is high blood pressure. the shaykh only said his country is not haunted by rawafid as some other nations are but only by wahabis, so they'd rather spend their energy tackling them
yeah many of them peruse rukhas or some marjuh opinions. i maybe wrong but Shafi3i mazhab (which many Arabs follow) has valid dispensations for less than fistful beard, but the theoretical aqli dalail and smart-laffazi shunning actual books are more popular with us desis than anyone else as far as I've seen
Sunni By Nature
sunniport user
Shaykh Noor ud Deen Rashid's recent discussion with the notorious speakers corner Wahabi Shamsi Maghribi:
He's still in Banbury masjid unfortunately.
---
Since the arrival of Arab scholars and people like Tahir ul,
There has been a growing trend for people in the UK to consider deobandis Sunni.
This is wrong.
Deobandis fail to reject passages in which RasulAllah ﷺ has been disparaged and also believe lying is included in Divine Power.
On top of that, they are a subcontinent sect. Arab ulama do not know Urdu, haven't seen enough of their works and don't live with them. Therefore, the view of subcontinental Sunni ulama is far more reliable concerning deobandis.
Anyone who holds the beliefs mentioned above is outside Ahl al-Sunnah. If someone claims to be Sunni but fails to recognise the heresy of deobandis, he is also culpable.
Enabling those who treat deobandis as Sunni is a call to sulh kullism and such ulama are themselves unreliable.
---
Since the arrival of Arab scholars and people like Tahir ul,
There has been a growing trend for people in the UK to consider deobandis Sunni.
This is wrong.
Deobandis fail to reject passages in which RasulAllah ﷺ has been disparaged and also believe lying is included in Divine Power.
On top of that, they are a subcontinent sect. Arab ulama do not know Urdu, haven't seen enough of their works and don't live with them. Therefore, the view of subcontinental Sunni ulama is far more reliable concerning deobandis.
Anyone who holds the beliefs mentioned above is outside Ahl al-Sunnah. If someone claims to be Sunni but fails to recognise the heresy of deobandis, he is also culpable.
Enabling those who treat deobandis as Sunni is a call to sulh kullism and such ulama are themselves unreliable.
Are you saying that abd al-fattah abu ghuddah was a devbandi?
This post has been cropped and is gaining quite a bit of traction on Twitter and Telegram