Barelvīs never did jihād

[Oowais Qassim Ali]

Quite a popular objection these days.

As frustration grows within the Muslim youth due to the constant oppression of kuffaar, jihad has now become the standard for likeability.

A narrative is being pushed that barelvis are just a bunch of weak halwa-munchers, who bicker over furoo' all day, while non of their scholars ever promoted or participated in jihad.

This is further reinforced by the fake "British Agent" accusation against ala hazrat, barelwi support for Shaykh Ramadan Al Būti (who they consider an Assad Regime agent), the very much controversial opposition of Shaykh Asrar Rashīd against HTS & the refusal by barelvis to ally with wahabis against kuffar.

As Youngsters became more "Revolutionary" in nature , Deobandis are seen in a much more favourable light due to the tālibāns being mostly from their group. They are hailed as the "courageous mujāhideen" who drove of western powers.

Examples of such objections:



I believe there's an urgent need to publish an article/booklet addressing these issues covering the following points ;

Why ala hazrat cautioned against Jihad?

Proofs from Classical Scholars for this Being A Valid Position

Ala Hazrat's support for the Ottoman Empire

Ala Hazrat's Extreme Hate for The British & Kuffar in General

Hatred for Kuffār expressed by the Students & Khulafa of Ala Hazrat

Jihad, pre ala hazrat by sufis

Proof that it is barelvis who are the heirs of these Sūfi Mujahideen, not deos or wahabis

Jihaads fought by barelvis post ala hazrat.
Partition wars

Allāma Khadim Hussein
Dr.Asif Jalalis declaration of jihad
Other contemporary examples

List of quotes from "barelvi" fiqh books about the wujub of jihad

Deoband's Historical & Present Alliance with Hindus against sunni muslims & Kashmīr

Members can also continue contributing to this topic until a substantial collection of resources is gathered.

 

[Oowais Qassim Ali]

Tahreek E Jihad Aur British Government

https://archive.org/details/TahreekEJahadAurBritishGovt

Jihaad Ki Fazilat
Allāma Faiz Ahmad oowaisi

https://archive.org/details/jihaadkifazilat

Hadees, Fiqh Aur Jihaad Ki Sharri Haisiyat
Allāma arshadul qadri

https://archive.org/details/HadeesFiqhAurJihaadKiSharriHaisiyat

Instances of the greatest warrior, Aurangzeb Alamgir paying visits to Khwajah Sahab, A very "barelwi" practice which deobandis vehemently oppose

https://x.com/UrHanafi_mutual/status/1876545154024374449?t=L6aoVbCc2ilbu4O6bystHw&s=19

 

[Oowais Qassim Ali]

Deobandis are seen in a much more favourable light due to the tālibāns being mostly from their group. They are hailed as the "courageous mujāhideen" who drove of western powers.

The tālibān did not fight off western powers because of Deoband,
They would have retaliated even if Darul Deoband didn't take roots in Afghanistan.

They have always been fierce warriors

"We’re Indians first, Taliban view of Islam not ours, say Deoband Islamic scholars, locals"

~ Arshad madani, principal of Darul Uloom Deoband

 

[Oowais Qassim Ali]

A young Mawlana A'bdus Sattār Khan Niyāzi

Written on the backdrop ;
"Death to the British Monarchy

 

[ghulamRasool]

salam
Can I ask, in short, what should our aqida be about khilafat? Meaning:
Can a non qureshi not be a caliph, is this from daruriat e ahle sunnah?
Was sultan Abdul Hamid not a caliph, and instead a Sultan?
Was the ottomon empire not a caliphate? Why does shaykh asrar call it a caliphate?

 

[abu Hasan]

Can a non qureshi not be a caliph, is this from daruriat e ahle sunnah?

no. for sharayi khilafat, the khalifah has to be a qurashi vide sahih hadith. this is a fiqh ruling and has nothing to do with aqidah.

Was sultan Abdul Hamid not a caliph, and instead a Sultan?

yes. he was a sultan.

Was the ottomon empire not a caliphate?

not in the sharayi sense. but in general, due to their service of muslims worldwide, the empire - dawlah - was called a 'khilafah'.

Why does shaykh asrar call it a caliphate?

i don't know in what context, but if it is to mean that muslims were gathered under one sultan, it is just a convenient name.
not khilafah sharyiyah.

read dawamu'l aysh of alahazrat.

Allah knows best.

 

[AMQadiri]

Was the ottomon empire not a caliphate? Why does shaykh asrar call it a caliphate?

He referenced something from a work of Shaykh Yusuf an-Nabhani (rahmatullah alayh) that proved Qureshi lineage for the Uthmani family. I haven't been able to get that reference, but if anyone can contact the Shaykh and get it that'd be great.

 

[ghulamRasool]

not in the sharayi sense

جزاک اللہ۔
Is it the same with the khilafat of Hazrat Umar bin abdul aziz radi Allahu anhu?
I remember reading in the nasafi creed that the khilafat was only for 30 years. Does this but I also read in dawat e islami farz uloom course that after khilafat e rashida, there was saltanat and khilafat (though I dont remember if they wrote khilafat e rashida here) and inky re implemented in the time of hazrat umar bin abdul aziz and will only be inplemented again when hazrat imam madhi arrives.

 

[HASSAN]

Shaykh Yusuf an-Nabhani

I think Shaykh Asrar says there's a work by Imam Abd al-Ghani al-Nablusi proving the Ottomans were from the Quraysh

 

[AMQadiri]

I think Shaykh Asrar says there's a work by Imam Abd al-Ghani al-Nablusi proving the Ottomans were from the Quraysh

Correct. I meant to say Shaykh Nablusi rahimahullah ta'ala but for some reason Shaykh Nabhani rahimahullah ta'ala came to mind.

 

[abu Hasan]

Is it the same with the khilafat of Hazrat Umar bin abdul aziz radi Allahu anhu?

hazrat umar ibn abdul aziz is a qurashi. his khilafat is also counted as rashidah.

you seem to mix up between khilafat al-rashidah, and khilafah that came afterward which is described as sultanate in the hadith.

though I dont remember if they wrote khilafat e rashida here

brother, instead of just shooting questions, do a revision.

do not feel like i am being dismissive - these are found in books. if you are curious, look up in books. if you post malformed questions or incorrect assumptions, you contribute to the confusion that arises in the minds of common people. there is already enough out there to cause doubt and confusion - you are adding to it.

the forum is meant for asking questions and for those knowledgeable to answer. this does not mean that you ask obscure questions of no common benefit, and many times on the basis of "i heard it somewhere..." or "it came to my mind..."

this is annoying because - now you have created a doubt in the minds of all those who read AND who are not informed of the issue. if it is a serious matter of aqidah, we are compelled to clarify and we find it difficult to ignore - and all this, because someone did not filter their thoughts or look up in material that is available to them.

asking a proper question is half the knowledge.

 

[AbdalQadir]

remember reading in the nasafi creed that the khilafat was only for 30 years.

Hazrat Umar bin Abdulaziz radi Allahu 3anhu died quite young at around age 39 or 40 and his khilafah was just about 2.5 yrs (afaik). Plz double check.

 

[abu Hasan]

his khilafah was just about 2.5 yrs

he means the hadith. "khilafah is for 30 years" and after that it will be sultanate.

his question: and since sayyiduna umar ibn abdulaziz was after 30, can his khilafah be counted as khilafat rashidah?
---
the answer is, yes from a lexical perspective - because 'rashidah' means the guiding caliphate; a template, a role model for the rest to follow.

but the khilafah as mentioned in the hadith - and which was fulfilled by the 6 month reign of imam hasan - is 30 years.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

[ghulamRasool]

now you have created a doubt in the minds of all those who read AND who are not informed of the issue. if it is a serious matter of aqidah,

salam.
I never thought about it that way. You are correct. I will be more careful by doing full research before asking a question next time in sha Allah.
My apologies again.

 

[ghulamRasool]

I thought to switch the question to another thread, so as to keep this thread pertinent.

 

[Oowais Qassim Ali]

Allāmah 'Atā Muhammad Bandyalwi:

❝Abandoning Jihād is equivalent to suicide

As long as Muslims upheld Jihād they ruled over other nations

Once they abandoned it, they sank into humiliating disgrace

By forsaking Jihād, your Prestige & Dread in the eyes of the Kuffār has vanished into oblivion. ref