Was Shaykh Rahmat-Allah Kayranawi a Deobandi?

HASSAN

sunniport user
A Deobandi on Twitter recently introduced Shaykh Rahmat-Allah al-Kayranawi as a Deobandi scholar.


My Response:

It is shameless to call Shaykh Rahmat-Allah Kayranawi a Deobandi; the Shaykh endorsed the Meccan Grand Mufti’s fatwa against Nanotwi He also attested to Mawlana Qasuri’s entire book against Deobandi headhonchos, Nanotwi, Gangohi, and Saharanpuri

G6c5PKrWgAAjTFt


The “Deobandi” scholar concedes that, although he had long heard grave allegations concerning Gangoh, he could not fathom that Gangohi could be so reprehensible Consequently, he expressly forbade his student, Mawlānā ʿAbd al-Samīʿ al-Rāmpūrī, from refuting him.

He writes further:
“But how long could that poor man remain patient? And how long could my refusal to believe [the reports] be maintained? For the writings and speeches of the scholars of Deoband reached me like tawātur from all directions. Thus, with all regret, something had to be said - and remaining silent was understood to be contrary to honesty. So I say: I used to consider Mawlawī Rashīd to be Rashīd [i.e., right-guided], but contrary to my assumption, he turned out to be something quite different. Whichever direction he inclined toward, he displayed such partisanship [taʿaṣṣub] that reading his speeches and writings in that matter makes one’s hair stand on end.”


G6diouJWoAAvQu_


The Shaykh then goes on to describe a fāsiq, mardūd man who proclaimed:
1. he was equal to ʿĪsā ﵇ in rank
2. he was superior to the Prophets of Banū Isrāʾīl
3. his son possessed divinity
4. his brother was a prophet

Yet, Gangohī still declared this man as righteous [mard‑i ṣāliḥ]


G6dn9qOWQAEzqdS

G6doGurXgAAHJvQ


al-Shaykh al-Kayrānawī further observes that Gangohī forbade discourse on the martyrdom of al-Imām al-Ḥusayn during Muharram, irrespective of the veracity of the reports The Shaykh then mentions how Shāh Waliy‑Allāh and other eminent scholars would mark the ʿĀshūrāʾ by going to the King of Delhi to narrate the authentic events of the blessed martyrdom


G6d3IbaWIAAa8Vm

G6d3M-YXkAA1t5V


al-Shaykh al-Kayrānawī writes that after Gangohī turned his censure toward the grandson of Sayyidunā RasūlAllāh ﷺ, he then advanced further and targeted Sayyidunā RasūlAllāh ﷺ himself - by likening the Blessed Mawlid to Janmashtami (the Hindu celebration of Krishna's birth)


G6d7aqGWsAA-HEx


The Shaykh then talks about Deobandis in general:
“Nor did they stop even there in matters pertaining to the Noble Prophet ﷺ. Rather, they exceeded all bounds of imkān dhātī and proceeded to [attempt to] prove six Seals of the Prophets [Khātam al-Nabiyyin bi al-Fiʿl], thereby stripping the doctrine of intrinsic possibility of any remaining limit. And the exalted rank of the Master of the Worlds ﷺ was reduced to something not much greater than that of an elder brother. They then strove strenuously to prove that the knowledge of the Prophet ﷺ is far inferior to that of the accursed Satan - while simultaneously declaring any creed contrary to this as shirk.”
 
Screenshot 2025-11-24 at 13.46.49.png


He writes further:
“The that attention that was toward the sacred and noble Person of the Prophet ﷺ, they were not satisfied so they then turned their attention toward the Most Exalted Divine.

Concerning the Lord of Majesty and Might, he asserted that Allah’s speaking a falsehood is not inherently impossible [mumtani bi al-dhāt], and went so far as to declare the possibility of falsehood to be one of God’s exalted attributes of perfection. We seek refuge in God from such absurdities.

I personally deem all the aforementioned matters to be utterly reprehensible - both outwardly and inwardly - and I expressly forbid my devotees from listening to such statements issued by Mawlawī Rashīd [Gangohī] or by his disciples and partisans.

‏I am well aware that open vitriol will be directed at me for saying this. Yet when the tongues and pens of these individuals did not spare the vast majority of the pious scholars, the great saints, the Messenger of the Lord of all the worlds ﷺ, and even the Majestic Creator Himself, then what grievance could I have [for their vitriol against me]?”

So we can see here that the Shaykh forbade his associates to stop listening to Gangohi and his ilk - yet, they claim the Shaykh was a Deobandi
 
Last edited:
Lots of projects in the pipeline, Allah ﷻ give tawfiq and sincerity

Edit: to be honest, my focus was less on polemics and more focused on dispelling misconceptions around Alahazrat
 
Last edited:
Screenshot 2025-11-25 at 17.34.40.png


The Shaykh observes regarding Khalīl Ambethwī Sahāranpūrī’s 'Barāhīn-i Qāṭiʿah' that whenever it discusses 'Anwār-i Sāṭiʿah', the arguments are dominated by harsh language and ad hominem invective - this is particularly interesting given that Khalīl and Mawlānā ʿAbd al-Samīʿ were pīr-bhāīs.
 
Screenshot 2025-11-25 at 17.51.06.png


The Shaykh proceeds to comment on various regions of India, observing their influence on the character of their inhabitants.

Kairana and Nanauta, the home of Qāsim Nānotwī and Yaʿqūb Nānotwī, are reputedly places of ill omen, such that the locals refrain from uttering the town names in the early hours of the day.

Kandhla and Ambetha, associated with Ilyās Kandhalwī and Khalīl Aḥmad, are noted for the idiocy of their residents.

The Shaykh asserts that these traits do exert an effect on the people. He reflects that his own misfortune lies in witnessing an age steeped in such calamity (presumably a reference to the rise of Deobandi figures).

Concluding his observations, the Shaykh offers the following supplications: he prays that Khalīl Aḥmad be safeguarded from the follies characteristic of his town, and that Mawlānā Ghulām Dastagīr be rewarded for his refutation of the Deobandis.
 
shaykh rahmatullah kiranwi was bemoaning the that deobandi scholars were the ones who were eager in doing unwarranted takfir of muslims. deos have now shifted the blame on alahazrat today! even before khalil ambhetvi, it was ismayil dihlawi who did takfir of the the entire world.

sub'HanAllah!
 
Last edited:
Edit: to be honest, my focus was less on polemics and more focused on dispelling misconceptions around Alahazrat

Go for anything you like bro. Polemics and forensics over the devbandis deception is one thing, but there are tons of things you can focus on from Ala Hazrat's works - for example, eschatology and signs of times analysis, anti-colonialism (devbandis accuse him of being a British agent), anti-hinduism (compare that to devbandis love of gandhi), fiqh of business transactions, etc. Dun matter what you put your hands into, anything from Ala Hazrat will make devbandis hang their heads in shame, or burn in envy.
 
Turning now to 'Iẓhār al-Ḥaqq' by Mawlānā Raḥmat‑Allāh al‑Kayrānawī, in the muqaddimah, we see that the work was composed at the direct behest of Shaykh al-Islām al‑Sayyid Aḥmad b. Zaynī Daḥlān; the author proceeds to extol with a cascade of honorifics befitting an authority of the age.

See the Arabic text published in Riyadh (may have been tampered with):
Screenshot 2025-11-27 at 12.14.05.png

Screenshot 2025-11-27 at 12.14.31.png


See Taq Uthmani's Urdu Translation:
Screenshot 2025-11-27 at 12.13.22.png

Screenshot 2025-11-27 at 12.13.33.png




Yet, this very same Aḥmad b. Zaynī Daḥlān is recast by Deobandi authorities in strikingly less flattering hues.

1. Manẓūr Nuʿmānī Deobandī censures him acridly over his rebuttal of Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al‑Wahhāb
2. Khālid Maḥmūd Deobandī goes further still, branding him a British agent in 'Muṭālaʿah-i Baraylawiyyat' (I came across this personally a while back, but I will need to dig deep again to find the reference)
3. A recent Deobandi clip alleges that the the Sharif of Makkah harboured polytheistic beliefs, since he was a murīd of al‑Sayyid Aḥmad b. Zaynī Daḥlān - https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AB3ecWFLS/
 
Sidi Hassan the clip you have posted from FB - the Deobandi refers to a book of a Mawlana Ibrahim. Do you know the name of the book?
 
Sidi Hassan the clip you have posted from FB - the Deobandi refers to a book of a Mawlana Ibrahim. Do you know the name of the book?

Nope, he brings it up himself and says he has given a reference to it in his own work, but the poor fella can't even remember the name of the book - would be interesting to have a read of the book nonetheless
 
A mere year after composing 'Taḥdhīr al-Nās', Qāsim Nānotwī was already gripped by the dread that the fatwa of kufr pronounced against him (signed by 'most of the scholars of Dehli) might reach the Arab lands - particularly Mawlānā Raḥmat‑Allāh al‑Kayrānawī.

One would think such condemnation might prompt retraction, but silence was his final refuge.

He writes in a letter:
upload_2025-11-29_10-33-0.png

upload_2025-11-29_10-33-13.png

Most Delhiite scholars (apart from Mawlānā Naẓīr Ḥusayn Muḥaddith)[1] have issued a fatwa of disbelief [kufr kā fatwā] against this unworthy one [nā-kārah], and have affixed seals upon the fatwa, and have circulated it in the region so that more seals may be affixed.

Now there is news that this fatwa will soon reach the blessed Arabia. The purpose in sending this treatise [i.e., the fatwa] to the blessed Arabia is understood to be that Mawlānā Raḥmat-Allāh[2] [al‑Kayrānawī] should review it, and through him, the scholars of the Arabia might also place their seals upon it.

The friends of this region are awaiting a reply, but I, considering my Islam to be disgraced by disbelief [nang-i kufr][3], have given no reply other than silence.[4]



[1] The original text has a footnote here but it is not relevant to translate; it is just a brief biography of Naẓīr Ḥusayn

[2] Likewise, the footnote here in the original text is a brief biography of Mawlānā Raḥmat-Allāh al‑Kayrānawī

[3] This is a very difficult idiom to translate into English; it is obviously possible my chosen translation here is not the best English rendition of this difficult idiom

[4] Qāsim al-ʿUlūm, p. 308 - 309




Here is the paragraph from the letter in its original Farsi form:

Screenshot 2025-11-29 at 10.46.28.png

 
A mere year after composing 'Taḥdhīr al-Nās', Qāsim Nānotwī was already gripped by the dread that the fatwa of kufr pronounced against him (signed by 'most of the scholars of Dehli) might reach the Arab lands - particularly Mawlānā Raḥmat‑Allāh al‑Kayrānawī.

One would think such condemnation might prompt retraction, but silence was his final refuge.

He writes in a letter:
View attachment 11144
View attachment 11145
Most Delhiite scholars (apart from Mawlānā Naẓīr Ḥusayn Muḥaddith)[1] have issued a fatwa of disbelief [kufr kā fatwā] against this unworthy one [nā-kārah], and have affixed seals upon the fatwa, and have circulated it in the region so that more seals may be affixed.

Now there is news that this fatwa will soon reach the blessed Arabia. The purpose in sending this treatise [i.e., the fatwa] to the blessed Arabia is understood to be that Mawlānā Raḥmat-Allāh[2] [al‑Kayrānawī] should review it, and through him, the scholars of the Arabia might also place their seals upon it.

The friends of this region are awaiting a reply, but I, considering my Islam to be disgraced by disbelief [nang-i kufr][3], have given no reply other than silence.[4]



[1] The original text has a footnote here but it is not relevant to translate; it is just a brief biography of Naẓīr Ḥusayn

[2] Likewise, the footnote here in the original text is a brief biography of Mawlānā Raḥmat-Allāh al‑Kayrānawī

[3] This is a very difficult idiom to translate into English; it is obviously possible my chosen translation here is not the best English rendition of this difficult idiom

[4] Qāsim al-ʿUlūm, p. 308 - 309




Here is the paragraph from the letter in its original Farsi form:

View attachment 11146

Do the Deos affirm this letter or is it from their fraternity. This would eliminate one subterfuge of the deos that Alahazrat was the first scholar to place a fatwa on this work.
 
Do the Deos affirm this letter or is it from their fraternity. This would eliminate one subterfuge of the deos that Alahazrat was the first scholar to place a fatwa on this work.

They have to accept it. It's from the renowned work on Nanotwi, ‘Qasim al-Ulum’, published by Deos themselves.
 
They have to accept it. It's from the renowned work on Nanotwi, ‘Qasim al-Ulum’, published by Deos themselves.

Is there a follow up to this in terms of his reaction after it reached the Hijaz. Any direct quotes from Maulana Rehmat-Allah on this particular issue? He mentions Rashid not turning out to be Rashid but is there anything on Qasim from him and/or Arab scholars before Hussam?
 
A mere year after composing 'Taḥdhīr al-Nās', Qāsim Nānotwī was already gripped by the dread that the fatwa of kufr pronounced against him (signed by 'most of the scholars of Dehli) might reach the Arab lands - particularly Mawlānā Raḥmat‑Allāh al‑Kayrānawī.

One would think such condemnation might prompt retraction, but silence was his final refuge.

He writes in a letter:
View attachment 11144
View attachment 11145
Most Delhiite scholars (apart from Mawlānā Naẓīr Ḥusayn Muḥaddith)[1] have issued a fatwa of disbelief [kufr kā fatwā] against this unworthy one [nā-kārah], and have affixed seals upon the fatwa, and have circulated it in the region so that more seals may be affixed.

Now there is news that this fatwa will soon reach the blessed Arabia. The purpose in sending this treatise [i.e., the fatwa] to the blessed Arabia is understood to be that Mawlānā Raḥmat-Allāh[2] [al‑Kayrānawī] should review it, and through him, the scholars of the Arabia might also place their seals upon it.

The friends of this region are awaiting a reply, but I, considering my Islam to be disgraced by disbelief [nang-i kufr][3], have given no reply other than silence.[4]



[1] The original text has a footnote here but it is not relevant to translate; it is just a brief biography of Naẓīr Ḥusayn

[2] Likewise, the footnote here in the original text is a brief biography of Mawlānā Raḥmat-Allāh al‑Kayrānawī

[3] This is a very difficult idiom to translate into English; it is obviously possible my chosen translation here is not the best English rendition of this difficult idiom

[4] Qāsim al-ʿUlūm, p. 308 - 309




Here is the paragraph from the letter in its original Farsi form:

View attachment 11146

Shows that he didn't think it was unlikely for the scholars of the haramaryn to do takfeer of him.

As this was before Hussam, it shows that he thought his book could lead to his takfeer as is, without the usual deo excuse of rearrangement of passages etc. Nanotwi has been declared a disbeliever by most of the Delhi scholars for a book they understand the language of, in the original form and he thinks the Arabs might do takfeer on the same grounds. His own words destroy any excuses his followers subsequently provided
 
Shows that he didn't think it was unlikely for the scholars of the haramaryn to do takfeer of him.

As this was before Hussam, it shows that he thought his book could lead to his takfeer as is, without the usual deo excuse of rearrangement of passages etc. Nanotwi has been declared a disbeliever by most of the Delhi scholars for a book they understand the language of, in the original form and he thinks the Arabs might do takfeer on the same grounds. His own words destroy any excuses his followers subsequently provided

A lot of revisionism from the deos, so as much refutations before Hussam that we can bring up will render that revisionism futile.
 
Back
Top