abu Hasan
Administrator
by khalil ahmed ambethwi, saharanpuri meant to be a clarification and an answer to the 'deception' of Husam al-Haramayn and by transition imam ahmed raza khan barelwi.
---
if there was any doubt about the deobandis and their two-faced behavior, it is now removed; not that there was any in the first place.
according to khalil:
and thirdly, in the parlance of the people in india 'wahabi' was originally a term describing anyone rejecting the taqlid of our imams raDiyallahu anhum. this term was later extended to include and became common to describe a person who follows the blessed sunnah and rejects ugly innovations [mustaHdithah ash-shani`ah] and ugly rituals particularly in and around bombay. so much so that a person prostates to the graves of awliya'a and circumbambulates it is called a wahabi; even those who point out that usury [interest] is forbidden is a wahabi even if they are elders among muslims and their prominent ones.
[the term wahabi] it was then extended such that it became an insult. so, if an indian calls another a wahabi he doesn't mean that the person [one called wahabi] has corrupt faith [fasid al-`aqidah]; rather it means that such a person is a sunni, Hanafi, one who follows the sunnah and abstains from bid`ah; one who fears Allah ta'ala [and hence does not commit] from sins.'
---
we now know where ibn adam learns his navigation.
---
question the 17th: do you say that the prophet sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam has no superiority upon us except like that of an elder brother upon his younger and nothing more. did any of you write this passage in any book?
answer: none amongst us, nor amongst our elders [aslafina'l kiram] believed this absolutely. and we do not imagine a man with the weakest of faith utter such an enormity. and whosoever says that the prophet alayhi's salam has no superiority except that of an elder brother upon his younger, we believe that he is out of the boundaries of faith.'
so according to khalil ahmed, either ismayil dahlawi is not among the elders of deoband and either way, he is a kafir.
----
the 19th question: do you consider that iblis the accursed is more knowledgeable than the master of creation `alayhi's salam and has decidedly/ more knowledge [wa awsa'u `ilman minhu muTlaqan]; did you write it in any of your book and what is your ruling concerning a person who says so.
khalil ahmed gives his defence but here is the rub. the question is not pointed. the question has too many loopholes. the issue was not a specific article of faith; the issue was that khalil said something and it was kufr. one should have asked whether you said something not whether it is your canonical belief.
this part should be judged by ibn Hajar al-haytami's al-iylam li qawaTiy al-islam, not by sharH al-`aqayid or any other affirmative text.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
---
certainly, one cannot blame the arab-western ulama if they have a good opinion about the deobandis. but for me, well...try convincing me that saddam invaded iraq and the american army went there to stop people from fighting each other.
---
if there was any doubt about the deobandis and their two-faced behavior, it is now removed; not that there was any in the first place.
according to khalil:
and thirdly, in the parlance of the people in india 'wahabi' was originally a term describing anyone rejecting the taqlid of our imams raDiyallahu anhum. this term was later extended to include and became common to describe a person who follows the blessed sunnah and rejects ugly innovations [mustaHdithah ash-shani`ah] and ugly rituals particularly in and around bombay. so much so that a person prostates to the graves of awliya'a and circumbambulates it is called a wahabi; even those who point out that usury [interest] is forbidden is a wahabi even if they are elders among muslims and their prominent ones.
[the term wahabi] it was then extended such that it became an insult. so, if an indian calls another a wahabi he doesn't mean that the person [one called wahabi] has corrupt faith [fasid al-`aqidah]; rather it means that such a person is a sunni, Hanafi, one who follows the sunnah and abstains from bid`ah; one who fears Allah ta'ala [and hence does not commit] from sins.'
---
we now know where ibn adam learns his navigation.
---
question the 17th: do you say that the prophet sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam has no superiority upon us except like that of an elder brother upon his younger and nothing more. did any of you write this passage in any book?
answer: none amongst us, nor amongst our elders [aslafina'l kiram] believed this absolutely. and we do not imagine a man with the weakest of faith utter such an enormity. and whosoever says that the prophet alayhi's salam has no superiority except that of an elder brother upon his younger, we believe that he is out of the boundaries of faith.'
so according to khalil ahmed, either ismayil dahlawi is not among the elders of deoband and either way, he is a kafir.
----
the 19th question: do you consider that iblis the accursed is more knowledgeable than the master of creation `alayhi's salam and has decidedly/ more knowledge [wa awsa'u `ilman minhu muTlaqan]; did you write it in any of your book and what is your ruling concerning a person who says so.
khalil ahmed gives his defence but here is the rub. the question is not pointed. the question has too many loopholes. the issue was not a specific article of faith; the issue was that khalil said something and it was kufr. one should have asked whether you said something not whether it is your canonical belief.
this part should be judged by ibn Hajar al-haytami's al-iylam li qawaTiy al-islam, not by sharH al-`aqayid or any other affirmative text.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
---
certainly, one cannot blame the arab-western ulama if they have a good opinion about the deobandis. but for me, well...try convincing me that saddam invaded iraq and the american army went there to stop people from fighting each other.
