The Sunni Voice

desperate deobandi teashop bloggers

The only thing that matters (to the above mentioned) is trying to prove Imam Ahmad Rida’s (RA) fatwa of takfir was wrong and the deobandi elders were innocent of the accusations thrown at them (which if it were true, according to deobandis would automatically mean that their elders are/were haq and their blind following of them regardless…….is justified).

Latest wave of deobandi ramblings here, on the molwi qasim nanotvi’s tahzir-un-nas affair. At the end of the post it states; “source: Mawlana Ahmad Raza Khan Baraelwi haiqat (probably meant to write ‘haqiqat’) kay ‘ainay mein’ by Mawlana Javed Usman Memon shaib“. When i noticed the same reference given at the end of this post, i posted in a response asking the blogging deobandi brother if the reference given was for the comment in the last section or for the whole article..??

Guess what..? no response nor was my response published. one week later i asked again, and then once again after that. no response was made nor was the query published. so i gathered that the reference was for the whole article and the actual book had not been consulted.

Then we came across this which was actually taken from here where the mufti actually sounds like he knows what he’s barking at. From an earlier private contact between the mufti and another brother, it sounded so convincing that it drove this  brother to throw accusations here, ( i guess the brother had a preview of the article due to be published), which went sour when we came across this statement on the same thread,

The next post by Ibn Arabi has been deleted on his request, where he (according to him) quoted a deobandi mufti from a personal email without the said mufti’s permission.  the said mufti’s comments were based on a summarized version of the book tahzir an nas, and acknowledged that he had not read the original. on the basis of this summarized report the mufti also condemned those who did takfir of qasim nanotwi. some of the following posts referring to the content of this post could seem out of place; hence the clarification.

Now, even though the affair with brother ibn arabi was weeks before the basair blogger posts, how much credibility does the said mufti have remaining after the above comment? Can we trust him this time round? And how do we know that his published article is not the same as what was discussed privately with brother ibn arabi.?

Anyone who knows anything about hadith narrations will know that when a hadith is classed as ‘daef’ what is meant is that the chain of transmission is weak, i.e. it’s chain has a weak narrator. one form of weak narrators are those that are known to be unreliable, untrustworthy or as being exaggerators etc etc. At this point hadith are classed as weak as part of a cautionary measure. you can then practice upon the hadith but cannot derive any legal ruling from it. (*that was a brief explanation, so don’t take it as the full monty*)

Likewise, mufti sahib (as-suffa) has proved to be untrustworthy/unreliable, so his fatwas should not be given much thought other than that, it is his personal (emotionally influenced)understanding and nothing more.

As for pir karam shah (ra), can anyone show if he ever prayed behind a non-barelwi..? or if his successors denounce the hussam al-haramain..? or if his acquaintances and successors take/took the same approach towards deobandies as he did…??