The Sunni Voice

:: Abd Al Mustafa's Corner ::

  • “Let not respect for people prevent a person from speaking the truth when they know it.” (Tirmidhi)
  • November 2007
    M T W T F S S
  • category

  • Global Visitors

  • Stats

    • 275,359 visitors
  • Admin

  • SunniVoice's Flickr

The Barelwi/Deobandi affair

Posted by Abd Al Mustafa on Thursday 15th November, 2007

….for a while now i hadn’t heard any discussions about this affair. And just when i thought that the sunnies were finally moving away from this issue by not repeating or commenting on the issue over and over again……..out popped a deo who started his usual rants (imam ahmad raza this, imam that etc etc), and then i received several emails cussing me and defending deo elders blah blah!!, and praising them in a way we never hear these brothers praise even our master sayyidina mustafa (s.a.w). I don’t really fancy typing up on this issue any further, so i have simply pasted a discussion between brother Rafiq Ahmed and a deo sympathizer, which i believe answers more or less the main objections for and against this debate. 

As-salaamu `alaykum

Before starting, I would just like to thank our beloved, Shaykh Dr. GF Haddad for producing material on this topic so quickly. May Allah give him, me and all Muslims khayrât from the feet of our master, Tâjedâr-e-Kâ’inât Muhammad (Sallallâhu `alayhi wa âlihî wa sallam) – AMIN! I wrote the material below before Hajj Dr. Haddad’s posted his emails so some of it might be a repete.

Please do not reply to this unless you have got something useful to say.

There are various positions held by the Muslim `Ulamâ’ about certain individuals who held esteemed positions in the Dârul-`Ulûm in the village of Deoband, found a little over a hundred years ago. These differences are similar to those held by the `Ulamâ’ about other famous personalities:

A) Imam Ibn Taymiyya. From the time of Ibn Taymiyya (over 600 years ago!), Muslim `Ulama’ have differed about his status. The following are these views – I am only listing them with some of their strengths trying not to give any biases:

(i) That to call him Shaykhul-Islam is kufr! As far as I know, this was the isolated position held by `Alâ-ud-Dîn Bukhârî.

(ii) Some went as far as to say that he was a kâfir! These `Ulama’ exist till today and they justify their views not only on the words of early Imams, but DIRECTLY from the works of Ibn Taymiyya which have been published. Some also base this view on what was seen and heard by travellers, such as Ibn Batûta in his “Rihla” and others who encountered him. I don’t want to go into this, but you can see the verdicts and the reasons for them in Zâhid al-Kawthari’s “Maqâlât” and many works by other scholars. A lot of this is also available on the net. Today, Shaykh `Abdullâh al-Hararî, head of “Jâmi`a al-Khayriyya al-Islâmiyya” in Lebanon, among others also holds this view.

(iii) That he was an innovator. Many of the `Ulama’ I’ve met, even one or two you would be surprised at (like Dr. Mustafa Badawi), hold this view. It is easy to find this material from the works of Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalânî (r) in his “ad-Durar al-kâmina fi a`yân al-mi’at ath-thâmina” and Imam Ibn Hajar al-Makkî (r) in his “Fatâwâ al-Hadîthiyya” although from what the latter had written, he could well have held opinion (ii). Allâhu `Âlim.

(iv) & (v) That he was Shaykhul-Islâm. Some believe that what was ascribed to him was either falsely ascribed to him, or that his books were tampered or that he changed his opinions later in his life. Hadrat Yûsuf an-Nabhânî wrote against many of the positions of Ibn Taymiyya but at the same time refers to him as Shaykhul-Islam out of adab. Subhânallâh! That he was amongst the greatest of the scholars of his time (at the top) but who slipped was held by Sayyidina Tahir `Alâ-ud-Din Gilânî (r). Prof. Tahir-ul-Qadri also held his shaykhs view and stated that out of grief from other scholars, he strayed to some of the corrupt opinions they accused him of but before the end of his life, Ibn Taymiyya returned to his earlier positions while in prison. Ibn Hajar `Asqalânî in the above mentioned book produces an opinion like this too, i.e. of Ibn Taymiyya’s repentance in the presence of others. I feel most comfortable with this but this doesn’t mean that I dismiss any of the others. When Dr. Mustafâ Badawî (translator of many of the Bâ `Alawî works) saw a picture of Sayyidina Tahir `Ala-ud-Din Gilani (r), I personally heard him say, “You can just tell from his face that he is a Wali-Allah!”

(vi) Some of today’s scholars use him to justify beliefs that promote anthropomorphism, anti-madhhabism and views encouraging people to generalise and say that most Muslims are committing kufr, shirk and bid`a. This is a popular position of some of the Salafi schools and some of those influenced by them in the Sub-Continent.

B) There was the case of Shaykh Sâdî Shirâzî (r). Hadrat Amîr Khushrû (r) used to consider him to be a zindîq! That was until he had a dream, which he told to his shaykh. From the interpretation of the dream by his shaykh, he changed his opinion and started
considering Shaykh Sâdî to be among the most greatest of the servants of Allah on the earth.

C) There is a similar case with Shaykhul-Akbar Muhyuddîn ibn al-`Arabî (r). Sultânul-`Ulamâ’ Izzuddin ibn `Abdus-Salâm (r) used to consider him a zindîq sometimes. However, in later statements from him, he stated that Ibn `Arabî was the qutb of the times. These various sayings of Ibn `Abdus-Salâm have been collated by Ibn `Âbidîn.

This same line of understanding can be found with the `Ulama’ of Deoband, viz. the following views:

(i) That some of them committed kufr.

Ala Hadrat Mawlana Shah Ahmad Ridâ [or: Radâ] Khan Bareylwi [d.1340H] (r) was not the originator of refutations of the Deobandis. Many had written against the `Ulama’ of Deoband prior to him, such as:

– Mawlânâ Fadl al-Haqq Khayrabâdî (r), in his work “Tahqîqul-Fatâwâ”
– Hadrat Fadl al-Rasûl Badayûnî (r) in his “Sayful-Jabbâr” and others.

In fact, Ala Hadrat (r) had not yet been born when these were written. This view exists up to today and those who hold it base this verdict not only on the words of the early Imam’s, but DIRECTLY from the works that have been published. I don’t really want to include the statements that were said to have disbelief in them.

What is often not mentioned is that letters were also exchanged between Mawlânâ Ahmad Ridâ and the parties involved, asking for clarifications, explanations and finally repentance.

Mawlânâ Ahmad Ridâ Khan’s original fatwa is present in his work, “al-Mu`tamad al-Mustanad” which is a commentary of Mawlana Shâh Fadl ar-Rasul Badayuni’s, “al-Mu`taqad al-Muntaqad (Matbû’a: Lahore, 1853/1270).” It is in this work that Ala Hadrat had the stamps of approval from 33 Hijâzî `Ulama’ for his fatwa of kufr on four of the `Ulama’ of Deoband. Mawlânâ Hashmat `Alî Khân (r), added the names of 268 [!!] more `Ulama’ verifying the fatwa from the Sub-Continent in a separate work entitled, “as-Sawârim al-Hindiyya (Matbû’a: Muradabad, 1926/1345).” This was collectively compiled together in the work, “Husâm al-Haramayn” holding the endorsements of 301 `Ulama’ and Masha’ikh from the Arab world and Sub-Continent! Surprisingly, it also includes the ratification of Ahmad Ridâ’s fatwa by the shaykh in tasawwuf of those takfîr was made upon, Hâjî Imdâdullâh Muhâjir Makkî [d. 1317H] (r). Mawlana Ahmad Ridâ himself actually wrote some 200 books against the Deobandis alone and also constantly invited them to debate according to his own words in his “ad-Dawlatul-Makkiyya (Matbû’a: Karachi, 1955/1374),” p. 169.

(ii) The opinion of silence on this issue.

Over a decade after the passing away of Mawlana Ahmad Ridâ Khan, Mawlana Khalîl Ahmad AmbetHwî wrote the work “al-Muhannad alal-Mufannad” as a clarification of the beliefs of the `Ulama’ of Deoband. Abu Anas and Karim Abdullah will be glad to know that I have seen translated portions of this in English. It can be seen that this work rejects what was ascribed to them in “Husâm al-Haramayn.” In my personal opinion, if someone says that they don’t believe in something, then out of holding a good opinion of a Muslim and for the sake of unity, no one has the right to accuse them of believing in it. So, if they (the Deobandis) say that they don’t believe [any longer?] in those vulgar texts that were used against them, then fair enough they don’t, lets finish it there.

However, the reply that is often given to this is:
“What do you make of the statements in the books of these scholars?”
“If you disagree with these statements, then what is your opinion of those scholars who wrote them?” and of course there is no way to reply to these questions. This was one of the arguments used by the great scholar, `Allâma Na`îmud-dîn Murâdabâdî [d. 1367H] (r) who wrote an immediate reply to Khalîl Ahmad AmbêtHwî’s “al- Muhannad `alal-Mufannad” entitled, “at-Tahqîqât lidaf`ut-Talbîsât (Lahore).” He also deals with disproving the accusations labelled by AmbetHwi Sahib against Ala Hadrat in there.

In addition to this, Anjumân Irshadul-Muslimîn and Anjumân Siyânatul-Muslimîn are two darul-`ulums which opened not so long ago in Lahore, Pakistan. They have started re-writing books such as “Hifzul-Îmân” of Mawlana Ashraf `Ali Thanwi and “Taqwiyatul-Îmân” of Isma’il Dehlwi and some other books and have re-phrased those statements which were said to be of kufr. Hence, they no longer sound like kufr statements and can be interpreted to mean something else. So the arguments may sway between: “see we don’t believe such a thing and you distorted our words” to “you changed the text in order to defend the credibility’s of the authors.”

After seeing these arguments, it can easily be realised that they can continue forever. Nowadays however, a lot of the debates seem to be politics rather than any real research.

An important note is that the great Walî Allah, Hadrat Pîr Sayyad Mehr `Alî Shâh Gôlrawî [d. 1356H] (r) was actually shown the letters that were exchanged between Mawlana Ahmad Ridâ and Rashîd Ahmad Gangôhî etc. but still held the opinion of silence. His work, “Mehr-e-Munîr” which has recently been translated into English, does deal with refuting certain opinions of the Deobandi School thought.

My two conclusions:

– the statements which Mawlana Ahmad Ridâ Khan saw in the books of the four Deobandi scholars certainly were (and are) in there and could not be interpreted in any other way. He also wrote letters asking for clarifications and repentance. Finally, as a last resort, he decreed his fatwa of kufr on them. I believe whatever the reality of the situation; Mawlana Ahmad Ridâ is exonerated of causing any fitna, since he based his view on clear proofs, like those who came before him. Many of those who endorsed his fatwa of kufr read his works and those of the accused `Ulama’ of Deoband before signing an approval. Hence, he should not be the target of ill words and tempers. He was the Imam of the Ahlus-Sunnah and [one of] the mujaddid[s] of the fourteenth century.

– the “Deobandis” have rejected the majority of the statements ascribed to them and have even changed the texts of some of the original books to show this. It may seem dishonest to tamper with texts but if they insist that they don’t believe in those things, we should trust them and understand it means they don’t and call it quits. If they have been unfaithful and have been lying all this time, it is between them and Allah. The fatwa that was pronounced was not on furû`î issues, which are usually discussed (often without adab) in books and now over the net, but on `usûlî issues which are the fundamental requirements of a Muslims faith.

These issues are not usually what is discussed over the net nowadays, but the hostilities are as though they are `usûlî issues. Why? The Deobandi brothers should stop cursing Imam Ahmad Ridâ Khan (r) since very few of them seem to have even read any of his works.

part 2    part 3     part 4     part 5    part 6   part 7

8 Responses to “The Barelwi/Deobandi affair”

  1. Merazul said

    Mash’Allah great stuff bro. Sure is a hammer blow to the Deobandi bandwagon. However, I suspect the Deobandi’s will still go about business as usual and try to mess up many innocent people with their very sly tactics. That is the skill perfected at Deoband, to show a different face each time.

    By the way, where in the world have all the Deobandi sympathizers gone? Guess they still have Shaykh Nuh’s article to hide themselves behind.

    [Abd Al Mustafa] – 🙂 I always used to hear from deobandies that the barelwies kept on going on and on about the same thing as if it was the only thing that mattered, and in a sense there was some truth in their words. BUT in my personal experience i have seen the exact same if not a worse scenario from the other side. It seems as if the only thing that matters to the deos (not all of them obviously) is to prove that Imam Ahmad Raza was wrong. BUT that does not justify covering up for their peers and making it look as if the alleged texts did not exist. Blind love for their peers prevents them from seeing reality.

  2. Suhail Alji said

    Darul Uloom Deoband – A Brief Introduction (http://***********.htm)

    In The Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

    The day of Thursday, 15th Muharram, A.H. 1283 (May 30, 1866), was that blessed and auspicious day in the Islamic history of India when…………………

    [Abd Al Mustafa] – let’s stick to what is being discussed!

  3. Suhail Alji said

    Hadhrat Maulana’s Akhlaq: Hadhrat Maulana used to be very tolerant. Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi was a contemporary of Hadhrat Maulana. In his writings, very often he would condemn Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi with very rude and harsh words……….[Read the full article on Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi’s life]

    [Abd Al Mustafa] – thanx for the suggestion! i have said many times and especially here: …………you see deobundi brothers running blogs which are filled with tales and stories from the books of their own elders, and which they are presenting as evidences to discredit Imam Ahmad Rida (RA). seem’s a bit silly to me, using my own words to discredit my opponent – won’t stand up in any court…..what’s worse is when all these incidents are simply made-up and put into books. And these stories and tales are used to decide their (hardcore tablighi’s) manhaj.***

    and then they accuse the imam of cursing the deobundi elders yet we find…………. “shameless language used against Mawlana Ahmad Ridâ, which is not fit for a scholar. Husayn Ahmad Tandwî (who later changed his name to Madanî), the HEAD mudarris of the Darul-`Ulum in Deoband writes in this “Shihâbuth-thâqib”:

    a) “Mujaddid Bareylwi, whose lies became famous – la`natullâhi ta`âlâ fid-dârîn âmîn – ALLÂH CURSE HIM (MUJADDID BAREYLWI) IN THIS WORLD AND IN THE NEXT.” (Shihâbuth-thâqib, p. 81) – wal-`iyâdhubillâh!

    b) “âp hazrât zarâ insâf far mâ ye or is Bareylwi Dajjâl [!!!] se daryâfat karê – YOU PEOPLE TODAY, HAVE SOME JUSTICE AND DISCUSS WITH THE BAREYLWI DAJJAL.” (Shihâbuth-thâqib, p. 86) – astaghfirullâh!

    c) “Mujaddid aD-Dâlîn farmâ tehê – MUJADDID OF THE MISGUIDED [DÂLÎN] STATES…” (p. 31)

    d) “ham âgê chal kar sâf tôr se zâhir kar dêN ge ke Dajjâl Bareylwi ne yahâ mahz be samjî or be `aqlî se kâm liyâ hey – WE WILL STRIDE FORWARD AND MAKE CLEAR THAT THE BAREYLWI DAJJÂL [!!] HERE HAS MADE USE OF VERY LITTLE UNDERSTANDING AND NO LOGIC.” (Shihâbuth-thâqib, p. 95)”

    hypocrisy..????? 😦

  4. sufi786 said

    Yes the deo are very smart —–but only for their own loss , they are caught between the **** and the deep blue sea

    [Abd Al Mustafa] – come on! let’s be sensible here.

  5. Shah Md. Saeed Chishti said

    Kind attn: Mohtaram Moderator
    As salamu ‘alikum!
    Please allow me to post a related message in your forum for detailed discussion which was seen in the by posted by someone named Mohd. Surid Alam Maizbhandari
    Ma as-salam

    [Abd Al Mustafa] – wa alaikum as salaam, plz send me a link to the discussion in question! jazakallah khair

  6. Shah Md. Saeed Chishti said

    Mohtaram awr Mokarram Abd Al Mustafa Shaheb(DB)! Walaikumus salam wa rahmatullah. Thnx for your quick & kind response. Yanabi is now undergoing some maintenance work. Most probably I found it in the thread Deobandis and Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamat or like that where some one Mohd. Surid Alam Maizbhandari discussed his experience & opinions of his teacher on Deobandism. I printed the full text of that long post.

    Ma as-salam

    [Abd Al Mustafa] – i think if you go through this whole discussion, all the way till the end of part 7 you will have all your questions answered about the affair. ma salam.

  7. imran said

    All that surid alam mazbhandari is posting on is copypastes of books written brelvis i.e mutala e brelviat,muhannad etc yet they do not seem to explain reasons for the statements on which the fatwas of kufr were passed.

    They can list all the scholars they want that have “condemned” Al Hadrat(RA but or how “pious” there akabireen were but yet can not reject their kufria statements(of the 4 maulvis in concern) in toto.

    Surid alam mazbhandari and sayadur rahman are either a tag team or the same person on YaNabi .com,we are aware of their tricks and love for tablighis.

    [Abd Al Mustafa]speaking of the mazbhandari chck this out he calls himself a chishti on my blog. hey chisthi boy! you’ve been sussed.

  8. Muhammad Tariq Razavi said

    Ass Salaamuwaalaikum Wa Rehamtullah E Wa Barakaatahu.
    Dear All this is a very very good answer within the framework of Literary circles. I am really impressed with the work and the material you have collectd for the same. I would really appreciate if the contents of Sayf Ul jabbar are made public so that the Wahabbis and Deobandis can taste the mud from their own soil.At least publish those articles that have refuted the Wahabbi claim. Anyways today the esteemed Ulemas of Badayun Shareef are not into Radd…….Neither in Speech nor in Writings , hence it will be an eye opener for them too. Please do keep up the effort and May ALLAH Azzwajal reward you for the same. Aameen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: