[Seth]

Bismi Llah
As-salaamu 'alaykum.

"This stems, in my opinion, from an obsession with sectarian polemics; the same it was said infected Ibn Taymiyya who misplaced his intelligence by delving into controversial matters but had he used it wisely he could have produced great commentaries on the Qur’an and Hadith."

I tend to agree with you, Sidi Ibn Arabi--though I'm the first to admit that my knowledge of the issue is limited and I'm only speaking from the perspective of what I have "sensed" personally. Although on some issues--esp. related to tasawwuf--I feel more comfortable with Barelwi positions, from my limited exposure to their materials I perceive a lot of negativity that arises from this focus on refuting the Deobandis (or worse). The Deobandis, to their credit, don't seem to really obsess or focus on the Barelwis--they just get on with their work, and they are very visible and active--at least here in the States--within the larger Muslim community, especially in the field of dawah. Thus, from the perspective of one such as myself, who is not from the Subcontinent, there is more of a "positive vibe" coming from the Deobandis--even though, as I said, on some matters I might align myself more closely with the other group. This is in no way to belittle the Barelwi ulema--it's just that all the polemics really bring me down.

This is why, when I was searching for a sufi shaykh, I made it clear up front that what I was interested in was sufism, and that I didn't want to have anything to do with takfiring Deobandis.

was-salaam.

[Ibn Arabi]

Seth, on 06 February 2010 - 12:54 PM, said:

Although on some issues--esp. related to tasawwuf--I feel more comfortable with Barelwi positions, from my limited exposure to their materials I perceive a lot of negativity that arises from this focus on refuting the Deobandis (or worse).

Due to the false equivocation of Deobandis with Wahhabis, it is sometimes thought Deobandis were opposed to Tasawwuf. Tasawwuf was not something marginal to their movement but something integral and elementary. From Hajji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki down to Qasim Nanotwi, Rashid Gangohi and Shaykh al-Hind, then Husayn Ahmad Madani, Ashraf Ali al-Thanawi and Zakariyya Kandehlewi, and to our current time Zulfiqar Ahmad, Abdul Hafiz Makki and Taqi Usmani, these are prolific Deobandi authors and practioners of Tasawwuf, who formed Sufi networks and wrote on Sufi theory and metaphysics. Thanawi is in fact regarded as "the preeminent Sufi of modern India"; if I'm not incorrect, he wrote a large commentary on Rumi's mathnawi. I'm sure Salman can explain the integrality of Tasawwuf to Deoband better than I can. The final chapter of I'la al-Sunan by Zafar Usmani mentioned above is concerning scriptural evidence for Tasawwuf and was translated by Faraz Rabbani. Although Deobandis are opposed to some of the more unusual Sufi practices (which have unfortunately come to define Tasawwuf in some circles) and prefer a conservative approach similar is the case with other Sufis like those of West Africa and somebody like Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda (e.g. in his commentary of Risalat al-Mustarshideen).

This post has been edited by Ibn Arabi: 06 February 2010 - 01:42 PM

[Seth]

As-salaamu 'alaykum.
Sidi Ibn Arabi, I hope you didn't misunderstand me. I definitely don't equate Deobandis with Wahhabis, and I'm well aware that the Deobandis are dedicated to the science of tawawwuf. I have myself found benefit in some of their books on this subject, especially those of Ashraf Ali al-Thanawi and Zakariyya Kandehlewi (may Allah have mercy on them)--what is available in English anyway. There are indeed some very sophisticated writings on tasawwuf by these and other Deobandi authors. That being said--and without in any way criticizing the principles of this school (for who am I to criticize?)--I do feel more of a resonance with the Barelwi positions on issues like the mawlid, tawassul, istighatha, the presence of the Prophet (salla Llahu 'alayhi was-salaam) and other related things. Of course, I think it would be misleading to say that these things are "Barelwi" positions because they are shared by many others throughout the Islamic world, past and present. However, as I said, I can readily appreciate the "conservative approach" of the Deobandis, whose works on sufism can nonetheless be very profound indeed. There's a work by Shaykh Zakariyya Kandehlewi, in particular, about the Chishti tariqa, that "blew me away" when I looked into it once. I honestly don't understand how such people as Shaykh Thanawi can be the subject of such ire and contempt on the part of the Barelwis--it seemed so strange to me when someone on another forum actually felt it necessary to e-mail me (after some positive remarks on my part about the Deobandis)--just to "warn me" about "what was really going down" in Deoband! It seemed like just a little too much.
was-salaam.

[Ibn Arabi]

Seth, on 06 February 2010 - 05:50 PM, said:

I do feel more of a resonance with the Barelwi positions on issues like the mawlid, tawassul, istighatha, the presence of the Prophet (salla Llahu 'alayhi was-salaam)

The first three are fiqh issues and the fourth probably a secondary aqida issue, so have little or no relevance to Tasawwuf. Deobandis do not reject tawassul, and there have always been scholarly disputes about the mawlid and istighatha, and extremes on both sides must be avoided (e.g. calling those who do istighatha "mushrikun" or calling those who declare it inappropriate as "heretics"). Deobandis believe the Prophet is alive in his grave and our deeds are presented to him, but they do not see eye to eye with some Berelwi beliefs about the Prophet (e.g. that he possesses all knowledge of "the five" including the hour and that he is everywhere "present").

This post has been edited by Ibn Arabi: 06 February 2010 - 07:37 PM

[kattarsunni]

The above is only partially true and slightly misleading. Here is a debate between two Deobandis:

http://www.youtube.c...ex=0&playnext=1

[Ibn Arabi]

kattarsunni, on 07 February 2010 - 12:24 PM, said:

The above is only partially true and slightly misleading. Here is a debate between two Deobandis:

http://www.youtube.c...ex=0&playnext=1

It is misleading to portray a dispute between mainstream Deobandis, that is all the famous names that we hear, and minority Deobandis as representative of a Deobandi split on this particular issue. I'm not familiar with the politics of Berelwi scholarship, but it does seem there is some shi'ite tendencies amongst some of them (e.g. Tahir al-Qadiri) though this is not the case with mainstream Berelwis: would it be fair to portray "tafdili" Berelwism (that is Berelwis who think Ali was superior to the other caliphs) and mainstream Berelwism as a split amongst Berelwis?

"Hayati" Deobandis, those who believe the Prophets, martyrs and pious are "alive" in their graves, are mainstream Deobandis, although they differ in their expression of this belief. Some prefer to claim that the Prophets' life is not only in the Barzakh but a physical worldly (dunyawi) life too. Others prefer to think of the life of the Barzakh as containing degrees, with Prophets, martyrs and the pious having the highest degree of life so are able to hear, see and respond/speak to those around them. This is only a semantic difference as in both views the Prophets are "alive" and can hear, see, speak and perhaps occasionally emerge from their graves.

On the other hand, the "mamati" Deobandis, who are not mainstream, deny the Prophets can hear or that they are alive in the sense understood above. They rely on weak evidence like 'A'isha's literal understanding of Qur'an 27:80 as meaning the dead cannot be made to hear, although the majority understand this to mean "understand" not "hear", as al-Alusi says. Ibn Abd al-Barr and others have shown from extensive (mutawatir) evidence that the dead in the graves are restored to life when they receive salam, that they can hear people walking away from their graves and the like, but not all of them can always hear and see what is around them. On the other hand, the Prophet is always receiving salam, and he is always alive (hearing, seeing, speaking, praying) in his grave - the evidence that the Prophets are "alive" according to al-Suyuti is mutawatir. Although, I would think, the mamati position, minority and shadh though it is, is an "acceptabe" scholarly opinion (i.e. no takfir would be made on this basis), it is certainly not representative of mainstream Deobandi opinion or a split in the mainstream.

This post has been edited by Ibn Arabi: 07 February 2010 - 02:11 PM

[kattarsunni]

'Mainstream' Deobandi U'lama have also contradicted Ahl alSunna. For instance Shaykh Rashid Ahmad Gangohi says it is shirk to call the Messenger salAllahu alayhi wasalam from afar. He also denounces the Mawlid, and presents the takfir of the parents of the Messenger salAllahu alayhi wasalam as being mainstream etc etc..

Tahir alQadri is an independent scholar and is not qualified from Bareilly. What makes a person a 'Barelawi'. Is it the same as being a 'Deobandi'? I don't think so. Ahmad Rida Khan is a scholar from the scholars and if someone agrees with on verdicts that does not make them a 'Barelawi'. While Deoband is an institute...

[Ibn Arabi]

kattarsunni, on 07 February 2010 - 02:51 PM, said:

'Mainstream' Deobandi U'lama have also contradicted Ahl alSunna. For instance Shaykh Rashid Ahmad Gangohi says it is shirk to call the Messenger salAllahu alayhi wasalam from afar. He also denounces the Mawlid, and presents the takfir of the parents of the Messenger salAllahu alayhi wasalam as being mainstream etc etc

You continue to misrepresent Deobandi positions. Gangohi said to call from afar is only shirk if it is believed it will reach the one called without means. He wasn't the only one to denounce the mawlid - many ulama before the Deobandis did so. I'm not familiar with what Gangohi said about the Prophet's parents being saved or not, but I remember the Deobandi position being that there is a difference of opinion on the matter. So in no way do these contradict the Ahl al-Sunna, unless by Ahl al-Sunna you mean "Berelwi".

kattarsunni, on 07 February 2010 - 02:51 PM, said:

Tahir alQadri is an independent scholar and is not qualified from Bareilly. What makes a person a 'Barelawi'

My point was to highlight the split between tafdili and non-tafdili Berelwis, the latter being the Sunni belief and the former Shi'i. By "Berelwi" I mean followers of the school and persuasion of Ahmad Rida Khan. There are also Berelwis, as I remember from reading yanabi, that believe Abu Talib is saved which is opposed to most Sunni views and is more in tune with Shi'i views.

kattarsunni, on 07 February 2010 - 02:51 PM, said:

While Deoband is an institute

There are scholars who have not graduated from Deoband but are still "Deobandi" because they were trained at institutes descended from Deoband or are of the same persuasion.

This post has been edited by Ibn Arabi: 07 February 2010 - 06:22 PM

[kattarsunni]

[quote]You continue to misrepresent Deobandi positions. Gangohi said to call from afar is only shirk if it is believed it will reach the one called without means/quote]

That is not true. Go back and look at his Fatawa properly.

[quote]He wasn't the only one to denounce the mawlid - many ulama before the Deobandis did so/quote]

But none of them said mawlid comemmoration is worse then Hindu celebration! Have a look at the one volume fatawa. If you say i'am misquoting or misrepresenting then scan the pages and we will see.

One thing is Shaykh Nuh and Faraz have done is to confirm that the Deobandi Ulama did make those statements. Otherwise before SOME Deobandis would say that even those quotes are made up!

[Ibn Arabi]

kattarsunni, on 14 February 2010 - 03:57 AM, said:

That is not true. Go back and look at his Fatawa properly.

The translation of the fatwa says: "As you acknowledged yourself, calling upon beings other than Allah from a distance is polytheism when they are believed to be the knower/listener in actual means, otherwise, it is not polytheism eg. if considered that Allah will inform him or by the will of Allah they will be enlightened, or by the will of Allah the angels will carry the message to them as has been revealed regarding durood; or just for the sake of fondness and love; or to express the melancholy of severance, for at these occasions, although the words are of address, but at no point they are meant to be heard (by the called one), or based upon any wrong belief." Your blanket statement "Shaykh Rashid Ahmad Gangohi says it is shirk to call the Messenger salAllahu alayhi wasalam from afar" is therefore a misrepresentation.

This post has been edited by Ibn Arabi: 14 February 2010 - 12:23 PM

[Ibn Arabi]

kattarsunni, on 14 February 2010 - 03:57 AM, said:

But none of them said mawlid comemmoration is worse then Hindu celebration! Have a look at the one volume fatawa. If you say i'am misquoting or misrepresenting then scan the pages and we will see.

Yes, this too is a misrepresentation. Gangohi did not say the mawlid was worse than Hindu celebrations. He said a particular belief that is held at the time of qiyam (not the entire mawlid) resembles (not is "worse than") some Hindu and Rafidi beliefs about rebirth. It seems such misrepresentation has a long pedigree as the same accusation had to be cleared up in the Muhannad, as Saharanpuri says "(Gangohi) only repudiated the ignorant masses of India who held this false belief, who do qiyam on the basis of the likes of such corrput ideas (that the Prophet is reborn each year), so there is no comparison of the commemeration of the noble birth with the practice of the Majus or the Rafida [let alone it being "worse"!]. Far be it that our elders imagine such a thing, but the unjust invent (lies) about the people of truth" (إنما أنكر على جهلاء الهند المعتقدين منهم هذه العقيدة الكاسدة الذين يقومون لمثل هذه الخيالات الفاسدة فليس فيه تشبيه لمجلس ذكر الولادة الشريفة بفعل المجوس و الروافض ، حاشا أكابرنا أن يتفوهوا بمثل ذلك ، و لكن الظالمين على أهل الحق يفترون).

That's two clear misrepresentations (or lies) which seems to be endemic in people of your persuasion. Faraz Rabbani said, and earlier discussions on the fatwas of kufr have shown, Ahmad Rida Khan also misquoted and misrepresented the Deobandi texts (e.g. stringing together three separate sentences in misrepresenting Nanotwi; missing out bits when quoting Thanawi; and saying Gangohi believed Allah has actually lied without any solid proof, which contradicts all of the latter's writings).

This post has been edited by Ibn Arabi: 15 February 2010 - 06:14 PM

[muslim786]

Ibn Arabi, on 15 February 2010 - 06:11 PM, said:

kattarsunni, on 14 February 2010 - 03:57 AM, said:

But none of them said mawlid comemmoration is worse then Hindu celebration! Have a look at the one volume fatawa. If you say i'am misquoting or misrepresenting then scan the pages and we will see.

Yes, this too is a misrepresentation. Gangohi did not say the mawlid was worse than Hindu celebrations. He said a particular belief that is held at the time of qiyam (not the entire mawlid) resembles (not is "worse than") some Hindu and Rafidi beliefs about rebirth. It seems such misrepresentation has a long pedigree as the same accusation had to be cleared up in the Muhannad, as Saharanpuri says "(Gangohi) only repudiated the ignorant masses of India who held this false belief, who do qiyam on the basis of the likes of such corrput ideas (that the Prophet is reborn each year), so there is no comparison of the commemeration of the noble birth with the practice of the Majus or the Rafida [let alone it being "worse"!]. Far be it that our elders imagine such a thing, but the unjust invent (lies) about the people of truth" (إنما أنكر على جهلاء الهند المعتقدين منهم هذه العقيدة الكاسدة الذين يقومون لمثل هذه الخيالات الفاسدة فليس فيه تشبيه لمجلس ذكر الولادة الشريفة بفعل المجوس و الروافض ، حاشا أكابرنا أن يتفوهوا بمثل ذلك ، و لكن الظالمين على أهل الحق يفترون).

That's two clear misrepresentations (or lies) which seems to be endemic in people of your persuasion. Faraz Rabbani said, and earlier discussions on the fatwas of kufr have shown, Ahmad Rida Khan also misquoted and misrepresented the Deobandi texts (e.g. stringing together three separate sentences in misrepresenting Nanotwi; missing out bits when quoting Thanawi; and saying Gangohi believed Allah has actually lied without any solid proof, which contradicts all of the latter's writings).

Assalamulikum WR WB,

To Ibn Arabi:

This belief of Mawlana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi was also condemned by a lot of the scholars who backed the book al Muhannad (which a lot of present day deobandis do not seem to adhere to at all). But you are right Mawlana Gangohi was condeming the Qiyam and not necessarily the mawlid as a whole. However he was using a baseless means to do so, which again has no solid proof. One can "make up" anything in order to debase an action, and it would seem that this was the case here. There is no history of this action being done for the reason the deobandis condemn transmitted to us either textual or oral. So if you want to be fair in your critique please also note these facts.

Also you should note that there were many scholars from the Indian Subcontinent that although did not do takfir of the Deobandis at the same time have not accused Imam Ahmed Raza Khan of the crimes you accuse him of. Scholars from both sides are not infallible and the sooner we realise that the better. Instead of the Deobandis accepting the groups (that did not do takfir) and calling them brothers they label them mubtadis etc (like they have now declared Shaykh Muhammad Al Alawi Al Maliki), however these groups still try to maintain some decency and generally have not retaliated. Generally speaking the Barelvis have still kept on decent terms with those groups. Examples of these groups is the Jamia Nizamia in Hyderbad, and the Jaunpuri Silsila of the bengal region.

Knowing some arabic does not make you a scholar. I am not sure who gave you the authority to do so but you have no right in dicussing issues such as can "Allah SWT contingently lie" naudhabillah and adding your own reasoning to it, bringing in theories and explanations that the original people who made such claims did not. Is it not easy to say that such people made a mistake and just leave to that. Men far greater than you have taken this approach. And making mistakes does not automatically make you innovator or worse a kaffir.

You talk about scholars as if they are some random person of the street, in future please address the scholars with their appropriate title such as Mawlana or Shaykh.

Walikum As Salaam

This post has been edited by muslim786: 16 February 2010 - 11:25 AM

[muslim786]

Ibn Arabi, on 06 February 2010 - 10:48 AM, said:

speedy, on 28 January 2010 - 11:18 AM, said:

Salamu alaykum

Mashallah Shaykh Faraz Rabbani is a very balanced scholar. He has praise for both Barelwi and Deobandi scholars though his preference is with the scholars of Shaam and Yemen

http://www.sunnitalk.co.uk/

In part of Faraz Rabbani’s answer he touches on the benefit of Deobandi and Berelwi scholarly writings. With regards to the latter only mention of Ahmad Rida Khan is made who wrote treatises on certain issues like a commentary on Ibn Abidin’s super-commentary called Jadd al-Mumtar, but which have not gained wide acclaim throughout the Muslim world.

On the other hand Deobandi works in hadith, fiqh, aqida and siyar have gained wide acclaim. Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri’s Badhl al-Majhud is indispensible in the commentary of Sunan Abu Dawud. Yusuf Kandehlewi’s Hayat al-Sahaba is a popular book read by scholars and lay Arabic speakers alike. Zafar Uthmani’s I‘la al-Sunan (with Habib Kiranawi’s introduction to the principles of Fiqh), written under the supervision of his uncle Ashraf Ali al-Thanawi, is probably the greatest work in defence of Hanafi fiqh in terms of hadith evidence (greater even than the works of Zayla‘i, Tahawi, and Ayni), and is published and studied by scholars throughout the world; Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda wrote a foreword to it and commented on the first part of it on the science of hadith. Zakariyya Kandehlewi’s Awjaz al-Masalik is a highly regarded commentary on the Muwatta of Imam Malik that combines issues of fiqh and hadith. Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda also wrote an introduction to Anwar Shah Kashmiri’s al-Tasrih bi ma Tawatara fi Nuzul al-Masih on the Qadiani heresy. The latter’s Fayd al-Bari and al-‘Arf al-Shadi are brief commentaries on Sahih al-Bukhari and Sunan al-Tirmidhi; and his 150 page treatise on raf' al-yadayn called Nayl al-Firqadayn is perhaps the best treatment of this issue according to Abul Hasan on these forums. Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani’s commentary on Sahih Muslim called Fath al-Mulhim was regarded as the best commentary on Sahih Muslim by Zahid al-Kawthari. Besides these examples of works which have received scholarly acceptance and acclaim in the Muslim world, there are other popular works written in Arabic e.g. those of Abu l-Hasan Ali Nadwi (who has also been responsible for writing forewords to some of the above and getting them published) and also important editions of hadith collections e.g. Habib al-Rahman al-‘Azmi’s authoritative edition of the Musannaf of ‘Abd al-Razzaq. In other words, it would be difficult for a genuine Islamic scholar to do without Deobandi scholarship.

It seems however that Berelwi scholarship has never reached this level of acceptance in any single work on hadith, fiqh, aqida or tarikh. Ahl al-Hadith from India, on the other hand, have made some fine contributions to some of these fields but not to the degree of the Deobandi ulama; these would include Mubarakpuri’s Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi on the commentary of Sunan al-Tirmidhi and some of Nawab Siddiq Hasan’s works. From these three major groups from India, Deobandis, Ahl al-Hadith and Berelwis, Berelwis seem to be singled out as the group that hasn’t produced any lasting contribution to any field of Islamic scholarship in the last century. This stems, in my opinion, from an obsession with sectarian polemics; the same it was said infected Ibn Taymiyya who misplaced his intelligence by delving into controversial matters but had he used it wisely he could have produced great commentaries on the Qur’an and Hadith. Yusuf al-Rifa‘i accurately described the Deobandis as the Ulama or the “brightest scholars” of India and the Berelwis as its masses.

Assalamulikum WR WB,

Just because you have not heard of any works written by Barelvis or Arab Ulama have not been informed of all the works by this group, doesn't mean there was not any top contributions by them. There are many sunni scholars in the sub continent that no one knows of here in the West (from the Barelvi,Deobandi or other Hanafis groups), who have produced some great works. Also people seem to underestimate the value and importance of teaching, one does not need to write books in order to be a great scholar.

The reason deobandi works have been accepted and valued is simply due to the fact that they have gone about insuring people read thier books and have spent time and money publishing them (something which they should be congratulated for) however this doesn't automatically suggest that the other groups have not produced anything and are somehow only interested in polemics.

You mention Shaykh Sayid Yusuf Hasim Ar Rifai and take a quote from him, then pass it off as if he implied there to be Ulama only from the deobandi persuasion. If you had known the actual stance and beliefs that Shaykh Al Rifai has you would not have pulled this type of stunt. He is in the UK this coming month (having been invited by ULAMA for the blessed mawlid) so you have the opportunity to clarify your misunderstanding in person. Be warned though that the noble shaykh is not in the habit of entertaining fitnah mongering.

Walikum As Salaam

This post has been edited by muslim786: 16 February 2010 - 11:53 AM

[Ibn Arabi]

muslim786, on 16 February 2010 - 11:23 AM, said:

Ibn Arabi, on 15 February 2010 - 06:11 PM, said:

kattarsunni, on 14 February 2010 - 03:57 AM, said:

But none of them said mawlid comemmoration is worse then Hindu celebration! Have a look at the one volume fatawa. If you say i'am misquoting or misrepresenting then scan the pages and we will see.

Yes, this too is a misrepresentation. Gangohi did not say the mawlid was worse than Hindu celebrations. He said a particular belief that is held at the time of qiyam (not the entire mawlid) resembles (not is "worse than") some Hindu and Rafidi beliefs about rebirth. It seems such misrepresentation has a long pedigree as the same accusation had to be cleared up in the Muhannad, as Saharanpuri says "(Gangohi) only repudiated the ignorant masses of India who held this false belief, who do qiyam on the basis of the likes of such corrput ideas (that the Prophet is reborn each year), so there is no comparison of the commemeration of the noble birth with the practice of the Majus or the Rafida [let alone it being "worse"!]. Far be it that our elders imagine such a thing, but the unjust invent (lies) about the people of truth" (إنما أنكر على جهلاء الهند المعتقدين منهم هذه العقيدة الكاسدة الذين يقومون لمثل هذه الخيالات الفاسدة فليس فيه تشبيه لمجلس ذكر الولادة الشريفة بفعل المجوس و الروافض ، حاشا أكابرنا أن يتفوهوا بمثل ذلك ، و لكن الظالمين على أهل الحق يفترون).

That's two clear misrepresentations (or lies) which seems to be endemic in people of your persuasion. Faraz Rabbani said, and earlier discussions on the fatwas of kufr have shown, Ahmad Rida Khan also misquoted and misrepresented the Deobandi texts (e.g. stringing together three separate sentences in misrepresenting Nanotwi; missing out bits when quoting Thanawi; and saying Gangohi believed Allah has actually lied without any solid proof, which contradicts all of the latter's writings).

Assalamulikum WR WB,

To Ibn Arabi:

This belief of Mawlana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi was also condemned by a lot of the scholars who backed the book al Muhannad (which a lot of present day deobandis do not seem to adhere to at all). But you are right Mawlana Gangohi was condeming the Qiyam and not necessarily the mawlid as a whole. However he was using a baseless means to do so, which again has no solid proof. One can "make up" anything in order to debase an action, and it would seem that this was the case here. There is no history of this action being done for the reason the deobandis condemn transmitted to us either textual or oral. So if you want to be fair in your critique please also note these facts.

Also you should note that there were many scholars from the Indian Subcontinent that although did not do takfir of the Deobandis at the same time have not accused Imam Ahmed Raza Khan of the crimes you accuse him of. Scholars from both sides are not infallible and the sooner we realise that the better. Instead of the Deobandis accepting the groups (that did not do takfir) and calling them brothers they label them mubtadis etc (like they have now declared Shaykh Muhammad Al Alawi Al Maliki), however these groups still try to maintain some decency and generally have not retaliated. Generally speaking the Barelvis have still kept on decent terms with those groups. Examples of these groups is the Jamia Nizamia in Hyderbad, and the Jaunpuri Silsila of the bengal region.

Knowing some arabic does not make you a scholar. I am not sure who gave you the authority to do so but you have no right in dicussing issues such as can "Allah SWT contingently lie" naudhabillah and adding your own reasoning to it, bringing in theories and explanations that the original people who made such claims did not. Is it not easy to say that such people made a mistake and just leave to that. Men far greater than you have taken this approach. And making mistakes does not automatically make you innovator or worse a kaffir.

You talk about scholars as if they are some random person of the street, in future please address the scholars with their appropriate title such as Mawlana or Shaykh.

Walikum As Salaam

I find your comments disingenuous and unconvincing.

Firstly, I speak for no one but myself, and I have never claimed I belong to or affiliate myself to any group. It is precisely because some members of this board are partisan that my non-partisan approach is misconstrued as partisan. If by academic discussions, or by an academic judgement, you have come to the conclusion that the Deobandi ulama were incorrect in their position about lying in Allah’s power, then I could just as easily throw the charge at you, that you are not a scholar and have no right to say one or the other was wrong just as you have done here, and it would therefore be more correct to say that you are partisan. In my discussion on the topic I did not favour either view, as I thought it best to postpone judgement while having a good opinion of all the scholars mentioned and as my conclusion in the other thread shows I believe both positions are in fact defensible but a different definition and perspective led to the different conclusions. I reached this conclusion, not because I am a scholar, but because scholars themselves have differed over the matter and I was attempting to understand the source of the dispute. I may be incorrect, but if we laymen are forced to make a judgement on this matter, as you have yourself done, I think it is a prerequisite that we understand the matter as much as possible.

Secondly, in the above all I did was to point out clear misrepresentations on Gangohi’s views with regards to calling out from far and his view about the mawlid. Whether they are correct views or not is another matter, but a proper discussion on the correctness or incorrectness of the views presupposes knowledge of what he actually said. If these are being systematically misrepresented as shown in some of the comments above, then a discussion on their accuracy is precluded. Gangohi may have erred in his opinion that the belief that the soul of the Prophet attends a certain place yearly equates a rebirth, but it is unfair to misrepresent his view as was done above and to the scholars of the Arab world that wrote the questions to the Muhannad.

Thirdly, my “accusations” of Ahmad Rida Khan are based on what I have seen from reading Husam al-Haramayn and the quotes in question (from Tahzeerun Nas and Hifzul Iman), and these charges of misrepresentations are not new; I believe they are found in the answers to Husam al-Haramayn from senior Deobandi ulama like Husayn Ahmad Madani and Sarfraz Khan Safdar. I mentioned it above because Faraz Rabbani in the audio above, which is the topic of this thread, himself stated that the Deobandi works were misquoted.

Finally, I am not expert on the matter, but it seems clear to me you see “Deobandis” as a monolithic group all with the same beliefs and agenda, whereas you don’t do the same for the “other side”. This results in a view that sees all Deobandi opinions in the worst light (of partisanship and fanaticism) and all non-Deobandi opinions in the best light (of non-partisanship and non-fanaticism), but from where I stand it seems neither are innocent of partisanship and fanaticism, nor are both guilty of them.

muslim786, on 16 February 2010 - 11:46 AM, said:

Just because you have not heard of any works written by Barelvis or Arab Ulama have not been informed of all the works by this group, doesn't mean there was not any top contributions by them. There are many sunni scholars in the sub continent that no one knows of here in the West (from the Barelvi,Deobandi or other Hanafis groups), who have produced some great works.

I was merely reiterating Faraz Rabbani's view in the audio. There is a continuity of scholarship in the fields of hadith, fiqh, kalam etc. and I pointed out the Deobandi and Ahl al-Hadith scholars from India did contribute to this scholarship whereas the Berelwi scholars did very little to contribute to it. Gibril Haddad lists some of the major scholars of the last century, and the only Berelwi from India is Ahmad Rida Khan and most of the others are Deobandi: Mahmud al-Hasan, Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri, Anwarshah Kashmiri, Ashraf Ali Thanawi, Muhammad Ilyas, Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani, Husayn Ahmad Madani, Muhammad Idris Kandehlewi, Zakariyya Kandehlewi, Zafar Ahmad Uthmani, Habib al-Rahman al-A'zami, Abu l-Hasan Ali Nadwi and Abd al-Rashid al-Nu'mani.

This post has been edited by Ibn Arabi: 16 February 2010 - 12:09 PM

[muslim786]

Ibn Arabi, on 16 February 2010 - 12:01 PM, said:

muslim786, on 16 February 2010 - 11:23 AM, said:

Ibn Arabi, on 15 February 2010 - 06:11 PM, said:

kattarsunni, on 14 February 2010 - 03:57 AM, said:

But none of them said mawlid comemmoration is worse then Hindu celebration! Have a look at the one volume fatawa. If you say i'am misquoting or misrepresenting then scan the pages and we will see.

Yes, this too is a misrepresentation. Gangohi did not say the mawlid was worse than Hindu celebrations. He said a particular belief that is held at the time of qiyam (not the entire mawlid) resembles (not is "worse than") some Hindu and Rafidi beliefs about rebirth. It seems such misrepresentation has a long pedigree as the same accusation had to be cleared up in the Muhannad, as Saharanpuri says "(Gangohi) only repudiated the ignorant masses of India who held this false belief, who do qiyam on the basis of the likes of such corrput ideas (that the Prophet is reborn each year), so there is no comparison of the commemeration of the noble birth with the practice of the Majus or the Rafida [let alone it being "worse"!]. Far be it that our elders imagine such a thing, but the unjust invent (lies) about the people of truth" (إنما أنكر على جهلاء الهند المعتقدين منهم هذه العقيدة الكاسدة الذين يقومون لمثل هذه الخيالات الفاسدة فليس فيه تشبيه لمجلس ذكر الولادة الشريفة بفعل المجوس و الروافض ، حاشا أكابرنا أن يتفوهوا بمثل ذلك ، و لكن الظالمين على أهل الحق يفترون).

That's two clear misrepresentations (or lies) which seems to be endemic in people of your persuasion. Faraz Rabbani said, and earlier discussions on the fatwas of kufr have shown, Ahmad Rida Khan also misquoted and misrepresented the Deobandi texts (e.g. stringing together three separate sentences in misrepresenting Nanotwi; missing out bits when quoting Thanawi; and saying Gangohi believed Allah has actually lied without any solid proof, which contradicts all of the latter's writings).

Assalamulikum WR WB,

To Ibn Arabi:

This belief of Mawlana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi was also condemned by a lot of the scholars who backed the book al Muhannad (which a lot of present day deobandis do not seem to adhere to at all). But you are right Mawlana Gangohi was condeming the Qiyam and not necessarily the mawlid as a whole. However he was using a baseless means to do so, which again has no solid proof. One can "make up" anything in order to debase an action, and it would seem that this was the case here. There is no history of this action being done for the reason the deobandis condemn transmitted to us either textual or oral. So if you want to be fair in your critique please also note these facts.

Also you should note that there were many scholars from the Indian Subcontinent that although did not do takfir of the Deobandis at the same time have not accused Imam Ahmed Raza Khan of the crimes you accuse him of. Scholars from both sides are not infallible and the sooner we realise that the better. Instead of the Deobandis accepting the groups (that did not do takfir) and calling them brothers they label them mubtadis etc (like they have now declared Shaykh Muhammad Al Alawi Al Maliki), however these groups still try to maintain some decency and generally have not retaliated. Generally speaking the Barelvis have still kept on decent terms with those groups. Examples of these groups is the Jamia Nizamia in Hyderbad, and the Jaunpuri Silsila of the bengal region.

Knowing some arabic does not make you a scholar. I am not sure who gave you the authority to do so but you have no right in dicussing issues such as can "Allah SWT contingently lie" naudhabillah and adding your own reasoning to it, bringing in theories and explanations that the original people who made such claims did not. Is it not easy to say that such people made a mistake and just leave to that. Men far greater than you have taken this approach. And making mistakes does not automatically make you innovator or worse a kaffir.

You talk about scholars as if they are some random person of the street, in future please address the scholars with their appropriate title such as Mawlana or Shaykh.

Walikum As Salaam

I find your comments disingenuous and unconvincing.

Firstly, I speak for no one but myself, and I have never claimed I belong to or affiliate myself to any group. It is precisely because some members of this board are partisan that my non-partisan approach is misconstrued as partisan. If by academic discussions, or by an academic judgement, you have come to the conclusion that the Deobandi ulama were incorrect in their position about lying in Allah’s power, then I could just as easily throw the charge at you, that you are not a scholar and have no right to say one or the other was wrong just as you have done here, and it would therefore be more correct to say that you are partisan. In my discussion on the topic I did not favour either view, as I thought it best to postpone judgement while having a good opinion of all the scholars mentioned and as my conclusion in the other thread shows I believe both positions are in fact defensible but a different definition and perspective led to the different conclusions. I reached this conclusion, not because I am a scholar, but because scholars themselves have differed over the matter and I was attempting to understand the source of the dispute. I may be incorrect, but if we laymen are forced to make a judgement on this matter, as you have yourself done, I think it is a prerequisite that we understand the matter as much as possible.

Secondly, in the above all I did was to point out clear misrepresentations on Gangohi’s views with regards to calling out from far and his view about the mawlid. Whether they are correct views or not is another matter, but a proper discussion on the correctness or incorrectness of the views presupposes knowledge of what he actually said. If these are being systematically misrepresented as shown in some of the comments above, then a discussion on their accuracy is precluded. Gangohi may have erred in his opinion that the belief that the soul of the Prophet attends a certain place yearly equates a rebirth, but it is unfair to misrepresent his view as was done above and to the scholars of the Arab world that wrote the questions to the Muhannad.

Thirdly, my “accusations” of Ahmad Rida Khan are based on what I have seen from reading Husam al-Haramayn and the quotes in question (from Tahzeerun Nas and Hifzul Iman), and these charges of misrepresentations are not new; I believe they are found in the answers to Husam al-Haramayn from senior Deobandi ulama like Husayn Ahmad Madani and Sarfraz Khan Safdar. I mentioned it above because Faraz Rabbani in the audio above, which is the topic of this thread, himself stated that the Deobandi works were misquoted.

Finally, I am not expert on the matter, but it seems clear to me you see “Deobandis” as a monolithic group all with the same beliefs and agenda, whereas you don’t do the same for the “other side”. This results in a view that sees all Deobandi opinions in the worst light (of partisanship and fanaticism) and all non-Deobandi opinions in the best light (of non-partisanship and non-fanaticism), but from where I stand it seems neither are innocent of partisanship and fanaticism, nor are both guilty of them.

Assalamulikum WR WB,

Firstly, so that people do not get the wrong impression. I want to distance myself from anyone attacking Shaykh Faraz Rabbani (db) and Shaykh Nuh Keller (db), two men who without, we the people of the west would be in the total dregs at the moment.

Secondly, I am fully aware that the Deobandi group like the barelvi group are not monolithic entities. Indeed there are many groups that seem to fall in between somewhere. And I am fully aware that there are some crazy fanatics out there from both groups. Some barelvis label us as ghulabi wahabis, for example.

Thirdly, to single out one group for misrepresenting the other is unfair. Partisans from both sides have done great job misrepresenting the other, and continue to do so.

The biggest frustration for me is when I bring this upto with non-partisan scholars who understand Urdu, all they seem to want to do is brush the whole affair under the carpet and let it somehow disappear.

Walikum As Salaam

This post has been edited by muslim786: 16 February 2010 - 12:18 PM