[kattarsunni]

Firstly, insulting remarks regarding the person of the Messenger salAlllahu alayhi wasalam cannot be interpreted in anyway.

Secondly, Shaykh Munawwar Ateeq answered Shaykh Faraz and a one Hamzah Kirmali. All the points mentioned in the kidhb section have been answered. Hamza walked away after having started the debate.

Thirdly, i'am also a neautral and have realised that the Deobandis are more political than the Barelawis in this issue and cannot talk straight.

[abulhussain]

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

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.

No one is making up baseless arguments or far fetched notions. There is a concept of rebirth amongst some Sufis in India called TANASUKH You should find out more about tanasukh.....

muslim786 said:

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.

Can you please tell me if Jamia Nizamia in Hyderabad endorsed everything which Ahmad Rida Khan said.
Infact, many scholars had deobandi affiliations. Names such as Manazir Ahsan Kilani (Jilani), Abul Hasanaat Naqshbandi Qadiri etc..

[muslim786]

abulhussain, on 16 February 2010 - 04:23 PM, said:

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

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.

No one is making up baseless arguments or far fetched notions. There is a concept of rebirth amongst some Sufis in India called TANASUKH You should find out more about tanasukh.....

muslim786 said:

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.

Can you please tell me if Jamia Nizamia in Hyderabad endorsed everything which Ahmad Rida Khan said.
Infact, many scholars had deobandi affiliations. Names such as Manazir Ahsan Kilani (Jilani), Abul Hasanaat Naqshbandi Qadiri etc..

Assalamulikum,

Firstly this concept (Tanasukh) that you have brought to the table is a hindu concept and is not a known belief of the muslim sufis, we do not care what the sufi claimants believe. Even if your argument holds that some muslims sufis had this view it still does not lead to the conclusion that you have come to, i.e. the prophet Muhammad SAWAS is reborn, naudhabillah, on the mawlid day during the Qiyam or something absurd like that. The onus is on accusers to bring forth a solid proof that people who have done the mawlid and qiyam have done so holding such beliefs you mention. In fact name one sufi claimant who had the exact belief about the qiyam. Instead you will find the scholars discussing the reasons for the Qiyam in light of the Quran and Sunnah.

If you read what I posted earlier you would see that I never claimed that Jamia Nizamia of Hyderbad upheld all the views of Imam Ahmed Raza Khan, on the contrary I said there were groups including the Jamia that did not agree fully to the takfir made, but yet did not make accusations against the Imam. If by "Abu Hasnath Al Qadiri" you mean Hazrat Allama Sayyid Abdullah Shah Qadiri Naqshbandi, the famous muhhaddith of the deccan (a person who should also be included as the stars of the last century) he was far from being deobandi. The founder Hazrat Shah Syed Anwarullah Farooqi was clearly not a deobandi. From the works and actions of the scholars there it is clear that they are non-partisan, and that was the point being made here, as such they will not endorse everything that Imam Ahmed Raza Khan has said or that of the Deobandis and nor are they obliged to do so. What can be said about them is that they have kept unto the teachings of their grand murshid Ala Hazrat Imadadullah Muhajir Makki, as have many other groups across the sub continent.

This post has been edited by muslim786: 16 February 2010 - 05:54 PM

[muslim786]

abulhussain, on 19 February 2010 - 07:48 PM, said:

Assalamulikum,

Firstly, I am not sure why you did not bother to read what I have posted before you started you emotional outburst. I never said Syed Anwarullah Farooqi (rah) or Muhaddih e Deccan (rah) did takfir on Deobandis, in fact I affirmed the opposite. I myself and the Turooq I am from also do not do takfir of the Deobandis, we tend to stay away from such controversies, and consider both groups to be Sunni.

Secondly, having Ijazas or even having formerly studied under someone does not make you affiliated to them or their manhaj, so your argument for Muhaddith i Deccan (rah) being a Deobandi does not hold water here. Going by his beliefs it is clear his not a Deobandi however it does not mean by default he has to be Barelvi, he truly was neither. I can give you many examples of how studying with a group does not necessarily make you belong to that group.

Muhaddith e Deccan (rah) has many khalifas, most of them are neutral type people, having one Deobandi Khalifa does not make him Deobandi. It is clear the institution he is from and the scholars there are not Deobandi but neutral.

Now regarding the Mawlid and the Qiyam. I really don't care if you have books on hindu philosophy. You will never be able to prove that Sunni Muslims held this rebirth idea regarding the Qiyam. It was clearly an erroneous argument by a fallible scholar, lets just leave it at that. Finally no one is telling people that they need to do the Qiyam or for that matter attend a Mawlid, what we are against is people formulating erroneous reasons for why people may do certain things in a Mawlid such things as the Qiyam or even why people hold a Mawlid etc.

Unless you have something useful to bring to the discussion table please do not fan the flames of fitnah. There are many within the subcontinent who have not made takfir against the deobandis, including some scholars who were around when Imam Ahmed Raza was alive, most notably Pir Mehr Ali Shah. However one does not find any takfir made of these scholars by Imam Ahmed Raza Khan, so even if he made the comments you have posted above it clearly wasn't what he intended as there is no fatwa of Kufr on those who did not make takfir of the deobandis. Additionally the current day Barelvis appear not to have made any takfir on people merely because they do not do takfir of Deobandis.

Walikum As Salaam

[Abu Haneefa]

Assalamu^alaykum

Lol I have been humoured here today Did brother KattarSunni say he was a neutral also??

Only time will tell...but for the mean time I will try take your word for it inshallah.

This post has been edited by Abu Haneefa: 19 February 2010 - 11:47 PM

[Light]

The Deobandi Scholars praise Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi
The Barelvi and the Sunni Arab Scholars don’t
I wonder way the Barelvi and the Sunni Arabs do not?

[Seth]

"The Deobandi Scholars praise Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi"
--As-salaamu 'alaykum.
This is a major blanket statement and over-generalization. You can probably find specific instances, true, but from the way you put it the Deobandis are just Hanafi Salafis from India, which is far from the truth.

We ought to try to be more precise with our words--these kinds of blanket statements bring lots of problems and do little to clear misconceptions.

[Light]

The Holy Prophet(PBUH) has cleared all your “misconceptions”:

Hazrat Abu Sa'eed Khudri (RA) and Hazrat Anas (RA) report that the Prophet (PBUH) stated: ‘My Ummah is destined to differ and be divided. So a group will rise whose talks will sound very good but their character will be misleading. They will read the Quran but it will not descend below their throats (meaning they will not understand its meanings). They will leave Deen just as an arrow pierces and goes right through the prey. They will not return to Islam. They are the worst of creation because of their nature and constitution. They will call the people towards the Quran and Deen whilst in reality they will have nothing to do with Islam. Whoever will confront them, he will be the most beloved servant of Allah. The Sahaba inquired: "Ya Rasoolullah, (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) what is their sign?" He replied: "Sitting in Halqa (circles). [Mishkat, p. 308].

The Holy Prophet (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "ALLAH will never allow my Ummah to unite upon misguidance and incorrect beliefs. Allah's mercy, blessings and protection are with the largest group of Muslims. And he who deviates from this largest group of Muslims will be thrown into Hell." [Tirmizi]

Please do explain how we are going to unite?

[absalih]

Meaning of Unity_The GREAT SCHOLAR Imam Abdul Ghani an-Nablusi.RA(d1143.AH),wrote
"Jamaat is rahma, that is, the union of Muslims on truth brings forth
Allahu ta'ala's Compassion. Tafriqa is 'adhab, that is, separation from
the community of Muslims brings about punishment from Allahu ta'ala.
Hence, it is necessary for every Muslim to unite with those who are on
the right path. He must join and believe like them even if they are only
a small group. The right path is the path of as-Sahabat al-kiram. Those
who follow this path are called Ahl as-Sunnat wal-Jamaat. It should not
confuse us that many heretical groups appeared after the time of the
as-Sahabat al-kiram. Al-Imam al-Baihaki said, 'When Muslims go astray,
you should follow the right path of those who came before them! You
should not give up that path even if you are left alone on that path!'
Najm ad-din al-Ghazzi wrote: 'Ahl as-Sunnat wal-Jamaat are those 'ulama'
who keep on the right path of Rasulullah and as-Sahabat al-kiram.
As-siwad al-azam, that is, the majority of the Islamic 'ulama', have
followed this right path. The Firqat an-najiyya which was defined to be
the group of salvation among the seventy-three groups is this true
jamaat.' The Qur'an al-karim declares, 'Do not disunite!' This ayat
karima means 'Do not disunite in itiqad, in the teachings of belief!'
Most 'ulama', for example, 'Abdullah ibn Masud, interpreted this ayat
karima as above and said that it meant 'Do not deviate from the right
path by following your nafses and corrupt ideas.' This ayat karima does
not mean that there should be no disagreement in the knowledge of fiqh.
It forbids separation which causes discord and dissension in the
knowledge of itiqad. The disagreement in the knowledge [of fiqh] derived
through ijtihad in the field of practices (a'mal) is not a discord,
because such disagreement has brought to sight the rights, the fards and
the subtle teachings in a'mal and 'ibadat. As-Sahabat al-kiram, too,
differed from one another in those teachings that explained daily life,
but there was no disagreement among them in the knowledge of itiqad. A
hadith ash-Sharif declares, 'Disagreement among my umma is [Allah's]
compassion.' The disagreement in the teachings of a'mal, among the four
madhhabs is of this kind. Their existence [in the present age] is Allahu
ta'ala's guidance and mercy. They have all attained thawab. The same
amount of thawab attained by the followers of each of these four
madhhabs is given to the imam of that madhhab until the Resurrection.
The different specialization of 'ulama' in various branches of knowledge
on a'mal is another example [of what the hadith ash-Sharif refers to];
thus, many 'ulama' have specialized in separate sciences of hadith,
tafsir, fiqh and Arabic. It is compatible with this hadith ash-Sharif,
too, that mutasawwifs have followed different methods
in undertakingriyada and in training the students,
that various Tariqas have formed.
Najm ad-din al-Kubra [He was martyred by the soldiers of Genghis in
Harezm in 618 A.H. (1221).] (rahmat-Allahi 'alaih) said, 'There are as
many ways of approaching Allahu ta'ala as the number of human beings.'
This statement, too, points to the difference between the methods of
training the students, but not to any difference in itiqad. All awliya'
have had the same itiqad. They all have been in the itiqad of Ahl
as-Sunnat wal-Jamaat. The multiplicity of craftsmen practicing different
crafts is rahma, too. But disunion in itiqad is the opposite, for
Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, 'Jamaat is rahma;
tafriqa is 'adhab.'"[Abd al-Ghani an-Nabulusi, Al-hadiqat an-Nadiyya, v.
II. p. 103.]
http://www.hizmetboo...slim/wah-35.htm