Friday, 2 November 2012

Why do Arab scholars praise Deobandis?







Why do Arab scholars
praise Deobandis?

 Q: Why did Ulama like Imam Zahid Al-Kawthari and Imam Abdul Fattaah Abu Ghuddah praise the deobandiyya so heavily?

About Imam Zahid Kawthari 

Imam Abu Zahra's eulogy of al-Kawthari after the latter's death:

READS "Imam al-Kawthari was a true scholar; the scholars knew his knowledge. I knew him years before meeting him. I knew him through his writings in which the light of truth shone forth. I knew him through his commentary of manuscripts which he undertook to publish. By Allah! My amazement at the manuscript did not match my amazement at the commentary of the editor. Even when the original manuscript was a brief epistle, yet the Imam's commentary on it would turn it into a major work that should be read. Truly one's insight and wide erudition show plainly in such commentaries. All this he did with an elegant style, subtle allusions, forceful analysis, accomplished accuracy, and total mastery over his own thought and writing technique. It could not occur to the mind of the reader that he was a non-Arab writer and not patently Arab. ... Yet it is not really astonishing, for he was Turkish in ancestry, education, and everyday life at the time he lived in Istanbul (al-Astana) but his scholarly life was purely Arabic, for he read nothing but Arabic, and nothing filled his head but the shining light of Muhammadan Arabic. .."

Can such a scholar be aware of the deviations written in Urdu books?

As for Shaykh Abu Ghuddah

He was influenced by many scholars

In the 1940's the Shaykh met with Hasan Al-Banna, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. When he returned to Syria he was very active in the work of da'wah both generally and with the brotherhood, as his character was highly trusted and he possessed distinctive leadership qualities.

After he took up his residence, in SAUDI ARABIA, many of his views changed. He shows that he has immense respect for the above persons, and praises them a lot and gives references to his early works and tahqiqs where he talked about Ibn Taymiyya.

- He gives Ibn Taymiyya numerous times lofty titles such as "Shaykh al-Islam" and declares it nonsense that he declared him an unbeliever (p. 24-30).

- He gives immense praise to his student Ibn al-Qayyim and refutes the lie attributed to him that he declared him kafir (p. 30-35). He again refers to his other tahqiqs that were published.

- His refutation of istigatha with the dead (p. 35-38). It was said that he declared it permissible and the one who says that it is shirk: he himself is an unbeliever.

This is not the case and totally baatil and asks them "Where did I say that?".

Then he says that istigatha is not permissible. He also refers to one of his earlier tahqiq where he refuted the wording 'ghawth al-thaqalayn' used by Imam Abd al-Hayy al-Lucknawi.

- He gives respect to Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and calls him Imam al-Da'wa and states "Allah have mercy on him" behind his name.

- He agrees with the division of tawhid made by Ibn Taymiyya (p. 38).

- He discusses the stance of his teacher Imam Kawthari, and states that he is just one of his many teachers. It does not mean that he is supposed to agree with everything what Imam Kawthari said. Then he stated that he had one big Shaykh in Halab who was totally in love with Ibn Taymiyyah, and said that "If prophethood was not ended, Ibn Taymiyyah would have been a Nabi" (!)
[Kalimat fi Kashf Abatil wa Iftira’at by Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah]



Q: Why is it that Shaykh Sayyid Muhammad ibn Alawi al-Makki had Ijazah of several deobandi ulama that goes back to some of the gustakhs whom Alahazrat issued a fatwa against. And this would mean that he doesn't consider him a kafir.

Syed Muhammad Ibn Alavi al Maliki(rah)
 He did study Hadith from Deobandi Zakariyyak khandelavi, in his youth ,when he was unaware of their true beliefs.
The respected Sayyed did not take Sufi Path from them.
But it was from Qutb e Madina, Shaykh Diyayudheen Madani (r),who was a khalifa of A'ala hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (r). 
After , he had written his MafaheemDeobandis had become very hostile to him.

See what was written, in their infamous forum:

Quote:
Hafiz Safaraz Hassan Khan - ustad at Jamia Madania Bahawalpur, grandson of Imam Ahl al-Sunnah Allamah Sarfaraz Khan Safdar (may Allah have mercy on him) writes,

"It is known to all that my grandfather (may Allah have mercy upon him) used to have strong attachment and association with the maslak of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah. He did not tolerate minor flexibility in this regard and was a perfect embodiment of “la yakhafuna laumata layim” (who do not fear the accusation of the accusers). An Arab from Makkah, Muhammad bin 'Alawi Maliki Sahib (who is by maslak a Barelwi), wrote two books namely Al-Zakhayir al-Muhammadiyyah and Hawl al-Ihtifal bi Zikra Mawlid al-Nabwi al-Sharif. 

Many of the contents of these books were objected by Shaykh Abd Allah bin Sulayman bin Mani’, member of Ulama Board of Saudi Arabia and Qadhi of Makkah Mukarramah, and he published a book in his refutation in 1403 named Hiwar ma’a al-Maliki fi rad Munkaratihi wa Dhalalatih. After the publication of the book, when the supporters of Alawi published Islah-i-Mafahim the Urdu version of Mafahim Yajibu an Tusahhah, it struck the Ahl Haq that the innovations (bid’ahs) and polytheism (shirk) is presented as pure religion. 

So, the elder scholars raised objections and warned the people in their articles, fatawas and letters against it that Islah-i-Mafahimis a collection of beliefs and practices based on polytheism and bid’ah which was cunningly labeled with tawhid and sunnah. As per his custom and taste, my grandfather sided with haq and the Ahl Haq and distanced himself from Islah-i-Mafahim and other false ideas mentioned in the books of Alawi.

 Once I asked him about Alawi Maliki Sahib, he said: 'I have the same views which Hadhrat Qadi [‘Qaid Ahl al-Sunnah ‘Allamah Qadi Mazhar Hussain, khalifa mujaz of Shaykh al-Islam Mawlana Madani, may Allah have mercy on them] had.' 

Then, I read for him a treatise of Dr. Mufti Abd al-Wahid (Mufti of Jamia Madaniyyah, Lahore) namely Muhammad Alawi Maliki kay ‘Aqaid unki Tahrirat kay Ayine main [Beliefs of Muhammad Alawi Maliki in the light of his works]. Having listened some texts, he spoke out:
'He is more bid’ati than Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi'.

'Ulama of Deoband warned against some of his books in particular Mafahim.

Many scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamah Deoband wrote refutation of numerous 'aqaid and masa'il in Mafahim. All that was published together in a book called Tahqiqi Nazar. This book was compiled by Mufti Muhammad Abu Bakr Alawi, a graduate of Dar al-Ulum Karachi, at the instructions of Mawlana Muhammad Ismail Badat Madani, khalifa of Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Zakariyya (may Allah have mercy on him). It was published by Madrassah Khuddam Ahl al-Sunnat, Lahore.

‘Ulama of Deoband wrote detailed refutation of ‘aqiad of Muhammad Alawi Maliki mentioned in Mafahim and his other books; declared him mubtadi and outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamah because of the beliefs he promoted in his books.

Those scholars who wrote detailed rebuttal include:

1. ‘Allamah Qadi Mazhar Hussain, Chakwal.
2. Shaykh Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianwi Shahid, Karachi.
3. Mufti Sayyid Abd al-Shakur Tirmidhi, Sargodha.
4. Mufti Abd al-Sattar, Khayr al-Madaris Multan.
5. Dr. Mufti Abd al-Wahid, Lahore.

After Mufti 'Abd al-Sattar, head of Majlis Tahqiqati Islami Pakistan (Islamic Research Academy), wrote refutation of Muhammad Alwi Maliki following scholars signed the document and fully agreed with Mufti 'Abd al-Sattar.

1. Mufti Jamil Ahmad Thanwi, Jamia Ashrafiyyah Lahore
2. Mufti Taqi Usmani, Karachi.
3. Mufti Rafi Usmani, Karachi.
4. Dr. ‘Allamah Khalid Mahmud, U.K.
5. Shaykh Sayyid Nafis Shah al-Hussaini, Lahore.
6. Mawlana Amin Safdar Okarwi, Khayr al-Madaris Multan.
7. 'Allamah Abd al-Qayyum Haqqani, Dar al-Ulum Haqqania Akora Khattak.
8. Mufti Sher Muhammad Alawi, Jamia Ashrafiyya Lahore.
9. Mawlana Ashiq Ilhaqi Bulandshahri, Madina.
10. Mufti Muhammad Farid, Akora Khattak.
11. Mawlana Muhammad Ismail Badat Madani, Madina.
12. Mufti Nazir Ahmad, Jamia Imdadiyya Faisalabad.
13. Mufti Abd al-Salam Chatgami, Banuri Town Karachi.
14. Mawlana Muhammad Akbar, Qasim al-Ulum Multan.
15. Mawlana Faidh Ahmad, Qasim al-Ulum Multan.
16. Mawlana Abd al-Ghani, Jamia Madania Lahore.
17. Mawlana Jamal Ahmad, Dar al-Ulum Faisalabad.
18. Mawlana Javed Hussain Shah.
[SF]




Q: Are there any scholars (that don't have roots from the Indian Subcontinent) in the present time who consider the deobandiyya kafir?


Read here: GUSTAKH-E-RASOOL

Today (2012) most of the deobandiyya that have Urdu as their “mother tongue”,  them self’s don’t even know what their elders wrote in their original books because of so much fabrication, editing and deleting of the originals that has been done over the years by their past scholars.

So how do you expect "present scholars" that don't have any roots from the Indian Subcontinent to know what the deobandiyya elders wrote?

Read the Originals NOT the New Edited Editions of

Ismail Dehelwi’s scholarly treatise Taqviatul Iman 


Rashid Ahmad Gangohawi wrote an extensive work entitled, Fatawa-e-Rashidiya

Qasim Nanawati wrote Tahzeerun Nas 


Khalil Ahmad Ambathwi wrote Brahin-e-Qa’tia 


Ashraf Ali Thanwai entitled, Hifzul Iman



 Access to the original book/scans of the Deobandiyya elders  in Urdu/Persian 

Here

Imam lbne Hajar in his work Al-Aalam, in chapter of approved unbelief, has quoted references from the illustrious religious scholars as under:
“Whoever utters blasphemy, or whoever appreciates it or shows pleasure upon it, commits blasphemy”.


Q: Why is that many works of the deobandiyya are praised in the Arab world and among people from Turkey. Many works are also translated to Turkish (for example Yusuf Kandhalawi´s Hayat Al-Sahabah). I haven't encountered this for our Ulama and their works.

Not all scholars of Turkey are in praise of Deobandis.

See what the great late Sunni Naqsbandi Scholar Shaykh Huseyn Hilmi Isik (d.1422 Hijri ,Istanbul, Turkey) wrote ,while refuting Tablighi Jamaath,under the heading 'Deviation of Tabligh al-Jama'at from the Ahl as-Sunnat':

There is a group of people who have been visiting Islamic countries and preaching and advising Muslims under the name Tabligh jamaat. Leaving India and Pakistan in gangs of three to five persons, these people have been going all over the world. They say that they try to spread Islam. They claim to be in the path of as-Sahaba. Some of them also say that they follow the Hanafi madhhab and admire Ibn Taymiyya. 


Though they speak very usefully and righteously and since the fact that they never mention the names and words of Islamic scholars and seem to hush up part of the Ahl as-Sunnat knowledge, they arouse suspicion and sorrow. In the following, the writings of some of the religious authorities living in India and Pakistan about them is given: "They are heretics. They call themselves Jamaat at-tabligh. Their center is in Delhi [with large branches in Karachi and Lahore in Pakistan.] Wherever they go, they lay very much stress upon performing salat. They give useful and necessary religious information. They call these activities of theirs 'kast' in Urdu language. It is said that their organization was founded by an Indian named Mawlana Muhammad Ilyas.

This man was born in Kandla in 1303 A.H. (1886). He was Rashid Ahmad Gangohi's disciple. It is written on the 43rd and 49th pages of the book Mawlana Ilyas Uranki din Dawat by one of Ilyas's close disciples that he stayed near him for ten years. When Rashid Ahmad died in 1323 (1905) he was taught by Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri. In his Urdu book, Khalil Ahmad [d. Medina, 1346 (1928)] says that the devil is more learned than Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam). Rashid Ahmad says on the 51st page of Barahin-i qati'a that Khalil Ahmad's book was a blessed one and kept it at the place called 'Bait-i 'ain-i Islam.' Rashid Ahmad was the Khalifa of Haji Imdadullah al-Madani [d. Mecca, 1317 (1899)], and was first taught by Ismail Dahlawi, who wrote on the 38th page of Taqwiyat al-iman which is the Urdu translation of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's Kitab at-tawhid, 'Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) died and rotted away. He became soil. He who believes that he will intercede in Resurrection becomes a polytheist.' 

Another tutor of Ilyas was Ashraf 'Ali Tahanawi who also was a Khalifa of Haji Imdadullah of the Chishtiyya Tariqa.
In the first part of his Urdu book Hifz al-iman, he writes very loathsome things which reduce the high grade of Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) to the low degree of a child, of a mad person or of animals. All the four tutors of Ilyas became unbelievers because of such writings of theirs in their books.

 Ilyas praises, exalts and excessively respects these unbelievers. He says that they are the most eminent awliya' of their time. The 114th page of the book Malfuzat-i Hadrat-i Mawlana Ilyas Rahmatullahi 'alaih is full with such praises. He says about his shaikh Rashid Ahmad, 'Had not I seen him, my heart would not have attained tranquility. Whenever I woke up at night I would go to his room, look at his face and then come back and go to sleep. His love, like the blood in my veins, has penetrated everywhere in me.' (pp. 44, 49, Mawlana Ilyas Uranki). Allahu ta'ala declares in the last ayat of the surat al-Mujadala, 'Those who believe in Allahu ta'ala and the Day of Resurrection will dislike those [unbelievers] who do not obey Allahu ta'ala and His Messenger ('alaihi 's-salam). Allahu ta'ala will fill with iman the hearts of those who dislike unbelievers even though they were their fathers, sons, brothers or relatives.' All the members of Tabligh jamaat exaggerate and praise Ilyas and his teachers very much and say 'rahmatullahi 'alaih' when they mention or hear their names. They spread their above-mentioned books everywhere.

"The Ahl as-Sunnat scholars wrote many books in order to refute the Tabligh group and to reveal the fact that they were heretics. They could not answer these books at all.

 Hadrat Mawlana 'Abd al-'Alim Siddiqi wrote that Ilyas's teachers were in an endeavor to demolish Islam from within." [This is written in detail also in the books al-mustanad, Usul al-arba'a fi tardid al-Wahhabiyya, ad-dawlat al-Makkiyya and Hediyya-t-ul-Mehdiyyin, which were reproduced in Istanbul in 1395 (1975).]

When Ilyas died in 1363 (1949) the successor was his son, Muhammad Yusuf Kandhlawi [b. Delhi, 1335 (1917); d. Lahore, buried Delhi, 1394 (1974)].

Yusuf's three-volume book, Hayat-us-Sahaba, was translated into Turkish and published in 1395 (1975). Because as-Sahaba are praised much in this book it arouses admiration in the reader.

But there is a famous saying: "Judge a man by his actions, not by his words."

One who believes in the superiority of as-Sahaba and loves them has to follow in their path, which is the path shown by the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars. The sign of love for as-Sahaba is to learn the fiqh books of one of the four Ahl as-Sunnat madhhabs, to endeavor to disseminate this knowledge and to live up to it.

Muhammad Yusuf was succeeded by his son, Shaikh In'am al-Hasan, who was the hadith teacher at Mazahir-i 'Ulum Madrasa in Saharanpur, India.

Abu 'l-Hasan 'Ali Nadwi, the director of Nadwat al-ulama' [founded in Lucknow, India in 1310 (1891)], praises al-Imam ar-Rabbani Ahmad as-Sirhindi and his services in his book Ad-da'wat al-Islamiyya [Lucknow, 1395 (1975)], but adds his praises for Ismail Dahlawi (killed in 1246), Nadhir Husain Dahlawi (d. 1320), the madrasa in Diobend which was founded by Muhammad Qasim Nanawtawi [d. 1317 (1899)], one of the Khulafa' of Imdad-ullah, in 1288 (1871), Ashraf Ali Tahanawi (d. 1362), the Tabligh group and its founder, Muhammad Ilyas.

This faqir, the author, has read the book Taqwim al-bayan, Persian translation of Ismail Dahlawi's Taqwiyat al-iman [Pakistan, 1396 (1976)] and come to the conclusion that Ismail is not only a sheer ignoramus but also a non-madhhabi idiot who strives to censure the right by alloying it with the wrong.

 May Allahu ta'ala protect Muslims from reading and believing such heretical writings and falling into endless calamity! Amin!"




---

Note!

The Rise of Conflict: 1825CE


Ismāýīl Dihlawī: (1193-1246/1779-1831) was born in Muzzafarnagar district, which is in Uttar Pradesh State of today’s India. His father Shāh Ábdu’l Ghanī Dihlawī, the youngest son of Shāh Walīyullāh Dihlawī, died very young; and the orphan was brought up by his uncles, Shāh Ábd al-Ázīz Dihlawī, Shāh Ábd al-Qādir and Shāh Rafiýuddīn.

He had a rebellious streak and defied his own uncles on issues, who were upset by the behaviour of Ismāýīl.613 He wrote the book Taqwiyatu’l Īmān, which not only introduced Wahābī ideas in India, but also set the precedent for referring to prophets and awliyā’a in an insolent and irreverent manner.

Ismāýīl classed the following of imāms [taqlīd] as idolatry and his was probably the first anti-madh’hab work in India.

Deobandis accuse Imām Ahmed Riđā Khān of being the flag-bearer of takfīr in India, whereas it was Ismāýīl’s book which made polytheists of everyone –including himself.614

The author himself acknowledged the extremism in his book saying that even lesser sins were labelled as polytheism and idolatry.615

Thereafter he wrote more incendiary works such as Şirāt e Mustaqīm and Yak Rozi – rekindling the Mútazilī belief that falsehood is included in the Divine Power of Allāh táālā.

He was refuted by prominent úlamā, including his own cousins; but the foremost among them was Imām Fađl al-Ĥaqq Khayrābādī, who was a student of Shāh Ábd al-Ázīz.

Among others who refuted him were Imām Fađl ar-Rasūl Badāyūnī and Imām Aĥmed Riđā Khān, who refuted his books posthumously. He was killed in Balakot, in Pakhtunkhwa province of today’s Pakistan; his followers claim he was killed by a Sikhs and a martyr – and hence call him Ismāýīl shahīd.

Rashid Aĥmed Gangohī (1244-1323/1829-1905) was born in Gangoh, a town in Saharanpur district of Uttar Pradesh, India. After his primary education in Gangoh, he went to Delhi in 1261 and studied there under various teachers, notably under Shaykh Mamluk Álī. Maulvi Qāsim Nānotwī was also a student of the shaykh, and thus they became friends and remained together the rest of their lives. In Hadith, Gangohī was the student of the Muhaddith, Shah Abdu'l Ghanī Dihlawi. He became a murid of the Naqshbandi shaykh, Ĥāji Imdādullāh Muhājir Makkī.

Rashid Aĥmed was one of the founding fathers of the Deoband school. Fatāwā Rashidiyyah and Makātīb e Rashīdiyyah616 are his well-known works. He was an admirer of Ismāýīl Dihlawī and defended his heresies – for example, he too believes that it is intrinsically possible (imkān e kizb) for Allāh táālā to lie. He wrote a fatwā that a person who says that falsehood has transpired in the speech of Allāh is not a kāfir, which caused an uproar and Sunni scholars made takfīr of Gangohī because of this fatwā. He also deemed every kind of Mawlid as an impermissible bidáh.

Muĥammad Qāsim Nānotwī: (1248-1297/1832-1880) was born in Nānotah, a town in Saharanpur district, Uttar Pradesh, India. He completed his studies under Shaykh Mamlūk Álī (d.1267 AH) and thereafter studied ĥadīth together with his friend Rashīd Aĥmed Gangohī under Shaykh Ábd al-Ghanī Dihlawī (d.1295) and became a disciple of Shaykh Imdādullāh Muhājir Makkī (d.1317 AH.) He is deemed the founder of the School of Deoband and according to Deobandi sources,617 the school was inaugurated on the 15th of Muharram, 1283 (1867). His biographers list a number of works that he has written or annotated. One small book he wrote, Taĥdhīru’n Nās, became controversial in which he claimed: “...hypothetically, suppose a new prophet is born after the time of the Prophet , even then, there will be no effect on the ‘finality’ of the prophethood of Sayyidunā Muĥammad ; [comparatively] if there is [a prophet] among his contemporaries or in another earth; or if it can be supposed even on this very earth, another prophet [after his time without affecting his finality].” Scholars ruled him kāfir for this and other such statements in the book.


Khalīl Aĥmed Ambethwi (1269-1346/1852-1927) was born in Ambetha618 and studied at Deoband. He was the student of Rashīd Aĥmed Gangohī and at his behest, wrote Barāhīn al-Qāţiáh as a refutation of the book Anwār e Sātiáh of Mawlānā Ábdu’s Samīý Rampūrī, a Sunni scholar who was also a disciple of Ĥājī Imdādullāh Muhājir Makkī, Gangohī’s spiritual master. It is in this book that Khalīl Aĥmed Sahāranpūri 619 says that the knowledge of the earth for Satan is proven from documentary evidence and there is no such evidence for such knowledge of RasūlAllāh . He also wrote another book in Arabic named Muhannad where he denied a number of accusations levelled at him and other elders of Deoband; according to later Deobandis, he retracted from criticism of Wahābīs in Muhannad, after Wahābīs captured the Ĥijāz. He is famous as Sahāranfūrī, the author of the ĥadīth commentary, Badhl al-Maj’hūd.

Ashraf Álī Thānawī 620 (1280-1362/1863-1943) graduated from Deoband in 1300 (1883) and Rashīd Aĥmed Gangohī conferred upon him the turban;621 Qāsim Nānotawi, Maĥmūd al-Ĥasan Deobandi and Yáqūb Nānotawi were among his teachers.622 He is famous for his translation of the Qur’ān in Urdu; Bihishti Zeywar, a fiqh manual and many other works.
In 1319, he wrote a fatwā printed as a booklet titled Ĥifż al-Īmān, in which he made a statement insulting the Prophet , a statement which any native Urdu speaker, even an illiterate, will consider as an insult; in spite of the furore, he justified his statement as valid; even though he permitted altering the passage in Taghyīr al-Únwān, he was unrepentant about his previous writing; yet, the passage is not omitted in successive editions, and which continues to be published and defended by his followers to this day.

---
613 Arwāĥ e Salāsah, #73, where an exasperated uncle exclaims: “We were under the impression that he had become a scholar!”
614 In a bizzarre passage in the book he claimed that there was no Muslim left on earth.
615 Vide Arwāĥ e Salāsah.
616 Compiled by his disciples; but the material and opinions therein are his own.
617 Bānī e Deoband, Sarfaraz Khān Safdar.

618 Sahāranpūr district, Uttar Pradesh, India.
619 He is known in the Arab world as Sahāranfūrī, or the author Badhl al-Majhūd, a commentary on the Ĥadīth compendium Sunan Abū Dawud .
620 Related to Thānā-Bhawan in Saharanpur District, Uttar Pradesh, India.
621 dastār bandī: this is a graduation ceremony in Islamic schools; and the conferring of the turban signifies that the student is now deemed a graduate.
622 Muĥammad Akbar Shāh Bukhārī, Akābir e Úlamā e Deoband.

---

Issues upon which Deobandis conflict with Sunnis can be grouped broadly thus:

1. Essentials of Religion:

Qāsim Nānotwī said that khatamu’n nabiyyīn does not necessarily mean that our Master is chronologically the final prophet, and if a prophet were to arrive after him, it would not affect the finality of his prophethood;

Rashid Gangohī in a fatwā said that we should not make takfīr of a person who claims that Allāh táālā has lied [wuqūú e kazib ke máanī durust ho gaye]. Such examples are aplenty in that burnable book Taqwiyatu’l Īmān.

2. Blasphemy:

Ashraf Álī Thānawī claims that the knowledge of unseen possessed by the Prophet is similar to that possessed by animals and madmen.

Khalīl Aĥmed said that the expanse of the knowledge of the world is proven for Satan by texts, and no such evidence for RasūlAllāh exists and it is polytheism to prove the same knowledge for RasūlAllāh .

Maĥmūd al-Ĥasan in his dirge for Gangohī committed a number of blasphemies.

3. Secondary Áqīdah Issues:

Deobandis do not accept the Prophet was given extensive knowledge of unseen; that he was a man just like us, citing the last verse of Sūrah Kahf;

Deobandis do not permit istighātha, and deem it shirk. Calling upon RasūlAllāh for help as a form of tawassul is deemed polytheism by Deobandis following other Wahābīs, even though such prayers are found in ĥadīth.

Ismāýīl claimed that RasūlAllāh is dead and became dust.
First, Ismāýīl and then Gangohī and his followers claim that it is possible for Allāh táālā to lie.

 Ismāýīl Dihlawī’s books also advocate anthropomorphic beliefs.

4. Culture of Disrespect:

Mentioning the Prophet and Awliyā’a without due respect – a trend set by Ismāýīl and his Tafwiyat. Deobandis routinely use ugly analogies to illustrate their point, thereby exposing the filth within themselves. One famous Deobandi debater, Ţāhir Gayāvī compared reciting salutation upon the Prophet in the masjid loudly, to feces in a plastic bag; the same person assert
ing that Allāh táālā can lie, used the analogy of a young man who can commit adultery but abstains from it. 
In Juhd al-Muqill, Maĥmūd al-Ĥasan claims that it is in the Divine Power of Allāh táālā do all ugly or evil things [qudrah álā al-qabāyiĥ] – and it is mumkin dhātī for Allāh táālā.

5. Scorning Practices as Bidáh/Shirk

Deobandis scorn and ridicule celebration of Mawlids; or prayers known as fātiĥah – donating reward of good deeds to the deceased; including that of saints known as úrs

Thānawī claims that describing RasūlAllāh as ‘remover of affliction’ is polytheism. Deobandis deem it an act of faith to possess Tafwiyatu’l Īmān and to read it.

6. Exaggerated Praise of Deobandi Elders

Sometimes, such praise borders on blasphemy and escape that ruling only because they claim them to be dreams. 

Khalīl Aĥmed in his Barāhīn writes that in one such dream RasūlAllāh was speaking in Urdu and when asked, he said that it was because of his association with the scholars of Deoband; in another dream, RasūlAllāh was cooking food for Gangohī

Maĥmūd al-Ĥasan in his elegy to Gangohī belittles the prophets īsā and Yūsuf  comparing them with his own master; and that Gangohī was second to RasūlAllāh ; he goes on further and describes Gangohī as sustainer of the creation murabbi e khalāyiq

This kind of exaggeration reaches grotesque proportions: when a follower writes to Thānawī that he was reciting lā ilāha illā Allāh, Ashraf Álī RasūlAllāh in a dream and then Allahumma şallī álā Ashraf Álī in wakefulness; instead of rebuking him, Thānawī reassures him that it is a comforting event.

7. Mistakes in Translations and Fatāwā: 

Rashid Gangohī rules that it merits reward [thawāb] to eat the house crow; the verses of the Qur’ān are translated recklessly in Thānawi’s and other translations disregarding the esteem of Allāh táālā or his prophets; Gangohī deems that the phrase raĥmatun li’l áālamīn, is not restricted to RasūlAllāh , and others such as awliyā’a can also be described as raĥmatun li’l áālamīn.

8. Hypocrisy and Self-Contradition of Deobandis

This is the defining characterstic of Deobandis – they have a book, an áqīdah and a fatwā for all seasons. When they meet Sunni scholars outside the subcontinent, they claim that their áqīdah is described in Muhannad; but in their fatāwā and Urdu books, they scorn those very things as bidáh or shirk.

The ugliest form of their hypocrisy is the exaggerated praise [ghuluw] of their own elders – a number of things which they scorn as polytheism or innovation when said about Prophets and Awliyā’a, is claimed as a praiseworthy attribute of their own elders. In an even bizzare twist, when Deobandi muftīs were asked about statements of their elders, without mentioning their names, they ruled them kāfir – yet, they obstinately defend them and accuse Sunnis of being unfair if they issue the same fatwā. 

Self-contradiction of Deobandis is a chronic problem – sometimes, a certain belief or action is shirk; and at other times it is not; this contradiction is not only between two different people, but in the fatawā of the same person.

9. Slander of Sunni Scholars:

Ĥusayn Aĥmed Tāndwī wrote Shihāb al-Thāqib, in defence of Deobandis, but is also a compendium of insults and imprecations against Alahazrat. Similarly, Murtazā Ĥasan Chāndpūrī and others wrote booklets and pamphlets attacking the person of Alahazrat, in their attempt to divert the focus upon their own flaws.

Abu’l Ĥasan Nadwī resorted to bald-faced lies in his biographical notice on Alahazrat and Sunni scholars who refuted the heresy of Ismāýīl Dihlawī smearing them as innovators – Taqī Uthmanī made a similar attempt in his answer to an Arab scholar inquiring about Aĥmed Riđā Khān, answering innocently, that ‘Barelwis’ make takfīr of Deobandis because they forbid polytheistic practices.

10. Blind Support and Defence of Deobandi Elders:

Including their blasphemies. Even if a hundred explicit proofs are presented, they try to find some ambiguous or obscure passage in a book and generalise that it is the general áqīdah of all scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah. 

Manżūr Númānī’s Faysla Kun Munazara is touted as the last word in the debate, even though it is full of falsehoods and misrepresentations similar to Keller’s Iman, Kufr, and Takfir. In an attempt to exonerate their elders, they rush recklessly where even illiterate Muslims fear to tread.

Sunni scholars make takfīr of Deobandis only in the first two cases and deem them heretics and misguided for the rest of their stultiloquence. The last case however, is pending examination: if a person knowingly defends explicit blasphemies, then he too shall be judged as an apostate, because:

Among things that cause apostasy is one’s being concordant with [and approving of] disbelief, even if it is implied; for example, if a kāfir wants to accept Islām, and asks a Muslim to instruct the testimony of faith, and if that Muslim does not do it, or says “Wait until I am done with my work or finish my sermon,” [if he is a preacher;] here, it is as if he has suggested [the kāfir] to not become a Muslim...321

Mawlānā Aĥmed Saýīd Każmī writes:
I have mentioned presently that the fundamental difference and reasons for the dispute between Deobandis and Ahl as-Sunnah are those passages in which there is blasphemy against Allāh táālā and His Messenger. Deobandis say that these statements are not disrespectful or insulting – Sunnis say that the insult and denigration in them is explicit...322

Many statements of Deobandis fall in multiple categories above. It should be noted that we do not include weird anecdotes of Deobandi elders, like the lewd stories narrated by Thānawī or such things reported about Gangohī or Nānotwī, mentioned in their own works; these are personal shortcomings and only show that they were ornery people lionised by their followers.

Note extracted from:



Read PDF
(safe to download)


---


---
---
The opinions and views of the illustrious Ulama of Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah were collected and A’Ia Hazrat Imam Ahmad Reza Brailvi in Arabic compiled a book. 

The historical name of this book is “Husaamul-Haramain Ala Manhar-if-Kufr-e-wal Mayn”(The Slaughter-point of blasphemy and falsehood) (1324 AH).

On his return to India, A’la Hazrat published it and viz-a-viz it was translated into Urdu by an adept Arabic scholar namely Maulana Hasanain Reza Khan Brailvi (Mercy of Allah be upon him). Both Urdu and Arabic versions were brought out in the market simultaneously.
---


Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqubi

"I would say, for example, in the Indian sub-continent, 
if you love Imam Ahmed Riza Khan, 
you are from Ahlu's Sunnah wa'l Jamāáh;