It\'s the same old same old. Divide and rule. Shia against Sunni. Moderate against Fundamentalist. Deobandi against Barelvi. And where does this terminology spring from? Who is it inspired by? It is sourced from Islamophobes who use this language to set Muslim brothers and sisters against each other. The pro-Israel lobby with the neocons is creating a language which they want Muslims to use, and unfortunately some of us are starting to use it. The rate of Uncle Toms parading through our TV screens claiming to be \'moderate\' and apologising for the violence being afflicted on our Ummah is increasing. We must put a stop to this. I wish I could have a fatwa that would make it illegal for anyone to claim that they are Sunni this or Shia that, Moderate this or that, or Deobandi or Barelvi. We are all Muslims and our identity is Islam. Remember that the Prophet (pbuh) said that no Muslim can claim to be any better than another except through his/her piety and actions. That should be the end of the matter.

While trying to control the damage done by neo-con articles, brother Husain al-Qadi appears to have falled into the trap of parochialism. He has written a one-sided article and maligned the name of a great scholar who did takfir only on a few individuals due to their unfavourable writings on the Holy Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) - writings that are extant in their books. This article will only provoke Muslims. What we need is to focus on the things we agree on rather than the few differences.

Kasim, Sounds to me like this scholar\'s takfir was extensive, pretty much on every single Muslim who wasn\'t a Barelwi not on just a few individuals. I do agree though that we have to move beyond this takfir and work together. That means that when one of us gets attacked then we all have to defend each other. That means whether deobandi or barelwi or whatever. I hope that as an ummah we can find it in ourselves to do this.

Dear Kasim, thank you for your comment, please do not forget that the writings of Ahmad Riza Khan are also extant, in which he pronounces takfir on a large number of Muslim scholars. For example: In his Sadr al-firar (p.80), he declared that the Ulama of Badayun were apostates, in his Malfuzat (p. 97) he declared that Mohamed ibn Abdul Wahab and all his followers were apostate, in his Tibb-e-Shorish Chah-e-Shor, he declared that the Ulama of Rampur were apostates, he also declared in his Husam, some of the most illustrious scholars of the Sub-continent as kuffar including the founder of Deoband Madrasa, Moulana Qasim Nanoutwi, Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanw, Moulana Rashid Ahamd Ganghohi, Moulaana Ahmad Saharanpuri, based on misrepresentation's of their writings. When the Ulama of Taif, Jedda and Damascus, who had initially signed his Husam fatwa, realised that they were mislead, they issued retraction fatawa confirming that these scholars were not apostates. (see Ai-tasdiqat li-daf al-Talbisat). To suggest that Ahmad Riza Khan limited his takfir to a few individuals is completely wrong. He even suggested that Satan spoke through the tongue of Allama Iqbal and most worrying was his "man-shakka" theory (automatic kufr), he wrote very clearly in his Malfuzat that: man shakka fi kufrihim wa 'azaabihim faqad kafar". (whosever doubts in their apostasy and their punishment, is an apostate). I am keen to see Muslims move beyond these rancorous pronouncements and work together but when attempts are being made to use these "parochial" arguments to disenfranchise large sections of the Muslim community in Britain, it becomes necessary to make sure people know the full story as opposed to the "spin" versions presented by people like Haras Rafiq and his Neocon partners.

The Deobandi v Barelwi issue has been addressed by Sh Nuh Keller, who agrees with brother Husain here that Reza Khan\'s takfir is wrong. See: http://shadhilitariqa.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=20 Interesting article.

I sit writing this comment from India where the split between Barelvis and Deobandis is becoming more and more prominent. To a general worshipper there is a definite distinction between the two schools of thoughts/groups - the Barelvis haveintroduced some very obvious bidah into their daily practice and hold antagonistic positions against Deobandis. Only last week, a fatwa was passed by a Barelvi imam after villagers in his locality prayed salaat e janaaza behind a Deobandi imam who happened to be a close friend of the deceased. The Barelvi imam sought a fatwa which declared that the nikahs of the entire village was null and void and either all married men (young and old) would have to have their nikahs reaffirmed or be considered adulterers and their children illegitimate. How can this be?

Assalamualaikum, A bit about the "Sufi Muslim Council" http://sufimuslimcouncil.blogspot.com [URLs removed]

Please do not use the excuse of the Times report which exposes the alien and extreme tendencies amongst the Deobandi sect to attack and disparage the reviver of the last century, Imam Ahmad Rida Khan (RA), who stood in stark contrast to the heresy and blasphemy that was been uttered by the founders of the schools of Deoband. Rashid Gangohi writing a whole booklet on commentary of a rejected hadith, where the finality of the final Prophet is being questioned (The Qaidiyani's used this argument in Pakistan's courts to defend their deviant position, saying the same fatwa should be on the followers of Rashid Gangohi). In 'Fatawa Rashidiya' he writes God can lie, (Naozabila, word God used deliberately), subsequently says 'God has already lied'. Ashraf Ali Thanwi, not only placing limits on the vastness of the knowledge of the unseen manifested to the noble Prophet (SWS) but making comparison of the knowledge of the unseen of the best of the creation to animals and mad persons. Amongst many other things. What will be the fatwa against those who prescribe to these thoughts, I think at least in the case of Ashraf Ali Thanvi it will be 'Walib-ul-Qatil', It appears you certainly have a skewed understanding of history. Firstly this takfir in 'Hussaam-ul-Harmain' was rightly endorsed and 33 most prominent and illustrious scholars of the world of the time. It is a lie they all retracted, in this takfir was also included Mirza Gulam Ahmed who claimed prophethood. What do you say about those who agreed with his wretched positions? would 'automatic takfir' or default apostasy not apply?. Brevli is not a school of thought but represents the mainstream classical orthodox spiritual tradition of Islam practised since the time of the Prophet (SWS). Imam Ahmed Rida Khan (RA) was the defender of this position. Little wonder Muslim's of all corners of the world who may not have even heard of Imam Ahmed Rida Khan, hold the same theological classical Islamic positions just look at the scholars known in the West. Hamza Yusaf (Mauritania), Hakim Murad (Egypt), Shaykh Mohammed Yaqubi (Syria), Shaykh Habib Ali (Yeman), Shaykh Nuh (Jordan) and Shaykh Nazim (Cypress). Are they all 'Brevilis'? The Quran does not speak of unity on deviant positions, it says hold on to the rope of Allah, and the Prophet (SWS) said my ummah would never unite on misguidance. In the 1950/60's attempts where made to have declared Deobandi's as a sect. We know that Deobandi sect just like the Jehovah’s witnesses has swelled, due to Tableeghi Jamaat their missionary arm. But it still remains a sects detached from the mainstream. Half of the world at one time was communist does that make them right?

Sadly Br Hussain al Qadi\\\\\\\'s article is way off the mark - an unfortunate but somewhat regular occurrence for writings on this subject. The number of Deobandi’s in the world seems to have entirely made up – how have you calculated this? Deobandis are a sub-continent phenomena, an offshoot of the main jamaat of Sunni Hanafis. The depiction of the issue of takfir is almost entirely misrepresented. He has gone to some length in pointing out (somewhat disingenuously) all the alleged takfir statements of Ahmad Riza Khan but will he care to quote in full the repugnant statements made about the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, by the founders of the Daruloom Deoband? His theorising on the neocons and Barelwis appears more conspiratorial then anything grounded in historical accuracy and therefore is hard to be taken seriously. The fact remains that the Deobandi’s have had an open field, they have opened up madarras, mosques etc all without any objection from anyone. All that has happened is that someone has decided to listen to some speeches and write an article – is anyone for a second saying that Times article made up quotes? The Deobandis are heavily laden with the Wahabi baggage in an age of religious extremism (Lal Masjid etc) for once their views are being questioned. The articles in the Times posed a lot of questions, it’s sad to note that al Qadi’s article doesn’t measure up in providing answers. Instead he does what Deobandis usually do – take a cheap shot at the Barelwis

Wow, I thought I was angry but reading some of these remarks...well perhaps I should be called Slightly Indignant Chicken b\'cos there are a load of brothers out there who are REALLY angry. Great article Br Husain - I never understood the whole Deobandi - Barelwi issue before but now I do. I was disappointed to see the appearance of Barelwi Imams in the Times agreeing with the article about Sh Riyad ul Haq. Even if they have this theological disagreement they still shouldn\'t come out against him like that. The fact that the government seems to be cosying up to the Barelwis should be deeply worrying for them. Perhaps some time should be taken to reflect on this during this blessed month of Ramadan.

I am no expert in this, but from what i just read I would say Br Hussain is correct. Why? Because he is writing with documented sources while others (Br Abu Bilaal and Br Abdullah) are not. Secondly, while Br Hussains conclusion is that of unity between Muslims against those attacking Islam, the other commentators are taking a tone of division. And if we are divided we are weak.

Thanks Shadhili Wayfarer for the link. Does this mean Nuh Keller is Deobandi? Or is he just a kafir for denying the kufr of Deobandi scholars? Can Abu Bilaal please confirm for everyone that, according to Reza Khan, Nuh Keller is a kafir? This takfir stuff is madness. We have to get away from it before it poisons us all.

Abdullah, if Br Husain wanted to emphasize the conspiracy argument, I am sure he could have drawn attention to facts such as Ahmad Rida Khan’s reluctance to criticize the British Raj for the occupation. Some people say that it was because of what happened after the Mutiny in 1857 when Muslim land owners all over the country had their lands confiscated, Ahmad Riza’s family were allowed to keep most of their land. (Sanyal,1999, p.54). Also Ahmad Riza’s father-in-law Fazl-e Husain was a British Government officer in Rampur and his nephew Husain Riza who owned the Hasani press in Bareilly was highly regarded by the British. This is the same Hasani press that published many of the Ahmad Riza’s works. As for questions about the numbers of Doebandis, which is revealing of some Eurocentric converts to Islam who think very little of subcontinent Muslims. If you had bothered to check the facts, you would have seen that the Muslims of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are nearly five hundred million. The Deobandis constitute at least half of that number.

Abu Bilal, I am sorry to see that you are merely repeating the same misinterpretations of the works of Moulana Thanwi and other scholars, by repeating what you have been told. I have given you the references where the Arab scholars confirmed the faith of the Deobandi scholars AFTER their conditional fatwa was published by Ahmad Riza Khan which he also misrepresented in the first place. (See Inkishaf-al-haqq, 1404, Jamal Press p.189). The Arab scholars had said “if what this shaikh says is proven” then they are apostates, which was then translated by ARK as “Arab scholars proved the apostacy”. Also ARK did not even spare those Arab scholars when they disagreed with him. For example in his Husam he discribes Shaikh Tarabulisi as a person of vast knowledge and wise vision, but when the Shaikh issued a fatwa against his opinion about the Friday call to prayer (athan), he attacked the shaikh as well, describing him as an idiot, fool, and illiterate in a fatwa titled: Masla-e-Azan ka haqnuma faisala, (p. 4.). Also you should note that Moulana Asraf Ali Thanwi, wrote very clearly, after the misreading of his work and accusations by ARK, that "no Muslim can ever write or even conceive to write that the knowledge of the Prophet (S.W,S) about the unseen was no better than that of a child, lunatic or animal. My suggestion is that people should not rely on one set of sources or secondary sources. To understand this disputes it is necessary to look at the original sources and as well as all the related discussions at the time.

Its blatantly obvious as I read the comments above that the comments by Abu Bilal and and Abdullah are unsubstantiated. The original article has provided documentary evidence, with page numbers, to show the details of the takfir. Whereas the retort fails to give any detail, why? If you can\'t prove or verify your comments then you are the disingenous and / or misinformed. It is clear, beyond denial, that the Barelvi constituted Sufi Council (Haris Rafiq and cronies) is was initiated and supported by the UK government to divide and weaken the Muslim community in Britain. As SSK mentions in his comment this is in line with the Barelvi\'s opportunism shown under the British Raj. This is the month of Ramadan an opportunity to ask Allah (SWT) for forgiveness and guidance. I pray that the Muslim community is not duped by the Barelvi (Labour govt. imposed) leadership and holds fast to the rope of Allah (SWT).

To Mr. Crazy Horse: Thanks for drawing me towards Shaykh Nuh article, OK, accepted Shaykh Nuh may have misjudged the issue of takfir due to his unfamiliarity with the Urdu language in which the Deobandi founders blasphemed, but we shall leave the issue to our scholars to redress. But what remains is either you accept Shaykh Nuh’s position wholly or not quote him when it suites you. Firstly, Shaykh Nuh unequivocally supports and endorses all positions of Imam Ahmed Rida Khan (RA) and only differs on the issue of takfir, Shaykh Nuh words describe the Imam Ahmed Rida Khan (RA) as “morally blameless”, “his acknowledged brilliance”, “his love of the Prophet (SWS) ”. No such words of decor for the Deobandi akaabir, quotations from Shaykh Nuh article which has been written impartially as possible and sympathetic to the Deobandi’s as possible. Shaykh Nuh say’s: “The vehemence of Deobandi writers “defending Islam against shirk,” however MISPLACED, plainly affected the way they spoke about the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace).” “…. Exaggerated statements about of his lack of knowledge; reaching a degree that, by any ordinary measure, can be only be described as far BELOW THE STANDARDS or normal Islamic scholarly discourse.” “ I AM SHOCKED AND GRIEVED by this example of the AUTHORS IGNORANCE. How far such STUPID WORDS from knowledge and intelligence.” “KHALIL AHMADS CLAIM that belief in the vastness of the Prophet’s knowledge (Allah bless him and give him peace) IS BASELESS “ “Khalil Ahmad ascribes to Satan and the Angel of Death should become “shirk” when affirmed of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace): either it is a divine attribute that is shirk to ascribe to any creature, or it is not. “ “KHALIL AHMAD’S point as a whole, denying that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had vast knowledge, after affirming it of the Devil and the Angel of Death, IS ERRONEOUS” “KHALIL AHMAD ….he BADLY STUMBLED in this passage” “Muslims would have found his WORDS REPUGNANT AND UNACCEPTABLE.” “….SAME IS TRUE for the Deobandi teacher Ashraf Ali THANWI” “THANWI’S ARTLESS COMPARISON of the highest of creation with the lowest” “The vehemence of DEOBANDI WRITERS “defending Islam against shirk,” however MISPLACED, plainly affected the way they spoke about the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace)” “When did any Islamic scholar ever compare the knowledge of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) to the depraved, to the mad, or to animals—even to make a point? “ “….. while such words were INDEFENSIBLE BREACHES of proper respect….” “….and certainly NOT the “ORDINARY SCHOLARLY DISCOURSE” ACCEPTABLE AMONG MUSLIMS.” To Mr. SSK: I have no reply to every unfounded and concocted allegation against Imam Ahmed Rida Khan (RA). We are not in the business of cult following our scholars but by Allah, we will defend the honour and esteem of the best of all creation, Rasullah (SWS) tooth and nail, until blood runs in our vain’s and outright reject the akaabir of the Deoband due to their blatant and clear heresy and blasphemy, we only honour Imam Ahmed Rida Khan (RA) for bringing enforcing this realisation in the face of this repulsive onslaught. I agree with Husien look at the original sources if you dare, it will be a revelation to you, remember this concerns your akhira so stop defending the position, which is indefensible.. in the words of Shaykh Nuh says “Muslims would have found his words repugnant and unacceptable.”. .... well we still do!!

Abu Bilal, there is a fundamental inconsistency in your argument. If as you say "Shaykh Nuh may have misjudged the issue of takfir due to his unfamiliarity with the Urdu language" how then can you accept his authority and conclusion on other aspects of the dispute which was mostly in Urdu? I think you should heed your own advice of "accept Shaykh Nuh’s position wholly or not quote him". I personally do not think Sh. Nuh is qualified to speak on this issue simply because of his inability to access the original sources in Urdu. Read what Br Husain wrote about these strange allegations, you will see that they were all based on biased misinterpretations.

Convenient, now write-off Shaykh Nuh, as it puts Deobandi’s in very murky water. Now the problem is you will need to find a scholar, which supports your position…Ummm… I think this only leave Abdul Wahab Najdi. Now you are fully endorsed!

Abu Bilal, My point is not to defend Deobandis. I don\'t care about the theological debates that have got you so steamed up. My point is simple. Nuh Keller has shakk (doubt) in the kufr of Deobandis. That is clear and excuses about not knowing Urdu are irrelevant. He has shakk. Therefore, according to Reza Khan, he is a kafir. Simple question: do you agree or not? Again, this takfir business is madness and has to stop. And they call me crazy! (PS - SSK never endorsed Sh Nuh. I think you should read the posts more carefully before you reply.)

http://sunnilink.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/mistaken-takfir/ http://muhabbat.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/mistaken-takfir/ I suggest people who read Shaykh Nuh\'s article on the issue of Takfir also browse through these well balanced pieces clarifying his piece.

Abu Bilal, I am not writing-off anyone. My point is that scholars have a greater responsibility to deal with the problems in their own communities before venturing out to unfamiliar waters. Being an American convert to Islam I think it would have been more appropriate for Sh. Nuh to address the more relevant and serious dangers coming from some converts in the USA and Europe who are trying reform Islam" with a somewhat "racist" zeal. What happened a hundred years ago in language he does not understand should be much lower down on his scale of priorities.

I just read the link posted by Sahdili Devish, I think everyone should read it, hope Ummahpulse allow it to be posted: ----- Recently I came across the first review of Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi’s Deobandi takfir by someone we could all call neutral. This post is in reference to Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller’s article “Iman, Kufr, and Takfir.” The Sheikh needs to be congratulated for taking an initial bold step for opening the door for further dialogue on an issue that deeply divides the Ahl Al-Sunnah of the Indian sub-continent. It should be remembered that our role here is not to criticize the respected Sheikh in the way people on this website are presently doing. Sadly many people there are jumping on the takfiri bandwagon – as is their methodology and minhaj – and brutishly making extremely outlandish and heartrending claims. However, there are a few points that have most likely been unintentionally missed by Sheikh Nuh in his article. A natural occurrence since Sheikh Nuh, not knowing Urdu, is limited in his access to books and texts concerning the Barelwi’s takfir of the Akabir. Sheikh Nuh has had to resort to brief translated pieces of “relevant” texts to write his article – this point will, insha Allah, become clearer when one completes reading this post. If the points missed by Sheikh Nuh had been mentioned then the article would have been impartial, understandable and acceptable. I expect that the esteemed Sheikh will agree with me on this and I hope his Urdu-speaking murids will bring these discrepancies to his notice. In total there are three main points, among many others, that need to be understood: 1. First and foremost, Sheikh Nuh has failed to mention the seventh disputed Aqida issue between the Deobandis and Barelwis. This is a core issue and is still very dear and near to present day Barelwis. It forms the basis of Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan’s declaration – as mentioned in his book Husam al-Haramayn (Sword of the Meccan and Medinan Sanctuaries) – that Mawlana Qasim Nanotwi (the founder of Darul Uloom Deoband) was an infidel (kafir). In order to prove his point, Molwi Ahmed Raza Khan quotes a statement, which he alleges is from Mawlana Nanotwi’s book Tahdhir Al-Naas. According to Molwi Ahmed Raza Khan’s quote, the respected Mawlana Nanotwi denied the finality of the Messenger of Allah’s prophet hood (khatm-e-nubuwwat). In reality this statement does not appear anywhere in Mawlana Nanotwi’s book. On rigorous analysis of the book, it comes to light – as has been shown by many Ulamah in many of their books (all generally in Urdu) – that the statement that Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan quoted had been concocted from three different passages from three different pages of Tahdhi Al-Naas. These texts had been rearranged to give a meaning that Molvi Ahemd Raza Khan then used to level charges of infidelity (takfir) against the founder of Darul Uloom Deoband – Subhanallah. The question remains whether this could be condoned as a “mistake,” a “mistranslation” or a “misinterpretation”? Could such a blatant mistake stem from the author of a book like Al-Dawla Al-Makkiyya Bi Al-Madda Al-Ghaybiyya? Nay, the text used by Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan was a total forgery, distortion of the truth and fraud. Dear reader, is it permissible to commit such a crime of misrepresentation while claiming this was done out of love of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings upon Him)? I leave this issue without comment. It is self-evident for anyone with a grain of faith to decide for him or her self what motivated Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan to commit the grossest of takfir. 2. The second issue is related to Hadhrat Mawlana Khalil Ahmed Saharanpuri. Prior to discussing this issue in detail it should be made extremely clear that Hadhrat Saharanpuri has stated clearly in black and white: “That no creature has received what the Prophet (Allah’s peace and blessings be on him) has received in the knowledge of the first and the last, whether angel brought near or Prophet-Messenger. But, this does not entail knowledge of every specific detail of the lower world.” (Al-Muhannad p.38) It should also be known that Hadhrat Khalil Ahmed Sahranpuri’s book “Baraahin-e-Qatiah” is not an independent book by itself but rather a refutation of a book entitled “Anwaar-e-Saatiah” by Molvi Abdus Sami Rampuri – a follower of Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan. Baraahin has been written in the traditional style of polemics (munazara), in that it contains both the text of Molvi Rampuri and then Hadhrat Sahranpuri’s refutation thereafter clarifying the position of Ahl Al-Sunnat Ahl-e-Deoband. This clarification is necessary to answer the specific issues raised by Sheikh Nuh and thus avoiding confusion and generalizations. Incidentally, Sheikh Nuh is under the impression that Hadhrat Saharanpuri is referring to Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan when in fact Hadhrat Sahranpuri is referring to Molvi Abdus Sami. In his book “Anwaar-e-Saatiah,” Molvi Abdus Sami mentions an extremely outlandish and strange analogy as an argument to prove that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is Alim Al-Ghayb (knower of the unseen). Molvi Abdu Sami mentions that since Satan and the Angel of Death know the unseen (ghayb) wherever they are, and since the Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is of greater merit than Satan and the Angel of Death then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) must also possess knowledge of the unseen. To support his claims, Molvi Abdus Sami fails to provide proof from Quraan, Hadith and also from the sayings of previous scholars (as there are none) but rather bases his argument on this strange analogy (qiyas). Naturally, Hadhrat Mawlana Khalil Ahmed Sahranpuri’s response is going to include the analogy of Molvi Abdus Sami Rampuri and this would entail the mentioning of Satan and the Angel of Death. Remember Baraahin-e-Qatiah has been written in the traditional style of polemics (munazara). Hadhrat Saharanpuri mentions that the knowledge of Satan and the Angel of Death is “ilm-e-muheet-e-zamin” (a knowledge that comprises of earthly things) – Hadhrat Saharanpuri mentions that we know that Satan and the Angel of Death have this ilm through proofs from the Quran and the narrations of the blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Hadhrat Saharanpuri further mentions that similar proofs cannot be realized in relation to the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). So Sheikh Nuh’s argument that “Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri’s disadvantageously comparing the Prophet’s knowledge (Allah bless him and give him peace) to Satan’s” does not hold true because Hadhrat Sahranpuri is not making a comparison rather he is answering an argument forwarded by Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan Baraelwi’s student who had made such a claim. And this also only is knowledge related to the lower world. Sheikh Nuh says: “In sum, Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri’s disadvantageously comparing the Prophet’s knowledge (Allah bless him and give him peace) to Satan’s, the vilest creature in existence—regardless of the point he was making—is something few Muslims can accept.” Shaykh Nuh further says that “he badly stumbled in this passage. In any previous Islamic community, whether in Hyderabad, Kabul, Baghdad, Cairo, Fez, or Damascus—in short, practically anywhere besides the British India of his day—Muslims would have found his words repugnant and unacceptable.” Shame that Sheikh Nuh was relying on translated sections to make his conclusions and therefore make the mistake of making inappropriate conclusions – Subhanallah. If he had been able to access the entire book in Urdu then he would have realized that Hadhrat Saharanpuri was not making the comparison – the comparison had been made by the student of Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan and that Hadhrat Saharanpuri was clarifying the matter. 3. Lastly and most importantly, Sheikh Nuh mentions a statement of Hadhrat Hakim al-Umma Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanawi. When Molvi Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi’s comments relating to Hadhrat Thanawi’s text in Hifdh Al-Iman was shown to Hakim Al-Ummat, he (Hadhrat Thanawi) strongly rejected Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan’s “interpretation” and commented that he could not even dream of thinking such a repugnant (khabees) thing about the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Hadhrat Thanawi himself said that if anyone was to believe and directly or indirectly agreed with what Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan had understood/misunderstood from his text then he (Hakim Al-Ummat) would, in accordance with the rulings of Shariah, consider such a person to be outside the pale of Islam for denigrating the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him). This is a documented comment of Hakim Al-Ummat. In addition to this, with an aim of making his statement more clear and understandable, Hakim Al-Ummat twice made changes in the text so as there would be no ambiguity left in the text. Thereafter, the text read as follows: “Aap ki zhat-e-muqqadasa par alim-e-ghayab ka hukaum keya jana agar baqol Zayd sahih ho to daryafet taleb yay amr hah keh iss ghayab seymurad ba’az ghayab hay ya kul ghayab. Agar ba’az uloom-e-ghayabiya muradhain to iss mey huzoor sallalaho alhey wasalam ki keya takhsees hay?///Mutlaq ba’az uloom-e-ghayabiya to ghair Ambiya ahlehimussalam ko bih hasil hain/// to chaheyay keh sub ko alim ul ghayab kaha jaway.” (Bast Al-Banan — forward slashes mark changes made to text by Hakim Al-Ummat) Trans: “If it refers to but some of the unseen, then how is the Revered One [the Prophet] (Allah bless him and give him peace) uniquely special? Certain knowledge of unseen is possessed by the non-prophets also, so everyone should be called ‘knower of the unseen…’” Hadhrat Hakim Al-Ummat Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanawi made it also extremely clear that no one was to publish the old text of Hifdh Al-Iman (the one that Sheikh Nuh has published) after the changes had been made. These changes were done in the lifetime of Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan. Subsequently two books were written by Hakim Al-Ummat – Bast Al-Banan Li Kaff Al-Lisan An Kitab Hifdh Al-Iman (1329AH) and Tagyir Al-Unwan Fi Ba’di Ibarat Hifdh Al-Iman (1342AH). Hence, to insist on this issue after clarification and removal of the statement is extremely strange. Keeping all these details in mind it becomes clearer that the Baraelwi takfir was totally wrong. With regards to these “repugnant” texts, Sheikh Nuh mentions in his paper that “looking back, one cannot help wondering why Khalil Ahmad’s and Ashraf Ali Thanawi’s own students and teachers and friends did not ask them, before their opponents asked them.” This is a bold statement for one who has had to rely on selected translated texts in order to substantiate and critique the issue at hand. Fundamentally, Sheikh Nuh and at that other non-Urdu speaking Ulamah who wish to review this issue would not be able to give full justice to the topic by relying solely on translations of selected texts. The above few words hopefully clarify the matters involved, insha Allah. These are briefly just some of the issues that spring to mind with regards Sheikh Nuh’s piece. Deobandis should be rest assured that the Akabir were on the true path and were not mistaken in anyway. Urdu is a must to understand the Deobandi-Barelwi issue. In the least, Sheikh Nuh could have rechecked his paper and the conclusions he had reached with the leading Deobandi scholars he is in contact with. We live in a global village, the Ulamah are only a telephone call away. Finally, finishing off it should be noted that the purpose of this paper is not to denigrate Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller or any other Ulamah in any way. A prolonged and exhaustive reading into the issue by referring to relevant texts and then posing questions to contemporary Deobandi Ulamah would have made Sheikh Nuh’s more decisive. Selected reading: - Ghayat Al-Ma’mul by the Mufti of the Shafi’is in Madinah – Sayyid Ahmed Al-Barzanji. This book was written in refutation of Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan’s views on Ilm Al-Ghayb. - Al-Sahm Al-Ghayb Fi Kabd Ahl Al-Rayb by Hadhrat Mawlana Anwar Shah Kashmiri. This work has been mentioned by Sheikh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah in his editing of Allamah Kashmiri’s book Al-Tasreeh Bima Tawatur Fi Nuzul Al-Masih. - Mut’ala-e-Barelwiyyat (Study on the Barelvi’s) by Allamah Dr Khalid Mahmud. - Al-Shihab Al-Thaqib Ala Al-Mustariq Al-Kadhib in 3 volumes by Mawlana Sayyid Husayn Ahmad Madani. - Izalat Al-Rayb An Aqeeda Ilm Al-Ghayb by Maulana Abu Zahid Muhammad Sarfraz Khan, Shaykhul-Hadith in Madrasa Nusratul-Ulum, Gujranwala, Pakistan. - Deoband Awr Barelwi Ke Ikhtilaf-i-Niza Par Faisalakun Munazarah by Mawlana Manzur Nomani. - Fath Bareilly Ka Dilkash Nazarah by Mawlana Manzur Nomani. - Sa’eeqa Asmaani by Mawlana Manzur Nomani http://sunnilink.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/mistaken-takfir/

The author above is obviously unaware of the clear position in the Shariah regarding blaspheming the Prophet (SWS), there is no retracting and not recompense, it is like Salman Rushdie trying to change satanic verses. If the above account is true, Ashraf Ali Thanvi tried to rectify his Kufri writing by “.. Ashraf Ali Thanawi made it also extremely clear that no one was to publish the old text of Hifdh Al-Iman”, what was he trying to hide?. One thing this does prove is Ashraf Ali Thanvi himself recognised (Which his followers to this day do not) is the gravity of what he had written, therefore endorsing Imam Ahmad Rida Khan fatwa defacto and by default. Now even so the sake of argument if we were to accept the chopped and changed cheated version of Thanvi’s work quoted above, it might loosen the noose of takfeer upon his neck, but you would still not be able to correlate his deviant position, he still remains in the domain of heresy, how dare any molvi after 1400 years, come along in Deoband and try to put limits on the vastness of the Prophetic knowledge, by saying there is ‘nothing special’ in the Prophetic knowledge of the unseen, how is it possible for any person to contain an ocean in a cup, like in the words of Imam Ahmed Rida Khan, “the knowledge of all of creation is a drop in comparison to the knowledge Allah (SWT) has bestowed upon the beloved Prophet (SWS) and the knowledge of the Prophet (SWS) is a drop in relation to the knowledge of Allah (SWT)”. The lies against Imam Ahmad Rida Khan and obvious inconsistencies are apparent in the above work, in a feeble Deobandi attempt at clutches at straws, Molana Abdul Samee (RA) was also a student of Haji Imdadullah Makki(RA) and completely independently challenging Ashraf Ali Thawni heresy, before Imam Ahmed Rida Khan, not a student of Imam Ahmad Rida Khan. No amount of justification of the type or nature of the discourse justifies Khalil Ahmed blasphemy, yet the author not only makes excuses for these deviant positions, but decorates them with elaborate titles Hadhrat Mawlana and Hakeem-ul-Ummat, these will not be the kind of titles one would use for those who blasphemed the Prophet (SWS). It is now, the Hasaim-ul-Harmain (The sword of the two sacred sanctuaries) speaks, heads role, anyone doubting the Kufr of these persons is like them. Do not worry about Shaykh Nuh’s article, something good will Insha’Allah come out of this, falsehood will perish in the face of truth, let him fully understand the controversy – Then await another 21st Century endorsement of the position of Imam Ahmad Rida Khan (RA) coming hot of the press from Jordan and the rest of the middle east. The argument that this controversy is 100 years old and should be done away with, does not hold water, as firstly those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, to this day we continue to study about other stray sects such as Mutazilites, Kharajits etc in all aqeedah texts, these sects which are 100’s of years old, Deobandism is only a about 100 years old. With regards to Qassim Nanotvi In page 5 of \"Tahzeerun Naas\", (Published in Makhtaba Fayz Nazd Jami Masjid Deoband), Qasim Nanotwi says: \"Prophets are superior to their followers only in Knowledge, but in good deeds, followers sometimes seem equal and occasionally even become superior to them.\" – Rest I leave to the readers, I think Shaykh Nuh did not want to embarrass the Deobandi’s any more and would have run out of the 70 excuses which he is going out of his way to make. Now if the above piece suppose to be a defence for the Deobandi position, then you have shot yourself in the foot, “he (Hadhrat Thanawi) strongly rejected Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan’s “interpretation” and commented that he could not even dream of thinking such a repugnant (khabees) thing about the Holy Prophet (SWS)“ yet he wrote it, Then here is the explicit endorsement of Imam Ahmad Rida Khan “Thanawi himself said that if anyone was to believe and directly or indirectly agreed with what Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan had understood/misunderstood from his text then he (Hakim Al-Ummat) would, in accordance with the rulings of Shariah, consider such a person to be outside the pale of Islam for denigrating the Prophet (SWS)”. If the Deobandi’s think thought Shaykh Nuh, article will give you leverage… then just wait and see. The best course is for all Deobandi’s to stop making excuses repent and return to Orthodox mainstream Islamic position, go back before your so called Akaabir, who have fatwa’s of kufr upon. You will find the true position of Ahle-Sunna-Wa-Jamaat, which just happens to agree with the position adopted by Imam Ahmad Rida Khan (RA).

Interesting comments http://sunnilink.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/mistaken-takfir/ I think Abu Bilal\'s argument is weak.

Bilal, you seem to be clutching at straws now. When I first logged on I had an open mind about both groups. Now I think the Barelwis were too quick to pronounce charges of apostacy and they should admit it. It was shocking to learn that even if people speculated about Ahmad Rida\'s fatwa, they were automatically pronounced kafir. Thats just too much. I think we should call a spade and spade. He lost it big time.

Come on guys !!! Lets not allow this dispute to divert us from the bigger problem which is the Neo-cons who want us to fight amongst ourselves.

I don\'t know why the brailvees are still even ranting...this article says it all...the damn neocons support you! whats it gonna take to open your eyes?

I think both sides should look for a way to unite. I think the article by Husain Al-Qadi is very unfortunate and should not have triggered this debate as it opens up a can of worms. No one takes the moral high ground, as Abu Bilal\'s words are harsh but Husain Al-Qadi drew first blood and was equally harsh in condemning the Barelwi\'s. One thing that does come out of this is Husain Al-Qadi is wrong to pain a black and white distinction between right and wrong with this issue, as there definitely appears to be a stain on the Deobandi conscience and there are a lot of open questions. With regards to Neocons this is a political issue not theological, however all Muslims need to wake up. May Allah bless this Ummah.

I can see both sides of the argument. However historically at least the Barelwi argument appears to be right. Abu Bilal has adopted the correct position where the sanctity of the prophet (pbuh) must always be at the forefront, otherwise let us not forget the shaitaan did not commit shirk and he was one of the biggest scholars of his day but refused to accept the position of Adam (pbuh). Mirza Qaadiyaani, was a big scholar in his own right, he did not commit shirk, but violated the greatest sanctity in Islam, the proof of Islam, the sanctity of Prophethood.

Zainab, I think you are being unfair to Br Husain. It was not him who drew first blood, it was the Barelwis who gave statements to the Times criticising the Deobandis. The black and white conclusions are (1) it is wrong to make takfir on Muslims without giving them a chance to explain themselves and (2) automatic takfir was unheard of in history of Islam before Ahmad Riza Khan. Also I think you are falling into another Neocon trick in what you wrote about "political and theological". When politicians (Neocons) are attacking theology (Islam) they would be very glad to see Muslims remain silent and allow the world to think that people of faith have no answers. By asking Muslims not to respond you are helping the Neocons. May Allah open your heart to the truth.

Amir Khan, Thanks for your insite, now the Qaidiyaani are now Muslims.

Abu Bilal: It is unfortunate that you did not address any of the specific issues raised by DNA. Is this because there is no objective response to give? Your sectarian Barelwi position is obvious, and you hold to your sect irrespective of the evidence being provided, why? You should note that no one is pronouncing kufr on our fellow Barelvi Muslims, it was Molvi A. Rida Khan who pronounced such an extreme verdict on Deobandi scholars. It is a misinterpretation and plain wrong to claim that Barelvi practice reflects love of our Prophet (SAW)exclusively. It is also wrong to claim that purification of the heart and striving to closeness to Allah (SWT) is in someway the domain of Barelvi sect. One only needs to observe the teachings and practice of non-Barelvi scholars to establish this. The point is correct that a discussion of the historical debate is appropriate, but you must then be prepared to actualy learn from that debate and not be intent on perpetuating it!!! This is the agenda of the Neoconservative intervention. Surely Abu Bilal you don\'t apply takfir and accusation of Kufr to your fellow Muslims in this age???

DM, are you seriously comparing Deobandis to Qadiyanis? That pretty much sums up the whole problem. Your takfir is way out of control. I know plenty of Deobandis and Barelwis and none of them are kafir. Take a chill pill.

To me at least, Abu Bilaal has answered DNA objections, regarding Molaana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and Khalil Ahmad. Brother Majid can you clarify what specific DNA points you feel needs to be addressed. Secondly, the princples of takfir are applicable today as they were in the past. The Islamic law does not change.

I\'m not comparing Deobandi to Qaidianyani\'s. Deobandi\'s are abviously Muslim and Qaidiyaani\'s are not. My point was simply this the principle of automatic takfir in certain cases is valid and applicable. If Ahmad Raza\'s takfir was incorrect it is a different matter, but it it was correct, and anyone else was to agree with those statements, then abviously automatic takfir will apply. I was pointing out a technicality, Amir Khan is wrong to state that automatic takfeer was a new invention or as if this was a first historical judgment, but it is an accepted principle of Islamic law. I agree with Majid no one should make takfeer of fellow muslims.

DM, I think you are missing the point. Ahamad Riza was the first person in Islam to say that: If you speculate (shakka) about the kufr of the Deobandi scholars, then you are also a kafir. That was completely wrong and you should accept it. He was way out of line!

DM: \'Islamic law does not change\'... In response 34 you claim that Molvi A.Riza\'s takfir on Deobandi\'s is \'applicable today as they were in the past\'. In response 35 you state that: \'Deobandi\'s are obviously Muslim...\' Clearly aIl Muslims should welcome response 35, does this mean that you have abrogated your position in response 34??

Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim reports a hadith from Abd Adullah ibn Umar who quotes the Prophet (sallAllahu Alaihi wasallam) as saying: \"THAT ONE WHO BRANDS HIS MUSLIM BROTHER A KAFIR UNJUSTLY, THE KUFR REVERTS BACK TO HIS OWN SELF\". Fear Allah in the positions you adopt !!

DM: I don\'t think that Abu Billaal has answered any of the points raised by DNA adequately. To give a specific how has he addressed the following point made by DNA: \'It should also be known that Hadhrat Khalil Ahmed Sahranpuri’s book “Baraahin-e-Qatiah” is not an independent book by itself but rather a refutation of a book entitled “Anwaar-e-Saatiah” by Molvi Abdus Sami Rampuri – a follower of Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan. Baraahin has been written in the traditional style of polemics (munazara), in that it contains both the text of Molvi Rampuri and then Hadhrat Sahranpuri’s refutation thereafter clarifying the position of Ahl Al-Sunnat Ahl-e-Deoband. This clarification is necessary to answer the specific issues raised by Sheikh Nuh and thus avoiding confusion and generalizations. Incidentally, Sheikh Nuh is under the impression that Hadhrat Saharanpuri is referring to Molvi Ahmed Raza Khan when in fact Hadhrat Sahranpuri is referring to Molvi Abdus Sami. In his book “Anwaar-e-Saatiah,” Molvi Abdus Sami mentions an extremely outlandish and strange analogy as an argument to prove that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is Alim Al-Ghayb (knower of the unseen). Molvi Abdu Sami mentions that since Satan and the Angel of Death know the unseen (ghayb) wherever they are, and since the Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is of greater merit than Satan and the Angel of Death then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) must also possess knowledge of the unseen. \'\'

DM, by admitting that Deobandis are Muslims, according to Reza Khan you are now a kafir since you have doubt in their kufr. I don\'t think this is right, do you?

DMZ, I think there appears to be a fundamental flaw in the whole argument, Ahmad Raza\'s position was not a blanket fatwa on all of Deoband, but certain particular persons, this was due to the clear blasphemy committed in their writings, this blasphemy was so clearly kufr that Ahmad Raza had stated if any person had read and understood these blasphemous passages and agreed with that he/she had read then it was if that person is like them. Most Deobandi\'s are blind followers and therefore excused. But those who know, then they need to think deeply as their position are very precarious. To make comparison of the best of creation to the lowest, to deny the finality of the Prophet, to believe Allah can lie etc.. Then I\'m afraid I have no hesitation in standing behind Ahmad Raza and the 33 most prominent scholars of the time. Most Deobandi that I know off are either Hanafi Wahabi\'s or simply ignorant and not knowing. But the third category ??? I make my position very clear in this light, if you blaspheme the Prophet, if you believe Allah can lie or you deny the finality of the Prophet then you are a KAFIR!!! All the other many devient positions helds by Deobandi\'s maybe dodgy but does not take them outside islam. I hope this clear the issue. Thanks

DM, I think you need to read the comments above carefully before you try to put words in Ahmad Riza\\\'s mouth, he is not saying all those things you have just posted. Read comment number 4. \\\"...\\\"man-shakka\\\" theory (automatic kufr), he wrote very clearly in his Malfuzat that: man shakka fi kufrihim wa \\\'azaabihim faqad kafar\\\". (whosever doubts in their apostasy and their punishment, is an apostate)..\\\" There were no conditions about reading or anything else. It was a list of names and accusations and you had to accept his verdict, if not you were a kafir. Also even if we accept that he did not say all the Deobandis are kafirs, his automatic takfeer theory, places all Deobandis in the category of kafir anyway because if any Deobandi doubt the kuft of one of the scholars named in his fatwa, then they are automatically classed as kafirs. So please do not try to pull the wool over people\\\'s eyes here with clever language. The truth is out. You people need to change your ways and stop supporting the Neocons in their war against Islam!!!

One has to wonder what was said so extreme that it became endorsed by top ulema and so extreme no one could doubt. No Shak. Was Ahmad Reza wrong, but what if he was right?

All those reading this and still holding onto the Deobandi position. See this link. After which you have no excuse on the day of judgement. http://www.islam786. org/deobandis.htm#105699658

Noman, the scholars did not endorse Ahmad Riza\'s claims in the fatwa. What they wrote was that \"if what this sheikh is saying is correct then...\" read comment number 9.

Here is a indisputable proof that the Barelwis consider Deobandis kafirs, The imam who lead the Janaza was a Deobandi and exactly as Husain said in the article they did this: Sultanpur, Sept. 7 (PTI): Over 100 Muslim couples exchanged vows again after the Barelvi school \'fatwa\' had annulled the \'nikah\' of over 150 people for attending a funeral prayer led by a cleric, who according to it, does not subscribe to the Sunni faith......see http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200709072075.htm

DM: You have failed to respond to my comments above, #39 and #37. I think your silence on this is proof that you are arguing from the perspective of your \'blind following\' of the Barelvi sect! It is clear that brother Hussain has brilliantly exposed the neoconservative agenda and Barelvi complicitness with this agenda. The responses recieved in the comments section, fail to address the points raised by DNA and SSK but seem more aimed at perpetuating confusion on the issue. Perpetuating lies and confusion is an essential tool in the attacks being launched on Islam and Muslims. Full marks to Ummahpulse for such excellent analysis and clarification of such critical issues and polemics.

It is important to fully understand the controversy, Firstly Imam Ahmad Rida 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, Imam Ahmed Rida ® 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. 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. 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. It can be seen that this work rejects what was ascribed to them in \"Husâm al- Haramayn.\". This very book which is full of inconsistencies to the real Deobandi positions, e.g. Regarding Mawlid, Ilm-e-gaib, Esaal-e-swaab, Tawassal etc. This book claims the position of Ahl-e-Sunnah, coupled with forged endorsements, this book has thrown many of the Ulema of the middleeast, for now at least. So, 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 Imam Ahmad Rida 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. 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 but on `usûlî issues which are the fundamental requirements of a Muslims faith. 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.

Rashid, your post is a perfect example of the kind of lies and fallacies the Barelwis have always peddled among their followers who take what they say blindly. You wrote: "Firstly Imam Ahmad Rida 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, Imam Ahmed Rida had not yet been born when these were written". What your leaders forgot to tell you is that Ahmad Riza Khan was born in 1856 and Deoband was established in 1867. Anything that happened before the birth of Ahmad Riza Khan is before Deoband ever existed and therefore irrelevant to this discussion. I think it is time you stop trying to educate people on this forum and take some time out to do some studies of your own.

I think the Barelwis should read the work of another famous scholar from Badayun. Mufti Khalil Khan Qadiri who repented from following Ahmad Riza after studying the texts for himself, and worte his devastating expose Inkihsaf al-Haqq.

TO SSK: Brother Rashid is correct in his assertion that this fitna was being address by Ulema before the birth of Ahmad Raza (RA). To understand, I think a little history lesson is important, to appreciate the whole context of this fitna. The root of the fitna, this was first hatched in Najd, were a small time Molvi by the name of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab (1703-92) collaborated with a British spy namely Thomas Edward Lawrence (Often referred to Lawrence of Arabia), were Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahab revived the heresy of Ibn Taymiyah a 13th Century heretic from a strict Hambli school, who had been declared, kafir, zandik and a heretic but the all his contemporary scholars, he was therefore locked up and died in prison, works were barred from being studied in all the Madrassa\'s. Even though he was an outstanding scholar, some said, his knowledge had overtaken his understanding and arrogance overcame him. In an attempt to destroy the Ottoman Turkish rule, from within, as no Muslim would every take up a sword against another Muslim. A new puritanical and fanatical heresy was re-ignited after lying dormant for 12 Centuries, the Kharijit movement was reborn with the added fusion of Ibn Taymiyah heretical teaching, interpreted with new rigour by Mohammed Bin Abdul Wahab, a blanket takfir was done on all Muslims (Majority, main body), Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab in his quest to purifying toheed, declared any persons falling foul of his new bigoted and literalist interpretation of toheed as Kafir, therefore their blood was halaal, and their woman and property was booty. In his blood thirsty onslaught 100,000 Muslims of the hijaz were put to the sword (The accomplice to this new fitna was Al-Saud Bedouins who became early converts to this heresy, great grandfather of the present Saudi family, Muhammad bin Saud (1765), the ruler of Diriyah, Later on with the active support of his son and heir Abdul Aziz bin Muhammad bin Saud (1755-1803) with help from the British this doctrine was spread over the entire Najd, the Saudi family’s sphere of influence.)....they took over the Holy sanctuaries Makkah and Madina (Just like Yazid bin Mawaiya many centuries before them). In 1806 they took over Makkah. Subsequently the Ottoman caliph sent Egyptian Khedive Muhammad Ali Pasha to suppress the revolution that checked their further advance. This one is a long chapter in history, which should be studied.... This ultimately lead to the fall of the Muslim rule...Shaykh Yusuf Nibhani (RA) was the lion of the Ahle-Sunnah, the lead scholar from Lebanon who obliterated their heresy. However, how did this movement take root in the Indian sub-continent? In Dehli one of the greatest scholarly dynasty the world had witness, this included giants like Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlvi (RA) and Shah Wali-Ullah Dehlivi (RA), This was a family of great Muhaddiths. Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlivi had a brother, who had three son\'s one of his son was Mohammed Ismeal Dehlivi. Ismeal Dihlawi wrote Taqwiyat al-iman (Sunni’s like to call it Takka Tul Imaan) in the wake of his Hijaz years (1236-1239 Hijri), at which time he had come under the tutelage of Wahhabi missionaries. Ostensibly a work on Islamic monotheism (tawhid), it relies on an original understanding of some of the Quranic verses and Prophetic narrations that pertain to Tawhid in studied or forced omission of any of the previous works authored by the established authorities in the field, much in the same way as Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab produced his Kitab al-Tawhid. The two books show equal ignorance of the two Sunni Schools of Islamic doctrine, simplistic and largely cursory treatment of the Quran and Sunna, harping on specific themes that are obviously problematic to the authors, and committing doctrinal errors the like of only one of which is enough to characterize its author as heretical. Just as Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab raised a storm of controversy and was refuted by a host of Sunni Ulema from the Hijaz and elsewhere beginning with his own brother Sulayman ibn .Abd al-Wahhab, Ismeal Dehlvi was also immediately opposed by a host of Indian Sunni Ulema beginning with his own family and the Ulema of Delhi such as his two paternal uncles Shah \'Abd al-\'Aziz Muhaddith Dihlawi (d.1834) (the son of Shah Wali Allah and one of those considered a Renewer of the thirteenth Hijri century) and Shah Rafi al-Din Muhaddith Dihlawi in his Fatawa, Shah Ahmad Sa\'id Dihlawi, Mawlana Sadr al-Din the Grand Mufti of Delhi, Mawlana Fadl al-Rasul al-Badaywani in al-Mu.taqad al-Muntaqad and Sayf al-Jabbar, Mawlana Fadl al-Haqq Kayrabadi, Mawlana \'Inayat Ahmad Kakuruwi 5Al-Badaywani, al-Mu.taqad al-Muntaqad (Waqf Ihlas offset repr. p. 64-66). This book is full of blasphemy, disparaging statements regarding the Prophet (SWS) and blatant Wahabi heresy, this caused an outcry in the Sunni world, but as the British realise they could capitalise upon this new fitna, the book was actively promoted. This became the ideological foundation upon which Deoband was formed. Ismeal Dehlvi was the first of the Wahhabis of India to forward the heresy of imkan kadhib or the possibility of lying. (on the part of Allah Most High) and was imitated in this belief by the Deobandis teacher like Ahmad Rashid Gangohi (d. 1905) in his Fatawa-e-Rashidia and his apologist Khalil al-Saharanfuri (d. 1927) in his al-Barahin al-Qatia. Among others, refutations were published by Mulla Sahib Baghdadi and Mawlana Fadl al-Haqq Kayrabadi (RA). It is these works the likes of Mawlana Fadl Al-Haqq (RA) were writing against. Before the birth of the Mujadid Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (RA). Mawlana Fadl Al-Haqq argued lying is a defect and the latter, by consensus, cannot possibly be attributed to Allah !. \"I have discussed this question in detail in my book Subhan al-Subbuhan \'Aybi Kadhibin Maqbuh\' (\'Glorified is the Glorious One Far Above the Ugly Attribution of Mendacity\') in which I quoted many texts from the Imams of Kalam and Tafsir, among other authorities, stipulating such impossibility for Allah and stating Consensus on the matter.\" Al-Badaywani said the following on the issue: Lying is impossible for Him \'exalted is He! \' as are all defective characteristics. In this respect the Najdiyya parted with the people of Islam. Their elder said: \'His lying and the attribution to Him \' exalted is He! \' of that defect is not an impossibility in itself [or: is not precluded from the Essence] nor does it lie outside Divine power. If it did, then we would have to conclude that human power exceeds Divine power.\' In the same way as the proponents of imkan kadhib defended their belief with the pretext that Allah can do anything, they also held the belief . as in Chapter Five of the English translation of Taqwiyat al-iman [p. 85]\' that \'He [Allah] may bring into existence millions of Prophets, saints, jinns, angels, and entities equal to Gabriel and the Prophet Muhammad \" in terms of status.. When Ismail al-Dihlawi was taken to task for this statement (by Mawlana Fadl al-Haqq al-Khayrabadi), he argued in his Yak Rozi (\'One-Dayer\') that he was referring not to the Will of Allah\' \'but to His Capability to bring something into existence,. adding, by way of a further example, that the birth of a person of the stature of the Beloved Prophet \" was a distinct possibility! See for more details http://members.tripod.com/okarvi/W_B.html). He argued reasons according to us [Sunnis], the first being that lying is a defect and any defect is absolutely impossible for Allah by Consensus.. ... And in Kanz al-Fawa\'id: \'All these opposites are impossible for the Lord of creatures as we have exposed before, ... as He is transcendent beyond and exempt of lying both according to the letter of the Law and according to the light of reason.. Disparaging the Prophet Ismeal Dihlawi is also notorious for affirming in his purported \'Straight Path. (al-Sirat al-Mustaqim) \' if the thought of the Prophet Mohammad (SWS) it to occur during Salat, is much worse than to become absorbed in the thought of an ox or a donkey.. It goes without saying that such a statement constitutes clear disparagement of the Prophet, which constitutes \'Wajib-ul-Qatil\' in all four Sunni Schools. Prophet ( SWS) said that his Umma was protected against error and that his greatest fear for us was not shirk but worldly competition and scholarly impostors. Thus the charge that \'the Muslims are treating Prophets, saints, Imam and martyrs, etc. polytheistically\' is supported by inapplicable evidence and is overwhelmingly false. In fact, this charge is only a camouflage of the very real disrespect of Prophets and Saints for which Wahhabism and Deobandism and its sectarian offshoots stand. Who was Ismeal Dehvli, he was the original granddaddy of the Deobandi movement, it founders all took from his ill-fated heresy, this was being opposed by the leading scholars before the birth of Imam of the Ahl-e-Sunnah, Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (RA). Many years later Hussaim-Ul-Haramain, the sword of the holy Sanctuaries, came to uproot the heresy once and for all... and its legacy continues... of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan, the Mujadid of the last century. May Allah bless him. May Allah preserve the Ahl-e-Sunnah, and save us from the fitna. I hope this clarifies the issue.

I suspect that Rashid, DM and Abu Billaal are one and the same person! When Abu Billaal was faced with pertinent refutations of his argument he disappeared and was replaced by DM. Suddenly DM has gone quiet after he was posed with difficult questions that undermined his position. Hey Presto Rashid has appeared...... None of the questions being posed are being answered by the Barelwi with many hats!

Jamil, here we go again, the Barelwis are trying to teach people history when they have no qualifications to do so. Jamil you wrote in your post that: "Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab (1703-92) collaborated with a British spy namely Thomas Edward Lawrence (Often referred to Lawrence of Arabia)". This is historically impossible because T.E. Lawrence was born in 1888. I hate to say this again but the Barelwis need to stop trying to teach others about things they heard from their peers and start studying for themselves.

SSK: Thanks for the correction, I have rechecked, it was the British spy Hempher, and not T.E. Lawrence.

If Jamil is correct, does this mean Deobandi\'s are Wahabi\'s or two sides of the same coin?

British Freemasons created the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia itself, to further their imperialistic objectives. There is not connection with Hanfi Sunni Deobandi\'s in the subcontinent.

Barelwi\'s need to think very hard about their taqleed on Muslims outside their sect. Do they cosy up to neoconservative agendas as an extension of their viewing Deobands as outside Islam? Or do they see the neocon support as a means of reversing their slow decline to historical obscurity?

A British spy by the name of Hempher was responsible for shaping of the extreme tenets of Wahhabism, it was mentioned in a Turkish work, Mir\'at al-Haramain, by Ayyub Sabri Pasha between 1933-1938. British policy in its colonies often involved the creation of deviant sects, in order to Divide and Conquer, as was the case with the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam in India in the nineteenth century. The details of this conspiracy are outlined in a little known document by the name of The Memoirs of Mr. Hempher published in series (episodes) in the German paper Spiegel, and later in a prominent French paper. A Lebanese doctor translated the document to the Arabic language and from there on it was translated to English and other languages. The document is a first-hand account by Hempher of his mission for his government, which sent him to the Middle East to discover ways to undermine the Ottoman Empire. Among the vices the British were to promote were racism and nationalism, alcohol, gambling, fornication and tempting Muslim women to uncover themselves. But most important was the strategy to \"insert heresies into Muslims\' creedal tenets and then criticize Islam for being a religion of terror.\" To this purpose, Hempher located a particularly corrupt individual by the name of Mohammed Ibn Adbul Wahhab. To understand the brand of fanaticism that Wahhabism inculcated, it is first necessary to recognize that Islam called upon all Muslims, regardless of their race or nationality, to see themselves as brothers in faith. The killing of another Muslim was strictly forbidden. However, as part of their strategy of Divide and Conquer, the British hoped to pit the Arab Muslims against their Turkish brothers. The only way to do so was to find a loophole in Islamic law whereby the Arabs could declare the Turks as apostates. Abdul Wahhab was the instrument by which the British were able to insinuate this vile idea into the Muslims of the Arabian Peninsula. Basically, Wahhab contrived the idea that, simply by the trivial act of offering prayers to saints, their Turkish brethren had forfeited their faith, and therefore, that it was permitted to kill all who refused to adhere to his reforms, and to enslave their women and children. But that included the entire Muslim world, except for his small misguided band of followers. But the Wahabbi movement was insignificant without the allegiance of the Saudi family, who, despite claims otherwise, were descended from Jewish merchants from Iraq. Orthodox jurists of the time branded the Wahhabis as heretics and condemned their fanaticism and intolerance. Nevertheless, the Wahhabis then demonstrated their contempt for their pretended faith by indiscriminately slaughtering Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The Wahhabis then set about destroying all the holy tombs and burial grounds. They stole the Prophet\'s treasure, which included holy books, works of art and innumerable priceless gifts sent to the city during the previous thousand years. The leather and gilt bindings of the Islamic holy books they had destroyed were used to make sandals for the Wahhabi criminals. The Ottoman Sultan brought an end to the first Wahhabi rebellion in 1818, but the sect revived under the leadership of the Saudi Faysal I. The movement was then somewhat restored until once again destroyed at the end of the nineteenth century. After WWI, the former regions of the Ottoman Empire were divided into varying puppets regimes. For aiding to undermine the Ottoman authority in the region, Ibn Saud was duly rewarded with the creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932. One year later, in 1933, the Saudis granted oil concessions to California Arabian Standard Oil Company (Casoc), affiliate of Standard Oil of California (Socal, today\'s Chevron), headed by Rothschild agent, and chief among [US] Illuminati families, Rockefeller. Since that time, Saudi Arabia has been the most important ally to the West in the Middle East, not only providing ready access to its plentiful oil reserves, but also in tempering Arab aggression against Israel. Due to the evident hypocrisy of the regime, it has been necessary to suppress the ensuing dissent with brutality. Another important aspect has been preventing scholars from speaking of \"politics\", that is, to criticize the regime. In The Two Faces of Islam, Stephen Schwartz writes, \"Their tastes led them to taverns, casinos, brothels ... They bought fleets of automobiles, private jets, and yachts the size of warships. They invested in valuable Western art they did not understand or like and which often offended the sensitivities of Wahhabi clerics. They spent as they wished, becoming patrons of international sexual enslavement and the exploitation of children.\" The result has been that, in order to nonetheless appear to be espousing Islam, the Saudi regime and its puppet scholars have evolved a version of Islam that emphasizes ceremonial details of the religion, at the expense of helping to understand broader political realities. Their manner has encouraged a literal interpretation of Islamic law, permitting the likes of bin Laden to exploit the Koran to justify the killing of innocents. Ultimately, the profusion of Rothschild financed petro-dollars in the coffers of the Saudi family has made it possible for them to propagandize their bastardized version of Islam to other parts of the world, most notably to America, where they purportedly subsidize up to 80 percent of the mosques in the country, a version of Islam that substitutes political awareness for dogmatic insistence on ritualistic fanaticism. In 1999 King Fahd of Saudi Arabia attended the Bilderberg meeting, presumably to discuss his role in furthering the interests of world government, along with other such luminaries as Yasser Arafat and the Pope. Evidently, the Saudi family are part of the deceptive ploys of the Illuminati network. Their complicity in the accumulation of petro-dollars has gone into the financing of global terrorism, from Afghanistan to Bosnia, merely for the purpose of fomenting the necessary animosity of the world against Islam. David Livingstone is the author of The Dying God: The Hidden History of Western Civilization.

Jamil, please stop clutching at straws, its embarrassing to your whole Barelwi community. The famous 'Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy To The Middle East" is a considered to be hoax by most scholars. Go join a class and learn something useful !!

Rashid writes: “It is important to fully understand the controversy, Firstly Imam Ahmad Rida 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 , in his work "Tahqîqul-Fatâwâ"- Hadrat Fadl al-Rasûl Badayûnî in his "Sayful-Jabbâr" and others. “In fact, Imam Ahmed Rida had not yet been born when these were written.” Brother you’re in need of a history lesson. Mawlana Fadl al-Haq Khayrabadi and Fadl al-Rasul Badayuni preceded the Ulama of Deoband. See Nuzhat al-Khawatir for the exact dates of their deaths. Masha Allah, you quote Mawlana Fadhl al-Rasul Badayuni, see what he had to say with regards to Shah Waliullah. Make sure you’re sitting on a chair because some of the other revelations in there digress from what you have been brainwashed to think: http://zakariyya.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/ shah-ismail-shahid-glistening-stars-from- india%e2%80%99s-old-educational-institute-in- delhi/

OK, Jamil, for argument sake, let us accept that a British spy created the Wahabi problem, why are the Barelwis bending over backwards to help the Necons. I am thinking of Haras Rafiq. What you say?

SSK, I will answer first give me clarification, are Deobandi\'s Wahabi\'s or not? If not please clarify your position with regards to Wahabi\'s. Do you regard them from the Ahl-e-Sunnah? Do you think they are right?

You just have to look at the statements made by the scholars mentioned in Hasamul-Harmain and deduce that Ahmed Raza Kahn was right. I have tried finding the so-called \'retraction\' from the Arab scholars but have failed. These very people who were lining up the streets in protest against the \'Prophet Cartoons\' should look at the their history and realise that scholars who were meant to be knowledgeable (unlike the Danish cartoonist) on the status of Our Holy Prophet held beliefs which in no way is compatible with the faith. The major difference lies in this fundamental issue and not other sideline bidah issues which are not fundamental to the faith of Islam.

STA, your failure to find the retraction is no proof that is does not exist. Br Husain gave the references above.Why don\'t take some help. The bit about the cartoon doesn\'t make sense. Are you suggesting that the Deobandis did not protest against the Danish Cartoons?

Jamil, This is another fallacy the Barelwis spread about Deobandis. If the Deobandis were the same as Wahabis then they would be following Hambali or Salafi fiqh not Hanafi fiqh which they obviously do . All Deobandis are Hanafi!!! Anyway, I think its time you answer my question. Is Haras Rafiq right to support the Neocons who are attacking Islam??

Having read all the comments here it seems that the barelvis here have such blind hatred and venom towards everyone else (not just deobandis) they can\'t see straight. Everyone is a kafir based on some interpretation of texts made by someone with a grudge against someone else. Get real. Broaden your horizons. Realise that we\'re not living in a village in Punjab anymore. We have Muslims in this country from all sorts of backgrounds. They\'re not all kafir because they refuse to go along with the views of your scholar. That\'s the ultimate in small-mindedness.

I\'m someone who follows the arab-Hanafis who hold views closer to the B\'s than the D\'s yet I personally consider both groups as Sunni. In contrast the D\'s seem a lot closer to the salafis on issues such as mawlid and istigatha with many lay shouting accusations of shirk which is a trait of the pseudo-salafiya. With regard to Haras rafiq and the SMC that is simply a joke. It\'s a bit like DM \'Islam\' in that most assume B\'s are in favour of them but they are not so if you actually speak to them.

Ghulam, Is Arab-Hanafi the latest name for the new madhabs you people are trying to create in Jordan and Syria? Why don't you ask your shuyukh to focus on their own communities i.e. converts to Islam bending over backwards to please Neocon governments? Where is the 45 page analysis of Yusuf "New" Islam? Nice try to sweep the Haras Rafiq problem under the carpet but if you look at his support base on the ground, its all Barelwis- the whole lot of them! Differences on Mowlid and istighatha do not make someone salafi. To be a Salafi you must follow their madhab - the Doebanis follow the Hanafi Madhab !! Oh yes, I forgot, you don't follow Hanafi, you've got the latest fad "arab-Hanafi"

Comment 68 was hilarious.

Derwish, I agree, I nearly fell of my chair when I read it comment 68. Yusuf "New" Islam is cool way to describe the new Yusuf Islam. I was shocked to see even Sh. Hamza attending one of his concerts and clapping when he performed a a song from his jahiliyyah past. Its all v strange !

Assalamualaikum, Some of the accusations against the Ulama answered here on video. http://www.tauheed-sunnat.com/a/ Just go to the video section.

A bit of rapping and dancing in the Masjid by the Burrrailwee. Bangra? http://www.tauheed-sunnat.com/a/ downloadview-details-4408- Followers_of_Imama_Raza_khan _-_Raza_Khanis_Brewalis_Dancing_in_Masjid.html

Just seen the link sent by Abu Youshaa. That is the strangest thing. There is even people diving into the crowd. Really weird. In order to get the link to work you have to copy and paste all the string into the address bar. I copied and pasted into word so that I could get it into a single string for the address bar.

Regarding Ashraf `Al+ Th
naw+’s Hifdh al Im
n The article continued by analyzing the work of Ashraf `Al+ Th
naw+ and the analogy he made therein. Here, there are a few points that I would like to bring to your attention also, God willing,: (1) The statement that the work of Ashraf `Al+ Th
naw+ was “a written objection” against A%mad Ridh
Kh
n and his usage of the title `
lim al ghayb for the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is not correct. Rather, the work was a compilation of answers regarding various topics ranging from the rulings/opinions on sajda al ta`z+m+ and ta`bud+, to circumbulating graves, to `ilm al ghayb. Arranged in a question and answer format, it was fundamentally a reply to some inquiries received by Ashraf `Ali Th
naw+ and his replies to them. Thus, the work of Ashraf `Al+ Th
nawi was never intended to address A%mad Ridh
and his view on the issue directly. (2) Ashraf `Al+ Th
naw+ clarified and changed his analogous statement regarding the prophetic knowledge in no less than two of his works, them being (a) Hifdh al Im
n ma`a Bast al Bin
n (1329 h.), and (b) Taghy+rul Anw
n fi b`ad+ `ib
rat Hifdh al Im
n (1342 h.). One can also add to this Khal+l A%mad’s al Muhannad, which addressed the question specifically and was signed and endorsed by Ashraf `Al+ Th
naw+. In both these works Ashraf `Ali Th
naw+ categorically denied intending any disrespect towards the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), changed his initial statement, and forbade the republishing of the original in all future copies. After this subsequent change, his statement read as follows: “If it [s: the term `
lim al ghayb] refers to some of the knowledge of the unseen then how is this specific to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)? Some knowledge of the unseen is also possessed by non-prophetic figures, so one should refer to them as `
lim al ghayb also.” He went on to further clarify the issue over a span of a dozen pages wherein he presented his defense and also his reasoning and intent behind the original phrase. (3) After reading Ashraf `Al+ Th
naw+’s clarification two things become apparent regarding his usage of the specific analogy in question, which seemingly compared the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)’s knowledge to that of the lowest of creatures. Firstly, the fact that it was not regarding the nature of the knowledge possessed by the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace). Ashraf `Al+ Th
naw+’s main argument was that if the definite clause in `
lim al ghayb implied “specificity” of knowledge then such a title could be applied to anyone and everyone. This was regardless of whether the nature of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was the pinnacle and utmost in its type, and also regardless of how much knowledge one had from the ghayb. Thus, Ashraf `Al+ himself states in his clarification: “If what is meant is some knowledge, even if this is the knowledge of one specific aspect only that is of the lowest degree, then how is this specific to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) because such knowledge is possessed by Zayd and `Amr also. However, this does not entail that their knowledge is actually the same as the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)’s [in nature].” Similarly, he states regarding the nature of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)’s knowledge: “The knowledge that is necessarily required for a prophet were granted to you [s: the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)] completely and fully. In all fairness, will the one who considers you the loci of the highest degree of knowledge regarding the religion contrast your knowledge to that of Zayd, `Amr, mad men and creatures?” He continues by stating: “Such analogies do not always come in the meaning of resemblance and similitude. The scholars of rhetoric and the linguists often state that Allah is q
dir like such and such. Does this mean that they wish to strike similarity between Allah and such and such?” After noting the above, namely that what was being argued was (a) the meaning of `
lim al ghayb and what it implied, in specific what the definite article in ghayb pointed to (b) the usage of such a phrase for creation and (c) the fasid lazim of such a usage, a second point becomes clear namely that Ashraf `Al+ Th
naw+’s analogy was a form of reducto ad absurdum – a logical argument wherein one accepts a claim for the sake of argument, derives from it an absurd conclusion, and thus concludes the incorrectness of the original premise and assumption. This is quite evident after reading the clarification he provides in his Bast al Bin
n.

lol you should re-read this article and the discussion...you guys were intellectually defeated.. also the clips of zikr you sent are alot different from the absurdities that apparently go on in brailvi masaajid

Zikr is intrinsic to Islam, and is not a point of distinction between the Deobandi and Barelwi positions. Lets not confuse things. The whole point of the original article is to be a wake up call: \'don\'t allow yourself to be used by a neocon agenda aimed at dividing and destroying Muslims and Islam.\' You can chose to listen to this call or to allow sectarianism blind you into playing into this trap. Allah (SWT) knows and we will all have to give account.

Barelivi have an international flavour. So please label all of them the same: Chechen Brelevi is here http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5175430406452482759&q=zikr&total= 883&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 Turkish Brelevi is here http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6471320718004137133&q=zikr&total= 883&start=30&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6 http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-9088851833646784489&q=zikr&total= 883&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 Cypress http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4433073176324583595&q=zikr&total= 883&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4 http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=618545744089582463&q=zikr&total= 883&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6 Also just in case you Deobandi\\\'s do not feel left out of the international arena. Here are some dances by you wahabi counterparts. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2468724272630034806&q=wahabi+dance&total= 3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3198060895147589884&q=wahabi+dance&total= 3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 Funny how once intellectual discourse is defeated you guys get upto your cheap mud pot shots.

This debate is just to promote and comlete the mission of anti-muslim forces. These anti-muslim forces are uniting and this type of debate is just dividing the muslims. It looks that mr husain alqadi has also become one good horse of the neocon {intensionally or unintesionally or badly traped). I think mr husain alqadi should use his abilities for some positive work for ISLAM. After this comment I will not participate in this useless and harmful debate and my this comment may also not find space on this website.

Imam Ahmad Rida Khan (mercy be upon him) was not the first to speak of doubting the kufr and punishment of another as causing oneself to become a kafir. Read Ash-shifa sharif of Qadi Iyad (mercy be upon him) and you will be surprised that the answers with regard to disrespect of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) will be found in there. Read with an open heart and sincerity. No-one can justify derogatory remarks against the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), whether it is a Deobandi, Salman Rushdie or a Danish cartoonist.