Intra-Muslim Rivalries in India and the Saudi Connection

[Saleel]

:salam:

A very long but interesting read... discusses the history of the Deobandi and Wahhabi rivalry.

:salam:

[islamonline]

jazakallah, very Beneficial

[muslim786]

:salam:

A very long but interesting read... discusses the history of the Deobandi and Wahhabi rivalry.

:salam:
If i am not mistaken, this is the same article as the following:
http://www.jamiahamdard.edu/Article_Y_Sikand1.asp

What the article shows is the deobandi rivalry with the ahle hadith, and how they fought each other to show who was more wahabi in order to get the saudi backing,

[Saleel]

:salam:

Well, the bulk of the article is from a slight pro-deobandi perspective... but yes, the conclusion, although perhaps slightly bitter, is as you mentioned.

Take it as a rough summary of the last 150 years...

:salam:

[faqir]

:salam:

A very interesting read.

[haqq]

What the article shows is the deobandi rivalry with the ahle hadith, and how they fought each other to show who was more wahabi in order to get the saudi backing,

I haven't read the article yet but I find that hard to digest.

How can we accept this article to be a fair representation of the last 150 years?

[Saleel]

:salam:

haqq, have a read of the article :insh:. It doesn't claim that the Ulema of Deoband were fighting with the Ahle Hadith for funding from Saudi... but in places he does mention that the Deobandis were given some funding, but usually due to some alterior motive by the Saudi Wahhabis.

I was disappointed by the wording of the conclusion though...

:salam:

[haqq]

:salam:

haqq, have a read of the article :insh:. It doesn't claim that the Ulema of Deoband were fighting with the Ahle Hadith for funding from Saudi... but in places he does mention that the Deobandis were given some funding, but usually due to some alterior motive by the Saudi Wahhabis.

I was disappointed by the wording of the conclusion though...

:salam:

:salam:

:jazak: for the clarification. I will :insh: have a read, as soon as I find some time.

:salam:

[iqadeer]

I disagree with the author's premise that the lure of Saudi aid has something to do with Deobandis rivalry with ahle-Hadith. It might be true in ahle-Hadith's case but certainly not in Deobandis who have been true to their roots since the very start (barring the fact that Haji Imdaadullah had barelvi tendencies outwardly). One only needs to read Deobandi literature to see what I am talking about. The author has, in a way, contradicted himself when he mentioned the following:


Interestingly, Madani did not mince words in critiquing the Saudi
government for what he saw as its role in fanning anti-Deobandi sentiments
through the Ahl-i Hadith. This represented a major shift in Deobandi
strategy, an indication that many Deobandis were now seeking to consciously
distance themselves from their earlier efforts of appeasing the Saudi
regime. Noting that many anti-Deobandi books had been penned by Ahl-i
Hadith scholars who had studied in Saudi universities, some of these books
having been brought out by leading Saudi Islamic publishing houses, he
exclaimed, ‘It is a matter of great sorrow that these institutions that had
been established to promote the Qur’an and Hadith and other Islamic
sciences are today working to lead Muslims outside the path of the true
faith’. He even went so far as to charge the Saudi regime of abetting the
Ahl-i Hadith in their campaign against the Deobandis, stating that he
suspected that ‘consciously or otherwise it appears that the Saudi kingdom
was engaged, or even leading, the baseless campaign against the ‘ulama of
Deoband’. Concluding his speech, Madani warned Muslims to stay away from
the ‘strife’ (fitna) of the ‘ghayr muqallids’, reiterating his assertion
that the Ahl-i Hadith had mounted a concerted campaign against the Muslims’
‘faith and ‘ulama’. The hidden message contained in that statement,
probably, was that the Ahl-i Hadith could not be considered as genuine
Muslims at all. Madani also advised his followers to reduce, as far as
possible, their relations with the ‘ghair muqallids’, so as to remain
protected from what he called as their ‘evil influence’.

[Mujib]

As-Salamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah

It seems the author is trying to show throughout the article that there was a rivalry between Deobandis and the Ahl al-Hadith and that each group wanted to appease the Saudis/Wahhabis. Am I misreading? He notes several times that Deobandi scholars wrote Wahhabi-friendly books in Arabic, implying that the purpose was so that the message could reach Saudis/Wahhabis.

Don’t many madrasas get funding from Wahhabis?

Why have Deobandi views on Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab and Wahhabism been so contradictory? In a previous thread, some brothers noted that certain Deobandi scholars wrote against Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab but then retracted their words. One of the scholars mentioned was Shaykh Husain Ahmad Madani who is mentioned in this article.

What do Deobandi `ulama think of Shaykh Manzur Nu`mani’s book?

It seems that even on the Net fatwas from Deobandi scholars contradict other fatwas. One Mufti has noted, after passing a fatwa against Wahhabis, that the change in the Deobandi position towards Wahhabis is due to the attacks of Wahhabis against Deobandis. So the portrayal of events in this article seems to be reflected even on the Internet.

I’ve noticed that Deobandis don’t use the label Wahhabi often. Whenever criticizing or condemning they use the label “ghayr-muqallid.” Why? Doesn’t this label refer solely to the Ahl al-Hadith group in India and Pakistan?

[muslim786]

As-Salamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah

It seems the author is trying to show throughout the article that there was a rivalry between Deobandis and the Ahl al-Hadith and that each group wanted to appease the Saudis/Wahhabis. Am I misreading? He notes several times that Deobandi scholars wrote Wahhabi-friendly books in Arabic, implying that the purpose was so that the message could reach Saudis/Wahhabis.

Don’t many madrasas get funding from Wahhabis?

Why have Deobandi views on Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab and Wahhabism been so contradictory? In a previous thread, some brothers noted that certain Deobandi scholars wrote against Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab but then retracted their words. One of the scholars mentioned was Shaykh Husain Ahmad Madani who is mentioned in this article.

What do Deobandi `ulama think of Shaykh Manzur Nu`mani’s book?

It seems that even on the Net fatwas from Deobandi scholars contradict other fatwas. One Mufti has noted, after passing a fatwa against Wahhabis, that the change in the Deobandi position towards Wahhabis is due to the attacks of Wahhabis against Deobandis. So the portrayal of events in this article seems to be reflected even on the Internet.

I’ve noticed that Deobandis don’t use the label Wahhabi often. Whenever criticizing or condemning they use the label “ghayr-muqallid.” Why? Doesn’t this label refer solely to the Ahl al-Hadith group in India and Pakistan?

You have to realise that the dar ul uloom of deobandi is a large place with many affiliates and thus it is natural for there to be many views coming from people linked to the institution. The article does appear to be generally true to reality, in that you get members of deoband writing against wahabis and some writing pro wahabi, and hence you get people calling the deobandis wahabi or anti wahabi. People don;t call deobandis because they are firm on the sunnah as one moderator said, they call them this due to the apparent links that some deobandis have with the wahabis, and their is no point denying this, in fact even mufti desai site used to have artivles in defence of the great deviant abdul wahab najdi and in defending this man they brought slander upon other sunni scholars saying that they lied etc.
The article is good in that it does not generalise but as Saleel says it does come to a slightly weird conclusion.

[iqadeer]

Deobandis., in general, have never attacked wahabis on aqeedah issues as have other sunnis. They do recognize differences such as tawassul, undertaking journey to the grave of Rasool Allah, etc but I have not see any great Deobandi of the past or even recent times write anything that attacks the aqeedah. In fact, many Deobandi scholars enjoyed close companionship of Saudi Wahabi scholars. Even the famous address of Shaykh Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani to the Saudi King is a testament that there was nothing different between Wahabi and Deobandi methodology except one follows the madhab of Imam Abu Hanifa while the other Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

[Abba]

This article just shows how quickly our ulema react to criticism.

If one sects attacks another,its that sects duty to attack back with equal ferocity.

[Muawiyah]

Saudis at the time of Hadhrat `Allamah Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani rahimahullah were not the same as the Saudis now, they weren't quite as rich and arrogant back then, they were trying to gain legitimacy as an Islamic government.

[muslim786]

Deobandis., in general, have never attacked wahabis on aqeedah issues as have other sunnis. They do recognize differences such as tawassul, undertaking journey to the grave of Rasool Allah, etc but I have not see any great Deobandi of the past or even recent times write anything that attacks the aqeedah. In fact, many Deobandi scholars enjoyed close companionship of Saudi Wahabi scholars. Even the famous address of Shaykh Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani to the Saudi King is a testament that there was nothing different between Wahabi and Deobandi methodology except one follows the madhab of Imam Abu Hanifa while the other Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
Hence why many people have called the deobandis (albeit wrongly) wahabis.

[iqadeer]

I agree with brother Muawiyah's statement with a few reservations. Granted that they were not arrogant but they haven't changed in terms of aqeedah/fiqh either. Surely, Deobandi Ulema of the time must have read/known their aqeedah back then. Even if we consider that they didn't have a chance to explore that at the time, Deobandi scholars have been in constant touch with Wahabi/Najdi scholars since the inception of Saudi Arabia. It is very hard for me to imagine that a common lay person like me knows about these differences yet the scholastic giants of Deobandi persuasion didn't. The only conclusion that I can make is that they choose to ignore these differences as they're trivial in their eyes.

[Goldi]

taking a look at it from a macro sense, it's obvious that the deobandi mentality is similiar to the wahhabis in the sense that they are on the same side when it comes to reform and fighting bid'ah in their respective communities[the deobandis had the berelwis, the wahhabis, everyone else.] and that, has always been a pseudo cornerstone of both 'movements' or 'mentalities' or whatever you want to call it. it's not that surprising to see some sort of corrolary here.

[Muawiyah]

[the deobandis had the berelwis, the wahhabis, everyone else.

IMHO that is not correct because when the Dar ul `Uloom was founded, Khan Sahib Berailvi was around 10 years old. The Dar ul `Uloom seems to have been a reaction against Sir Sayyid's `Aligarh college (eventually university), the `ulama were afraid that the knowledge of the Deen will disappear from the Muslim shurafaa because prior to the Aligarh college someone would be considered an educated person only if he had knowledge of the Deen. The title "Maulvi" signified that the person so addressed was educated there was no concept of any other type of education that's why in the begining the graduates of Aligarh and other colleges were also termed "Maulvi" like Maulvi `Abdul Haq, Maulana Muhammad `Ali Jauher, Maulana Zafar `Ali Khan etc. but after Aligarh was formed, people began sending their children there because Aligarh graduates could get jobs with the british colonial government, prior to 1857 people who had learned the Deen could get jobs as judges but when the british gained complete control they dissolved the shari'i courts.

That's why in the writings of some of the `ulama you find exhortations to make at least one son an `alim. Hadhrat Thanwi rahimahullah was himself the product of this policy, his brother Akbar `Ali was sent to college while he was sent to Deoband.

Deoband wasn't founded to combat nuzoor ul `ibad or Mawlid or `Urs etc., that's something that was already being done, Deoband was founded to combat materialism, modernism, "Naturism" and other such ideas Sir Sayyid & co. were trying to spread at the behest of their colonial masters among people affliated with the Dehlavi `ulama, most of whom were already free of these things.

Another thing people like to quote are the saying of Deobandi `ulama where they called themselves "wahhabi" even though it's clear that they were being sarcastic. Like the fatwa of Hadhrat Maulana Gangohi rahimahullah in which he was asked about the Wahhabies and he replied that in our time and in our land the one who prays and follows the sunnah is called a wahhabi. There are similar statements in the works of pre-Deoband `ulama as well because most of the `awaam do not pray and things like fireworks on 15th Shaban, offerings at the graves of awliyaa, `Urs and mawlid etc. are the sum of their religion so they consider anyone who speaks against such things to be an enemy of their faith. When the `ulama term themselves "wahhabi" they are referring to this belief prevalent among the masses, not because they follow Shaykh Muhammad bin `Abdul Wahhab.

Similarly if any of the Deobandi `Ulama praises the Wahhabies it is not because that `alim believes that it is all right to make takfeer of the one who does tawassul or treats people with Quranic amulets or to say that Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala is in a makan is an okay belief, rather it's because that `alim believes that the people who do these things are not good representative of the `aqaid of the Wahhabies.

[Goldi]

well of course, its one thing to say deoband was established to refute the barelwis [which is nonsense], but another to say what stance they naturally took(and still do) due to their circumstance. I am aware of the dar ul uloom's history.

for example, deobandis and by extension, the tablighi jamat, will never be accused of spreading bidah. almost always they're the ones who will steer people away from their definition of it. the arab hanafis are obviously more lenient as opposed to the deobandis in certain matters(where the deobandis will take the stricter definition of bid'a: think mufi taqi's mawlid fatwa for example). the barelwis always call the deobandis the wahhabis due to their strictness on matters of bid'ah. so if uve got an ally in an enemy who is 'fighting' your other enemy, there is naturally some co-operation.

it's the general attitude that i wanted to highlight. now by all means, no one in their right mind should assume that just because there is a correlate between stances that the najdis and deobandis have to end up taking, that they are in on it together or are direct supporters. no, a correlate is just a correlate.

[muslim786]

the barelwis always call the deobandis the wahhabis due to their strictnes of bid'ah.

Again we all know this is not the case. Its for other reasons, albeit wrongly.
Mufti Shofiqur Rahman Pirzada db and the ulama of his silsilah have been very strict on bida and things and no one has called them wahabi.

[tazkiyyah]

Well...another way of looking at it is that the deoband are a people of adab.
They appreciate the good where it is found, and prefer to maintain silence over the mistakes of the great ulema.

You find shaykh Zaahid Al Kawthari(the teacher of shaykh abdul fattah abu ghudda(May Allahs mercy be on them both) very scathing in his criticism of ibn taymeeyah, but shaykh abdul fattah actually does quote ibn taymeeyah in a good light.

Similarly the deoband appreciate the work of sufis like muhiyuddin ibn arabi(alayhi Rahmah) , but they also accept ibn taymeeyah(alayhi rahmah)

It is this exciting and perhaps unique blend of the 2 dynamic tensions of shariah and tasawwuf that makes deoband such an interesting project.

I think some of shaykh hamza yusuf's teachers have also been accused of having "wahhabi" tendencies for their views on bid'a and in fact in mauritania dont they reject tariqa now becoz the saalik is haalik becoz of all the bid'a now?

Wallahu A3lam

[Mujib]

As-Salamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah

[They appreciate the good where it is found, and prefer to maintain silence over the mistakes of the great ulema.]

When have they appreciated the good of Barelwi `ulama? I found it troubling that a certain Mufti on the internet was so lenient in his fatwas on Wahhabis, yet harsh against Barelwis.

Also, is Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab praised because he is considered by Deobandis to have been a great scholar who made minor mistakes?

[tazkiyyah]

I think there was some understanding amongst the deobandis that the saudis are good
as they r trying to implement shariah and remove bid'a

also many of them think theyr jus hanbalis following athari aqeeda

[Hamood]

I think there was some understanding amongst the deobandis that the saudis are good
as they r trying to implement shariah and remove bid'a

also many of them think theyr jus hanbalis following athari aqeeda

I think the Deobandi ulema over the past few years have changed their positions on wahabi/salafi's a great deal. As you mentioned, they thought they were fellow hanbalis with proper aqaid...and over time they discovered this was not the case. And after the salafis started attacking the deobandi ulema's aqidah, they really distanced themself from them. Whatever is in the past is the past, theres no point in digging it up. And one great thing about the deobandi ulema is that they don't attack other maslaks venemously like others group tend to therefore don't mistake that to think they approve salafism.

[Muawiyah]

resolution passed at the "150 years of Dar ul `Uloom Deoband" Conference (urdu)
stream with real player (http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/ur-150yearsdarululoomdeobandconferenceresolution-hafidhhussaynahmad.ram) download rm file (http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/ur-150yearsdarululoomdeobandconferenceresolution-hafidhhussaynahmad.rm)

[ahsanirfan]

resolution passed at the "150 years of Dar ul `Uloom Deoband" Conference (urdu)
stream with real player (http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/ur-150yearsdarululoomdeobandconferenceresolution-hafidhhussaynahmad.ram) download rm file (http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/ur-150yearsdarululoomdeobandconferenceresolution-hafidhhussaynahmad.rm)

interesting.....

[islamonline]

resolution passed at the "150 years of Dar ul `Uloom Deoband" Conference (urdu)
stream with real player (http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/ur-150yearsdarululoomdeobandconferenceresolution-hafidhhussaynahmad.ram) download rm file (http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/ur-150yearsdarululoomdeobandconferenceresolution-hafidhhussaynahmad.rm)
Jazakallah for that , a great speech ,

[anfaas]

I think the Deobandi ulema over the past few years have changed their positions on wahabi/salafi's a great deal.

good that atleast some of you are being clear about it, else we had a lot of denials before. neither the salafis/wahabis have changed a bit, nor the barelwis have, it is just the deobandis who have changed their positions.


As you mentioned, they thought they were fellow hanbalis with proper aqaid...and over time they discovered this was not the case.

*EDIT* *EDIT*


And after the salafis started attacking the deobandi ulema's aqidah, they really distanced themself from them.

so hypothetically if the salafis had not attacked the deobandis would you still be friends.


Whatever is in the past is the past, theres no point in digging it up.

why ? just because the past has serious mistakes of deoband.



And one great thing about the deobandi ulema is that they don't attack other maslaks venemously like others group tend to therefore don't mistake that to think they approve salafism.

ask the barelwis.

Warning given: Not sure Brother if you are a Brelwi but you seem to be demonstrating the same attitude, stubborness and lack of Adab and Akhlaq. You have been cautioned. Please avoid calling the Ulema ignorant - Salman

[Muslimsister]

resolution passed at the "150 years of Dar ul `Uloom Deoband" Conference (urdu)
stream with real player (http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/ur-150yearsdarululoomdeobandconferenceresolution-hafidhhussaynahmad.ram) download rm file (http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/ur-150yearsdarululoomdeobandconferenceresolution-hafidhhussaynahmad.rm)

could someone please sum up the content in english...?

[Hamood]

good that atleast some of you are being clear about it, else we had a lot of denials before. neither the salafis/wahabis have changed a bit, nor the barelwis have, it is just the deobandis who have changed their positions.



that is nonsense, when scholars like Imam Ahmed Rida Khan radi allahu anhu and many others including Imam ibn abideen radi allahu anhu had written clearly against the wahabis and their aqaid ; either these deobandis were really stupid and ignorant or they had a soft corner for wahabis, you may call it the common deobandi/wahabi anti-"shirk" , anti-"bidah" element if you will.

with all due respect mufti ibn adam's apologia for gangohi sahibs clear-cut wahabi support is plain laughable.



so hypothetically if the salafis had not attacked the deobandis would you still be friends.



why ? just because the past has serious mistakes of deoband.



ask the barelwis.

Your response only proves my point. First of all, don't turn this into another deobandi vs. barelwi debate. Instead of twisting my words to suit your claims, you need to understand the core of the issue. No deobandi alim has ever shown any approval of the aqaid of the salafis. Give me one example?

Imam Ahmed Rida Khan commonly referred to deobandis as wahabis, so he had a problem with deobandis and mixed them up, thats a whole another issue. Please go to the 'official deobandi vs. barelwi bickering thread' if you are interested in this debate.

Your slandering of mufti ibn adam and hostile atitude towards deobandis in general is not doing much good. Of course thats a normal thing for a lot of anti-deobandis. We need to find some common ground! instead of arguing over things in the past... ever wonder why salafi's are gaining ground so fast?

[iqadeer]

With all due respect to the Barelvi leaning brothers on this forum, too much time has been, and is still being spent on bashing Deobandi elders. The problem here is that the Barelvis don't realize that no matter how hard they try to malign the Deobandis, they can't have the Arab scholars, or even the general masses turned against them. The fact remains that the allegations including those of being same as wahabis in aqaid have been long answered, regargless of the fact that Barelvis don't accept or like them. I think its high time to quit stuborness and find common ground. Deobandis have done a tremendous amount of good in the field of Hadith in general and Hanafi fiqh. I have heard that Maulana Ahmad Rida Khan has also produced very valuable treatises on Hanafi fiqh. Why not concentrate on translating those or publishing them so people can be benefitted? I have absolutely no qualms in accepting Maulana Ahmad Rida Khan as one of the great Sunni Hanafi scholars because the respect he has been accorded by other Arab traditionalist scholars. Yet, I don't and will not endorse his fatwa of kufr since I think he went to an extreme there. I think that was a mistake and it would have been better if he had made ruj'u from it. Only Allah knows how he will be judged about it so staying silent is best. I request the same courtesy from the Barelvi brothers as far as Deobandi elders are concerned.

[anfaas]

assalamalaikum,


No deobandi alim has ever shown any approval of the aqaid of the salafis. Give me one example?

see zalzalah by allamah arshad-ul-qadri ; its deobandi answer "zalzalah par zalzalah" and its critique zer-o-zabar again by allamah arshad-ul-qadri for numerous referenced proofs to what i said. you will be surprized. the book has so many examples that corroborate the content of the article quoted in this thread.

also it is stupid if someone says that deobandis are salafis/wahabis in the sense of ghair muqalladism, anti-ashari/maturidi , no deobandi ever supported ghair muqalladism, or anti-ashari-maturidi beliefs;

however there are many deobandis who said in many places that leaving taqleed there is no difference between wahabis and deobandis.

either they were seriously unaware of facts, not competant to comment or overlooked all the diffrences a minor.

also - critiquing some deobandi positions and likening them to the wahabis is a different story ; Imam ahmed riDa khan in many places explicitly refuted the aqaid of the najdi wahabis as in "wahabis, the followers of ibn abdul wahab" and ghair muqallids ; the deviancy of the wahabi najdis was well known, at that time to the prominent scholars of the north and south india, i can give you proofs.

yet it is claimed that the deobandis did not know it well. well what can i say ?

and please dont accuse me of slander, not accepting someone's opinion is not slander; and this has nothing to do with the salafis gaining ground.

i personally know deobandis of both persuasion, the sunni and the wahabi, folks with a asoft corner for ibn abdul wahab and the salafi ideology sans the la-madhabism.

the most funniest part was when a jamat came into my town and i usually sit down to hear as they dont usually talk of controversies, and the guy who was some alim from canada , started to say that great scholars like sheikh albani approve of the tablighi jamat. while every one knows the contrary to be true.

and then we have the deobandis who agree with his arch-innovator title...

i honestly want to know : why did the deobandi stance change so much on the salafi/wahabis over the years, while the wahabis did not change much, they might have attacked the deobandis but they did not change what they beleived in suddenly along with their attacks !

[anfaas]

Yet, I don't and will not endorse his fatwa of kufr since I think he went to an extreme there. I think that was a mistake and it would have been better if he had made ruj'u from it. Only Allah knows how he will be judged about it so staying silent is best. I request the same courtesy from the Barelvi brothers as far as Deobandi elders are concerned.

in the absence of primary evidence to convince you no one should endorse any fatwa of kufr by anyone , against anyone. your position is a very careful one.


they can't have the Arab scholars ;

the issue is a dead horse, when it was needed and mattered the approval of the giant arab scholars was present. now that the wahabised-deobandi element is waning there is no serious need for any approval or disapproval.

and yes why single out Imam Ahmed Rida Khan rahimahullah , it is Allah who knows how everyone else will be judged including you and me and the deobandi elders.

[iqadeer]

and yes why single out Imam Ahmed Rida Khan rahimahullah , it is Allah who knows how everyone else will be judged including you and me and the deobandi elders.

Masha'Allah sound advice brother! Let's stick to it for everyone :)

[Hamood]

walaikum assalam -



also it is stupid if someone says that deobandis are salafis/wahabis in the sense of ghair muqalladism, anti-ashari/maturidi , no deobandi ever supported ghair muqalladism, or anti-ashari-maturidi beliefs;


Here you go again...my comments were regarding whether 'deobandis approve of salafism or not'....but you seem to have misunderstood it totally and are arguing over whether deobandis can be equated to wahabis...there was no discussion on whether deobandis are like salafis or what not, why bring that up? Brother, lets keep this discussion civil and not throw general labels and accusations. Most deobandis would be beyond offended if you were to compare them to salafis.



however there are many deobandis who said in many places that leaving taqleed there is no difference between wahabis and deobandis.


Again. Where are your references? Who are these many deobandis? Just street deobandis that come to your masjid or the akabir ulema of deoband? You have to back up your statements with facts ....

[Ya_Rab'ba_Muhammed]

deobandi vs salafi
(an alliance that was never meant to be)

Please sit tight and relax before reading this information! This article explains pretty much explains everything for anyone. But a warning and a few guidelines to those idiots known as "Selective Readers" who for sure will use this article to spread and justify their sectarian garbage:

1. the word or term wahabi derives from the name Muhammed ibn Abdul Wahab Al Najdi who started a puritan movement but was to harsh and strict. Later on those who also called for reforms in certain things like mawlid, etc... were labeled wahabi even though they had nothing to do with the abdul wahab najdi's teachings. They didn't not even agree with Muhammed ibn Abdul Wahab.

2. Hater will hate. Players will play. It's all about the game!

3. Ulamas are not sinless and errorless. Yes! I know! Certain Buffoons will point that "so and so" said that our shaykh pen is free from error. Well Mr Ludicrous! Go take some literature class and then come talk to me!

4. Ulama of Deoband are pretty much involved in everything that's going on in the world right now and you just can't stop them! So keep on Hating Hater! because haters only know how to hate!

5. Finally, The world doesn't revolve around You!
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________--
Intra-Muslim Rivalries in India and the Saudi Connection
December 9, 2004
By Yoginder Sikand
http://www.jamiahamdard.edu/Article_Y_Sikand1.asp