The neccessity or otherwise ....

[abduljalalmarabani]

As-Salaamu Alaikum

Over the years i have gone from Barelwi to Salafi to this and then to that and blah blah.

Alhamdulillah, I had the opportunity to see Sunni Islam untainted by such petty matters in Syria and am overjoyed to see that this stream of knowledge being taught by such places as Sunnipath.com.

After my (long and sometimes dangerous) journey, I have come to question the usefulness of the terms "Barelwi" and "Deobandi" within the Sunni realm. I have spoken before on a similar issue on this forum on specific topics such as mawlid etc but I would like to focus in particular here on validity of the existence of the very groups themselves, moreso outside of the subcontinent.

There has been discussion before about the subcontinent and bid'a and the aim of the Deobandis wa kadha wa kadha (ie. etc. etc) but has anyone really wondered what purpose the division is serving in the rest of the world, apart from bringing Indian issues to new lands?

Can anyone see, as I did, that those points that literally make a Barelwi what he is (things like haazir wa naazir etc) and those points that make a Deobandi what he is (things like their off-beat stance on mawlid) are the very same things that differ from the ulama of Sham, who for the most part, follow a Hanafi law system based on the major reference works of the school?

Now before any Barelwi replies in a barrage that "Barelwi's belief about Haazir wa Naazir is this and that ..." please let me state that issues like these (and in particular Haazir Naazir) exist becuase at some point in time people did believe them. I know this for a fact because my family still believe it to some degree - although times are a changin'

And before any Deobandi replies in a barrage about Mufti Muhammad's fatwa on the mawlid let me state that this issue likewise exists because at some point in time people believed this way, and I kid you not, I also have relatives in South Africa (including a very prominent Deobandi Alim) whose view of the mawlid is still 100% consistent with the Wahhabi view. .

I would appeal to all to not let emotion take charge here.

Can anyone really say "I am a Deobandi" or "I am a Barelwi" and be saying anything meaningful? I would suggest not.

How about "I am a Hanafi?"

To say "I am a Hanafi and not a Barelwi-Hanafi or Deobandi-Hanafi" would mean changing to some degree, for the terms Barelwi and Deobandi are more than just nisba, they are more than just place names, they are theological schools. And they both differ, in their small way, from the Hanafi-ism of Syria.

Why should the Hanafi-ism of Syria be considered something special? My perosnal feeling is that the blessing of Sham is known, from Hadith and the Holy Qur'an and perhaps this is a signal of sorts to show where we might be able to look, to get some guidance in this troubled period.

I wonder if anyone out there, can see my point of view, and:

1) throw away this unnecessary labelling of each other and oneselves,

as well as;

2) throw away the hard-fought debates of how each school's view of certain issues is more in conformance with the fatawa of classical ulama, and just follow those fatawa of classical ulama, period?

["aur ghanay choopo"]

As-Salaamu Alaikum

Over the years i have gone from Barelwi to Salafi to this and then to that and blah blah.

Alhamdulillah, I had the opportunity to see Sunni Islam untainted by such petty matters in Syria and am overjoyed to see that this stream of knowledge being taught by such places as Sunnipath.com.

After my (long and sometimes dangerous) journey, I have come to question the usefulness of the terms "Barelwi" and "Deobandi" within the Sunni realm. I have spoken before on a similar issue on this forum on specific topics such as mawlid etc but I would like to focus in particular here on validity of the existence of the very groups themselves, moreso outside of the subcontinent.

There has been discussion before about the subcontinent and bid'a and the aim of the Deobandis wa kadha wa kadha (ie. etc. etc) but has anyone really wondered what purpose the division is serving in the rest of the world, apart from bringing Indian issues to new lands?

Can anyone see, as I did, that those points that literally make a Barelwi what he is (things like haazir wa naazir etc) and those points that make a Deobandi what he is (things like their off-beat stance on mawlid) are the very same things that differ from the ulama of Sham, who for the most part, follow a Hanafi law system based on the major reference works of the school?

Now before any Barelwi replies in a barrage that "Barelwi's belief about Haazir wa Naazir is this and that ..." please let me state that issues like these (and in particular Haazir Naazir) exist becuase at some point in time people did believe them. I know this for a fact because my family still believe it to some degree - although times are a changin'

And before any Deobandi replies in a barrage about Mufti Muhammad's fatwa on the mawlid let me state that this issue likewise exists because at some point in time people believed this way, and I kid you not, I also have relatives in South Africa (including a very prominent Deobandi Alim) whose view of the mawlid is still 100% consistent with the Wahhabi view. .

I would appeal to all to not let emotion take charge here.

Can anyone really say "I am a Deobandi" or "I am a Barelwi" and be saying anything meaningful? I would suggest not.

How about "I am a Hanafi?"

To say "I am a Hanafi and not a Barelwi-Hanafi or Deobandi-Hanafi" would mean changing to some degree, for the terms Barelwi and Deobandi are more than just nisba, they are more than just place names, they are theological schools. And they both differ, in their small way, from the Hanafi-ism of Syria.

Why should the Hanafi-ism of Syria be considered something special? My perosnal feeling is that the blessing of Sham is known, from Hadith and the Holy Qur'an and perhaps this is a signal of sorts to show where we might be able to look, to get some guidance in this troubled period.

I wonder if anyone out there, can see my point of view, and:

1) throw away this unnecessary labelling of each other and oneselves,

as well as;

2) throw away the hard-fought debates of how each school's view of certain issues is more in conformance with the fatawa of classical ulama, and just follow those fatawa of classical ulama, period?

i agree with you brother, this is a good way of leaving the old issuses back home and working togther, and keeping the classical scholars as the guides on these matters

[Mossy]

I just say I'm a muslim personally.. If anyone asks me what type, I say not a very good one, alas, but trying to get better.. If one asks what methodoligical basis, then I would say I default to the Hanafi school of thought with regards to my implementation of the Shariah in my own personal view..

["aur ghanay choopo"]

I just say I'm a muslim personally.. If anyone asks me what type, I say not a very good one, alas, but trying to get better.. If one asks what methodoligical basis, then I would say I default to the Hanafi school of thought with regards to my implementation of the Shariah in my own personal view..

no. i'm not saying i'm hizb at-tahrir..no

i think the past hundred and fifty years or more has seen alot of problems in the sub-continent, thats why, whether someone comes from the deobandi or beralvi background, they should take what is good and whatever else does not confirm to the agreed upon classical scholars understanding leave it[classical 'Ulama of the schools of aqaid and fiqh], whilst noting an error on the part of the scholar from either group[deobandi/beralivi], and acknowledging that as such[in their books with bold footnotes or editing/correcting that passage for safety?the eminent scholars of both beralivi and deobandi need to do this, and if most of us are laity on this forum then this is a culture that we need to develop and urge the ulama of both sides with heatfelt concern to make this happen, so that we can be one], so that we can move on. theres alot to do with regards to the corruption and ignorance in that part of the world[as with other parts of the ummah, but we are in the west let us begin here]. If people are MUKHLIS in uniting[this will show peoples commitment] then steps need to be taken from both sides otherwise whose interest is this khilaf in?
Tell me, our enemy is encroaching closer and closer, we have to act as one.

It is not a question of saving face, it's a question of survival, and only being one in our hearts will we be able to do that.I hope this is not coming across as a proclamtion, but advice from your Muslim brother.
i as your brother, i know you don't know me, i request you, if i could show you tearfilled eyes, i would. please we've got big problems, put this aside in the interests of coming generations, so that this khilaf between the beralvis /deobandis will become unheard of in years to come!
I say this as a layperson to both sides.

ps.I am also hanafi but whilst subscribing it showed up.. it some how defaulted me into the hanbali school then when i corrected that it put me into shafi'i, but i am content with any 4.