Mischievous barelwi accusations

[muslim786]

i agree. they may not be 'famous' and well-known to western audiences, but that does not reflect that facts.

i still think people in general need to remove themselves from this idea that sunni islam is deobandi islam only, or sunni islam is brelwi islam only.

the truth is both groups are considered to be within ahl al-sunna. if you don't like brelwi's because they diss deobandi's, then just listen to the likes of Habib Ali, Sh. Muhammad al-Yaqoubi and others, who don't diss deobandi's but share a lot with the brelwi's in terms of beliefs and practice e.g. mawlid.

Even in the sub con there are Ulama who are neither. A prime example is the leader of the Naqshbandi - Mujadidi - Muhammadi in Bangladesh Hazrat Allamah Abdal Latif Phultolhi. His son has written a wonderful bio on Hazrat Shaykh Syed Ahmed Shaheed (RA), which shows clearly that this wali was no wahabi. Ironically Hazrat Allamah Abdal Latif Phultolhi is called a barelvi because he agrees with them on many issues, by the deobandis. However he doesn't agree with the takfeer. In fact in his madarashas they use some deobandi books.

Also Hazrat Mufti Bornah Deobandi (RA) before he died asked that Allamah Abdal Latif Phultolhi to undertake his janazah. This shows the respect the ulama have for each other.

[muslim786]

Could we have some names?

I am always interested in learning the names of some of the Ulema who are considered "Barelwi" simply because we hear so little about these Ulema in the West and because I would be more interested in hearing what their "Ulema" have to say as opposed to young kids on a forum or those who are merely students of knowledge and not Muftis or other high ranking scholars along the lines of what Mufti Taqi Usmani is to the Deobandi tradition.

Yes there is Hazrat Allamah Abdal Latif Phultolhi. Even though he may agree with the barelvis on some issues, he clearly is not. For one his sufi tareeqa line has Shah Syed Ahmed Shaheed (RA) who the barelvis dislike, in fact I hear Imam Ahmed Raza wrote against him.

[iqadeer]

Before we delve into the merits of this debate, let's all ask ourselves sincerely: Do we, as laypersons, believe that Quran in its present form has been textually compromised? Keep in mind, we all are (at least most of us here) laypersons. I would say the least among us in terms of knowledge would abstain from making such an egregious statement. What to speak of Shaykh Kashmiri's caliber and knowledge, it is impossible to make such an assumption with regards to even his students who were giants like Shaykh Yusuf Binnori, Mufti Shafi Usmani, Shaykh Badar Alam, or even their students who are now prominent ulema and mudarriseen in Darul Ulooms throughout the world. Would it not be closer to taqwa to hold our tongues and drive such evil thoughts away from us and not risk Allah's wrath by maligning a pious inheritor of the legacy of Allah's prophet? Again, can any one of us dare to belittle the knowledge of Allah's messenger, or cast doubt on the finality of his prophethood, or may Allah forbid claim that Allah has spoken a lie? Then, how is it that we can expect Shaykh Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi who was a mountain of knowledge and piety, and through whom Allah spread tazkiyah and knowledge to the four corners of the world, and Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi who was perhaps the most influential spritual mentor of his time and his silsila is vibrant throughout the world even today, and Maulana Qasim Nantovi through whom Allah laid the foundation of Darul Uloom Deoband which became the means of creating such noble Ulema that the likes of whom are hard to find even today, can be charged with such ignoble acts? Is it befitting for any scholar or even for a layperson to cherish such beliefs? It is insanity to believe in these things and tarnish the character or such noble personages, and most imporantly remember that we could be held accountable in Allah's court for speaking about this matter lightly.

[love4all]

salams

erm... has anyone actually read the thread on said forum? It's not just unsubstantiated hollering, y'know?

They provided the arabic text, a scan of the text, the context of the paragraph and several translations.

They discussed the translation.

They asked for someone to correct their translation.

They asked for a Deobandi scholar to explain the translation in context.

I saw two sides of an argument that, given the controversial subject matter, was tackled with a degree of restraint and adab.

After all this, I saw brother Tazkiyya2003 accuse them of slander and not offer any counter-explanation (Love to you bro Tazkiyya, but that's the truth!)

So far here, I've seen brothers give general defences of Imam Kashmiri, generally pooh-pooh 'Barelwi' accusations, and - sorry - totally avoid the specifics of the accusation.

There are Deobandi scholars on this forum - no doubt some have access to Fayd al-Bari. Let's hear from them please, rather than all this, 'oh, don't worry about what the Barelwi's say, they're all just a bunch of slanderers and fitna-mongerers.' Where I come from, that's called "evasion."

I have no doubt that Imam Anwar Shah did not hold such an obviously deviant belief. So why did he write what he wrote?

I have full confidence that there's a reasonable explanation. So can I hear it, please?

I don't think that's too much to ask, is it?

love4all!! but seriously guys, come on!

lets be 'avin it

[tazkiyyah]

the point is its not a one-off issue.

This is all we see barelewiyyah do.
Their scholars come from pakistan,
shout in microphones and quote a few texts from deobandi books(normally out of context
or misconstrued)
everyone shouts subhanallah,
eats carot halwa and thinks they have served the cause of islam, and then one goes home.

Whatever happened to jihad against one's own nafs.
I actually am guilty of engaging in that myself.

The work of our time for the awaam is tableegh
It avoids the engagement with many many fitan.
the fitna of confusion. the fitna of the media. the fitna of political chaos
the fitna of gheeba
the fitna of getting into things beyond one's understanding

Tableegh

Ya tableeegh

[sufisticated]

This is all we see barelewiyyah do.
Their scholars come from pakistan,
shout in microphones and quote a few texts from deobandi books(normally out of context
or misconstrued)
everyone shouts subhanallah,
eats carot halwa and thinks they have served the cause of islam, and then one goes home.

sorry, but this still doesn't address the issue. and generalised comments like that are really not necessary. you just need one member from that forum to read that statement of yours and say exaclty what you said at the beginning of this thread!

[al-Qassam]

you frogot the mawlid tazkiyya. Propagate love of the Prophet Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam while making Mass takfirization of ulama of deoband.

[iqadeer]

I have no doubt that Imam Anwar Shah did not hold such an obviously deviant belief. So why did he write what he wrote?

If what you say above is how you feel then, khalaas, it settles it akhi. Why ask for a daleel to exonerate the noble imam? Why couldn't you give him benefit of the doubt and attribute this to either a mistake on part of Shaykh Badar Alam while compiling the notes or even the publisher's fault? Staying focussed on this singular mistake somehow sends a message that Shaykh's aqeedah is suspect, ma'az Allah (may Allah forbid!).

[skeptic sunni]

assalamu 'alaykum.

as someone on that forum has said, an important claim has been made with the evidence provided. all that is needed is for a follower of shaykh kashmiri to
answer the post by giving their understanding of this paragraph.

bring emotional or saying, 'it's all barelwis do' is not a defence.

if that is an argument then everyone is exonerated including the shia who say the qur'an was changed by the sahaba. you cannot have one rule for sunnis and another for shias.

so what have the scholars of deoband said about this passage:

“fayz al-bārī ‘alā sahīh al-bukhārī” is a four-volume commentary of al-Imām al-Bukhārī’s “as-sahīh” which was compiled by al-Kashmīrī’s student Muhammad Badar ‘Ālam al-Mīrithī.

Is it true al-Kashmīrī opined that textual corruption has occurred in the Last Revealed Book of Allāh Ta’ālā (the Glorious and Noble Qurān)?

It seems so.

He discusses the whole concept in one paragraph, before and after which the subject matters are unrelated i.e. the areas of discussion before and after are not concentrated on the issue of tahrīf.

The paragraph can be found on the last page of “Kitāb ash-Shahādāt” after which “Kitāb as-Sulh” commences (volume 3, page 395).

In other words, Kitāb ash-Shahādāt begins on page 382 and the paragraph in question is situated on page 395, which is also the last page of the chapter after which Kitāb as-Sulh commences on page 396.

The copy I possess is printed by “al-maktabah ar-rashīdiyyah”, Sirkī Road, Quetta, Pakistan which also contains a Hāshiyyah (commentary) on “fayz al-bārī” entitled “al-badr as-sārī ilā fayz al-bārī” written by the very same Muhammad Badar ‘Ālam al-Mīrithī who (as mentioned earlier) compiled “fayz al-bārī”.

I have copied the whole paragraph in question from volume 3, page 395, letter-by-letter and word-by-word below:

قولہ: [ و قال ابن عباس ] الخ ، و اعلم أن فی التحریف ثلاثۃ مذاھب: ذھب جماعۃ

الی أن التحریف فی الکتب السماویۃ قد وقع بکل نحو فی اللفظ و المعنی جمیعاً ، و

ھو الذی مال الیہ ابن حزم ، و ذھب جماعۃ الی أن التحریف قلیل ، و لعل الحافظ

ابن تیمیۃ جنح الیہ ، و ذھب جماعۃ الی انکار التحریف اللفظی رأساً ، فالتحریف

عندھم کلہ معنوی ، قلت: یلزم علی ھذا المذھب أن یکون القرآن أیضاً محرفاً ، فان

التحریف المعنوی غیر قلیل فیہ أیضاً ، و الذی تحقق عندی أن التحریف فیہ لفظی

أیضاً ، أما انہ عن عمد منھم أو لمغلطۃ ، فاللہ تعالی أعلم بہ

translation of the Arabic text below thus:

[Beginning of quote]


“His saying: [and ibn ‘abbās said] etc...

Know that there are three opinions [mazāhib] in the matter of corruption of texts [tahrīf]:

[1] A group [of scholars] is of the opinion that the corruption in all the heavenly books has occurred in every manner, [both] in meaning and in text. This is the opinion, which ibn Hazm was inclined to favour.

[2] Another group [of scholars] opine that the corruption is little, and it is quite possible that al-Hāfiz ibn Taymiyyah sided with this opinion.

[3] A group [of scholars] summarily rejects textual corruption, saying that corruption [tahrīf] is entirely in meaning.

I say: this [latter opinion] necessitates the Qurān to be corrupted as well [muharraf] because the corruption of meaning is no less in it as well.

And [what has occurred] to me by research is that the corruption in it [i.e. the Qurān] is textual as well. Either this is due to insistence from them or [alternatively this is due to] because of [them] being mistaken. Allāh Ta'ālā knows best.”

[End of quote]

now either show the deficiencies in translation or in understanding or let
a deobandi scholar answer.

jazak Allah khayran.

[tazkiyyah]

The last three lines here don't make any sense.
One obviously cannot make a judgement as there is some kind of misprint.
You can only criticise something where there is a clear logical point being made.
Whereas here there must be some kind of error, as there is no grammatical sense.

What are you understanding by this is insistence from them or their being mistaken.
As you have alleged that mawlana shah kashmeeri has accused the quran of tahreef,
how have you interpreted these lines?Who has being insisting and who is mistaken?

If mawlana anwar shah taught this, we would find all his students who read that text
telling us we must admit tahreef in the quran, whereas they absolutely reject such a belief as kufr.

nontheless, we shall ask the senior muftis for clarification,
But I have lost all respect for this shaykh asad (whoever he is) trying
to bring down imaam al asr(as called by shaykh Muhammad yaqoubi-thesyrian aalim)
Mawlana anwar shah kashmeeri(alayhi rahmatullah)