Dr GF Haddad on the deobandi/barelwi issue

[akabirofdeoband]

Dr Haddad's somewhat objectionable piece on this, which seems to be his latest position

Question:

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem was-Salaatu wa Salaamu alaiyka Sayidina Muhammad,
Are Tabilghi Jamaat connected to the Deobundi School and are Deobundi’s Wahabi?
Jazaka Allah khair.
As-Salaamu alaiykum wr wb.

Answer:

A`udhu billahi min al-shaytan al-rajim, bismillah al-rahman al-rahim:

Tablighi Jamaat are an offshoot of the Deobandi movement. Deobandis are Sunni-Maturidi in doctrine, Hanafi in fiqh, and Naqshbandi in Tariqa. They have refuted several modern Indian-Subcontinent heresies and the Wahhabi movement on countless issues, and the Wahhabis have published many books and articles against them and against Tablighi Jamaat. The Deobandis have also authored some of the prominent works of Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jama`ah in commentary of the Holy Qur’an and of the motherbooks of hadith such as Malik’s Muwatta’, Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and the four books of Sunan as well as the proofs of Taqlid and the Hanafi Madhhab, Sirah, and Tasawwuf. Their authors’ names figure prominently in the Indian hadith transmission chains of all of our contemporary and pre-contemporary Arab hadith scholars, may Allah have mercy on all of them.

At the same time, unfortunately for the Ummah in our day, certain grave errors have crept into Deobandi beliefs and practices themselves, such as the verbatim attribution to Allah Almighty of imkane-kadhib i.e. the “ability to lie” (may He be exalted beyond what they describe!) and similarly ugly, innovated expressions and concepts that are rightly deemed as tantamount to disparaging the Holy Prophet Muhammad, upon him blessings and peace – Allah is our refuge from perdition. Most if not all of these errors originate from the pen of Shah Ismail al-Dihlawi (1193-1246/1779-1830), the grandson of Shah Waliyyullah al-Dihlawi, after he returned from Hajj and began to author works that until now the Deobandi authorities not only have failed to condemn (as is wajib for them), but are actually still keeping on their syllabus and disseminating in all languages.

On the other hand they tend to charge the majority of Muslims with lesser contraventions – if that – for example the celebration of the Prophetic Mawlid which the majority of the Ummah deems Orthodox but which Deobandis label as innovation (bid`a) in a selective, Taymiyyan style identical to that of Wahhabis. This is why their Sunni detractors in the Indian Subcontinent have called them Wahhabis although, in that part of the world, the term Wahhabi more accurately describes the so-called Ahle-Hadith movement which are a full-fledged non-Madhhabi, anti-Sufi, Najd-affiliated movement.

Our role now is to find bases of unity by analogy with the Prophetic invitation to the People of the Book that they should unite with Muslims in a common monotheism and leave behind whatever cancels it. If we can invite non-Muslims in such a way then we should be even more inviting toward Sunni Muslims who have taken the wrong path on lesser points than the contradiction of monotheism, as grave as those points might be. We should not demonize them as non-Sunnis. We already made it clear eight years ago that the position of our most of our common teachers is that there is no difference between Barelwis and Deobandis in the absolute and explicit fundamentals: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...&ID=498&CATE=2

I have seen two gifted people embody this position in speech and deed: one is a Barelwi in the US and the other a Deobandi in South Africa. Both have great knowledge, a refined character, and a preference for silence and meticulous hard work. Alas, the rest of our up-and-coming brethren still remain uncommitted to this common ground and are still jockeying to promote themselves as champions of sunnism in the way of identity politics, such as what happened and is still happening, for example, over the issue of love of Ahl al-Bayt. This divisiveness was wrong back then and has even less place in the post-9/11 world.

Love of Allah and His Prophet unites us, it is not a blueprint for schism, nor is there any room for Inquisitions in Islamic tradition. As Imam Ahmad said under the whip of the Mu`tazila: “al-imtihan bid`a” (Inquisition is an innovation). We should stop condemning others in the misconceived quest for self-definition. Our true identity is servanthood to our Lord and service to His creation; and the definition of Sufism is to accept the shortcomings of others and work with that (Risala Qushayriyya); not disinheriting them and demonizing them in a righteous rage. Not everyone is “either all good or all bad”; only Prophets are immune from sin and infallible. The grandson of the Holy Prophet, Sayyidina al-Hasan (upon our Prophet and his Family blessings and peace), was a rightly-guided Caliph and on Haqq, yet he stepped down from his caliphate for the benefit of unity, which Allah Most High loves more for the Ummah than general disunity on the pretext of upholding His Right and the Right of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. Can you believe that some fanatic Sunnis at that time attacked al-Hasan b. Abi Talib (as) as a traitor to the Ummah? He only replied: “No, I am not a traitor but one who spared the Ummah bloodshed.” Let us work toward the same goal in the Subcontinent and everywhere else. Sunnism is much wider than to be found exclusively under one roof.

The latent characteristic of all of the above groupings is takfirism (declaring other Sunnis misguided, infidels and kafirs) and mutual ostracism which are characteristics of modern-day Khawarij – extremists, defined by Imam al-Nawawi as “fanatic zealots who exceed bounds in words and deeds” (Sharh Sahih Muslim). The worst of them are those who say: “If you do not declare the other side kafir the way we do, then you are one of them.” Instead of looking for 70 excuses to fend off anathema from their brethren they search out a single excuse to invoke it against them, and even against their own teachers! They are purists who claim that “we should not dilute our Deen” which is reminiscent of the fear-mongering of supremacists who claim “we should not dilute our master race.” This is what a perspicuous observer in the UK termed the Salafisation of traditional Islam. This is the Chosen-People ideology which Allah Most High warns against in the Holy Qur’an; and it is He Who protects and guarantees the Deen. No, we do not declare any of them kafir. Rather, we denounce what is wrong and we enjoin what is right however bitter, without school partisanship; and we say as Allah Most High says and as our well-guided Rabbani elders taught us: {For each there is a direction to which he turns his face. So compete with one another in good deeds. Wherever you are, Allah will bring you all together. Truly Allah has power over all things} (2:148).

And Allah knows best. May He unite us all and take us back to Him as followers of the Sunna and adherents of the Congregation.

Hajj Gibril Haddad

[insufficient]

brother,

When was this written? Shaykh Gibril Haddad's views on this issue seem to have changed over the years. The errors in the article are clear to see - the same misunderstandings unfortunately mentioned by many of our Barelwi brethren.

I am guessing this was written before his more famous and concise article which appears on Sunnipath and elsewhere?

[akabirofdeoband]

This is now 2010
from www.eshaykh.com

and he himself says

We already made it clear eight years ago that the position of our most of our common teachers is that there is no difference between Barelwis and Deobandis in the absolute and explicit fundamentals: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...&ID=498&CATE=2

[insufficient]

This is now 2010
from www.eshaykh.com

and he himself says

We already made it clear eight years ago that the position of our most of our common teachers is that there is no difference between Barelwis and Deobandis in the absolute and explicit fundamentals: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...&ID=498&CATE=2

That is the article to which I was referring, . But for some reason the link didn't paste properly in your post? http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...&ID=498&CATE=2

So the article you posted in OP is 2010? Frankly I am shocked at some of the things in there, considering...

[ahmad12]

I think some of his mureeds are barelwi hence try and brainwash him or whatever. Someone needs to contact the guy and sort him out

If no one else wants to, let me know how I can email him unless someone has already tried?

[maneatinglizard]

I think some of his mureeds are barelwi hence try and brainwash him or whatever. Someone needs to contact the guy and sort him out

If no one else wants to, let me know how I can email him unless someone has already tried?

As far as I know, he is still in the company of Nazim Haqqani, unfortunately.

[Usman]

I think some of his mureeds are barelwi hence try and brainwash him or whatever. Someone needs to contact the guy and sort him out

If no one else wants to, let me know how I can email him unless someone has already tried?

Several years ago , BEFORE sunnipath, Haddad wrote a whole series against Ulama of Deoband under the title "Gangohi Fatwas" on googlegroups. He's just two faced.

[Muzzammil Husayn]

On the face of it, it looks like a sincere appeal for dialogue and unity between Deobandis and Berelwis, but on closer look, he has clearly chosen to ignore some important details which has resulted in a number of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in his reply:

Deobandis are Sunni-Maturidi in doctrine, Hanafi in fiqh, and Naqshbandi in Tariqa

The major Deobandi scholars follow the tasawwuf of Imdadullah Muhajir Makki which adheres to multiple tariqas but primarily the Chisti, not the Naqshbandi, tariqah.

certain grave errors have crept into Deobandi beliefs and practices themselves, such as the verbatim attribution to Allah Almighty of imkane-kadhib i.e. the “ability to lie” (may He be exalted beyond what they describe!)

He describes it as a "grave error", and yet ignores a number of quotes from the aqidah-scholars which says the same: that Allah's personal speech (kalam nafsi) cannot contain falsehoods and its possibility is excluded from Allah's power, whereas He has power over it in the verbalised speech (kalam lafzi) making it hypothetically possible but impossible in actuality. Al-Kalnabawi said: "lying being ugly in the uttered-speech (al-kalam al-lafzi), in the sense that it is an attribute of deficiency, is prohibited according to the Ash’aris. That is why Al-Sharif al-Muhaqqiq (al-Jurjani) said it is from the totality of the possibilities (mumkinat), and acquiring decisive knowledge of its non-occurrence in His speech by consensus of the scholars and the Prophets (upon them be peace) does not negate its intrinsic possibility like all decisive knowledge of normal occurrences (al-’ulum al-’adiya)." Ibn Amir al-Hajj and Ibn al-Humam said: "According to the Ash’aris, He (Exalted is He) is certainly not attributed with ugly acts, but they are not rationally impossible, like all of creation. [This is] just like all the sciences in which one of two opposites being the reality is certain, but the other is not impossible, if it were assumed that it is the reality; just like the certainty of Mecca and Baghdad - i.e. their existence - since their non-existence is not rationally impossible. Therefore - i.e. when the matter is such - confidence [in the integrity of His word] disappearing is not necessitated because the possibility of something rationally does not necessitate not having firm resolve of its non-existence."

Dr Haddad chose not to mention these important distinctions, nor cite the sources which the Deobandis draw from: from the very classical traditionalist kalam sources that he claims to defend.

similarly ugly, innovated expressions and concepts that are rightly deemed as tantamount to disparaging the Holy Prophet Muhammad, upon him blessings and peace – Allah is our refuge from perdition

Which may have been based on a misreading of what the author actually said because some very important sections of his writings were edited by the one trying to present it as kufr. If this was our methodology, we could easily attribute similar "ugly, innovated expressions and concepts" to our predocessors.

For example, Imam al-Razi explicitly said that which has been reported of the worship of the Hindu idol worshippers of India exceed that reported from the Prophets: "It has been related from the worshippers, ascetics and monks of India that they would carry out strenuous forms of devotion to Allah the like of which has not been related from the Prophets and saints, despite our certainty that they are disbelievers, so we know that greater harship in worship does not necessitate greater reward."

يحكى عن عباد الهند وزهادهم ورهبانهم أنهم يتحملون من المتاعب في التواضع لله تعالى ما لم يحك مثله عن أحد من الأنبياء والأولياء مع أنا نقطع بكفرهم، فعلمنا أن كثرة المشقة في العبادة لا تقتضي زيادة الثواب

source

If we followed the same methodology used to denounce the Deobandi works, we could cut out the last part of that quote ("so we know that greater harship in worship does not necessitate greater reward") and accuse al-Razi of suggesting the idolaters and Christian monks of India are greater than the Prophets - which is similar to how Hifz al-Iman was misrepresented.

He also offers no answer to the fact Mawlana al-Nanotwi did have precedent in the early writings of Sufis for his division of khatamiyyah into chronological and essential (see footnote 3 here), so this cannot be described as an "ugly, innovated concept." He was also supported by Hafiz al-Lucknawi on authenticating the athar of Ibn Abbas and using it as proof for the existence of prophets on other earths.

On the other hand they tend to charge the majority of Muslims with lesser contraventions – if that

They don't charge the majority of Muslims with anything, but they do charge their fellow subcontinent Muslims with much greater contraventions than practicing the mawlid.

For example, the belief that the Prophet (peace be upon him) knew the ghayb, which the Hanafi scholars have said is kufr. Kamal Ibn Abi Sharif and Ibn al-Humam say in al-Musamarah Sharh al-Musayarah after citing al-Baqillani's view that the Prophets may be unaware of certain masa'il of the Shari'ah that their followers may discover after them, "Similar is knowledge of the ghayb, i.e. just as knowledge of some masa'il is absent the knowledge of the ghayb is absent, so the Prophet does not know from it except what Allah Most High informed him of it from time to time. The Hanafis mentioned in their Furu' clearly that the belief that the Prophet knew the ghayb is declared to be disbelief for contradicting His Most High statement: Say: None in the heavens or on earth, except Allah, knows the ghayb (27:65)" (Al-Musamarah fi Sharh al-Musayarah, Dar al-Basa'ir, pp. 87-8).

وكذا علم المغيبات أي وكعدم علم بعض المسائل عدم علم المغيبات فلا يعلم الني منها إلا ما أعلمه الله تعالى به أحيانا وذكر الحنفية في فروعهم تصريحا بالتكفير باعتقاد أن النبي يعلم الغيب لمعارضة قوله تعالى قل لا يعلم من فى السماوات والأرض الغيب إلا الله

So although Allah may inform the Prophet of some aspects of the ghayb, to declare that he has knowledge of the ghayb is kufr according to the Hanafis because it gives the impression that he has this knowledge in the same way that Allah has the knowledge, i.e. completely and without a medium.

And another example of what he calls a "lesser contravention" is the belief that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is made of light and is not a man except in form, which is a clear denial of explicit texts declaring the Prophet and all Prophets to be human beings.

for example the celebration of the Prophetic Mawlid which the majority of the Ummah deems Orthodox but which Deobandis label as innovation (bid`a) in a selective, Taymiyyan style identical to that of Wahhabis.

But he himself translated sections from al-Muhannad showing Deobandis denounced the mawlid because of the evil practices that crept into it (like fixing a time, free-mixing, not observing obligations, narrating forged hadiths, extravagance, shirki beliefs) which the Muhannad says "of which, it seems, such gatherings are no longer devoid," and hence based on the rule that "most has the ruling of all" (al-akthar fi hukm al-kull), the fatwa will be that it is forbidden. Otherwise, Deobandis allow certain kinds of mawlid, where the Prophet (peace be upon him) is remembered and his life is celebrated without the restrictions of a typical mawlid. Hence, he himself previously agreed with the Deobandi position which he now misrepresents.

Deobandis label as innovation (bid`a) in a selective, Taymiyyan style identical to that of Wahhabis

Another inconsistency is that Dr Haddad refers to Allamah Abd al-Hayy al-Lucknawi's Tuhfat al-Akhyar (although he mistakenly refers to him as the teacher of Abu Ghuddah) as the best treatment of bid'ah. In that very treatise, al-Lucknawi supports the narrower definition of bid'ah which the Deobandis favour (see footnote 10) and which he so strongly condemns. The same narrower definition was held by al-Shatibi, Ibn al-Hajj, Ahmad al-Rumi and Ibn Taymiyya, and all four are referred to by Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri as reliable authors on bid'ah (see footnote 4).

Shah Ismail al-Dihlawi (1193-1246/1779-1830), the grandson of Shah Waliyyullah al-Dihlawi, after he returned from Hajj and began to author works that until now the Deobandi authorities not only have failed to condemn (as is wajib for them), but are actually still keeping on their syllabus and disseminating in all languages

I don't think Shah Isma'il's books are taught at Deobandi madaris. Nonetheless, surely if it is wajib on Deobandis to condemn Shah Isma'il al-Dehlawi, it is wajib on Berelwis to denouce the fatwa of takfir issued by Ahmad Rida Khan on the Deobandi elders?

It is clear once you peel through the layers of rhetoric and pretentious knowledge of the positions of Deobandis and Berelwis, Dr Haddad has simply dismissed almost all the critical and important issues, like the Berelwi takfir of Deobandi elders, the misrepresentations of their writings, the problems in the beliefs of their "Sunni detractors", and the precedence the Deobandis have for their positions (on bid'ah, imkan al-kadhib, khatamiyya etc.).

[Abu_Tamim]

How many were those who could not reach the outskirts of the knowledge and depth of understanding of our Akaabireen and floundered because of it? GF Haddad is just one of them.Who gives a damn for what he says?

[Ansari]

First of all the crazy takfiri Fatwa by Ahmad Raza Khan, Dr. GF Haddad should have accepted the lies especially the fabrication against Ml. Gangohi. He also should have brought Sh. Nuh's stance on this issue. It is not anymore a Deobandi problem, but a problem of the traditionalists.

Also, Barelwis should have declared him a kaafir for not accepting their verdict of takfir. Munawwar even translated the passage and yet did not had the nerves to call him a kaafir. His leader Aktar Raza Khan, their grandmufti of India even called a person kaafir for calling Deobandis Muslims. He even declared Tahirul Qadri kaafir.

I am in the process of writing an article about the revivor of takfir Ahmad Raza Khan and his followers. Not the Salafis, but the Barelwis deserve this title.

I believe we should not be adopting the defensive mode anymore when it comes to Barelwis. As Mawlana Sarfraz Khan said, that there are problems with some of the Barelwi texts as well.

Ahmad Yar Khan comparing the Prophet with deceiving hunters and other wretched deeds such as theft, fornication etc:
http://barelwism.wordpress.com/2010/...-with-hunters/
http://barelwism.wordpress.com/2010/...retched-deeds/

Ucharwi stating that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is present during intercourse: http://barelwism.wordpress.com/2010/...g-intercourse/