View original post
That is not his topic. His topic is sectarianism.
- He is not degrading Ulama of Deoband
- He is not telling people to abandon Ulama of Deoband.
- He is not undermining the sacrifices and accomplishments of the Ulama of Deoband
He is merely saying that as someone born in Deoband with family from Deoband (generationally) and his father being the graduate from Darul-uloom Deoband it is DISLIKED to call oneself “Deobandi” because “Deoband” is a continuation of Alhlus-Sunnah Wal-Jamaat and has no new Aqeedah/Fiqh/Ijtehaad to be coined as a new term called “Deobandi”.
His statement is factual.
He is saying the same about other sects as well but for the sake of this forum they need to concentrate on “Deobandi”.
There are 3 reasons why those opposing Mufti Rafi Usmani (HA) are reacting so aggressively:
- Their brains cannot wrap around what he is saying. They are equating what Mufti Rafi Usmani (HA) is saying to 1, 2 & 3.
- Because this term “Deobandi” has become so common, widespread and so easily understood by a few distinguishing markers (i.e. no prostration at graves, no weird rituals etc) they cannot comprehend that this isn’t really a well-defined and articulated definition. They are so overwhelmed that they equate this term to “Sunni” or “Hanafi” which are both well defined in their parameters
- In laymen parlance it is easy to say “Deobandi” and people immediately conjure up what you are similar to “Tableeghi” i.e. although it is not a term but people know what a “Tableeghi” stands for.
People are mistaking laymen parlance for Academic authority. The issue is so simple once hate, poison and emotion can be said aside, like this
Person 1: What are you?
Muadh Khan: I am a Muslim?
Person 1: Everybody is a Muslim which group or sect do you follow?
Muadh Khan: I follow the Hanafi Madhab and the Ulama of Deoband
But setting aside or casting bias, poison, hatred, and emotion is the hardest thing to do for any person. Because it shakes their core and their foundation, only few can rise above these emotions and actually objectively look at an argument.
In this case, people know that this is an identity from 1866 from a town in India but they are wearing it with a sense of pride knowing fully well that it is neither classical nor orthodox or normative.