Forum Menu - Click/Swipe to open
 

The Deobandi ‘Ulama and Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab

You have contributed 4.3% of this topic

Thread Tools
Appreciate
Topic Appreciation
To appreciate this topic, click 'Appreciate Topic' on the right.
Rank Image
Abu Taalib Deobandi's avatar
U.S.
368
Brother
301
Abu Taalib Deobandi's avatar
#1 [Permalink] Posted on 19th October 2013 17:10
As Salaamu Alaykum,

I was asked to post this for awareness and feedback so please give thoughts.




The Deobandi 'Ulama and Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab:

This weak, lowly, undeserving slave asks you to be sincere, and read this without bias, prejudice, nor fanaticism. I ask you, purely for the sake of your Creator (Mighty and Sublime is He), to put aside any hatred, spite, or bitterness which may exist within you, and ponder, sincerely, with the intention of seeking the truth.

Before this undeserving one begins, I would like you to ask yourself a question - does praising someone without having knowledge of their reality now mean that the praiser automatically accepts everything the praised stood for? If that is indeed the case, then there are many, many Imams of the past who have praised ibn Taymiyya greatly without disparaging him in any way whatsoever. On the contrary, many wrote books in defense of him, rejecting the rulings of tabdi' (ie. judging someone to be an innovator) and takfir (ie. judging someone to be a disbeliever) levelled against him.

Any logical thinking, learned individual who has researched ibn Taymiyya would know that something is a little off in this regard. Why do some major Imams from ahl al-sunna praise him unreservedly while others harshly criticise him? The conclusion is pretty simple: they were not aware of his controversial nature in relation to many issues - especially his creed. This is evident from the statements of these Imams in regards to theology. Whenever they defended, or praised him, they would not mention his deviated beliefs and defend them, rather, they would mention his memory, personality, and knowledge. However, that's not all - within their own books, they thoroughly refuted the beliefs which ibn Taymiyya held, and in great detail, whilst equating them to deviation and disbelief. However, not once did they mention him when speaking of these said beliefs.

They severely refuted and denounced what he stood for, yet praised and defended him with reverence? How does that make sense?

There are two possible logical conclusions which come to the sound mind when confronted with this scenario:

1) Either ibn Taymiyya was free from holding such beliefs, or

2) they were unaware of ibn Taymiyya holding such beliefs.

Now, the first mentioned conclusion is clearly not plausible due to many factors (which can be mentioned in some detail at another time).

This only leaves us with one plausible conclusion - the Imams who revered ibn Taymiyya without ever criticising him did not infact know of his reality. Simple, yes? This is also evident from the above-mentioned examples. This could be due to many reasons, for example: they may not have had access to his controversial written works and manuscripts, in regards to which, it is known that he didn't openly promote these books due to fear of criticism, imprisonment, physical punishment, death, as well as the possibility of facing exile and being abandoned by ahl al-sunna.

Let us now move on to the issue of the scholars of Deoband praising Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi. Once again, please remember to leave aside any negative bias and proceed with sincerity in seeking the truth.

The Deobandi scholars seem to be divided on the issue of ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, and many have praised him with many others continuing to do so. However, in the same way, just as many others have severely criticised him, with many others continuing to do so. Why is this the case? Why are the scholars affiliated with Deoband so divided over such a clearly misguided individual? And why stop there? Many Deobandi scholars praised ibn Taymiyya, with many others continuing to do so. While on the other side of the same coin, many Deobandi scholars severely criticised him, with many others continuing to do so.

The answer is pretty simple for an unbiased, truth seeking mind.

Their example is that of those who preceded them. The Imams of the past were divided over the state of ibn Taymiyya due to some being more aware of his deviations than others. Likewise is the case with the Deobandi scholars. Those who were aware of all his deviations and controversial views, along with his trigger-happy takfiri tendencies and maniacal massacre-ing of believers, thoroughly refuted and criticised him. Those who were not aware of such, praised him based on what had reached them. This tradition continues among the Deobandi scholars of today, and thus some praise him, while others criticise him.

Most Deobandi scholars who spent time in the Arab lands would heavily criticise (and those of today who have done so, still criticise) both Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and his hero ibn Taymiyya. Most of those who have remained confined to subcontinent scholarship in their studies, have near to no knowledge of the reality of either of the two above-mentioned individuals.

The reasons for this are many. Some of which are as follows:

- Many of the books of ibn Taymiyya and Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab are not available in the subcontinent. Those who do have access to them rarely use or read them except to quote ibn Taymiyya against the wahhabis of the subcontinent (who call themselves "ahl al-hadith").

- The so-called "ahl al-hadith" would not (until fairly recently) attack ahl al-sunna in the subcontinent with their poisonous anthropomorphic creed. Their main focus has always been to attack the fiqh (jurisprudence) of the Hanafi madhhab (school of thought). As a matter of fact, the early wahhabis of the subcontinent have been known to have been inclined towards tasawwuf (sufic mysticism) and would even opt for figurative interpretation of the attributes of Allah.

If anyone still sincerely doubts the above, then my humble advice to them would be to confront a Deobandi scholar with the statements of the scholars from ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's time as well as the critical statements of their Deobandi elders in regards to the reality of his call, beliefs, and understanding. They should also explain all of the above to them in a respectable manner and see if they change their views on ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab.

For anyone who may object and say: "The Barelwis were aware of the reality of ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, so how can it be the case that the Deobandis weren't?" Then any honest, learned Barelwi would know that the majority of the Barelwis and many of their scholars are not aware of most of the controversies surrounding ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and ibn Taymiyya. Their general understanding of being a wahhabi is someone who follows Saudi moonsightings, or objects to their manner of celebrating the mawlid and 'urs (note: the Deobandis dissalow these as a way to blocking the means of many innovated practices of some subcontinent Barelwis which anyone who visits the subcontinent or searches youtube can clearly see. Many celebrate the mawlid and do 'urs in a manner which in no way resembles that of the Arab scholars). Their knowledge of ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab being a deviant (or in their case - a disbeliever) is based on what they had received/heard, while the Deobandis based their praise or criticism of him on what they had received/heard. This is a point which some people seem to object to, possibly because of their generalisation of Barelwi scholars based on those around them. If that is the case, then please don't take my word for it, I encourage you to speak to the Barelwi scholars of the subcontinent and their elderly scholars in the west - especially those who were born and raised in the subcontinent, have no link to Arab scholars and have not studied in the Arab lands. Test them on their knowledge of ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab and see the extent of their research on him - better yet, ask them if they've ever even read any of his books, and if most of what they know is in fact, based on hearsay. The simple fact that they call the Deobandi scholars "Wahhabis" is in itself, an attestation to the fact that they have no idea what a follower of ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab believes and propagates.

The following is an extract from the declaration of Deoband:

"... then in sum it is this that religiously Darul Uloom is Muslim; as a sect, Ahl-e-Sunnat wal-Jama'at; in practical method, (Mazhab), Hanafi'yat; in conduct, Sufi; dialectically, MATURIDI ASH'ARI; in respect of the mystic path, Chishtiyyah, rather comprising all the Sufi orders; in thought, Waliyullhian; in principle, Qasimiyah; sectionally, Rasheedian; and as regards connection, Deobandi...

... DIALECTICAL MATURIDIISM: That is, as regards beliefs, the sustentation of the power of certitude and the stability of true beliefs with right thinking in accordonce to the laws and principles determined and codified through the method of the Ahlus Sunnat wal-Jama'at and the ASHA'IRA and the MATUREEDIA; for without it escape from the doubts cast by the tergiversators and the conjectural innovations, superstitions and skepticism of the false sects is not possible. It is evident that this branch is connected with faith (iman)...

... Hence among the constituents of the track of Darul Uloom this factor is an important element on which the establishment of the education and training of Darul Uloom working. It comes under Ahsan (god-consciousness), while it is connected with spiritual training. Thus the knowledge of the Shari'at, the following of the path, conformity to the Sunnat, Jurisprudential Hanafi'ism, dialectical MATURIDIISM, defense against deviation, and the taste for Qasimism and Rasheedism are the constituents of this moderate track which answers well to "seven ears, in every ear a hundred grains" (11:261). If these "seven ears" are expressed in shara'i language, they can be interpreted as Iman (faith), Islam, Ashan and Izhar-e- Deen (demonstration of religion), as has been indicated item-wise above. The collection of all these seven articles with the above-mentioned details is the track of Darul Uloom Deoband..."

Source: darululoom-deoband.com/english/aboutdarululoom/the_tack.htm

A further point to take note of is the fact that Deobandi scholars do not go around slaughtering and massacre-ing believers while accusing them of shirk. Rather, they do what the scholars have said ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab should have done - they strive to raise awareness of the many prevalent customs in the subcontinent which outwardly denote shirk although the individuals involved may internally be safe from such. Something to ponder upon.

Incase the reader is of the view that the author of this very basic article is biased towards the Deobandi scholars as he himself is a Deobandi, then please know that this was written with the intention of raising awareness among the Deobandis, just as much so, as it was written to raise awareness among the Barelwis and everyone else. A huge problem, and one of the main reasons for disunity, takfir, and tabdi' in the subcontinent between the Deobandis and Barelwis, is ilzami arguments ie. "You said such and such, which means you believe this", or "You did such and such, so in turn it means that..." - this is a very unscholarly manner of discussion and in reality, is nothing but specualtion. Both camps need to move away from this tradition which is rampant on both sides. I do not agree with those who have made tabdi' and takfir of others while utilising this line of argument - whichever group they belong/ed to, and that this is/was an error on their respective part. We are not obliged to follow the errors of the scholars, but should rather learn from their mistakes and we should distance ourselves from such mistakes without bias and fanaticism. Many people need to learn and stop thinking that the Islamic world is based around the subcontinent and their issues of dispute, as sadly, this is case with many individuals.

Rather than making a generalisation of all Deobandi scholars based on those who may have praised Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, it would be more fruitful to join those like myself who strive to make them aware of his reality and that of ibn Taymiyya. Let us be those who are part of the cure, and not the disease.

A final word of advice: One should keep in mind that true research is that research which is done with the purpose of seeking the truth, and not that which is done to prove someone right or wrong according to ones own understanding based on preconceptions which they are stubborn upon. Have an open mind, and always seek the truth.

And Allah knows best.

Courtesy of: Fulan ibn Fulan al-Deobandi

wahhabiyya.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/the-deobandi-ulama-an...
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
#2 [Permalink] Posted on 20th October 2013 17:43
salaams i have to disagree, mufti farooq sahib when mentioning ibn taymiyah RA usually says RA after his name. and mufti farooq sahib is very knowledgeable and his students also say it after his name. but they usually say that he strayed on aqeedah but still was very knowledgeable
report post quote code quick quote reply
+0 -0Agree x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Abu Taalib Deobandi's avatar
U.S.
368
Brother
301
Abu Taalib Deobandi's avatar
#3 [Permalink] Posted on 20th October 2013 18:06
As salaamu alaykum

May Allah have mercy upon him.....and yes some have said his knowledged exceded his intelligence. ..or somthing similar....Masha Allah
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
afriki_haqq's avatar
Unspecified
418
Brother
200
afriki_haqq's avatar
#4 [Permalink] Posted on 21st October 2013 08:32
Assalaamu 'Alaykum

It would be excellent if someone could translate or summarise the main points from the book of Mawlana Manzur Nu'mani (RA) on the topic of the 'Ulama of Deoband and Sh. ibn 'Abdil Wahhab.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
afriki_haqq's avatar
Unspecified
418
Brother
200
afriki_haqq's avatar
#5 [Permalink] Posted on 21st October 2013 08:35
Assalaamu 'Alaykum

It would be excellent if someone could translate or summarise the main points from the book of Mawlana Manzur Nu'mani (RA) on the topic of the 'Ulama of Deoband and Sh. ibn 'Abdil Wahhab.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
11,537
Brother
106
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#6 [Permalink] Posted on 21st October 2013 10:50

afriki_haqq wrote:
View original post

pdf

report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0
back to top
Rank Image
Abu Taalib Deobandi's avatar
U.S.
368
Brother
301
Abu Taalib Deobandi's avatar
#7 [Permalink] Posted on 21st October 2013 13:23
As Salaamu alaykum

I have read the summary pdf before brother Muadh has posted here....yes itbis said some rumors and things was not true....but what is very I mean very confusing. Is the refutation of ibn Abdul wahhab by his own family and what's recorded by historians as him killing muslims and taking over the haram...Now I can see Mualana Nu'mani Rahmtuallahi alayh came from a aqeedah point of view...but what about whats historically mentioned......
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
abu mohammed's avatar
London
24,848
Brother
9,183
abu mohammed's avatar
#8 [Permalink] Posted on 21st October 2013 13:42
Abu Taalib Deobandi wrote:
View original post


I've also read some of the most strangest things and found it very hard to believe. It started creating many doubts for me too. The solution that worked for me was to ignore what I read and think positive as I didn't know who the author of the book was and what his background was.

I take from known respectable scholars from all schools including the Salafi and I leave what I don't understand.

If I don't understand it, I try to get a better understanding. If I cant understand it and its not going to make any difference to my way of life, then I leave it. As long as I'm not giving up on that which is essential.

Yes it is good to know the truth, but only if its taken from the correct source, otherwise Allahu Alum.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+4 -0Like x 2Agree x 2
back to top
Rank Image
Abu Taalib Deobandi's avatar
U.S.
368
Brother
301
Abu Taalib Deobandi's avatar
#9 [Permalink] Posted on 21st October 2013 14:08
abu mohammed wrote:
View original post

 



I'm tired of having discussions with barelvis and other madhahib adheres on the Ulema of Deobandi and this supposed affiliations with "wahhabis"
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
11,537
Brother
106
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#10 [Permalink] Posted on 21st October 2013 14:28

Abu Taalib Deobandi wrote:
View original post

In order to understand the opinions of Deobandi Ulamah we need to look at the issue chronologicaly. The first Fatwa which I know on the issue is by Shaykh (Mufti) Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi (RA):

“The followers of Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab (RA) are known as Wahabees. Their Aqaid are excellent and their Madhab is Hanbali. Although there is harshness in their temperament but him and his followers are good except the ones amongst them who have exceeded the limit (and therefore) became corrupt but their Aqaid are united.

The Fatwa above is almost bangon because at this point the propaganda hasn't reached India and Saudi Government hasn't become what it is today!

Thereafter the opinions of Ulamah are swayed:

  1. EIther by opponents of Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab (RA)
  2. OR by supporters of Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab (RA)  and rise of Saudi power

The facts remain that he neither killed all these innocent Muslims which he is accused of murdering NOR was he a very balanced individual when it came to Takfeer. His own brother (Qadhi of Huraymila) refuted him.

The truth is until Saudia as a country exists you will never get the truth because people will continue to try to appease them (or at least not antagonise them). The works of Maulana Naumani (RA) and encouragment by Shaykhul-Hadeeth (Maulana) Zakariyya Kandhalwi (RA) are clear attempts at maintaining cordial relations with Saudees (ofcourse it hasn't worked, look at all the Fatwaas against the Deobandees).

report post quote code quick quote reply
+4 -0Like x 1
back to top
Rank Image
afriki_haqq's avatar
Unspecified
418
Brother
200
afriki_haqq's avatar
#11 [Permalink] Posted on 21st October 2013 15:15
Assalaamu 'Alaykum

Brother Mu'adh, to understand correctly, are you saying that the work of Mawlana Nu'mani, the attestation by Qari Tayyib and Shaykh Zakariyya were meant to appease the Saud government?

What about the words of 'Allamah 'Ali Miya in his Saviours concerning Shaykh IAW?

Was 'Allamah appeasing the house of Saud as well?

I am very confused. Were the 'Ulama of Deoband (in general) not fearless when it came to proclaiming the Haqq no matter the consequence?
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
11,537
Brother
106
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#12 [Permalink] Posted on 21st October 2013 15:39

afriki_haqq wrote:
View original post

If not to appease than maybe to promote harmony and cordial relations otherwise show me works from the same Ulamah criticising Saudi Government and its policies?

Explain to me as to why a blind man can see the errors of Saudi Arabia, its treatment of Asians and migrants, its policies, its brutal enforcement of Shariah punishments on foreigners (sparing the Saudees) its rhetoric against Deoband but none of our Akabir and Mashaykh can see anything?

Even the most ardent Saudi Salafees can’t deny it but you never hear a beep from our Ulamah and Mashaykh, why is it? In return all Deobandees get are Fatwaas of heresy and deviancy from Saudi Scholars.

I have read books and works from our Ulamah criticising the Ottomans (no doubt correctly), does the Saudi Government does nothing wrong?

The question in this thread is about Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahab (RA) and he gave Fatwaas of Takfeer on entire towns (blanket Fatwaas) even the Salafees don’t deny this! Have our Ulamah not come across this? Its stupid to give a Fatwa that every Muslim in CapeTown is a Kaafir! on what basis???

True or False?

Don't know about SA but:

  1. In UK we have Darul-ulooms directly funded from Saudi  consulate (London), those asking for a proof go to our Akabir (in UK) and ask a direct question, "Hazrat (HA), can you deny that you have not received any funding from Saudi consulate in London?" simple Yes or No
  2. In Pakistan we have Darul-ulooms funded from Saudi money (during and after Afghan Jihad)

I am not talking about Saudi Nationals donating to Darul-ulooms in UK which is openly admitted but OFFICIAL SAUDI GOVERNMENT FUNDING!

report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0
back to top
Rank Image
Abu Taalib Deobandi's avatar
U.S.
368
Brother
301
Abu Taalib Deobandi's avatar
#13 [Permalink] Posted on 21st October 2013 16:05
Muadh_Khan wrote:
View original post

 



Ulema need to come clean and inform the public of the real scoop.young followers of the maslak are getting mislead because of lack of understanding& Info and elders are being harrassed and called "wahhabis"...I'm sick of it....
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
11,537
Brother
106
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#14 [Permalink] Posted on 21st October 2013 16:10

Abu Taalib Deobandi wrote:
View original post

Brother,

Deobandees have more similarities with "Wahabees" then Barelwees and they most certainly don't have a foul mouth to curse everybody else like the Barelwees do. We should do whats right and not because the Barelwees want us to do XYZ.

report post quote code quick quote reply
+2 -0Agree x 2
back to top
Rank Image
Abu Taalib Deobandi's avatar
U.S.
368
Brother
301
Abu Taalib Deobandi's avatar
#15 [Permalink] Posted on 21st October 2013 16:15
Muadh_Khan wrote:
View original post

 



The statement was made to help the youth and defend the maslak not because anybody wants us to Saheb....so if My statement was confusing I apologize and Hakeem ul Ummah made a clear and good statement about similarites and such and I also understand the maslak in dealing with probmatic figures bit sheesh it shudnt be so much grief (personal opinion)
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top