Anyone who does not declare the Deobandis as unbelievers, is himself a disbeliever


One should know that Ahmad Raza Khan in his Fatwa of kufr against the Deobandi scholars was against ALL Deobandis. And even to those persons who refused to make takfir of Deobandis.

This Fatwa can be still found today. In a question posted to the scholars of Bareilly, the fate of a person called Zayd was asked. Zayd considers himself as a lover of Ahmad Raza Khan and is a murid of the grandson of Alahazrat, Akthar Raza Khan, but refused to do Takfir of Deobandis and has other teachers who also refuse takfir, and perform the funeral prayer of Deobandis.

The answer was quite simple, and it was said that these people should renew their belief and their marriage contracts if they have a wife.

See: ‘Abd al-Rahim Bistawi, Majmu‘a Fatawa Bareilly Sharif, p. 89-91

For the original scans:

http://www.razanw.org/data/09-sunni_fatawa_collection/09A-sunni_fatawa_collection_gif/fatawa_bareilly/89.gif
http://www.razanw.org/data/09-sunni_fatawa_collection/09A-sunni_fatawa_collection_gif/fatawa_bareilly/90.gif
http://www.razanw.org/data/09-sunni_fatawa_collection/09A-sunni_fatawa_collection_gif/fatawa_bareilly/91.gif

We know ask the question to our Barelwi brethren: What is the fate of the millions of scholars outside the subcontinent, who refused to do takfir of the Deobandis? Nowadays the Fatwa of your Alahazrat has even been translated.

It was even translated by Shaykh Nuh in his article and quoted by the Barelwi scholars. Please do give your Fatwa of Takfir of Shaykh Nuh and all those other scholars in the world who have refused to perform takfir.

Advertisements

2 Responses to Anyone who does not declare the Deobandis as unbelievers, is himself a disbeliever

  1. Abul Hussain says:

    Says the imam of barelwis abu hasan al-ridawi
    the owner of barelwi publications & admin of barelwiport
    http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showpost.php?p=38309&postcount=2
    [quote=abu hasan]
    Bearing love and affection, is entirely different from giving consideration and conducting transactions with someone. The difference between the two, is like that between the sky and the earth. It is permissible to conduct transactions and have dealings with anyone, except with apostates like Wahabis and Deobandis, in worldly matters, and [matters] in which there is no harm for religious obligations. The Dhimmi is similar to a Muslim in all such dealings: “They shall have the same rights and obligations as us”.

    It is permissible to conduct transactions even with non-dhimmis. Transactions like buying and selling, leasing and renting, giving and accepting gifts (upon the condition that these gifts are permitted by the sharīáh); and to purchase anything from them, when such goods are of benefit for Muslims; and to sell them anything except weapons or such things that may be (mis)used to insult Islām. So also, it is permitted to employ them to do things that are not contrary to the sharīáh; and to accept employment of non-muslims in permissible activities that are not humiliating [to Muslims]; so also is hiring them and getting hired by them. It is permissible to give them gifts as goodwill as long as such gifts do not honour the rituals and religious customs of infidels, and to accept their gifts as long as such gifts do not contravene or criticise Islām. It is even permissible to marry a Christian or Jewish woman.

    As long as they make peace with us, we shall be inclined towards them [in amity] – as long as such treaties do not force us to make ĥalāl as ĥarām and vice versa. So also, [it is allowed] to have contracts with them, and have covenants with them to a certain extent; and when such a permissible covenant is made, it is obligatory to fulfil it and it is forbidden to betray or renege from such promises.
    [/quote]

    Basically, Abu Hasan Barelwi is saying it is even haram to do any transactions with Deobandis or Wahhabis because they are murtadeen [apostates]… I guess barelwis also prohibit marrying non-barelwis because anyone who fails to declare deobandis and wahhabis as kaafir is himself kaafir according to the infamous fatwa of the neo khariji Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi.

    • Abul Hussain says:

      Then the Barelwi Mawlana Shaykh Abu Hasan contradicted himself by saying

      http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=10057
      we do not consider all wahabis as kafir, nor all devbandis as kafir. only those who disrespect RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam and those who knowingly respect them (without ta’wil – as there is ikhtilaf on takfir of mut’awwil) and agree with their disrespect as kafir.

      regardless, calling one a wahabi unjustly does not make the caller a wahabi automatically – nor does it necessitate tajdid iman or nikah. tawbah, is necessary of course.

      Allah ta’ala knows best.

      ————–REPLIED BY ANOTHER HARDCORE BARELWI on the same forum/post——
      chisti-raza :
      This is who Ala Hazrat considered to be Deobandi in the true sense. So when scholars speak of Deobandis this is the group that they are referring to. Mufti Shariful Haqq explained it very well.
      __________________
      ————–REPLIED BY ANOTHER HARDCORE BARELWI on the same forum/post——
      kattarsunni :

      Mufti Akhtar Rida is a scholar and has valid points.

      The so called ‘Ridwi’ clan who proclaim to follow him are going too far. Why are they making Maulana Ilyas Qadri like a person of innovation when he has changed his opinion on an issue of furu’? I’m sure video filming falls under the category of ijtihad and not under consensus.

      Like the guy in this video:: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=FeB2T3puXoU&NR=1

      ————————–END

      Note: Keep in mind they are discussing the tabdee/tasfiq/takfeer of splinter barelwi sect Dawate Islami run by Ilyas Qadri Attari who when saw the success of tablighi jamaat just copied them dot to dot ( obviously barelwis cannot produce anything real they are only copycats )

      —— THEN THE REPLY BY ABU HASAN —–

      ta’wil is not acceptable in cases of explicit insults.

      if it is a generic question, it depends on the statement that he seeks to justify or make ta’wil. if you are asking about the specific case of deobandi elders, if any native urdu speaker tries to justify those blasphemies upon which alahazrat made takfir, i cannot consider such a person as a muslim.


      secondly, my point was about “respecting blasphemers, with a ta’wil” or “abstaining from takfir of these blasphemers with a ta’wil”.

      for example, a majority of common people in the tabligh jamaat are not even aware of these issues. and when told, they still hesitate with the ta’wil: “perhaps they did not say this, perhaps they said something else” and so forth. i have heard people deny that devbandi elders have said such things and that all this was forged by enemies. common people do not wish to get involved at all – and say that it is beyond their comprehension and they do not wish to even talk about it.

      being a native urdu speaker myself, i can empathise with ordinary people in our time who are flummoxed with the archaic and complex sentence structure (of barahin, hifzul-iman and tahzir). particularly in south india, where a majority cannot read urdu, although it is spoken widely by muslims there. if such people claim they are unable to decide whether these statements are disrespectful, it is difficult to not admit their excuse.

      non-urdu speakers, in the west or among arabs, abstaining from takfir with the ta’wil: “perhaps alahazrat made a mistake” “perhaps the devbandi explanation is the accurate one” “nobody can say such things, and already khalil ahmed has disavowed it in muhannad” and so forth. here too, it is difficult to make takfir of such people.

      there is no evidence that imam kawthari was aware of such statements and radd of sunni ulama, before he praised thanwi and others in his maqalat. thus, if someone hesitates – basing his judgement on imam kawthari: “kawthari praised thanawi” or “the sanad of many scholars in shaam al-sharif goes through deobandis, and therefore they could not be kafirs…”

      the rule: “he who doubts in his kufr is also a kafir” applies only where people are aware, they acknowledge that someone has been disrespectful and still do not consider such a person as kafir.

      —-
      if one emphatically rejects the statements of devbandis and deems them disrespectful, but still abstains from takfir by doing ta’wil of those statements, it is pending examination and depends on the ta’wil he makes.

      because alahazrat says about nasir tusi: “that he used to make ta’wil of the kufr of his elders and where he couldn’t manage [a plausible ta’wil] he rejected those statements”. [fatawa ridawiyyah 21/220]

      —-
      Allah ta’ala knows best.

      ————————————————-END—–

      Please notice the excuses these barelwis have given to the likes of Sayyid Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki , Mohammad Yacoubi , Habib Ali Jifri and Nuh Keller who have read the aqaid of Deoband and have accepted on the face value that Mr. Ahmed Rida Khan has tricked them.

      Ahmed Rida Khan Baraylawi made an accusation
      Deobandi replied to the accusation

      Books are in arabic where Alahazrat Ahmad Raza Khan made the accusations

      Reply to the accusation is also in arabic

      Only one thing comes to mind regarding Barelwis which is Neo Khawarij

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: