A post was published earlier mistaking Badr al-Din al-Halabi for Allamah Badr al-Din al-Hasani.
We apologise for the error. The post has now been deleted.
UPDATE (21/11/18): Barelwi apologist, Muhammad Danyaal, has been harping on about mistaking the work al-Ta’lim wa l-Irshad of Badr al-Din al-Halabi as that of Allamah Badr al-Din al-Hasani. He has been scouring through the work looking for anything problematic, and asking if we endorse all contents of the book. In response to his facile objection, we state the obvious: the post was an endorsement of the citation from the work refuting false Barelwi beliefs on hazir nazir and ilm jami ma kana wa ma yakun, it was not an endorsement of all contents of the book.
Furthermore, the post did refer correctly to Allamah Badr al-Din al-Hasani while describing his connection with some ulama of Deoband. This part of the post is reproduced below:
Connection with ‘Ulamā’ of Deoband
The author of Tazkirat al-Khalīl (an extensive biography of Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī), Mawlānā ‘Ᾱshiq Ilāhī Mīruthī (1881 – 1941) , lists and documents the asānīd of Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī (1852 – 1927) in some detail. Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī had acquired sanad of ḥadīth from several musnids: his primary teacher, Mawlānā Maẓhar Nānotwī (1823 – 1885), Mawlānā ‘Abdul Qayyūm Bud-hānawī, Shaykh Aḥmad Zaynī Daḥlān, Shaykh Ismā‘īl ibn Idrīs al-Rūmī, Shāh ‘Abdul Ghanī Dehlawī and Sayyid Aḥmad Barzanjī. (Tazkirat al-Khalīl, Maktabah al-Shaykh, p. 43 – 50)
A seventh sanad, the author of Tazkirat a-Khalīl then describes as follows:
“I quote on the authority of Mawlāna Ẓafar Aḥmad Ṣāḥib Tahānawī (1892 – 1974 CE), and this is also my recollection, that in 1329 (1911 CE) when this slave went with the permission of Ḥaḍrat [Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī] from Ḥijāz by railway from Madīnah Munawwarah to Damascus, and visited Quṭb al-Waqt Mawlānā Sayyid Badr al-Dīn Muḥaddith, may his shadow be maintained, the heir of ‘Allāmah Nawawī’s famous Dār al-Ḥadīth and an extremely close adherent of the Sunnah, an unmatched and authoritative senior, he gave this slave ijāzah of the ḥadīths of the Ṣiḥāḥ and some specific awrād and gave me a signed written record of the ijāzah. When this was mentioned to Ḥaḍrat after having returned home, Ḥaḍrat also expressed a desire to acquire ijāzah to narrate ḥadīth from such a great scholar. The abovementioned shaykh gave me three copies of a printed ijāzah document at the time of leaving to write down the name of one I find to be qualified in the blank space and give it to him on his behalf. I wrote down Ḥaḍrat’s noble name and offered it to Ḥaḍrat. Either that or Ḥaḍrat wrote a letter, and Shaykh Badr al-Dīn himself sent an ijāzah to him. If this incident is accurate, which it is to the best of my knowledge, then this is another chain. I will reproduce my ijāzah changing the name [to Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī’s] so it is preserved [here].” (ibid. p. 50)
The Arabic ijāzah is then quoted in full.
 Mawlānā ‘Ᾱshiq Ilāhī ibn Yād Ilāhī Mīrut-hī (1881 – 1941 CE) was a respected publisher, translator and biographer. He graduated in the Islāmic sciences aged 16, and took bay‘ah from Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī in the year 1898. He taught at Dārul ‘Ulūm Nadwat al-‘Ulamā’ for a short time. In the year 1900, he founded Khayr al-Maṭābi‘, a printing press which became very successful in a short period of time. In 1903, he performed Ḥajj with his mother. Following Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī’s death in 1905, he took bay‘ah from the latter’s foremost spiritual successor, Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpurī, and eventually received ijāzah and khilāfah from the latter in the spiritual path. In 1908, he wrote and published the famous Tazkirat al-Rashīd, a detailed biography of Mawlānā Gangohī. In 1910, he took part in Ḥajj with Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī and Mawlānā Shāh ‘Abdur Raḥīm Rāipūrī, and visited Shām, Palestine and Egypt on this trip. In 1915, he published another popular work, his Urdu translation of Imdād al-Sulūk, called Irshād al-Mulūk. In 1919, his first wife died, leaving behind five children, and shortly after her death, he married his second wife. In 1926, he became the rector of Maẓāhir al-‘Ulūm, Sahāranpūr. Shortly after the death of Mawlānā Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī, he wrote his biography, Tazkirat al-Khalīl. Mawlānā Zakariyyā Kāndhlawī describes him as “extremely intelligent, very organised, intelligent and with a joyful temperament; however, he would become very stern upon seeing evils (munkarāt), which would at times lead him to say harsh words.” Mawlānā Zakariyyā Kāndhlawī led his janāzah.
Finally, Muhammad Danyaal should perhaps turn his critical lens more inward, and call out the “horrendous” mistakes of Barelwi apologists like Abu Hasan and Asrar Rashid, most of which have not been answered for. Is it not “hypocritical” of him not to do so? Take for example Abu Hasan, who is someone Muhammad Danyaal has referred to and used.
Will Muhammad Danyaal call Abu Hasan out for his horrendous mistranslation of a verse of the Quran, as documented here: https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/abu-hasans-distorted-translation-of-quran-verses/ ?
Will Muhammad Danyaal call Abu Hasan out for his horrendous mistranslation of a passage of Musamarah/Musayarah, as documented here: https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/another-example-of-the-distortions-of-abu-hasan/ ?
And there are other horrendous mistakes made by Abu Hasan, a list of which is documented here: https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/deceptions-and-distortions-of-abu-hasan/ .
Update (03/01/19): Another important point that we failed to mention in our initial post is that ‘Allāmah Maḥmūd Rashīd al-‘Aṭṭār (1867 – 1943), a great scholar of Shām, and the most notable student of ‘Allāmah Sayyid Badr al-Dīn al-Ḥasanī (1851 – 1935), endorsed al-Muhannad ‘ala l-Muhannad, ‘Allāmah Khalīl Aḥmad Sahāranpūrī’s defence of the beliefs of the ‘Ulamā’ of Deoband in matters that they were alleged to have parted from the Ahl al-Sunnah (including the topic of “imkān al-kadhib“). He writes: “I have come across this important work and found it to be a book comprising of all subtle and manifest [matters] in refutation of the innovated group of Wahhābīs, may Allāh (Exalted is He) increase the likes of its author.” (al-Muhannad ‘ala l-Muhannad, Dār al-Fatḥ, p. 132 – 133)