> Who are deobandis?

[salamfromrom]

I recently read an article which said that almost half of all the masjids in the UK are Deobandi or affiliated with them.

Are they Ahl Dunnah wal Jammah? if not, what is it that makes them differ with the ahl sunnah?

There is contradicting information about those who call themselves deobandi.

Salam a leikum

[salman]

wa'alaykum as-salam

akhee, deobandis are considered to be among Ahlus Sunnah in general definition of Ahlus Sunnah. However, they are not among Ahlus Sunnah in specific definition. They are hanfi in fiqh, and Maturidi & Ash'ari in 'aqeedah. They are divided in two groups: hayati and mamati. They suffer greatly from blind taqleed and following their elders despite their clear errors and mistakes. On the other hand, there is good about them, as they are not really among the extreme sufis. In addition, if not all then most of deobandis respect salafi scholars unlike the extreme sufis/ash'aris.

and Allah knows best

[abdulrahman al muhajir]

if they follow the Ashari and Maturidi in aqeedah how can they be from Ahlus suunah wal Jama'ah?

[Abu Zayd al-Atharee]

Originally Posted by abdulrahman al muhajir

if they follow the Ashari and Maturidi in aqeedah how can they be from Ahlus suunah wal Jama'ah?

As salaam alaikum wa rahmatullah,

The brother said that they are from Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa'ah in the general sense, but their differ on certain issues. Therefore, as the brother mentioned, they are not from Ahlus Sunnah in specific issues.

If you wish to exclude all those that are Ash'ari and Maaturidi from Ahlus Sunnah, then you will have to exclude al-Bayhaqi, al-Juwayni, Ibn Hajr, an-Nawaawi, al-Ghazaali, as-Suyuti, al-'Aynee and many many more.

[salman]

^akhee, Jazak Allah khayr for clarifying but let me elaborate your point a bit. When we discuss being a sunni among ourselves then we say that they are not among the Ahlus Sunnah for two reasons:

1 - they have adopted an incorrect aqeedah
2 - when we usually talk about Ahlus Sunnah, we are referring to specific definition of Ahlus Sunnah: those who understood the shariah as the Salaf understood it and in the case specifically the aqeedah

The general definition of Ahlus Sunnah just makes the distinction between sunnis and shias. So by the general definition even the jahmiyyah, Murji, Khawarij, Mu'tazilite etc., are sunnis.

Another thing is that early ash'aris were more closer to Ahlus Sunnah because they accepted many Sifaat of Allah; however, the latter ones (like in our age) dwell more into ta'wil and hence they are more like jahmis.

As far the ulama you mentioned, what we say about them is that, insha'Allah, they are among us but they made some mistakes in their understanding of the creed due to environment in which they were brought up, popularity of batil creeds, and their ijtihad. Important thing to remember is that their good outweigh their mistakes by a long shot. So, may Allah have mercy on them, and forgive their mistakes, ameen.

and indeed Allah knows best

[ardianto]

Akhee Salman,
Many people say, Deobandi is Pakistani version of Wahabi. Is it right ?.

[salman]

^

no akhee, they are not. The Pakistani version of "wahhabi" are known as Ahl al-hadis there and they are counter part of deobandis. They both have problems and good in them. We take good from both sides and advise them to stop their extremism against each other and come together. Good thing about both groups is that they are against extreme sufism, innovation and shirk. Allahu A'lam

[hafizsaad]

Originally Posted by salman

akhee saad, please show me where I said that they are commuting kufr al-Akbar hence out of fold of Islam. Please brother, let be more just here.

Even if I did say that Ash'ari are commiting kufr then this is because:

1 - modern day ahs'aris or maturidis are not early kallabi ash'aris. They are the jahmis of the time of the Salaf. We all know what the Salaf said about them.

Brother salman i think this is not the topic of debate (you have seen the debate in www.ahlalhdeeth.com) but you instead of seeing the explaination, continue criticising and exposing without proof.My explaination given on ashiri and Aqeedah e deoband are open for reading.Please read them and then comment.You without your personal search has at once consider the world more widely accepted madhab (Madhab e hanfi)commuting kufr al-Akbarhence thrown out of fold of Islam.

Have you not read the following Paragraph why tahweel(interpretition):

As for Imaam al-Maturidee (who the Hanafis generally follow in beliefs) and Imaam al-Awzaa'ee (who the Shaafi'ee generally follow in belief), they both believe in not making Ta'weel. (see Muqaddamah of Kitaab al-Tawhid of Imaam al-Maturide by Shaykh Fathullah Khaleef pgs.10-11). This is basically the view of the Ahlus sunnah Wal Jamaa.
Actually, our Aqeeda is in accordance with the first Madhab (Not making Interpretition). The second Madhab came about because there were many misled groups in the latter times, like al-Mujassamah who believe that Allah has the same qualities as human beings. The Mutakallimeen had to refute these misled groups. To do so they made Ta'weelaat (interpretations) by stating that these verse are not in their literal sense, but indicate Power, Majesty, etc. In making Ta'weel, they did not intend to oppose the Salaf, but to oppose the misled groups. the Mutakallimeen have stated that if they were in the era of the Salaf, they would not have made any Ta'weel in the verse of Sifaat.

2 - some of the salaf said whoever believes that Allah is not above His throne separate from His creation in His Essence has committed kufr i.e., Imam Abu Hanifa. In fact, the 4th generation khalaf scholars (i.e., ibn Khuzaymah rahimahullah) has said this was the ijmaa'a of the Salaf.

Regarding the question, “where is Allah?” firstly, it should be remembered that this is not something that one will be asked about on the day of Qiyamah. We are in need of people really learning about the basics of Islam, rather than engaging themselves in these matters. Those that argue and cause destruction with such issues are normally ignorant about even the basics of Salat, Zakat, Hajj, etc… We need to really wake up and smell the coffee!

Secondly, this question in itself is wrong. We ask regarding the whereabouts of a person that lives in time and space. For example, I encompass time, meaning I live in time, and I have a body that needs to fill some space.

However, Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is the creator of time and space. If we limit Him to any time or space, then this would imply that we resemble Him to his creation by giving Him a body, as space is limited. If one was to say that Allah is everywhere, then this is wrong, as ‘everywhere’ is limited and ends somewhere, whereas Allah is not limited.

Similarly, to say that Allah is on earth, sky, moon, sun, throne, etc… is also wrong, as all these things are limited and to limit Allah to any created thing is Kufr.

Imam al-Tahawi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his famous al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya:

“He (Allah) is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or limbs. Nor is He contained by six directions as all created things are.” (P. 9).

Imam al-Nasafi (Allah have mercy on him) states:

“He (Allah) is not a body (jism), nor an atom (jawhar), nor is He something formed (musawwar), nor a thing limited (mahdud), nor a thing numbered (ma’dud), nor a thing portioned or divided, nor a thing compounded (mutarakkab), nor does He come to end in Himself. He is not described by quiddity (al-ma’hiya), or by quality (al-kayfiyya), nor is He placed in space (al-makan), and time (al-zaman) does not affect Him. Nothing resembles Him, that is to say, nothing is like Him.” (See: Sa’d al-Din al-Taftazani & Najm al-Din al-Nasafi, Sharh al-Aqa’id al- Nasafiyya, 92-97).

In conclusion, one must have the Aqidah that Allah Most High is pure from space and time. It is wrong to say that He is everywhere and it is also wrong to believe that He is on something, as all these are limited whereas Allah Almighty is limitless. However, we must believe that His knowledge encompasses everything, and he knows, sees and listens to everything.
And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

We are already aware of the aqeedah of deobandis and their likes in other part of the world.

I have given complete detail on my point that there is no contradiction and difference in the aqeedah of deoband and its same as to Ahlus Sunnah.

Take any book trusted in the doctrines of Ahl al-Sunnah group, and read it you will find that the doctrine of Deoband scholars is all according to which set of beliefs, and read any book trusted in doctrine and jurisprudence on the doctrine of Imam Abu Hanifa, you will find that the statement of the doctrinal issues and fundamentalism is school of thought to the Deoband scholars; and see which book is true in morality and charity, you will find that it is a reference Deoband scholars in the charity and recommend ethics. But they make those people who unanimously nation of His Majesty the fate and status of scientific and practical - from the prophets, peace be upon customers, through Balsahabp and followers, and the end of the guardians of the nation and Salehaiha - models to be followed and tradition.

To sum up: there is no aspect of the religious scholars of Deoband which deviate one iota from the interpretation of Islam and inherited temperament and taste genuinely. For all we do not see the need to book a single to explain their beliefs. If anyone wants to keep their faith, he trusted to review the majority of scholars of the nation, Qur'an commentaries and explanations of modern books of fiqh al-Hanafi, beliefs, speech, and charity and morality, which is talking about - about their beliefs - in detail.


and Allah knows best

Mufti Ibrahim Desai and his likes are the last people you want to quote to prove that neo-Ash'aris and Maturidis are on haqq.
If you want to prove your point then please bring something from the Salaf on issues which Ahlus Sunnah disagree with Ash'aris and Maturidis or those Khalaf scholars who were not influenced by this ash'ari maturidi creed.

A Question similar to your is following
Q. The Salafis claim that Abul Hasan Ash‘ari formulated the Ash‘ari tenets of Islamic faith (‘aqida) while he was between the Mu‘tazila and Ahl al-Sunna, and that he later refuted his formulations and joined Ahl al-Sunna in the Hanbali madhhab before he died. Is there any truth in this? They say his last book, al-Ibana, contains the refutations. If not, how can I prove it to these people? They also say that he had a second dream in which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) appeared to him and told him that his Ash‘ari positions were wrong!

Answer : See the Fatwa Link Here

[hafizsaad]

Originally Posted by salman

Another thing is that early ash'aris were more closer to Ahlus Sunnah because they accepted many Sifaat of Allah; however, the latter ones (like in our age) dwell more into ta'wil and hence they are more like jahmis.

As far the ulama you mentioned, what we say about them is that, insha'Allah, they are among us but they made some mistakes in their understanding of the creed due to environment in which they were brought up, popularity of batil creeds, and their ijtihad. Important thing to remember is that their good outweigh their mistakes by a long shot. So, may Allah have mercy on them, and forgive their mistakes, ameen.

and indeed Allah knows best

Brother salman, i have answer you in another post but i paste that answer here just to remove the misconception of other viewer about deobandi aqeeda.

Why Ta'wil (Interpretition) has try to made by ash'aris/ Matrudees

A.) The Maturidis and the Ash'aris are from the Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jamaa. Here under is a brief explanation on their beliefs regarding the Sifat of Allah.

Basically, the Ulama of Aqaaid (beliefs) are of two categories,
a) The Salaf (former Ulama),
b) Mutakallimeen (Ulama of Aqeedah)

Imam al-Nawawiy (RA) mentions in his commentary of Sahih Muslim, 'There are two famous Madhabs with regards to the beliefs of the Sifaat of Allah:

1) The Madhab of majority of the Salaf and a few Mutakallimeen is to believe in the reality of the Sifaat of Allah in accordance to whatever is appropriate for Allah. The apparent known meanings of those Sifaat are not meant. No Ta'weel (interpretation) should be made in the matter.

2) The Madhab of most of the Mutakallimeen and a few of the Salaf like Imaam al-Nawawiy and Imaam al-Awzaa'ee is that Ta'weel will be made.

Both these Madhabs are unanimously accepted.

Actually, our Aqeeda is in accordance with the first Madhab. The second Madhab came about because there were many misled groups in the latter times, like al-Mujassamah who believe that Allah has the same qualities as human beings. The Mutakallimeen had to refute these misled groups. To do so they made Ta'weelaat (interpretations) by stating that these verse are not in their literal sense, but indicate Power, Majesty, etc. In making Ta'weel, they did not intend to oppose the Salaf, but to oppose the misled groups. The Mutakallimeen have stated that if they were in the era of the Salaf, they would not have made any Ta'weel in the verse of Sifaat.

As for Imaam al-Maturidee (who the Hanafis generally follow in beliefs) and Imaam al-Awzaa'ee (who the Shaafi'ee generally follow in belief), they both believe in not making Ta'weel. (see Muqaddamah of Kitaab al-Tawhid of Imaam al-Maturide by Shaykh Fathullah Khaleef pgs.10-11). This is basically the view of the Ahlus sunnah Wal Jamaa.

As for ibn Taymiyah (RA) believing in the Sifaat of Allah without Ta'weel, the Shaykh is correct in his statement. (Fataawa ibn Taymiyah vol.6 pg.213; Cairo)

As for the statement of the Shaykh that the Ahlus Sunnah are confined to those that follow the thoughts of ibn Taymiyah, this is incorrect as explained above.

The scholars of the Maturidee and Ash'ari schools of thought who came after the founders of these schools adopted the view of making Ta'weel to combat the deviated sects of their respective eras. But, these scholars knew the limits of making Ta'weel.

We advise that we maintain the belief of the Salaf, i.e. we don't make Ta'weel because:

1) This was the belief of Imaam al-Maturidee (and we are Maturidees)

2) The latter Ulama only made Ta'weel because of Dhuroorah (i.e. necessity in combating the deviated sects).

3) These Ulama who made Ta'weel, they knew the limits of Ta'weel.

Shaykh Taqi-u-ddin Ahmad ibn Taymiyah was a prominent Aalim (scholar) of Deen. Shaykh Taqi-u-ddin had his independent views on many matters based on his vast knowledge and research. It is incorrect for non-scholars and non-academics to pass a judgment especially on such learned people. They should fear Allah and abstain from engaging themselves in such discussions. Differences of opinion is a salient feature among the Ulama-e-Haqq (true scholars).
And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

.............................................

Brother Salman,

You also had described this in one post "Re: Allah has been creating since eternity.."

We don't say that Allah's Attributes are "part" of Him. We simply say that He has Attributes that befits Him. "parts, limbs, bodies, etc." are terms used by Ahlul Bid'ah. On side note, the Salaf and the khalaf scholars of Ahlus Sunnah did use some of terms used by Ahlul Bid'ah but it was only to refute them. There's a complete censor on using these terms when explaining the aqeedah (creed) to laypeople.


Deobandi aqeedah is pure to Ahlus Sunnah and there is no any mistake in the aqeedah.

Take any book trusted in the doctrines of Ahl al-Sunnah group, and read it you will find that the doctrine of Deoband scholars is all according to which set of beliefs, and read any book trusted in doctrine and jurisprudence on the doctrine of Imam Abu Hanifa, you will find that the statement of the doctrinal issues and fundamentalism is school of thought to the Deoband scholars. if you want to see personaly Aqeedah deoband see links here
In English, In Arabic (in systematic detail)

[salman]

before I jump into deobandi aqeedah and errors therein and respond to your jahmi arguments brother, let us first over little bit history because in order to understand these kalami arguments, one needs to look at history.

NOTE: discussion from here on is going to be advance and not recommended for every person. Hence, if my first paragraph makes no sense to you then flee from this topic

The first people who denied that Allah is above His throne separate from His creation and rest of His Attributes were none other than Jahmis. The used well known argument, hudooth al-ajsam (the creatdness bodies), to prove atheists that Allah exists and in this process they denied all these Attributes of Allah. This argument is used by all the groups of mutakalimeen (i.e., Mu'tazilite, Ash'ariyyah, Maturidiyyah). The jahmis order of argument was simple (in layman's term):

1) everything around us is created because they have bodily attributes: Qualities, incidental attributes and occurrences are taking place in this body. So everything around us is nothing but a body with bodily attributes (mentioned above); hence, universe is created and there must be a Creator

2) because there is a Creator which means Prophethood is plausible.

3) however when the athiests asked them how do you define your Lord, the jahmis eventually had to resort to ta'weel (giving non-apparent meaning) and ta'teel (denying) regarding Allah's Attributes (Hearing, Seeing, Rising over throne, Descending, Speaking, etc.)

4) So when they came to ayaat of the Qur'an, i.e., Allah spoke to Musa (alayhi as-salam), they said this is an incidental attribute and occurrence which implies that Allah is body which implies that He is created. So, they said that Allah doesn't speak and He never spoke to Musa. When they came to the ayaat that Allah rose over His throne and He will descend on the last day and the believers will see him. They said this implies that Allah is in a direction and that implies He is in place and that implies that He is body which means He is created. So they said Allah never made Istawa, neither He Descends nor believers will see Him on the last day.

Now compare jahmi nonsense with modern day neo-asha'ris arguments and you will see where they stand.

The later mutakalimeen (i.e., Mu'tazalis, Ash'aris, Mutaridis) affirmed some Attributes for Allah while denies others because according to their jahmfied argument it implies Allah is like His creation and has a jism. They call the salafis mujasmis yet they forget that according to jahmis all of them are mujasmis. To them, affirming whatever Allah has affirmed for Himself and His Prophet (peace be upon him) has affirmed for Him and how the Salaf understood it, implies tajseem yet none of the Salaf denied what comes in the text neither the salaf used jahmi line of argument to deny Allah's Attributes. To them, affirming Allah's two Hands or Him being above His throne separate from His creation etc., implies tajseem yet they affirm hearing, life, love, mercy and 3 attributes for Allah. Isn't hearing also an attribute of creation; thus, affirming it for Allah would mean He is a jism!?

and Allah knows best

Now that history is mentioned, let me respond to brother's specific arguments.

continuing in next post