The Mystery of Whether or Not the Ulama-e-Deoband Ascribe Themselves to the Maturidi Aqeedah

“As a side-point, Hanafi Usool texts are mostly riddled with Maturidi theology, esp. in the first halves of the books mentioned, As nothing is done to counter them when lecturing, we can safely assume that Deobandi brothers are Maturidis.”

– The Horses Mouth (aka Shaykh Harris Hammam)

SHARH AQAAID NASAFI

With regard to this highly-placed, most authoritative treatise expounding the Aqaaid (beliefs) of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, and which kitaab is to this day of fundamental importance in the sphere of Aqeedah, the coprocreep moron says:

“Sharh Aqaaid Nasafiyyah, the former bedrock of Deobandi-Maturidi Aqeedah has been severely compromised within the Deoband of today.”

This unsubstantiated contention of the coprocreep is false – utterly baseless. Sharh Aqaaid remains the “bedrock” of the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. It is a kitaab in Aqeedah which occupies the highest pedestal in the sphere of the Beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. The contention that this elevated kitaab of Allaamah Taftazaani (rahmatullah alayh) has been “severely compromised within the Deoband of today” is baseless. The compromise exists in the hallucination of the coprocreep.

This wonderful kitaab (i.e. the Matan) which deals with the subject of Aqaaid was authored by Imaam Umar An-Nasafi Abu Hafs Umar Bin Muhammad Ahmad Bin Ismaail Bin Muhammad Bin Luqmaan Nasafi (rahmatullah alayh). He was born in the year 461 Hijri in the City of Nasaf and died in 537 Hijri in Samarqand. He is also known as Imaam Najmudeen. Mullah Ali Qaari states in Tabaqaat that Imaam Najmuddeen would impart knowledge to both humans and jinn, hence he is known as Muftith Thaqalain (the Mufti of the Two Species – man and jinn). He was a follower of the Hanafi Math-hab.

The Sharh (Commentary), i.e. Sharh Aqaaid, of this highly authoritative treatise, is devoted to the refutation of the deviate sects and the substantiation of Aqaaid and Usool of Islam according to the expositions of the Salf-e-Saaliheen. It is therefore only a corrupt jaahil – a coprocreep – who can afford to be so audacious as to criticize and refute this noble Work and to attack the Ulama of Deoband who have been the vanguards of the Deen in general and of the Aqaaid of the Ahlus Sunnah in particular.

Claiming  an existence of an ‘internal conflict in Aqeedah’ of the Ulama Deoband, the coprocreep alleges:

“…because the book is a philosophical mash-up, these particular Deobandi brothers have been forced to admit that: ‘Even if one said that Nasafiyyah is not our Aqeedah, then there is no problem in that.’”

It is palpably clear that the coprocreep’s brain is a stercoracious mash-up of jahl-e-muraqqab (compound ignorance), hence he has been able to shamelessly gorge out such stupid hash. The Aqeedah of the Ulama Deoband remains unanimously the same as it was since the inception of this august Bastion of Islamic Uloom. While there exist differences among the Ulama Deoband on political and mundane issues, there is unanimity of Aqeedah. Any difference which some jaahil such as this coprocreep alleges will be the stupidity of turncoats such as the “ex-Deobandi” coprocreep, half-baked molvis who have adopted Salafi’ism for the lure which monetary gain exercises, and fledglings who have no position in the Firmament of Uloom adorned by the illustrious Akaabir Ulama of Deoband.

When we speak of the Ulama of Deoband, we refer to the Akaabireen who had established Daarul Uloom and who had nurtured and sustained it for almost 150 years. Like all great institutions of Islam, even Daarul Uloom Deoband has passed over its pinnacle and is morally, spiritually and academically on the downhill.

Thus, any stupid contradictory opinion which any Deobandi molvi of this era may venture may not be attributed to the Ulama of Deoband. Maudoodis and Salafis had already infiltrated the ranks of Deoband some decades ago. In 1968 this writer, himself had heard in a discussion between Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) and a senior from Deoband, that molvis with Maudoodi leanings had managed to gain positions on the staff of Daarul Uloom Deoband.

Thus when the term “Ulama of Deoband” is mentioned, then we understand that the reference is to Hadhrat Shah Waliyullah Muhaddith Dehlwi, Shah Abdul Azeez, Shah Muhammad Ishaaq, Shah Abdul Ghani, Hadhrat Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi, Shaikhul Hind Maulana Mahmoodul Hasan, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Hadhrat Maulana Khalil Ahmad Ambetwi, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi, Hadhrat Maulana Qaari Tayyab, Hadhrat Shaikh Zakariyya, Hadhrat Maulana Masihullah (rahmatullah alayhim) and countless other seniors who were all Stars of Uloom of impeccable value, honour and rank. The glorious era of the Ulama of Deoband did not commence with the establishment of the  Madrasah building in the town of Deoband. The initiation of this glorious epoch was with Hadhrat Shah Waliyullah Muhaddith Dehlwi (rahmatullah alayh).

Any contradictory view ventured by any molvi who had happened to study at Darul Uloom Deoband or at any other spiritually affiliated institution of Daarul Uloom will not be construed as a difference in the ranks of the Ulama of Deoband. Therefore, any miscreant molvi who has embraced the Salafi’ creed of this era is beyond the pale of that Vestibule of Islam known as the Ulama of Deoband. The stupid view of a coprocreep who has reneged from the Haqq due to his jahaalat and nafsaaniyat may not be interpreted to be a conflict in the Aqeedah of Ahl-e-Deoband merely because he happened to study at Daarul Uloom.

Lamenting the predominance of Sharh Aqaaid in the educational institutions of the Ulama of Deoband, the coprocreep states:

“Yet, on the other hand, Nasafiyyah is still considered by many Deobandis to be the ultimate Aqeedah manual and have rejected breaking the centuries-long practice of being Maturidi in the truer sense of the word…”

Let it be known that ‘Nasafiyyah’ is considered by all Deobandis to be the “ultimate Aqeedah manual”. Furthermore, we state unequivocally that in Aqeedah the Ulama of Deoband are Maturidis just as they are Hanafis in Fiqah, and so was Imaam Abu Mansur Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh). Sharh Aqaaid is a treatise which propounds the Maturidi Aqeedah Math-hab.

In his kitaab, Al-Muhannad, Hadhrat Maulana Khalil Ahmed Ambetwi (rahmatullah alayh) states unambiguously that in Aqeedah the Ulama of Deoband follow Imaam Maturidi. The illustrious senior Ulama of the time had fully endorsed this claim. Thus we who are linked inextricably to the Ulama of Deoband are proud Maturidis, and so are all the Ulama-e-Ahnaaf. There has never been the slightest attempt to conceal this conspicuous and vehemently proclaimed fact.

The coprocreep implies that the Ulama of Deoband are shy to ‘admit’ that they are Maturidis when in fact the direct opposite is the truth. He gained this idea from the hallucinations of his mashed up brains contaminated by coprophilic tendencies.

Peddling the false impression he attempts to convey, the coprocreep says:

“I don’t know what the status of those Deobandi scholars is, who not only want to discard the book from teaching but make fun of its content.”

Their status is the same as your copro status. They are coprocreeps like you. They are morons who have not even understood Sharh Aqaaid. They have mashed up brains such as your dung-filled skull.

Let it be known that in this age there are a number of half-baked molvis who had studied at Daarul Uloom Deoband or at some of its affiliates as this coprocreep had done. They had pursued knowledge for the sake of the dunya, hence they never acquired the Noor of Ilm. They are like the khanaazeer (swines) mentioned by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They are khanaazeer who have been garlanded with necklaces of diamonds, pearls and gold – the wonderful Shar’i Uloom imparted by the Ulama of Deoband.

Such dung-worms have become the handmaids of the Saudi Salafis who have engaged these miserable renegades to propagate Salafi’ism. These coprocreeps masquerade as Ulama of Deoband when in reality they have no relationship and no affinity with the Ulama of Deoband. The stint they had done at Deobandi institutions is comparable to Shaitaan’s stint in the heavens. When they denuded themselves by displaying their treachery, they fell into the category of Iblees when he had reneged from obedience and fell from grace. Just as Iblees may not be related to Jannat and the Malaaikah on the basis of his former habitation of that sacred abode, so too may these coprocreeps who have treacherously reneged from the Maturidi Aqeedah – the Aqeedah of Haqq – the Aqeedah of the Salf-e-Saaliheen – the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah – not be related to Deoband.

Their stupid ideas and corrupt beliefs and their renunciation of Imaam Maturidi may not be said to be a difference in the ranks of the Ulama of Deoband regarding the staunch adherence to the Manhaaj of Imaam Maturidi who followed the Manhaaj of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) and of the Salf-e-Saaliheen in general.

Imaam Maturidi had written a highly authoritative Sharah (Commentary), Kitaab Sharhil Fiqhil Akbar which is a commentary on Imaam Abu Hanifah’s treatise on Aqeedah, Al-Fiqhul Akbar. He is Imaam Abu Hanifah’s student via three intermediaries. In the Branch of Aqeedah, Imaam Abu Mansur Maturidi Hanafi (rahmatullah alayh) occupies one of the loftiest pedestals. Thus, it is only a man whose brains have been deranged and mashed up by divinely inflicted Rijs (filth) who flaunts the insolence to attack and ridicule such an illustrious Authority of Islam as Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh) and the Akaabireen of Deoband. Regarding characters such as the coprocreep, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“And Allah afflicts with rijs (filth) (the brains) of those who have no intelligence.” (Surah Yoonus, aayat 100)

The coprocreep asks:

“So which one is it, Deobandi friends? IS THE BOOK part of your Aqeedah, or IS IT NOT?”

With all the emphasis at our command we state unequivocally that THE BOOK, I.E. SHARH AQAAID, IS NOT ONLY ‘PART’ OF OUR AQEEDAH, IT IS IN FACT OUR AQEEDAH. IT IS THE AQEEDAH OF THE ULAMA OF DEOBAND. IT IS THE AQEEDAH OF THE SALF-E-SAALIHEEN. IT IS THE AQEEDAH OF THE AHLUS SUNNAH. Yes, it is our Aqeedah regardless of how much the dung-worm detests it…

“ONE OR TWO BOOKS”

Lamenting further, the coprocreep says:

“If one goes to any Darul Uloom website, one may find ONE or TWO Aqeedah books – Sharh Aqaaid and / or Tahawiyyah. So we can confidently assume that wherever Sharh Aqaaid is taught, it is taught because it is their Aqeedah as Maturidi tradition goes, just look at how much Deobandis respect Nasafiyyah.”

The coprocreep acquits himself as if Deobandis are concealing their respect, honour and reverence for Imaam Maturidi. He behaves as if the Ulama of Deoband teach Sharh Aqaaid while claiming not to be the followers of Imaam Maturidi. Just from whence did this miserable cum-Saudi Salafi coprocreep get this putrid idea?

The Ulama of Deoband teach Sharh Aqaaid because, undoubtedly, it is their Aqeedah. There is no conflict on this issue. It is not a hidden doctrine. There is no Shiah taqiyah cloaking the issue in the ranks of the Ulama of Deoband. You don’t have to ‘assume’ that Sharh Aqaaid is the Aqeedah of Ahl-e-Deoband “as Maturidi tradition goes”. This is an irrefutable fact. We proclaim it with a loud clamour. What then is the need for assumption?

Referring to some unknown ‘Deobandi molvi’ who appears to be just as coprophilic in the brains as this coprocreep, he says:

“As one Deobandi Molvi who told me: ‘Sharh Aqaaid is only taught so that the student becomes aware of the various sects of Islam, not because it is our Aqeedah.’”

If the coprocreep has honestly and correctly quoted the miserable ‘deobandi molvi’, then we say with emphasis that it is pure nonsense. The molvi dwells in the haze of his jahaalat, hence he made this absurd observation. He appears to be a moron just as the coprocreep. There is no need for the coprocreep to cite evidence to prove that Ahl-e-Deoband are Maturidis – there is no need to cite proof for the fact that our Aqeedah is encapsulated in Sharh Aqaaid because we categorically and loudly affirm that we, Ahl-e-Deoband, are Maturidis. Thus, the coprocreep’s attempt to prove that the Ulama of Deoband are Maturidis is an exercise in stupid redundancy.

Sinking deeper into his quagmire of redundancy and compound ignorance, the coprocreep says:

“As for Darul Ulooms that only teach Tahawiyyah, or have abandoned Nasafiyyah for Tahawiyyah – THIS DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING. As long as their interpretation of Tahawiyyah is in the darkness of Maturidi principles, then it wouldn’t make a difference.”

Darul Ulooms which do not teach Sharh Aqaaid, but have opted for Aqeedatut Tahaawi, are not in rejection of the Aqeedah as propounded in Sharh Aqaaid in the hallowed radiance of Maturidi principles. Darul Ulooms have effected changes in the syllabus to suit their individual needs pertaining to changing circumstances such as time constraints, poorer intellectual ability of students, etc. Rejection of Sharh Aqaaid is tantamount to rejection of the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah as propounded by the Salf-e-Saaliheen on the basis of the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

Most certainly, Tahaawiyyah is and will be taught in the light of Maturidi principles since our Guiding Star in this sphere is the illustrious Imaam Abu Mansur Maturidi. There is no ambiguity – no fence sitting in this regard.

The stupid coprocreep then says:

“The real questions that should be put forward to Deobandis is (grammatical error is coprocreep’s): How do you interpret Tahawiyyah? In the light of what the Salaf had to say, or in the darkness of what the later Maturidis and Ash’aris wrote like Taftazaani, Razi and co.?”

In answer to this silly question of the coprocreep, we say: We interpret Tahawiyyah in the glorious celestial light of the principles of Imaam Abu Mansur Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh) who was among the illustrious Salf-e-Saaliheen. Via just three intermediaries he was the Student of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh). He was a great Imaam in Usool. We follow him, and all kutub in Aqeedah are incumbently interpreted in the celestial halo of Maturidi principles.

The difference between Maturidis and Ash’aris is neglible. They differ on about a dozen masaail only. But fundamentally they are one Soul. All Hanafis, Shaafis, Maalikis and Hambalis are the followers of these two illustrious Imaams of Aqeedah. Only a moron of the coprocreep’s kind following his Saudi Salafi masters, will proclaim all Hanafis, Shaafis and Maalikis to be kaafirs on the basis of their submission to the Aqeedah of Islam as propounded by Imaam Mansur Muhammad Bin Muhammad Bin Mahmood Hanafi Maturidi (d:333 Hijri) and Imaam Abul Hasan Ash’ari  (d:324 Hijri). Despite Imaam Abul Hasan Ash’ari himself being a Hanafi, the majority of his followers in Aqeedah are followers of the Shaaf’i Math-hab.

Contrary to what the Salafi coprocreep alleges, there is no conflict between Imaam Tahaawi Hanafi (rahmatullah alayh) and Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh). The bankruptcy of the Salafis is conspicuous from the fact that even they are constrained to rely on Imaam Tahaawi Hanafi for issues pertaining to Aqeedah. However, with regard to some Aqaaid mentioned in Aqeedatut Tahaawi, these Salafis introduce their own corrupt Ta’weel (interpretation). Similarly, do they mutilate the statements of Imaam Ash’ari to suit their whimsical opinions. Imaam Tahaawi (d:321 hijri) was a contemporary of both Imaam Maturidi and Imaam Ash’ari, and like Imaam Maturidi was a Student of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) via a few intermediaries.

 

TAHAAWIYYAH

The cocrocreep says:

“The problem is that the Maturidis use Tahawiyya’s text to justify their creed, when in fact Tahawi wrote it in his own style when Ilm al-Kalaam was not existent the way we see it today; the terminologies were not there.”

The problem exists in the mashed up brains of the coprocreep. The Qur’aan Majeed too has its own eloquent, inimitable style. Great Mufassireen have written commentaries of the Qur’aan applying later day terminologies. There is absolutely nothing wrong with terminologies of the age being utilized provided there is no conflict with the Qur’aan and Sunnah. It is therefore insufficient for the coprocreep to peddle that the ‘creed’ of the Maturidis is at variance with the creed of Imaam Tahaawi. It devolves on this moron to explain precisely what the conflict is. The application of different terminology is not necessarily conflict.

It is required of the coprocreep to engage in an academic dissertation in which he should elaborate on the supposed ‘conflicts’ between the Maturidis and Imaam Tahaawi, and the ‘conflicts’ between the Maturidis and the Salf-e-Saaliheen. And, when he touches on this topic the coprocreep should remember that the Salf-e-Saaliheen are not restricted to the early Hanaabilah.

Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Abu Yusuf, Imaam Muhammad, Imaam Zufar, Imaam Abu Bakr Ahmad Bin Ishaaq Juzjaaee, Imaam Abu Sulaimaan Musa Bin Sulaimaan Juzjaaee (the latter two being the Ustaadhs of Imaam Maturidi), Imaam Abul Hasan Ash’ari and Imaam Abu Mansur Maturidi himself, and numerous others were all part of the Salf-e-Saaliheen.

Ibn Taimiyyah and Ibn Qayyim are nowhere within proximity of the Salf-e-Saaliheen. Their views shall therefore be discarded.

While the styles of presentation of Imaam Nasafi (author of the Matan of Sharh Aqaaid) and Imaam Tahaawi differ, such difference is not to be construed as difference in actual ‘creed’ or Aqeedah. For example, while Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) encapsulates the Usool of Sifaat into seven, the later Ulama of the Ahnaaf extended the number to eight. A careful examination will establish that it boils down to the same thing. Just as there exists difference of opinion among the Fuqaha of the same Math-hab, so too are there differences in details among the Ulama of the same Math-hab in Aqeedah.

The claim that Ilm-e-Kalaam was non-existent during the age of Imaam Tahaawi (d: 321 hijri) is baseless. Ilm-e-Kalaam was necessitated when Greek kufr philosophy was translated into Arabic and claimed the Imaan of numerous scholars, resulting in the Mu’tazilah sect who denied the Sifaat of Allah Ta’ala. The founder of this sect was Waasil Bin Ata (d:130 hijri). Thus Ilm-e-Kalaam came into existence long before Imaam Tahaawi (rahmatullah alayh). Besides these trivialities, the coprocreep has not furnished any academic evidence to prove that the ‘creed’ of the Maturidis (Hanafis and others) is in conflict with the creed of Imaam Tahaawi.

Furthermore, we need to traverse higher than Imaam Tahaawi, and avoid the pitfall of restricting discussion on Aqeedah to the simple style of Imaam Tahaawi’s compilation. Imaam Tahaawi (rahmatullah alayh), in his treatise compiles the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah in simple form and style, and all these beliefs are acquired from Imaam Abu Hanifah’s Al-Fiqhul Akbar.

A study of Imaam Abu Hanifah’s Al-Fiqhul Akbar will establish that Sharh Aqaaid is in fact an ‘extract’ of Al-Fiqhul Akbar. The style of presentation of Sharh Aqaaid is the style of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) in Al-Fiqhul Akbar. And, if anyone has brains –healthy brains, not mashed-up stercoracious brains such as the brains of the coprocreep, he will understand that the style of Imaam Tahaaqwi (rahmatullah alayh) is a simplification of the masaail of Aqeedah expounded in Al-Fiqhul Akbar.

While the academic presentation of Al-Fiqhul Akbar and Sharh Aqaaid are meant primarily for the Ulama-e-Raasikheen, Aqeedadut Tahaawi is for the masses in general, hence its very simple style. But there is no conflict in the actual masaail of Aqeedah appearing in all three treatises. The Aqeedah of the followers of Imaam Maturidi is the Aqeedah of the Qur’aan and Sunnah as explained by Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) and enumerated in simple style by Imaam Tahawi (rahmatullah alayh).

Furthermore, Imaam Maturidi (rahmatullah alayh), himself has also presented a Sharh (Commentary) in the simple style of Imaam Abu Hanifah’s Al-Fiqhul Akbar for easy comprehension. This Sharh by Imaam Maturidi very resolutely affirms that the Aqeedah of the Salf-e-Saalihen whose chief expounder is Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), is in fact his (Imaam Maturidi’s) Aqeedah – the Aqeedah of the Sahaabah, Taabieen and Tabe-Taabieen – the Aqeedah of the Salf-e-Saaliheen – the Aqeedah stemming from only the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

That the Aqeedah of Imaam Maturidi, Imaam Tahaawi and of the Ahnaaf, Maalikiyyah and Hanaabilah is the Aqeedah of the Salf-e-Saaliheen, is conspicuously portrayed by the introduction appearing in the treatise, Aqeedatut Tahaawi:

“Said Shaikh Imaam Faqeeh Ilmul Anaam Hujjatul Islam Abu Ja’far Warraaq At-Tahaawi Al-Misri: This is a dissertation of the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah in terms of the Math-hab of the Fuqahaa of the Millat, Abu Hanifah Nu’maan Bin Thaabit Al-Kufi, Abu Yusuf Ya’qub Bin Ibraheem Al-Ansaari, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Hasan Shaibaani (ridhwaanullah alayhim aj-maeen), and what they believe of the Usool of the Deen and follow as Deen for Rabbul Aalameen.” (This introductory statement in Aqeedatut Tahaawi is not the word of Imaam Tahaawi. A lofty Soul of Imaam Tahaawi’s calibre, does not confer accolades and titles on himself. The titles have been lauded by one of the Talaamizah of Imaam Tahaawi).

Its significance is the fact that the Foundation of Maturidi Aqeedah comprises of Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Abu Yusuf and Imaam Muhammad (rahmatullah alayhim). Thus, Sharh Aqaaid is synonymous with Al-Fiqhul Akbar and it affirms the entire Aqeedah enumerated in detail in simple form in Aqeedatut Tahaawi. But the coprocreep is too great a moron to understand this self-evident fact.

The coprocreep labouring under a massive misapprehension regarding the fundamental importance of Sharh Aqaaid and the Maturidi Math-hab of Aqeedah whose primary exponents and upholders in this age are the Ulama of Deoband and the institutions which gushed from Daarul Uloom Deoband, states:

“What I am saying is that, even if a Darul Uloom sacks Nasafiyyah from its syllabus and replaces it with Tahawiyyah, that would not be enough in determining that they have renounced Aqeedah as most likely their interpretation of Tahawiyyah would be in the light of Maturidi creed itself.”

The coprocreep is extremely conceited and contumaciously presumptuous in his coprophilic notion that the Ulama of Deoband are lined up to embrace the baatil Salafi firqah. He acquits himself in a manner to convey the impression that the Ulama of Deoband have given the pledge to ‘sack’ and expunge Sharh Aqaaid from their syllabus, and in the event of introducing Aqeedadut Tahaawi they would teach it in the light of the stupid ideas of anthropomorphism of deviated Salafi’ism.

We fail to understand what has led this coprocreep to infer that the Darul Ulooms of Deoband would even entertain the notion of abandoning Maturidi principles when teaching any kitaab of Aqeedah. What has given this miserable moron the idea that the Ulama of Deoband are set to ‘renounce’ the “Maturidi Creed”, the Creed of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah as expounded by Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) and his Ashaab? It appears that this ghabi indulges lavishly in some kind of substance abuse, hence he suffers from the disease of hallucination.

There is absolutely no conflict in the Manhaaj of the Ulama of Deoband. From the inception of Deoband, they have resolutely remained steadfast on the Aqeedah of the Sunnah. They have proudly proclaimed themselves to be followers of Imaam Maturidi. There is nothing hidden in the Manhaaj of the Ahl-e-Deoband.

With this we conclude our response to the coprocreep’s ‘Inconsistency No. 1’ which is a hash of inconsistencies bereft of any academic worth. He has not presented a single academic argument in his ‘Inconsistency No. 1’ which he has levelled against the Ulama of Deoband. His claptrap is nothing besides da’wa bila daleel – contention without proof…

Our advice to Darul Ulooms is to devote special attention to the Taimiyyite menace. They should equip students with adequate knowledge to confront the fitnah. The Akaabireen of former times and of recent times have left a treasure of kutub in which every baatil of the Taimiyyites has been thoroughly refuted. It is waajib in our day for a group of Ulama to devote time and to concentrate on this menace. Only by thorough mutaala-ah of the kutub will the Ulama be in position to demolish the Taimiyyite baatil with confidence and with a thoroughness which will send these coprocreeps seeking refuge in their dung-heaps of baatil….

Back to Contents

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *