[Prescribing Ilaaj (spiritual/ruqya/medical treatment)]
Displaying more of his ignorance, the Salafi coprocreep alleges:
“You have given the power of legislation of the Shariah to your Deobandi elders besides Allah. What is all this nonsense of reading Yaa Noor after Salaah seven times then rubbing your eyes? ……What would be the difference between you and the Barelwis who rub their eyes in Azaan?”
There is a vast difference between the Barelwi practice and what an extremely small number of Deobandis do regarding the practice to which the coprocreep has referred. The Ulama of Deoband do not teach the practice (mentioned by the coprocreep) as an act of ibaadat or as an act of the Sunnah. They do not present any Hadith in substantiation of this and similar practices.
It is not a practice recorded in our kutub of Fiqh and Aqeedah. It has never been taught by the Ulama of Deoband. Therefore, one will not see the hundreds of thousands who had studied at Deobandi institutions adopting this practice. This is an isolated practice which is perfectly permissible as an ilaaj (remedy) for the eyes. It is a practice which some Buzrug had proffered in the same way as physicians prescribe medicine and remedies. If the words of Allah Azza Wa Jal had no curing properties, then the coprocreep should explain the Hadith: “(Surah) Faatihah is a cure for every disease.”, as well as many similar other Ahaadith.
[HARRIS HAMMAM AL-SALAFI IS EVEN MORE EXTREME THAN OTHER SALAFI ULAMA]
The coprocreep should explain the numerous spiritual remedies which the Salafi Ulama have upheld and which are recorded in their Fataawa kutub. The coprocreep should refer to the kitaab, Fataawa Ulama-il Baladil Haraam, which is a compilation of the Fatwas of the Salafi Ulama of Saudi Arabia. Kitaabur Ruqa in this voluminous kitaab record numerous spiritual remedies endorsed and advocated by the likes of Shaikh Ibn Jibreen and Ibn Uthaymeen, senior Salafi Ulama.
The Qur’aan Majeed itself informs us that “It is a cure for the hearts”. The words of the Qur’aan and Allah’s Names, in addition to being medicine for the spiritual hearts, are also balm and treatment for physical sicknesses. Ulama of the Salafi math-hab uphold this fact and condone these spiritual remedies.
A Sahaabi had recited Surah Faatihah and blew on a patient who was instantly cured, and the Sahaabi accepted payment in lieu. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) upheld the veracity of the Sahaabi’s act as well as the permissibility of the payment. There are a number of Ahaadith pertaining to the medicinal value of Qur’aanic verses and Surahs.
Only a jaahil, bereft of Aql – a moron such as this miserable coprocreep masquerading as a hybrid Hambali-Hanafi to lure and ensnare uneducated, unsuspecting young Hanafis into the web of Salafi’ism – will dispute these facts and realities. Despite the corroboration in the Hadith, no one propagates that these spiritual remedies are part of Aqeedah.
On the contrary, the Barelwis propagate the Sunniyat of their practice of kissing the thumbs during the Athaan. In fact, they even assign it the status of wujoob. Anyone abstaining from their practice is believed to be disrespectful to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They furthermore present fabricated narrations to accord this practice the status of ibaadat which they seek to impose on all and sundry. The chasm of difference between the two practices is thus conspicuous.
The coprocreep has also laboriously and abortively struggled to convey the baseless idea that the Ulama of Deoband do not believe that the Malaaikah deliver Durood and Salaam to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). His ghabaawah (calcification of the brain) is stark, hence he audaciously presents this ludicrous analogy. There is not a single Deobandi who believes what the miserable, jaahil Salafi coprocreep alleges.
Ranting and raving in his intoxication of ghabaawah (i.e. density of brains common to morons), the coprocreep alleges:
“You Deobandis have never ever affirmed the concept of ‘Ibaadat…..”
The stupid fellow will have to return to Madrasah – not a Salafi one – to understand the meaning of Ibaadat in Islam. Neither do Salafis have a proper understanding of ibaadat nor do they possess morality (Akhlaaq) which is the bedrock of Ibaadat. The condition of their Salaat performance is appalling, especially in the Haramain Shareefain. They fiddle and dance so much in Salaat that the concentration of other musallis is ruined. Throughout the duration of their Salaat, they sway like the Yahood. Repeatedly they adjust their scarves. Their eyes dwell from pillar to post. Neither is their ruku’ correct nor their sajdah. Their Salaat is totally devoid of khushoo’ and khudhoo’. They just have no concept of ibaadat.
There is no deviated sect in Islam which displays so much flagrant disrespect for the Qur’aan Majeed as Salafis do. Their displays of blatant disrespect for the Qur’aan Shareef can be heart-breakingly observed in the Haramain Shareefain. They lay on their backs in the Musaajid holding the Qur’aan Majeed with one hand as if they are reading some lewd magazine. Then they place it either on their abdomens or near to their buttocks while they doze off. When they have to make Sajdah Tilaawat, they are too darn lazy to place the Qur’aan Majeed honourably on the bench or shelf. Holding the Qur’aan Majeed in one hand, they prostrate with the Holy Kalaam of Allah Ta’ala on the ground at the side of their heads. They are unable to distinguish between their feet and the Qur’aan Majeed. For them both are equal in status, hence it does not cause even a twinge of conscience for a Salafi to place the Qur’aan Majeed at his feet or near to his buttocks.
As far as Akhlaaq are concerned, they are morally corrupt, abrasive and bereft of compassion. Dishonesty and slandering the Fuqaha of the Mathaahib are among their salient features. In the presence of especially Hanafis, they praise Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), But behind the backs of Hanafis, they disgorge their insidious venom against Imaam A’zam (rahmatullah alayh). If a sincere Salafi wishes to learn Ibaadat and Akhlaaq, he will have to search for a genuine Shaikh among the Ulama of Deoband. We do concede that such Mashaaikh are rare, extremely rare, even in the ranks of the Ulama of Deoband of this era.
Furthermore, Salafis are notorious for consuming just any kind of haraam food and carrion meats, and they love kuffaar dress. They have an inveterate hatred for the headgear of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), hence to perform Salaat and to strut around with a bare head is a virtue for them…
The coprocreep accuses the Ulama of Deoband of creating a division between what he terms ‘normal Muslims’ and the Sufi mureeds. His yardstick for his hallucinated division is the special forms of Athkaar which the Mashaaikh prescribe for their mureedeen. Only a moron will interpret that by these Athkaar the Mashaaikh believe that their mureedeen are apart from ‘normal’ Muslims. It has already been mentioned earlier that the specific forms of Athkaar are not prescribed as Masnoon acts of ibaadat. They are in the category of ilaaj (remedy). A sheikh who prescribes such acts as Masnoon ibaadat is a jaahil who has no understanding of Tasawwuf.
The coprocreep also seeks to convey the impression that the Ulama of Deoband had originated these forms of Athkaar when in reality they have inherited these spiritual ways and means from the great Mashaaikh centuries before the establishment of Darul Uloom Deoband. In the firmament of Tasawwuf, the Mashaaikh of Deoband are late – very late arrivals. These practices have come down in the Ummah from many centuries before the inception of Darul Uloom Deoband.
Another aspect of importance in this regard is that the Madaaris do not delve into any of these practices. They have an academic syllabus which has no relationship whatsoever with the Athkaar and Ashghaal practised in the privacy of the khaanqah. Far from creating a division, the Mashaaikh of Deoband say that if a person wishes to be a normal Muslim, he has to undergo Islaah of the nafs. Minus moral reformation, a person will remain a salafi animal, bereft of Sunnah morality.
Levelling another slander against the Ulama of Deoband, the moron coprocreep alleges:
“You Deobandis use the Hadith of the Ethiopians dancing in front of the Prophet ….you use this to prove worship….”
The injustice committed by this ghabi is slander or even blasphemy. The Ulama of Deoband are always at pains to explain this specific incident which the legalizers of music cite in justification of their singing and music. Never did the Ulama of Deoband ever present this Hadith to justify any of their Thikr practices. Furthermore, the practice of raqs (so-called sufi dancing) is alien to the Mashaaikh of Deoband. It is dastardly slanderous to accuse the Mashaaikh of Deoband with indulgence in this practice. This palpably and scandalously false accusation is dismissed with contempt.
Jumping from one donkey to another, the coprocreep says:
“Also, we do not need evidence that wearing a shirt and trousers is Halal; rather evidence is required to prove them Haram.”
The evidence for the prohibition of western kuffaar attire is so glaring like the sun shining in the day that it would be proper to contend that no evidence is required to prove the prohibition of emulating the kuffaar in their attire and in their stupid and morally destructive ways, styles and practices. But, since Salafis are lovers of western garb – bareheads, jeans, T-shirts, in addition to devouring carrion, etc. – the coprocreep deemed it appropriate to surreptitiously inject this issue into a discussion which has absolutely no relationship to this subject matter.
The Ulama of Deoband had never propagated the idea that the peculiar athkaar and ashgaal which the Mashaaikh prescribe for mureeds, form part of the Aqeedah of Islam. Drinking medicines which did not exist during the age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and consuming the latest styles of food and cakes which did not exist before, are all halaal. The onus of proving these items to be haraam rests on the one who propagates that they are haraam. If the coprocreep says that these issues are not acts of ibaadat and are not proclaimed to be Aqeedah, our response is the same regarding the athkaar and ashghaal of the Mashaaikh.
The coprocreep should first prove that the Ulama of Deoband believe these prescriptions to be part of Aqeedah/Ibaadat. Not a single Deobandi Madrasah teaches any of these khaanqah practices. When the coprocreep was ‘studying’ at a Deobandi Madrasah did these athkaar and ashghaal form part of the curriculum? Thus, the following statement of the coprocreep is baseless and misdirected:
“So going against Tawaqquf in Tawqeef issue is Haraam until there is evidence to substantiate the claim made in relation to that Tawqeef (i.e.Aqaa’id and Ibaadat).”
In fact, this is precisely the stance of the Ulama of Deoband, hence they have at all times been in the forefront fighting bid’ah. It is for this reason that all our Akaabir Ulama have been branded ‘kaafir’ by the Barelwi grave-worshippers. The Ulama of Deoband have rigidly maintained that Ibaadat is only what is taught by the Sunnah. The charge against the Ulama of Deoband is false and is thus dismissed with contempt.
In another abortive attempt to criticize the Ulama of Deoband, the coprocreep says:
“As benefit, I should also say that a person who thinks driving a car downtown is some sort of worship or a special Deeni act in itself has committed a Bid’ah too, because he has ventured out into Tawqeef (of establishing a Deeni speciality of driving downtown) without legislation. (I know this sounded weird, but it is to prepare for what’s coming up)
However, if he was driving a car downtown to get to Salah Ma’ Jamaa’ah in the mosque, that driving would have the same ruling as the ultimate aim, i.e. driving would have the same Hukm as the Hukm of Salah Ma’ Jamaa’ah in the mosque, based on the known principle: ما لا يتم الواجب إلا به فهو واجب, i.e. whatever Wajib cannot be accomplished without act, that other act leading to it would also be Wajib (same applies to Fard, and same applies to Sunnah, ما لا يتم الفرض إلا به فهو فرض، ما لايتم السنة إلا به فهو سنة). Therefore, to call driving in the car to the mosque as a ‘Bid’ah Hasanah’ is ABSOLUTLEY SENSELESS in theory as the scholars have already classified such non-narrated practised acts (such as driving to the mosque, as well as building schools, and the creation of Nahw, the compilation of the Quran in one Mushaf, etc.) in light of the ruling I have mentioned in this paragraph. ” (The stupid Arabic scribbling has been reproduced from the coprocreep’s article).
What he has mentioned is precisely the standpoint of the Ulama of Deoband. Whether some describe such new developments as ‘Bid’ah Hasanah’ or any other name is immaterial. It does not detract from the reality of the permissibility of the new introduction, and at times from its incumbency depending on the degree of necessity. ‘Bid’ah Hasanah’ in so far as Ibaadat is concerned, is restricted to the Khairul Quroon. The term has technical import in relation to Ibaadat which has its origin in these three Golden Ages of Islam. Sanctifying these three Khairul Quroon epochs Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
“Honour my Sahaabah, for verily they are the best of you; then those after them; then those after them. Thereafter falsehood will prevail.”
Similar other Ahaadith as well elevate this epoch and link it to the age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Hence, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) who had introduced the 20 raka’ts Taraaweeh Salaat in the congregational form in which the Ummah has been performing it since the age of the Sahaabah, described it (the Taraaweeh) as ‘Bid’ah Hasanah’. Thus, ‘Bid’ah Hasanah’ in its restricted/technical meaning relates to Ibaadat which comes within the purview of the Sunnah since Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had commanded that the Ummah holds firmly “with their jaws” on to the Sunnah of his Khulafa-e-Raashideen.
Besides its technical import, the term is also used loosely, i.e. literally, to mean simply a good/meritorious introduction without the status of Masnoon Ibaadat despite it being a medium for thawaab (reward), e.g. carpets in the Musjid, setting aside a specific place for Salaat in a plane, a flashing red light in a Musjid to inform of the time of Zawwaal so that musallis abstain from performing Salaat at the Makrooh time, publication of time-tables for Salaat, setting up soup kitchens for the poor, constructing wells and boreholes, etc., etc.
All of these and many other acts could be literally described as bid’ah hasanah without the attribution of the technical meaning. In other words, whilst these are all beautiful and meritorious acts, they are not Masnoon acts of Ibaadat. Thus, no one may be criticized for abstaining from participation in these acts. But, those who abstain from and abandon Bid’ah Hasanah acts which in the technical sense refers to Masnoon Ibaadat such as Taraaweeh Salaat, the second Athaan on Jumuah, reciting As-Salaatu Khairum minan noum during the Fajr Athaan, pave their path of Jahannum.
Now that the meaning of this term has been explained, understand well that the Ulama of Deoband do not elevate the khaanqah practices to the status of Aqeedah nor to Masnoon Ibaadat. Thus, they do not say that these practices are Bid’ah Hasanah as the moron coprocreep slanders. The density of his brains constrained him to conclude that the Mashaaikh of Deoband believe the khaanqah practices to be integral to Aqaai-d and Masnoon Ibaadat. We have no cure for the stupidity of the moron. The spiritual malady of the coprocreep is aggravated by his malicious hatred for the Ulama and Mashaaikh of Deoband, hence his copro-article exudes all the trademark vitriol which Salafis generally and usually display for the Ahnaaf.
The coprocreep’s jahaalat combined with arrogance has morphed into malice for the Ulama and Mashaaikh of Deoband, hence he is blind to the slanders which he levels at these noble Representatives of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
The following Malfooth of Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh), succinctly and adequately explains the attitude of the Mashaaikh of Deoband regarding the prescribed forms of non-Sunnah auraad/athkaar and ashghaal:
” External abundance of auraad (specific forms of Thikr) is not among the etiquettes (aadaab) of the Mureed. On the contrary, this group (of Saalikeen) is ever engaged in eliminating from them khatraat (stray and evil thoughts and diversions) and negligence of the heart. Their occupation is purification of character and not abundance of practices. Faraa-idh and Sunan-e-Muakkadah are incumbent on them. They adhere to these rigidly. The heart remaining in a permanent state of Thikr (Thikr Qalbi) is superior than abundance of supererogatory acts of worship (Nafl)”.
In another Malfooth Hadhrat Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) said:
“The Mureed should not entertain the idea that the Shaikh is ma’soom (sinless). However, he should hold the Shaikh in high esteem and if occasionally the Mureed witnesses any transgression by the Shaikh, he (Mureed) should not sever his ties with the Shaikh on this account. However, should the Shaikh perpetrate acts of transgression in abundance, the Mureed should end his ties with the Shaikh politely, honourably and with respect. The Shaikh should also not command the Mureed to do such acts which constitute transgression (in the Shariah)”.
Emphasizing the extreme importance of the Shariah, Hadhrat Masihullah (rahmatullah alayhi) said:
“The structure of this Tareeq (Path) revolves on the protection of the Aadaab of the Shariah, on guarding oneself against haraam and mushtabah (doubtful things), on guarding the senses against the prohibitions of the Shariah, preventing one’s moments from negligence and connecting them (one’s moments) to Allah and on not regarding as halaal even a grain in which there is doubt even in times of need, leave alone times of comfort and prosperity.”
The attitude of the Mashaaikh of Deoband regarding the Shariah which is encased in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, is summarized by Hadhrat Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) in the following Malfooth:
“One should have a Shaikh fitting the description given by Hadhrat Junaid (rahmatullah alayh), the Qur’aan-e-Kareem, in his right hand, the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in his left hand and he (the Shaikh) should walk in the light of these two lamps so that one does not fall in the pits of doubt nor in the darkness of bid’ah.“
Stating the category of ashghaal, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) said:
“The purpose of all ashghaal is concentration of the heart. They are not Maqsood bith-thaat (objectives by themselves).”
The Akaabir of Deoband have made it very clear that these athkaar and ashghaal are not Masnoon Ibaadat nor the objectives (maqaasid). Rather they are the tharaa’i (means and ways) for the acquisition of perfect concentration in Ibaadat. Such concentration is Maqsood bith-thaat since it is commanded in the Hadith. Anyone who contends that a particular way is not permissible should present his Shar’i proof.
Medicine of this era did not exist in the Khairul Quroon. The remedies for physical cure and health of this age are all innovations, yet no one contends that they are haraam unless a specific remedy is proven to be haraam. Similarly, spiritual cure and health which are imperative commands of the Shariah also have different ways and means which did not exist during the age of Risaalat. But non-existence in that age is not a daleel for prohibition. Only if these tharaa’i are elevated to the status of Ibaadat or Aqaa’id or they violate any principle or teaching of Islam, could they justifiably be declared bid’ah and haraam.
Ways for the acquisition of Zaahiri Ilm (academic knowledge of the Shariah) have been innovated after the age of the Sahaabah. The construction of Madaaris, introduction of syllabi, printing of kitaabs, etc. are all tharaa’i for the acquisition of the Maqsood. Since there is no conflict with any principle or teaching of Islam in these ways and means for acquisition of Ilm, it is justifiably averred that these ways and means are meritorious although not Waajib if lawful alternatives exist or could be introduced. The Ulama among the Sahaabah did not acquire their Ilm in the way subsequent generations pursued Knowledge. Yet, no one brands these innovated ways to be bid’ah.
Exactly in the same way did the Auliya introduce new ways and means for achieving Tazkiyah of the Nafs. While Tazkiyah is the Maqsood, the new methods are the tharaa’i (the ways and the meanings for achieving moral reformation). The suhbat (companionship) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had made the Sahaabah independent of formulating any way for achieving Tazkiyah. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was the supreme Sheikh in whose blessed suhbat Tazkiyah was achieved rapidly.
After the departure of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), there developed a decline in the spiritual system. Hence we find that the athkaar and nafl acts of ibaadat of the Auliya after the age of the Sahaabah, quantitively by far exceed that of the Sahaabah. The Auliya of later times had to strive for years to acquire the roohaaniyat which the Sahaabah gained within a short while in the suhbat of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The deprivation of Rasulullah’s suhbat constrained the Auliya to adopt measures and introduce ways and means for the attainment of the Maqsood.
If it is permissible to introduce new ways and means for the achievement of physical health, for the pursuit of Zaahiri (academic) Knowledge, and for just about everything in this mundane world, there can be no Shar’i impediment for the introduction of ways and means to develop roohaaniyat. It devolves on the opponents of these tharaa’i to produce solid Shar’i dalaa-il for the negation of such ways and means which are not in violation of any express teaching or principle of the Shariah. Only moron Salafi coprocreeps baselessly brand such tharaa’i to be bid’ah.
The entire argument presented by the coprocreep in his abortive attempt to sustain his accusation that the Ulama of Deoband have elevated the tharaa’i to the level of ibaadat and aqaai’d is baseless and an exercise in stupid redundancy. There would have been validity in his argument on this issue if these ways and means had been accorded the status of ibaadat and aqeedah. But this is not the case…
In his attempt to portray the Ulama of Deoband as the initiators of a new sect in Islam, the Salafi coprocreep states:
“Deobandism is a creed and a self-contained sect within itself….It is exactly why M.KAS wrote al-Muhannad. It is exactly why many Deobandi elders have condemned Imam Ibn Adbil Wahhab and Ibn Taymiyyah. It is exactly why the label of Deobandi is proudly adopted by millions amongst you worldwide.”
‘M.KAS’ refers to Hadhrat Allaamah Khalil Ahmad Ambetwi Saharanpuri (rahmatullah alayh) who wrote the wonderful kitaab, Al-Muhannad alal Mufannad, in response to the questions posed by the then Ulama of the Haramain Shareefain. The kitaab, Al-Muhannadwas the consequence of Barelwi slanders against the Ulama of Deoband. Today, the Salafi coprocreeps are indulging in the slander against the Ulama of Deoband, and Al-Muhannad is an adequate refutation of the calumnies of the Salafi coprocreep. After reading Al-Muhannad, the Ulama of Makkah Mukarramah, Madinah Munawwarah, Syria and Egypt applauded the illustrious Allaamah and heaped accolades on him. They all attested to the correctness of all the answers pertaining to the Aqaaid of the Ulama of Deoband.
Were all these Ulama of the Haramain, etc. also part of the so-called ‘Deobandi sect’ hallucinated by the miscreant Salafi coprocreep? Did all these non-Deobandi Ulama study at Darul Uloom Deoband? Earlier in our refutation of the coprocreep’s alleged inconsistency No. 4, we have presented the comments of the Ulama of the Haramain, etc. on the beliefs and practices of the Ulama and Mashaaikh of Deoband.
From the answers and accolades which these noble senior Ulama had conferred to the Ulama of Deoband, it is clear that the coprocreep is a moron whose mental density precludes him from the comprehension of rudimentary facts. If the Ulama of Deoband had belonged to a separate sect, what then constrained the Ulama of the Haramain, Syria and Egypt to glowingly confirm the correctness of Allaamah Khalil Ahmad’s Al-Muhannadand to bestow to him such lavish applause as they had done in their response?
The Deobandi elders have condemned the deviations of Ibn Taimiyyah and Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhaab. Since they strayed from the path of the Ahlus Sunnah, they deserve the valid criticism which the Ulama of Deoband present with their Shar’i facts and basis. Our Akaabireen never spoke drivel and ghutha such as these Salafi coprocreeps disgorge. The Ulama of Deoband spoke on the basis of solid Shar’i facts which the coprocreeps have failed to address, leave alone refute rationally. They descend only into rubbish ranting as is clear from this coprocreep’s stupid anti-Deoband flotsam.
The coprocreep attempts to create the idea that it is only Deoband who has criticized Ibn Taimiyyah and the founder of the Wahhaabi sect of Saudi Arabia masquerading deceptively as ‘Hanaabilah’. Centuries before Darul Uloom Deoband came into existence, Fuqaha and Ulama of the Arab World had severely criticized Shaikh Ibn Taimiyyah (rahmatullah alayh). In fact, the rulers of the time had imprisoned him for his heretical views.
Were they all Deobandis? Were all those Ulama who had written kitaabs in condemnation of Ibn Taimiyyah also Deobandis, centuries before Deoband Madrasah came into existence? The criticism against Shaikh Ibn Taimiyyah cannot be argued away with corocreep emotion. The coprocreep Salafi has miserably failed to respond academically to the dalaail on which the Ulama of Deoband base their criticism…
It should also be understood that the deviations of miscreant ‘shaikhs’ who had acquired a smattering of knowledge at some Deobandi Madrasah as the coprocreep had done, may under no circumstances be labelled as the views, beliefs and practices of the Ulama of Deoband. For the beliefs, practices and Minhaaj of the Ulama Deoband, Al-Muhannad alal Mufannad of Allaamah Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri (rahmatullah alayh) is an adequate concise text book. It was upheld and highly praised by the Ulama of the Haramain Shareefain, Misr and Shaam. Any departure from the exposition in Al-Muhannad has no truck with the Ulama of Deoband.
As far as the public halqah thikr and nazam singing programmes which have mushroomed today in the Musaajid are concerned, we too have sharply criticized these deviations. Our book, Thikr in the Mirror of the Sunnah, discusses and refutes these deviations and innovations. It is gross injustice to attribute such deviant practices to the Ulama of Deoband simply because the perpetrators happened to have acquired knowledge at Deobandi Madaaris and have a relationship with some Mashaaikh who are affiliated to Deoband. Decline and corruption set into every movement with the passage of time. To understand a movement it is imperative to examine the principles of its founders.
The misconduct, baseless beliefs, bid’ah, fisq, fujoor, zanaadaqah and kufr which pollute the Ummah today cannot be attributed to Islam on the basis of the perpetrators being adherents of Islam. Similarly, the deviations of miscreants who had studied at Deobandi Madaaris cannot be attributed to the Ulama of Deoband.
The coprocreep should confine his attack on the Ulama of Deoband to Al-Muhannad, and present argument in refutation of the exposition of Allaamah Khalil Ahmad (rahmatullah alayh). The discussion could then be conducted on a better academic level. But this coprocreep has degenerated into rubbish. He stupidly attributes the beliefs and deviations of miscreants to the Ulama of Deoband. He disgorges nothing but copro-garbage.
Another important aspect is the issue of Ikhtilaaf (Difference of Opinion). Ikhtilaaf existed even among the senior Sahaabah during the very lifetime of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). After the demise of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the concept of Ikhtilaaf magnified manifold. The differences increased among the Sahaabah, Taabieen and Tabe Taabieen. Thus, in academic issues there are numerous differences among the Fuqaha of the same Math-hab, yet they remain members of the same Math-hab. Imaam Abu Yusuf (rahmatullah alayh) and Imaam Muhammad (rahmatullah alayh) despite their numerous ikhtilafaat with their Ustaadh, Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), remained Hanafis.
It is unreasonable and the effect of density of brains to expect that there should not be any differences of opinion among the Ulama of Deoband. To label such mutual differences of Ulama who subscribe to a particular School of Thought as ‘inconsistencies’ betray the jahaalat and ghabaawat of the coprocreep who has extravagated from the Path of the Sunnah with his renege from the Hanafi Math-hab for the sake of the dhalaal of Salaf’ism.
Furthermore, for the ascertainment of the authoritative view in the event of Ikhtilaaf, it will be necessary to refer to the authorities of the School of Thought. Relative to the Ulama of Deoband, the reference is Al-Muhannad. Thus, whatever the coprocreep has argued under the heading: “Ibn al-Qayyum in I’laam referred to the negative implications of considering Tawqeef issues Halal until proven Haram”, is palpably baatil – baseless and redundant since the Ulama of Deoband NEVER confirm Ibaadat and Aqaa’id for acceptance on the basis of Aql although the former are shown to be based on sound Aql – Aql , a dearth of which preponderates in the ranks of Salafi coprocreeps…
Talking more drivel, the moron coprocreep says:
“My Deobandi friends are now suggesting that Deoband is a wide range of ideas and opinions that are not down to one particular scholar, but it represents a whole range of scholars from different backgrounds.”
The creed of the Ulama of Deoband has been superbly and adequately defined in Al-Muhannad by Allaamah Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri (rahmatullah alayh). It is the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah – the Creed of the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum). And, the Ulama of Makkah, Madinah, Damascus and Cairo, all upheld the veracity of this Creed. There is absolutely nothing new in the Creed of the Ulama of Deoband. It is the Creed to which the Four Math-habs of Islam subscribe.
Any departure from the Creed defined in Al-Muhannad is baatil and has no relationship with the Ulama of Deoband. Deoband represents only one Aqeedah – the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. The Minhaaj of the Ulama of Deoband is not a hybrid system consisting of coprocreep methodology and beliefs. Deoband is the Bastion of the Sunnah along the Way of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh)…
In his attribution of ‘inconsistency’ of minhaaj to the Ulama of Deoband, the coprocreep cites the Deobandi criticism of the Barelwi practices such as moulood. In this criticism he strives to show that the Deobandi practice of Dua after Salaat is on par with moulood. Since we do not criticize Dua after Salaat or since we adhere to this Dua, we have, in his opinion, no valid argument against moulood, urs and the other practices of the Qabar Pujaari (Grave-worshipping) sect. This coprocreep dwells in total confusion. His analogy with the Barelwis is stercoraceous ghutha.
The Ulama of Deoband maintain that the Dua after Salaat is Masnoon. And for this contention they have solid Shar’i dalaa-il. On the contrary, the moulood, etc. practices of the Grave Worshippers have neither origin nor sanction in the Sunnah. Further aggravating these practices are two evils: (1) Elevation of these practices to Waajib Ibaadat, and (2) Accretion of many evils acts. These evils are explained in our two treatises on Moulood. These books are available. Thus, there is a vast chasm of difference between the Dua after Salaat and the Barelwi bid’ah practices.
The arguments which the coprocreep produces against moulood and raqs (so-called ‘sufi’ dances) should be directed to the Barelwis, and the bid’ah/shirki miscreant ‘sufi’ tareeqahs which abound in North and West Africa, Syria, and elsewhere. There is no relationship between the Ulama of Deoband and these acts of bid’ah which have been elevated to the status of Wujoob. In addition, to the status accorded, these practices consists of other evils as well. The Ulama of Deoband have always consistently proclaimed the bid’ah nature of moulood functions. The coprocreep is therefore barking up the wrong tree by having introduced moulood in his argument against the Ulama of Deoband. Moulood and raqs practices have never ever been accorded ibaadat status by the Ulama of Deoband as the moron coprocreep alleges.
It is also false and slanderous for the coprocreep to claim that the Ulama of Deoband are of the view that sufi dances are the “only way to attain Tazkiyah”. Such practices have no relationship with Tazkiyah-e-Nafs. Thus, the coprocreep has slandered the Ulama of Deoband with his false statement: “Most Deobandis say that it is VERY HARD to attain Tazkiyah without these types of measures.”
“These types of measures” in the context of the coprocreep’s argument refer to raqs or the so-called sufi dances which the fellow attributes to the Ulama of Deoband. Let it be known that raqs does not form part of the Islaahi programme of the Mashaaikh of Deoband. His claim is therefore slanderously baatil.
Furthermore, a method introduced for a valid Shar’i objective will be valid and permissible as long as it does not violate any teaching or principle of the Shariah. Thus if in the opinion of a Shaikh reciting 10,000 La ilaha il lalaah, and performing 100 raka’ts Nafl Salaat, etc. will assist his mureeds in their Islaahi programme, then only morons such as Salafi coprocreeps, will claim that this program is bid’ah and baatil. The Shaikh is not telling the public nor his mureeds that this prescription is Sunnah or ordered by the Shariah. It is among the Tharaa’i (ways and means of attainment). There is absolutely no Shar’i daleel to contest this. The stupid opinion of a coprocreep is devoid of Shar’i substance.
Whatever the coprocreep says about raqs (dancing) is correct. There is no need for us to refute him on a baatil practice. But he is a confounded liar for attributing this practice to the Ulama of Deoband.
Uttering another despicable lie, the coprocreep alleges:
“And when we consider that the whole of the Shariah contributes to one’s Islaah and Tazkiyah (in contrast to Deobandis who think they are contradictory), it should not be considered as an impossible task.”
The many statements of the Auliya, Ulama and Mashaaikh of Deoband which we have cited earlier debunk this slander which the miserable coprocreep attributes to the Ulama of Deoband. According to all the Ulama of Deoband, strict obedience to the Zaahiri Shariah and Sunnah is an imperative requisite for the attainment of Tazkiyah-e-Nafs. Minus this condition, it is not possible to achieve moral reformation and spiritual elevation.
Since the coprocreep is a squint-eyed jaahil, he looks obliquely at the practices and statements of the Mashaaikh of Deoband. He suffers from oblique mental vision because of his crash course at some Deobandi Madrasah, and that too motivated by a sinister agenda. Hence, he has failed miserably to understand the Tareeqah and Maslak of the Ulama and Mashaaikh of Deoband. He thus sucks copro substances from his thumb and hurls his filth at the Ulama of Deoband without realizing that his copro-najaasat rebounds onto his face.