Deobandis' Internal Strife in `Aqidah

Discussion in 'Islamic Groups and Sects' started by Ismail Ibrahim, Dec 13, 2008.

  1. Ismail Ibrahim

    Ismail Ibrahim Formerly Harris Hammam

    This thread should not be taken as belittling the Deobandi folk, but just to raise awareness as to how they need to consider how damaging their inconsistency is in the manhaj they have adopted for themselves in Aqeedah as well as related issues such as their conduct with non-Deobandis esp. Hanbalis, Tasawwuf, etc. In the Name of Allah:

    Inconsistency #1: Sharh Aqaaid Nasafiyyah, the former bedrock of Deobandi-Maturidi Aqeedah has been severely compromised within the Deoband of today. Many of those I have talked to have expressed their desire of its exclusion from the Darul Ulooms as it does not serve their needs. If I was a Maturidi, I would have branded this statement as ISTIHZAA' BIL AQEEDAH. But because the book is a philosophical mash-up, coupled with the crystal-clear approach the (moderate) Hanbalis have been blessed to portray in this era in relation to Aqeedah manhaj, these particular Deobandi brothers have been forced admit that - something that I have heard with my own ears: "Even if one said that Nasafiyyah is not our Aqeedah, then there is no problem in that".
    Yet, on the other hand, Nasafiyyah is still coinsidered 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, as Maulana Khalil Ahmed Saharanpuri (May Allah forgive me and him) said in his al-Muhannad - a book signed by the elders of his time - that Deobandis are Maturidis in Aqeedah. I don't what the status of those Deobandi scholars is who not only want to discard the book from teaching but make fun out of its content.
    So which one is it, Deobandi friends? IS THE BOOK part of your Aqeedah, or IS IT NOT? And please don't sit on the fence on this, as it has some aspects that are unavoidable, like EIGHT SIFAAT for Allah only - you either with it or against it. Also, leave behind all this Tawaqquf nonsense where the Shariah is NOT silent at all.
    Last edited: May 29, 2014
  2. Interesting. Please continue with this thread.

    Also what are your thoughts on the Nadwi scholars? They are definitely a lot more open minded and many give preference to Athari 'aqidah. In fact if one reads the works of Sayyid Abul Hassan 'Ali Nadwi (ra), he was clearly averse to kalam, which he associated with stagnation.
  3. Salahadeen

    Salahadeen Ahl at-Tawheed

    I'm very interested in the thread, but can you please translate Arabic words as you go along, and also give background to those who are not "in the know." For example, what does ISTIHZAA mean?

    And can you please clearly explain what is contained in Sharh Aqaaid Nasafiyyah ? Does it support our (Salafi) aqeedah or is it maturidi?

    Sorry, I just want to keep up in this thread and not get lost from the get-go!
    Belal likes this.
  4. Abu'l 'Eyse

    Abu'l 'Eyse Rep-manz

    there are many shuruh of al-nasafi's creed the most famous one being that of al-taftazani about whom it is debated if he was a pure hanafite-maturidite or ''ash'arite-shafite with hanafi leanings.

    It is by no means an athari book.

    Wa Allahu a'lam
  5. junaid123

    junaid123 New Member

    ASk in, there you will get some responce.
  6. Ismail Ibrahim

    Ismail Ibrahim Formerly Harris Hammam

    Making fun and mockery, i.e. making and a mockery out of the Deen. This is Kufr. Allah says: Is it Allah, His signs and his Prophet you are making fun out of!? Do not make excuses (for your mockery), as you have disbelieved after you having brought faith.
    Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow India, is a distinctive Darul Uloom for a few reasons: proficiency in Arabic language (for a non-Arabic environment that is); openness in relation to other schools of law; English is taught there (I think - infact it has a pre-Darul Uloom system for children); foundations to this seat of knowledge is distinct in that it is influenced by the higher end of Indian society (Government) as well as AliGhar University, and itoriginal paln was to target people from the upper class to become more involved with Islam in India. Very distinct.
    The mentality of its scholars, although Deobandis, is different and one of openness in all fields. A review of its syllabus would inform the reader how it diverges from mainstream Darul Uloom pedagogy and methodology.
    Yes, true that. However, as is the case with all Maturidis, the second half of their texts are almost the same as parts of Tahawiyyah, which is why many Maturidis are under the misconception, coupled with the fact the Tahawi was a Hanafi, that there is no contradiction between Tahawiyyah and the Maturidiyyah.
    A problem is that the Maturdis use Tahawiyyah'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. This is why Tahawi used words that are normal for anyone to use but in the context of the Ahl al-Kalaam appearing onto the stage he would have most definitely avoided structuring certain sentences in the way he did. In any case, Maturidis have twisted some of his words to fit their agenda. This is why the commentary of Ibn Abil Izz al-Hanafi is SO IMPORTANT as it expels the dubious interpretations of Tahawiyyah by the Maturids who wrote its Shurooh. I cannot over-emphasise how important Ibn Abil Izz is to the Hanbali creed - he single-handedly has kept a lid on the MAturidis hijacking Imam Tahawi and his Tahawiyyah, which would have ultimately led to the hijack of Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf al-Ansaari and Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Shaybaani as well.
    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 there have renounced Aqeedah as most likely their interpretation of Tahawiyyah would be in light of the Maturidi creed itself. In fact (and this is a serious point), Tahawiyyah being taught in the Indian subcontinent institutions and its offshoots does not mean ANYTHING until we can ascertain what it is coupled with by those who teach it - is it Sharh Aqaa'id Nasafiyyah or is it Lum'atul I'tiqaad and al-Waasitiyyah.
    This Sharh is the one that is taught in Darul Ulooms, i.e. the Darul Ulooms that teach it.
    Belal likes this.
  7. Muslim_

    Muslim_ New Member

    As-Salam u 'Alaykum

    Can you quote some examples of how the Maturidis have gone against the text of Tahawiyya in regards to the text of Nasafiya?
    And are there any other Aqida text that are consistent with the Ahl ul Sunna before the writings of Ibn Taymiya?

    And can you list some authentic commentaries besides ibn Abil Izz's commentary?
  8. Abu'l 'Eyse

    Abu'l 'Eyse Rep-manz

    hmmmmm........wonder where this bro angle is :)
  9. Muslim_

    Muslim_ New Member

    I'm serious in my questioning, to me it seems that some Muslims think everyone else besides, ibn taymiya, ibn qayyim and some of the later scholars, is a deviant. I've heard criticism on Imam Nawawi, Imam Ghazzali, Imam ul Haramayn, Hafiz ibn Hajar, and the list goes on. It seems to me that the whole ummah was in error except when these few individuals (ibn Taymiya and others) came.

    So i would love a response to the questions that i posted, as well as thoughts about what i wrote in this post.
  10. AbdulMatin

    AbdulMatin New Member

    no scholar is perfect

    including Sh. ibn Taymiyya

    (and salam once again to brother Harris)
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2008
    Belal likes this.
  11. Muslim_

    Muslim_ New Member

    True, no scholar is perfect, but i've never read or heard any criticism on Imam Ibn Taymiyya.

    Why is that?
  12. AbdulMatin

    AbdulMatin New Member

    Haven't you?

    There is plenty. Loads in fact.

    Much of it unfair, some fair.

    Like any polarising figure people tend to lose their objectiveness when discussing the ideas.

    May Allah have Mercy upon him.
  13. Muslim_

    Muslim_ New Member

    Do quote some, especially from "salafi" scholars.

    JazakAllahu Khayr
  14. AbdulMatin

    AbdulMatin New Member

    From Imam Subki his contemporary to Kawtheri in the last century there are many big names. Why do you need salafi scholars in particular? Its like asking for a hanafi who criticises Imam Abu Hanifa's opinions. There will be the odd one or two, but not many. It does not make it right, but its typical of any group whether they label themselves a madhhab or not.
  15. Muslim_

    Muslim_ New Member

    Are they valid criticsm on their behalf (imam Subki, kawthari) according to you?

    Hanafi Ulema disagreed with Imam Abu Hanifa, , not necessarily criticsing him, but I still haven't read anything from "salafi" scholars stating Ibn Taymiya's oppinoin and going against it or saying it's wrong.
  16. Abu'l 'Eyse

    Abu'l 'Eyse Rep-manz

    the thing is bro Muslim your question is already loaded with the Keller theory that pre-ibn taymiyyah no one said what he did. Which is wrong. I use to believe that too.

    What the thread is about is the (in)consistency of deobandi thought in methodology and aqeedah and brother Harris has raised some interesting points.

    As for salafi critiques of IT I think it would be far-fetched to think he was without error or that anyone believes he was.

    There are a few dissertations on him let me try get them for you if I can.

    The truth is not encompassed by any one scholar.

    Nor do I see a single group out there be they salafi, deobandi, HT, ash'ari etc that encompass the truth on it's entierty. And those who think they do and never have to seek the good from others have delusions of grandeur

    Wa Allahu a'lam
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2008
  17. Abu'l 'Eyse

    Abu'l 'Eyse Rep-manz

    Give us a break!!!!! At the very least be realistic in your criticisms!!!!

    Are you saying all salafis follow IT in totallity and in every single mas'ala?
  18. AbdulMatin

    AbdulMatin New Member

    really? have you read widely in "salafi" fiqh books, so can state that they all agree with the opinions of ibn Taymiyya in all issues?

    i think you need to start with a less prejudiced view, otherwise you will get nowhere

    Allah knows best
  19. Abu'l 'Eyse

    Abu'l 'Eyse Rep-manz

    Exactly! Jzk bro
  20. junaid123

    junaid123 New Member

    ähmm i think he didnĀ“t mean do salafis totally follow ibn taymiyah(rh) or not, he asks did any salafi scholars critisized ibn taymiyah(rh) at all. HAving different valid opinion is not same as making mistake (which is exposed by scholars later).

Share This Page