Reality of the Deobandis

Deobandi kufr/heresies:

Denying the finality of Prophethood:
English - https://youtu.be/EIZSm3CCxXQ?si=bXuhbU0OXxWci4RU
Arabic - https://youtu.be/EVMOpIuhRdU?si=LQBELvH9DvD23801

Lying is possible for Allah:
https://youtu.be/qjq-hVEvols

Thinking of a donkey in prayer is better than thinking of the Prophet ﷺ:
1) https://youtu.be/_PRDQZSiUBg
2) https://youtu.be/bgdIssqaNeI?si=smg4zYtHJRQqo9HC

Comparing reading Salawat in a mosque to a bag of faeces:

English - https://youtu.be/1YaxL7HQO6g?si=gRq_-ExcxFgwFyn-
Arabic - https://youtu.be/pHibUUp4Bto

Deobandi kufr/heresies:
- Kufr of the Deobandi elders as stated in Hussam Al-Haramayn
- Claiming that lying, oppression and stealing is under the power of Allah. Actually all defects are under the power of Allah.
- Ismail Dehlawi's book Taqwiyatul Imaan which has a fatwa of kufr on it by Allama Fadl Haq Khairabadi
- Contemporary scholars explicitly saying that thinking of a donkey in prayer is better than thinking of the Prophet ﷺ
- Comparing reading Salawat in a mosque to a bag of faeces
- Comparing standing in the Mawlid to the festival of Hindus

Deobandis are very good at shifting the goal posts and distracting people from the real issues between the Ahlus Sunnah and the Deobandi sect.

Here are some of the main issues that we have with the Deobandi sect...

Ahlus Sunnah - Here are 2 fatwas of kufr on Rashid Ahmad Gangohi and Khalil Saharanpuri. One dating back to 1308AH, 17 years before Hussam Al-Haramayn and one in 1330AH from the scholars of Damascus.

Deobandis - Look Imam Ahmad Rida Khan made a mistake in Malfuzat e Ala Hazrat which wasn't even written by him.

🤡

Also in the fatwa it states that Rashid Gangohi's answer was sent to Shaykh Yasin al-Misri al-Madani. It states that he wrote a small book in refutation of Rashid Gangohi. After defending the Qiyaam during the Mawlid, Shaykh Yasin al-Misri al-Madani states,

ان ما اجاب الوهابي المخذول كل ذلك ناشئ عن سوء ادبه في حضرة سيد الوجود

'As for what the forsaken Wahabi (Rashid Gangohi) answered, all of that (his answer) emanates from his bad manners regarding the Prophet ﷺ'.

Written on the 18th of Jumada al-Awwal, year 1330AH in Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah.

As for standing (القيام) when the Prophetic birth is mentioned, I have mentioned the statements of the scholars in my books حجة الله على العالمين and جواهر البحار. Qiyaam is a good innovation and it increases veneration and reverence for the Prophet ﷺ without the tiniest of harm in the religion.

There is no doubt that standing during His ﷺ mention and the mention of His ﷺ birth is veneration, honour and exaltation for the Prophet ﷺ however the Wahabiya, their hearts do not see (are blind)'.

Written in Beirut, 20th of Muharram, the year 1330AH.

When Imam Yusuf Al-Nabhani was asked about what Rashid Gangohi has written, he writes, 'As for the statement of the Wahabi called Rashid Gangohi, it is null and void. His speech is the speech of the people of innovation (البدعة) and misguidance (الضلالة) from the Wahabiya who have been deprived of the love of the messenger ﷺ. If you want to investigate regarding the knowledge of the unseen of the Prophet ﷺ return to my book حجة الله على العالمين and my book شواهد الحق regarding Istigaatha with the Prophet ﷺ...

In the fatwa of kufr above on Khalil Saharanpuri and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Imam Barzanji states a few important things.

1) Mawlid is permissible
2) Qiyaam is permissible and it is possible for the soul of the Prophet ﷺ to attend gatherings
3) Lying is impossible in both Kalaam Nafsi and Lafzi

But one very damning thing he says is, after quoting what Qasim Nanotvi's says in his book 'Tahzeer Un Naas', Imam Barzanji states regarding what Qasim Nanotvi said,

أقول هذه العبارة مشتملة على اخلال كبير بالادب مع انبياء الله ورسله

'I (Imam Barzanji) say, this expression (of Qasim Nanotvi) greatly violates/transgresses the etiquette in regards to Allah's prophets and messengers'.

Picture on top is from the manuscript.

Imam Barzanji does not talk about Qasim Nanotvi's statement in his endorsement of al-Muhannad which again raises the question... What was he shown?

It is impossible that Shaykh Mahmood Effendi endorsed al-Muhannad and at the same time called that passage kufr. This puts all of the endorsements of Al-Muhannad in doubt. It seems as if Saharanpuri was showing scholars different things and then just copying their endorsements in to al-Muhannad. Shaykh Mahmood Effendi Al-Attaar endorsed a refutation of the Wahabiya not al-Muhannad as per his own words.

My final say on this matter because I don't want to drag this on for too long is why did Shaykh Mahmood Effendi Al-Attaar endorse al-Muhannad?

The question arises, how could Shaykh Mahmood Effendi Al-Attaar endorse al-Muhannad whilst simultaneously stating that a passage in al-Muhannad is kufr? It is a clear, clear contradiction.

My claim is that Khalil Saharanpuri didn't even show al-Muhannad to Shaykh Mahmood Effendi in the first place. My evidence? Look at Shaykh Mahmood Effendi's endorsement of Al-Muhannad, he states at the very beginning -

فوجدته سفراً حافلاً لكل دقيق وجليل من الرد على الفرقة المبتدعة الوهابية،

Shaykh Mahmood Effendi states that whatever he was shown was a refutation of the Wahabiya

'من الرد على الفرقة المبتدعة الوهابية'.

Allama Shinqiti in his endorsement of al-Muhannad goes further and states that the coming of the soul of the Prophet ﷺ is entirely possible! And that the Prophet ﷺ has Tassaruf in the world, with the permission of Allah, do to what he wills!

Another endorsement to al-Muhannad ala al-Mufannad by 3 scholars of Al-Azhar state regarding Gangohi's answer on standing during the Mawlid, 'Except for the rejection of standing when His ﷺ birth is mentioned and slandering (تشنيع) the doer of that (Qiyaam) by comparing it to the Majus and the Rafawid because many of the Imams approved the aforementioned standing with the intention of glorifying and respecting the Prophet ﷺ. This is a matter which there is no objection to it'.

The answer was by Allama Saleem al-Bishri, Shaykh of Al-Azhar and was endorsed by two other scholars from Al-Azhar, Shaykh Sulayman al-Abd and Shaykh Muhammad Ibrahim al-Qayaani.

That makes 5 scholars from al-Muhannad alone who rejected Gangohi's answer.

1) Shaykh Mahmood Effendi Al-Attaar who called it kufr.
2) Allama Shinqiti who said that expression used by Gangohi was not appropriate.
3, 4 & 5) The 3 scholars of Al-Azhar who said rejected Gangohi's answer and approved the Qiyaam.

Scholar X states - Qiyaam during the Mawlid is an innovation, it has no basis in the deen. The Sahabah didn't do it and there is no authentication narration regarding it etc...

Gangohi and Saharanpuri state - Qiyaam during the Mawlid is stupidity/foolishness (حماقة). It is similar to the gathering of Hindus who celebrate the birthday of their idol (كنهيا) and similar to the actions of the Rafidah. This action is Haraam and Fisq.

Zameel - What's the difference?

English translations of their statements provided here.

Mufti Abd al-Ghafaar states,

كلامه نعوذ بالله مشعرا باستخفافه صلى الله عليه وسلم فلا شك في كونه ضالا مضلا اخذه الله في الدارين بجاه سيد الكونين صلى الله عليه وآله وصحبه وسلم.

Shaykh Asad Effendi al-Jilani states,

واما حال من افتى بالحرمة وفسق عن فعل ذلك وشبه فعلهم الذي هو من شعار الايمان بفعل المجوس الذي هو من شعار الكفر ولم يسعه عليه الا تشبه (كنهيا) بالنبي المصطفى صلى الله عليه وسلم فهى حال خطره يخشى على صاحبها من سوء الخاتمة والعياذ بالله تعالى

Shaykh Tahir Sanbal states,

فكيف يزعم القائلون ان ذلك مشبه بفعل مجوس الهند بصنمهم المسمى (كنهيا) فلا شك ان لم يتولوا ويرجعوا من هذه المقالات التي لا يقبلها كل ذي عقل ودين والا نعوذ بالله ان يخشى عليه الكفر ولا حول ولا قوة الا بالله العلي العظيم وهو حسبنا ونعم الوكيل.