Salafi/Ahle Hadees in Pakistan protest against JuD/LeT

[user1]

Jis tarah K*tta Kuttay ka beri hota hai (The way a dog barks at other dogs), these dogs (Mullahs) bark at each other all the time. Every person of other sect is a 'Kaffir' according to them. These people neither have tolerance nor do they possess any intellect; they are blind followers of what is fed to them.

Deaf, dumb and blind, they can no longer recover (2:18).

From the above video, it seems like these Mullah are more concerned about Chanda (Alms) that JuD is collecting from the public.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

BUt, Quran mention and suggested only one name for us Muslims, Why a person feels proud on its sectarian instead of being muslim ? I'm specifically talking about Pakistan.

good point
but lets leave it here. the thread is not about sectarian debate but an event that was about a protest by Muslims of a certain sect who felt the need to distance themselves from the organisations they believe are involved in terrorism and are bringing bad name to Muslims in general and their school of thought in particular. your thoughts are very complimentary but it seems there are some who would rather relish on the fact that certain sect or sects are declared kafir by them.


reference my response that you quoted. please read its original post and I hope you read the post number 9 too before the deletion.
as a moderator and a member I was obliged to clarify that using derogatory words for other sects is wrong specially when people of all faiths and sects are members and guests here. but it seems that my request bounced off a brick wall and the answer was even worse than the initial comment that prompted me to flag up the potential for offence.

from his response it seems that he is justifying a single and convenient word the Americans use for Muslims of all nationalities or the N word they use to describe the people from Africa (again for the sake of ease and singular description).


bigotry and blind hatred has many faces and one of them is being a clever you know what, I think people would have read post number 9 already and know what I am talking about so I will remove it before it turns to another fatwa declaration thread.

@topic

I will like to see what is the reaction of JUI and Jamat Islami regarding this protest

 

[EjazR]

The problem with Salafism is that it has a lot of "potential to be hijacked & abused" by others, as it is a "reformist" ideology. It deems all actions practiced by Muslims (after Prophet(S)'s life) that didn't take place in the Prophet(S)'s life as Biddah (innovations).

Salafi is a school of thought, just like any other school of thought. They might have some regressive aspects but you are confusing the concept of takfir which is what political Islamic groups of all schools of thoughts indulge in and associating with only the Salafis.

The point is that political Islamists who happen to be Salafi are NOT indulging in terrorism because of the Salafi school of thought which condemnds thinkgs like killing civilians and suciide bombings in the first place but because of the deviant political Islamist leanings. The idea was first promulgated by Syed Qutb in Egypt and has been popularised by a section in the Arab world. Kohemnei is the shia counterpart of the same ideology. So for example, dispite complete unanimity that suicide bombings are haram, Khomenie had supported the Hezbullah's suicide bombing campaign. Even thought other shia scholars opposed it.


And on the wider subject, following a different school of thought is just part of the diversity of Islam where scholars have interpreted different aspects of the Prophets life. There can be difference of opinion but it should be respected and no school of thoguht has the right to violently disagree and pronounce takfir on just that difference of opinion.

 

[sur]

ALL sects are misled,,, no one of them is completely on the right,,, each of them have some things that they got right while being deviated from correct ways in other things... But the thing is, this issue is gonna stay this way thru-out & only in hereafter will it be solved ...


Q:30:32:
Those who split up their Religion, and become (mere) Sects each party rejoicing in that which is with itself!
(اور ن&#1729 اُن لوگوں میں (ہون&#1575 جنہوں نے اپنے دین کو ٹکڑے ٹکڑے کر دیا اور (خو&#1583 فرقے فرقے ہو گئے۔ سب فرقے اسی سے خوش ہیں جو اُن کے پاس ہے



Q:42:14:And they became divided only after knowledge reached them― through selfish envy as between themselves. Had it not been for a Word that went forth before from thy Lord, (tending) to a Term appointed, the matter would have been settled between them: but truly those, who have inherited the Book after them are in suspicious (disquieting) doubt concerning it.
اور یہ لوگ جو الگ الگ ہوئے ہیں تو علم (ح&#1602 آچکنے کے بعد آپس کی ضد سے (ہوئے ہی&#1722۔ اور اگر تمہارے پروردگار کی طرف سے ایک وقت مقرر تک کے لئے بات نہ ٹھہر چکی ہوتی تو ان میں فیصلہ کردیا جاتا


Q:6:159:As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did.
جن لوگوں نے اپنے دین میں (بہت س&#1746 رستے نکالے اور کئی کئی فرقے ہو گئے ان سے تم کو کچھ کام نہیں ان کا کام خدا کے حوالے پھر جو کچھ وہ کرتے رہے ہیں وہ ان کو (س&#1576 بتائے گا

 

[53fd]

Salafi is a school of thought, just like any other school of thought. They might have some regressive aspects but you are confusing the concept of takfir which is what political Islamic groups of all schools of thoughts indulge in and associating with only the Salafis.

You misunderstand what I say, again. I say it has a high potential to be abused by others. Think about it. It is a recent ideology, sprung up in the 18th century. Deobandism sprung up in India in the 19th century.

It's an ideology based on revisionism, seeking to 'correct' the deviations in Muslim societies. Sufism was the means of how Islam spread in the Indian subcontinent. Deobandism declared revering shrines haram, & everything Sufis did to spread the peaceful message of God.

I did not say it is a Takfiri ideology, but it can easily be made into one. Just like extremism can easily be converted into militancy if exploited by others. The reformist & revisionist aspect of Salafism is the one that gives some (the people who want to exploit this ideology) the license to kill others, even though they aren't following Salafism by being militant, they feel, in their brainwashed minds, that they are doing the "work of God", which is how some brainwashed individuals thought that killing Shias would get them into heaven, as they are Mushrikeen, & God has said "kill the infidels".

Again, I am strictly talking about the brainwashed individuals. My previous example shows Salafism getting converted into "political pan-Islam", being used by "political powers", who give it a political dimension, to brainwash the easily brainwashed to achieve "certain objectives".

The point is that political Islamists who happen to be Salafi are NOT indulging in terrorism because of the Salafi school of thought which condemnds thinkgs like killing civilians and suciide bombings in the first place but because of the deviant political Islamist leanings. The idea was first promulgated by Syed Qutb in Egypt and has been popularised by a section in the Arab world. Kohemnei is the shia counterpart of the same ideology. So for example, dispite complete unanimity that suicide bombings are haram, Khomenie had supported the Hezbullah's suicide bombing campaign. Even thought other shia scholars opposed it.

You are wrong with the comparison to Shia ideology, because while Iran has used political Islam (Taqleed) to gain political control of the Shia population throughout the world, it (Taqleed) is not a Shia concept. The concept in Shiism is to accept the Imamat of only the infallible, & Khamenei nor Sistani are infallible. Hence, everything they say is open to criticism in the Shia world.

The concept of Taqleed (following Sistani or Khamenei unconditionally) is not inspired by contemporary Shia teachings, whereas Takfirism (which gets converted into militancy) is inspired by the revisionist aspect of Salafism, a recent phenomena to correct the deviations of Muslim societies.

The contemporary Sunni school of thought (& its different flavors), Shia school of thought have been around since a long time, Deobandism/Salafism only came around a couple of hundred years ago, with political motives.

 

[Zarvan]

Just came across this video which shows that even Pakistani Salafis reject the JuD and LeT and condemn them as Khwarij. So hopefully people will understand how Hafiz Saeed and the JuD have fooled other Pakistanis and how dark his reality is.

MR they are really few in number so the doesn't matter

 

[Zarvan]

You misunderstand what I say, again. I say it has a high potential to be abused by others. Think about it. It is a recent ideology, sprung up in the 18th century. Deobandism sprung up in India in the 19th century.

It's an ideology based on revisionism, seeking to 'correct' the deviations in Muslim societies. Sufism was the means of how Islam spread in the Indian subcontinent. Deobandism declared revering shrines haram, & everything Sufis did to spread the peaceful message of God.

I did not say it is a Takfiri ideology, but it can easily be made into one. Just like extremism can easily be converted into militancy if exploited by others. The reformist & revisionist aspect of Salafism is the one that gives some (the people who want to exploit this ideology) the license to kill others, even though they aren't following Salafism by being militant, they feel, in their brainwashed minds, that they are doing the "work of God", which is how some brainwashed individuals thought that killing Shias would get them into heaven, as they are Mushrikeen, & God has said "kill the infidels".

Again, I am strictly talking about the brainwashed individuals. My previous example shows Salafism getting converted into "political pan-Islam", being used by "political powers", who give it a political dimension, to brainwash the easily brainwashed to achieve "certain objectives".



You are wrong with the comparison to Shia ideology, because while Iran has used political Islam (Taqleed) to gain political control of the Shia population throughout the world, it (Taqleed) is not a Shia concept. The concept in Shiism is to accept the Imamat of only the infallible, & Khamenei nor Sistani are infallible. Hence, everything they say is open to criticism in the Shia world.

The concept of Taqleed (following Sistani or Khamenei unconditionally) is not inspired by contemporary Shia teachings, whereas Takfirism (which gets converted into militancy) is inspired by the revisionist aspect of Salafism, a recent phenomena to correct the deviations of Muslim societies.

The contemporary Sunni school of thought (& its different flavors), Shia school of thought have been around since a long time, Deobandism/Salafism only came around a couple of hundred years ago, with political motives.

Sir they are not new they are old but came up with New they were always there and as far as politics is concerned most Sufis were always involved in politics because Politics is part of Islam and funny thing is the more I do research the more I found that Salafis follow Quran and Sunnah more

 

[53fd]

Salafis take the literal interpretation of the Quran, & have eliminated its spiritual element.

But that's not the point. The point is that Salafis/Deobandis are free to believe in whatever way they want to interpret Islam, with no restrictions. The problem comes that because it is a recent phenomena & inspired by revisionism, seeking to remove the deviations from Muslim societies, it has the highest potential of getting hijacked & exploited for Takfir by "political powers" for advancing their geopolitical strategic interests.

All religious ideologies have the potential of Takfir in them, but Salafism has the highest one. Which is why most of the pan-Islamist terror groups say they are inspired by Salafi ideology, even if they aren't following Salafi ideology in reality. The potential of Takfiri abuse & exploitation is far greater in Salafism/Deobandism than any other ideology. I rest my case.

 

[EjazR]

@bilal, isn't it a fact that Khomenie supported suicide bombings conducted by Hezbullah while the Saudi salafi scholars declared it Haram even if it is being used for fighitng Israelis?

Now traditional shia scholars don't support this and they don't even support the idea of a cleric being a head of state. The Iranian regime with an Ayatollah as head of state is an anamoly in Islam.

Deobandi and Barelvi are both school of thoughts that come under the Hanafi school of thought. The Hanafi school of thought is largest sunni school followed by almost 70% of the Muslim world. Both of them are very close and also believe in Sufi principles and Tawassuf. So I don't understand how you can say Deoband declared everything sufis did as haram. I think you have a very flawed understanding of Deobandis if you think that way. Just going to a sufi shrine and doing sajdah on the grave there is not sufism. Infact, even Barelvi scholars oppose such practices. Salafis and Deobandis have very different theological arguments and schools of thoughts.

For example, the triple talaq issue which comes from the Hanafi school of thought is applied by both Barelvi and Deobandi scholars. While Salafis don't agree with it. This is just one example, but these are just theological arguments where no one will declare takfir over.

In any case, such differences doesn't lead people to start doing sucide bombings or killing innocent civilians.

Also, the takifiris is a result of the political Islamist ideology, not Salafis. So for example when you hear things like those following democracy are Kafirs, these are Qutubists not Salafis speaking.

The reason why intially in the Shia groups were involved in sucide bombings is because these groups were given political patronage and religious backing by the Ayatollah of Iran at that time. Later, in Pakistan, Deobandi groups under general Zia were used for political patronage and political ends. And ofcourse, during the 1980s, Salafis from across the Arab world were utilised to move towards Afghanistan for the political objective of getting USSR out. All of these leaders used religion for political ends.

If Zia had for example thought of using Barelvi groups for his "Jihad" in Afghanistan, you would see radicalised Barelvi groups which is happening as a reaction in Pakistan anyway. The Taliban again is an example of a deviant ideology of having a cleric as a head of state even though they claimed to be Deobandi.

One interesting fact to note is that authentic scholars in all these schools of thoughts have disowned these very people. The Taliban have been told that they are deviant by Deobandi scholars as had OBL/AQ been declared deviant by Saudi salafi scholars. Now you see Pakistani Jamiat Ahle Hadees scholars declaring that LeT/JuD are also deviant groups and standing up to them despite these groups being militant organisations and at a risk to their lives. Similar prominent shia scholars have asked for Khamenie to step down and reform the political system in Iran where the head of state is NOT the Ayatollah.

In any case, we are going off topic.

The main point is that when even the much maligned Ahle Hadees group in Pakistan consider Hafiz Saeed and his ilk as deviant and terrorist, what excuse do others have of considering him postiively? Who are we really fooling here?

 

[Musalman]

I do not understand why ppl are abusing the fact that I said I am a Salafi. Even though I believe in the Salafi school's aqeeda yet i do not call my self a Salafi Muslim rather just a Muslim. Here it was specifically for the Salafi's and the deobandis therefore i gave that answer.

 

[Zarvan]

Salafis take the literal interpretation of the Quran, & have eliminated its spiritual element.

But that's not the point. The point is that Salafis/Deobandis are free to believe in whatever way they want to interpret Islam, with no restrictions. The problem comes that because it is a recent phenomena & inspired by revisionism, seeking to remove the deviations from Muslim societies, it has the highest potential of getting hijacked & exploited for Takfir by "political powers" for advancing their geopolitical strategic interests.

All religious ideologies have the potential of Takfir in them, but Salafism has the highest one. Which is why most of the pan-Islamist terror groups say they are inspired by Salafi ideology, even if they aren't following Salafi ideology in reality. The potential of Takfiri abuse & exploitation is far greater in Salafism/Deobandism than any other ideology. I rest my case.

Sir Spirtulaism other than the Quran is not allowed sir and ALLAH never said in the Quran to take our some kind funny spiritualism from it Quran is basically code of conduct and for your complete life and and How to run your economy and governments and social life nothing else

---------- Post added at 09:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 AM ----------

Salafis take the literal interpretation of the Quran, & have eliminated its spiritual element.

But that's not the point. The point is that Salafis/Deobandis are free to believe in whatever way they want to interpret Islam, with no restrictions. The problem comes that because it is a recent phenomena & inspired by revisionism, seeking to remove the deviations from Muslim societies, it has the highest potential of getting hijacked & exploited for Takfir by "political powers" for advancing their geopolitical strategic interests.

All religious ideologies have the potential of Takfir in them, but Salafism has the highest one. Which is why most of the pan-Islamist terror groups say they are inspired by Salafi ideology, even if they aren't following Salafi ideology in reality. The potential of Takfiri abuse & exploitation is far greater in Salafism/Deobandism than any other ideology. I rest my case.

Sir what if they prove that they are right and you are not following Islam than Sir prove them worn according to Qurna and Sunnah not your personal opinion

 

[Awesome]

I have no issues in hanging JuD or LeT or PPP (ok j/k with the last one). But Pakistanis are in no mood to start killing people without a fair trial - remember JuD chief did not resist arrest like Bugti did and he willingly offered to stand trial.

Currently the collective power of the CIA and the RAW is working day and night in collecting evidence against them - there are CIA bases in India dedicated to this role - and they are unable to present any proof that JuD is actually LeT. Pakistan has already bent the rules for India by keeping the court cases open despite 4 years failure in trying Hafiz Saeed.

 

[Zarvan]

I have no issues in hanging JuD or LeT or PPP (ok j/k with the last one). But Pakistanis are in no mood to start killing people without a fair trial - remember JuD chief did not resist arrest like Bugti did and he willingly offered to stand trial.

Currently the collective power of the CIA and the RAW is working day and night in collecting evidence against them - there are CIA bases in India dedicated to this role - and they are unable to present any proof that JuD is actually LeT. Pakistan has already bent the rules for India by keeping the court cases open despite 4 years failure in trying Hafiz Saeed.

Sir Hafiz Saeed have been arrested but not proven guilty so no one has right to say anything against him in this sense

 

[53fd]

@bilal, isn't it a fact that Khomenie supported suicide bombings conducted by Hezbullah while the Saudi salafi scholars declared it Haram even if it is being used for fighitng Israelis?

He can say whatever he wants. What he says is not supported by contemporary Shia theology, nor is the concept of "Taqleed" for people like Khomeni.

Now traditional shia scholars don't support this and they don't even support the idea of a cleric being a head of state. The Iranian regime with an Ayatollah as head of state is an anamoly in Islam.

Agreed. It is not inspired by Shia theology.

Deobandi and Barelvi are both school of thoughts that come under the Hanafi school of thought. The Hanafi school of thought is largest sunni school followed by almost 70% of the Muslim world. Both of them are very close and also believe in Sufi principles and Tawassuf. So I don't understand how you can say Deoband declared everything sufis did as haram.

I know Deobandis & Barelvis are from the Hanafi school of thought. But as Deobandism is a recent phenomena (as is Barelvism), it has taken elements of Takfir from other ideologies. Even Barelvism has been affected to an extent, but not as much. Contemporary Deobandism was closer to Barelvism than Deobandism today is. Deobandism has evolved from a couple of centuries, not for the good though.

I think you have a very flawed understanding of Deobandis if you think that way. Just going to a sufi shrine and doing sajdah on the grave there is not sufism. Infact, even Barelvi scholars oppose such practices.

Most of today's Deobandis are deviants to the original school of thought in the Hanafi branch. The Barelvis are closer adherrants of the Hanafi branch. The Deobandis took out all of Prophet(S)'s heavenly attributes. They also claimed Barelvis were doing Shirk by going to shrines of saints, & thought concepts such as Prophet(S) being Hazir Nazir were shirk because Barelvis were deviating, apparently making Prophet(S) a god just like Christians made Jesus their god. That is why Barelvis have always sought to seek Prophet(S)'s guidance & presence in a spiritual way, & are peaceful, while Deobandis are deviants & intolerant by nature.

Salafis & Deobandis share some common points, although they have their differences as well. Deobandis & Salafis both believe that Prophet(S) was not Hazir Nazir, they both believe that Prophet(S) was not Noor ul Bashr, they both believe that the Prophet(S) was not infallible. The differences where Deobandis and Wahabis have are that Deobandis claim that Prophet(S) had ilme-ghaib given to him by Allah, Salafis do not accept that. They believe he was an ordinary man. Deobandis also believe that it is right to do Tawassul through the Holy Prophet(S) (use him as waseela), Salafis think that is Shirk.

Also, the takifiris is a result of the political Islamist ideology, not Salafis.

You are making a lot of assumptions of what I said. I did not say it is a Takfiri ideology, I said it has a high potential to be abused & exploited by others. Please understand the difference.

The reason why intially in the Shia groups were involved in sucide bombings is because these groups were given political patronage and religious backing by the Ayatollah of Iran at that time.

Answered above. The concept of Taqleed today is not inspired by contemporary Shia ideology.

If Zia had for example thought of using Barelvi groups for his "Jihad" in Afghanistan, you would see radicalised Barelvi groups which is happening as a reaction in Pakistan anyway. The Taliban again is an example of a deviant ideology of having a cleric as a head of state even though they claimed to be Deobandi.

Barelvis are getting radicalized because they are getting influenced by Takfir from today's Deobandis. For example, the Deobandis in India have openly declared Ahmedis as non-Muslims, & even going to shrines is haram. It is because of the influx of Deobandis from India post 1947 (who had opposed the creation of Pakistan because they wanted to convert the whole Indian subcontinent into a "Muslim country", & the creation of Pakistan created a dent in that), that Muslim & non-Muslim minorities (Shias, Parsis, Ahmedis, Christians, Hindus), that once lived peacefully under the banner of the peaceful Barelvi majority are seeing the effects of this. Even the moderate Barelvi population has been radicalized because of this.

 

[53fd]

double post