i feel sorry for Ed and Admin, whatever happen to Big Bro btw? They go to all the work of creating such a brillant website and a diehard member like Angel hasn't even bother to read their website. Here everything you could possibly want to know about Brewali.

http://www.therevival.co.uk/articles/AHMAD_RAZA_KHAN.htm

Actually I am surprise they got such a articles. I wouldn't expect The revival to carry such a article. I would have thought the revival would be more for unity between deobandi and brewali.

DR Tahir Ul Qadri is a really good example of a modern brewali I think. Because though his aqueedah are the same as Iman Ahmed Raza, he doesn't really pay much attention on labelling himself, which is a good thing IMO.

The differences between deoband and bareilly are centrally on 4 issues:

1. Is Rasulullah salallahu alayhi wa sallam noor of bashar?

2. Was Rasulullah salallah alayhi wa sallam Alimul Ghayb?

3. Is Rasulullah salallahu alayhi wa sallam Hazir Nazir?

4. Is Rasulullah salallahu alayhi wa sallam Mukhtar e Kul?

''1. NOOR OR BASHAR?

My belief regarding Rasulullah salallahu alayhi wa sallam is that not only is He among the human kind but He is the highest and noblest of all humans. Not only is He the son of Hazrat Adam alayhis salaam but the chief and leader of the children of Hazrat Adam alayhis salam. Rasulullah salallahu alayhi wa sallam is reported to have said the following regarding himself:

I WILL BE THE LEADER OF ADAM'S PROGENY ON THE DAY OF QIYAMAH.

Therefore it is not only Rasulallah salallahu alayhi wa sallam's honour to man, but his being from mankind is a fact that inspires envy,even amongst the angels. Since Rasulullah salallahu alayhi wa sallam is the noblest of man ''Bashar'' in the field of Divine guidance his teachings are a luminour ligh ''Noor''. This is the Noor that makes man recognise his creator and it is a noor that will last till the day of Qiyamah. Thus my belief regarding Rasulullah salallahu alayhi wa sallam is that He is Bashar as well as a SOURCE of noor.

To accept one and reject the other is a grave error. Bashar and man mean the same thing.

By rejecting the quality of bashar from Rasulullah salallahu alayhi wa sallam one expels Rasulullah salallahu alayhi wa sallam from being amongst mankind.

Whereas on many occasions the Quran clearly proclaims the Prophets as having come from the species of man.

It is the unanimous belief of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaat that ALLAH has only chosen Prophets from amongst mankind.

The famous book on the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah ''Sharah Aqaaid Nasafi'' defines a Rasool in the following words:

A PROPHET IS A MAN WHOME ALLAH HAS CHOSEN TO PROPAGATE HIS MESSAGE AND LAWS.

In another famous Hanafi Fiqhi book ''Fatawa Alamgiri'' on page 363, Vol 2, it is said:

THE ONE WHO SAYS '' I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER RASULULLAH SALALLAHU ALAYHI WA SALLAM IS A MAN OR JINN'' IS NOT A MUSLIM.

Hence we learn that no person of sound reason can reject or negate the fact that Rasulullah salallahu alayhi wa sallam is Bashar.

Some people claim RASULULLAH salallahu alayhi wa sallam is a noor among the many noors of ALLAH cloaked in the garb of man.

This is the same belief that the Christians hold regarding Hazrat Isa alayhis salam ie he was ALLAH cloaked in the garb of man.

There is no room for such evil and erroneous beliefs in islam.

How absurd and foolish can we be to put ALLAH and His creations on one and the same platform?

People of earlier generations have destroyed their religion with such excess and exaggeration.

Rasulullah salallahu alayhi wa sallam also feared the eventual occurrence of such excess and exaggeration in His Ummah. He therefore warned us against such exaggeration in the following words:

DO NOT PRAISE ME EXCESSIVELY AS THE CHRISTIANS HAVE PRAISED HAZRAT ISA ALAYHIS SALAM. THEY HAVE MADE HIM ALLAH AND THE SON OF ALLAH - I AM ALLAH'S SERVANT AND HIS RASOOL. REGARD ME ONLY AS THE SERVANT OF ALLAH AND THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH.

BUKHARI

In the light of the above hadeeth, it can be quite clearly concluded that Rasulullah salallahu alayhi wa sallam is the best of all creation - no creation can surpass his high and noble qualities and character. However he is human and not ALLAH. These are the teachings of Islam and upon them are my beliefs.''

Extract from Diffierence in the ummah and the straight path by Mawlana Muhammad Yusuf Ludhyanwi Shaheed.

Dr Qadri is not a 'brelvi/brelwi/other'.

He has said so himself.

What is a brelvi?

I don't know.

From what I understand its a term used as ridicule as well as pride (just like 'paki') by different sides.

Regarding that article about Imam Raza Khan on the site, it has been there for a long time, and I am willing to put up articles of other scholars. We have articles of a few schoalrs hidden somewhere. We had a poll about past scholars a few years ago. (before forums)

Links for quite a few scholars. Some I agree with, others I do not:

[url=http://www.therevival.co.uk/muslim_year.php]Muslim Personalities[/url]

Not putting one up because I/We disagree with their opinions is not only short sighted, but also vain and defeats its purpose. Putting a scholar on will gain criticism from those who disagree with him, not putting him on will gain criticism from those who agree with him.

The Revival is non sectarian, so I stick them all on. We are used to being criticised. If noone criticises, it means no-one is reading.

PS That page is not linked from the mainmenu as alot of the info is out of date. We also have mentioned on that page that we need info on other scholars. Please cooperate.

Salaam

i would consider myself a 'barelvi' having studied the creed of Shah Ahmad Rida Khan 'alyhi'rahma. However upon studying the aqaid of leading scholars from the Middle-east such as As-Sayyid Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi and the late Sayid Muhammad Alawi Al-Maliki one would have to declare that they also hold the same belief as the so called 'barelvi' hold as well. In all honesty their beliefs can be traced back to the traditional scholars such as Imam Al-Asqalani 'alyhi rahma and Imam Al-Suyuti 'alyhi rahma.

With reagrd to the four points made by Br. agdus Salam I would refer thee to Sunnipath.com to enlighten oneself with the creed of Ahl-us-Sunnah wal Jama'ah. This site is in the main hosted by Arab Sunnis totally neutral so far as the Deo-Barel rivalry is concerned. They also have very moderate scholars from both schools such as Mufti Muhammad Al-Kawthari who is Deo-influenced and Sidi Munawar Ateeq Ridhwi, bareli influenced.

i feel all us entangled in this sub-con quagmire would greatly benefit from the nasiha of the 'ulama e Sunnipath.

Finally with regard to your point on noor and bashar Imam Ahmed Rida 'alyhi rahma has declared who so ever rejects the bashariat of the Prophet salalahu'alyhi waslam a KAAFIR. The Ahl us Sunnah accept the Prophet salalahu'alyhi waslam was both noor and bashar.

Wasalaam

No I wasn't born in Barely however the term is used in the sub-con for those people who share the same beliefs as Imam Ahmad Rida 'alyhi rahma. In all reality the Brelvis in my eyes are those Muslims in the sub-con who belong to the Ahl-us-Sunnah.

The reason they are greatly affiilated with Imam Ahmad Rida 'alyhi rahma is because of the works he wrote to defend the creed of Ahl-us-Sunnah in the sub-con against groups who were intent on spreading the beliefs of the modern-day Salafis and those aligned with the creed of Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahab.

The thing is he is a scholar revered throughout the Muslim world for his scholarly works. Scroll to the bottom of the following link to an Arab website: [url=http://212.67.202.62/~security/htspub/index.php?option=content&task=view...

Wasalaam

Currently there are people who regard themselves as 'brelvis' They take the meaning to the meaning of sect.

They believe many others are kaafir, or atleast misguided.

(I have met some. so its not hearsay)

However with aqeedah, you MUST believe what you believe is the truth.

After that other aqeedah's are misguided. However declaring kufr is not the same thing. You can be misguided, but still Muslim if your core beliefs are correct.

If you correct your beliefs, you will re-enter the fold of Islam.

Salam
I would like to add some comments regarding the bareilawis. When i began to practise Islam i was being pulled between these 2 groups namely Deobandis and Bareilawis. I was given the booklets from Ghamkol Sharif mosque in Birmingham regarding the so called Deobandi/Wahabi beleifs. After going through this booklet i found it hard to beleive that the so called Deobandi scholars could say such things as was being mentioned in the booklet, as some issue are so clear cut that even a new muslim would know that statements such as Allah can tell lies etc is clear Kufr. So naturally i began approaching Deobandis and asked them to get me access to these books in which the allegations focused, and suprisingly i began to find that the Ghamkol sharif literature was not providing correct information and the more ai researched the more i found that some statements were out right lies and others were to put it nicely distortions or half truths. Its important that whom or wherever you get your source of knowledge from the source has to be truthfull, and unfortunately i found this not to be the case with Ghamkol Sharif litterature (Bareilawi). Hence, i began to find myself aligning more with the deobandi view points. However, i managed to keep myself out of the 'Group' menatlity and to this day accept those things which do conform to the classical works and scholars of Islam. So i dont look to the deobandis or the bareilawi scholars for issues rather those issues which are contested between the 2 groups look at what is said by other scholars. At this point i must make it clear that the vast majority of Bareilawis from my own personal experience make statements which can be Kufr ( bear in mind a statement of Kufr is not the same as a Kafir), as i also know that people from within my close circle call the bareilawis Mushriks,Kafirs etc, which i find quite shocking as these statements are so severe that on the day of judgement there should be fear of Allah. Going back to the topic, i read a brother on this forum state that the beleifs of Ahlul Sunnah are the same as Ahmed Raza Khan and gave examples of Imam Al Alawi al Makki and Sheikh Yaqoobi. It should be noted at this point that Imam Al Alawi had Ijazas to teach from both the scholar Ahmed Raza Khan and from a few of the Deobandi Scholars too, and in the words of Imam Al Alawi an Ijaza from a scholar does not mean an automatic endorsement of the views of that particular scholar, and when Sheikh Yaqoobi was asked regarding the Collection atributed to Abdur Razzak and the hadeeth of Jabir regarding the noor of the Prophet, he stated that 'we wait for an authentic collection be found which contains the hadeeth, until then we remain silent regarding it'(something of this nature). Also at this point i want to make a distinction between Ahmed raza Khan and the Bareialwis and by bareilawis i should also point out the illiterate ones regarding the religion, because from my encounters with 'Bairellawis', and from my research i find that in many cases the beleifs of the Bareilawis are not the same as those written By Ahmed Raza Khan. Alhamdulillah recently Sheikh Nuh has written some articles which clear up a few misconceptions which have been held by both these groups for years and causes strife and divisions to this day, he firstly exhonerates the scholars Deoband from the fatwa of Kufr which seems to have ruffled some feathers of some Bareilawis. This is something which during my research i had already come to know, however only confirmed that which i already came to learn and accept. This is not to say I accept without questions everything Deobandi scholars have to say, however being a subject about bareilawis, this is not the time to talk about the Deobandi school, for which i have great admiration and respect. The issue which are raised against the Bareilawis can be resolved when returning to classical works through the medium of current day scholars. I would like to comment on the issues of beleif, but this article may already be too long so will leave it for another topic on the specific issue. Wa Salam

Owais Raza Qadri is a Barelwi and a very fine example.

BD Brother wrote:

Owais Raza Qadri is a Barelwi and a very fine example.

why because he reads a few naats?

Funzo wrote:

BD Brother wrote:

Owais Raza Qadri is a Barelwi and a very fine example.

why because he reads a few naats?

he is also a Qari i think (certainly a Hafiz) and during most naats he also gives great insight relating to it and is quite a prominent (understated) speaker on most topics. i consider him to be a Sufi for he is such a great yet humble man and all towards attaining the love of RasulAllah (s.a.w) and spreading the deen. Bulbalay Madinah as he is affectionately known.

yes but he is a pakistani and most of his naats are in urdu and since the majority of the muslim world doesnt speak urdu and he cant relate to us about being brought in the west. Surely it would have been better saying someone like Shaykh Hamzah Yusuf or ustadh yahya rhodus imam zaid shakir, shaykh Nuh ha mim keller(authorised shaykh in tasawwuf) and a list of others who all speak english.

"deobandis/brelwis"(D/Bs)-this is an islamic disease generated from the ignorance of muslims which has infested the ummah for the last 100 years! It is high time muslims got to grip with these sterotypes and understood a few basic points.
I am merely assissting new comers to benefit from my experiences of both types of veiws/lectures which I have researched (from both sides and other firkas)over the last 20 years, and recent debates on various Islamic channels.

1)Both groups follow tarikat i.e. they originate from sufiism. For this reason they are both dismissed as by ahle-hadeeth and wahabis as both committing shirk and bidaats!

2)Forget there claims and counter claims against each other(D/BS), they both believe in ilme-gaib and katme nabuat,claims of hazir nazir come from both sides! Both read kalima naats and visit graves of awlia! One diference is noted that one group considers saying Ya to someone pious as disrespecful whilst the other says it is not! Both claim to follow actions from hadith/life of sahabah. So why so much agro!

3)The differences have been exagerated and propagated by there followers even after the respected ulamas have explained there philososophies from written texts and clearing up the misunderstandings (but not before Fatawas have been issued against each other).

4)I love them both (even though one of this group)will not reply to my salam by default.
As a scientist I am concerned that one of them belieives in GEOCENTRICITY-is this not against the Quran teaching?

4)One group of these followers have supressed for at least 20 years a fatawa of Ala Hazrat- (same from both groups) regarding the tazeemy sijdah!

Imam-Calling wrote:

One diference is noted that one group considers saying Ya to someone pious as disrespecful whilst the other says it is not!

Can you elaborate more on this point?

I think claiming it to be an 'Islamic disease' is going over the top and an exaggeration.

The Barelvi group as other groups was merely created due to the different beliefs within the Muslim community.

And as far I am aware Wahabis do not believe the Nabi paak was Hazir and Nazir, they also do not believe he was mukhtaar kul (could do whatever he wanted without the permission of Allah tala) and they do not believe he was Noor.

As far as I'm aware and from my research Wahabis believe Barelvis do shirk by visiting dargaas of Pious Muslims - how does this make them similar? Enlighten me please!

Barelvis also participate in Milad Un Nabi whereas the Wahabis are completely against this and call it Bidah...- again how does this make it similar?

Different movements,groups and sects has all been created due to the different beliefs we have, like Ismael Muslims,Shia's and Sunni's. And Deobandi/Wahabi and Barevli is a part of the Sunni sect both of them differ in there beliefs- how does this make it a disease??? It's just a matter of difference in belief .

strictly speaking wahabis are not the same as deobandis. It is the wahabis who destroyed all the kabrs of awlia in Saudi Arabia,not the deobandis! Also deobandis consider visiting the graves a sunnah!
Regarding Noor/bashr- Well my question to you is which of the creations are the greatest in the entire universe? Answer is insaan- created to be better than even the angels that are made of noor! However Allah (SWT) is pure noor and the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) has both components and is therefore both noor and bashr.

Regarding the topic of shirk at the graves, this is a highly sensitive one. Should one seek help from the creater of the universe or from the created? Also what was the real teaching of the of the No.1. peers! Not to be confused with the teachings of No2 peers.

Imam-Calling wrote:

Also what was the real teaching of the of the No.1. peers! Not to be confused with the teachings of No2 peers.

:S

can I find Imam-Calling's posts a little weird?

"people, you know this topic that none of you are interested in discussing and has not seen a post in for two years? its really not worth discussing! its all minor stuff. But while I am here, I will like to add a few comments to it."

Just seems a litle weird to me.

Salaam, They are AHLESUNNAT WAL JAMAAH. The name is given to them as they follow the teachings of a Mujaddid called AHMED RAZA. (RAHMATULLAHA ALAHI)Please check www.raza.co.za for fuller detailed information.He came from a place called Braelwy

He spoke against the insulters of RASULULLAH(SALLALLAHU ALAHI WASSALAM)and a fatwa was given against these insulters by the Ulama of Mecca/Madinah. It should be noted that when the British went to conqour Islamic lands they used people who were not AHLE SUNNAH WAL JAMAAH to divide the believers. An example is Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, another example is Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and the scholars of Deoband who came to the fore in British rule in the sub-continent.
Please also read the book "Religion Reformes in Islam" at www.hakikatkitabevi.com (Turkey Hanafi site)

Wassalam

Shahid Anees Chaudri , Isleworth, UK

schaudri wrote:

An example is Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, another example is Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and the scholars of Deoband who came to the fore in British rule in the sub-continent.

You're comparing Ghulam Ahmad with the scholars of Deoband?

Can you list the beliefs which has taken the scholars of deoband outside the the fold of ahlas-sunnah wal-jammah.