Deobandis
They are the solution to sectarianism within the Muslim community.
Their positions are balanced - between the extremism of some of the Sufis and the Salafis. They don’t compromise on the deen and engage in apologetics or promote aberrant positions like some of the Islamists. (HT, Ikhwan, Jamat e Islami, Tanzeem). They are more flexible than some of the other Traditionalists but not willy nilly like the modernists.
Their positions on ilm ul kalam, tasawwuf, and fiqh are smack dab in the middle.
As a movement, they’ve expanded immensely through Tableeghi Jamaat and their Maddrasseh system. They don’t promote terrorism like some of the Salafi and Islamist groups do.
I’d say that Deobandis have the best chance to bring about true Muslim unity and reconciliation.
Sphere: Related ContentPublished July 19, 2008 . Filed under: Muslim Unity
Posts
As soon as you classify yourself as anything more than a Muslim, you’ve already set yourself up for ruining any chance of muslim unity.
Any “muslim” sectarian division that names itself anything other than muslim is just a cause for more fitnah. Deobandi’s can’t accomplish Muslim unity b/c they’re busy bickering with Braelwi’s and vice versa.
It’s quite a paradox to say that the deobandi’s ( a sectarian division) are the solution to sectarianism in the Muslim community - how does that work?
The terms you use like extreme, balanced, compromise, flexible, traditionalist, modernist, middle, are all relative to your opinion, and no doubt every deobandi’s opinion.
Atleast to me, it doesn’t make sense to devote yourself entirely to one set of opinions attributed to one school of thought. That’s as ignorant as saying you are a “Liberal” or a “Conservative” in terms of poilitical status. No person is ‘conservative” about everything to do with policy, nor is a person completely “liberal” with every single policy, it’s really a mixture that varies between each person.
People should only call themselves Muslim, nothing more. If there is a difference of opinion then it should be debated, decided by the individual with some thought, and then people should move on. The Sahaba had differences of opinion, and they didn’t start forming their own clubhouses, did they? The only reason there is sectarianism is b/c people are obsessed with proving that their thoughts are right in the most absolute manner, and that’s why the smallest difference in opinion becomes a huge, and arrogant reason for division.
Most muslims don’t even know what a deobandi is, it’s only relative to the indo-pak community, which shows in itself how deobandi’s are NOT the solution to sectarianism. The real solution, like I said, is debates. It’s better to discuss the issue at hand in a civilized manner, and give a chance for dialogue among the big shyooks, and then encourage Muslims to move on, rather then constantly demonize eachother as a result of us distancing ourselves from one another.
It’s been said before, but I had to say it again.
July 20, 2008 @ 12:45 am
Deobandi alims are siad to be pretty harsh on shias
there is a problem with barelwis and deobandi groups are accusseed of supporting terrorism in pakistan
Usman akhtar has made some solid points
July 21, 2008 @ 8:17 am
Usman,
If one objectively scrutinizes the various groups that exist today, its clear that Deobandis are frankly dead center in between the two poles within the Muslim world today.
Kalam: They aren’t die hard supporters of it like some of the Mutakallimun but they don’t completely reject it like Salafis do.
Fiqh: They are respectful towards past scholars, but they also engage in ijtehad when necessary, such as on the issue of Mawlid.
Tasawwuf: They take a middle position with regards to tasawwuf.
So within these two general poles (Traditionalism and Salafism) its clearly in the middle.
Again, if you’re objective and you scrutinize the various positions that all of the other major groups have, Deobandis are often smack dab in the middle.
July 23, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
The entire concept of referring to ourselves only as Muslim is just naive. There have been major divisions within the Muslim world and we have narrations that there were will definitely be sects in Islam.
There are groups that are unequivocally outside of the fold of Islam such as Ahmadis and people within the Nation of Islam.
July 23, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
I don’t want to start a pointless debate here, but here are a few points:
I know what you mean about the Deobandi’s being balanced but that doesn’t make the prospect of having groups okay. Eventually, in like 100 yrs Deobandi’s will probably split up into two as well, then what? I heard somewhere that Imam Braelwi and Imam Deoband were once classmates. Whether or not that is accurate, I bet you a gazillion bucks that if these two greats were here they would be deeply saddened by the fitnah that has been propelled in their names.
1) Groups just don’t work. You will always find yourself unsatisfied with at least one tiny little thing within the set opinions of the group. Why? Because these groups were based on some of the INDIVIDUAL opinions and values of INDIVIDUAL scholars, that includes Imam Deoband. So why should you or me completely devote yourself to one individual’s point of view. It’s statistically impossible to agree with any other person on this earth on everysingle opinion about life. So the individual, YOU, should research the matter and decide for yourself. Don’t celebrate Mawlid b/c your father is Braelwi, and don’t hate the prospect of Mawlid b/c your uncle is Salafi - research and decide for yourself, and more importantly embrace your brother who may have a different opinion than you, b/c only Allah
SWT knows, and ALL of the REAL Muslims, are just trying to get closer to Him, and don’t want to take part in arrogant sectarianism.
2) Groups=Debating for the sake of …debating=desire to be right=belief that you’re your group is absolutely right and others are wrong=arrogance!! I’ve seen crowds of Pakistani’s near Bab-Al-Salaam (Madinah), bickering Braelwi vs Deobandi - for what? It’s not b/c they love Islam, it’s b/c they love to be right. These groups create the type of people that debate for the sake of debating, instead of trying to find out what the truth is.
3) It completely takes away from unity. It might not seem like an apparent issue, but in regions where Muslims are populous, each group has it’s own Masjid, as if to say that we aren’t real brothers, and we shouldn’t even pray beside each other. This is just one example of a subtle disunity that has already devastated our ummah. Other examples include selective reading by your favorite sectarian author, no other kaffir books allowed! That’s how arrogant groups make us, people won’t read a book by a scholar who has vastly superior knowledge b/c he’s not a founding father of their clubhouse.
4) This point is perhaps the most hard for me - the new Muslims who come in are completely confused. I swear it makes me almost cry sometimes. A brother at my uni, became Muslim recently, and went w/me to the Journey Conference in Canada. We went together w/many Muslim brothers all arguing about Hanafi/Maliki/salafi/Sufi/Shia/wudhu/Jinns/music/Ahl Sunnah Wal Jamaa/Harun Yahya/pantheism/evolution/ etc. etc. till the new muslim brother was thoroughly confused, and his faith was undoubtedly shaken. Imagine if you become a Muslim, and you accept that crystal clear, and beautiful truth of Islam, and you see that beautiful picture just amazed at it’s beauty and then – out of nowhere – it’s being torn apart by it’s followers, in endless debate and argument. Keep in mind that you are a 7 month old muslim, and are so overwhelmed - and are probably thinking that “this is really not the path for me, b/c obviously you can’t JUST be muslim, you have to have an opinion, you have to be a part of a group, you have to argue for it. I can’t do this, I don’t know what group is right - my head hurts……”
What would you tell that brother? Most reasonable people would say to him that he should research the material himself, consult the Quran and Sunnah, and the highest authority available, like the local Imam - and to NOT follow these fools who argue all the time for the sake of arguing, otherwise his brain is going to explode.
4) Finally, I love you my brother jinnzaman, i honestly do. And I agree to disagree on a statement you made that calling yourself just Muslim is naive. I think you’re absolutely and unequivocally wrong, and I think it’s exactly what this ummah needs. Ask yourself honestly, if you have ever known a single sectarian division, that hasn’t contributed to a greater disunity in our ummah. The question is as paradoxical as asking if a pie is in still in one whole, after cutting it into two.
July 23, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
Some final verses:
“And how would you disbelieve, while unto you are recited the Verses of Allah
, and among you is His Messenger (Muhammad SAW)? And whoever holds firmly to Allah 
, (i.e. follows Islam Allah 
’s Religion, and obeys all that Allah 
has ordered, practically), then he is indeed guided to a Right Path.
O you who believe! Fear Allah
(by doing all that He has ordered and by abstaining from all that He has forbidden) as He should be feared. [Obey Him, be thankful to Him, and remember Him always], and die not except in a state of Islam (as Muslims) with complete submission to Allah 
.
And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah
(i.e. this Qur’an), and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allah 
’s Favor on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren (in Islamic Faith), and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allah 
makes His Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.,) clear to you, that you may be guided.
Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islam), enjoining Al-Ma’ruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do) and forbidding Al-Munkar (polytheism and disbelief and all that Islam has forbidden). And it is they who are the successful.
And be not as those who divided and differed among themselves after the clear proofs had come to them. It is they for whom there is an awful torment.” [Quran 3:100 - 3:105]
“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.” [Quran 6:159]
July 23, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
Salaam ‘alaikum Jinn,
That’s a big statement and far less nuanced than I would expect from your writing.
So, some questions-
-What are extreme sufis?
-Are they are ahl bida’?
-And if so, how are they on the opposite side of the spectrum from the salafi bida’? One would thnk that the people of bida’ are on one side and ahl sunnah on the other.
-Therefore, what spectrum is being used here?
—————–
-Is Deobandism viable in America?
-What about Americans removed from Indo-Pak communities and traditions?
-Why has it not brought unity in India and Pakistan? (some would even argue that it’s played a major role in the sectarianism found there).
———————————
And lastly and observation:
After strict salafis, I’ve never seen any group of Muslims less accepting of ikhtilaf than Deobandis. (whether it’s beards, mawlids, hadras, women etc, it’s always my way or the highway.)
I can’t fathom how this can lead to unity, unless everyone is expected to get on the same page, which isn’t really unity at all.
July 24, 2008 @ 12:14 am
One more thing.
Being midway to the salafis may not be such a great thing, Sidi.
Especially of the ‘traditionalists’ (by which I assume you mean the rest of Ahl al-Sunna wal Jama’) are right. And they very likely are.
I mean apologetics are bad enough when directed at the west, we certainly don’t need them for innovators as well.
July 24, 2008 @ 12:30 am
I totally agree.
Balance remains the hallmark of Deobandi maslak.
Western Muslims are in a transitional state. They are from a generation where money, marketing, polictics and information technology molds one’s life. Initally starting as Salafis, post 9/11 most of them took a giant leap of faith to the extreme end of ritualistic sufism/psuedo-traditionalism.
However, one has to acknowledge that the western Muslims are financially more stable, more educated, quite reasonable and have increased access to information as compare to those in the Muslim-Countries. For these reasons they are increasingly open to betterment and change.
It is essential for the english speaking Deobandi scholars to disseminate the academic validity, understanding and practical application of Islam as per their akabir to the Western-Muslims. It is most suitable for them.
InshaAllah, with time they will mature to recognize that maintaining balance in all aspects of religion is essential.
Especially if unity has to be genuinely considered within the various Islamic-groups/sects.
May Allah
facilitate this process and make us an instrument in achieving it. Amin!
July 24, 2008 @ 4:35 am
I try to answer some of the questions put by another brother,
-What are extreme sufis?
bless and grant him peace).
>All those for whom sufism becomes a goal in itsefl. It no more remains a path (tariq) to fullly incorporate Shariah in one’s life.This is evident by giving priority to Sufistic practices more than the Shariah commanded practices.
——————————–
-Are they are ahl bida’?
>Yes some of them are. By making permissible (mubah) actions essential (wajib) they make the act bida’. Mawlid is an example. All Deobanids say that it is mubah, however, for some personal reasons they do not take part in it. The extrem-sufis instead of acknowledging the reservation for a permissible act, insist and openly blame them that they are less sunni and not lover of Prophet (Allah
—————————————-
-And if so, how are they on the opposite side of the spectrum from the salafi bida’? One would thnk that the people of bida’ are on one side and ahl sunnah on the other.
-Therefore, what spectrum is being used here?
>Extremism is bad in all the things. Be it in taqleed, tasawwuf , kalam or hating the wahabis. It will eventually lead to bida’ and other more serious errors.
Being as unni is to learn this art and science of balance by following who achieved it.
—————–
-Is Deobandism viable in America?
Strange question.
Why not?
>Alhumdulillah, there is a very large thriving Deobandi community in Western countries at present. Especially in UK and USA.
—————————————–
-What about Americans removed from Indo-Pak communities and traditions?
>As far as I am aware Deobandis do not endorse any traditional cultural activities, clothing attire or life style modes that are specific to certain countires and cultures.
The hieracrhy of observing the fiqhi permissible, Sunna and wajib remains their objective.
Even most of their work on Hanafi fiqh and Hadith is in Arabic. Not Urdu.
—————————————-
-Why has it not brought unity in India and Pakistan? (some would even argue that it’s played a major role in the sectarianism found there).
>Alhumdulillah it has brought unity in many lifes, families, tirbe and cultures.
However, there remains a significant vocal element that feels threatened by this unity. They have their vested interest (money, fame, political status, etc.) at stake if this unity were to be achieved. For example, most of the the familial pirs (Shaykh) of Indo-Pakistan are a bane to Tasawwuf. Their riches, reverence and polictical activities thrive on dis-unity.
Moreover, it is absurd to blame one party alone.
Baraelwis are at extreme with Deobandis. They do not consider them even Muslims. None of the ‘traditionalist’ have accepted this, except Shaykh Nuh db and see what are they doing to him. This is the example of extreme sufism,the bida’ of takfir, curse of intolerance and hatred incarnate.
———————————
And lastly and observation:
After strict salafis, I’ve never seen any group of Muslims less accepting of ikhtilaf than Deobandis.
>I can not argue personal experiences.
Academically ikhtelaf does exists and has to be acknowledged wherever it does genuinely occurs.
Not being exposed to difference of opinion in Haniafi majority areas may be the reason This is something new for Deobandi masses and will inshaAllah improve once their scholars (whom they trust based on personal piety) educate them. And this is happening as we speak.
However, I must make this point very clear that for personal piety it remains essential to achieve the Sunna way in all aspects of life (worship, morals, appearance, clothing, etc.). This is especially so for those into Tasawwuf (most Deobandi are). This is another ingrained Deobandi hallmark.
May be this is the reason for your observation.
———————————–
I can’t fathom how this can lead to unity, unless everyone is expected to get on the same page, which isn’t really unity at all.
Sunna of humility and self-sacrifice (esar) are the two pillars of unity.
JazakAllah
July 24, 2008 @ 5:39 am
Wa alaikum assalam Ilyas,
You’ve raised some interesting points. I think the basic gist I was going for was that as I observe Islamic history, there seems to be a dialectic of ideas unfolding where a thesis and an antithesis eventually merge and form a synthesis, etc. Between the philosophers and the traditionalists, there was the eventual formation of the Mu’tazila. Between the Mu’tazila and the Hanbalis, there was the formation of the Asharis and Maturidis. Between the secular nationalists and the traditionalists, there was the formation of the Islamists.
I’m not arguing that Sufis and Salafis are not legitimate discourses, but whenever two radically opposed poles exist, usually a synthesis will form between them. It is the dynamics of the polemic that lead to the construction of this synthesis. Many of the Ashari Sufi and Salafi arguments that exist today in the Arab world were debates that existed in India. India can be seen as a microcosm of the entire Ummah and the Deobandi manhaj has been remarkably successful in not only preserving Islam in the Desi countries, but spreading into other regions.
In terms of the Deobandi manhaj, Tableeghi Jamaat has become an international movement with millions of people from all over the Muslim world. Its got Sufis and Salafis within it.
In terms of the Salafi arguments against Deobandis, they are a lot more lax towards Deobandis than regular Ashari Sufis. The Ashari Sufis are a lot more lenient towards Deobandis than towards Salafis. So while there are certainly anti-Deobandi polemics from these two poles, they are more muted than the reaction that they have towards one another.
With regards to Deobandis following ikhtilaaf, this is just a false assertion. When the British ruled India, Deobandi ‘Ulema followed the opinion of the Maliki madhab on several occasions. My teachers have followed the opinions of other madhaib on certain occasions. Deobandis do recognize ikhtilaaf, but up to a certain degree, which is how every other group operates as well. So a dichotomy of ikhtilaaf-no ikhtilaaf is just incorrect.
In terms of why it hasn’t succeeded in India, I don’t agree with that. I think it has succeeded and its spread all throughout the subcontinent even into Afghanistan. Its expanding into the English speaking world as well - South Africa, England, Canada, and the US. If it establishes itself in America, it’ll probably be exported to other regions of the world as well. Yes the Barelwis oppose it rabidly, but a lot of their arguments are just emotional reactions since they’re authority is being diminished.
July 24, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
Usman,
Firstly, Islam has always been disseminated by groups. Thats just how its been. We do not have direct access to God, the Prophet (saw), or his Companions (ra). The only way we access them is through tradition and the traditions have been moulded by an interpretative lens. The grading of hadeeth is predicated upon certain epistemological assumptions that separate various groups. So to claim that there is an Islam divorced of this historical reality is just false. You can’t access any of Islam but through these groups.
Second, the goal is not to eliminate groups at all, because differences of opinions will always arise, but rather, the objective is to mitigate the radicalized polemics between them. While the Sufi Asharis and Salafis have generally called a truce, neither group has abandoned the polemical discourse, they’ve just driven it underground. The reason why I like the Deobandi approach is because I believe its critiques of the other groups are more fair and less based on misinformation and assumptions.
Thirdly, if the objective is to seek a normalization of relations away from radicalized polemics and not the elimination of groups, then the group that is in the moderate position can serve as a powerful counterweight to the other groups. Thats my argument.
July 24, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
LOL
you have an impressive lingo, mashallah
my argument is not against deobandi’s, i understand how you say they are more “balanced” so to speak or in your words “a normalization of relations away from radicalized polemics” but still that is only an opinion relative to you, and to other deobandi’s who are only indo-pak. Yes they are in america but that’s only because there are indo-paks in america too! Have you ever seen a malaysian deobandi or an indonesian deobandi, or a somalian deobandi?!
1) But even within the deobandi clubhouse there is bound to be differences of opinion - why? because this world is made up of INDIVIDUALS, and the INDIVIDUAL has an INDIVIDUAL set of opinions that are unique to everybody else.
2) The whole INDIVIDUAL opinion thing means that groups are bound to divide into more groups, and cause more fitnah, and more suffering. Instead muslims should embrace the idea that although we might have minor differences of opinion our major similarities in the opinions of our deen make us who we are, and are the part of our identity.
3) “Islam has always been disseminated by groups” or “So to claim that there is an Islam divorced of this historical reality is just false”
I think what you are trying to say is that Islam has always been disseminated into differences opinion but NOT groups. I said this before and I’ll say it again, the Sahaba had differences of opinion but they didn’t form their own groups, each individual sahaba tried to seek guidance - and in the end just persist in what they thought was right in their hearts. That didn’t mean they had to separate, or have their own masjids, or organizations, the way we have today.
4) “You can’t access any of Islam but through these groups.”
I think a more accurate statement would be that you can’t access islam without the work of the scholars. Because the strength of a muslim is not by what group he follows, it’s the caliber of his faith, and how steadfast he is in his ibadah. And how to carry out that ibadah comes from the works of the the Quran, the Sunnah, and the works of ALL scholars - not just the ones of a particular group.
5) Believe what you gotta believe. When you die and it is asked what your deen is, will you say it is Islam or it is of the Deobandi’s. I think even more important of a question is what Imam Deoband Rahimullah would say himself.
6)The intentions of the fathers of the good-natured groups were never to create this much fitnah, or to have their opinions taken to the extremes of today. They were just humble, INDIVIDUAL scholars, with their own opinions, and unfortunately it has escalated to something overwhelmingly complex today.
And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah
(SWT) (i.e. this Qur’an), and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allah 
(SWT)’s Favor on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren (in Islamic Faith), and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allah 
(SWT) makes His Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.,) clear to you, that you may be guided.
July 24, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
Usman,
Firstly, there are approximately 15,000 Deobandi maddrassehs in some of the most populous Muslim regions (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh). There are a significant amount in several Western states (England, the UK, the US, and South Africa). Roughly half of the maddrassehs in England are Deobandi. Moreover, your assertion that non-Desis don’t study at Deobandi maddrassehs is false. Students in Deobandi maddrassehs in the subcontinent alone come from Afghanistan, Russia, China, the West, Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iraq, and other regions. I attended one for a few weeks in the US and students were Somali, Turkish, Chechen, etc. Again, if you look at Tableeghi Jamaat, its not limited to only Desis and there are a lot of non-Deobandis that are a part of it. So to say that Deobandis are only desi is just not accurate.
Secondly, of course there’s ikhtilaf within the Deobandi school, just as there is within Hanafism itself and within Ahl ul Sunnah wa’al Jam’ah, again, the issue is how to deal with these differences. I have a friend who completed an Alim program in a Deobandi Maddrasseh in America and he is currently in an Ifta program and he told me of how the students in the ifta program were split on the attributes of Allah
(subhana wa ta’ala) and half the students took the classical Kalam position on certain points and the other half took the more conservative traditionalist approach on certain points that is similar to what Salafis believe in. What this illustrates is that there is clearly a constructive model for discussing differences within the Deobandi school that enables a possible reconciliation between the two polemical poles within the Muslim world today since they represent a middle position within those two poles.
Thirdly, I think you’re making contradictory arguments. If ikhtilaaf with groups is bad, with individuals its going to be worse, isn’t it? What the formation of groups enables is the systemization of the reconciliation of these differences, which is exactly how the madhaib in aqeedah and fiqh operated. Prior to the formation of schools, there was far more ikhtilaaf and far more confrontation. Many of the various schools have been eliminated over a period of time which illustrates that adhering to a certain group has the effect of unifying Muslims rather than dividing them as you assert.
Fourthly, the scholars themselves adhered to groups which is what the entire issue is about. Your assertion that they didn’t is just historically false. Even those that were mujtahids often adhered to a specific group.
Fifthly, Allah
(subhana wa ta’ala) will judge us regarding our beliefs, actions, and intentions, so some modicum of orthodoxy is necessary. If a person is a person of innovation, then he will go to hellfire in the absence of Allah 
’s mercy. So its not accurate to say that adhering to a particular methodology is irrelevant. If one promotes sectarianism, regardless of group, when may be punished as well. So between the two propositions (there is no group at all v. my group is absolutely right and all others are wrong), there is a moderate position.
Lastly, the Sahabah (radhi allahu anhum) DID follow specific scholars and those scholars ALONE. There are narrations from Sahih Bukhari and Muslim regarding this. If you search my website for an article entitled “The Importance of Following a School of Law” the evidences are presented therein.
In terms of the divisions you’re speaking about from the Qur’an, the objective is not to promote division, rather the opposite - to promote unity and moderation rather than disunity and extremism.
Again, I’m not calling for uniformity, but for those interested in establishing true unity in the Muslim world, I would recommend they check out a Deobandi maddrasseh.
July 24, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
assalamu `alaykum
Wonderful meeting you again at Amir’s wedding.
I would have expected a more detailed and nuanced approach to the question, especially from someone like you. You’re post seems to be too general, and the criteria to judge whether a group poses the best chance to bring about Islamic unity is far more nuanced than it being smack in the middle between two positions (which, in itself is debatable)
Also, the Deobandi way stresses adherence to the principles of it’s manhaj and it’s Akabir, which leaves some questions as to the “flexibility” of the group in terms of positive development, engagement and acceptance of view points that exist outside the group comfort-zone. Consensus formulation to maintain group coherence is quite vivid, which according to some (apparently) results in the rejection of a sound or valid contrary position.
Also, one would need to define what a middle and balanced position entails. Shaykh Nuh Keller, in his article for example, considered all the major points of difference between Deobandis and Barelwis as being valid points of difference that the scholars of the religion can differ on. Is this something the Deobandis are willing to accept, and what is the consequence of not doing so in terms of Muslim unity, especially when “moderate” Arab scholars either hold or consider such positions as valid…?
And there are many many many more aspects related to the above points that fit into the discussion.
salam
July 24, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
Wa alaikum assalam,
It was a pleasure meeting you as well.
Wallahu alim, but I’m basing it on my interactions with Deobandi ‘Ulema in the US and they seem far more flexible than people are making them out to be. They also are for more open to differences of opinion on certain issues.
Again, in terms of the argument, its not that everyone should become Deobandi, but that whenever two polarizing points of thought exist, its inevitable that a synthesis will formulate and the synthesis between Ashari Sufism and Salafism resembles what Deobandi thought is at is stands today. I’m not saying that Salafism and Ashari Sufism are in and of themselves “extreme” or “deviant” but the polemic that they have one another has made them polarizing and regardless of the authenticity or legitimacy of the two poles, whenever such a dynamic exists, its inevitable that a synthesis arrives. This has happened repeatedly in Islamic history (the formation of the Mu’tazila, later with the Asharis/Maturidis, the formation of the Islamists, the formation of reformist Traditionalists, etc).
Given this potential for synthesis, then Deobandis should be less insular and perhaps try to serve as a fulcrum between these two poles and bring balance between them.
So its really a call to more interaction with Deobandis and less of a condemnation of Salafism or Ashari Sufism.
masalama
July 25, 2008 @ 10:11 am
Are Deobandis the solution to sectarianism?
Although I believe the question’s intent contrasts sharply with its wording, the thought behind it is sound.
At the same time, it is not necessarily a group or even a set of individuals that will be the solution to sectarianism; rather, it is the set of concrete principles that defines their movement.
Therefore, what one should ask first is: do the principles of the defining leaders of Deoband provide the most Islamically effective solutions to the problems facing Muslims today?
July 25, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
Salam,
1) I’m sorry I had no idea that there were somali and indonesian deobandi’s too, that was a bad assumption, and I hope you forgive me, and spare me my quick judgement. It’s just that I have never heard the word deobandi unless it was coming from an indo-pak tongue! I honestly thought that desi was to deobandi as black was to hiphop – my bad!!!!!
2) I think we’re essentially saying the same thing, worded differently. I think I understand what you mean now about the whole “you can’t access islam without these schools, you gotta go ahead and find a school and stick with it.” I do agree with that. What I don’t agree with is proclaiming that your way is the only way, and I think we’ve already agreed with that. People, not ALL people,but alot of them, those who are a little misinformed, and misguided will argue and justify their group over the other in a non-constructive and bitter debate, instead of constructive dialogue.
“What this illustrates is that there is clearly a constructive model for discussing differences within the Deobandi school that enables a possible reconciliation between the two polemical poles within the Muslim world today since they represent a middle position within those two poles.”
I am completely agree with what you are saying, and I do like the Deobandi school, alot of the great Muslims scholars in India, Pakistan, and America have studied in the deobandi school. That includes Maulana Tariq Jameel, Shaykh Husain Abdul Sattar, Shaykh Zulfiqar Ahmed, etc. All I am saying is that this constructive dialogue shouldn’t only be within the Deobandi school, but between all schools of thought. So in essence I am saying that we should take a page of the Deobandi book but apply it and instead of having constant bickerings between schools like Deobandi and Braelwi, and have a REAL dialogue between them, and between ALL the other groups or differences of opinion and end-up with a fair reconciliation. So yes this is happening to an extent within the Deobandi school, but I wish it could happen between the Deobandi school and other schools too.
For example, I personally have had many questions about Mawlid. I used to think it was straight up haram because it was bidah, after listening to many lectures by people like Bilial Phillips, and so on. Now I would’ve had that limited viewpoint if I only listened to the “salafi” school of thought – why? Because a single viewpoint might sound like it has a lot of valid proofs against the other, until you listen to the defense of the one being accused. Imagine being a jury in a judicial court, and you were only allowed to here the prosecutor’s statement and not the defendant’s statement, how would you ever make a just judgment. I then started listening to some Deobandi and Braelwi muslims who gave their arguments, and only then after getting to listen to both opinions I got a more balanced view. Although the deobandi school of thought has this somewhat implemented within the iktilaaf in their system, they nor does any group, have this kind of fair dialogue implemented between varying opinions in between schools of thought. And although the deobandi school has some mixture or (synthesis of two radicalized poles of debate - :D mashallah!), it still has arguments with other schools of thoughts (ie braelwi) that are not for the most part discussed in a proper manner.
The other thing to note, is that this is a much bigger issue in countries like Pakistan and India than in the US. I think this is because in the US where Muslims are coming from allover the world, we get a vast range of opinions and viewpoints, and we have learned to get along with eachother (to a certain degree) despite the differences.
I think then you’ll find that indeed the Deobandi’s in america like Shaykh Husain Abdul Sattar are alot more flexible, then the ones in say Pakistan, because they know how to reconcile the differences better. I’ve actually seen the moderation come upon a lot of uncles who used to be fresh off the boat with their very firm opinions, who have learned to balance themselves, after learning to deal with the large range of differences within the community Masjid, in the western world, and have changed their opinions because they actually got to hear the proofs behind the other arguments.
As for the groups thing – I think I worded my opinion too strong, for the sake of getting the point across. Yes, I acknowledge that there ARE groups, BUT a more worthy acknowledgement is that all of these individual groups make up ONE ummah, and the differences between them are not worthy of the large amount of energy spent on bickering, when we could spend the same energy on the attacks being directed to us from outside the ummah, or dawah, or changing the quality of life for the the muslims, or trying to make solutions to war torn countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Kashmir, and so on and so forth. (And I swear to you that the Muslims doing these things are so much happier, fulfilling the purpose of their lives, then the ones engaged in counter constructive arguments, and that is why I will end here with my last reply.) Our similarities are vastly greater in number, and are much deeper and more significant than any single one of our differences. Like I said we are saying almost the same thing here, using diff words, (yours are better obviously :D – but I got more smilies.)
Just a long winded thought
http://waterloomsa.ourtoolbar.com
July 25, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
Salaam ‘alaikum Jinnz,
I wrote a long comment, but lost it somehow.
The upshot was that I actually agree with much of what you and Hanif have written here.
However the “objections” I raised are representative of much of the non-Deobandi traditionalists out there. And as long as those objections exist (and have some validity) the Deobandi movement cannot bring about unity, at least not among American Muslims.
And for the record, I’ve yet to meet a Deo that I don’t really like, especially the Ulama, mashaAllah.
July 26, 2008 @ 12:30 am
Wa alaikum assalam Ilyas,
I think you’re right there’s a lot of work that needs to be done before any vestiges of unity can be brought about.
Also, if you all could make du’a for me that I pass my exam next week, I would greatly appreciate it.
I love all of you for the sake of Allah
(subhana wa ta’ala).
masalama
July 26, 2008 @ 2:41 am
Assalamu alaikum
This isn’t to anyone in particular, but I also wanted to make the following comment.
The notion that “Deobandism” is merely a “desi” thing has already been shown to be inaccurate. However, assuming for the sake of the argument this is true, how did it become the dominant scholarly movement in the Indian subcontinent? The school itself wasn’t formulated until after the 1857 mutiny. That means, within a roughly hundred and fifty year period, it become the dominant school within the subcontinent. It not only survived partition and anti-state stances, but has also been able to export itself into the English speaking world. The argument that it spread among desis is non sequitur. Of course it spread through desis since most Deobandis are desi, but if you look at the maddrassehs in the West, not all of the ‘Ulema and students are desi.
Tableeghi jamaat has penetrated the upper strata of Desi culture. Musicians and Pakistani cricket team members have become affiliated with the movenet.
What is it about the Deobandi school that enabled it to surpass Barelwis and Salafis? State support isn’t a valid argument since many of the Salafis and Ahl ul Hadeeth within India have had financial support from non-Indian sources. Nor have Deobandis been more closely linked to the state in other areas. While it is true that the Grand Muftis of Pakistan have been Deobandi, the argument that state support has lead to its dominance isn’t applicable to other regions, such as India, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh where state support is minimal.
If India was a microcosm of the Ummah (foreign occupation, partitioning by foreign powers, crisis of authority and identity) and the Deobandi school became the dominant force in spite of this environment embedded in conflict and opposition to Islam generally, then this might be a good indicator of the spread of Deobandism in non-Muslim states as well.
Again, I’m not saying that everyone has to become Deobandi, I’m just pointing out the dynamics of Muslim communities.
July 26, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
as salam o alykum
MashaAllah, it is a healthy discussion.
I would like to reiterate the point that you have already raised and highlighted. That is, the spreading propaganda that Deobandi school of thought is a desi reform movement in reaction to the British rule of India. This is not correct. Yes there is a reform element but it is in response to the poor religious condition of the Muslims of India in those times.
The serious students of history are well aware of these facts. For those knowing Urdu a quick reference can be the well written introduction to the book ‘Maqamat e Mazhari’ (Biography of Hazrat Mawlana Mazhar Jan e jana ra by Shah Gulam Ali Dehalwi ra 1743-1824 ) by Prof Ghulam Mohammad Mujaddidi (he is from Baraelwi school). He very well illustrates the reality of the significance of falling Mughal Empire on Muslims. The poverty leading to corruption, moral degradedness and religious ignorance was increasing. For example, in Delhi there were special institutes to teach the art and science of male homosexual romance. The mujra, i.e classical dance of prostitutes at the tombs of pious saints like Mehboob e Illahi ra was a special tribute at the ura/hawl. The communal practices of celebration of mawlid, urs, death anniversaries, etc. got precedence over the essential (fardh) obligations. Etc., etc.
Some sort of change, reshuffling of priorities and call for moral sensibility & accountability was inevitable. It was a very natural response, the rising crest after the lowest trough. It was under these circumstances that conscientious and concerned Muslim scholars of Deoband formulated a strategy for revival.
Hence it is grossly incorrect to say that Deobandi school is a reform movement in response to British rule. It only reflects the poor historic knowledge and/or a bias.
It should be very clear that Deobandis are traditionalist, ahle as Sunna wal jamah, followers of Imam Abu Hanifa in fiqh, Imam Maturidi in aqida, and Chishti, Naqshabandi, Qadiri or Suharwardi tariqa in Tasawwuf. And all praise to Allah
they are very particular and well informed in all of these sciences and their applications.
July 27, 2008 @ 3:44 am
Respectfully i disagree. Deoband as a school has honour, however my experience with Dawah working with them hasnt been fruitfull at times. I found some of the followers too close minded, opportunist for others but not reactive themselves to different people.
Proving me to that if you cannot tolerate others different then their is no chance for holding the glue together of the community.
July 28, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
I suppose you’ve also considered the Hegelian view of history; perhaps the universal history.
August 4, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
Adnan,
haha, actually, I was reading on a Hegelian view of history when I came up with this post.
In terms of historical method, I haven’t made up my mind yet. I’m using Ibn Khaldun as my primary reference point, but he’s got a lot of severe limitations.
masalama
August 6, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
Hey, salaamu alaikum
Jinnzaman, I’m not conversant with Muslim researchers and intellectuals. What are some books on or by ibn Khaldun?
August 6, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
Assalaam-u-Alaikum Brothers,
A’alam).
MashaAllah a very healthy debate going on over here. I can’t agree more with jinnzaman on this topic. Coming from a non-Deobandi background, after a lot of research I am getting more and more convinced that Deobandi interpretation of Islam is probably most closest to Sirat-e-Mustaqeem (Allah
Brother Usman, the mode you will read about it, the more you will agree with jinnzaman inshaAllah.
May Allah
guide us to the straight path.
September 5, 2008 @ 11:45 am