- Unanswered Questions Regarding the Amman Message »
- « Shaykh Sayyed Muhammad bin Yahya Al-Ninowy’s Message on Muharram
Differences Between Deobandis and Barelwis
Firstly, it should be known what the differences are not about: it is not about fundamental differences in theology (such as between Sunnis and Shias) or law (such as between Muqallids and Ghair Muqallids). Deobandis and Barelwis share the same intellectual heritage in so far as they both (a) are Maturidi, (b) Hanafi, (c) accept the Qadiri, Chisti, Suhawardi, and Naqshbandi Sufi tariqas, and (d) have immense respect and deference to the elders of Indian Islam such as Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah.
Secondly, the differences are over issues that have been debates by Muslim scholars throughout time and geography. While the disputes themselves are over particular issues, they reflect a wider disagreement over methodological reasoning. Thus, one sees similar tensions as far as Western Africa between Shaykh Uthman Dan Fodio and other Muslim Scholars, Imam al-Sanusi in Northern Africa, Shaykh Ahmad ibn Idris, the Al-Azhar scholars, the Madinan scholars, and as far off as in Indonesia. This difference of interpretation is not merely a “Salafi v. Sufi” beef, as the Salafi dawah has a separate intellectual lineage. These differences have existed before and independently of the manhaj of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah and Shaykh Muhammad Ibn AbdulWahhab. In fact, it would be more apt to describe the intellectual evolution of Shaykh Muhammad as a by-product of this larger schism with Ahl us Sunnah wa’al Jam’ah rather than a cause of this schism. This schism has to do with the revival of the science of hadeeth which has spawned an increased urge to engage in independent juristic reasoning (ijtehad) as opposed to taqleed (stare decisis) on previous questions. From a historical perspective, neither the Deobandis nor the Barelwis represent a “new” methodology but different approaches to this legal tension. This tension is the real source of the differences between Deobandis and Barelwis and goes back to the era of the Salafus Saleh in the form of the conflict between two groups categorized as “Ahl ul Rai” and “Ahl ul Hadeeth” which, in reality, were the same groups that stressed reason and revelation on different issues. Thus, portraying Deobandis as “Wahhabis” and Barelwis as “Sufis” would be historically inaccurate and nonsensical.
The central difference is over what constitutes Sunnah and what constitutes Bid’a.
In terms of the actual differences, I think the best list of the differences has been compiled by the Deobandi Scholar Maulana Ludhianvi in his work “Differences in the Ummat”:
(1) Was the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) Noor (celestial light) or a human being?
(2) Was the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) knower of the unseen or not?
(3) Is the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) all-seeing or not?
(4) Has the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) complete choice and control or not?
(5) The permissibility of saying “Ya Rasulullah” beyond poetic license (i.e. thinking that the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) hears and responds to invocations) and making Tawassul through other than the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam), the Anbiyah (alaihi mus salam), and the Sahabah (radhi allahu anhum)
(6) Practices at graves
(7) Celebrating the Mawlid
(8) Making congregational du’a
Many of the differences of opinion on these issues are not limited between Deobandis and Barelwis. Shaykh Uthman Dan Fodio wrote a rather detailed book entitled “The Revival of the Prophetic Sunnah and the Destruction of Satanic Innovation.” In it, he discusses points 6 and 8 and rejects many of the practices that Barelwis engage in at graves and also rejects the practice of congregational du’a on a regular basis. Another Maliki scholar, Qadhi Iyadh, wrote about the differences of opinion concerning the tafseer of verses of the Qur’an referring to the first point of the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) as light. Qadhi Iyadh, who lived in Spain in the medieval area, stated that believing the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) was made of light was a minority opinion. If this was a minority opinion according to a scholar from Andalus whose work is considered extremely authoritative even in our time, then how can we say that the issue itself is only one that came up recently? Concerning questions 2 and 3, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi held the view that Prophets did not necessarily have knowledge of all past and future events. If a great Indian scholar that preceded both Deobandis and Barelwis held this view, this shows that the issue itself is part of a larger discourse that transcends our times. If scholars from Spain, Western Africa, Northern Africa, the Hejaz, the Levant, India, and even as far off as Indonesia have differed over these issues, it illustrates that these issues are not necessarily limited to just Deobandis and Barelwis.
One cannot bring about unity between two groups without first understanding what each group believes in. This is a necessary step before any reconciliation is possible. If both groups understand that their opinions are valid points of ikhtilaaf, then perhaps the reactionary takfeer will stop as well.
May Allah 
(subhana wa ta’ala) raise up a leader from amongst us who will unite our Ummah. Ameen.
Published January 11, 2008 . Filed under: Muslim Unity
Posts
The Deobandis forbid “congregational du’aa”?
January 12, 2008 @ 8:03 am
Probably referring to the “second dua” ie. the one after the sunnah salah, which is “fard” in most barelwi masajid.
January 12, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Not necessarily “forbid” but deem it merely permissible. However, they don’t like to do it often so that people do not think it is obligatory.
January 12, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,
Shaikh Ludhianvi was a Deobandi and his book “resolved” all the differences between the two groups in favour of the Deobandis. While I agree that the Bareilawis go to certain excesses and misunderstand certain matters (such as the whole wiping the eye thing), some of what the Deobandis (or many of them) deem prohibited, such as tawassul through the deceased righteous (and not just prophets), are in fact deemed permissible by scholars outside both schools. Unity has to come through reverting to what was the norm before the schism, not insisting that the whole Muslim community adopts one set of positions or the other.
January 13, 2008 @ 8:59 am
[…] for anyone. He combines meticulous research, interesting topics with insightful commentary. This piece is a good break down on the similarites and differences that plague the two largest trends in the […]
January 13, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
Unity does not mean a uniformity in fiqh, it just means a certain degree of respect. A lot of the schism between Deobandis and Barelwis is over misunderstanding of beliefs, extreme devotion to revered scholars to the degree that arguments are still being made even though the positions have been reconciled, and lack of communication.
January 13, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
as salam o alaikum
JazakAllah for the beneficial post.
However, it is naive to have a simplistic approach to this issue.
Being a Deobandi I have the same understanding as yours. However, to date it remains a fact that majority of Baraelwis’ still uphold the fatwa of takfeer on all Deobandis made by Molwi Ahmad Raza Khan sahib.
Baraelwis’ do not have any doubts about this takfeer and are not willing to reconsider the issue at all. This was very much evident by the overwheliming oposition to the article of Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller db who categorically defined this fatwa to be wrong as per the rules of Hanafi fiqh, let alone the lie and deception in presenting the Deobandi evidence.
Baraelwis’ have first to acknowledge that Deobandis are Muslims and then only a healthy dialogue can take place. Until then any discussion in this regards is futile.
Allah
SWT guide us all. Ameen!
January 14, 2008 @ 4:46 am
Wa alaikum assalam
Yeah, I wonder why the majority of Barelwis still engage in takfeer. Any takers on this?
Have any Barelwi ‘Ulema renounced takfeer at all?
masalama
January 14, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Bismillah,
Assalamu alaikum Sidi Jinnzaman,
Yea, I have seen that same thing that the Barelwis are very quick at making takfir on the Deobandis. Contrasting the posts on SunniForum and YaNabi, you see that the people on YaNabi make takfir on the Deobandis very easily. Honestly, it really makes you not wanting to go to that site again.
I agree with Sidi Hanif that these two groups will not be able to unite until the Barelwis need to recognize Deobandis as Muslims (and the same goes with Deobandis). I would like to know as well if there are any Barelwi shuykh who renounced the takfir made on Deobandis.
Also, I thought that Imam Ahmad Rida Khan took back the fatwa later on in his life. Is this true?
Anyway, jazakAllah khayran for the post, it really simplified the differences between these groups that I didn’t understand.
Ma’salama
Sufyan Yunus
January 14, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
As salam o alaikum
Famous Baraelwi scholar Pir Karam Shah Al-Azhari ra was against takfeer. He considered Deobandis to be ahle e sunna and explicitly disagreed with key elements of Molwi Ahmad Raza Khan’s fatawa (i.e takfeer of Mawlana Qasim Nanotawi ra on denial of finality of Prophethood).
January 16, 2008 @ 4:47 am
salaam
“If both groups understand that their opinions are valid points of ikhtilaaf, ”
Just by previous disagreement on similar issues, how does it make the ikhtilaaf of opposing sides legitimate?
“Also, I thought that Imam Ahmad Rida Khan took back the fatwa later on in his life. Is this true?”
Haven’t heard that. But many other scholars who had signed Ahmad Raza Khan’s fatwa retracted after learning that Ahmad Raza Khan had misconstrued and misrepresented the beliefs of the scholars of Deoband.
January 16, 2008 @ 5:38 am
I think the calling of eachother as kaffirs has happened on both sides, both deobandi and barelwi - and in fact some salafi’s even came in and officially anounced that praying with a barelwi is considered haram, which i think is also wrong.
its funny there are no two muslim divisions that are as similar, yet they are the two in the subcontinent that have the most tension.
November 9, 2008 @ 1:15 am