KR

On graduates of DUs https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18Ld3pvA47/

“Can you keep your face away from me?”

Sahih ‘l-Bukhari Forgiveness does not necessarily have to entail becoming a close friend with the person who wronged you.

In analysis on the above, you Deobandi sectarian apologists insist you are not a sect, but merely an academic affiliation. You insist that you are nothing more than what an Azhari is - an academic affiliation. Many Deobandis do actually live and breath that. But you sectarian nutjobs are anything but. For you, this is a strategic disclaimer, designed for you to project intellectual openness while deflecting the uglier implications of what your version of Deobandism has become in practice in current times, especially in your own dark quarters of it. With Deobandism rupturing into a thousand pieces (like its Salafi forerunner), I'm surprised that there is still you lot who want to maintain Deobandi purism, whatever that means. Maintaining an air of an open intellectual tradition - spanning Aqidah, Fiqh, Tasawwuf, Da'wah, and Siyasah - while acting with disciplinarian authority of an almost cult-like ideological body is a contradiction of epic proportions. And who from you gets to exclude others? It's not as if there are red lines or set boundaries. It's all done on a whim, driven by those who hold any level of institutional power, and enforced their street thugs online and offline. We've seen your police, engaged in the type of thuggery and intimidation that is the hallmark of Madkhalis and Barelwis. So, to the sectarian Deobandi, a tiny but vocal minority, I just say this: Sing the praises of your very own Nanotwi Ka Lashkar. Sing your favourtie anthem: jur'at ka nam hey deoband waley. Shout your sar ba-kaf, sar buland, deoband deoband. Sing to your hearts' content, then keep singing until the cows come home. You are a sect. Own it. Everyone from Allamah Ahmad Sadeck Desai, to M. Sa'd Kandhalwi, to M. Zafar Ahmad Usmani's sons, to Pir Zulfiqar Ahmad Naqshbandi, to Molvi Hibatullah Akhunzadah - they are all yours. You may now start making your calls to exclude them from the Maslak. PS: The Mahdi issue and it's removal from Haitham Haddad's book upon the instruction of Mufti Taqi Usmani was already discussed before, but it seems you Looney Tune Deos have the memory of a goldfish: https://t.me/KnowledgeRevival/16290. You can now exclude Mufti Taqi (and S. Yunus Jaunpuri, and Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri, and Husain Ahmad Madani, and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi...) for all the crimes they have committed against your very own Maslak.

My humble request is simply this: do not make disagreement into a crime, and do not make sectarian affiliation dependent upon the approval of a handful of individuals. Those who insist on declaring every dissenting voice outside Deobandism should pause for a moment and ask themselves whether they are truly protecting Deoband or undermining its very foundations. History teaches us that great traditions survive through breadth and perish through narrow-mindedness. The ocean is great because it absorbs countless rivers into itself. If it were to reject every stream that flowed toward it, it would eventually become nothing more than a dry pit. The true strength of Deoband has always lain in its intellectual courage, breadth of vision, spirit of inquiry, and tradition of tolerating disagreement. If that tradition is to be preserved, then an atmosphere of dialogue must be fostered in place of declarations of exclusion; reasoned argument must be promoted instead of accusations; and sectarian identity must be viewed within the broad historical framework that made Deoband one of the most influential intellectual traditions of the Indian subcontinent. Otherwise, it is not unreasonable to fear that tomorrow the very people who today are expelling others from Deobandism will begin expelling one another as well. And then the question that will remain is this: _Who, in the end, will be left in Deoband as a Deobandi?_ FOLLOW THE الشيخ محمد أكرم الندوي CHANNEL ON WHATSAPP: https://WhatsApp.com/channel/0029VbAxp2qGpLHHqQ3LoY0w

Regrettably, in some circles, Deobandism is being presented not as a living scholarly tradition but as an ideological fortress, guarded at its gate by a few muftis acting as gatekeepers. Whoever agrees with every opinion they favour is considered inside; whoever differs on any issue is considered outside. The question is: can any great intellectual tradition survive on such a principle? Has any school in the history of knowledge progressed by excluding its critics, independent thinkers, and those who exercised ijtihād? If disagreement truly is the criterion for expulsion from Deobandism, then that standard should be applied consistently to every issue. The Deobandi elders themselves differed on the issue of photography. Different opinions existed regarding the use of loudspeakers. Within Deobandi scholarship there has been diversity regarding political participation, democracy, the nation-state, women’s education, modern media, and countless social and legal issues. The participation of Indira Gandhi and her speech at the centenary gathering of Darul Uloom Deoband is a historical fact that can neither be denied nor forgotten. If listening to a woman’s speech is contrary to Deobandism, should the thousands of scholars who attended that gathering be declared outside Deobandism? If photography is the criterion, should all those scholars whose photographs appear in newspapers, journals, and social media be excluded? If certain political views are the criterion, should members of different parties and movements continually expel one another from Deobandism? The outcome of such logic is extremely dangerous. It is a fire initially lit to burn the homes of others, but which eventually engulfs one’s own home as well. If this process of exclusion continues, the day is not far when every group will claim to be the “true Deobandis” while declaring everyone else deviant. The result will be that a broad intellectual tradition becomes fragmented into dozens of small circles, each surrounded by walls so high that even air and light can scarcely enter. The real question is not what opinion Mawlana Ubaydullah Sindhi, Mr Qamar Ahmad Usmani, or ʿAllamah Habib al-Rahman Kandhlawi adopted on a particular issue. The real question is whether an intellectual tradition possesses room for disagreement or not. If it does, then the views of these figures cannot simply be dismissed because certain contemporary muftis disagree with them. If it does not, then it would be more accurate to describe Deoband not as an intellectual tradition but as an ideological barracks, where obedience is valued over inquiry and unquestioning imitation over reasoned argument. It should also not be forgotten that Deoband is fundamentally the name of an educational institution and an intellectual tradition. It is not an organised church possessing official certificates of inclusion and exclusion. A graduate of Darul Uloom Deoband, or a scholar connected to the intellectual legacy of the Deobandi elders, may disagree with his contemporaries on many issues. Just as scholars of al-Azhar may hold differing opinions while still being called Azharis, Deobandi scholars may likewise remain Deobandi despite disagreements. Scholarly affiliations are established not by fatwas, but by history, education, tradition, and intellectual continuity. Difference of opinion is not the enemy of knowledge; it is its very spirit. In a society where the courage to ask questions disappears, research dies. And where research dies, only reverence remains—not knowledge. A graveyard is perfectly silent. There is no disagreement, no debate, and no questions. Yet such silence is not called life. The sign of life is movement, and the sign of movement is disagreement. For this reason, every great intellectual tradition in history sought not to suppress disagreement but to regulate it, refine it, and transform it into a means of intellectual development.

In the name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful *The Crime of Difference of Opinion and Expulsion from Deobandism* By Dr Muhammad Akram Nadwi Oxford 12/6/2026 The day before yesterday, in response to a question, I wrote an article entitled “The Deobandi School of Thought and the Coming of Imam Mahdi (ʿalayhi al-salām).” In that article, I cited the views of several distinguished figures associated with the Deobandi school of thought, particularly Shaykh al-Hind Mawlana Mahmud al-Hasan Deobandi’s renowned student and trusted confidant, the revolutionary leader Mawlana Ubaydullah Sindhi (raḥimahu Allah), Mr Qamar Ahmad Usmani—the son of the famous hadith scholar and jurist Mawlana Zafar Ahmad Usmani (raḥimahu Allah)—and ʿAllamah Habib al-Rahman Siddiqi Kandhlawi (raḥimahu Allah). From the writings of these personalities, it appears that they differed from the commonly accepted Deobandi interpretation regarding Imam Mahdi (ʿalayhi al-salām), or at the very least viewed the issue from a different perspective. Following that article, I received numerous messages from scholars, students, and intellectuals. Their main objection was that the personalities I had cited had been declared “outside Deobandism” by certain Deobandi muftis; therefore, it was incorrect to present their opinions as part of the Deobandi school of thought. At first, I regarded this objection as little more than an emotional reaction and chose to ignore it. However, when the same point continued to be repeated, it became clear that the real issue was not disagreement over Imam Mahdi (ʿalayhi al-salām), but a far more serious and fundamental question: What exactly does “expulsion from Deobandism” mean? What is its criterion? And who possesses the authority to make such a judgement? The reality is that in our age, the capacity to tolerate disagreement within certain religious circles is steadily diminishing. There was a time when the weapon of takfīr was reserved for those considered outside the fold of Islam. Then the circle widened until it encompassed various groups among the people of the qiblah. Now it seems that some individuals have established an entirely new court in which the issue under consideration is not whether a person is Muslim, but whether he possesses valid sectarian citizenship. Apparently, it is no longer sufficient for someone merely to be a Muslim; he must also prove that he is an “authorised” member of a particular school, and that his credentials of loyalty bear the seal of a select few individuals. Anyone who studies Islamic history knows that the Muslim intellectual tradition was never founded upon uniformity but rather upon diversity. For centuries, profound disagreements existed in jurisprudence, hadith, Qur’anic exegesis, theology, spirituality, and philosophy. Yet despite these disagreements, scholarly affiliations remained intact. Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad differed with Imam Abu Hanifah (raḥimahum Allah) on numerous fundamental issues, yet no one questioned their Hanafism. Imam al-Nawawi and Imam al-Rafiʿi disagreed, but both remained Shafiʿis. For centuries, scholarly debates continued within both the Ashʿari and Maturidi traditions, yet excluding someone from the school on that basis never became part of the scholarly heritage. In reality, no intellectual school is merely a collection of rigid opinions. Rather, it is a living intellectual tradition. Living traditions resemble trees, not stones. A tree has one root but countless branches. Each branch grows at a different angle; each leaf sways in its own direction. Yet despite this diversity, the tree retains its unity. If a gardener begins to think that every branch which does not grow in his preferred direction should be cut off, he is not preserving the tree but preparing its destruction.

For Londoners and surrounding areas (participants coming from as far as Leicester, Bristol, and Brighton) - kindly forward to those who are interested to enrol in September. (Shaykh Kabir Uddin) Hafs Alimiyyah Open Day 2026 YOUR JOURNEY IN THE ARABIC LANGAUGE AND THE SACRED ISLAMIC TRADITION STARTS HERE Saturday 27 June, 2:30pm - 4:30pm Paddington Academy, 50 Marylands Road, London, W9 2DR SCAN THE QR CODE ON THE POSTER TO REGISTER YOUR INTEREST. Study under qualified scholars and enhance your understanding of Arabic and the Islamic sciences in a structured and supportive environment. CHOOSE YOUR STUDY PATH: •⁠ ⁠Islamic Diploma — 2 years OR: •⁠ ⁠Advanced Arabic — 1 year •⁠ ⁠Alimiyyah — 4 years •⁠ ⁠Dawrah — fifth and final year of Alimiyyah Open to brothers and sisters aged 16+. Students continuing their study can join in higher classes. For queries, contact Kabir Uddin on 07538362382 or email kuddin@hafsacademy.org.uk

Opinions pertaining to the determination of the quanity of reward and sin are Madhhab-agnostic, as per what Jamal 'l-Din Muhammad al-Ahdal al-Shafi'i (d. 1352 AH) indicated in Umdat 'l-Mufti Wa-'l-Mustafti. He was speaking on the difference among Shafi'i scholars over someone who is making up for some missed Ramadan fasts in Shawwal with an intention that also covers the six fasts of Shawwal: وأما مسألة السؤال فاعلم أن المرجع في مسائل الثواب ونحوها إلى ما دل عليه نصوص الشارع

As for the issue raised in the question, note that the reference point in issues pertaining to reward etc. is what the statements of the Legislator indicate.

Essentially, there is no Taqlid in such issues, nor is there any such thing as the Mu'tamad or the school's preferred view. The view is the scholar's alone, in his personal capacity. It is assessed directly against the evidence in the Quran and Sunnah.

Opinions pertaining to determining the quanity of reward and sin are Madhhab-agnostic, as per what Jamal 'l-Din Muhammad al-Ahdal al-Shafi'i (d. 1352 AH) said in Umdat 'l-Mufti Wa-'l-Mustafti, speaking on the issue of somebody who is making up for some missed Ramadan fasts in Shawwal with an intention that also covers the six fasts of Shawwal: وأما مسألة السؤال فعلم أن المرجع في مسائل الثواب ونحوها إلى ما دل عليه نصوص الشارع As for

From same book

Thanwi half-heartedly allows one form of Talfiq, even though he acknowledges it isn't the safest of options. Urdu scan from al-Hilah al-Najizah.

Fiqh Course on Medical & Treatment Issues *Date:* 20–21 June 2026 This two-day course explores the Islamic principles, ethical guidelines, and specific rulings regarding illness, disease prevention, and modern healthcare. *Key Topics Covered:* *Theology & Treatment:* The relationship between illness and divine decree, contagion, the reality of "Prophetic Medicine," and treatment through the Qur’an and Ruqyah. *Medical Practice:* Ethics of cross-gender and interfaith treatment, and religious concerns regarding vaccine ingredients. *Beginning & End of Life:* Rulings on abortion, artificial insemination, life support, brain death, euthanasia ("mercy killing"), and autopsies. *Donations:* Rulings on blood and organ donation and transplantation. *Target Audience:* Healthcare professionals (doctors, pharmacists, nurses), imams, Islamic studies students, and the educated public. To register visit https://shorturl.at/GuAhk

*دورة: القضايا الشرعية في الطب والعلاج* *الموعد:* 20 - 21 يونيو 2026 دورة فقهية مكثفة تؤصل الأحكام المتعلقة بالمرض والتداوي، وتجيب عن أبرز النوازل الطبية المعاصرة. *أبرز المحاور:* *مفاهيم أساسية:* المرض والقدر، العدوى، وحقيقة "الطب النبوي" والرقى. *الممارسة الطبية:* مكونات اللقاحات، وضوابط التطبب بين الجنسين أو مع غير المسلمين. *قضايا الحياة والموت:* الإجهاض، التلقيح الصناعي، موت الدماغ، رفع أجهزة الإنعاش، "القتل الرحيم"، وتشريح الموتى. *التبرع:* أحكام نقل وزراعة الأعضاء والتبرع بالدم. *الفئة المستهدفة:* الكوادر الطبية، الأئمة والوعاظ، طلاب العلم الشرعي، وعموم المثقفين. للتسجيل يرجى زيارة https://shorturl.at/GuAhk

In al-Talwih, Sa'd 'l-Din al-Taftazani (d. 792 AH) agrees with the notion that there can be such a thing as layman who does not adhere to any specific school of Fiqh. "The most correct argument [against truth plurality (تصويب)] is to state that this triggers two mutually contradictory rulings coming together in relation to a single person. This occurs in the scenrio where a layman - who has not decided to adhere to following (Taqlid) a specific school - seeks opinion from two Mujtahids: a Hanafi and a Shafi'i. [The former] issues to him a fatwa that nabidh alcohol is allowed while the other [i.e., the Shafi'i] states it is prohibited - and neither of the two is stronger in his eyes, and his mind has not settled on either. والأصوب أن يقال: يلزم الجمع بين المتنافيين بالنسبة إلى شخص واحد فيما إذا استفتى عامي لم يلتزم تقليد مذهب معين مجتهدين حنفيا وشافعيا، فأفتاه أحدهما بإباحة النبيذ والآخر بحرمته، ولم يترجح أحدهما عنده، ولم يستقر علمه على شيء منهما

Another superb sample of how a voluminous scholarly work of such importance should be indexed. Absolute mint. Learn up guys, learn up.

An interesting story on Abu Dharr al-Harawi (d. 434 AH) becoming a Maliki despite being from Herat, which is currently in Afghanistan. It echoes Ibn 'l-Hajib status as a Maliki despite being of a Kurdish ethnic background. قيل لأبي ذر الهروي أنت من هراة فمن أين تمذهبت لمالك والأشعري فقال سبب ذاك أني قدمت بغداد أطلب الحديث فلزمت الدارقطني فلما كان في بعض الايام كنت معه فاجتاز به القاضي أبو بكر بن الطيب فأظهر الدارقطني من إكرامه ما تعجبت منه فلما فارقه قلت له أيها الشيخ الإمام من هذا الذي أظهرت من إكرامه ما رأيت فقال أوما تعرفه قلت لا فقال هذا سيف السنة أبو بكر الأشعري فلزمت القاضي منذ ذلك واقتديت به في مذهبه تاريخ دمشق لابن عساكر The question is what was Abu Dharr al-Harawi before he switched to Maliki Ash'arism. There are two possibilities: 1. The most likely scenario was that he was a generic follower of the Ahl 'l-Hadith movement, upon the general method of their scholars in Fiqh and their generic creed. His close association with Daraqutni (d. 385 AH). Coincidentally, Abu Isma'il al-Harawi (d. 481 AH) was a staunch Hanbali and a constant thorn in the necks of odd few Ash'aris in Herat. 2. The other possibility was that he was a Hanafi, though with no serious inclination to I'tizal. He couldn't have been a Maturidi or Mu'tazili as Maturidi influence had not reached Herat during his upbringing, whereas I'tizal was on the deline across the Muslim world. Note: Baqillani was three decades younger than Daraqutni, which makes Baqillani pretty important in the grand scheme of things if someone of the calibre of Daraqutni honoured him in the manner that he did.

Continuing with the Fiqh of Freedom of Speech and the right to be heard during The Troubles, according to the British Government https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6UhXivPyw4

Calm before the storm: وَسُئِلَ عَنْ شَخْصٍ أَبُو امْرَأَةٍ بَالِغِ ثَيِّبٍ عَاقِلَةٍ أَذِنَتْ لَهُ فِي تَزْوِيجِهَا فَجَاءَ أَبُوهَا إلَى قَاضٍ شَافِعِيٍّ وَقَالَ لَهُ أَذِنْت لَك فِي تَزْوِيجِ بِنْتِي بِفُلَانٍ وَلَمْ يَأْتِ بِشَاهِدَيْنِ يَشْهَدَانِ عَلَى إذْنِهَا لِأَبِيهَا فَعَقَدَ لَهَا الْقَاضِي بِذَلِكَ الْإِذْنِ الصَّادِرِ مِنْ أَبِيهَا لَهُ فَهَلْ هَذَا الْعَقْدُ صَحِيحٌ مِنْ غَيْرِ إقَامَةِ بَيِّنَةٍ تَشْهَدُ بِالْإِذْنِ لِأَبِيهَا أَوْ لَيْسَ بِصَحِيحٍ؟ فَأَجَابَ بِقَوْلِهِ: يَكْفِي، وَاَللَّهُ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى أَعْلَمُ. • Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH), al-Fatawa al-Kubra al-Fiqhiyyah

The amount of AI slop featuring Haj videos and pictures on social media is nauseating. Instant block, but not before firing a curse or two in that direction.