KR

Molvis on Friday nights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCMwbbOrRLk

There was a large email group once upon a time comprising of a few hundred Molvis. The issue of ضعف in Surat 'l-Rum was broached. It was queried whether that ضَعف is a "Salafi thing". This is a good example of a random (now prominent) Molvi believing he has licence to assume the worst possible explanation for how other Muslims read, act, or view the issue different from him. Some advice to young Molvis: Stay humble and remain constantly aware of the limitations of your training. PS: ضَعف is the Qira'ah of Imam Asim, one of the Seven Qurra'.

Salman Awan, [Jan 22, 2026 at 16:52] I've always thought that the quickest way to lose a student's respect is by commiting an injustice towards them in the name of discipline and nurture (tarbiyah). Authority doesn't give a pass to commit injustice. It doesn't matter how you justify the action or package it; it's injustice (dhulm). Call it what it is. It's not prophetic. It's simply an attempt at playing mind games that honestly does no good for any student. And why would it? If someone's being treated unjustly and feels wronged - and that too in the name of religion - what effect do you actually expect that to have? What "tarbiyah" is actually being done? All it does is normalise injustice and pass it off as acceptable behaviour in any relationship of authority. If that's the "tarbiyah", you do you but don't ascribe that to religion.

Respect to Kermode for reviewing The Voice of Hind Rajab and to prominent Hollywood actors like Joaquin Pheonix, Brad Pitt and Rooney Mara for supporting it, formally: https://youtu.be/DfWE7Vm1z1Y?si=oaRwBRKxUmN7MvIy https://deadline.com/2025/08/brad-pitt-joaquin-phoenix-join-gaza-movie-voice-hind-rajab-1236498170/ #Politics #Gaza #Film #HindRajab

https://www.facebook.com/share/17nuM6WRYN/ The Masjid and the Special (Needs) Child

Should Ulema publicly call themselves students of knowledge ? My teachers have always emphasised the value of continuing to learn until the day they pass. Even though they had taught for decades and were in their 60s and 70s, it was not uncommon to hear them claim that they were still students of knowledge. They did this out of humility and a concern that pride would creep into their hearts. Unfortunately, it's now common for people to call themselves students of knowledge, regardless of whether they've been teaching for years or just studied online a few times. A lot of people with a little online following use this label so much that it makes it hard to tell the difference between them and the competent scholars when informed, qualified scholars answer questions with conviction and insight. I was once contacted by someone who indicated that they had asked a 'student knowledge' for a fatwa, and he had responded with a certain response. When I asked who this person was, I was certain that they could not come up with such a response because they didn't know anything about the Arabic sciences. Individuals like this can easily use this as a defensive tactic. When they are caught making a mistake, they say, "I'm just a student, I'm not a scholar, don't hold me to that standard." I realise that calling someone a student of knowledge is a really humbling thing to do when you mean it. But if it makes it hard for most people to tell the difference between being competent and being ignorant, it needs to be explained so that people aren't fooled by those who don't have the proper qualifications. Qualified graduates should know how important it is to be able to see the emerging problems and not let people use this position to feed their own egos.

Our Heritage is Wanting Khair for the Ummah Trust, sound presumptions, and a high standard of authenticity testing form the foundation of our heritage of knowing. This is only possible if the people spreading the Islamic message are deeply devoted to Allah, His Messenger peace be upon him, and genuinely care for the Ummah. Many Muslims were gullible enough to think that Orientalism came as a breath of fresh air and wished to use objective ways to assess the Islamic sciences when they were first exposed to Orientalist books. However, the truth was that they had already decided to undermine the scholars' work and only aimed to destroy their tradition and sow doubt. Muslims had to step up and critically examine both their own and the Orientalists' writings as a result of this new wave of scholarly attacks on Islam. In-depth research was done on topics that Muslims had never thought a book should be written about, and the results were published. As Muslims, we should never be afraid of the challenges that lie ahead; instead, we should be prepared to invest in the Ummah's next generation so that they can overcome them. As said by Imam Abu Hanifa r.h., "We prepare for the challenges before they hit us."

Identifying Modernism Anyone who holds an opinion that differs from your own will be labelled a modernist if you don't understand what modernism in Islamic thought is. For many people today, it has become a loaded term for anyone who holds a different opinion from their own. The opinions and stances held by Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Ghazali, Sh Mustafa Sabri, and many more thinkers would be categorised as modernism if every modification is considered a departure from tradition. Unfortunately, because they haven't read a wide range of classical and modern authors, graduates find it difficult to clearly distinguish between modernism and tradition. The answer is for madrassas to incorporate a course that teaches students about tradition and the challenges of departing from it into their curricula.

كتاب السبعة لابن مجاهد

In a handwritten letter shared by Dr. ʿAbd Allāh al-Jūdī, the late Kuwaiti researcher and preacher, Dr. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sumayṭ (d. 2013), says: “…and I was surprised to learn that those who have harmed Islam the most are, in fact, Muslim youngsters and men who present themselves as preachers (duʿāt).”

FAQ About the Purple Quran Translation (PQT): First: Why was there a need for a new translation? Answer: I think the Tafsīr and translation literature need to keep advancing. Why did anyone write tafsīr after al-Ṭabarī and al-Zamakhsharī? After all, everyone after them touches their Tafāsīr anyway. The answer is: we need to move the field of translations forward. I did something today, and tomorrow someone else will do a better job than me. I hope PQT helps move the field forward. It’s not meant to replace earlier translations, but to offer a different balance that many readers are still looking for. Second: Which translations do I appreciate more, after this project? Answer: Arberry and Mf. Taqi Usmani, both for different reasons. Third: Did any Ahl al-ʿIlm review the translation? Answer: The entire translation was reviewed by multiple advanced students of knowledge, and dare I say, scholars and shaykhs. Other mashāykh only reviewed parts of it, and others yet were consulted on difficult āyāt and passages (more to come on that later). Fourth: What makes the PQT different? Answer: Most English translations either sound very literal but miss the force of the Arabic, or read smoothly but flatten the meaning. My translation tries to avoid both problems. It stays close to the structure and wording of the Arabic, but it also carries over what the Arabic is doing, by attempting to show emphasis, certainty, and flow. Instead of copying the shape of the Arabic sentence by sentence, I focus on making sure the meaning, tone, and intent land in English the way they do in Arabic. Fourth: What style of translation is the PQT? Answer: It is best described as meaning-literal. It is not word-for-word in a mechanical sense, and it is not idiomatic or meant to paraphrase. The goal is to translate the function of the Arabic rather than just the surface wording. When the Arabic is ambiguous, the English remains ambiguous (e.g., I have not opted to spell out the muta`allaq of a maḥdhūf as Khattab and Abdul Haleem often do). When the Arabic is emphatic, the English is emphatic (e.g., I do not smooth over repetition. See: 5:115). In that sense, it is literal to meaning and intent rather than to appearance. Fifth: What sources does this translation rely on? Answer: Ibn ʿAṭiyyah is the backbone of this translation. I treat him as the starting point for meaning and grammar. When Ibn ʿAṭiyyah leaves the disagreement open, I look to Abū al-Suʿūd, Ibn ʿĀshūr, and al-Ṭabarī to weigh the strongest option. Over time, I really fell in love with, and came to rely on, Abū al-Suʿūd for tarjīḥ, and he ended up shaping many of the final choices, with Tabarī and Ibn ʿĀshūr kept in mind as well. Roughly speaking, about 70% of the translation follows Ibn ʿAṭiyyah, around 20% Abū al-Suʿūd, and the remaining 10% draws from Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Wāḥidī, and al-Ṭabarī. Sixth: Who is this translation for? Answer: I believe the translation is clear enough to be good enough for non-Muslims and Muslims alike, no matter their level of reading. The footnotes add some details that might be overkill in instances, but that is just my style in how I translate. Those who’ve read my translation of al-Madkhal by ibn Badrān can testify to the fact that I simply cannot translate a text without adding clarifying footnotes. However, after acknowledging that, it’s for people who want to slow down and actually engage the Qur’ān, not just skim it. Seventh: What is with the name? Answer: This project was sponsored and published by the very popular Quranly App. It is a great tool for helping build habits when reading the Qur’ān. Their brand colour is purple, and hence: the Purple Qur’ān Translation. It’s not that deep.

Mufti Abdur Raheem makes an important point about the Ikhtilaf among the founders of the Maslak of Deoband. Hazrat Nanotwi could be termed a 'universalist', to borrow a term from Mufti Amin Kholwadia. This is reflected in his attitude towards other sects, for example, taking into consideration the political context. On the other hand, the broader socio-political considerations were often disregarded by Hazrat Gangohi; who could be termed as the founder of 'particularist' strand of the Deobandis. Mufti Abdur Raheem mentions two incidents to demonstrate this Ikhtilaf: Hazrat Nanotwi entertaining the invite by the Shi'a for their Taziya procession, and Hazrat Gangohi, in contrast, not even allowing his Mureeds to visit Gangoh at the time of 'Urs. Without having knowledge of the exact reference Mufti Abdur Raheem has in mind, the former incident can be found in Arwah-e-Thalatha and the latter in Tazkirat-ur-Rashid; both with differences in detail but neither negating the essential istidlal made. Hence, Mufti Abdur Raheem emphasises the importance for us to appreciate this difference among the Akabir and develop the necessary tolerance towards those who adopt the alternative approach. https://youtu.be/LN1VakYcTdk?si=C5_oRAcrida-_3lC #History #Akabir #Maslak #Mizaj #Ikhtilaf #Gangohi #Nanotwi #Urs #Taziya #JR #AbdurRaheem

The choice is yours, but a word of advice to help the layman: If a Deobandi scholar is telling you to be tolerant of someone else and another is telling you to be harsh on them, always side with the tolerant one. Getting all harsh and sweaty might give you an identity and temporary ‘street cred’ in the circles of such fanatics, but you won’t be able to keep up with the pace as an emotional layman. Best stay out of it. Hindsight is on your side: Look at the Salafi laymen burnouts of the 90s, check up on what they are doing today - virtually nothing, and nobody bats an eyelid for them. #moredeobandithandeoband MTU wrote a foreword to the Urdu al-Muhannad, in 1397 A.H. He finished his TKM in 1415 A.H. If there was any change of opinion on the part of MTU, it isn’t what the fanatics propose (that he went from Halafi to Hanafi); rather it is the other way round! But on a serious note, this Halafi business is nonsense. MTU’s forewording on al-Muhannad, which contains the generic “We are Maturidis” statement, did not mean he was disallowed from disagreeing with Maturidi theology for the rest of his life, or accommodating IT within the fold of Sunnism: this same balance is trumpeted by Qari Tayyib, the grandson of Darul Ulum Deoband’s founder Qasim Nanotwi, when he said that Deobandis love IT, in a book he wrote on the ideals of Deobandism. Al-Muhannad is not a book detailing specifics, nor is it designed to ban Deobandis from straying away from normative Kalami positions through independent research, which in fact should be celebrated. 2017 update: Just as an update, Saif Ali al-Asri removed Mufti Taqi's foreword, in the third edition of the print, just as he's removed Qaradawi's and everyone else's. He said he removed it to make up space. This is probably the first time in history that prominent scholars' endorsements and forewords have been removed from a book of theology to make space. Allah knows best, but one theory is that being theologically associated with Mufti Taqi and S. Yusuf al-Qaradawi started to pose a problem to Asri, so to cover that up, he pressed the nuclear button and removed all of them. Another theory is being associated with the Ikhwan through the endorsement of some including S. Qaradawi. Allah knows better what Asri's intentions were.

But it seems Deobandi fanatics people still get upset when it is pointed out that the Deobandis are not a monolithic entity in a critical matter like of the Attributes of Allah. To preserve their state of denialism, the fanatics’ only option therefore is to demonise the other, and attempt to pigeonhole any Deobandi into their way of thinking by way of emotional blackmail (How dare you go against al-Muhannad!?). They have even been on the record of testing fellow Deobandis on articles of faith, adopting the tradition of their extreme Salafi counterparts. And if they are unsuccessful in convincing their fellow Deobandis, there's not shortage of labels in their arsenal: closet Salafi, pseudo-Salafi, Halafi, somebody who went against the Deobandi blueprint/charter/constitution al-Muhannad, and any other name they can throw at you. In the QT foreword, MTU mentioned that there is no need to fight over these issues in the Attributes of Allah. From our point of view, MTU was either being brave or naive. I would have hoped it was only the former, but it seems it is a bit of both. He is brave because he moderated the message coming out from the book, or said what he needed to say in favour of IT in spite of the book' contents, which is inherently anti-Athari. By mentioning that the IT stance is also one of the Sunni stances (according to him), he thus tried to neutralise the threat of a fallout, and he at least cleared his name from subsequent Salafi-Ash`ari fighting (and Deobandi infighting). This demonstrates that MTU is completely free from being party in the Deobandi fanatics' willing themselves on to start fights online and offline using the book. But MTU was naive in the sense of thinking his foreword, or the book itself for that matter, would bring an end to fighting. Indeed, MTU's name has been used and abused by the Deobandi fanatics to promote their own agenda against not-so-Ash`ari Deobandis, and has resulted in more Aqidah policing by the fanatics - all under his name. In fact, as proven, they have used this foreword to falsely prove he backtracked from his analysis in TKM! 3. The three major foreword writers in this book were MTU, al-Qaradawi, and the late Ghawji. Ghawji naturally spelled out his anti-Taymi stance. Al-Qaradawi's foreword on the other hand is a bit more complex, and problematic for the fanatics. Insofar as the Attributes denoting emotion (انفعالات, as he describes it) are concerned, he adopts the pro-IT stance of Ithbat. So in Rahmah and Ghadab, he treats them as equally as he does with the Divine Attributes of seeing and hearing. So he too is not totally pro-Tafwid or pro-Ash`ari in this regard. Indeed, he could have been easily passed off as yet another Halafi by the fanatics, but alas, he was not a Hanafi to begin with. Let's just call him an Ikhwani (aka Mawdudi) and dismiss him that way, shall we? Ultimately, discussions like these should end up focusing on believing what is right, preserving unity, and striking a balance between the two. For Deobandis, the blueprint for that is already there in how MTU approached the matter: disagree with IT if you want but consider his position a Sunni one. Any deviation from this because “deoband.org or so-and-so hotshot told you so” is, in essence, telling you to go against the practice the spirit of the Akabir, just to ensure you comply with every letter of al-Muhannad. Yes al-Muhannad contains what it contains - let us just not forget 100+ years of Deobandi scholarship that came after al-Muhannad.

MTU hails from the Thanwi-Usmani tradition within Deobandis. Shabbir Ahmad Usmani too, mentioned before for being a Halafi (I can't believe I'm still using this word), was part of this tradition. MTU mentioned Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi's Bawadir in his analysis in TKM. Thanwi was a signatory to al-Muhannad. Can the fanatics - if they can be objective for once - claim complete confidence in that whatever he stated in Bawadir sits in accordance with him signing himself off as a Maturidi? I don't think Thanwi ever cited al-Muhannad as the authority in ascertaining to readers what his exact identity was. When he was discussing these issues, he didn't make any reference to al-Muhannad. If al-Muhannad is so critical to theological discourse nowadays, we would have found subsequent Deobandi theological works replete with citations and references from it. They simply don't exist. Efforts by deoband.org to present al-Muhannad is the final say on everything are a historical falsity. In fact, at no time in history has al-Muhannad gained such credence as it has today. And that too is only being pushed by the fanatics who want Deobandis to conform to their version of Ash`arism-Maturidism that accepts no Ijtihad whatsoever against these old theological schools (and agreeing with IT is out of contention). One has to simply ask why is this happening? What is making al-Muhannad so important today than ever before? More importantly, is making people conform to the letter of al-Muhannad in the spirit of the independence and flair of the Akabir’s research? Let’s talk about dates. Al-Muhannad was in 1325 A.H., whereas Bawadir was first complete around 1357 A.H. - Thanwi's last work. That's a difference of over three decades. Personally, I think there is no harm whatsoever in believing Thanwi's views developed from being a straightforward part-of-the-inherited-tradition Maturidi to being an independent researcher in the matters he discussed in Bawadir. And the reason why he didn't need do relinquish his signature was because they are all generic statements in al-Muhannad with little or no detail on specifics. For this reason, Salman Nadwi dismissed Ibn Adam al-Kawthari from writing a foreword to his translation of al-Muhannad, stating there was no need whatsoever to revive the book in this era, let alone translate it (the book is translated and published without his foreword). Besides, Ash`aris and Maturidis of the past have strayed away from normative Kalami positions so what's the harm in saying the same for someone like Thanwi (or other Deobandi scholars for that matter)? I doubt he was a Muqallid of everything that is in Sharh `Aqa'id Nasafiyyah. So MTU is a Halafi according to the fanatics for sympathising with the IT stance. But then again, so is Thanwi for what he wrote in Bawadir (and if any fanatic disputes this assertion, they may translate what he wrote and put it up without Thanwi's name on aslein.net - you'll see how quick Fudah and his cheerleaders gun Thanwi down too), Kashmiri and Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (mentioned previously), Sayyid Sulayman Nadwi, Abul Hasan Nadwi, Salman Nadwi, Akram Nadwi (then again, all the Nadwis are off the Manhaj anyway, for being Halafi; if not then pro-Mawdudi; if not then modernists; if not then pro-Qawwali - seriously!?), and Shaykh Yunus in Saharanpur, whom the fanatics secretly wish couldn’t die sooner (or dream that Madani was alive to write a letter so Shaykh Yunus could be expelled, just like he wrote a letter to expel a pro-Mawdudi teacher - http://on.fb.me/1NxaXBn, where all this Halafi nonsense began on deoband.org). At this rate, there are more of these so-called Halafis within the Deobandi ranks than there are fully-ash`arised Deobandis. And even if the names of Akabir like Madani - who were more pronounced in their criticisms of IT - are dropped into the discussion, then that doesn't prove that Deobandis are officially on the fully-ash`arised way; it would at best prove that Deobandis are not a monolithic entity.

So, the question is this: Was deoband.org right in assuming MTU had altered his position in accordance to its newly-found puritanical Ash`arism? The answer would lie in MTU’s foreword, obviously. It might come as a shock but reading now and again is good to establish the facts, instead of surmising from book covers and titles. And this is what I am doing now. I have both of MTU's TFM and QT foreword open, side by side. I have both of MTU's TFM and QT foreword open, side by side. Simply put, the latter is in many places quoted in verbatim from the former! I wish I was there to see the faces of those running deoband.org and all the other fanatics reading this, those who concocted the imaginary Halafi Onslaught, who thought that MTU backtracked from his analysis in TFM. Is repeating yourself equal to changing one's opinion from the first time you said that thing? Should MTU’s QT foreword be censored as well now, as they did with his TKM research? For those who don't have the physical copies, the PDFs here too should suffice for the comparisons: http://ia801407.us.archive.org/2/items/waq79831/11_79841.pdf TFM pg. 379 onwards https://ia800306.us.archive.org/12/items/alqawlultamam/alqawlultamam.pdf QT foreword pg. 22 onwards Given, MTU prefers the Tafwid stance. He also believes IT's Ithbat position and his projection of it onto the majority of the Salaf is an erroneous one (this by the way is the only critical intervention MTU made on IT). Personally, these are two items I profoundly disagree with, but I don't claim to be a Deobandi to have to conform to MTU's position to begin with. I'm only part of this discussion to prove IT's Sunnism has a place in MTU's Deobandism. So for all Deobandis who take MTU as a serious mentor and the next to be included to the Akabir Hall of Fame (if he’s not in there already), they should take stock of the fact that he considers the IT position to be: 1) a Sunni position, which has 2) the support from a group of the Salaf (i.e. anyone Zahid al-Kawthari hated from that era, starting with the students of Imam Ahmad, moving on to al-Bukhari, al-Darimi, Ibn Khuzaymah...), and importantly 3) it is NOT a position of anthropomorphism. I thus take the “pseudo-Salafi” label as a misnomer if it is said on the authority of MTU - he considers the IT pro-Ithbat stance as a Sunni one, so what's so “pseudo” about his creed? I'd even be worried calling it Salafi since this predates not only the current Salafi movement, but also IT (again, see all the scholars Zahid al-Kawthari hated on pre-IT). According to MTU, this the belief of (some of the) Salaf. Not Salafi, but Salaf. So here’s a message to the fanatic: As a Deobandi, disagree with MTU all you want, you are entitled to your freedom of thought (and Ijtihad - see what I did there?). But don't pretend that MTU doesn't know his own Deobandi Akabir better than you, or that your newly-found purebred Ash`arism trumps the research of MTU, or that you now have a greater or more authentic claim over Deobandism than MTU has. You might be upholding the bare letters of al-Muhannad, but you are also doing a disservice to your own cause if you think the practice and the spirit of the Akabir were exactly in line with al-Muhannad. The practice of the Deobandi Akabir suggests al-Muhannad was not made the reference point in every single item of research they did, and the spirit of the Akabir's conduct meant they were open enough to accept IT's stances as a Sunni one.

Now, apparently, puritanical Ash`aris/Maturidis within the Deobandis have hated this analysis from MTU. Even a whiff of acceptability accorded to IT and anyone associated with his creed, either prior to him or after him, is met with utter disdain and disgust in those circles. For MTU to merely cite IT's Sharh Hadith 'l-Nuzul in his research as one of the references for the four Sunni positions vis-a-vis the Attributes of Allah that he outlined was an unforgivable abomination as far these guys are concerned. Ask them point blank about MTU (or the plethora of other pro-Athari views within Deobandi scholarship) - they’ll privately tell you they were wrong. Now these fanatics are becoming emboldened and are speaking out more publicly about the errors of their own Akabir. What’s guaranteed is that they’ll never initiate a discussion on these pro-Athari views - the fact is they are too embarrassing to be discussed insofar as they’re concerned. Furthermore, this hatred of theirs is so powerful that it even dismisses the independent research of many Deobandi scholars before, who may not only have held IT in the highest of regards, but have agreed with him in various Aqidah matters and have cited from him. Top of this is Anwar Shah Kashmiri in his agreement with IT’s fundamental notion of Sifat Ikhtiyariyyah, even though he disagreed with him on Istiwa it seems (even the Madkhali website asharis.com carries some commentary on Kashmiri’s views - quite an embarrassment I’d say). He’s followed by Shabbir Ahmad Usmani – the one started writing Fath 'l-Mulhim commentary that MTU finished off – in a book of his called العقل والنقل: at the end of the book, he cited IT’s own العقل والنقل as a major reference for his own work. The list can go on. Yes they disagreed with him, but they also agreed with him at the expense of the Mutakallimun. They were objective and independent enough to formulate their own view. They weren’t subject to the puritanical Ash`ari whip that we see nowadays. So you could have guessed how much pleasure these Deobandi fanatics were filled with when Sayf Ali al-Asri’s book on Tafwid was released, dubbed القول التمام بإثبات التفويض مذهبا للسلف الكرام (QT). What was so special about this book (from their viewpoint) is that it carried forewords by three major scholars (amongst others): Yusuf al-Qaradawi, (the now deceased) Wahbi Ghawji, and… MTU! This was music to their ears and eyecandy to their eyes, because it meant that, finally, MTU’s place in history as one who endorsed a mega-refutation on Salafis – contrary to his previous Halafi tendencies – was solidified and carved in stone. As thus, deoband.org was totally justified in removing TKM’s IT-sympathising article because it no longer represented MTU’s truest, newest, most current and updated position, having been superseded by his endorsement of QT - a book that pummels IT’s pro-Ithbat anti-Tafwid stance to a pulp! Now, never will any pseudo-Salafi or Halafi be able to abuse MTU’s noble name to meet their own disgusting Tajsimi, Tashbihi, Taymi theology. Would they? The wheels on the Ash`ari bandwagon, steered by its new crop of thoroughly-ash`arised Deobandi occupants for the first time in history, were in full swing to destroy the spiderweb of Salafism that lay ahead, armed with Halafi-turned-Hanafi MTU's foreword for full measure, with the book converted into PDF format for those who don’t know what a book looks or feels like (link below)... Except there was one tiny thing missing in this elaborately unfolding story: The fanatics had totally forgot to read what MTU actually wrote in his foreword! Instead, they were merely relying on the title on the book cover! Remember when I said “And sometimes, it can get really silly, to the point that one past all this nonsense breaks into a hysteria of laughter”? Well, this is what happened to me earlier on.

ACCORDING TO DEOBAND.ORG, SHOULD MUFTI MUHAMMAD TAQI USMANI BE DESIGNATED A HALAFI*? * A word concocted in the past decade by Deobandi Madkhalis to describe what they felt was Salafis masquerading as Hanafis. There was plenty satirical commentary on the back of this. 27 October 2015 Sometimes, I feel like opening the window and shouting out from the top of my lungs that everybody should retire from polemics. It’s not healthy. It oftentimes takes away from one’s objectivity and mental balance. And sometimes, it can get really silly, to the point that one past all this nonsense breaks into a hysteria of laughter. And if you’re really in polemics for good, just make sure your facts are right, don’t make serious blunders, strip the emotion, and remain calm. I say this because after the imaginary Halafi Onslaught was so spectacularly exposed by deoband.org a few weeks ago (and I was accused of being an ex-Halafi by a Molvi on mobile messenger apps, whatever that means), people have taken this nonsensical term to the next level - brandishing it to others without regard to reputation, whether they maybe of those participating on social media, contemporary scholars, and even past scholars. “So and so was a Halafi” is the cry heard all over now, sometimes as a joke, but other times in seriousness (refer to the ex-Halafi term usage, above; next we’ll need to write up طبقات الحلفية ذيل طبقات الحنفية). Some are so confused now they are taking it to be a badge of honour, having got angry at the sort that concocted the term in the first place - like this poor Deobandi chap on Twitter, having falling into a fratricidal cussing match with the sort of puritanical Deobandis (whom I'm about to describe later) in the past couple of days on what constitutes 'ethical behaviour': https://twitter.com/FudhaylIbnIyad Tell me you don't feel sorry for him. He has “Halafi” as a description of himself! I mention this because the eminent Mufti (Muhammad) Taqi Usmani (or MTU) has now been accused of ‘Halafism’, in those extreme Deobandi circles that everybody should now know about, who have an agenda into shoehorning anyone and anything ‘Deobandi’ into their thoroughbred version of puritanical Ash`arism/Maturidism. Whereas on paper it has been said that the Deobandis are Ash`aris-Maturidis, practice suggests a different story. The reality is Deobandis have never bought into pure Ash`arism. You’ll see them in all shades, shapes and sizes. Or say: Fifty Shades of Deobandism (as there are Fifty Shades of Salafism, let’s be fair here). So MTU was exposed as a Halafi according to deoband.org So MTU was exposed as a Halafi according to deoband.org since his research regarding the Attributes of Allah - translated and published on that website some five years ago - went missing without trace or announcement on its website. In fact, it was deleted quite a while back, evidenced by the lack of even a Google cache. One can only assume, since MTU held the position of Ibn Taymiyyah (IT) in a positive regard and as a Sunni position, that this was the reason why it was removed into the gulags. Indeed, this assumption has been confirmed to me independently by another source. Allah knows best what overcame the deoband.org project, but its latest stuff seems to be ensuring the Deobandis are whipped into line, having been taken over by a breed of fanatics. And MTU is not Deobandi enough for them. Not to worry. The article itself was plastered all over the internet before it could have ever been deleted. For example: http://www.ilmgate.org/the-issue-of-the-ambiguous-attributes-of-allah/ Talk about censorship of even the Akabir! Or wait a second: Does MTU not yet qualify as one of the Akabir? Or does he have to dire and be seen in a dream to be canonised as one of the Akabirin? But of course, the Arabic is there for everybody to read, in MTU’s own excellent Takmilat Fath 'l-Mulhim (TKM), commentary on Sahih Muslim. Did they seriously really expect everybody to remain oblivious to this censorship of views? What’s next? Censor TKM?