As for as i know Deobandis were seeing partition of india as partition of muslims, they saw it as a conspiracy of British. Also they had arguments that a unversal religion like islam can not be reduced to a level of qaum within a country. They had started tablighi movement and the idea of hostility against hindus didnt appealed to them, whom they wanted to convert to islam through tabligh. Also they believed that much reduced muslims minority in india after partition , would go into deterioration and degeneration...................muslim league also had valid arguements in their support, and at the end muslim league prevailed in wining the confidence of indian muslims. The factor which worked the most in their favour, was fear of hindu domination in a democracy. Also bulk of mulsim population was quite incompetent compared to hindus in trade, business, education etc , there was a drive for a separate country with no hindu dominance.
But all this didn't justified 'Ganga Singha Wahabi hogaya' mentality which lead to call leaders of Muslim League like Mr Jinah as 'Kafir'. As far as, uniting Muslims in concerned, Deobandi's history doesn't not shown good examples like other sects.
But all this didn't justified 'Ganga Singha Wahabi hogaya' mentality which lead to call leaders of Muslim League like Mr Jinah as 'Kafir'. As far as, uniting Muslims in concerned, Deobandi's history doesn't not shown good examples like other sects.
I have this hobby of listening to bayans of maulvis of various sects, and i find bareilwais equally more sectarian , bigoted and hateful against their deobandi rivals. Against wahabis the hate is expressed even with much more intensity , even name calling is freely used.
But i must say the most sectarian school of thought is ahle-hadith/wahabi/salafi, they are entirely focused on criticizing bareilwais and deobandis.
Actually its no secret, Ahamd raza bareilwi issued fatwa that jihad is haram against angraiz. He also supported British in first world war and opposed khilfat movement. British reports of their officers and governors indicate that they were very concerned and wary of Deobandis and their anti-english sentiments. They first brought Qadianis as counter to Deobandis but that backfired and failed. Next time they were careful, they put forward the traditional sufis against deobandis which actually worked........Its interesting to note that Bareilwis, shias and qadianis were on one side in support of British, while deobandis were on other side in opposition to British.
Well both Sikhs and the Pukhtoonkhwa & Harazas considered Syed Ahmed Shaheed as an ally of the English!
Well it does happen but the fact that very rarely bralvies (sufies) have committed assaults like this. Over the many centuries majority of the population from Bulgaria(Ottomon empire and the Middle east ) were all sufies. Wahabies were always a minority. Look for the vedios from these countries - Dagestan, Albania, Turkey, Central Asia etc and the muslim countries in the Maghrib were all majority sufies.
Muqawee I dont think its fair to use word wahabi for hanafis (deobandis), concept of sufism exists in both deobandi and bareilwi schools of hanafis. Wahabis/ahle-hadith are ghair muqalid and dont believe in sufism. Bareilwis are criticized for bid'aa and various devaint cultural influences , so in their nervousness, they shout wahabi against their deobandi opponents. The clean and true version of hanafi fiqa, with iran , turkestan and afghanistan as its centres, was free from bareilwi-like customs. Islam in hindostan of general folk got corrupted due to hindu cultural influences, those who refused to clung to it, were recognized as bareilwis in 20th century. The founder of bareilwism, ahamd raza issued a fatwa that jihad is haram against british. Interestingly, bareilwis of pashtuns are as militant/warriors as deobandis.
Agree with the part that not fair to use wahabi for hanafis and that sufism exists in deobandis as well. However, do not agree that Brelvism has hindu influences. All the so called bida'a practices of Brelvis that Deobandis condemn, existed among Sufis of Arabs prior to Ahmed Raza Brelvi.
Sufi tradition and its associated concepts have also come from Arab Sufis, contrary to the concept being floated around by some neo-intellectuals in press these days.
so its emphasis of jihad that converted to sufi pashtuns to pro-devbandi? But as far as I know, a society where sufi traditions flow is quite plural and tolerant and its very difficult to raise people for armed Jihad. I can see that in Sindh, may be they have interpreted Jihad in different meaning as they are not martial race, but as Pashtun society was martial race they could connect to armed jihad.
Oversimplification always leads to errors brother.
I often see this portrayal of Sufis as subcontinental, deobandi as wahabised, arabised militant, in Pakistani English press. Its far from truth.
Truth is that religious sects and political affiliations DO NOT go together. Sufis have been jihadis as much as non-sufis. Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi was sufi. Imam Shamil of Chechniya was sufi. Mehdi Sudani was sufi.
In Pakistan movement some sufis were with British, others were against, some deobandis were with Quade Azam some were against. Militancy always has a political side.
But if we look at Pakistan's independence movement we see deobandis against Pakistan and Qadiyani, Shia taking active part in Pakistan Movement. Mr Jinah was Ismaili Khoja who later converted to Ithna ashri. I read some of Muslim scholars (you can trace the sect) called Mr Jinah British Agent.
Its because Muslim leagaue itself was not anti-british.
Muslim League did not consider it wise to actively anatgonise British when it also had Congress as an adversary.
Oversimplification always leads to errors brother.
I often see this portrayal of Sufis as subcontinental, deobandi as wahabised, arabised militant, in Pakistani English press. Its far from truth.
Truth is that religious sects and political affiliations DO NOT go together. Sufis have been jihadis as much as non-sufis. Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi was sufi. Imam Shamil of Chechniya was sufi. Mehdi Sudani was sufi.
In Pakistan movement some sufis were with British, others were against, some deobandis were with Quade Azam some were against. Militancy always has a political side.
I agree that Sufis got rebel in their nature against the cruelties and injustice in their own era. Like in Sindh we got Shah Inayat of Jhok Sharif who fought for farmer's rights. The portrayal of Sufis as monks having nothing to so with world is oversimplified. When I talked about conversion of Pashtun society from sufi values to deobandi Jihadi psyche, I meant change in overall attitude to accommodate others which are reflected by incidents like destruction of Rehman Baba's mazar. But again as you said things are not that simple, we can't say that its just deobandi thought of school which show a behavior against plural society. We all want to get rid of people who have different point of views and practices.
I didn’t know his sect. He was equally liked by Jamatis and Ahrari. His tafseer e Quran reflects modern views as of Sir Syed Ahmed. They even interpreted miracles and life hereafter in different manner, but lets keep this discussion for some other time.
@Mostar95 it would make no sense that Syed ahmad would be ally of British. His homeland Rohilkhund was devastated and raped by east india company in 1774, so much that charges of genocide were put on man-in-charge warren hasting in britain. To an extent he was driven by revenge, he joined amir khan's army who was fighting british at that time, he left it when amir khan (ruler of tonk) signed peace treaty with british. His migration to pakhtunkhwa was to make it a launching pad for jihad against sikhs , and then against british.
One thing is for sure deobandism is barelvism + Wahhabism. This guy syed Ahmed was most probably deobandi, his ideology was similar to the ttp today.
Peace Ali_Syed
How is this for sure?
This is totally unsupported ... Deobandis are not a manufacturing of two groups ... It is impossible that Wahhabis and Barelivs would have come together anyway to form the Deobandi school. You are perhaps taking a funny point of view drawing a line between their behaviours and concluding that Deobandis are in the middle - but that is not the way we determine influences ... It is clear historically that Deobandis and Barelivs are a branching away from a common background and neither have anything to do with Wahhabis - it is a different matter to say that they may have received some political support from Wahhabis in certain times.
How is this for sure?
This is totally unsupported ... Deobandis are not a manufacturing of two groups ... It is impossible that Wahhabis and Barelivs would have come together anyway to form the Deobandi school. You are perhaps taking a funny point of view drawing a line between their behaviours and concluding that Deobandis are in the middle - but that is not the way we determine influences ... It is clear historically that Deobandis and Barelivs are a branching away from a common background and neither have anything to do with Wahhabis - it is a different matter to say that they may have received some political support from Wahhabis in certain times.
No I am not being funny here. Deobandi's have worked closely with Wahabbis post 79 invasion of Afghanistan and hence their views and attitudes have hardened. TTP/LEJ/ASWJ is deobandi and they offer allegiance to Alqaeda which is Wahhabi.
