Excerpt from….White and Black

The readers are presented with this work of great research value, scholarly discourse and of immense academic interest. This reply to booklets “From Johannesburg to Bareilly,” is so brutally jaw-breaking and overwhelmingly devastating that it must surely cause a major tremor in the hearts of the disbelievers. The Urdu version of this book has taken Pakistan by storm and the publisher was compelled to go for a second printing. A must must must read!

Safed o Siyaah

A rejoinder to a series of booklets entitled “Johannesburg to Brailley

( DEOBANDI-ISM CAUGHT UP IN ITS OWN WEB )

Published by. Maulana Okarvi Academy Al A’lami, South Africa

First edition 1991

by Allamah Kaukab Noorani Okarvi

On page 2 of part 1 of “Johannesburg to Bareilly”, it is written thus: “The Ulamaa of Deoband have nothing to do with Muhammad Ibne Abdul Wahaab Najdi (Imaam of the Wahaabi faction). They have no concern with his mission, nor he is their spiritual leader, nor did they ever meet him. In fact, the Uamaa of Deoband belong to the Ahl-e-Sunnat-Wa-Jama’at and owe allegiance to the #Hanafi sect.”

In this passage, it has been sought to be proved that the Ulamaa of Deoband are not #Wahaabi, and that they have got nothing to do with Muhammad Ibne Abdul Wahaab Najdi, the Imaam of the Wahaabis. This has been contradicted by the writings of the Ulamaa of #Deoband themselves, as you will subsequently see.

The famous debater of Deoband, Muhammad Manzoor Nu’maani, has in his book, “Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahaab and the right-guided Ulamaa of #India”, published 10 years ago and endorsed by Shaiekh Muhammad Zakariya Kandhalvi and Qaari Muhammad Tayyab, sought to prove that there was no ideological difference between Shaiekh Abdul Wahaab Najdi and the Ulamaa of Deoband and the Najdi Wahaabi and Deobandis were really one and the same. Here, I am not criticizing the book by Nu’maani Sahib. My aim is only to bring to my readers the lies of the author of “Johannesburg to Bareilly” so that readers may know how very fond of lies the author of “Johannesburg to Bareilly” is.

On the one hand, their Ulamaa and elders are trying their utmost to prove themselves to be Wahaabi, but the author of “#Johannesburg to #Bareilly”, while stationed in South Africa, is for ever engaged in uttering lies.

Dear readers! Let us examine such other writings of the stalwart ulama of Deoband.

“This title (Wahaabi) means a person who subscribes to, or is subservient, to the creed of Ibne Abdul Wahaab”. (Imdaad-ul-Fataawa), Page 233.

The Imaam of the Deobandis, Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi, says, “the followers of Muhammad Ibne Wahaab Najdi are called Wahaabi. He held excellent beliefs and his creed was Hanbali. Although he was rather of harsh temperament but he and his followers are good people.” (Fataawa Rasheediyah, Page 111, Vol. 1).

Dear readers! You have just seen what the verdict of Gangohi Sahib is on Ibne Abdul Wahaab Najdi. Now see what the Ulamaa of Deoband themselves have written about Ibne Abdul Wahaab Najdi, and, then, decide for yourselves who amongst them spoke the truth and who uttered lies.

Al-Muhannad, the book of beliefs of the Ulamaa of Deoband, on page 12, contains the following question and answer:

“Question number 12:

Muhammad Ibne Abdul Wahaab held the view that shedding the blood of Musalmaans and taking away their property and defiling their honor, all these things were lawful. He also termed them idolaters. He was insolent towards the elders. What is your view of him?

And do you (think calling the Ahle Qiblah as infidels is a lawful act? Or do you think that he who does these things belongs to a legitimate sect?

Answer: In our view the same verdict applies to them as has been given by the writer of Durr-e-Mukhtaar. And Khawarij are a band of people who waged war against the Imaam because they thought him to be guilty of falsehood, that is, idolatry, which justified waging war. For this reason they take the taking of our lives and our property and making our women captives to be lawful. He further held that they were rebels. He also held that they did not Describe them as infidels because this was a matter of interpretation, though a faulty one. And Allamah Shaami, in his marginal notes on the book, has said, “Like it happened in our times when the followers of Ibne Abdul Wahaab sallying forth from Najd overwhelmed Haramain Shareefain. They described themselves as belonging to Hambali creed, but it was their belief that only they were Musalmaans and whoever was against their belief was an idolater and, so, they justified the killing of the Ahle Sunnat and the ulama of the Ahle Sunnat until Almighty Allaah deprived them of their ascendancy.”

In “Fataawa Rasheediyah”, it is stated that their (Najdis) beliefs are excellent, while in “Al-Muhannad” it is said that they (Najdis) believe that only they were Musalmaans and those who held beliefs contrary to theirs were polytheists, and since such people belonged to the Ahl-e-Sunnat, therefore killing them was lawful.

From this it can be derived that holding all Ahl-e-Sunnat to be polytheists and killing them was lawful and permitted in the eyes of Gangohi Sahib. He also says that the followers of (Ibne Abdul Wahaab) are good men, while all other ulama of Deoband hold them to be Kharijis and rebels. It, thus, becomes clear that Gangohi Sahib believes that Kharijis and rebels are good men.

Also consider this.

Hussein Ahmad Sahib Tandvi Madni says: “Gentlemen’ Muhammad Ibne Abdul Wahaab appeared in the Najd in the 13th century A.H., and, because he harbored evil thoughts and held wrong beliefs, he waged war on the Ahl-e-Sunnat Wall Jama’at, sought to force his evil thoughts upon them and considered lawful seizing of their properties as the spoils of war, and killing them, and considered all these acts to bring blessings. He was harsh on the people of the Haramain (Makkah and Madinah) in particular and on the people of the Hijaaz in general. He used most foul language against the pious men of the earlier generations. Because of the atrocities committed by him on them, countless people had to flee the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah, and many of them were martyred by his troops. In short, he was a tyrant, a rebel and an altogether evil person.” (Ash-Shahaubus Saaqib, Page 42)

Gangohi Sahib says that their beliefs are excellent and he and his followers are good men, while Husain Ahmad Sahib Tandvi Madni says that his views were evil and his beliefs were most wretched. He considered the killing of Ahle-Sunnat as an act, which brought blessings, and justified taking away of their properties as spoils of war and, as such, lawful. He put the people of the Haramain and the Hijaaz to great hardships until they were forced to flee. He was most insolent towards the pious men of the earlier generations. He was guilty of killing thousands of Musalmaans, and was tyrannical, rebellious, blood-thirsty, and sinful.

Now, if Gangohi Sahib is speaking the truth, then Husain Ahmad Sahib Tandvi Madni is speaking the lie. Only one of two can be in the right. Now, a decision about them rests on the followers of the two men….to be continued…In Shaa Allaah!