Bareilvis more reasonable towards Indians than Deobandis?

[himalayah]

Reading some other threads and history of independence movement, I have found that Deobandis were very extreme in their views towards what they consider outsiders (hindus/sikh/british). But bareilvis only considered britishers as outsiders and had more tolerant approach toward natives of India. One can say they respect the right of hindus and sikhs to worship their own saints, and even considered Guru Nanak, Sarmad or sant Kabir as learned people. Deobandis, despite being part of same Hanafi school of thought, considered sikhs and hindus as subhuman worthy of contempt and slaughter. Hence the movement by Syed Ahmad Shah Bareilvi to destroy Sikh kingdom of Punjab (only native Punjabi kingdom since Raja Porus), and invitation given to Abdali to murder hindu villagers on his way to loot Delhi and back.

The interesting part from recent historical perspective is, we saw during final years of independence, a schism within muslim community. Some deobandi scholars were not in favour of dividing muslims into three parts (India and two wings of Pakistan), hence opposed pakistan movement. However, most bareilvis supported jinnah and understood that if hindus and muslims cannot live together, the land should be divided to live in peace as two separate nations. So one can respect bareilvis much more for not harbouring ill intentions and accepting facts on the ground, whereas deobandis had plans to hold off partition until after british left, so large muslim minority can cause greater havoc, create civil war and possibly once again subjugate a fragmented hindu polity like past centuries.

@Azlan Haider @Sarhang @scorpionx

 

[KingMamba]

Well yeah that was their plan in reality. Barelvis are more reasonable because it is based mostly on Sufism although it is not a Sufi order itself and describes itself as squarely Sunni.

Deobandis are more hostile because their doctrine was built based on war in order to kick out the British. Obviously such a doctrine will always need somebody to fight just to keep itself going hence more hostile to kaffirs and now that there are no kaffirs around more hostile to other Muslim sects.

 

[himalayah]

Well yeah that was their plan in reality. Barelvis are more reasonable because it is based mostly on Sufism although it is not a Sufi order itself and describes itself as squarely Sunni.

Deobandis are more hostile because their doctrine was built based on war in order to kick out the British. Obviously such a doctrine will always need somebody to fight just to keep itself going hence more hostile to kaffirs and now that there are no kaffirs around more hostile to other Muslim sects.

I would thank you if it weren't for your avatar

This is what interested me, the more I read I came to understood that crap about Deobandis being puritanical Muslims by rejecting partition was just rubbish. Even though my grandparents went through havoc of partition and some had to travel all the way from chitral, I still respect bareilvis (which I believe majority of Punjabis are), because even if they took part in the violence against us there and then, at least they were honest about it... like "No we cannot live together, so please leave". Which I respect completely. Deobandis on the other hand had much more nefarious designs despite their more overtly pacifist actions of the time.

Also you're right, Bareilvi school of thought seems more comfortable and in tune with culture of South asia than deobandis which resemble salafists tbh.

 

[KingMamba]

I would thank you if it weren't for your avatar

This is what interested me, the more I read I came to understood that crap about Deobandis being puritanical Muslims by rejecting partition was just rubbish. Even though my grandparents went through havoc of partition and some had to travel all the way from chitral, I still respect bareilvis (which I believe majority of Punjabis are), because even if they took part in the violence against us there and then, at least they were honest about it... like "No we cannot live together, so please leave". Which I respect completely. Deobandis on the other hand had much more nefarious designs despite their more overtly pacifist actions of the time.

Also you're right, Bareilvi school of thought seems more comfortable and in tune with culture of South asia than deobandis which resemble salafists tbh.

The bloodshed was sad both sides blamed the other for starting it and unfortunately many people payed the price. I do no think any politician had that in mind and in fact everybody was supposed to stay put wherever they were but once migrations started it spiraled out of control.

I blame the British most of all because it was their divide and rule policy which led to hatred between communities which was historically never that big a deal.

 

[Multani]

Reading some other threads and history of independence movement, I have found that Deobandis were very extreme in their views towards what they consider outsiders (hindus/sikh/british). But bareilvis only considered britishers as outsiders and had more tolerant approach toward natives of India. One can say they respect the right of hindus and sikhs to worship their own saints, and even considered Guru Nanak, Sarmad or sant Kabir as learned people. Deobandis, despite being part of same Hanafi school of thought, considered sikhs and hindus as subhuman worthy of contempt and slaughter. Hence the movement by Syed Ahmad Shah Bareilvi to destroy Sikh kingdom of Punjab (only native Punjabi kingdom since Raja Porus), and invitation given to Abdali to murder hindu villagers on his way to loot Delhi and back.

The interesting part from recent historical perspective is, we saw during final years of independence, a schism within muslim community. Some deobandi scholars were not in favour of dividing muslims into three parts (India and two wings of Pakistan), hence opposed pakistan movement. However, most bareilvis supported jinnah and understood that if hindus and muslims cannot live together, the land should be divided to live in peace as two separate nations. So one can respect bareilvis much more for not harbouring ill intentions and accepting facts on the ground, whereas deobandis had plans to hold off partition until after british left, so large muslim minority can cause greater havoc, create civil war and possibly once again subjugate a fragmented hindu polity like past centuries.

i believe you need to read more, or may be, go to Uttar Pradesh and consult barelvi scholars in Moradabad.

Barelvis believed the British were more worthy of Muslim friendship than hindus of india because the British were Christians, or people of the Book, while hindus were pagans [ this is the terminology used ].

deobandis consider kabir, nanak, and sarmad as learned people too

Deobandis, despite being part of same Hanafi school of thought, considered sikhs and hindus as subhuman worthy of contempt and slaughter. Hence the movement by Syed Ahmad Shah Bareilvi to destroy Sikh kingdom of Punjab.(only native Punjabi kingdom since Raja Porus), and invitation given to Abdali to murder hindu villagers on his way to loot Delhi and back.

whereas deobandis had plans to hold off partition until after british left, so large muslim minority can cause greater havoc, create civil war and possibly once again subjugate a fragmented hindu polity like past centuries.

hindutva propaganda in the air

The interesting part from recent historical perspective is, we saw during final years of independence, a schism within muslim community. Some deobandi scholars were not in favour of dividing muslims into three parts (India and two wings of Pakistan), hence opposed pakistan movement. However, most bareilvis supported jinnah and understood that if hindus and muslims cannot live together, the land should be divided to live in peace as two separate nations. So one can respect bareilvis much more for not harbouring ill intentions and accepting facts on the ground

The top scholars of bareilvis were against the creation of Pakistan, and were solidly indian Muslims

This is an anti-Indian Muslim thread. It is quite shocking to me, that some (hindu) indians have no shame but come on a Pakistani forum and bash their own countrymen, the indian Muslims.

Here in this thread, we have an indian, who is doubting the intentions of his own countrymen, the indian Muslims. He used the words " a large minority " for the indian Muslims, and "i respect bareilvis" because "they took part in the violence against us there and then""

This indian has the mindset, that muslims are not to be trusted, that they are anti-indian, be they Bareilvi or Deobandi

 

[Zarvan]

Reading some other threads and history of independence movement, I have found that Deobandis were very extreme in their views towards what they consider outsiders (hindus/sikh/british). But bareilvis only considered britishers as outsiders and had more tolerant approach toward natives of India. One can say they respect the right of hindus and sikhs to worship their own saints, and even considered Guru Nanak, Sarmad or sant Kabir as learned people. Deobandis, despite being part of same Hanafi school of thought, considered sikhs and hindus as subhuman worthy of contempt and slaughter. Hence the movement by Syed Ahmad Shah Bareilvi to destroy Sikh kingdom of Punjab (only native Punjabi kingdom since Raja Porus), and invitation given to Abdali to murder hindu villagers on his way to loot Delhi and back.

The interesting part from recent historical perspective is, we saw during final years of independence, a schism within muslim community. Some deobandi scholars were not in favour of dividing muslims into three parts (India and two wings of Pakistan), hence opposed pakistan movement. However, most bareilvis supported jinnah and understood that if hindus and muslims cannot live together, the land should be divided to live in peace as two separate nations. So one can respect bareilvis much more for not harbouring ill intentions and accepting facts on the ground, whereas deobandis had plans to hold off partition until after british left, so large muslim minority can cause greater havoc, create civil war and possibly once again subjugate a fragmented hindu polity like past centuries.

@Azlan Haider @Sarhang @scorpionx

No sir for your information many now even Barelvis are involved in Jihad this is false concept that Barelvis don't believe in Jihad Sir in fact the next generation of Hazrat Sultan Bahu are one of the leaders of Jihad in Kashmir and against India and many others also died doing Jihad and India as long as you will keep messing with Muslims in Kashmir and India you will get only hate nothing else @Multani

 

[INDIC]

Reading some other threads and history of independence movement, I have found that Deobandis were very extreme in their views towards what they consider outsiders (hindus/sikh/british). But bareilvis only considered britishers as outsiders and had more tolerant approach toward natives of India. One can say they respect the right of hindus and sikhs to worship their own saints, and even considered Guru Nanak, Sarmad or sant Kabir as learned people. Deobandis, despite being part of same Hanafi school of thought, considered sikhs and hindus as subhuman worthy of contempt and slaughter. Hence the movement by Syed Ahmad Shah Bareilvi to destroy Sikh kingdom of Punjab (only native Punjabi kingdom since Raja Porus), and invitation given to Abdali to murder hindu villagers on his way to loot Delhi and back.

The interesting part from recent historical perspective is, we saw during final years of independence, a schism within muslim community. Some deobandi scholars were not in favour of dividing muslims into three parts (India and two wings of Pakistan), hence opposed pakistan movement. However, most bareilvis supported jinnah and understood that if hindus and muslims cannot live together, the land should be divided to live in peace as two separate nations. So one can respect bareilvis much more for not harbouring ill intentions and accepting facts on the ground, whereas deobandis had plans to hold off partition until after british left, so large muslim minority can cause greater havoc, create civil war and possibly once again subjugate a fragmented hindu polity like past centuries.

@Azlan Haider @Sarhang @scorpionx

Partition had more to with the different class interests in UP, Punjab and Bengal where religious difference was promoted to achieve this goal.

 

[INDIC]

The bloodshed was sad both sides blamed the other for starting it and unfortunately many people payed the price. I do no think any politician had that in mind and in fact everybody was supposed to stay put wherever they were but once migrations started it spiraled out of control.

I blame the British most of all because it was their divide and rule policy which led to hatred between communities which was historically never that big a deal.

Muslim League popularity rose as an antidote and fearmongering against Indian National Congress, so I believe Pakistan creation was best in India interest as they had no vision for either India or the land they were going to rule. It was seen just after independence when it showed great incompetance in first constituent assembly of Pakistan leading bureaucratic coup later on.

 

[Zaryanshah]

Many Barelvis even made takfeer of Allama Iqbal and Quaid e Azam. Read Maulana Elahi Zaheer's book on this.

 

[Jaggu]

in fact the next generation of Hazrat Sultan Bahu are one of the leaders of Jihad in Kashmir [/USER]

You mean a descendant of Sultan Bahu? what's his name?

 

[Multani]

Muslim League popularity rose as an antidote and fearmongering against Indian National Congress, so I believe Pakistan creation was best in India interest as they had no vision for either India or the land they were going to rule. It was seen just after independence when it showed great incompetance in first constituent assembly of Pakistan leading bureaucratic coup later on.

These are two good posts you have made.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

That word should be spelt Barelawii.

 

[WAR-rior]

I would thank you if it weren't for your avatar

This is what interested me, the more I read I came to understood that crap about Deobandis being puritanical Muslims by rejecting partition was just rubbish. Even though my grandparents went through havoc of partition and some had to travel all the way from chitral, I still respect bareilvis (which I believe majority of Punjabis are), because even if they took part in the violence against us there and then, at least they were honest about it... like "No we cannot live together, so please leave". Which I respect completely. Deobandis on the other hand had much more nefarious designs despite their more overtly pacifist actions of the time.

Also you're right, Bareilvi school of thought seems more comfortable and in tune with culture of South asia than deobandis which resemble salafists tbh.

Well, Barelvis are exact counterparts of RSS in India. Both have been very clear in their ideology and both supported 2 nation theory. Whereas, I doubt Deobandis in this regards. They are very similar to Congress ideology. Their 1st intent is to Rule and for that whatever is required wud be done.