15 thoughts on “Hafiz Mahmut”

1. What a ridiculous caricature of the Salafi ethos, this individual is supposed to be academic, yet academic goes all out of the window when it comes to talking about Salafis.
   Refer to [deleted].com for more about Salafism.

   • Uh…that wasn’t really a very specific critique was it? For example, what was ‘unacademic’? It does not appear that you watched it properly and instead reacted to the title by posting a comment designed solely to promote what appears to be an extremist and takfiri website. We have a policy of approving ALL comments, so I posted your one without the link to your website.

     The reason for this is not to be unfair to you, but because it seems that you did not watch the video and like many other Wahhabis/Mujassims, go through Google looking for sites and articles containing the word ‘Asharis’ and then post stuff on them thinking you will be rewarded by Allah each time you do this. In this I believe that you that you are mistaken.

     However, I am happy to re-insert the link to your website if you can show a proper critique of all or part of Hafiz Mahmut’s talk, thereby proving that you actually watched it instead of just trying to gratifying his page with your website.

2. I’ve been requesting contact with Mr Connors for some time now, but it seems that nobody is willing to put us in touch.

   I’d very much like to discuss the misrepresentations he made of my arguments, and also to put them to him properly so that he can answer them.

   If anyone has contact details for him. please do put us in touch with each other – therationaliser@gmail.com @TheRationaliser

   • Hmmm…from what I can see of the video he made exposing your, what may charitably be called ‘misunderstandings’ on ‘Youtube’, he offered you a debate, but demanded an academic setting, real names and biographies etc but there was no reply on the Youtube comments section…I am sure it (a dialogue or debate) can be arranged, but once again, academic audience and setting (mixed students or academics, not ISOCS or AthiestSOC secularSOC hooligans), recorded and real names and biographies.

     • Salam alaykum,

       I wonder what makes people (whether Muslims or non-Muslims) so confident to think that they can debate people on any given topic.

       From what I understand of the demeanor of the Mashaykh and ‘Ulamaa in general, they would only ‘debate’ (in the strict sense of the word) people of an equal status on their topic of expertise, not on any topic that may be raised.

       This is something everyone – Muslim and non-Muslim – must think about, that why are they reducing ‘debates on Islamic topics’ to the arena of non-specialists, thereby reducing the seriousness given Islamic studies.

3. Yes, very good point, but at the same time there is a contradiction here: if the ‘ulema’ have all of the questions and concerns covered, then why did the non-specialists find an audience? Do you really know many ulema that could debate Dawkins or even some of the lesser Islam-haters? We have to be realistic! By having rubbish ulema, they created an illness which their students are now stepping in to ‘cure’.

   A good example is the intellectually and morally degenerate Haitham Haddad and his student Hamza Tzortzis: rubbish scholar who dares not argue with Muslims or non-Muslims (any-more) so he sends his English speaking disciple to try and get his ideas across in a ‘politicly correct’ way.

   Most of the non-specialist speakers in the UK have scholars behind them…Hamza has Haddad, Nouman Ali Khan, Akram Nadwi/Deobandis backing him up fully, including his terrible ‘research’ projects…

   • These talks are insightful but are hard to follow at times due to 2 things:

     1 – The language barrier. Sheikh Hafiz’s English isn’t always great
     2 – Making a point by saying “this is silly”, or “this is stupid” without really explaining why. I guess this may again related to the first point.

     Also, the admin’s (I assume it’s the admin?) comments relating Deobandis to Salafis are somewhat unfounded. Deobandis are Hanafis, Ashari/Maturidi, practice Tasawwuf, and are just as Ahlu-Sunnah as anyone other orthodox Ahlu-Sunnah group. PS: I’m not from the sub-continent so have no emotional attachments to the whole Berawli-Deobandi debate.

     All in all Jazakullah for this post it is full of benefit.

     • Thank you so much, it really means a lot that people are watching critically to help us improve! Makes it worth while.

       As a former Deobandi seminarian myself, let me assure you that neither they nor their mortal enemies, the Brelwis, are ‘Hanafi’ or ‘Maturidi’ in the classical sense. These are labels they have employed and even people who should know better, like Sheikh Gibril Haddad, apply them to them. They do indeed THINK or claim they are following these systems but in fact only do so partially.

       This can be established if one looks at the books and syllabus of Deobandi madrassas: if they are Hanafi, why do they only teach Shafi mustalah or usool (principles) of hadith? It is well known that the differences between the madhabs are largely due to the differing approaches to hadith, from the rationalist Hanafis going through various levels in literalism and culminating in Hanbalism. The problem is that they do not take Hanafi madhab from the books of the authoritative sources of that madhab but rather from their chosen latter day scholars – in the case of Brelwis, Ahmad Ridha Khan, and in the case of Deoband those three or so scholars who set it up (Gangohi, Nanautawi etc). They do study many books of Hanafis but as I said, apply them usually only if they agree with the teachings of these guys, who are in fact their highest authorities. Their study of Aqeeda and Kalaam is shockingly rudimentary and they certainly do not follow a Hanafi approach to hadith.

       It does not mean that they are all bad, but they are basically influenced by Wahhabism, as was even tablighi jamaat unfortunately, in some cases their main scholars professed open admiration for Wahhabism, which is very contradictory as that is itself a professedly anti-Hanafi movement.

       So if for example Ashraf Ali Thanwi (one of their latter day authorities), says niqaab is waajib and Abu Hanfia says not, they go with Thanwi. But they are not honest about it and find some excuse to mislead the people. Further, none of their scholars are of the rank to disagree with the mujtahids of the Hanafi madhab, so why do it?

       Another way in which they and others cause confusion is by taking minority opinion in the Hanafi madhab (such as wearing red is haraam or music is haraam) and presenting that as ‘Hanafi madhab’ (likewise with them making a big fuss over the type of clothes to wear, length of beard etc) whereas the job of scholars is to present the main or ‘mautamat’ position of a school, just as a physicist should tell you about the widely accepted theories of gravity and not some wacky Star Trek idea that some physicist has had.

       The Deobandis were major recipients of Saudi funding (but not any more) and even had Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omer address a world ijtima in 2000. It is anecdotal evidence, but that the Saudis, who proscribe Hanafism at home, are sufficiently comfortable with the Deobanid ‘form’ of Hanafism to back it is illustrative.

       Like I said, I studied with them for some time; I would describe their method as ‘puritanical Hanafism’ or in between Wahhabis and Hanafis. Brelwis have their own problems. As for Maturidi aqeeda, they hardly study it. Read books like ‘Maraful Quraan’ and it is a hodge podge of everything from Hanafism to Asharism to Jabr to Ahl al Hadith. The head of Deobandism in the UK, hazrat of Dewsbury, even admitted that the school is now all over the place (at least in the UK). Many of their graduates, such as Zahir Mahmoud and Akram Nadwi, famous guys, openly support militant Wahhabi organisations like IERA and defend Wahhabism. But like I said, the Western historians have said along with other sects who antagonise them, that they are influenced by Wahhabism from inception. Th

       But it varies: in the UK, they are practically often Wahhabis, in South Africa, they are very anti-Wahhabi (such as Mufti Desai) and so on.

       Another big problem and illustration of their mindset is that the Taliban are largely from their madrassass, especially the early Taliban, whose excesses have now become clear. There was and is the Deobandi tutelage, intercession and support for the Taliban, on and off, the Deobandi ulema, through the political Pakistani party ‘Jamaati Ulema Islami’, have been the go-betweens between the Taliban and the Pakistani government. In my day, they used to openly tell us to go and join the Taliban and call Mullah Omar ‘Emir Ul Muqmineen’ (he never even claimed this), but this was before 9-11.

       So I see them as the doorway to Ahl al Hadith and Wahhabism. That’s how I felt, for when we were exposed to Wahhabi ideas at mosques and classes, the alims we followed did not care to or were able to refute them, so I started getting serious doubts about the attributes of Allah and so on. When I met some As’hari Syrian scholars, they took care of business and I realised that I thought I was a Hanafi but was actually a Deobandi cultist. Brelwis, and most other groups from the Sub-continent are much the same, cult-like.

4. i would really like an intellectual intercourse between Chuck and The Rationalizer that would help clear a lot of things in my mind on matters pertaining Faith Science and Logic or whatever suffices the parties involved .

5. how come the brother in the video does not have a beard?

6. Amir, how come you care so much about other men’s bodily hair?

7. yeh Amir – you got a fetish?

8. Salaam dear mmmclmru,

   I have just read your comments about the Deobandi. I was wandering if you could please clearify some issues like you did regarding the deobandis, regarding the brelvis. As i have a brelvi background but i cant find any one in my area who can give me answers.

   Thx!