The day before yesterday, in response to a question, I wrote an article entitled “The Deobandi School of Thought and the Coming of Imam Mahdi (ʿalayhi al-salām).” In that article, I cited the views of several distinguished figures associated with the Deobandi school of thought, particularly Shaykh al-Hind Mawlana Mahmud al-Hasan Deobandi’s renowned student and trusted confidant, the revolutionary leader Mawlana Ubaydullah Sindhi (raḥimahu Allah), Mr Qamar Ahmad Usmani—the son of the famous hadith scholar and jurist Mawlana Zafar Ahmad Usmani (raḥimahu Allah)—and ʿAllamah Habib al-Rahman Siddiqi Kandhlawi (raḥimahu Allah). Click Here To Follow Our WhatsApp Channel
From the writings of these personalities, it appears that they differed from the commonly accepted Deobandi interpretation regarding Imam Mahdi (ʿalayhi al-salām), or at the very least viewed the issue from a different perspective.
Following that article, I received numerous messages from scholars, students, and intellectuals. Their main objection was that the personalities I had cited had been declared “outside Deobandism” by certain Deobandi muftis; therefore, it was incorrect to present their opinions as part of the Deobandi school of thought.
At first, I regarded this objection as little more than an emotional reaction and chose to ignore it. However, when the same point continued to be repeated, it became clear that the real issue was not disagreement over Imam Mahdi (ʿalayhi al-salām), but a far more serious and fundamental question: What exactly does “expulsion from Deobandism” mean? What is its criterion? And who possesses the authority to make such a judgement?
The reality is that in our age, the capacity to tolerate disagreement within certain religious circles is steadily diminishing. There was a time when the weapon of takfīr was reserved for those considered outside the fold of Islam. Then the circle widened until it encompassed various groups among the people of the qiblah. Now it seems that some individuals have established an entirely new court in which the issue under consideration is not whether a person is Muslim, but whether he possesses valid sectarian citizenship.
Apparently, it is no longer sufficient for someone merely to be a Muslim; he must also prove that he is an “authorised” member of a particular school, and that his credentials of loyalty bear the seal of a select few individuals.
Anyone who studies Islamic history knows that the Muslim intellectual tradition was never founded upon uniformity but rather upon diversity. For centuries, profound disagreements existed in jurisprudence, hadith, Qur’anic exegesis, theology, spirituality, and philosophy. Yet despite these disagreements, scholarly affiliations remained intact.
Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad differed with Imam Abu Hanifah (raḥimahum Allah) on numerous fundamental issues, yet no one questioned their Hanafism. Imam al-Nawawi and Imam al-Rafiʿi disagreed, but both remained Shafiʿis. For centuries, scholarly debates continued within both the Ashʿari and Maturidi traditions, yet excluding someone from the school on that basis never became part of the scholarly heritage.
In reality, no intellectual school is merely a collection of rigid opinions. Rather, it is a living intellectual tradition. Living traditions resemble trees, not stones. A tree has one root but countless branches. Each branch grows at a different angle; each leaf sways in its own direction. Yet despite this diversity, the tree retains its unity.
If a gardener begins to think that every branch which does not grow in his preferred direction should be cut off, he is not preserving the tree but preparing its destruction.
Regrettably, in some circles, Deobandism is being presented not as a living scholarly tradition but as an ideological fortress, guarded at its gate by a few muftis acting as gatekeepers. Whoever agrees with every opinion they favour is considered inside; whoever differs on any issue is considered outside.
The question is: can any great intellectual tradition survive on such a principle? Has any school in the history of knowledge progressed by excluding its critics, independent thinkers, and those who exercised ijtihād?
If disagreement truly is the criterion for expulsion from Deobandism, then that standard should be applied consistently to every issue. The Deobandi elders themselves differed on the issue of photography. Different opinions existed regarding the use of loudspeakers. Within Deobandi scholarship there has been diversity regarding political participation, democracy, the nation-state, women’s education, modern media, and countless social and legal issues.
The participation of Indira Gandhi and her speech at the centenary gathering of Darul Uloom Deoband is a historical fact that can neither be denied nor forgotten. If listening to a woman’s speech is contrary to Deobandism, should the thousands of scholars who attended that gathering be declared outside Deobandism? If photography is the criterion, should all those scholars whose photographs appear in newspapers, journals, and social media be excluded? If certain political views are the criterion, should members of different parties and movements continually expel one another from Deobandism?
The outcome of such logic is extremely dangerous. It is a fire initially lit to burn the homes of others, but which eventually engulfs one’s own home as well. If this process of exclusion continues, the day is not far when every group will claim to be the “true Deobandis” while declaring everyone else deviant.
The result will be that a broad intellectual tradition becomes fragmented into dozens of small circles, each surrounded by walls so high that even air and light can scarcely enter.
The real question is not what opinion Mawlana Ubaydullah Sindhi, Mr Qamar Ahmad Usmani, or ʿAllamah Habib al-Rahman Kandhlawi adopted on a particular issue. The real question is whether an intellectual tradition possesses room for disagreement or not.
If it does, then the views of these figures cannot simply be dismissed because certain contemporary muftis disagree with them. If it does not, then it would be more accurate to describe Deoband not as an intellectual tradition but as an ideological barracks, where obedience is valued over inquiry and unquestioning imitation over reasoned argument.
It should also not be forgotten that Deoband is fundamentally the name of an educational institution and an intellectual tradition. It is not an organised church possessing official certificates of inclusion and exclusion. A graduate of Darul Uloom Deoband, or a scholar connected to the intellectual legacy of the Deobandi elders, may disagree with his contemporaries on many issues.
Just as scholars of al-Azhar may hold differing opinions while still being called Azharis, Deobandi scholars may likewise remain Deobandi despite disagreements. Scholarly affiliations are established not by fatwas, but by history, education, tradition, and intellectual continuity.
Difference of opinion is not the enemy of knowledge; it is its very spirit. In a society where the courage to ask questions disappears, research dies. And where research dies, only reverence remains—not knowledge.
A graveyard is perfectly silent. There is no disagreement, no debate, and no questions. Yet such silence is not called life. The sign of life is movement, and the sign of movement is disagreement.
For this reason, every great intellectual tradition in history sought not to suppress disagreement but to regulate it, refine it, and transform it into a means of intellectual development.
My humble request is simply this: do not make disagreement into a crime, and do not make sectarian affiliation dependent upon the approval of a handful of individuals.
Those who insist on declaring every dissenting voice outside Deobandism should pause for a moment and ask themselves whether they are truly protecting Deoband or undermining its very foundations.
History teaches us that great traditions survive through breadth and perish through narrow-mindedness. The ocean is great because it absorbs countless rivers into itself. If it were to reject every stream that flowed toward it, it would eventually become nothing more than a dry pit.
The true strength of Deoband has always lain in its intellectual courage, breadth of vision, spirit of inquiry, and tradition of tolerating disagreement. If that tradition is to be preserved, then an atmosphere of dialogue must be fostered in place of declarations of exclusion; reasoned argument must be promoted instead of accusations; and sectarian identity must be viewed within the broad historical framework that made Deoband one of the most influential intellectual traditions of the Indian subcontinent.
Otherwise, it is not unreasonable to fear that tomorrow the very people who today are expelling others from Deobandism will begin expelling one another as well. And then the question that will remain is this:
Who, in the end, will be left in Deoband as a Deobandi?
You Might Also Like:
Why JDF is Demanding a Completely Alcohol-Free Jammu and Kashmir ?
Why West Bengal is Boiling Right Now ? What is Behind the Sudden Political Shockwave?
Shibli Nomani’s Aesthetic Vision: The Scholar Who Taught Urdu Literature How to Feel Beauty