بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ
اَلْجَوَابُ حَامِداً وَّمُصَلِّياً
اَلسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَةُ اللهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ
Reference: 1446-0305
Our response to your query dated 23/03/1446 – 27/09/2024 with regard to Maulana Saad is as follows:
First and foremost, we would like to mention what a great means of guidance and what a blessing the effort of Tabligh has been for the Ummah ever since Maulana Ilyas (RA) was inspired to start the work. It has been a means of spiritual rejuvenation for so many and the catalyst for creating many Ulema. How many individuals changed their lives by the knock of the door. Thus, any disunity, bloodshed or deviation that befalls the beautiful effort of Tabligh is extremely saddening and causes a great deal of pain. We make Dua that Allah (azza wa jall) unites both sides on Haqq/truth and creates the love and brotherhood that there once was.
Secondly, due to the widespread concerns and number of inquiries we were compelled to research, investigate and subsequently respond to the issues pertaining to Maulana Saad.
Our research/answer comprises of 10 sections:
- Inappropriate statements against Ambiyaa (AS) and Sahabah (RA)
- The need to be selective, precautious, careful and wise about what is said in lectures and what is presented to the common people
- Additional problems and issues with Maulana Saad
- The problematic ideology and habits are spreading
- Rujoo / retractions
- The difference between Maulana Saad and the elders of Tabligh
- A matter of truth and falsehood, understanding the gravity of the issue, the duty to speak out
- Answers to certain objections
- Guidelines and Masaail
- Conclusion
Section 1: Inappropriate Statements Against Ambiyaa and Sahabah
We would like to begin in the same way Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Ludhyanwi (RA) began [i], when he immensely benefitted the Ummah with his refutation of Maulana Mawdoody, a Fitnah which holds resemblance with the Fitnah we are dealing with today:
Although we admit and attest to the good qualities, ability and positive work that has been carried out by Maulana Saad, there are many matters in which we differ with him and there are many significant and problematic issues that must be pointed out to preserve the Deen and spiritual well-being of the Ummah.
Furthermore, Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) pointed out that the sharpness, effectiveness, power and wittiness of the pen of Maulana Mawdoody, which is considered to be his biggest strength, is possibly his biggest liability, most dangerous attribute and the cause for his downfall. Likewise, the sharpness, effectiveness, power and uncontrollable nature of the tongue/speech of Maulana Saad, which is considered to be his biggest strength, is possibly his biggest liability, most dangerous attribute and the cause for his downfall.
Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) continues that the audacity with which Maulana Mawdoody criticises his contemporaries, with the same audacity and boldness he criticises the pious predecessors. Similarly, Maulana Saad also possesses similar audacity, with which he criticises and makes inappropriate statements about Sahabah (RA) and Ambiyaa (AS) (as will be discussed ahead in detail).
This principle they share that no one is free from criticism will become evident ahead. Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) mentions that Maulana Mawdoody himself writes (Pg 163):
رسول خدا کے سوا کسی انسان کو معیار حق نہ بنائے کسی کو تنقید سے بالاتر نہ سمجھے
“Do not make anyone other than the Messenger of Allah the yardstick/standard of truth, and do not consider anyone above criticism.”
The reality behind this shared principle will become evident throughout, as a number of both their statements will be listed ahead gradually. Alongside that, the following also further supports this habit of criticizing (the Ulema of the time), based on their own understanding:
Darul Uloom Deoband mention that the following statements are found constantly in Maulana Saad‘s lectures:
“Then, in the speaker’s lectures, phrases like ‘one mistaken idea is also that’, ‘In this era, people have misunderstood’, ‘This is a global misconception’, ‘This is a collective mistake of all’, ‘This is completely a false notion’ are frequently found. It seems as though he is offering unrestrained criticism in his lectures. Clearly, when someone criticizes despite his incompetency in knowledge, his Mansha is that he feels a sense of superiority in regards to his own knowledge and understanding. Therefore, when he says that on a global level/scale Dawah and Taleem have deviated from the Sunnah, he is implicitly claiming that he understands the prophetic method of Dawah and Taleem better than the rightly guided scholars of his time.” [ii]
Similarly, Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) mentions this statement of Maulana Mawdoody (Pg 181):
“Understanding of religion or self-opinion? … ‘I am not dependent/in need of looking to small or big scholars to understand my religion; rather, I can determine the principles of religion from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. I can also investigate whether those who are considered the flagbearers of religion in this country are adopting the correct path in a particular issue or not. Therefore, I feel compelled to consider whatever I find to be the truth from the Qur’an and Sunnah as the truth, and to express it as well.'”
Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) continues that when Maulana Mawdoody lifts his pen to write against the deviations and falsehood of the time, then it seems like the Sheikhul Hadeeth of Darul Uloom Deoband is writing. However, when he begins taking out the faults of the people of Haqq, it seems like he has snatched the pen of Mister Parvayz or Gulam Ahmad Qadiani. In the same way, when Maulana Saad speaks about the importance of Imaan, it seems like the Mujaddid of Dawah is speaking. However, when he begins making inappropriate statements about Ambiyaa (AS) and Sahabah (RA), it seems like he has snatched the tongue of Maulana Mawdoody.
Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) continues further that you know well how delicate and sensitive the position of prophethood and Nubuwwah is. It is not acceptable to express oneself regarding any Nabi in such a manner which is not befitting of their lofty status. The beautiful example of Nabi (SAW) is in front of us! Take a look at all the Ahaadith! You will not find a single word which stains the status of any Nabi in the slightest / which even puts the slightest blemish on the standing of any Nabi. However, the pen of Maulana Mawdoody reaches the sacred domain of prophethood unacquainted with the level of required respect. He then goes on to list a number of inappropriate statements made by Maulana Mawdoody against the Ambiyaa (AS) and Sahaabah (RA), which we will gradually mention.
Similarly, the most troublesome issue is that we have found is that Maulana Saad has made inappropriate statements about the Ambiyaa (AS) and Sahaaba (RA), at times to support his leadership of Tabligh, and at times to show the importance of Dawah, which is a direct result of his Ghuloo/extremism.
Darul Uloom Deoband mentioned in their 2023 Fatwa:
“From the details provided, it is evident that the specific individual ponders into the incidents of the Quran, Hadith and Sahaaba with a specific mindset and subsequently attempts to extract his wrong conclusions. This is the reason why sometimes his manner of expression puts the prophets in an unworthy position. While narrating incidents he tends to create such additions which are not established and he has adopted such a dangerous path which is against the lofty rank of a Nabi. The stories are narrated in such a way that it seems as though he is pointing out the mistakes of a Nabi and he wants to give a message that on this occasion there has been a mistake carried out by a Nabi, the Nabi should not be followed and one should not do as he did”. They then went on to refute his statement regarding Sulaiman (AS). [iii]
It must be kept in mind that it is of fundamental importance to ensure that our beliefs are correct and according to the Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah (who represent the true legacy of Nubuwwah). Part of the beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah is that we must revere the Ambiyaa (AS) and Sahabah (RA) at all times, mentioning them only with admiration and good faith. One should abstain from mentioning anything which is not befitting of their noble status. It is detrimental to the Iman of the people to leave inappropriate thoughts lingering in their minds regarding the Ambiyaa (AS) and Sahaaba (RA). Maulana Saad has opened a door of great Fitnah. His statements could lead to people speaking freely, criticising and being disrespectful about the Ambiyaa (AS) and Sahabah (RA), whereas up until now they were considered as untouchable. A few examples will be mentioned below:
Example: Sulaiman (AS)
Maulana Saad mentioned regarding Sulaiman (AS): “Disbelievers are those who are impressed with the creations and the Muslims are those who are impressed with the Creator. Creations are there for us to recognize the creator. That time was the time to remember Allah but he got preoccupied by looking at them (horses) and Asr Salah became Qadha”. [iv]
To express the incident of Sulaiman (AS) in the manner mentioned above, whereby the traits of the disbelievers was mentioned right before, subsequently leaves a lingering thought in the minds of the masses that a Nabi of Allah was also guilty of possessing a trait of a disbeliever (being impressed with the creation). Darul Uloom Deoband also heavily criticized and responded well to this statement of Maulana Saad in their latest fatwa against Maulana Saad in 2023. [v] Compare this with the following statement of Maulana Mawdoody, which Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) mentioned (Pg 150):
حضرت داؤد علیہ السلام نے اپنے عہد کی اسرائیلی سوسائٹی کے عام رواج سے متاثر ہو کر اوریاہ سے طلاق کی درخواست کی تھی
“Hazrat Dawud (AS) had requested a divorce from Uriah, influenced by the common customs of the Israeli society of his time.”
Just as Maulana Mawdoody inappropriately stated that Dawood (AS) was affected with the circulating norm in his society, Maulana Saad indicated that Sulaiman (AS) was affected by the creation, which further outlines their shared principle that no one is free from criticism, whether it is Ambiyaa (AS) or Sahaaba (RA).
Example: The Walima (Aurangabad Ijtimaa, India, February 2018)
During the Aurangabad Ijtimaa, India, in February 2018, Maulana Saad talked about the need to not be wasteful in Walimas [vi]:
“Avoid extravagance in weddings! Avoid extravagance in weddings! The more extravagant, the more difficulties and inconvenience there will be. In all of his weddings, the Holy Prophet (SAW) sometimes fed cheese, sometimes distributed dates, and sometimes scattered dry dates. He said: Eat the Walima of your mother. Today, if someone brings dry dates to a Walima, no one will accept it / believe it to be a Walima, no one will accept it / believe it to be a Walima, even though it is the exact / actual Sunnah, it is the exact / actual Sunnah. Not just one marriage, but all marriages were like this. All, except for the marriage of Hazrat Zainab (RA). In that wedding, the Prophet (SAW) arranged meat and Roti. Hazrat Zainab (RA) used to be proud that meat and Roti were arranged in her wedding. Subhanallah, yet because of this marriage that was different (extravagant) from his usual practice, he had to face difficulty due to this. It is Ajeeb that in the Nikah where Nabi (SAW) went against his normal habit, he endured some difficulty. We should ponder, reflect and take heed that due to Nabi (SAW) feeding meat and Roti, those who attended the Walima delayed in leaving and this caused Nabi (SAW) some difficulty. Now let us assess how much further and extravagant have we gone from the Sunnah of feeding meat and Roti in our Walimas. Today the difficulties we are suffering (due to our extravagance) is that we are faced with inconveniences, difficulties, debts, interest, delaying of marriages. How many types of difficulties we are faced with?! If Nabi (SAW) suffered due to feeding meat and Roti, then we have to ask ourselves how much further we have gone from this Sunnah.”
First and foremost, we would like to praise Maulana Saad for touching on a very important topic, which should be encouraged especially in this day and age, which is to avoid extravagance in weddings. However, as sad as it is, Maulana has overstepped the bounds whilst speaking about his praiseworthy theme.
So, the second example is that Maulana Saad mentioned during a Nikah Bayan that the amount of difficulty one faces is directly proportional to the level of extravagance they engage in. Thereafter, Maulana mentioned that we should ponder about the fact that Nabi (SAW) faced difficulty in the Walima in which he moved away from his general practise (of feeding dates/cheese to feeding meat and Roti), which indicates and leaves a thought in the minds of the people that the messenger of Allah (SAW) is guilty of some form of extravagance (Israaf), which is troublesome, especially considering other verses of the Honourable Quran:
إِنَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُسْرِفِينَ ٣١ [الأعراف: ٣١]
“Indeed, Allah does not like those who waste / who exceed the bounds / who are extravagant.”
In the 19th Juz of the Quran, Allah (azza wa jall) mentions the qualities of his close and beloved bondsmen. Allah mentions that one quality of the bondsmen of Allah is that when they spend, they don’t waste and are not extravagant:
وَالَّذِينَ إِذَا أَنفَقُوا لَمْ يُسْرِفُوا ٦٧ … [الفرقان: ٦٧]
“And those who, when they spend, are not extravagant / do not waste or exceed the bounds … “
As well as this, Maulana Saad‘s assertion that the discomfort Nabi (SAW) experienced due to the Sahabah (RA) lingering behind and engaging in conversations was a direct result of him turning away from his usual practice of serving simple food is unfounded and unsubstantiated, which again illustrates that the leader of Ambiyaa, Rasulullah (SAW) also is not free from the criticism of Maulana Saad. Over 30 Tafaasir were checked and not one even hinted towards the claim of Maulana Saad, which suggests he could be guilty of Tafseer birrai (Tafseer by conjecture), despite his incompetency.
[A list of over 30 Tafaaseer that were checked is provided in the original document, including: Bayaan al-Qur’an 3/63, Ma’aariful Qur’an 6/323 & 7/199, Tafseer Uthmani 2/752, Mawaahib ar-Rahmaan 7/84, Rooh al-Ma’aani 22/70, Zaad al-Maseer 6/412, ad-Durr al-Manthoor 6/640, Tafseer al-Baydaawi p.562, Tafseer Abi Su’ood 7/112, at-Tafseer al-Kabeer 13/226, Tafseer an-Nasafi 3/627, Ta’weelaat Ahl as-Sunnah 8/407, at-Tafseer al-Mazhari, Tafseer Abd ar-Razzaq 3/49, Tafseer an-Nasaa’i 2/185, Tafseer al-Baghawi 3/540, Tafseer as-Samarqandi 3/58, Tafseer ibn Kamaal Baasha 8/275, Safwat at-Tafaaseer 2/846, Mawsoo’at at-Tafseer al-Ma’thoor 18/90, Tafseer Rooh al-Bayaan 7/214, Fath al-Qadeer 4/296, al-Waseet 3/479, al-Ikleel 6/100, al-Hidaayah ila Buloogh an-Nihaayah 9/5863, Haashiyat al-Qoonawi 15/406, Jaami’ al-Bayaan 12/38, al-Kashshaaf 7/84, al-Kashf wal-Bayaan 5/127, Tafseer al-Bahr al-Muheet 7/245, Lubaab at-Ta’weel 7/233, al-Bahr al-Madeed 6/49, Nazm ad-Durar 6/126, Aysar at-Tafaaseer 4/286, al-Muqtataf min ‘Uyoon at-Tafseer 2/276.]
Now compare this with the following statement of Maulana Mawdoody regarding Nabi (SAW) [vii]:
نبی کریم حضرت محمد صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کے بارے میں لکھتے ہیں یہ پانچویں آیت (سورۃ اذا جاء نصر اللہ الخ) میں نبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم سے اس موقعہ پر خطاب کیا گیا ہے کہ جب کہ ۲۳ سال کی مسلسل جدوجہد سے عرب میں انقلاب کی تکمیل ہو چکی ہے … کہ اس ذات اللہ سے درخواست کرو کہ مالک اس ۲۳ سال کے زمانہ خدمت میں جو خامیاں اور کوتاہیاں مجھ سے سرزد ہوئی ہوں انہیں معاف فرما دے
“It is written about the noble messenger Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) that in the fifth Verse (Surah An-Nasr, ‘When the help of Allah comes …’) the messenger (SAW) is addressed at a time when, after 23 years of continuous struggle, the revolution in Arabia had been completed. Thus, when the task that Muhammad (SAW) had been commissioned with had reached its completion, he is being told to request/pray to Allah, saying, ‘O Master, forgive me for any shortcomings and deficiencies that occurred in fulfilling my duties during these 23 years of service.'”
In addition to the commentary made by Maulana Mawdoody being from his own side, his greatest misguidance is that he is portraying the possible occurrence of shortcomings and negligence regarding the religious duties of Nabi (SAW). Likewise, as mentioned above, in addition to the interpretation of Maulana Saad being from his own side, his greatest misguidance is that he is portraying the possible occurrence of shortcomings from the leader of Ambiyaa (SAW).
This is simply one example where Maulana Saad is possibly guilty of Tafseer Birrai or incorrect commentary of Quran. The messenger of Allah (SAW) is reported to have said:
مَنْ قَالَ فِي الْقُرْآنِ بِرَأْيِهِ فَلْيَتَبَوَّأْ مَقْعَدَهُ مِنَ النَّارِ (مشكاة ص ٦٨)
“Whoever speaks about the Quran based on their own opinion, let them take their seat in the Fire.”
مَنْ قَالَ فِي الْقُرْآنِ بِرَأْيِهِ فَأَصَابَ فَقَدْ أَخْطَأَ (مشكاة ص ٦٨)
“Whoever speaks about the Quran based on their own opinion and is correct, they have still erred.”
Mulla Ali Qari (RA) mentions the following commentary of Ibne Hajar (RA) in Mirqaat (1/310): “He has erred from the straight path by engaging in speculation and conjecture in the Book of Allah, due to his transgression in this regard alongside his failure to meet its required conditions. Therefore, he is considered sinful for it in all cases, and his (coincidental) alignment with the truth is not regarded …, unlike the one who has mastered/perfected the tools of Tafsir, which are fifteen sciences.”
Example: Moosa (AS)
On one occasion Maulana Saad said:
“Missing/leaving Dawah is a definitive and certain cause of the deviation of this Ummah. Missing/leaving Dawah is a definitive and certain cause of the deviation of this Ummah. Missing/leaving Dawah is a definitive and certain cause of the deviation of this Ummah. The Ulama have written that if Dawah towards Allah is left out, then it is a cause of deviation. In fact, Mufassireen have written to this extent that Moosa (AS) left his people behind and occupied himself in worship alone to please Allah. The rest of the people were left behind. Allah then asked him:
﴿ وَمَا أَعْجَلَكَ عَنْ قَوْمِكَ يَا مُوسَى ٨٣ ﴾ [طه: ٨٣]
“O Moosa what has made you hasten ahead of your people?” So Moosa (AS) then said: They have been left behind. I went ahead so that you may be pleased, O my Rabb. Listen carefully to what I am saying. Allah said: We have tested/tempted your people after you (had left). The Ulama write that the reason for this was that instead of Moosa (AS) coming with his people, he left his people and came. Moosa (AS) spent 40 days in worship. 600000 of Bani Israail who were all on guidance, from them 588000 became misguided in the short period of 40 nights. Moosa (AS) just left Dawah for 40 days. So, according to my understanding, I am saying that Moosa (AS) only left the action of Dawah for 40 days, for 40 days Moosa (AS) was busy in worship and in the duration of 40 nights 588000 from amongst Bani Israail, all of them got together and started worshipping the calf.” (The problematic part is mainly the last 3 lines) [viii]
“Musa (AS) left his people and group and went into seclusion to converse with Allah, through which 588,000 individuals from the Bani Israail became misguided. Musa (AS) was the Asl, he was responsible and the Asl should stay (The primary/original responsibility was on Musa (AS) thus, he should have stayed). Harun (AS) was (simply) an assistant and partner.” [ix]
It is unfathomable that an elder of Tabligh can make such disparaging remarks about the Ambiyaa (AS). This is another clear example of a completely wrong Tafseer which is based on his own narrow-minded and questionable understanding of Deen (and is a direct result of his Ghuloo), which is implied by his very own words: “I am saying according to my understanding…”.
His followers have attempted to justify his remarks by quoting a number of Tafseers. After checking the Tafseers they quoted, it is clear that there is a difference between the Tafseer given by Maulana Saad and the Tafaasir being quoted by his supporters. The Tafaasir they have quoted do not support the statement of Maulana Saad, as they mention the word “عجلة” which in itself suggest that going to Mount Toor was a command of Allah (azza wa jall) and the right thing to do, with the point of discussion being the haste. However, Maulana Saad insinuated that Moosa (AS) should not have gone to Mount Toor or busied himself in worship. Instead, he should have stayed back giving Dawah, as the leaving of Dawah was the cause of the misguidance of the people, when in reality he was instructed by Allah (azza wa jall) to go to the mountain for forty days! Is Maulana Saad attempting to raise objections on a command and instruction given by Allah (azza wa jall)?! Maulana’s statement simply outlines Musa’s (AS) deficiency with regard to his religious duties of conveying and Dawah, which cannot be said. Keep in mind the following texts:
وَكَذَلِكَ لَا خِلَافَ أَنَّهُمْ مَعْصُومُونَ مِنْ كِتْمَانِ الرِّسَالَةِ وَالتَّقْصِيرِ فِي التَّبْلِيغِ (الشفا للقاضي عياض ٢/ ١٤٤)
“And similarly, there is no difference of opinion that they are infallible from concealing the message and from any shortcoming in conveying it.”
وَيَجِبُ لَهُمْ أَيْضًا أَنَّهُمْ بَلَّغُوا كُلَّ مَا أَمَرَهُمُ الْمَوْلَى سُبْحَانَهُ وَلَمْ يَتْرُكُوا شَيْئًا مِنْهُ لَا نِسْيَانًا وَلَا عَمْدًا فَأَمَّا عَمْدًا فَلِمَا سَبَقَ فِي الْأَمَانَةِ وَأَمَّا نِسْيَانًا فَلِلْإِجْمَاعِ (شرح صغرى الصغرى ص ١٩٢)
“It is also necessary for the Ambiyaa to have conveyed everything that Allah has ordered them to convey, and they have not left anything of it, not forgetfully or intentionally. As for doing so intentionally, that is because of what has passed before regarding Amanah. As for doing so forgetfully, then it is because of consensus.”
Mufti Shafee mentions in Maariful Quran (4/571): “But there is no difference of opinion of any individual of any group that none of the Ambiyaa (AS) can be deficient in their religious obligations of prophethood / conveying the message.”
Although Maulana Saad has retracted this statement (the details regarding the retractions will be discussed ahead) and, thankfully, has not repeated it for a while, the content says a lot about his train of thought and the direction in which he is taking his followers. He is taking them towards Ghuloo (exceeding the bounds) and Tafseer Bi Ray (Tafseer by conjecture), with a lack of regard for the sanctity of the Ambiyaa (AS) in the process.
The biggest proof that it is a completely wrong Tafseer and that his followers are unjustly and incorrectly trying to justify the statement is that Maulana Saad himself mentioned in his final retractions that what he mentioned regarding Moosa (AS) was wrong/incorrect (not Marjooh), he will abstain from mentioning it in the future and that people should not support or try to justify this statement of his.
Maulana Saad in one his final retractions regarding the incident of Musa (AS):
“The incident of Musa (AS), particularly his engagement in individual worship, has been mentioned in various statements on different occasions. Any statement that suggests even the slightest mistake regarding the honour, infallibility of the Prophets (AS) or their work should always be avoided. In this incident, because our minds definitely go to the fact that (May Allah Protect us) the misguidance was due to this action of Hazrat Musa (AS), this incident should not be stated in the future nor should an attempt be made to support this error. Rather, caution and avoidance should be exercised in relation to such things. There is no doubt about this … Furthermore, making an attempt to support or prove this statement (of mine) is also wrong. What is wrong is wrong … ” [x] (further details, realities and insights regarding the retractions and references/quotations will be mentioned ahead under section 5).
Thankfully, Maulana finally understood the gravity and baffling nature of his insinuation of attributing the causation of the misguidance to Moosa (AS), which further highlights his incompetency in regards to Usool ul Fiqh (keep in mind the discussion of an I’llah, Sabab, Shart, Mani’). This incompetency many a times leads to wayward conclusions as Deoband also highlighted in their latest Fatwa [xi]. Also, the attempted attribution is debunked by the following text in Tafseer e Qurtubi (11/233):
(وَأَضَلَّهُمُ السَّامِرِيُّ) أَيْ دَعَاهُمْ إِلَى الضَّلَالَةِ أَوْ هُوَ سَبَبُهَا
وقال ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: كَانَ الله عَالِمًا وَلَكِنْ قَالَ: وَمَا أَعْجَلَكَ عَنْ قَوْمِكَ رَحْمَةً لِمُوسَى، وَإِكْرَامًا لَهُ بِهَذَا الْقَوْلِ، وَتَسْكِينًا لِقَلْبِهِ، وَوِرَقَّةً عَلَيْهِ (تفسير القرطبي ١١/ ٢٣٣)
“Ibn Abbas (RA) said: Allah is All-Knowing, but still said, ‘What made you hurry away from your people?’ as an act of mercy for Musa (AS), to honour him with this statement, to calm his heart and show compassion towards him.”
In addition to the above, even if the Tafaasir supported Maulana Saad‘s statement for argument’s sake or hypothetically speaking, the failure to understand the need to be selective in what one presents to the common people (which will be discussed ahead in detail) is worrying.
Compare this the above with the following statement of Maulana Mawdoody which Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) mentions (Pg 150), which is also regarding Moosa (AS) and regarding the very same verse:
موسیٰ علیہ السلام کی مثال اس جلد باز فاتح کی سی ہے جو اپنے اقتدار کو استحکام کے بغیر مارچ کرتا ہوا اچلا جائے اور پیچھے جنگل کی آگ کی طرح مفتوحہ علاقے میں بغاوت پھیل جائے
“The example of Moosa (AS) is like that of a hasty conqueror who marches away without stabilizing his rule, and behind him, in the conquered territories, rebellion spreads like a wildfire.”
The above was a small portion of the entire statement. The entire statement spans over 5 pages. Maulana Ludhyanwi mentions it between pages 285 and 290. We request the respectable reader to read the entire statement to see the further similarity between this and the statements of Maulana Saad regarding Moosa (AS) and Yusuf (AS) (which will be mentioned ahead).
Example: Yusuf (AS)
On one occasion Maulana Saad said:
“Yusuf (AS) was undergoing severe conditions and very difficult circumstances. He was (wrongly) accused from the house of the Azeez of Misr and there were really severe conditions and circumstances. But Allah (azza wa jall) wants to see two things from a someone who gives Dawah. One is that he wants to see whether or not he will leave giving Dawah due to becoming affected by the conditions around him. One is that Allah (azza wa jall) wants to see is whether the Ambiyaa (AS) become so troubled by the conditions around them that they begin to seek help from other than Allah (azza wa jall). The other/second thing Allah wants to see is whether or not they will leave giving Dawah due to becoming affected by the conditions around them.
Another thing is that Yusuf (AS) then interpreted their dreams for them and the thought came that one of them will be freed from jail, will gain honour, become absolved and go by the king. Thus, he thought of sending a message to the king. Listen carefully, that Yusuf (AS) was in jail for a very long time, his case could be pondered about and he could be freed from jail. Shaytan made Yusuf (AS) forget about the remembrance of Allah (azza wa jall). Shaytan made Yusuf (AS) forget about the remembrance of Allah (azza wa jall). Shaytan made Yusuf (AS) forget about the remembrance of Allah (azza wa jall), that why didn’t Yusuf (AS) turn to us/ask us about leaving from jail?
Two things are extremely important for someone who gives Dawah and invites to Allah (azza wa jall). It is extremely important that when any obstacle comes in his way, then he, regarding his condition/obstacle, resorts to the one with whose message he has been sent with. In the real world, if a worker, who is of the lowest of the low, is sent to do a very minor job, if any obstacle comes in the way of his work or he faces any difficulty, he will resort and get in contact with his manager (the person that sent him for the work). He will get in contact with him that let me know what I should do? I’m facing a difficulty/obstacle, what shall I do? Yusuf (AS) said to the one who was going to be freed from jail:
اذْكُرْنِي عِندَ رَبِّكَ [يوسف: ٤٢]
“Mention me by the king”
فَأَنسَاهُ الشَّيْطَانُ ذِكْرَ رَبِّهِ [يوسف: ٤٢]
“Shaytan made Yusuf (AS) forget about the remembrance of his Rabb.”
Thereafter, Yusuf (AS) remained in jail for a while.” [xii]
There are two matters we would like to discuss here. One is the Tafseer of the verses mentioned above and the other is the inappropriate way Maulana Saad expressed himself prior to the Tafseer, which is not befitting of the high and noble ranking of the Ambiyaa (AS).
Firstly, we will start with the inappropriate way Maulana Saad expressed himself. It goes without saying that such verses and fine, sensitive and delicate discussions regarding Ambiyaa (AS) (whether it’s regarding the incident of Sulaiman (AS) in Surah Saaffat or Musa (AS) in Surah Taha or Yusuf (AS) which is being currently discussed), should not be unnecessarily discussed in public. However, this point of being selective in what is presented to Awaam in lectures will be discussed shortly, under the next problematic issue with Maulana Saad with further detail. Anyway, even in the case where such matters are discussed (out of need or some wisdom/benefit), one should follow the style and way of our pious predecessors. Take a look at the precaution exercised by our elders in discussing such matters in their books (We will provide the Hawala of Mufti Shafee (RA) discussing the incident of Yunus (AS), as he refutes the inappropriate statement of Maulana Mawdoody regarding Yunus (AS), which will be mentioned ahead to again show further similarity between the two of them). After reading such delicate matters and incidents in their books, their precise and careful choice of words and expression only increases the honour of Ambiyaa (AS) that one has and only fortifies their sanctity as oppose to the irresponsible nature of expression of Maulana Saad in front of a crowd, the majority of which consists of Awaam, when he delves into such matters unnecessarily and inappropriately!
We advise the respectable reader to read from page 569-577 Volume 4 of Maariful Quran (Surah Yunus Ayah 92-98). We didn’t bring the entire text as it spans over 8 pages. After taking a look at the words of Mufti Shafee (RA) (and other pious predecessors) and keeping it in mind, we would like to pose a question that was it appropriate of Maulana Saad to express himself the way he did, to simply show the importance of Dawah, which does nothing but further put a Nabi in a bad light? Isn’t there enough ways, numerous verses and narrations to prove the importance of Dawah or ordering people to do good and forbidding them from evil?
Now we will turn our attention to the Tafseer. After studying the books and proofs of the followers of Maulana Saad, they mention that this Tafseer is mentioned in the books, in order to justify the words of Maulana Saad. However, after conducting further research, we concluded that what Maulana Saad and his followers mention, is possibly a Marjooh Tafseer. The Raajih (preferred) Tafseer is the following:
Whilst Yusuf (AS) was in jail, two other prisoners asked him to interpret their dreams. So, Yusuf (AS) interpreted their dreams. He informed one of them that he will be saved and will get freedom whereas he informed the other of the opposite. Yusuf (AS) then mentioned to the one that he thought will be free, that make mention of me by the king. Thereafter, Shaytan made the ex-prisoner forget to make mention of Yusuf (AS) to the king. This is the correct and more appropriate Tafseer.
Below we will mention books of Tafseer which suggest that the Tafseer Maulana Saad and his followers are pushing for is a Marjooh Tafseer:
قال بعض أهل التأويل: إن يوسف لما فزع إلى غير الله وطلب إخراجه من السجن من الملك أنساه الله حين رجا غير ربه … (تأويلات أهل السنة للماتريدي ٦/ ٢٤٢)
The author clearly mentions that the Tafseer (which Maulana Saad and his followers mention) is farfetched and that there isn’t a possibility that Yusuf (AS) resorted and turned to other than Allah (azza wa jall).
وقوله تعالى: {فَأَنسَاهُ الشَّيْطَانُ ذِكْرَ رَبِّهِ}: قيل: فأنسى الشيطان يوسف أن يذكر الله رب جلاله في سؤال هذا الخلاص، ورجاه من عند الملك. وهو بعيدٌ من حال الأنبياء. والصَّحيحُ قَوْلُ الجمهور: فأنسى الشيطان الساقي ذِكْرَ حاله للمَلِكِ … (التفسير للنسفي ٨/ ٣٩٩)
This author also clearly mentions that the Tafseer (mentioned by Maulana Saad and his followers) is farfetched considering the condition and ranking of the Ambiyaa (AS). Thereafter he goes on to mention that the correct opinion (which is the view of the majority) is the other Tafseer.
فأنساه من تعود إلى من قولان: أحدهما: إنها ترجع إلى الساقي وهو قول عامة المفسرين والمعنى فأنسى الشيطان الساقي ذكر يوسف عند الملك … (تفسير الخازن ٢/ ٥٣٠)
This author explains that although there are two possibilities regarding the explanation of this verse, the view of the general Mufassireen / majority of the Mufassireen is the other Tafseer (which Maulana Saad did not opt for).
والضمير في “فَأَنسَاهُ” يعود على الشَّرَابِيِّ. وقيل: على يوسف، وهو ضعيفٌ. (الدر المصون ٤/ ٦٧٥)
This author clearly states that it is a weak view.
… هذا الصواب أن الضمير في قوله: {فَأَنسَاهُ الشَّيْطَانُ ذكر ربه} عائد على الناجي، كما قال مجاهد، ومحمد بن إسحاق وغير واحد … وهذا الحديث ضعيف جدًا … (تفسير ابن كثير ٤/ ٣٩١)
Ibn Kathir (RA) clearly mentions what the correct view is. Alongside that he says that the narration which is used to support the other Tafseer is extremely weak due to certain problematic narrators.
As well as further supporting the point mentioned above by Ibne Kathir (RA) (regarding the narrations used to support the non-preferred Tafseer), the author also outlines that to say that Yusuf (AS) sought help from other than Allah (azza wa jall) and was subsequently scolded by remaining in the prison for a number of years is something strange. He highlights that Yusuf (AS) did not seek help from anyone other than Allah (azza wa jall), but rather used the means, just as a person uses means for his livelihood, or during times of war (weapons), while believing that Allah (azza wa jall) is the one who will release him from the prison.
والاعتماد على أرجح الأقوال، وإعراب ما يحتاج إليه، وتنبيه على القراءات المشهورة المختلفة على وجه لطيف وجيز، وترك التطويل بذكر أقوال غير مرضية ومحالها أعاريب كتب العربية (جلالين ٨/١)
In the Muqaddima of Jalaalayn the author mentions how he suffices on mentioning the preferred view.
فأنساه أي الساقي الشَّيْطَانُ ذِكْرَ يوسف عند رَبِّهِ (جلالين ٢/ ١١٨)
Thus, this also suggest that the view mentioned in Jalaalayn (which is the one we mentioned) is the Raajih/preferred Tafseer.
وَقِيلَ: الضَّمِيرُ في أنساه عَائِدٌ عَلَى يُوسُفَ. وَرَبَّوا عَلَى ذَلِكَ أَخْبَارًا لَا تَلِيقُ نِسْبَتُهَا إِلَى الْأَنْبِيَاءِ عَلَيْهِمُ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ (البحر المحيط ٦/ ٢٨٠)
Here, this author is showing the weakness of the view with قيل as well as possibly showing his reason of giving preference, which is that inappropriate matters should not be attributed to the Ambiyaa (AS).
Hazrat Thanwi (RA) mentions the following in Bayaanul Quran:
چوں کہ اسباب عادیہ کا استعمال جائز ہے اس لیے اس امر پر کوئی شبہ نہیں ہو سکتا … اور یہ جو فرمایا “فَلَبِثَ” الآیۃ یہ بطور کتاب کے نہیں فرمایا …. (بیان القرآن ٥/٨١)
“Since the use of customary and habitual means is permissible, there can be no doubts or blemishes about Yusuf (AS) in this matter. And when it is said, ‘فَلَبِثَ’ (he remained), this was not mentioned as a reproach.”
The following principle (the application of which is evident from the texts / Tafaasir mentioned above) has been mentioned in قواعد الترجيح عند المفسرين (1/298):
الأدلة على عصمة الأنبياء والرسل من المعاصي كثيرة نقلية وعقلية، فإذا ثبت ذلك، فالتفسير الذي يتمشى مع العصمة أولى بتفسير الآية، وكل قول طعن فيها وخالفها للدلالة الصريحة عليها فهو مردود … اعتمد العلماء مضمون هذه القاعدة، ورجحوا بها أقوالا، وردوا بها أخرى، لأجل ما رأوه من مخالفتها لعصمة النبوة، ولما علم من حال الأنبياء وعظم منزلتهم
“There are many textual (verses/narrations) and rational proofs for the infallibility of the Prophets and Messengers (AS). So, when this is established, then the interpretation that aligns with this infallibility is preferred for interpreting the verse. Any statement that challenges or contradicts this is rejected because it goes against the clear proofs of their infallibility. Scholars have relied on the content of this principle, using it to favor certain opinions and reject others, due to what they observed as contradicting the infallibility of Prophethood, and because of the known status and high rank of the Prophets (AS).”
Similarly, the following is mentioned in المنتقى:
والأنبياء عليهم السلام كانوا مكرمين في الأحوال كلها. والعصمة عن المعاصي ثابتة في حقهم لازمة لجميع أحواله … ولولا اقتحام الحشوية المجازفون في ذكر أحوال الأنبياء والخوض في قصصهم من غير تدبر وتأمل لاقتصرنا على ما ذكر الله تعالى في القرآن من فضلهم وكرامتهم، إذ هو هداية للمسترشدين. ولكن لما قصرت أفهام بعض الناس عن بيان القرآن فحملوه على غير تأويله ذكرنا في هذا الكتاب الآيات الواردة في حق الأنبياء، وشرحنا وجوه معاتباتهم على نحو ما يليق بأحوالهم (المنتقى من عصمة الأنبياء للصابوني ص ٣٢)
“The Prophets (AS) were honoured in all conditions and situations. Infallibility from sins is firmly established for them and is necessary in all their states … If it were not for some people recklessly/uncalculatedly diving into discussing the conditions of the Prophets (AS) and delving into their stories without reflection or contemplation, we would have limited ourselves to what Allah has mentioned in the Quran regarding their virtues and honour, as it serves as guidance for the seekers of guidance. However, since the understanding of some individuals fell short which led to them misinterpreting it, we have mentioned in this book the verses about the Prophets (AS) and explained the different admonishments in a manner that is befitting of their statuses.”
Mufti Shafee mentions in Maariful Quran (4/571): “If, according to the established principles of the Quran and Sunnah, and the unanimous belief regarding the infallibility of the Prophets (AS), there appears to be any statement in the Quran or Hadith that apparently seems contrary to this, it is necessary, according to the established principles, to seek an interpretation/commentary/explanation that aligns and does not differ with the definitive principles of the Quran and Hadith.”
Even if for arguments sake we assume that the Tafseer Maulana Saad mentioned is the Raajih Tafseer, the demand of wisdom, especially when speaking in front of the general public, is to be selective and precautions regarding what one speaks about and how one speaks about what he speaks about, as was the habit of our pious predecessors, which leads us to our next problematic issue that we have with Maulana Saad.
Before moving on to the next problematic point, we would like to further highlight some similarities between Maulana Saad and Maulana Mawdoody.
Compare the above with a statement of Maulana Mawdoody regarding Yunus (AS), which Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) mentions, during his refutation of Maulana Mawdoody (Pg 151):
حضرت یونس علیہ السلام سے فریضہ رسالت کی ادائیگی میں کچھ کوتاہیاں ہو گئی تھیں، غالباً انہوں نے صبر ہو کر قبل از وقت اپنا مستقر بھی چھوڑ دیا تھا۔
“Hazrat Yunus (AS) had made some shortcomings in fulfilling his duty of Prophethood. Most likely, in his impatience, he left the place before the appointed time.”
Another statement of Maulana Mawdoody [xiii]:
حضرت نوح علیہ السلام کے تذکرہ میں … اصل بات یہ ہے کہ انبیاء بھی انسان ہی ہوتے ہیں اور کوئی انسان اس پر قادر نہیں ہو سکتا کہ وہ ہر وقت انسان کی بلند ترین معیار کمال پر قائم رہے جو مومن کیلئے مقرر کیا گیا ہے بسا اوقات کسی نازک نفسیاتی موقعہ پر نبی جیسا اعلیٰ و اشرف انسان بھی تھوڑی دیر کیلئے بشری کمزوری سے مغلوب ہو جاتا ہے
“In the mention of Hazrat Nuh (AS) … the essential fact is that the Prophets (AS) are also human beings. No human can always maintain the highest standard of perfection set for a believer. Sometimes, at a delicate emotional/mental/psychological moment, even a noble and honourable person like a Prophet may momentarily be overcome by human weakness.”
To further outline the similarity between Maulana Saad and Maulana Mawdoody, just as how the followers of Maulana Saad have brought forth many texts from the books of Tafseer in an incorrect attempt to justify the inappropriate statements of Maulana Saad, Mufti Shafee also explains in Maariful Quran (4/574) the following regarding Maulana Mawdoody, (keeping in mind the statement Maulana Mawdoody made about Yunus (AS)):
“The text in Roohul Maaney has made it clear that shortcomings in Dawah and conveying the message was not the cause for reprimand … The specific contemporary (Maulana Mawdoody) was alerted of his mistake by some scholars, so he, as a result, in support of his stance, for the Tafseer of Surah Saffat brought forth many views/statements/texts of the Mufassireen. Yet, besides for some Israaily narrations of Wahb bin Munabbih, his stance that Yunus (AS) was guilty of shortcomings in fulfilling his duties/obligations of prophethood and conveying the message is not correctly established from anyone.”
As well as this, Mufti Abdul Malik, who has carried out extensive research regarding Maulana Saad and has written many books regarding this matter, has pointed out that the way the followers of Maulana Mawdoody use Munkar and Shaaz proofs to defend Maulana Mawdoody, the defenders of Maulana Saad have fallen in the same trap. [xiv]
Darul Uloom Deoband, after refuting one of his statements in detail, mentioned the following (about the habit of his followers of spreading weak arguments in support of him):
“The lengthy answer/insight was about the statement mentioned in the question of 12th April 2023, which became lengthy due to the delicacy of the matter, but it was necessary to review the overall thoughts of the speaker and the incorrect proofs being spread on social media by their followers. After this, there remains no need to review any further statements. However, for Itmaame Hujjah, a brief overview is presented.” [xv]
Example: Hazrat Uthman (RA) / Markaziyyah of Madinah
On one occasion Maulana Saad said:
“Bring all the matters/issues/Masaail here (Nizamuddin). Hazrat Umar, in his time, would not allow any issue/Masala to be taken out of Madinah. He would ensure that the Markaziyyah (Madinah being the focal and centre point) remains. However, Hazrat Uthman ended this restriction and ended the Markaziyyah of Madinah. This was the reason for the Khilafah ending in Madinah.” [xvi]
“… And he (Hazrat Umar (RA)) would say, ‘If they go to the (different) countries, then the connection of the people of the countries with Madinah will become weak’. What was the reason? There was great wisdom of Umar (RA) in this. How he wanted to keep the Markaziyyah of Madinah (Madinah being the focal and centre point) that you come here to ask in the state of need … I am informing you of the reason behind Madinah becoming weak. The reason for Madinah becoming weak and the reason behind the martyrdom of Hazrat Uthman (RA) was this that in the time of Uthman (RA) these restrictions were ended … Buss (Urdu word) he or they left and the Markaziyyah of Madinah and resorting to Madinah in matters and affairs came to an end. These are realities. Yes, that the people of intellect understand! … For the advancement and progression of the effort we should resort to Nizamuddin in all our matters / Masaail.” [xvii]
Is it sensible or befitting of a such an influential scholar to portray the actions of any Sahabi in a bad light, never mind such a high-ranking Sahabi, for a petty and personal agenda/objective?
Compare this with the following statement of Maulana Mawdoody regarding Uthman (RA), mentioned by Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) (Pg 164):
“Then the reins of leadership were transferred to Hazrat Uthman (RA), and for the initial few years, the full framework established by the noble messenger (SAW) continued as usual.” After this, under the title of ‘The Attack of Ignorance,’ he writes: “However, on one side, due to the rapid expansion of the Islamic state, the situation/work was becoming increasingly difficult day by day. On the other hand, Hazrat Uthman (RA), upon whom this great task was placed, did not possess all the qualities that had been granted to his esteemed predecessors. As a result, during his caliphate, ignorance found an opportunity to infiltrate the Islamic system … Ultimately, the era of the caliphate based on the prophetic model came to an end.”
Example: Kaab bin Malik (RA) (Bulandshahr Ijtimaa, December 2018)
In December 2018, in the Bulandshahr Ijtimaa UP, Maulana Saad said [xviii]:
“Allahu Akbar! People do not want to hear or mention the story of Kaab bin Malik (RA), nor do they want to understand the importance of movements in Da’wah. I have not found in the Seerah any great sin / crime of the companions, about which the Nabi of Allah (SAW) and Sahabah (RA) were angry about besides delaying in going out in the Path of Allah. Look and read that story carefully.”
Example: “Nikamma” (worthless) statement
On one occasion Maulana Saad said:
“The Companions, whom Allah (azza wa jall) himself selected for the companionship and support of the Prophet (SAW), regarding them Allah (azza wa jall) says: وَإِن تَتَوَلَّوْا يَسْتَبْدِلْ قَوْمًا غَيْرَكُمْ ‘If you do not do the work, we will take the work from others.’ … ثُمَّ لَا يَكُونُوا أَمْثَالَكُمْ they will not be as worthless (Nikamma) as you … Allah (azza wa jall) will remove you, and others will be assigned the task.” [xix]
Even if Maulana Saad did not directly or intentionally disrespect the Sahabah (RA), the poor choice of words (especially “worthless”) and troublesome way of translating and expressing one’s point can come across as inappropriate, slowly pecking away at the untouchable nature of the Sahabah (RA) in the hearts of the believers (although we do not consider the beloved Sahabah (RA) to be Masoom).
Keeping the above two statements in mind, now ponder and compare it with the following:
Maulana Mawdoody’s statement regarding the mothers of the believers (RA) (Pg 152):
وہ نبی کریم صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کے مقابلے میں کچھ زیادہ جری ہو گئی تھیں اور حضور صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم سے زبان درازی کرنے لگی تھیں
“She became quite bold and audacious in front of or in response to Nabi Kareem (SAW) and began talking back imprudently (connotations of being rude, disrespectful, argumentative).”
Maulana Mawdoody’s translation of Umar (RA) addressing Hafsa (RA) (Pg 290):
لا تراجعی رسول الله “حضور سے زبان درازی نہ کیا کر”
“Do not talk back imprudently (connotations of being rude, disrespectful, argumentative) to the messenger of Allah (SAW).”
Maulana Mawdoody goes on to complain and express his frustration at the fact that certain people consider this translation disrespectful. He then continues to defend himself and his translation (Pg 290-291). This is identical to the responses of certain followers of Maulana Saad, regarding the above translation of the verses given by Maulana Saad, after personal interactions.
However, Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) mentioned this statement amongst the number of inappropriate statements made by Maulana Mawdoody against Ambiyaa (AS) and Sahaaba (RA), where he clearly states that he considers it disrespectful. Maulana (RA) then mentions (Pg 153) that Maulana Mawdoody is not more pure and noble than Nabi (SAW), nor is the Wife of Maulana Mawdoody of a higher stature than the mothers of the believers (RA), but if one of the followers of Mawdoody was to use the word زبان درازی to describe the behaviour of Maulana Mawdoody’s wife in front of him, then he would be angry and consider it to be a violation of his honour, thus I cannot understand how the same words are not disrespectful to the Messenger of Allah (SAW) and the mothers of the believers (RA).
While the die-hard followers of Maulana Saad may possibly not find the above statement of Maulana Saad to be disrespectful, one should consider the following words of Maulana Ludhyanwi shortly after the above text:
کیونکہ انبیاء کرام (علیہم السلام) کے حق میں ادنیٰ سوءِ ادب بھی سلب ایمان کی علامت ہے۔
“Because even the slightest bit of disrespect in regards to the Ambiyaa is a sign that one’s Imaan has been snatched away”
Although Maulana (RA) mentioned this regarding the Ambiyaa (AS), one can also use this to gauge the severity of the slightest bit of disrespect to Sahabah (RA), due to their high rank and lofty status by Allah (azza wa jall). In fact, shortly after Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) writes about the noble status of Sahabah (RA):
“If only he (Maulana Mawdoody) had kept in mind the following words of Mujaddid Alfe Thaani: No Wali (friend of Allah) can reach the status or rank of a Sahabi. Despite the illustrious rank of Uwais Qarni (RA), because he did not acquire the honour of the companionship of Nabi (SAW), he was not able to reach the rank of even the lowest ranking Sahabi. Someone asked Abdullah Bin Mubaarak (RA) that is Hazrat Muawiya (RA) of a more virtuous standing or Hazrat Umar bin abdul Aziz (RA)? He responded that the dust that entered the nostrils of the horse of Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) in the company of the Prophet (SAW) is much better than Hazrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz (RA)!”
As well as the all the above, one should keep in mind the following texts:
ولا نذكر أحدا من أصحاب رسول الله إلا بخير (الفقه الأكبر ص ٤٣)
قوله: (وَنُحِبُّ أَصْحَابَ رَسُولِ اللهِ، وَلَا نُفْرِطُ فِي حُبِّ أَحَدٍ مِنْهُمْ، وَلَا نَتَبَرَّأُ مِنْ أَحَدٍ مِنْهُمْ، وَنُبْغِضُ مَنْ يُبْغِضُهُمْ، وَبِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ يَذْكُرُهُمْ، وَلَا نَذْكُرُهُمْ إِلَّا بِخَيْرٍ، وَحُبُّهُمْ دِينٌ وَإِيمَانٌ وَإِحْسَانٌ، وَبُغْضُهُمْ كُفْرٌ وَنِفَاقٌ وَطُغْيَانٌ) (شرح عقيدة الطحاوي ص ٢٣٩)
صحابہ پر طعن و تشنیع … الجواب حامد و مصلیًا!.. صحابہ کرام رضی اللہ عنہم اجمعین کے متعلق کوئی کلمہ خلاف ادب ہرگز نہ کہا جائے۔ فقط واللہ اعلم (فتاوی محمودیہ ٤/ ٢٦١ مکتبہ محمودیہ)
صحابہ پر تنقید بطریق مودودی صاحب سوال:- ابوالاعلیٰ مودودی کے خود ساختہ اصول پر عمل کرنا اور بزرگانِ ملت وصحابہ کرام رضوان اللہ علیہم اجمعین کے اوپر تنقید کرنا کیسا ہے؟ الجواب حامد و مصلیًا! صحابہ کرام رضی اللہ عنہم خاص اللہ تعالیٰ کے چنے ہوئے ہیں … ان کے اتباع کا حکم ہے، جو شخص ان کی اکابری کی شان میں ناشائستہ کلمات کہے اس پر حدیث شریف میں لعنت آئی ہے۔۔۔ (فتاوی محمودیہ ٤/ ٢٦٢ مکتبہ محمودیہ)
Section 2: The Need to be Selective, Precautious, Careful and Wise About What is Said in Lectures and What is Presented to the Common People
Another issue we have noticed is that Maulana Saad has the tendency to mention such incidents, stories, narrations, Tafseers in front of the people, which to mention in front of the general masses is not healthy or wise, whether this is due to being Munkar, Shaaz, Marjooh or strange or against the norm/mainstream or due to being detrimental to a person’s Imaan (as a result of unnecessarily opening a door of criticising and finding faults in the actions of Ambiyaa (AS) or Sahabah (RA) to the general public, who are not mature enough to listen, understand and digest certain intricate points as oppose to an intellectual crowd of Ulema) or due to having other negative effects. It is not healthy to mention such things in front of the general masses, nor was it the blessed habit of our previous elders and Ulema of Tabligh (Maulana Ilyas (RA), Maulana Yusuf (RA), Maulana Inamul Hasan (RA) etc) and our pious predecessors in general, even if it is mentioned in a book. Supporting our above-mentioned point, Darul Uloom Deoband mentioned the following in their Fatwa after mentioning that Maulana Saad has the habit of mentioning Shaaz and Munkar opinions: “Hafiz Suyooti in his book تحذير الخواص من أكاذيب القصاص and Ibn Al-Jawzi in his well-known book كتاب القصاص والمذكرين harshly criticise preachers who talk about Munkaraat and rare/strange/unheard of incidents to attract people to their side and who try to create a wrong image of Islam in the people’s minds. Hafiz Ibn Qutayba highlighted that because of the public’s lack of knowledge, they tend to like speakers whose speech contains strange and new matters. However, the Sahaba and Tabi’een refuted the actions of these types of speakers.” [xx]
Anyway, it is known that not everything written in a book is a fact, taken and acted upon. Nor should anything and everything found in a book be shared in front of the masses, even if it is not Marjooh, even it may be the truth, due to other potential harms. Take note of the words of Imam Shaatby (RA) in his book الموافقات (5/167):
وَمِنْ هَذَا يُعْلَمُ أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ كُلُّ مَا يُعْلَمُ مِمَّا هُوَ مِنْ عِلْمِ الشَّرِيعَةِ يُطْلَبُ نَشْرُهُ وَإِنْ كَانَ مِنْ عِلْمِ الشَّرِيعَةِ وَمِمَّا يُفِيدُ عِلْمًا بِالْأَحْكَامِ، بَلْ ذَلِكَ يَنْقَسِمُ، فَمِنْهُ مَا هُوَ مَطْلُوبُ النَّشْرِ، وَهُوَ غَالِبُ عِلْمِ الشَّرِيعَةِ، وَمِنْهُ مَا لَا يُطْلَبُ نَشْرُهُ بِإِطْلَاقٍ، أَوْ لَا يُطْلَبُ نَشْرُهُ بِالنِّسْبَةِ إِلَى حَالٍ، أَوْ وَقْتٍ، أَوْ شَخْصٍ
“And from this, it is known that not everything that is known to be true is required to be spread and propagated, even if it is part of the knowledge of Shariah and is beneficial for understanding the laws. Rather, this knowledge is divided: some of it is required to be spread and propagated, which is the majority of knowledge of Shariah, while some of it should not be disseminated in all cases, or it should not be disseminated in relation to a specific situation, time, or person.”
Why break down a castle to build a shack? Maintaining the honour of Ambiyaa (AS) and Sahaaba (RA) in the hearts of people, making the people understand that they are untouchable, keeping the door of criticism closed is much more important than showing the importance of a specific form of Dawah (or any other personal agenda), especially when there are numerous other ways of showing its importance without having to adopt such a risky route to do so (undoubtedly Tabligh and Dawah hold great importance). Books have been written to mention the fabricated narrations and stories mentioned in the books of Tafaasir. The students who study Tafseer will be well aware of what the Haashiyas of Jalaalayn Shareef contain! As well as this, Mufti Shafee mentions in Maariful Quran (4/574): “It is clear and obvious that for the people of knowledge that generally the Mufassireen also mention Israeli narrations in their Tafseers regarding which they all agree that such narrations are unreliable. No legal ruling can be based on it.” Thus, to adopt a habit of mentioning anything found in a book, without further consideration of potential harms and without further consideration of the crowd being addressed, is extremely dangerous and opening a door of great Fitnah. Rather, people should be spoken to according to their level of understanding. There are certain discussions which are only discussed in a classroom setting and not in front of the general masses. In fact, even in a Madrasah, there are certain discussions or parts of knowledge, which can be said in front of a 4th year (Aalim) class which shouldn’t be shared with the 1st year students. In fact, there are certain discussions which can be presented to Ifta students which maybe can’t be shared with the higher year classes. Take note of the words of Imam Shaatby (RA) in his book الموافقات (5/170):
ومِنْهُ أَنْ لَا يَذْكُرَ لِلْمُبْتَدِئِ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ مَا هُوَ حَظُّ الْمُنْتَهِي، بل يربى بصغار العلم قبل كباره
“That one should not mention to the beginner that knowledge which is the share of the advanced; rather, they should be nurtured with the basics of knowledge before moving on to the more advanced and high-level aspects.”
An example to help a person understand is that the same type of food cannot be given to a baby and an adult. Imagine trying to feed a plate of biryani or a mutton curry to a suckling baby? Even if the food, on the whole, is beneficial, delicious and nutritious, it will be harmful for the baby. The baby is not ready to eat such food. Keeping the example of food in mind, some people are allergic to certain foods while others suffer from various different illnesses. If the same type of food is given to everyone not considering the allergies or sicknesses of individuals, someone could suffer from an allergic reaction while the next person’s illness could become more severe. So, just like how one would consider the age, allergies, sicknesses when deciding what type of food to give to a person, one must (all the more reason) also be selective in what type of spiritual food (knowledge/lectures) he is giving to the people, keeping in mind the audience being addressed. What we are mentioning is not something knew. Instead, being extremely cautious and selective in what one presents in front of people is something which was accepted by all the rightly guided Ulema of the past.
In fact, Imam Bukhari (RA) has dedicated an entire chapter (1/200) to show that certain knowledge is given to specific people leaving others out, out of fear that they will not be able to understand or comprehend such knowledge:
بَاب: مَنْ خَصَّ بِالْعِلْمِ قَوْمًا دُونَ قَوْمٍ، كَرَاهِيَةَ أَنْ لَا يَفْهَمُوا
Hazrat Sheikh Maulana Muhammad Zakariyya Khandelwi (RA) mentions the following under this chapter heading, which shows that it is necessary for an Aalim to consider the people he is addressing whilst teaching and conveying the message of Deen (Tabligh):
والأوجه عندي أن الفرق بين الترجمتين واضح، وهو أن الغرض من الأولى ترك بعض الأقوال أو الأفعال المختارة لقصور فهم بعض الرجال عنه غير الغرض من الثانية، وهو جواز تخصيص بعض الطلبة الأذكياء في الدرس، وأنه غير داخل في كتمان العلم … وكتب شيخ الهند في الترجمة الأولى … وكتب في الترجمة الثانية: أن غرض الترجمة ظاهر، وهو أن مراعاة المخاطبين في التعليم والتبليغ لازم للعلماء، فلا ينبغي أن يذكر عندهم ما لا يفهمه المخاطب (الأبواب والتراجم لصحيح البخاري ٢/ ٤٩٩)
“The preferred assessment according to me is that the difference between the two headings is clear. The purpose of the first is to refrain from some selected sayings or actions due to the limited comprehension and understanding of certain people, which is different from the purpose of the second (heading), which is to allow certain intelligent students to be specially chosen for a lesson. This is not included under concealing knowledge … Sheikh Hind wrote under the first heading … and he wrote under the second heading: The purpose of the heading is apparent, which is that considering the audience when teaching and conveying the message (Tabligh) is essential for scholars. Therefore, it is not appropriate to mention in front of them that which they cannot understand.”
Imam Ghazali (RA) mentions in Ihyaa Ul Uloom (2/168) that the nature of Imam Ahmed Bin Hambal (RA) was such that he would cut ties (for the sake of Allah) with big people due to certain things they would say (due to his personal temperament). He goes on to mention that Imam Ahmed (RA) cut ties with Al Haarith (RA) due to a book he wrote. Although the book was written against the Mutazila (apparently a good action), but he felt as though Al Haarith (RA) is unnecessarily bringing doubts in the general masses, causing them to ponder in matters they are not mature enough to ponder about, despite the fact he gives answers at the end against the Mutazila, which is a great service to Deen. This angry reaction of Imam Hambal (RA) shows how careful one should be when it comes to the exposure and imparting of knowledge to the general masses.
فقد كان أحمد ابن حنبل رحمه الله يهجر الأكابر في أدنى كلمة ، حتَّى هجر … وهجر الحارث المحاسبي في تصنيفه في الرد على المعتزلة ، وقال : إنك لا بد تورد أولاً شبهتهم ، وتحمل الناس على التفكر فيها ، ثم ترد عليهم
As well as this, it is mentioned in the Muqaddima of Saheeh Muslim that Ibne Masood (RA) is reported to have said:
مَا أَنْتَ بِمُحَدِّثٍ قَوْمًا حَدِيثًا لَا تَبْلُغُهُ عُقُولُهُمْ إِلَّا كَانَ لِبَعْضِهِمْ فِتْنَةً
“You are not going to narrate a Hadeeth/narration to a group of people, which they are unable to understand and comprehend except some of them will fall into Fitnah.” (1/59)
حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ. قَالَ: كَانَ رَجُلٌ قَدْ لَزِمَ أَيُّوبَ وَسَمِعَ مِنْهُ … فَاسْتَقْبَلَهُ الرَّجُلُ … ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُ أَيُّوبُ … قَالَ: نَعَمْ. يَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ إِنَّهُ يَجِيئُنَا بِأَشْيَاءَ غَرَائِبَ. قَالَ: يَقُولُ لَهُ أَيُّوبُ: إِنَّمَا نَفِرُّ أَوْ نَفْرَقُ مِنْ تِلْكَ الْغَرَائِب (مقدمة مسلم ١/ ٧١)
“Hamad ibn Zayd narrated to us: There was a man who had been constantly accompanying Ayoub and listening/learning from him. Then Ayoub noticed his absence. They said: ‘O Abu Bakr, he has started accompanying Amr ibn Ubayd.’ Hamad said: ‘One day, I was with Ayoub, and we arrived early at the market. The man appeared before him, so Ayoub greeted him … Then Ayoub said to him: ‘It has reached me that you have been constantly accompanying that man.’ … The man replied: ‘Yes, O Abu Bakr, he brings to us some strange things.’ Ayoub said to him: ‘We flee from those strange things.'” (1/71)
Also, it is mentioned in جامع بيان العلم (1/539) that Hisham bin Urwah (RA) said:
قَالَ: قَالَ لِي أَبِي: “مَا حَدَّثْتُ أَحَدًا بِشَيْءٍ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ قَطُّ لَمْ يَبْلُغْهُ عَقْلُهُ إِلَّا كَانَ ضَلَالًا عَلَيْهِ”
“My father said to me that ‘I have never shared any piece of knowledge with anyone, which he could not understand or comprehend, except that it was a cause of his misguidance'”
Imam Shaatby (RA) mentions in his book الموافقات (5/171):
قَدْ أَخْبَرَ مَالِكٌ عَنْ نَفْسِهِ أَنَّ عِنْدَهُ أَحَادِيثَ وعلمًا مَا تَكَلَّمَ فِيهَا وَلَا حَدَّثَ بِهَا
“(Imam) Malik (RA) reported about himself that he has certain Hadiths and knowledge that he did not speak about nor narrated.”
[The document continues with additional supporting texts emphasising the above points, including narrations from الجامع لأخلاق الراوي (2/100), معيد النعم ومبيد النقم (Pg 89), شرح علل الترمذي (2/621), Mishkaat Shareef (Pg 73) and Mulla Ali Qari’s commentary in Mirqaat (1/332) — all warning against narrating strange/ghareeb knowledge to those who cannot grasp it.]
From the above we should have understood the importance of being selective of what should be said in front of the masses, otherwise there can be severe repercussions.
A few examples which show this tendency of Maulana Saad:
1) The incident of Moosa (AS) and the unsuitable way Maulana Saad portrayed his understanding of the incident is an incorrect Tafseer and not supported by the books of Tafseer, despite the efforts of his followers to try and prove that it is mentioned in the books of Tafseer. This was discussed above. However, even if we say for arguments sake that it is mentioned in the books of Tafseer, then we will say that it is not appropriate to mention in front of the people.
Regarding the incident of Yusuf (AS) there were a few issues. One was the problematic way of expressing the incident prior to mentioning the Tafseer. One was the Tafseer itself. Above, we brought many texts to suggest that the Tafseer Maulana Saad mentioned was a Marjooh Tafseer. Even if it is proven that the Tafseer Maulana Saad mentioned was a Raajih Tafseer, then we will say that it is not appropriate to mention in front of the people.
2) On one occasion Maulana Saad said:
“Keep in mind and remember what I’m saying. In every era the opinion of the responsible people differs to that of the previous times. That’s why to compare the two (the previous times and present times) is an extremely dangerous path. It is a very dangerous path … The practise of Nabi (SAW) was to distribute the spoils of war between the Mujaahideen and Ghanimeen. He would distribute the spoils of war between them. Sham was conquered. And the land of sham was a very good land. Hazrat Umar (RA) thought that if this land of Sham is distributed amongst the Mujaahideen, the Mujaahideen will become the owners and thereafter their children will become the owners after they pass on. The general Muslims will not get benefit from there. Thus, Hazrat Umar decided that the land of Sham will not be distributed amongst the Mujaahideen. There was now a difference of opinion. A severe difference of opinion. Umar is bringing something new/what is Umar doing (The audio clip is slightly unclearly at this point, as a result we are unsure about which of the two statements was made). Umar is bringing something new/what is Umar doing. The Nabi of Allah never did this. Umar is bringing something new/ what is Umar doing. Those who differed formed and became a group. Hazrat Bilal became the Ameer/leader of the entire group. Yes. Hazrat Bilal severely differed/opposed Hazrat Umar. He differed with him severely. Hazrat Umar said: O Bilal understand what I’m saying. There is goodness and benefit in what I’m saying. I want that the Ummah forever benefits from this land. In front of you is the temporary benefit of those Mujaahideen through whose efforts these lands were conquered. But Hazrat Bilal was persistent. Hazrat Umar got very troubled. Hazrat Umar made a Dua: ‘O Allah suffice me from Bilal and his companions.’ One year never even passed and Hazrat Bilal and his companions passed away. (Takbeers can be heard from the crowd). Yes. It’s something to be very afraid of. Yes. This is something to fear. My opinion is that the land is distributed. The order of the Ameer is no, don’t do so … He has moved away from the Nahaj! What Nahaj? Nabi of Allah would distribute to the soldiers whereas you oh Umar are not doing so. There was wisdom behind it … Hazrat Umar made the following Dua: ‘O Allah suffice me from Bilal and his companions.’ One year did not pass that they passed away … Shurah is the place of giving opinions, but not persistence. Don’t persist. Because the work will move forward. The matters and affairs of the work will increase … First you had a bag, then it became a shop, then a factory, then work started in different countries. You must not remain firm, persist or oppose something unless it is kufr. There is so much leeway when it comes to obeying (the Ameer). Yes. As long as it is not kufr, obey! There is no obeying when it comes to Kufr.” [xxi]
To simply emphasise the fact that he should be obeyed as Ameer (whether or not Maulana Saad is the rightful Ameer is a separate discussion altogether, which we have not touched on here) and that the changes he has made to Tabligh must be followed and accepted, in front of his audience, majority of whom are common people, he quotes the incident of the incident that transpired between Hazrat Umar (RA) and Hazrat Bilal (RA) (the authenticity of the incident will have to be checked), showing Bilal (RA) in a bad light, alluding to his persistence and lack of obedience, which led to the outcome it led to.
The differences that took place between the Sahabah (RA) are known as Mushaajaraat. These types of incidents are only mentioned in dire necessity. Mentioning these types of incidents to the general public, especially for a personal agenda, shows a lack of wisdom (an attribute which is required for a spiritual leader and guide). We have mentioned above the importance of being selective in what is put in front of the common people. Many Ulama have warned against mentioning these types of incidents (Mushaajaraat) to Awaam. Allamah Shamsud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdur Rahman Sakhawi (the foremost student of Imam Ibn Hajar) رحمهم الله تعالى explains the stance of the Ahlus Sunnah in his book الإعلان بالتوبيخ regarding مشاجرات الصحابة رضي الله عنهم اجمعين. That is, in front of people who don’t understand, do not mention. If, due to necessity, you have to mention, you are duty bound to mention the Ta’wil (an appropriate interpretation). This corresponds with what Imam Tahawi رحمه الله تعالى has mentioned as the Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah in “وبغير الخير لا نذكرهم”. In this clip, without any need and without the Ta’wil, he quotes an incident that transpired between Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Bilaal (RA), putting Bilal (RA) in a bad light, as mentioned above.
[The document then quotes several Arabic texts in support — Qurtubi 16/321, Umdat al-Qaari 1/212, Sharh al-Aqaa’id an-Nasafiyyah p.186, Sharh Aqeedat at-Tahaawi p.240 — regarding restraining the tongue concerning disputes among the Sahabah and interpreting their differences favourably (their Ijtihaad).]
Regarding Mushaajaraat, supporting the above, Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) writes on Pg 158 (as he continues his refutation of Mawdoody):
“In اختلاف وملوكیۃ the sensitive topic Maududi has touched on is referred to, in our books of beliefs, as “Mushaajaraat.” This subject is such a bridge of faith that is sharper than a sword and finer than a hair. That is why the righteous predecessors have always advised us to maintain full respect and to restrain both the tongue and the pen here (regarding this sensitive topic), because not only later generations but also people of superficial understanding since the time of the honourable Companions have tarnished their faith in this thorny valley. The elders and seniors have always cleared away the thorns spread by these irreligious individuals”.
3) On the 29th of April 2023, during the Bhopal Ijtimaa, regarding the idea of being paid a salary for religious works, Maulana Saad reiterated his stance once again, which Darul Uloom Deoband refuted with great detail in their 2023 Fatwa. Below is just the beginning and a small section of the Fatwa: “Before we give our detailed review regarding the specific person’s statement on 29 April 2023 quoted in the question, it is necessary to clarify that the idea presented by him about people engaged in religious services, is not something new nor is it the first time he has presented this aberration/deviation. He has already been alerted by Darul Uloom Deoband and other rightly guided scholars. However, despite these warnings, he continues to repeat this incorrect and old stance of his in public gatherings, under some heading or guise. His recent statement however is even more dangerous than his previous statements. Here, in clear words, he has attempted to dishonour the scholars, Muhadditheen, Mashaayikh and the common, widely known system of public funding of the religious institutes.” [xxii]
This is something which Maulana Saad has mentioned many times. Previously, he has mentioned in public gatherings, in support of his stance, that adulterers will enter Jannah before those who take a wage for teaching Quran. Mufti Abdul Malik responds to this statement and we will bring his refutation at the beginning of section 3. He (someone who possesses expertise in the field of Hadith) concludes that it is a Munkar or fabricated narration. Even if we, for arguments sake, assume that it was not Munkar or fabricated, would it be appropriate to mention in front of the people, considering that our scholars have declared that there is permission in Shariah for taking a salary (as Deoband discussed and proved in great detail with a great number of Sharee proofs) and considering how the religious institutes and scholars are being put in a bad light, whereas holding the religious institutes and scholars in high esteem, who play such an integral role for the spiritual success of our communities, is imperative.
Darul Uloom Deoband also mentioned:
“How bold a claim it is that, over these long centuries, all the great scholars of the Ummah have deviated from the way of the Sahaba, and by indulging in ease and interpretations, are making non-Islamic matters a part of Shari’ah. The entire Ummah has, for these long centuries, has remained under the stubbornness of the interpretating Ulema, while the group of scholars who uphold the original teachings no longer exist … What greater accusation could there be against our elders and predecessors? How severe an attack it is on all the scholars of the Ummah, accusing them of having become accustomed to the leeway, or in the words of the speaker, they have become so inclined toward ease and interpretating tendencies that they cannot tolerate the truth, and instead rise to oppose it. Furthermore, one must consider the consequences of this claim. After hearing this statement, the common people, who regard every word of Maulana Saad to be all and end all, will only value those scholars who are involved in business, and those who do not meet their self-made standards will be deemed unreliable in their eyes. The speaker’s belief that accepting a stipend along with religious services will make one’s struggle deficient, actually reflects negatively on figures like Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq and Hazrat Umar (RA) (individuals who uphold the Azeemah / original and primary rulings) implying that their struggle was incomplete due to accepting public support, God forbid. However, leaving trade and dedicating oneself full-time to the service of the Muslim community while accepting a modest stipend was indeed an act of the highest level of Azeemah…” [xxiii]
Section 3: Additional Problems and Issues With Maulana Saad
Here, we would like to begin with a statement of Maulana Maududi mentioned by Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) (Pg 181), which should be kept in mind throughout this section to highlight the further resemblance between them:
“Understanding of religion or self-opinion? … ‘I am not dependent/in need of looking to small or big scholars to understand my religion; rather, I can determine the principles of religion from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. I can also investigate whether those who are considered the flagbearers of religion in this country are adopting the correct path in a particular issue or not. Therefore, I feel compelled to consider whatever I find to be the truth from the Qur’an and Sunnah as the truth, and to express it as well.'”
Another concern that has been noted is that Maulana Saad‘s approach involves referring to the Seerah (biography) of the Sahabah directly and formulating his own personal views, which he then projects onto the Ummah. His, at times, wayward deductions/inferences are based on his personal reasoning and the narrow-minded image of Deen/Dawah he has fixed in his mind (drawing directly from the Seerah and the history of the pious predecessors, even though he lacks the required expertise as will become apparent by the end of this section). He then encourages the Ummah to independently reflect on the Seerah and form conclusions from it. This then opens the way for Maulana Saad to infiltrate his distortions and personal views to the people.
Deoband mentioned in their 2023 Fatwa:
“In the Muslim Ummah, those who fell victim to deviation in thought/ideologies and behaviour, despite being deprived of Ijtihadi capabilities, adopted their own separate route choosing to rely on their own judgment and personal inclinations instead of trusting the Ijtihad of the great Mujtahideen, pious predecessors, and contemporary scholars of the truth. Therefore, the warning given by Darul Uloom Deoband in its statement of January 31, 2018, was entirely based on truth, that this certain individual (Maulana Saad), due to a lack of knowledge and the freedom of his temperament, was adopting a method of engaging in ijtihadi-style reflections on the Qur’an, Hadith, and Seerah of the Sahabah. Consequently, rare, rejected statements, and erroneous, misleading thoughts and ideas have been continuously emerging.” [xxiv]
A common statement that is made by those in Nizamuddin is “کام سیرت کے تابع ہے” (that the work of Dawah and Tabligh is subject to / should align with the Seerah). Outwardly, this slogan seems extremely attractive and flowery, similar to the attractive yet deceptive slogan of the Salafis of simply following Quran and Hadeeth / following Nabi (SAW) instead of Abu Hanifah or Shafee or Maalik or Ahmed. However, the reality of such slogans is quite the opposite. To directly draw conclusions is the work of experts. Sadly, Maulana Saad does not possess such expertise, which consequently results in errors. As we respond to the flowery slogan of the Salafis by saying: ‘We are not following Imam Abu Hanifa, instead we are following Imam Abu Hanifah’s understanding of Quran and Hadeeth, whereas you O Salafi, are relying on your own understanding of Quran and Hadeeth, which is another way of saying that you are following your own desires. How can we compare the giants of knowledge of the past to the average joe of today?’ In the same way, we address Maulana Saad ‘We are following the understanding of the giants of the past when it comes to Seerah and the lives of the Sahabah, whereas you are following your own understanding, despite the lack of competency and expertise.’ Thus, the reality behind the statement کام سعد (کے فہم و اجتہادات) کے تابع ہے is: کام سیرت کے تابع ہے.
Further showing his incompetency, Darul Uloom Deoband mentioned (whilst touching on this specific problematic issue of Maulana Saad): “This is the foundation and root of all deviations. If one reflects, they will generally find some event from the life and history (Seerah) behind wrong ideologies, which has either been misunderstood, or other narrations from Seerah have not been kept in mind, or due to a lack of mastery in the principles of Fiqh, an error occurred in deduction, or a Munkar and flawed narration was accepted as authentic. Hence, misunderstanding the incident of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) and drawing baseless conclusions from it to target the entire educational system is a recent example of this.” [xxv]
“In conclusion: It has become clear from the preceding details that the speaker’s deductions and inferences (Ijtihaadaat) from the incident of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) are completely incorrect, and they have no connection with the chapter heading of Hayatus Sahabah or the original incident.” [xxvi]
“In the incident under discussion the certain individual has simply sufficed on the narration mentioned in Hayaatus Sahaba to the extent that he did not even resort to the original source/book. Also, the issue of gathering all the relevant narrations of the topic is a separate matter. Thereafter, the distinction of authentic and unauthentic, Sound and Malool narrations and understanding the implications of narrating by meaning (not the exact words) requires great scholarly ability and expertise. The limit is that that he added a few things from his own side in the narration.” [xxvii]
In order to directly draw conclusions, make direct inferences and extract Usools/principles of the work from the Seerah, you will have to pass through quite a few stages. We will mention some of those important stages, just to show what a mighty task it is.
Firstly, you will have to do جمع روایات. If you want to know that in so and so matter what is the Seerah teaching us and instructing us, you will have to know and gather all the narrations in regards to that matter. In absolutely no case can Hayatus sahabah be sufficient for this. This in itself is a massive task.
Secondly, تحقيق الروايات وتنقيحها. To determine and have knowledge of the classification of all the narrations that have been gathered. Is the narraation صحيح حسن صالح للعمل ضعيف منكر موضوع etc. If the narration is Munkar or fabricated, then you will not be able to deduce and make inferences from there, as it is not considered to be a part of Seerah. [xxviii]
Mufti Abdul Malik goes on to mention another example (alongside the incident of Abu Bakr (RA)) which shows the incompetency of Maulana Saad in this regard. He says that Maulana Saad mentioned many times in big gatherings that adulterers will enter Jannah before those who take a wage for teaching Quran. Then he mentions that Maulana Saad slipped up on this second stage we are currently discussing and then he goes on further: “Where did Maulana Saad get this from? So, they say that he is mentioning a statement of Hazrat Umar (RA). But when/where did Umar (RA) say this? How did you come to know Umar (RA) said this? They say that it is a narration in Hayaatus Sahaabah. Okay fine. Open Hayaatus Sahaabah. There you will see that he takes it from Kanzul Ummaal. There you will see that the narration is taken from Khateeb Baghdaadis book. Go back there and check. Look at the Sanad. Look at the Matn. Check whether the wording is Zunaat (adulterers) or Dunaat. It says Dunaat. But you saw Zunaat in the print of another book, but if you look closely at the manuscript, then it also says Dunaat there. This is just regarding the wording. But in the Sanad there is Muallah Bin Hilaal, who is a narrator accused of lying. In the presence of such a narrator, is it permissible to attribute this statement to Umar (RA). No way can this be permissible! So, we concluded that this is a Munkar or fabricated narration. So, you are considering this narration to be authentic and openly mentioning in Ijtimaas/huge public gatherings and you are claiming that you conveying the message of Seerah to the people, when this is not a part of Seerah. So, he mentions the words of liars in the name of Seerah! You will continue to extract legal rulings, Aadaab and principles of Dawah from the statements of liars. Brother! We want to bring Dawah onto the way of Seerah. If you want to do that, then you should have knowledge of the narrations based on the principles of Jarah and Tadeel, Tasheeh and Tadheef (sciences specifically related to evaluating the reliability and authenticity of narrators and their narrations). When you are not an expert in this field, even if you were, even then your single opinion cannot be a standing proof for the entire Ummah. Even the people in the field consult other scholars. So, when you are not a person involved deeply in that field then you will definitely have to consult and resort back to the people of the field, however you have closed the door for consultation in such matters, instead your desire is to take directly from the Seerah!” [xxix]
The danger of this ideology which is being promoted by Maulana Saad has been pointed out by Deoband:
“It is necessary to clarify here that the lives and ways of the noble Companions (RA) is undoubtedly an authority and standard in the religion and Shari’ah. However, as is evident, just as there are established principles and conditions for correctly understanding the Qur’an and Sunnah, similarly, there are principles and guidelines for presenting any partial incident from the life of the Companions as an example (to follow) for the ummah and for determining a course of action for the ummah by relating contemporary circumstances to the life of the Companions. This is because the jurists, in light of the Qur’an, Sunnah, and the sayings, actions, and life of the Companions, have systematically arranged and codified all the details and branches of Islamic law. However, the views of the Companions (RA) have not been separately codified under the supervision of the Mujtahiden. Therefore, to disregard Islamic jurisprudence and to start deducing/inferring from some sayings and incidents of the Companions only from the collection of narrations, especially if this reasoning is done with limited knowledge, would be tantamount to opening the door to a great Fitnah. For this reason, Imam al-Munawi, in his famous book Fayd al-Qadir, quotes Imam al-Razi, who narrates the consensus of the scholars on this matter that the public should be prevented from directly following the Companions. (Fayd al-Qadir 1/210, Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah: 171/3, Usul al-Ifta’ wa Adabuh: 254). This is not because, God forbid, they are not worthy of being followed, but because there is a strong possibility of error in directly understanding the sayings, actions of the great Companions or their life. It is very possible that a person, due to their lack of knowledge and ignorance, may fail to understand the life of the Companions correctly or fail to grasp the actual meaning/motive of their sayings and actions. This is because the Mazhab of the Companions (RA) is not available in a direct, organized form; rather, it is incorporated within the four schools of thought. (*Al-Majmu’ Sharh al-Muhadhab by al-Nawawi: 91/1, Fasl fi Adab al-Mustafti, Al-Burhan fi Usul al-Fiqh by al-Juwayni.)” [xxx]
The ill effects of this ideology have been witnessed first-hand by one Aalim (who personally informed us) who visited Bangladesh, where the brother conducting the Taleem of Muntakhab Ahaadith was giving his own distorted commentary, based on his own deficient understanding, directly from the Hadith. Yes, the fact that there is no commentary with the narrations in Muntakhab may have also played a role (the dispute regarding the Tablighi syllabus/curriculum is not something we intend to touch on here in our writings).
A Mufti from India has stated that Maulana Saad is no longer a Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, or Hanbali, but has instead aligned himself with the Ahle Hadith. To support this claim, he pointed out an incident during the Janaza prayer of Maulana Talha’s wife, which was led by Maulana Saad. In this instance, Maulana Saad raised his hands for each Takbeer, a practice that does not align with the Hanafi school of thought. A link of the Janaza will be provided in the footnotes. [xxxi] No one else in the congregation raised their hands. The Mufti also referenced another incident in Madinah Munawwarah, where Maulana Saad was clearly seen moving away from the Hanafi Mazhab in another act or posture during Salah. Additionally, the Mufti highlighted a statement made by Maulana Saad, which further supports his claim: “In Dawah, we do not follow the Mazhab of the Hanafis, Shafi’is, Hanbalis, or Malikis. Wherever we go, we will adhere/comply/follow (Taabi’) to the school of thought of that place.” This approach mirrors the path of Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, who initially identified himself as part of the Ahle Hadith before making his outrageous claim of prophethood. The Mufti also mentioned that Maulana Saad had begun making the same objections to Fazaa’il-e-A’maal that the Ghair Muqallideen have always made, aiming to alter the Tablighi curriculum. [xxxii]
Personally, we have not yet conducted sufficient research or verification regarding this specific issue (Maulana Saad being part of the Ahle Hadith) to make any definitive claims. However, the reason we have mentioned the above is to encourage caution and alertness regarding the potential truth of this matter. The trajectory towards this conclusion does not seem far-fetched, especially when considering his approach of directly taking from the Seerah and his Ijtihadi-like inferences, as discussed earlier. The praise Maulana Saad has received from problematic individuals (who are of that ilk), with Muhammad Ali Mirza Engineer being one example, does not help his case.
As well as this audacity of making Incorrect Self Ijtihad despite a lack of competency, there are other issues with Maulana Saad like Tahreef/distortion, Tafseer Birrai/Tafseer from his own side, incorrectly commentating on verses of Quran and Hadith, wrong understanding of Deen, perversion of thought, being guilty of overstepping the bounds, holding extremist views (Ghuloo) and mentioning incorrect Masaail, with his choice of words at times an attack against the Ulema, while it is extremely important for the general masses to have love, respect and trust in their hearts for the Ulema. Examples will be mentioned ahead:
1) On the 29th of April 2023, during the Bhopal Ijtema, regarding the idea of being paid a salary for religious works, Ml Saad said:
“The Holy Prophet saw and the Sahaba had made it a habit to refuse wealth that came to them and they did not accept the wealth that was offered to them due to their religious services. The Sahaba never knew how one could earn/gather both wages and reward. It is the people of this era that say that one can earn/gather both wages and reward. Sahabah did not know whether or not their reward would remain if they were to take a salary for their religious services. The Sahabah did not know of such a thing, instead the people have made interpretations (Taweelaat) and made themselves accustomed to taking a wage for religious services despite not being in need. And now, in this era, this has become the habit of the people, even though they are not in need, whereas the people of the past rejected a salary despite being in need …
So, I am saying that the idea that the guarantee and responsibility of the needs of the student and teacher are borne by someone is wrong. I believe that due to this the struggle/strain (Mujahada) of both the teacher and student is becoming weak/diminishing. The struggle/strain of both the teacher and student is becoming weak/diminishing, while both the teacher and the student are happy that everything is good, rich people are taking care of our needs, so what’s the need for us to do anything? The teachers are happy. The students are happy. When the original/default ruling is not practised, then the leeway becomes the practise of the people. Then people consider the mentioning of it to be a rejection of the leeway. They cannot tolerate and bear it …” [xxxiii]
Note: This was a selected portion of the statement of Ml Saad which was not taken out of context. To see the entire statement, one can refer to the 2023 Fatwa of Darul Uloom Deoband.
Darul Uloom Deoband did an excellent job in writing against this view with great detail and numerous proofs in their latest fatwa against Ml Saad in 2023. Below, we will mention a small part of their Fatwa:
” … The foundation of the idea (of Maulana Saad) is also wrong and to justify them through the lives of the Sahaba is based on ignorance. As a matter of fact, the Sahaba that were engaged in such religious services which related to the general public were provided means of livelihood through an established public funding system. Stipends were fixed from the Bayt-al-Mal. The Sahaba that were engaged in such religious services accepted the stipend from the Bayt-al-Mal … Allama Aini, Allama Katani, Shaykh Al-Hadith Maulana Muhammad Zakaria and other scholars of Hadith have written about this incident, that anyone engaged in the religious service of the Muslim Community is entitled to receive stipends from the treasury and accept public funding … Qadhi Shuraih also used to draw a salary from his service as a judge. Also, Abdullah Bin Saadi (RA) once came to Umar (RA). Umar (RA) asked him: “I am hearing reports that you are doing government work but not taking the given salary?”. He (Abdullah Bin Saadi (RA)) replied in the affirmative. Umar (RA) asked: Why? He said, “I am self-sufficient, I have horses, slaves and other wealth. So, I want to spend my service on the Muslims for free” Umar (RA) replied, “Don’t do that. I also intended to do so, but the Holy Prophet (SAW) forbade me” … Ibn Atheer has written that Umar (RA) once addressed the Muslims and said: “You people know that I am a businessman and my family expenses were being met by my Trade. However, now I am unable to do so due to my service to the people. So, what is your opinion about taking from the Bayt-al-Mal?”. Ali (RA) replied: “O Ameer-ul Mu’mineen! All of us Muslims have already agreed that you should take whatever is necessary for you and your family”. Thus Umar (RA) started taking a salary from the Bayt-al-Mal. Hafiz Ibne Hajar writes (taking from Imam Tabari) that it can be clearly seen in this hadith that whoever engages in the collective work for Muslims should be entitled to a stipend from the Bayt-al-Mal.” [xxxiv]
Darul Uloom Deoband mentioned much more detail and a lot more proofs. Refer to their Fatwa for further details.
Again, we reiterate that the way Ml Saad expresses his views are troublesome. It puts the Ulema and those engaged in religious pursuits down in the eyes of the people, which is detrimental for the spiritual success of a community. Instead of indicating that the current Ulema will not get reward along with their salary and that they are guilty of making interpretations according to their desires, and instead of stating that it is wrong to take a salary and questioning the Mujahadah of such Ulema (which is majority of the Ulema of the world), it would have been more appropriate for Ml Saad to express himself in such a manner whereby he first and foremost, before mentioning his point, makes it clear that it is completely permissible to take a salary and that no one must look down on any scholar who takes a salary for his religious duties (in other words without making any clear/direct statements or in directs/indications that may cause people to look down on Ulema).
2) In a Bayan in September 2023, Maulana Saad said the following regarding wearing tight clothing/trousers in Salah:
“How tight clothing and trousers these people wear; I am swearing by the name of Allah that the Salah is not valid. You can ask the Mas’ala, you can make interpretations. The reason for this (Salah being invalid) is that the person wearing (tight) trousers is considered naked. He is considered to be naked. The entire shape/form of his body is being exposed.” [xxxv]
3) On one occasion Maulana Saad said regarding the one who performs Salah with a mobile phone in his pocket:
“According to me, Salah with a mobile phone (with a camera) in one’s pocket is invalid.” [xxxvi]
Many times, the theme, topic or subject mentioned by Maulana Saad is praiseworthy. Again here, the topic of dressing modestly, presenting oneself in Salah in the best possible manner and pointing out the harms of a mobile phone is praiseworthy. However, the problem is in his way of expression, exceeding the bounds and mentioning incorrect Masaail (along with the audacity to take an oath in the name of Allah (azza wa jall) to emphasise his statement). That which is Makrooh should not be elevated to the level of Haraam just like how something Haraam should not be lowered to the level of Makrooh. Likewise, that which is Sunnah or Wajib should not be elevated to the level of Fardh juts like how something Fardh should not be lowered to the level of Sunnah and Wajib. Ulema should be extremely cautious when speaking and issuing Fatwas that they do not exceed the bounds and that they abstain from following their desires. The test for the Ulema who have a soft or lenient nature, is to ensure that they do not lower the status or ruling of any action as mentioned above, whereas the test for the Ulema who have a hard and harsh nature is to not elevate the ruling of any action, otherwise unjustified elevation or lowering will fall under following one’s desires.
Yet, in regards to wearing tight clothing in Salah, although we strongly advise everyone to abstain from dressing in such a manner in and out of Salah (the importance of dressing modestly and the importance of perfecting one’s Salah in every possible way cannot be stressed enough), such a person’s Salah will still be valid despite being Makrooh, as is mentioned in the books of fiqh and Fataawa. [xxxvii] However, Maulana Saad exceeded the bounds by declaring the Salah as invalid. As for performing Salah with a mobile phone in one’s pocket, the Salah is valid and not even Makrooh. The books of Fataawa mention certain Masaail pertaining to keeping the phone in one’s pocket during Salah. A few examples: If one’s phone rings during Salah, then what must one do? The ruling of that persons Salah who switches his phone off during Salah? [xxxviii] If keeping the phone in the pocket itself invalidates salah, then what is the need to mention such Masaail? In fact, this statement of Maulana Saad (regarding the mobile phone) was also mentioned in the initial Fatwa of Darul Uloom Deoband in 2016, under the many problematic statements of Maulana Saad which were highlighted in that Fatwa. However, one should ensure that his phone is kept on silent or even completely switched off, so that his Salah and the Salah of the other Musallis is not disturbed, as having complete focus and concentration in Salah is of utmost importance.
4) On one occasion, Maulana Saad mentioned regarding reciting Quran from a mobile phone:
“I am saying with emphasis that recite the Quran whilst looking in the Mushaf. Leave whether it is permissible or impermissible. Never go into such matters. Whoever says to you that it is permissible, tell such a person that he is Jaahil/ignorant and that the honour and respect of the Quran has left his heart. Tell him that he is a Jaahil and he is not an Aalim. Whoever says that it is permissible, understand that he is a Jaahil. The one who says that there is ease in doing so is stupid. There isn’t ease in there, rather these phones / items of technology have Kufr and Shirk in them and are as a result disastrous and calamitous. The educated people who are affected by the ways of the Jews and Christians, we have all become affected by the Fatwas of such people. I am very troubled by this. It’s true. Whoever says there is no problem to read on the phone, he is completely Jaahil/ignorant. The honour of the Quran has left his heart.”
“Reading the Quran on a mobile is like drinking milk from a urine bottle/container.”
“To look in the Quran on a camera mobile and listen to it / read it is Haram, and it is a disgraceful act/disrespect (Tawheen) to the Quran. There will be no reward for it.” [xxxix]
Below are the words of Mufti Taqi Sb regarding the same question/issue:
“Now in these times the Quran Shareef has come onto the phone. So, people keep asking that is it permissible to read from the phone or not. It is permissible to read from the phone. You can read. But to read directly from the Mushaf itself, by keeping it in front of you and looking inside is better and more virtuous. There is more reward in reciting in this manner … Yet at the same it is not impermissible (to read from the phone). Imagine someone is on a journey and there is no Mushaf available or present, then it is not a sin to read from the phone. Some people have started considering it to be a sin. However, it is on its place that it is better and more virtuous to recite Quran directly from the Mushaf. There is hope of gaining more reward.” [xl]
It is very clear to see the difference between both answers. The answer given by Mufti Taqi Sb was expressed in a very appropriate and moderate way. As well as this, we reiterate that Maulana Saad‘s poor choice of words (“whoever says to you that it is permissible, tell such a person that he is Jaahil/ignorant and that the honour and respect of the Quran has left his heart. Tell him that he is a Jaahil and he is not an Aalim”) can negatively impact the honour people hold in their hearts for Ulema, while he could yet again be guilty of overstepping the bounds with his usage of the word “Haram”.
We also strongly encourage the people to recite Quran directly from the Mushaf itself, as it is more blessed, virtuous and rewardable. However, if someone decides to recite Quran from his phone, it will be permissible, especially considering that at times certain situations arise where people don’t have a copy of the Quran available, although we advise the people to carry a small pocket Quran to avoid such a situation.
The above 4 statements simply highlighted how he mentioned incorrect Masaail, alongside his troublesome way of expressing himself, which can at times be an attack on Ulema.
5) On one occasion Maulana Saad said:
“Today, keep in mind, the condition of the entire world is that after Makkah and Madinah if there is any place which is worthy of honour, being followed, obeyed and respected it is the Markaz/Masjid Nizamuddin … I swear by Allah to think bad or to harbour incorrect thoughts about this place (Nizamuddin) is equal to thinking bad or harbouring incorrect thoughts about Makkah and Madinah. Allah, due to sacrifices, makes (certain) places the hub/centres for the Ummah (Maraakiz/Maraaji). A person is taken to task for even intending to do a wrong action in such places, I don’t even know what will happen upon doing the incorrect action.” [xli]
6) Mufti Abdul Malik Sb mentions this following statement of Maulana Saad in his Book against Maulana Saad:
“These two things are not separate, that there is a separate world shura and a separate Markaz Nizamuddin. This is not possible. This is not possible. Until Qiyaamah it is not possible. It cannot be that there is a separate world shura and a separate Markaz of Nizamuddin because this is the Markaz and it will remain the Markaz till Qiyaamah … Shaytan has put those people in great doubt. He has put them in great doubt. This is the Markaz of the entire world and the entire world has to resort back to here. This is something which has been fixed/stipulated by Allah.”
Mufti Salman Mansurpoori refuted the above statement by mentioning this exceeded the bounds and that the knowledge of the unseen is only by Allah (azza wa jall). [xlii]
7) On one occasion, Maulana Saad said:
“Listen carefully, today, against my regular routine, I read a Kitab/story because of a Fitnah that befell upon the Sahaba. The reason is that in this era, it is considered that “irtidaad” is to leave Islam/apostasy. Listen to what I am saying. Everyone should listen attentively. In this era, it is considered that “irtidaad” means turning away from Islam/apostasy. Otherwise, during the time of the Sahaba, they also considered leaving Madinah and going to their locality as an act of “irtidaad”. What I want to say is that the Sahaba were so united in their work (of Deen), so much so that they considered it “irtidaad” to go back to their locality after coming to Madinah Munawarah. You people don’t read books. Refusing to come to Nizamuddin is not a small matter. I have been contemplating about this since morning. I refer to the story of the tribe of Banu Aslam who fell ill after coming to Medina. He said to them: You people have fallen ill after coming here as the weather and atmosphere here was not suitable for you. Therefore, for a change of atmosphere go back to the village for a few days for your health. They replied: O Messenger of Allah, it cannot be that we become Murtad. He said: No. This is not irtidaad, we are sending you there so that you get better/cured.” [xliii]
From the above 3 statements the Ghuloo and audacity of Maulana Saad is clearly evident. Did Maulana Saad forget about Masjid e Aqsa? Did Maulana get Ilhaam / receive divine inspiration that the above matter was stipulated and fixed from Allah? Is Maulana actually insinuating that leaving Nizamuddin is considered to be Irtidaad (without even touching on the translation and Maulana’s understanding of the incident)?!
8) On one occasion Maulana Saad said:
“The condition that Allah imposed, إِن تَنصُرُوا اللَّهَ, does not mean to spend money on the Muslims. It does not mean to spend money on the Muslims nor does it mean to gather strength against the enemies to battle them. You will have to listen to what I am saying very carefully! The meaning of this Nusrat is that you give Dawah to the slaves of Allah towards the religion of Allah. This is because spending money is not helping Islam. Spending money is not helping Islam. Spending money is helping a Muslim. Spending money is helping a Muslim.” [xliv]
In his commentary of this Ayah, Maulana Saad rejects the meaning of gathering strength against the army and limits it solely to a specific form of Dawah. However, in numerous other commentaries (Tafaaseer), this verse is clearly linked to fighting in the path of Allah. Despite this, Maulana Saad dismisses those interpretations. This is yet another example of his Ghuloo and inaccurate/incorrect commentary, where everything is reduced to the specific form of Dawah he has fixed in his mind.
Mufti Taqi Sb mentions the following in Uloomul Quran (Pg 374): “Interpreting the Holy Quran to fit one’s own preconceived notions: In regards to Tafseer, indeed another major cause of misguidance, is that he attempts to interpret the Quran to fit his own preconceived notions, which he already has fixed in his mind … Various deviant sects of old, those who are affected by the apparent meanings as well as those who were in awe of the philosophers of their time had adopted this very same approach, attempting to twist Quranic verses to align with their own preconceived notions, despite this methodology being an unjust approach in any matter of Dunya … Therefore, the correct way to gain guidance from the Holy Quran is to approach it with an empty mind, free from other theories, like a seeker of truth. One should acquire the knowledge necessary to understand its meanings and interpretations … For those who may not have the capability for it or doesn’t have enough trust on his own mind/intellect/understanding, the straightforward path is to rely on the interpretations/commentaries of those who have dedicated their lives to this work, whose scholarly insight and piety he trusts more, instead of setting foot himself in the valley of Tafseer.”
These are pertinent advices for Maulana Saad and his blind followers, who have fallen prey to the above. The above example is amongst the many examples and is sufficient to shed light and highlight this specific problem of Maulana Saad (additional examples of incorrect Tafseers were even mentioned in the first section).
9) During a 2023 talk in Nizamuddin Markaz, Maulana Saad says the following:
“This is a very important message which I want to convey. If a Muslim spends money in charity/good causes, whether (he spends) on his own people or others, without inviting to Allah (Dawah), it will create love and greed for wealth, not for Deen … If a Muslim spends money in charitable works without Dawah, it will create a greed for wealth among people, and desire/eagerness for Deen will not be created. Why? Because the Sunnah is that you should spend and be generous along with Dawah … Giving Charity without Da’wah is against the Sunnah.” [xlv]
Numerous Ahaadith encourage charity without any reference to Dawah. Due to his Ghuloo, Maulana Saad has made a sweeping statement that all forms of charity without Dawah lead to the love of wealth and that such an act is against the Sunnah! From here (and the statement above) his incorrect understanding of Deen is evident and it does not need much of an explanation. It is as clear as the light of the day for the one who is not blinded with the sickness of fanaticism.
10) In October 2022, in the Malaysian Ijtema, Maulana Saad said:
“Without giving Dawah, Imaan is not complete. I say that even with acts of worship, Imaan is not complete. I am simply conveying what the rightly guided Ulema have mentioned. In fact, Maulana Badre Aaalam (Imam and teacher of the Muhaditheen) has mentioned in the 2nd volume of Tarjumanus sunnah, this is something for the Ulema to understand. He writes in the 2nd volume of Tarjumanu sunnah (which is a unique book of hadeeth/there’s no Kitab like it): A person performs so much Salah that he has a black mark on his forehead, fasts so much that his lips have become dry, discharges Zakat completely and perfectly on its time, but in Islam this cannot be considered as a sign of Imaan. Instead, in Islam, to order people to do good and prohibiting them from evil has been stipulated as a sign of Imaan. He writes that to fulfil these two obligations is a cause of the completion of Imaan. He mentioned it under the verse:
﴿ كُنتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَوْ آمَنَ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَّهُم مِّنْهُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَأَكْثَرُهُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ ١١٠ ﴾ [آل عمران: ١١٠]
It is understood from here that believing in Allah (Imaan) is most strongly connected to fulfilling these 2 obligations of ordering people to do good and stopping them from evil. The completion of Imaan is in fulfilling these two obligations. This is the actual objective of our Ghush/moving, to encourage people to do good deeds and to take them out of evil habits and actions. In fact, even if it said that Imaan is not complete without Ghush, then it is not a statement which exceeds the bounds and oversteps the limits. Rather the people don’t know the actual objective and theme of Ghush. The objective and theme of Ghush is to order people to do good and to prohibit them from evil. When this is the case/when the objective of Ghush is the above two mentioned matters and to carry out both of these obligations in itself is necessary for one’s Imaan, so then Khayr how can Imaan be complete without Ghush. I understand that the need a believer has for Imaan, he also has the need of Ghush, due to the fact that the objective and theme of Ghush is what was mentioned above. That I am doing Ghush to fulfil my obligation of ordering people to do good and stopping them from evil. This is the objective of my Ghush and that is why I need to do Ghush, because I am in need of Imaan. I want/need Imaan.” [xlvi]
The conclusion Maulana Saad reached after reflecting on the words Maulana Badre Aalam that “Without giving Dawah, Imaan is not complete. I say that even with acts of worship, Imaan is not complete”, “In fact, even if it said that Imaan is not complete without Ghush, then it is not a statement which exceeds the bounds and oversteps the limits”, “so then Khayr how can Imaan be complete without Ghush” only signifies Maulana’s narrow-mindedness, Ghuloo, inability to understand texts and yet again is another example of trying to fit anything and everything according to the specific form of an action he has fixed in his mind. Is ordering people to do good and prohibiting them from evil restricted to carrying out Ghush? Through which verse or narration has the generality of Amr Bil Maaroof and Nahi Anil Munkar been abrogated? The scholar who carries out the above-mentioned injunction (Amr bil Maroof …) via his writings, lectures, lessons but misses his weekly Ghush due to being occupied, is his Imaan really so weak?!
The Darul Iftaa of Binnori town also passed a Fatwa against this statement. Below is a portion of the Fatwa:
“… Going for Ghusht is also a good deed, and there are many other righteous deeds besides going for Ghusht. It is not correct to limit and confine the perfection of Imaan solely to Ghusht. Statements that do not benefit the general Muslim public, and those that are not easily understood by simple-minded Muslims or are based on personal opinions and incorrect research, whilst it is not according to the way of the righteous predecessors (Aslaf), precaution should be exercised in listening to such lectures. The senior figures of Tabligh should prevent such individuals from giving Bayans.” [xlvii]
11) His insistence that A’maal such as Du’a and Da’wah should only be done in the Masjid and to perform these A’maal outside the Masjid is a Bidah / against the Sunnah, whereas Shariah has never issued such an instruction.
Keep in mind the following words of the Darul Iftaa run by Mufti Abdul Malik which highlights that the above is actually a common issue with Maulana Saad and his followers:
لوگوں کے سامنے خیر القرون کا نقشہ اس طرح کھینچا جاتا ہے کہ لوگ خیر القرون کے بہت سے اتفاقیہ امور اور عصری یاد قتی امور کو بھی سنت سمجھنے لگے اور اس سے ہر چیز کو منکر، بدعت یا بے برکت سمجھنے لگے، اگرچہ وہ خیر القرون میں موجود کوئی چیز ہی نہ ہو (فتاوی مرکز الدعوۃ الاسلامیہ ١٤٤٥ ص ٤)
“The picture of the best of generations has been drawn in such a way before people that many incidental and temporary matters of that time are also understood as Sunnah. As a result, anything outside of that is considered as an innovation, wrong or devoid of blessings, even though it may be something that existed in the best generations.”
In one lecture, Maulana Saad mentions how Sahaabah would come to the Masjid to make Dua for their needs to be fulfilled and for their debts to be cleared etc. It was in the Masjid that Rasulullah (SAW) taught the Sahaabi the Dua for clearing debts. He goes on to say, “It was not the case that the Duas for clearing debts were written in books, this is a new innovation which is common nowadays, that all the Duas are uploaded onto the mobile phone, whenever any matter arises, take out the Dua from the phone and read it, whereas – listen carefully to what I’m saying – that man who does not come to the Masjid with his need, how can his Dua be accepted? Dua won’t be accepted by you reciting from wherever you are. First you bring your need to the house of the one who fulfils all needs…do you understand, not that you recite the Dua from wherever you are. I want to say something: Dua is not something to be recited, it is something to be begged… the beggar goes to the door of the one giving… is it possible that a beggar asks while sitting in his home? The solution to problems is not in simply reading the Duas. Bring your needs to the house of Allah. If you come here (to the Masjid), then you will be deserving of having your Dua accepted.” [xlviii]
This bizarre viewpoint, is debunked by the famous incident narrated in Hayatus Sahaabah (a book in the Tableeghi curriculum) where Sayyiduna Anas (RA) made Dua for rain in his home, and lo and behold his Dua was accepted!
أخرج ابن سعد عن ثُمامة بن عبد الله قال: جاء أنسٌ رضي الله عنه أكَّار بستانه في الصيف، فشكى بهاء العطش، فدعا بماء فتوضأ وصلَّى … (حياة الصحابة ٤/ ٢٠٤)
He also says, “I have repeatedly addressed this issue from Nizamuddin to my friends and to the congregation. The purpose of our Ghush is to bring (people) to the Masjid. To talk (i.e. give Da’wat) in houses, shops, gathering places, parks, hotels is against Sunnat. Nor was this the practice of the Sahaabah, nor was it the practice of the Ambiyaa. Rather, after giving brief Dawah, bring each person into the environment of the Masjid, (and tell them) that we want to talk to you in the Masjid. Because, Allah says in the Quran, that he will take out the fear of creation from the hearts of those who populate the Masjid, and Allah says فعسى أولئك أن يكونوا من المهدين these will be the people who will receive guidance from Allah.” [xlix]
“Outside of the Masjid is an environment of negligence/neglect. To talk of Deeni matters there is disgracing Deen.” [l]
How can such an absurd claim be made when it comes in an authentic Hadeeth that Rasulullah (SAW) gave Da’wah in the markets of Makkah?! And again, this incident is found in Hayatus Sahaabah! (1/124)
حدثنا أبو النضر، قال: حدثنا شيبان، عن أشعث، عن شيخ من بني مالك بن كنانة، قال: حدثني شيخ من بني مالك بن كنانة، قال: رأيت رسول الله ﷺ بسوق المجاز … (مسند أحمد ٢٧/ ١٤٨)
The above few statements further outline his habit of labelling the specific form or specific way of carrying out certain actions that he formulates in his mind to be the Sunnah whilst speaking out against the other equally permissible ways, his incompetency for making Ijtihaad and inferences directly from Seerah, Sunnah and Quran and which further questions his understanding of Deen.
12) A few of his other statements regarding Salah, which further questions his understanding of Deen and only further outlines his Ghuloo regarding Dawah and Tabligh: “Mushwera is more important than Salah and more Aam/general than it” “Mushwera is necessary like Salah. In fact, it is more important than Salah. Just like how it is necessary to come to the Masjid for Salah, it is necessary to come to the Masjid for Mushwera.” “To leave the Mushwera and go is more severe than fleeing from the battlefield” [li]
In another lecture, he says, “giving time to the Masjid, staying in the Masjid is an objective in and of itself. Namaz is a subordinate Amal of the Masjid. My point will be very difficult for you to understand. Namaz is a subordinate/secondary Amal of the Masjid. Namaz is a subordinate/secondary Amal of the Masjid. Namaz is a subordinate/secondary Amal of the Masjid. In the Masjid, the gatherings of Imaan and Amal would take place, and in the midst (of these A’maal) Namaz would commence. Abu Bakr (RA) was once giving a bayaan, he kept speaking kept speaking until he said, ‘now read Namaz'”. [lii]
This theory has also warped his understanding of Itikaaf. For Maulana Saad, Itikaaf is not merely for seclusion and worship, but rather to facilitate the A’maal of Da’wat and Tabligh in the Masjid. He says, “We will not give off (from Tableeghi duties) for Itikaaf, rather we will encourage workers to sit in Itikaaf with the objective of establishing the A’maal of Dawat, do you understand what I’m saying… so that this Itikaaf is not restricted to spending time in the Masjid and worshipping Allah in seclusion, but rather to gather the Sunnat of Da’wat and Ibadat.” [liii]
The above theory is also a cause for his sheer astonishment when Tablighi brothers ask for some time off (from Tabligh) to sit in Itikaaf:
“I was greatly astonished when one of our colleagues came to me and said that he needed a month’s leave because he wanted to go for I’tikaf under the service of such and such a Sheikh. I said, ‘Up until now, you people have not combined Da’wah (invitation) and worship. You have at least been in Da’wah for forty years. After forty years in Da’wah, a person says that he needs a leave because he wants to go for I’tikaf for a month. I said, ‘How can a person, who is asking for leave from Da’wah for the sake of worship, progress in worship without Da’wah?'” [liv]
13) There are generally flaws in the analogies (Qiyaas) Maulana Saad tends to make. His inability/incompetency in regards to correctly analogising matters will become evident with the examples below (with his Ghuloo possibly being the driving force). The chapter of Qiyaas in the books of Usool ul Fiqh is something we recommended Maulana Saad and his followers take out time to read.
“Movement (Naql wa Harkat) in the path of Allah is a condition for the completion of repentance. People remember three conditions, but they have forgotten the fourth condition. The one who had killed 99 people met a monk, and he made him despondent. Then he met a scholar, and the scholar told him to go towards a certain town. He set out, and at that moment death was written for him. Both the angels of mercy and punishment came to take his soul. In the end his repentance was accepted.” [lv]
He also repeatedly says: “Missing one year of going in the path of Allah is a sin and a cause of Allah’s displeasure, because the reprimand that was revealed upon Ka’b ibn Malik happened solely because, although he used to go out in the path of Allah every time, he was unable to go on this occasion. He missed going out in the path of Allah once, and a warning was revealed because of it.” [lvi]
Were the rulings for all the expeditions and battles the same? Were there some battles that were Fardh e Ayn or demanded Nafeer Aam as oppose to others? Was there never any battle or expedition where any Sahabi (RA) or Nabi (SAW) himself remained behind? Does it make sense at all to compare missing some time in Tablighi Jamaat with the battle being referred to above? Take some time out to think Insha’Allah!
Moderate advices and the contrast with Maulana Ibrahim Dewla
On the whole, Maulana Saad and the Nizamuddin brothers, who generally exceed the bounds / are guilty of Ghuloo, should benefit from the following moderate advices. Although there may be individuals on the Shura side who also exceed the bounds (which at times can be due to becoming affected by the amount of time spent with Maulana Saad and others like him in Nizamuddin, listening to his lectures for a number of years prior to the split), Ghuloo is a more prominent feature among those from Nizamuddin, making them the primary addressees of the following counsel. As well as this, when comparing the lectures of the senior Ulema who hold big positions of each faction (like Maulana Ibrahim Dewla and Maulana Saad as examples), the precautious and moderate nature of the lectures of Maulana Ibrahim Sb is clearly evident for anyone who habitually listens to his lectures as oppose to the constant Ghuloo that arises from the lectures of Maulana Saad (and the other responsible/leading Saathis). The moderate advices:
Maulana Ibrahim Dewla mentioned:
“We should not create our own separate world, saying, ‘We are the people of Tabligh, and they are the people of the Madrasah.’ This is wrong. All the efforts of Deen happening in the world are for the sake of Deen. Knowledge is for Deen. Zikr is for Deen. Dawah is for Deen. Welfare work is for Deen. We should be open-minded (not narrow-minded) and recognize that, by Allah, they all have value. Everyone is working for the sake of Deen. Regarding yourselves be Da’ees (inviters to Allah). Don’t be people who make claims, saying, ‘Our work is this, our work is this.’ That is someone who makes claims and has no room in his heart for others. It is mentioned in a Hadith Shareef: ‘Treat people according to their status/level.’ They are also doing work for Allah, and so are we. All of this is Haqq (truth). There is no conflict or tension when it comes to the Haqq. Instead, there is cooperation and support in the Haqq. Be friends and companions in the work. Don’t approach the work as separate factions or groups. Consider it a favour that they are doing the work that we are unable to do. This is what the Prophet (SAW) taught the Muhajireen. There was no belittling or looking down on others. Today, we are driven by desires / egoism resides within us. That’s why we look down on others and feel jealous. He (SAW) taught us Deen, that those who are engaged in other efforts for Deen, whether it’s knowledge, Zikr, or welfare work, we should make Dua for them.” [lvii]
The above advice, attitude and style of Maulana Ibrahim Dewla is in complete contrast to what Darul Uloom Deoband said regarding Maulana Saad:
“Furthermore, the importance of the work of the Tablighi Jamaat is being presented in such a way that it leads to harsh criticism and belittling of other branches of the religion, and the rejection of the old methods of Dawah (inviting to Islam) of the pious predecessors. As a result, there is a diminishing, even belittling, of the greatness of the elders and predecessors. This attitude/style/behaviour of his is in complete contrast to the previous responsible figures of the Tablighi Jamaat: Hazrat Maulana Ilyas Sahib, Hazrat Maulana Yusuf Sahib, and Hazrat Maulana Inamul Hasan Sahib.” [lviii]
Maulana Habibur Rahman Azmi mentioned (RA):
تبلیغی جماعت بہت اچھا کام کر رہی ہے میں اس فکری کام کر کے خلاف نہیں ہوں … باقی جو لوگ انتہا پسندی سے پاک ہیں، یہ سمجھتے ہیں کہ مدرسہ و مکتب بھی کام کرتے ہیں، یہ مدرسہ و درس و تدریس میں لگنے والے بھی ضروری کام میں لگے ہوئے ہیں اور شریعت کے حدود کے اندر جماعتیں کام کرتی ہیں ان کو بہت اچھا سمجھتا ہوں اور اس جماعت کا فائدہ آنکھوں کے سامنے ہے۔
“The Tablighi Jamaat is doing very good work, and I am not against this group. I am against those people who, by taking an extreme approach, say to leave the Madrasa and Maktab and join the Jamaat, or who forcibly take someone into the Jamaat while their children are starving. As for the people who are free from extremism and understand that the Madrasa and Maktab are also doing (valuable work), and those involved in teaching are also involved in necessary work, and the Jamaat works within the limits of Sharia, I consider them very good, and the benefit of this Jamaat is before our very own eyes.” [lix]
Maulana Abrarul Haq (RA) mentioned in one of the Tablighi Ijtimaas:
“The Tablighi Jamaat is beneficial, but not sufficient. And when will it be sufficient? When a strong connection with the scholars of religion and the people of Allah is established. Since the complete religion cannot be encompassed in the six points, the need for scholars has always existed and will always exist. The example of the Tablighi Jamaat is like first aid; when someone is injured, immediate first aid is given, and then they are sent to specialists for further treatment. This was the purpose for which Maulana Ilyas (RA) established the Jamaat: to familiarize those who are far from religion with the faith, and connect them with the scholars and spiritual guides, so that they may acquire the complete religion. The purification of the soul from the scholars and spiritual guides is also obligatory, because the acceptance of deeds depends on the purification of the soul. Therefore, it is acknowledged that the Tablighi Jamaat is beneficial, but it is not accepted as sufficient, meaning ‘that this is the only work, this is the only work’. Maulana said that you should not say that this is the only work, but rather say that this is also a work (amongst the other works).”
The messenger of Allah (SAW) said:
إِنَّ مِنْ إِجْلَالِ اللهِ إِكْرَامَ ذِي الشَّيْبَةِ الْمُسْلِمِ، وَحَامِلِ الْقُرْآنِ غَيْرِ الْغَالِي فِيهِ وَالْجَافِي عَنْهُ، وَإِكْرَامَ ذِي السُّلْطَانِ الْمُقْسِطِ (أبو داود ٢/ ١٣١٦)
“Indeed part of respect for Allah is to honour an old/grey-haired Muslim and someone who holds/bears the Qur’an, as long as he is not excessive/extreme in it nor does he turn away from it, and to honour a just ruler.”
Section 4: The Problematic Ideology and Habits Are Spreading
The way Maulana Saad inappropriately expresses himself from time to time with unsuitable analysis and statements against Ambiyaa (AS)/Sahaba (RA), Tafseer Birrai/misrepresentation of Nusoos/incorrect explanation of Quran and Hadeeth, more often than not to show the importance of Tabligh and Dawah, a direct result of his Ghuloo/extremism, subsequently opens the door to his followers to do the same. He has, as a result, initiated the dangerous trend of normalising the criticism of Ambiyaa and Sahabah and began pecking at the Ghayrah (of the believers) and untouchable stature of the Ambiyaa (AS) and Sahaaba (RA) in the hearts of the believers, alongside opening the door for other Ulema and laymen to deduce and judge certain actions of the Ambiyaa (AS) and Sahaba (RA) to show the importance of Dawah. It is extremely worrying that this habit and ideology of Maulana Saad is spreading. Below we will mention examples (sufficing on a few):
1) In an Ijtimaa held by the Nizamuddin faction in Madagascar, on 17 August 2024, one of the speakers was guilty of wrongly criticising the Sahabah (RA) for leaving the effort of Dawah and busying themselves with other matters (which led to such devastating outcomes), although those other matters were the command of that particular time and as a result it would completely foolish to attribute any sort of deficiency to the Sahaba (RA) for their actions. However, the speaker did so and his objective was to simply show the importance of Dawah, which is an old habit of Maulana Saad. The statement of the speaker at the Madagascar Ijtimaa is as follows: “The Sahabah were busy with the burial and shrouding. There were many matters being discussed amongst themselves. Who will be the Khalifa after today? How will we shroud him (SAW)? How will Ghusl be given? Where will he (SAW) be buried? The tragedy of the Nabi of Allah (SAW) leaving this world, and being occupied with the needs and demands of such a time, for a few days the effort of Dawah stopped and in all the corners/outskirts of Madinah Irtidaad spread. Big big tribes became Murtad. People began rejecting Zakat. People started making false claims of prophethood. Big kings started getting the audacity and courage to attack Madinah that they need to eliminate Islam and the Muslims. What was the matter? For a few days the effort (of Dawah) stopped. Leaving out Dawah for a few days lead to the Irtidaad of Muslims, rejection of Fardh actions, listen correctly, Irtidaad of Muslims, rejection of Fardh actions, false claims of prophethood, big kings getting the courage and audacity to destroy Islam and the Muslims. What was the reason? For a few days the effort was not made. Oh hoh. In the best of generations, in the best of generations, the leaving of Dawah had such devastating consequences, thus in our era which is full of evil, falsehood, wrongs, immorality, disobedience, if Muslims leave the effort of Dawah, then how will one protect his Deen.” [lx]
It has been reported to us by an Aalim, who has spent a lot of time in Nizamuddin and is still currently a strong supporter of Maulana Saad, that he heard these very same words (which were said in the 2024 Madagascar Ijtimaa) from Maulana Saad himself in Nizamuddin, and that this speaker is simply repeating what he has heard from Maulana Saad.
2) As well as this, it has been reported to us (via email) that an Aalim in Africa, this year (2024), mentioned regarding the Tafseer of the following Ayah:
﴿ إِنَّ لَكَ فِي النَّهَارِ سَبْحًا طَوِيلًا ٧ ﴾ [المزمل: ٧]
This Ayah refers to swimming in the ocean of people, that during the day you have to swim in the ocean of people giving Dawah. The Aalim then went on to mention that the word swimming was used because if the swimmer stops swimming the swimmer will drown, showing that if a person leaves the effort of Dawah, then his Imaan would go down. So even if Nabi (SAW) had to stop giving Dawah, his Imaan would have dropped too.
3) A senior and respectable Aalim of South Africa, Hazrat Maulana Abdul Hameed Sb mentioned in a lecture that he came across a link where he listened to a debate regarding this matter. The supporter of Maulana Saad passionately defended Maulana Saad. He went on to say that what’s wrong if Maulana Saad has made mistakes, even the Ambiyaa made mistakes.
4) It has been directly/personally reported to us this year (2024) by an Aalim in Canada, who stays by the Nizamuddin Markaz and who would often listen to their talks, that the problematic statements and ideology of Maulana Saad is clearly evident in the talks of his followers in the Nizamuddin Markaz.
In addition to the above, the ill effects of the ideology have been witnessed first-hand by one Aalim (who personally informed us) who visited Bangladesh, where the brother conducting the Taleem of Muntakhab Ahaadith was giving his own distorted commentary, based on his own deficient understanding, directly from the Hadith.
5) A clip has been brought to our attention where the son of Maulana Saad repeated the very same inappropriate statement made by his father regarding the Walima of Nabi (SAW) and Zainab Bint Jahsh (RA) in a lecture. [lxi]
Any person of sound intellect and nature would accept that the above statements are extremely disrespectful, absolutely unnecessary and that Maulana Saad has opened a door of great Fitnah. The symmetry between these statements and the statements of Maulana Saad are almost identical and the problematic ideology of Maulana Saad is clearly evident.
During our research and study of Maulana Saad and his followers, we have noticed that they tend to attribute afflictions, difficulties, conditions and negative results to shortcomings and deficiency in Dawah and as a result are objecting and questioning the actions carried out by the respective individuals, even if it may be Ambiyaa (AS) and Sahaaba (RA), which is extremely dangerous and against the established principles of Ahlus Sunnah.
Just as Maulana Saad insinuated (ایماء) towards the attribution of the misguidance of Bani Israail to Musa’s (AS) leaving of Dawah for 40 days, suggests that he is questioning Musa’s (AS) action of going to Mount Toor and subsequent leaving of Dawah, as well as pointing out Musa’s (AS) shortcoming in regards to the fulfilment of his religious duties as a messenger. Likewise, Maulana Saad indicated towards leaving Dawah (due to becoming affected by the surrounding conditions) in the incident of Yusuf (AS), before touching on the Tafseer. Also, the speaker during the 2024 Madagascar Ijtimaa, attributes the problems of the time to the Sahaba’s (RA) deficiency in regards to Dawah. He questions them being occupied with the Ghusl, shrouding, burial and matter of Khilafah (the irony in questioning the Sahaaba (RA) about occupying themselves with who will be the next Ameer/Khalifa). Again, the extremism has caused them to land up here. Just as how the command of the time for Moosa (AS) was to go to Mount Toor, the command of the time for the Sahabah (RA) was to be occupied with the blessed Ghusl, shrouding, burial of Nabi (SAW). We would like to pose a question to the respectable speaker, that if someone leaves the effort of Dawah in order to performs Asr Salah, is he also guilty of neglecting the action of Dawah? Just like how the command of the time is to perform Asr Salah here, the command of the time in the above examples was what was mentioned above.
Whilst keeping in mind their above-mentioned tendency, consider the following texts:
وَكَذَلِكَ لَا خِلَافَ أَنَّهُمْ مَعْصُومُونَ مِنْ كِتْمَانِ الرِّسَالَةِ وَالتَّقْصِيرِ فِي التَّبْلِيغِ (الشفا للقاضي عياض ٢/ ١٤٤)
“And similarly, there is no difference of opinion that they are infallible from concealing the message and from any shortcoming in conveying it.”
وَيَجِبُ لَهُمْ أَيْضًا أَنَّهُمْ بَلَّغُوا كُلَّ مَا أَمَرَهُمُ الْمَوْلَى سُبْحَانَهُ وَلَمْ يَتْرُكُوا شَيْئًا مِنْهُ لَا نِسْيَانًا وَلَا عَمْدًا أَمَّا عَمْدًا فَلِمَا سَبَقَ فِي الْأَمَانَةِ وَأَمَّا نِسْيَانًا فَلِلْإِجْمَاعِ (شرح صغرى الصغرى ص ١٩٢)
“It is also necessary for the Ambiyaa to have conveyed everything that Allah has ordered them to convey, and they have not left anything of it, not forgetfully or intentionally. As for doing so intentionally, that is because of what has passed before regarding Amanah. As for doing so forgetfully, then it is because of consensus.”
Mufti Shafee mentions in Maariful Quran (4/571): “But there is no difference of opinion of any individual of any group that none of the Ambiyaa (AS) can be deficient in their religious obligations of prophethood / conveying the message.”
Compare the above with the following statement of Maulana Mawdoody mentioned by Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) (Pg 151):
حضرت یونس علیہ السلام سے فریضہ رسالت کی ادائیگی میں کچھ کوتاہیاں ہو گئی تھیں، غالباً انہوں نے صبر ہو کر قبل از وقت اپنا مستقر بھی چھوڑ دیا تھا۔
“Hazrat Yunus (AS) had made some shortcomings in fulfilling his duty/obligation of prophethood/conveying the message. Most likely, in his impatience, he left the place before the appointed time.”
Section 5: Rujoo / Retractions
We felt as though it is extremely important to mention the details of the retractions of Maulana Saad. A lack of knowledge in this regard can be a cause of siding with Maulana Saad. However, once one is aware of the details and realities behind the retractions, the truth will become clear.
First Rujoo
2016 November – When the initial Fatwa of Darul Uloom Deoband was prepared concerning the statements of Maulana Saad, Maulana Saad came to know and subsequently sent a delegation to Darul Uloom Deoband saying that he is prepared to do Rujoo/retract. So, Darul Uloom Deoband sent a list of questionable statements and their adopted and agreed upon stance regarding the matter. Maulana Saad then sent his first official Rujoo/retraction Letter to Darul Uloom Deoband. However, they were not satisfied with the retraction and as a result released their first Fatwa. So why did Deoband reject and deem the first letter of Rujoo to be unsatisfactory?
At the start of the letter, Maulana Saad mentioned the following:
“In this regard this lowly one, considering it to be his religious responsibility, makes Rujoo/retracts on his part in clear words from those previous Bayans that have been referred to, and seeks Almighty Allah’s forgiveness.”
However, at the end of the letter, Maulana Saad wrote:
“In the previous lectures, the deficiency that happened in the manner of expression, due to a slip or lack of precaution of the tongue or due to not encompassing all the Masaalih and wisdoms during the Bayan, this lowly one considers very disappointing whatever ill thoughts important individuals such as yourselves, who are responsible for an international and academic centre, have had regarding the ideologies, thoughts, position/stance and way of this lowly one and his associates. I consider this to be uncooperative and unhelpful for the blessed effort of Dawah and Tabligh and its Markaz … Moreover, despite this lowly one’s lack of knowledge, an attempt will be made to send whatever information and references are available relating to the objections raised regarding the speeches of this lowly one.” [lxii]
Now compare the above with the following statements of our elders:
A statement of Maulana Muhammad Ilyas (RA), which is mentioned in his Malfoozat (Pg 169):
“Hazrat Umar (RA) would often say to his companions that you people have put a very great /burdensome responsibility on my shoulders. You people should be watchful/observant of my actions. I am also desperately requesting my friends that they are watchful/observant of me. Wherever I make a mistake, they should reprimand (me) and make Duas for my guidance.”
Another saying of Maulana Muhammad Ilyas (RA), which is also mentioned in his Malfoozaat (Pg 44):
“I am also saying to you people that keep an eye out for my state of affairs/condition and whatever statements of mine need to be called out and criticized, then do so accordingly.”
The words of Hazrat Thanwi (RA), which is mentioned in Imdadul Fataawa (4/26):
“If my view is wrong, I will openly retract. Also, after the judgement of the Ulema is made I will no longer speak or write about it to them. I will accept and consider the judgement of the Ulema to be the final judgement and if the situation is such that I do not understand (the judgement of the ulema), I will still accept it and blindly follow it.”
Regarding this controversial retraction, Mufti Abdul Malik writes:
“Now you people judge for yourselves that is this a retraction? What was the need for him to do Rujoo if he had proofs and references to support the correctness of his stance and position? Darul Uloom Deoband were unable to retract their Fatwa due to the last few lines. That’s why Deoband had wrote a letter for him that despite apparently making Rujoo in the beginning of his letter, the ending denotes something different… [lxiii] In the first retraction letter it was said that I will send my proofs/sources/references. Is this called a retraction? He is going to send references for statements of misguidance. Even if these statements of misguidance are found in any book, reference to that will be made and it will be simply accepted? Either the books being referred to are not reliable, or this particular discussion in the book is not reliable. The Ulema understand such points. You are talking about references, can there even be a reference for misguidance! If any reference is given then it is wrong, it is not possible for there to be correct/authentic references for statements of misguidance.” [lxiv]
From the above it is evident why Darul Uloom Deoband did not accept the first Rujoo/retraction letter of Maulana Saad.
2016 December 6 – Darul Uloom Deoband subsequently released their first Fatwa.
2016 December 8 – Darul Uloom Deoband issued a supplementary writeup explaining why his first Rujoo was not accepted.
Second Rujoo
2016 December 10/11 – Maulana Saad sent his second retraction letter. The letter was more or less identical to the first letter, except that the controversial points mentioned at the end were removed. Darul Uloom Deoband accepted this retraction and deemed it satisfactory.
2016 December 13 – Darul Uloom Deoband prepared a letter to send to Maulana Saad to inform him that his Rujoo/retraction letter was accepted. They sent two messengers to personally deliver their response to him in Nizamuddin. However, whilst the messengers were on their way to Delhi, reliable evidence reached Darul Uloom Deoband that Maulana Saad had repeated his objectionable statement regarding Musa (AS), that very day in his Fajr speech (after research it was proven that the news that reached them was true). Moreover, he also made a controversial statement regarding Yusuf (AS). Thus, Darul Uloom Deoband decided not to send the letter and called back their messengers.
It is clear and evident why Darul Uloom Deoband rejected the second Rujoo of Maulana Saad. To repeat the very statement from which Rujoo was made simply a few days after the retraction, alongside mentioning a new statement regarding Yusuf (AS) (which was also not befitting of the lofty status of a Nabi) clearly questions the sincerity of the retraction. [lxv]
The words of Allamah Kawthari (RA) regarding a certain influential scholar of the past, who retracted and apologised about problematic statements only to go against his word and repeat (despite the retraction), going back to his old habits, fit very well at this point, which he mentions in his تعليقات of السيف الصقيل (Pg 96):
كما هي عادة أئمة الضلال ، وعاد إلى دعوته الضالة ، ورجع إلى عادته القديمة في الإضلال
“Just as is the habit of the Imams of misguidance, he returned to his misguided call and reverted to his old habit of misleading others (despite promising and agreeing not to).”
Third Rujoo
2017 January – About a month later, Maulana Saad sent his third Rujoo letter to Darul Uloom Deoband. This Rujoo was unconditional regarding some errors. However, regarding other errors, he defended himself. He said that those “errors” were taken from the words of the Mufassireen, which possibly those objecting against him have not come across, due to which they considered what he said to be Tafseer Birrai and baseless, despite it being transmitted from the earlier scholars. And based on that, his words cannot be classed as falsehood and misguidance, at most it is Marjooh (non-preferred view).
Darul Uloom Deoband did not entirely accept this Rujoo due to the arguments and interpretations/explanations that were presented. At this point the seniors of Darul Uloom Deoband, after consultation and a lot of contemplation, considering it to be their religious duty and responsibility, said to Maulana Saad that they do not need his Rujoo. Instead, he should do an open public Rujoo in front of the general public with which the wrong understanding/misunderstanding of the people can be removed. That is sufficient! Just like how the statements have been made in public, the retractions should also be done in the same manner. Darul Uloom Deoband then again expressed their moderate and just stance on Maulana Saad, keeping in mind all the previous retractions. Towards the end they mentioned that Maulana Saad‘s lectures/statements regarding Musa (AS) do not simply fall into the category of Marjooh, rather it is definitely wrong and incorrect and it opposes the lofty status of such a great messenger of Allah. [lxvi]
Compare Maulana Saad‘s response to Mawdoody’s response after he was also corrected for an inappropriate statement made against a Nabi of Allah, which Mufti Shafee mentions in Maariful Quran (4/574):
“The specific contemporary was alerted of his mistake by some scholars, so he, as a result, in support of his stance, for the Tafseer of Surah Saffat brought forth many views/statements/texts of the Mufassireen.”
Fourth Rujoo
2017 February – Maulana Saad sent his fourth Rujoo letter where he made Rujoo unconditionally from his statement regarding Musa (AS). He then made a firm intention to abstain from mentioning the incident of Musa (AS) again.
The seniors of Darul Uloom Deoband had already consulted and contemplated a lot. They had already made it clear that they themselves are not in need of a Rujoo. The matter is between him and Allah. Three inadequate retractions had already been made. Since the statements were made in public in front of many people, the Rujoo should be likewise. It is sufficient that Maulana openly retracts in front of the public. Darul Uloom Deoband then also strongly declared that they are not biased to any one side. Instead, they made it clear that Tabligh Jamaat is the established group of the seniors of Deoband and as a result they consider it their religious responsibility to protect, preserve and correctly guide this work. Besides that, they have nothing to do with the internal affairs pertaining to the Imaarat and Shura. However, they consider it necessary to point out any errors and they reiterated that they are not biased when pointed out mistakes and errors. [lxvii]
Fifth Rujoo
2017 December 2 – Maulana Saad did his first public Rujoo in Markaz Nizamuddin. Before the Taleem of Hayatus-Sahabah, after Eesha Salah, he openly retracted his statement regarding Musa (AS). [lxviii]
Sixth Rujoo
2018 January – Maulana Saad did his second public Rujoo in Kakrail Masjid (Bangladesh), where he openly retracted his statement regarding Musa (AS). [lxix]
These 2 public retractions were also not what Deoband exactly requested for. What certain elders in Deoband and Mufti Zaid Mazaahiri also pointed out, is that Maulana Saad simply retracted in front of a limited/relatively small crowd of around 200 people. You can call this a relatively small gathering. The incorrect statement or should I say statements, were made in huge Ijtimaas, attended by so many, listened to by hundreds of thousands, due to which the hearts and minds of hundreds of thousands were fed with such detrimental words. How many of those innocent and simple-minded brothers who were present in those Ijtimaas and heard those words were present for the Hayaatus Sahaabah Taaleem, which only consisted of around 200 people? Even if the statements were not made in big Ijtimaas, due to the habit of the Jamaat brothers being that they tend to repeatedly say whatever the Ameer/elders say or whatever is mentioned from the mimbar of Nizamuddin, assuming it to be automatically correct, along with Jamaats constantly moving in different areas and countries, subsequently causes the harm to spread far and wide. Thus, Darul Uloom Deoband’s desire was that Maulana Saad retracts in an Aam/big gathering (like the Ijtimaa in Bhopal as an example), instead of retracting in front of a crowd of around 200 people in the four walls of the Masjid. However, Maulana Saad did not do so. [lxx]
After all the retractions, to clarify their stance and the situation as well as responding to the objections (that Maulana Saad has now retracted), Deoband published and released a statement on 31 January 2018:
They begin by saying that multiple and continuous questions have been coming in since the open retraction of Maulana Saad. Thereafter, they mentioned that it is necessary to clarify that Maulana’s retraction regarding this one incident (of Musa (AS)) to a certain degree can be classified as satisfactory/acceptable/reasonable. However, one’s attention cannot be turned away/one cannot lose sight of the original position of Deoband’s worry regarding Maulana’s problematic and deviated ideology and process of thought. (In other words, this is a fundamental problem and not a matter of one or two statements). This is because even after multiple retractions, every so often we receive Maulana’s Bayans, in which we find the same old incorrect deductions/extractions, his coming across as a Mujtahid, misrepresentation of Quran and Hadith by him incorrectly applying them to his specific ideology and the specific form of Dawah in his mind, due to which not only the Ulema of Darul Uloom, instead other rightly guided Ulema also have a great deal of dissatisfaction and discontent regarding his entire ideology.
What we are trying to say is that even an insignificant diversion from the ideology of our elders and seniors is extremely harmful. Maulana should adopt precaution when delivering lectures and should stop his self Ijtihaads directly from Quran and Hadith, staying on the path of our pious predecessors. This is because it seems like, from these Ijtihaadat, that he is in pursuit of promoting and raising such a group, which differs from the way of Ahlus sunnah and especially the way of our Akaabir. May Allah (azza wa jall) keep us all steadfast on the way of our elders and pious predecessors …
This was signed Mufti Saeed Ahmed Palanpuri, Maulana Arshad Madani and Mufti Abul Qaasim Numani. [lxxi]
First and foremost (as a summary), regarding the problematic statement made against Musa (AS), in the first retraction Maulana Saad argued that he had proofs, justifying what he was saying and defeating the whole purpose of a retraction (as well as highlighting his dissatisfaction about the ill/bad thoughts of Deoband concerning his problematic ideology). Thereafter, he retracted in a satisfactory manner only to go against his word after a few days (keep in mind the words of Allamah Kawthari (RA)), along with mentioning more inappropriate statements against Ambiyaa (Yusuf (AS)). Thereafter, in the third retraction letter he questioned Deoband’s stance, refusing to accept it was a wrong Tafseer, instead portraying it as a Marjooh Tafseer at most (this incident of Musa (AS) has been discussed and answered in detail above). But eventually, at the fourth attempt, Maulana made an unconditional retraction from the incident of Musa (AS) as well as the further 2 public retractions, which we give him due credit and praise for, although the rank and status of an Aalim demands that one should retract immediately (along with fulfilling the required conditions for a retraction), as per the habit of our pious predecessors and although the best form of retraction would have been to do it in a bigger gathering or Ijtimaa. However, overlooking the above, Deoband deemed his retraction regarding this one incident as satisfactory. Also, to the best of our knowledge Maulana has kept his word and has not repeated this incident of Moosa (AS) since the latest retractions, which we again credit him for.
However, even if he stopped mentioning this one incident of Musa (AS), he has still continued making inappropriate statements against the Ambiyaa (AS) and Sahaba (RA) even after the retractions (keep in mind the words of Allamah Kawthari (RA)), with the statements regarding Sulaiman (AS) and the Walima of Nabi (SAW) just being a few examples, further supporting the stance of Deoband, who feared his problematic and deviated ideology (fundamental issue), despite the satisfactory retraction from the incident of Musa (AS). Besides the statements against Ambiyaa (AS) and Sahaba (RA), Maulana Saad has made many other questionable statements even after the above-mentioned retractions.
In fact, Wifaaq e Ulama Alhind assessed some of the lectures of Maulana Saad throughout 2018 (which is after his multiple retractions) and wrote an 88-page book (they also provide audio clips for statements). [lxxii] They divided his problems into five sections:
- Moving away from the path of the Majority in his commentary of verses of Quran and blessed Ahadith as well as new self-deductions and inferences (Ijtihads) in religious matters
- To consider and classify every part of the specific form of Dawah and Tabligh (that Maulana Ilyas (RA) was inspired to start) to be Mansoos
- Distortion of Islamic concepts/ideas and traditional terminologies (which have been passed down through generations)
- To make the vast and general application and meaning of Dawah very specific
- To present his own leadership as the leadership of the Ameer ul Mumineen
There is another booklet which has been prepared by Wifaaq e Ulema Alhind, which consists of 24 pages (according to the print we were using). The name of the booklet is: مولانا محمد سعد صاحب سے علماء امت کے اختلاف کی بنیادی وجوہات
Here they have mentioned 3 sections:
- Ghuloo/extremism and exceeding the bounds in matters of Deen
- His own deductions/inferences and Ijtihad from Quran, Hadith and Seerah
- Diversion from the true beliefs and way of Ahlus Sunnah
Around 60 statements, in total, have been briefly mentioned in this booklet. They even have a section for the statements that were made after Rujoo.
As well as this, Mufti Khidar Qasmi has written the following book, which is around 180 pages, in which he also discusses the retractions and where he takes a look at some of the talks of Maulana Saad after the retractions, the name of which is: مولانا سعد صاحب کا ندوی دارالعلوم دیوبند کے موقف اور فتوے کا پس منظر اور رجوع کے بعد کے چند بیانات کا علمی جائزہ
However, one of the best books in regards to the details of Maulana Saad‘s retractions is Mufti Zaid Mazahiri’s book, Inkishaafe Haqiqat …, which is around 150 pages (according to the physical copy we had available for use) and which gives a real insight on the reality of the retractions of Maulana Saad.
As well as this, Mufti Abdul Malik touches on the details of the retractions in his writings. Also, after carrying out a thorough study of his old and new lectures, he writes: “After Maulana Saad‘s final retraction on January 2018 up until the bayans of today, countless statements are present, which are completely against his written and verbal retractions. As far as we have seen, according to the best of our knowledge, there are only two matters from amongst the matters he has retracted from, which he hasn’t apparently repeated. One is the attack on Moosa (AS) and the other is Salah not being done due to keeping the phone in the pocket. Besides that, there isn’t anything incorrect, bad or anything which is an innovation or misguidance, which he has retracted from, except that he has repeated it and in fact, he has repeated it with more severity and in a worser way (keep in mind the words of Allamah Kawthari (RA)). As for new distortions, Munkaraat and innovations, that is separate. So, these retractions of his that are present, are nothing but retractions on a paper (doesn’t hold much weight/doesn’t mean much). However, his followers use it as a weapon. They say that Maulana Saad has retracted!!! Alongside that, these people also say that it is not proven that Maulana Saad said these things! Some people have incorrectly attributed such statements to him without evidence. They also say that what Maulana Saad says is correct/references are available. Now they must show us how to reconcile between these three views of theirs.” [lxxiii]
Based on the above findings, we fear that the retractions/Rujoo of Maulana Saad is similar to the situation of Ziyad ibn Maymoon, which is mentioned in the Muqaddima of Saheeh Muslim:
وَحَدَّثَنَا مَحْمُودُ بْنُ غَيْلَانَ قَالَ: قُلْتُ لِأَبِي دَاوُدَ الطَّيَالِسِيِّ: قَدْ أَكْثَرْتَ عَنْ عَبَّادِ بْنِ مَنْصُورٍ، فَمَا لَكَ لَمْ تَسْمَعْ مِنْهُ حَدِيثَ الْعَطَّارَةِ الَّذِي رَوَى لَنَا النَّضْرُ بْنُ شُمَيْلٍ؟ قَالَ لِي: اسْكُتْ، فَأَنَا لَقِيتُ زِيَادَ بْنَ مَيْمُونٍ … قَالَ: نَعَمْ. قُلْنَا: هَذِهِ الْأَحَادِيثُ الَّتِي تَرْوِيهَا عَنْ أَنَسٍ؟ … فَأَتَيْنَاهُ أَنَا وَعَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ فَقَالَ: أَتُوبُ، ثُمَّ كَانَ بَعْدُ يُحَدِّثُ فَتَرَكْنَاهُ (مقدمة الإمام مسلم ١/ ٧٣)
“Mahmood ibn Ghailan told us: I said to Abu Dawood al-Tayalisi: ‘You have often narrated from Abbad ibn Mansoor, so why have you not heard from him the Hadith about the perfume seller that al-Nadr ibn Shumail narrated to us?’ He replied: ‘Be quiet, for I and Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi met Ziyad ibn Maymoon, and we asked him: ‘These Hadiths that you narrate from Anas?’ He said: ‘What do you think of a man who sins then repents? Doesn’t Allah accept his repentance!?’ We said: ‘Yes.’ He replied: ‘I have not heard from Anas, neither a little nor a lot. If the people do not know, then you two know well that I did not meet Anas.’ Abu Dawood said: ‘Later, we learned that he is still narrating (from Anas (RA)), so Abdul Rahman and I went to him. He said (again): ‘I repent,’ and then he started narrating (again), so we left him.”
Articles/declarations and Fatawa issued after the retractions (2023 and 2024)
To further outline and prove the continuation of the problematic issues of Maulana Saad even after the retractions, and that the very same fundamental and dangerous issues pointed out by Deoband in 2016 and 2018 still currently exist, are the articles/declarations and Fatawa that have been issued after the retractions, especially the extremely recent articles/declarations and Fatawa of 2023 and 2024 which are primarily based on his more recent statements:
1) Darul Uloom Deoband themselves were compelled to write against Maulana Saad in 2023, due to the problematic statements made by Maulana Saad in the 2022 Bhopal Ijtimaa. Ahead is a summary of the some of the main issues they mentioned (the entire fatwa is more than 17 pages and we have mentioned parts of their fatwa from time to time above): Inappropriate statements about Ambiyaa, incorrect Self deductions and inferences (Ijtihad) despite the lack of competency, distortion, incorrect understanding of Deen, Ghuloo (extremism and exceeding the bounds), perversion of thought and saying strange and rare things when one should be selective. [lxxiv]
2) Mufti Abdul Malik released a Fatwa in 2023 also: After carrying out a detailed study into Maulana Saad‘s old and new bayans, he brought forth numerous problematic issues. [lxxv]
3) A declaration was signed by many of the senior Ulema of South Africa against Maulana Saad in 2024. [lxxvi] Below are some of the names of the senior Ulema that signed:
- Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Principal of Madrasah Talimuddin, Isipingo Beach)
- Maulana Abdul Hamid Ishaq (Principal of Darul Uloom Azaadville)
- Maulana Shabir Saloojee (Principal of Darul Uloom Zakariyya)
- Maulana Hasan Dockrat (Principal of Darul Uloom/Madrasah Saadiqeen – Robertsham)
- Mufti Radha ul Haq (Senior Mufti and Sheikh Ul Hadith of Darul Uloom Zakariyya)
- Mufti Muhammad Saeed Motara (Senior Mufti and Sheikh Ul Hadith of Darul Uloom Azaadville)
- Maulana Moosa Patel (Senior Ustadh of Darul Uloom Azaadville)
- Maulana Abdur Rahim (Senior Ustadh of Darul Uloom Azaadville)
- Mufti Muhammed Ali (Senior Ustadh of Darul Uloom Zakariyya)
- Maulana Muhammed Gardi (Senior Alim – White River)
4) Kashful Gubaar (May Allah reward the Ulema behind the cause) released a few short articles regarding the inappropriate statements that they felt were made by Maulana Saad in the Ijtimaa that took place in Camperdown, South Africa (2024).
5) On January 14, 2025, a large gathering of 2,500+ Ulema, Muftis, Mashaaikh, Huffaz, Qaaris, responsible brothers connected to Tabligh etc took place in the state of Assam (in India), to take a strong stance against Maulana Saad. They highlighted their unanimous decision and stance that Maulana Saad has deviated from the path of the elders, promoting his wrong ideologies using his platform. They mentioned that the danger and concern Deoband had earlier expressed is becoming apparent, in fact the situation is only worsening. They also went on to say that they underwent an investigation whereby they listened to old and new statements, listening to many speeches, however they reached the conclusion that he is not fit to be a spiritual leader and guide as eight nine odd years have passed and he has not corrected his ways, instead his wrong statements keep increasing. They went on to list his problematic issues and they made mention of additional severe statements about Maulana Saad. We will provide a link in the footnotes, where the entire 17-minute audio clip is available, which we advise the respectable reader to listen to. [lxxvii]
6) A Fatwa was prepared by the Ulema of Kashmir on the 16th of March 2023 against Maulana Saad, which was signed by 32 Ulema/Muftis. There was also a note at the end saying that they have a much longer list of signatures, however they sufficed with the 32 in the document to keep it short. [lxxviii]
7) Towards the end of December 2024, a few big/prominent Darul Uloom’s of Bangladesh (Jamiah Shariah Malibagh and Al Jamiatul Al ahliyah Darul Uloom Mueenul Islam) issued strong statements against Maulana Saad. This was following the attacks on the Tongi Ijtimaa. Alongside the above, a Darul Iftaa in Bangladesh (Jamiah Rahmaniyyah Arabia) also released against Maulana Saad in the recent past. [lxxix]
8) Darul Uloom Farooqiya Karnataka made a critical analysis and refuted a controversial statement of Maulana Saad which was made in the Bhopal Ijtema of 2023 (which was amongst the many questionable statements made in the Bhopal Ijtimaa of 2023 according to them), in which they stated that he made an inappropriate comment about Musa (AS) (a different statement to the one he retracted from). [lxxx]
Besides the above, which are extremely recent, many Fatawas have been signed against Maulana Saad by numerous Ulema, in support of the stance adopted by Darul Uloom Deoband. Below we will list a few:
- Mazahirul Uloom Saharanpoor [lxxxi] — There was a total of 8 signatories, amongst whom was: Maulana Muhammad Aqil, Maulana Muhammad Salman, Maulana Muhammad Shahid
- Jamea Islamiya Talimuddin Dabhel [lxxxii] — The following Ulema signed: Mufti Abbas Dawood, Mufti Ahmad Khanpuri, Maulana Ahmad Samlaki (principal)
- The Ulema of Mumbai also prepared a Fatwa against Maulana Saad, which was signed by 31 Ulema/Muftis [lxxxiii]
- The Ulema of Andhrapradesh also prepared a fatwa against Maulana Saad, which was signed/endorsed by more than 10 Ulema [lxxxiv]
Note: There are more Ulema (even seniors/elders), institutions, Darul Iftas that have spoken or written against Maulana Saad, which we have not mentioned.
One such example: Maulana Saad took his two children to Sheikh Yunus Jownpuri (RA) to request Sheikh to make Dua for them. However, Sheikh responded differently: “I am making Dua for you, asking Allah to grant you correct/right guidance.” Mufti Nizamuddin Qasmi mentions that he heard this with his own ears, and all those who were part of the Musalsalaat Dars in Saharanpur can testify to it. Furthermore, the speaker (Mufti Nizamuddin) recounts that during the Khatam of Bukhari Shareef, Sheikh Yunus (RA) explicitly mentioned Maulana Saad‘s name, saying, “Save the ummah from his fitnah,”. The speaker asserts, “I am speaking in the house of Allah, and I am taking the name of this noble individual, who was considered by Hazrat Sheikh Zakariyya (RA) as his equivalent and replacement, on whom Hazrat Sheikh Zakariyya (RA) had complete trust and reliance, and who would not speak negatively about anyone. If he did, it was only regarding one individual: ‘O Allah, protect the ummah from his fitnah.'” Mufti Sb thereafter very confidently declared: “If you want to go and make tahqeeq, then go. Ask the ulema and teachers there if the Dua was made.” [lxxxv]
After reading the above, how can one then use the retractions/Rujoo of Maulana Saad to defend him and side with him? Let us give an example to help one understand the situation more clearly. A doctor was guilty of giving wrong tablets to a few patients (whether it was done intentionally or innocently). Upon being caught, the government/the responsible people of the health industry demanded a sincere apology and a promise to be more alert and never to do such a thing again. The doctor sent an apology letter, but the final paragraph in the latter contradicted the start of letter (an attempt to justify why he gave the wrong/harmful tablets). Would this apology be justified? Anyway, the doctor comes back a few weeks later with a second apology letter. This time he apologises properly/adequately and his apology is accepted. However, after a few days, he was again found giving the same wrong tablets to a patient as well as prescribing wrong syrup for another patient. Would the second letter of apology still stand? Of course not! Anyway, a month later he sends a third apology letter. This time he admits that he was completely wrong for the other allegations made against him (extremely expensive prices, not being punctual with his working hours, missing meetings). However, he justifies why he gave the “wrong” tablets. He explains that some of the old expert doctors mentioned this tablet in their books and at most you can say that prescribing this tablet is a weak view of the expert doctors and not completely harmful. Would this apology be entirely accepted? Of course not! Anyway, a few weeks later he sends a fourth apology. This time he admits clearly that he was wrong about prescribing those tablets. He also admits that the tablets are harmful and they should not be prescribed, nor should anyone (his supporters) try to justify his giving of the tablets. Anyway, let’s say that for arguments sake that he was still allowed to carry on working as a doctor after this fourth apology. As the years pass, although he no longer gives out wrong tablets and syrup, he has been found guilty of prescribing wrong creams and giving harmful injections. So, even though the doctor apologised about prescribing wrong tablets and he acted on his word by no longer prescribing such tablets, for which we will give the doctor due credit, he will definitely now be suspended or taken to task for his other incorrect actions. In the same way, Maulana Saad, despite not repeating the incident of Moosa (AS), speaks inappropriately about other Ambiyaa and Sahaba and continuously makes other problematic statements.
Sometimes, people say that so and so group of Ulema or individuals met Maulana Saad and asked him about so and so statement and he retracted in front of them. The answer to that is simple. The retraction/repentance should be according to the sin. If the statement was said in a private gathering, then it is sufficient that the individual retracts in the same private gathering (if the wrong hasn’t spread far and wide by people conveying and informing others). If the statement was made in a big public gathering, then in the same type of gathering the retraction should be carried out. Until such a public retraction is not made the statement will continue to be attributed to him.
Take the following example of Mufti Mahmood Hasan Gangohi (RA) (for retracting the same way the mistake is made as well as retracting immediately as a side point): Amongst our elders, Hazrat Mufti Mahmood Hasan Gangohi (RA) gave an incorrect fatwa on a particular issue. After conducting research, Hazrat Mufti Sahib clearly retracted from it and clearly published (the correction) in the booklet/article in the same manner as the incorrect fatwa had been published earlier. He wrote: “… I hereby retract this statement. In fact, I am announcing it openly. You should publish this in Riyadh-ul-Jannah so that the viewers are not misled. I seek forgiveness from Allah, the Almighty.” [lxxxvi]
Furthermore, let’s say for arguments sake that Maulana Saad retracts from the statement regarding Sulaiman (AS), Nabi (SAW), Uthman (RA), Bilal (RA), Yusuf (AS) and let’s say he retracted from all the incorrect Masaail he mentioned and let’s say he retracted from all his statements where his Ghuloo was evident, where he was guilty of Tafseer Birrai and distortion, where he was guilty of incorrect commentary of Quran and Hadith, and let’s say in 2019 he retracted from all his problematic statements of 2018 … and let’s say he even retracted publicly in the Ijtimas each time! However, do we really have peace of mind that he will not repeat such statements in the future also … that Maulana Saad has continued making problematic statements even after the 6 retractions (which were mentioned above). Now what’s so surprising if he does Rujoo today from all his statements only to start making such statements again tomorrow? It would not be surprising at all. A leopard can’t hide its spots.
Another reason for our lack of peace of mind is that we came to know the following (which puts the sincerity behind the retractions in doubt), from the writings of Mufti Zaid Mazaahiri as well as conversations with certain elders of the Tablighi effort (who were in Nizamuddin Markaz for a number of years) and personal first-hand experiences of individuals who have spent time in Nizamuddin Markaz previously: Maulana Saad didn’t just start making incorrect statements the day the split happened. There were signs of his problematic ideology earlier also. For years Ulema and the other elders of Tabligh would try rectify and notify Maulana Saad regarding his errors, sometimes via letters and sometimes through speaking to him privately. However, Maulana Saad would not admit his mistakes, nor would he respond to the letters or rectify/retract from his errors. In fact, Maulana Saad became aware of the discontent of Darul Uloom Deoband regarding some of his statements as early as 1998/1999, the details of which will be mentioned ahead under section 6. It was only when Maulana Saad realised that a Fatwa was being prepared by Deoband, which was going to be published and which would result in his misguidance being openly declared, that Maulana was now prepared to retract.
Along the same lines, Mufti Abdul Malik mentions:
“For many years the situation carried on like that (Maulana Saad making problematic statements). Efforts to rectify his errors were made while keeping it hidden from the public. Attempts were made for his rectification, warning him through repeated letters, and with his mentors/nurtrurers and companions meeting and engaging in discussions with him, all within the four walls (confines) of the home. Despite this, the situation remained unchanged, and no reform took place. Specifically, in the last six years, intense efforts of reformation and concern/worry continued, but they were unsuccessful. From the very beginning, the issue never reached the public level. After all the efforts and hard work failed, the matter eventually became public.” [lxxxvii]
Why did it take Maulana Saad so long to finally retract? Why didn’t he take heed of the continuous advices of the Ulema and elders prior to that? This was an additional reason for our lack of peace of mind.
Whilst we are on this topic, a common objection raised against Deoband (in a bid to discredit the Fatwa of Deoband from the side of Nizamuddin) is that why did Deoband only start pointing out the mistakes of Maulana Saad after the split, despite the fact he also made questionable statements before the split, thus there must be some ulterior motive behind their Fatwa? So, first and foremost, Deoband have made it extremely clear on multiple occasions that they are not bias to any one side. They have nothing to do with the internal affairs, nor the issue of Imaarah and Shura. They are not bias when it comes to taking out anyone’s mistakes. Instead, they consider it their religious duty to protect, preserve and guide this blessed effort. [lxxxviii] Now, regarding the question, before the split Darul Uloom Deoband felt as though it was best to not publicly expose Maulana Saad at this point due to the potential detrimental harms that could occur to a such a blessed, worldwide and (at the time) united effort, if they were to do so. But more importantly, and the main reason is that they felt the problematic issues of Maulana Saad were being dealt with internally by the elders to a satisfactory level. They felt as though his harms were being contained. This was because there were 4 Bayans in Nizamuddin. Alongside Maulana Saad‘s lecture, the public were also sitting in the lectures of Maulana Yaqoob, Maulana Ahmed Laat and Maulana Ibrahim Dewla, who would indirectly refute the errors of Maulana Saad in their talks and would neutralise what he would say. The simple fact that they were hearing 3 other voices, gave Darul Uloom Deoband enough confidence that his harms were being confined. Alongside this there was continuous internal effort of trying to rectify his errors. However, once the split occurred, now those who followed Nizamuddin were now only hearing the words of Maulana Saad. There was now no Maulana Yaqoob or Maulana Ahmed Laat or Maulana Ibrahim Dewla to indirectly refute or neutralise the talks of Maulana Saad, nor was Maulana Saad taking heed to the private efforts being made to rectify his errors. Now, they felt it was time to prepare a Fatwa for the betterment of the effort of Tabligh, to fulfil their religious obligation and protect the general public, keeping in mind also that at that point the united effort had now already split. To add to that, it is a great slander to accuse Deoband of having personal agendas behind their first Fatwa, especially considering that the publishing of their first Fatwa was as a result of the inadequate first retraction letter sent by Maulana Saad, which consisted of a controversial ending.
Anyway, back to our discussion, we would like to pose a question. Is it appropriate to have such a person on the Mimbar (to guide the simple minded and innocent general public), who has an uncontrollable tongue and who regularly makes questionable and at times dangerous statements from which retractions are required? Is it really worth the risk? Are we prepared to risk the spiritual well-being of our Ummah for the leadership of one individual? Is it appropriate to have such an individual as a leader for whose speech you need to make several and at times farfetched interpretations, whose speech requires books to be written in defence of it, whose speech requires you to have knowledge of the Naasikh, Mansooskh and the science of Usool-e-fiqh! Keeping in mind all the above Fatawa against Maulana Saad, ponder about this real-life example: In the near past, an internationally renowned doctor and headache specialist Dr Elliot Shevel was suspended from practising by the health professions council of South Africa, amid an investigation into the death of two of his patients. If this is the harm that a world-renowned health specialist caused, imagine the harm a world-renowned spiritual guide and religious influential speaker can cause. Also, ponder that the disbelievers have so much value for life and they’ve understood what potential damage can be caused that they’ve already suspended him despite all the good work he’s done since 1992 and despite the fact they have not yet reached a definitive conclusion. It’s simply an ongoing investigation. Just because of the doubt that is raised because of these 2 cases, the disbelievers are not prepared to risk the health and lives of people. Food for thought. We need to look at ourselves in the mirror and wonder whether we even value our Imaan the way the disbelievers value life. The amount of reputable Ulema and Darul Iftaas that have spoken up to this point against Maulana Saad, even if it may not be a definitive matter for all, is that not enough to suspend him from the mimbar? Food for thought. [lxxxix]
To conclude this section, we would like to mention that the true sign of being fit for leadership is that one possesses such wisdom that he knows what to say, when to say it, how to say it, that he knows in front of whom he must say what, that he is sincere and has a good objective behind why he is saying what he is saying, that he has control of his tongue, and that he is well calculated, particular and precautious about his choice of words. Thus, the constant need to retract from inappropriate and problematic statements is a sign of incompetency for a leadership role, especially as a spiritual guide. Those who consider constant/multiple retractions due to the repetition and constant nature of problematic statements that are made, as praiseworthy (which has been stated by some of the followers of Maulana Saad), should consider the texts mentioned in the original document (الشفا بتعريف حقوق المصطفى للعياض 2/299 and other passages).
Section 6: The Difference Between Maulana Saad and the Elders of Tabligh
In this section, we would like to highlight the difference between Maulana Saad and the senior figures of the Tablighi effort, from time of Maulana Ilyas (RA) up to the present day. Darul Uloom Deoband even mentioned the following after mentioning his problematic issues: “This attitude/style/behaviour of his is in complete contrast to the previous responsible figures of the Tablighi Jamaat: Hazrat Maulana Ilyas Sahib, Hazrat Maulana Yusuf Sahib, and Hazrat Maulana Inamul Hasan Sahib.” [xc] The elders and Ulema of Tabligh, as well as the effort itself, always maintained a strong connection with the Ulema, especially the Ulema of Deoband. They were consistently eager for their approval, endorsement, encouragement, Duas, and blessings. They closely followed their guidance, always accepting constructive criticism and adhering to their consultations regarding the direction of the effort. The opinions of the Ulema were held in the highest regard. This strong relationship not only contributed to the progress of the effort but also protected it from any subtle deviations or actions contrary to Shariah from slowly infiltrating. Moreover, one of the most significant qualities of the Ulema and seniors in Tabligh was their Taqwa and fear of the Hereafter, which drove them to continuously seek clarification and ensure that none of their lectures contained anything contradictory to Shariah. Their humility was reflected in their readiness to accept correction and rectification, without displaying any stubbornness or obstinacy.
Connection between the Ulema/elders of Tabligh and Deoband
The elders of Tabligh, as has passed above, were always eager for the endorsement, support and guidance of the Ulema of Deoband, holding their opinions in very high esteem. This has always been the case, right from the onset, which is clearly evident from the following incident:
Maulana Ilyas (RA) was eager for Hazrat Thanwi’s (RA) approval of the effort, as Hazrat Thanwi (RA) was regarded as a great authority and a Mujaddid in India. A Jamaat was sent to Thanabowan, instructed to do Ghusht. When they arrived, news reached Hazrat Thanwi (RA), who sat with them and took the Kalguzari (report) from them. He then made the famous statement that Maulana Ilyas (RA) had transformed despair into hope. Maulana Ilyas (RA) was extremely happy and often repeated this in his lectures. The reason for his joy was that he had received approval from such a significant authority. After that, it felt as though, in a way, he had the approval and endorsement of all the Ulema of India.
Maulana Ilyas (RA) regarded the views of the Ulema in great esteem, consulting them extensively in matters, especially the foundational matters. In Meerat, there was a three-day Mushwera with the elders, including Maulana Aashiq Ilahi (RA), Maulana Idris Khandelwi (RA), Maulana Ilyas (RA), Maulana Zakariyya (RA), Maulana Yahya (RA), Maulana Abdul Qadir Raipoori (RA), and Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani (RA). This gathering laid the foundation for the work. Throughout the development of the Tabligh Jamaat, the ulama of Deoband played a crucial role. This is how they got a place in the Masaajid. Deoband issued a fatwa (after the Mushwera in Meerat), ensuring that in all Deobandi Masjids, the Tablighis would be welcomed, honoured, and looked after. Even the formulation of the six points was done only after he presented them to various scholars for their approval, approaching them one by one for their opinion and input. When Moulana Ilyas (RA) went to Mufti Kifayatullah (RA), he suggested changing “Ikraamul Ulema” (honoring the scholars) to “Ikramul Muslimeen” (honoring the Muslims), which Maulana Ilyas (RA) accepted and adjusted accordingly. When Maulana Inaamul Hasan (RA) began the five A’amaal, Hazrat made sure to consult extensively. He held a global Mushwera regarding it, seeking the approval and endorsement of the ulema and his companions. Only after this did he begin to promote the five A’amaal.
In what esteem to Maulana Saad and his followers hold the Ulema and their opinions, especially the Ulema of Deoband? The multiple ways they have attempted to discredit Deoband and make allegations against them after their Fatwa (which will be discussed under section 8) and their refusal to take heed to the numerous Fatwas, declarations and stances against Maulana Saad (which was mentioned under section 5) says enough! How have they reacted to the directives and guidance given by Darul Uloom Deoband?!
Deoband and the effort of Tabligh have always shared a strong connection, one of compassion, support, and well-wishing, with Deoband diligently carrying out its responsibility of preserving the effort and rectifying wherever necessary.
This is why Maulana Ilyas (RA) would visit Deoband 2-3 times a year to present a report of the Tablighi effort (Kalguzari) before the Ulema of Deoband. He would seek their Duas and Blessings. He would also visit Raipur and Saharanpur, sharing the same updates with them/for the same purpose. Thereafter, he would head to Nizamuddin. In the initial stages, Maulana Ilyas (RA) would make these visits every few months. However, when he became ill, he gradually started visiting less frequently. Despite this, he would still make sure to go twice a year. After Maulana Ilyas (RA), Maulana Yusuf (RA) also placed great importance on these visits, continuing the tradition by going twice a year. After Maulana Yusuf (RA), Maulana Inaamul Hasan (RA) would personally visit Deoband once a year. Following that, he consistently sent Maulana Umar Palanpuri (RA), who would regularly go, give the Kalguzari, and deliver Bayans (in front of the students). During the era of Maulana Izharul Hasan (RA), Maulana Umar Palanpuri (RA) would still go as well. After Maulana Umar (RA) passed away, Maulana Ibrahim Dewla and Maulana Ahmad Laat alternated in these visits.
The following incident only further outlines this bond, respect and connection shared between the Ulema/seniors of Tabligh and Deoband: On one side, you had the Jalsah/Ijtima of Maulana Ilyas (RA). On the other side, there was the gathering of Jamiat-ul-Ulama, led by Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani (RA). Maulana Madani (RA) was delivering a Bayan, and it was reported to him that Maulana Ilyas’s (RA) gathering was taking place just 5 kilometres away. Upon hearing this, Maulana Ilyas (RA) was informed that Maulana Madani’s event was also underway. Both scholars, along with their respective followers, began walking toward each other. Eventually, they met in the middle, and both Maulana Ilyas and Maulana Madani (RA) addressed the crowd from the same stage. Maulana Ilyas (RA) lovingly said to Maulana Madani (RA), “I will focus on nurturing the inner/Baatin (imaan) of the people, and you focus on the outer/Zaahir (freeing them from the oppression of the British).”
Have Maulana Saad and his followers maintained that connection? Do they also have that same respect and love?
Correction of mistakes and the willingness to be corrected
A statement of Maulana Muhammad Ilyas (RA):
“Hazrat Umar (RA) would often say to his companions that you people have put a very great /burdensome responsibility on my shoulders. You people should be watchful/observant of my actions. I am also desperately requesting my friends that they are watchful/observant of me. Wherever I make a mistake, they should reprimand (me) and make Duas for my guidance.”
Another saying of Maulana Muhammad Ilyas (RA):
“I am also saying to you people that keep an eye out for my state of affairs/condition and whatever statements of mine need to be called out and criticized, then do so accordingly.”
The words of Hazrat Thanwi (RA):
“If my view is wrong, I will openly retract. Also, after the judgement of the Ulema is made I will no longer speak or write about it to them. I will accept and consider the judgement of the Ulema to be the final judgement and if the situation is such that I do not understand (the judgement of the ulema), I will still accept it and blindly follow it.”
As well as the above, take heed from the life of Maulana Ilyas (RA):
Maulana Ilyas Sb (RA) started the effort in Mewat, where the people were uneducated. Whatever Maulana Ilyas (RA) would say, they would blindly accept. Such people did not ask for proof or evidence; they did not question his statements. They would listen and believe anything, whether it was right or wrong. They wouldn’t ask which book of Hadith or Tafseer a statement was from or where a commentary was mentioned. At that time, the Malfoozat that Maulana Ilyas (RA) would mention in front of the Mewatis were first checked by Maulana Ubaidullah (RA). He would inform Maulana Ubaidullah (RA) of the statement he wished to make and would enquire if it was appropriate to mention, requesting Maulana to research it. The fact that he did this, despite the common people not knowing right from wrong and not questioning him due to their ignorance and trust in him, is a sign of his piety and Taqwa. The people of Mewat weren’t going to record, spread, or publish his sayings, which could potentially be scrutinized by the Ulema. Even so, Maulana Ilyas (RA) would get his Malfoozat checked by Maulana Ubaidullah (RA). He would express his desire for his words to align with the Quran and Hadith and he sought corrections or rectifications from Maulana. Such great precaution! Maulana Ubaidullah (RA), at times, would even suggest changes to certain statements to align them with specific Hadiths or Tafsir, to which Maulana Ilyas (RA) would readily comply. Maulana Ilyas (RA) was extremely eager for the approval and views of the Ulema. He recognized the immense value of their stance, which is evident from the incident with Hazrat Thanwi (RA) which has passed above.
In Darul Uloom Deoband, there was a platform where Maulana Yusuf (RA) would stand to give bayan. He had the habit of standing while delivering his lectures, often speaking for 3-hour stretches. Afterward, he would ask the ulema of Deoband to point out any mistakes or anything that contradicted Shariah in his lectures, despite his standing in knowledge, expertise in Hadith, research, and his status as a great author.
Maulana Umar Palanpuri (RA) would often announce during his lectures that the Ulema should come forward and sit close. He would then ask them, “Was there anything you liked or found contrary to Shariah in my lectures? Was there anything you didn’t understand?” Sometimes, students would raise objections, mentioning that they hadn’t encountered such translations during their studies. Maulana would respond by providing references and offering explanations. If necessary, he would admit his mistake. On one particular occasion, Maulana Abrarul Haq Sb (RA), who was a classmate of Maulana Umar Palanpuri (RA), was present during the Bayan. After the lecture ended, as Maulana Umar (RA) was leaving, he noticed Maulana Abrarul Haq (RA) and greeted him with a hug. He then invited him to his room, where they shared a meal. During their conversation, Maulana Abrarul Haq (RA) remarked, “We were not able to board the ship of Nooh (AS), so have our whole lives been in loss?” Why did Maulana Abrarul Haq (RA) say this? Because Maulana Umar (RA) had mentioned in his Bayan: “The work of Dawah is like the ship of Nooh (AS). Whoever boards the ship attains salvation, and whoever does not is destroyed.” However, in reality, it is Deen itself that is the ship of Nooh (AS), not specifically the work of Dawah. Maulana Abrarul Haq (RA) mentioned further that we, by serving the Quran, by teaching and learning the Quran, have become destroyed. Why? Because we were not able to mount on the ship of Nooh (AS) (due to not being actively involved in the effort of Tabligh). Maulana Umar Palanpuri (RA) immediately acknowledged his error. He apologized and excused himself for his statement, explaining that he had spoken in the heat of the moment/in a fit of passion. The next day, when he came for his Fajr bayan, he began by immediately saying: “Yesterday, my nurturer, favourer and dear companion, Maulana Abrarul Haq, came to see me. We have a deep and long-standing connection, and he is a very compassionate companion. Yesterday, in my bayan, I made an error. Whoever is involved in the work of Deen, whatever that may be, is on the ship of Nooh (AS). Those who do not board the ship will face destruction. The different works of Deen, such as work in the Maktab, Madrasah, etc., are all part of Deen.”
Another distinguished personality of Tabligh, Janab Haaji Iqbaal Sb (RA), would often inquire after his lectures, asking the Ulema to inform him of any mistakes or anything contrary to Shariah in his Bayans. On one occasion, during a particular Ijtimaa, he sat for 30 minutes engaging in a discussion with an Aalim, remaining silent the entire time, accepting all the advice he was receiving and admitting/acknowledging that the Aalim is totally correct.
Like this, with the Ulema of Deoband diligently fulfilling their responsibility alongside the humility of the Ulema/elders of Tabligh, every single part of Dawah would be rectified and protected. In fact, Maulana Ilyas (RA) went to great lengths to ensure nothing contrary to the Shariah could infiltrate into the effort. In fact, in an exclusive gathering of scholars at Nadwatul Ulema, Maulana Ilyas (RA) placed a knife before him and said, “If my effort goes against the truth, if it contradicts the pure Shariah, the Nusoos, or the Aqaa’id of Islam, then this knife is here, and my life and soul are present, slaughter me.”
One lesson we learn from the above incidents is that the yardstick of knowing whether or not certain individuals/scholars or statements are correct, free from Ghuloo or any possible deviation, is the approval of the rightly guided Ulema of the time. The endorsement of the common people, even if they reach millions, is not worth much. A reliable Aalim is one whose knowledge and virtue are recognized by other Ulema, much like a doctor whose expertise is confirmed by fellow medical professionals. This in actual fact is the case for any profession.
The above is in stark contrast to Maulana Saad. On the one hand you have the extreme precaution and consciousness of Maulana Ilyas even before making a statement, and on the other side you have the rash and reckless statements of Maulana Saad, who speaks as though he is receiving constant divine inspiration from the heavens without a need to align his thoughts to Shariah or consult scholars.
The second point is how the elders reacted to being corrected. In fact, they would constantly and openly ask for constructive criticism, even if they possessed lofty statuses in knowledge. They expressed gratitude, held the correctors in high esteem, fixed the situation as soon as possible and dealt with the entire situation with such great sincerity. Whereas, regarding the errors of Maulana Saad, enough has been said in the previous sections, especially the section 5. Unless you have been diagnosed with psychosis or insanity the striking difference between the behaviour and attitude of Maulana Saad and the elders of Tabligh is quite obvious. The elders were always ready to make the first move and get in touch with Ulema for rectification. Why is it that even countless Fatwas, admonishments of innumerable reputable scholars, institutions and Darul Iftaas aren’t even enough of a wake-up call for Maulana Saad?!! In fact, as far as we are aware, Maulana Saad knew as early as 1998/1999 (it could be earlier but this is according to our knowledge) that his statements were not approved by Deoband. In the late 90s and early 2000s, when Maulana Saad would give Bayans, speakers would be set up in all the rooms of the elders, and the bayans would be translated for listeners from different countries. Every once in a while, there would be a commotion, with people asking, “What’s this? What is he saying?” All the other bayans were perfectly fine, but Maulana Saad‘s lectures would often spark confusion. He was warned by friends, companions, Ulema, and even his teachers to stop mentioning things that had nothing to do with Dawah, that didn’t need to be discussed in Dawah, and that didn’t fall under any relevant topics in Tabligh. He was repeatedly advised to avoid speaking on such matters. However, he did not listen – neither to his father-in-law (Maulana Salman Mazaahiri), nor to Maulana Iftikhaarul Hasan, nor to Maulana Talha, nor to any individual in his family. Many senior and respected individuals in his family expressed concerns about him, which was of no avail. Anyway, during that time (1998/1999), Mufti Nizzamuddin Qasmi (an Aalim alive today) came to Nizamuddin for a Chilla (40 days). He heard one of Maulana Saad‘s bayans and, being someone who habitually wrote notes, he continued to write, even highlighting certain parts in red (the controversial or problematic parts). After one particular Bayan, Mufti Nizzamuddin noted down more than 10 questions/problematic statements and sent them to Darul Uloom Deoband. They responded with a Fatwa, which started with the following words, “The individual who makes such statements is not a reliable/dependable Aalim.” The private Fatwa was issued around 98/99, and it addressed each point that was raised. Mufti Nizzamuddin then sent the letter/Fatwa, to each of the seniors of the Markaz, as well as to Maulana Saad himself. This included figures like Janab Mohsin Sb, Maulana Zubair, Maulana Dewla, and Maulana Ahmad Laat. In fact, upon the arrival of the letter, one of the elders said: “We kept on saying he’s a Jaahil/ignorant person, and now he’s been declared a Mufta bihi Jaahil”. So, it has become clear that from at least 1998/1999, Maulana Saad was well aware of the Ulema in Deoband not being happy with those particular statements (whether or not Maulana Saad‘s name was taken in the Fatwa is something we have not yet been able to verify, although apparently it seems like it was left vague). However, 26 years on, new problematic statements are being made, old problematic statements are being repeated in even more severe ways, and the situation is only worsening by the day, despite the number of Fatwas, declarations and signatures of Ulema. The disregard of the Fatwa of Deoband especially, is in complete contrast to the way of the elders of the past, with the several ways of discrediting and making allegations against Deoband (which will be mentioned under Section 8) due to their Fatwa, an act perpetrated by his followers, being something the elders would have been astonished about. We do not need to elaborate further as enough was mentioned regarding the state of the retractions under section 5. [xci]
Section 7: A Matter of Truth and Falsehood, Understanding the Gravity of the Issue, the Duty to Speak Out
This is undoubtedly a very serious issue. This is a matter of Haqq and Baatil, of truth and falsehood. It is a matter of defending the Sacred legacy of the Messenger of Allah (SAW). In order to understand the seriousness of the issue, the gravity of his errors and the severe repercussions they can lead to, know that all mistakes cannot be treated equally. Different types of mistakes have varying repercussions and are subsequently dealt with in different ways. Factors like who (the individual that made the mistake), what (the type of mistake that was made), when, and where also have an impact, as will be discussed below.
Who:
If an Imam performs Salah without Wudhu unintentionally, they must publicly announce that on so and so date the Salah was performed without Wudhu, thus the Salah needs to be repeated by all. In contrast, if a Muqtadi performs Salah without Wudhu unintentionally, there is no need for a public announcement. Instead, he will quietly repeat the salah at home. There is no need to inform anyone else regarding the situation.
There is also a distinction between individuals in charge of administrative issues and those responsible for religious matters. If someone in charge of administrative tasks, like ensuring the masjid doors are locked or managing finances, is not punctual with their Salah and falls into sin, we should advise them. Some may take heed, while others may not. However, we can still keep those who do not take heed in their post, without having to publicize their faults, due to the fact that they are not influencers or looked up to in matters of Deen. On the other hand, if a religious leader, such as an Aalim or Imam, slips and starts mentioning statements that could potentially mislead the Ummah, we cannot remain silent. If they do not take heed, they must be removed from their post, and the public must be warned about the potential harm they can cause.
The saying ‘زلة العالم زلة العالم’ emphasizes that the greater the following, the more damage that can occur. Mistakes by influential individuals, have more severe repercussions. For instance, if you are driving a car with four passengers and you are not following the rules of the road you are risking the lives of four other people. If a pilot is flying dangerously, he is putting many more lives at risk. If a doctor, who is famously known in his town, makes an error and spreads information which is actually bad for one’s health, then the people of the town are at risk. If a doctor has a world following, then the people of the world are at risk.
Mulla Ali Qaari portrays the above with the following words in Mirqaat al Mafatih (1/338):
إِنَّ فَسَادَ الْعَالِمِ فَسَادُ الْعَالَمِ
“Indeed, the corruption of the Alim is the corruption of the world.”
Consider the following text of Imam Ghazali (RA) in Ihyaa Ul Uloom (2/169):
الثاني: المبتدع الذي يدعو إلى بدعته: فإن كانت البدعة بحيث يكفر بها .. فأمره أشدُّ مِنَ الذمي ؛ لأنَّهُ لا يقر بجزية ولا يسامح بعقد وإن كانت مما لا يكفر بها ، فأمره بينه وبين الله أَخفُّ مِنْ أمرِ الكافر لا محالة ، ولكن الأمر في الإنكار عليه أشدُّ منه على الكافر ؛ لأن شرَّ الكافر غير متعد ؛ فإنَّ المسلمين اعتقدوا كفرَهُ ، فلا يلتفتون إلى قوله ؛ إذ لا يدعي لنفسه الإسلام واعتقاد الحقِّ ، أما المبتدع الذي يدعو إلى البدعة ، ويزعم أن ما يدعو إليه هو سبب لغواية الخلق ، فشره متعد
He explains in this text that the refutation and opposition shown against a Mubtadi is much more severe than what is shown to a non-Muslim living under Muslim rule. He goes on to explain that the reason for this is that the evil of the Kaafir is contained and confined. The believers consider him to be a Kaafir so they won’t pay much attention to his words. Whereas the evil of the Mubtadi extends far and wide and he is a means of misguidance, as people will pay attention and listen to him. From here we can understand that the greater influence an individual holds, and the bigger the personality, and the bigger the following, subsequently there is a greater need to refute and oppose him, as oppose to someone less influential.
What:
If a fasting person forgetfully eats something, it does not require Qadha nor kaffarah. If a fasting person is performing Wudhu and a few drops of water accidentally trickle down his throat while he is gargling, only Qadha will be necessary. If a fasting person intentionally eats something, both kaffarah and Qadha will be necessary. They are all different types of mistakes and errors, but are they all treated and dealt with in the same way?
Consider a scenario where you visit a doctor, and they are supposed to give you a glass of water with a drop of prescribed medicine. However, they mistakenly add a drop of urine, milk, or poison. While all are mistakes, the drop of poison can be life-threatening, unlike the others. Similarly, if an Aalim delivers a 1-hour lecture, 57 minutes of which offer beneficial advice (like the water). However, during the remaining 3 minutes, the Aalim makes a mistake in Arabic pronunciation (like a drop of milk), or in fiqh (like a drop of urine), or in Aqeedah (like a drop of poison). The mistake in Aqeedah can be detrimental to one’s Imaan, which is fundamental in Deen. Although, we would still be angry with the drop of urine put in the cup, we would be much more concerned about the drop of poison and in no way would we deal with the two matters in the same way.
When/Where:
A person commits a mistake in the privacy of their home, witnessed by only 3-4 individuals. In contrast, another person makes a mistake in a small local masjid, where the audience is slightly larger. Furthermore, another person makes a mistake in front of a massive audience of millions, which is also being live-streamed to millions more.
Similarly, an Aalim makes a mistake in front of fellow scholars (ulema), whereas a person makes a mistake in front of common people (Awaam).
So, when Maulana Saad is the influential personality we all know him to be, with a following and platform as big as anyone else in the world, a lot of whom are the general public (Awaam), while he is making the dangerous statements mentioned above (sensitive issues pertaining to Aqeedah as well as mistakes in other than Aqeedah), in big Ijtimaas, it is clear and obvious that this is a very serious issue, which must and must be dealt with by the Ulema for the welfare of the Ummah at large.
Part of the duty of the Ulema from Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah is to defend our Deen against any individual, group or sect that introduces deviations into Islam. We, as Ulema, are custodians of Deen, who diligently safeguard the word of Allah (azza wa jall) from every falsehood and aberration. We are advocates for Allah (azza wa jall) and his Rasool (SAW). We must not fear the criticism of anyone nor worry about whether people will like us or not. Muawiya (RA) wrote a letter to Aisha (RA), in which he requested for a short/concise piece of advice. Hazrat Aisha (RA) wrote back to Muawiya (RA):
سَلَامٌ عَلَيْكَ أَمَّا بَعْدُ فَإِنِّي سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ” مَنِ الْتَمَسَ رِضَاءَ اللهِ بِسَخَطِ النَّاسِ كَفَاهُ اللهُ مُؤْنَةَ النَّاسِ وَمَنِ الْتَمَسَ رِضَاءَ النَّاسِ بِسَخَطِ اللهِ وَكَلَهُ اللهُ إِلَى النَّاسِ ” . وَالسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكَ (جامع الترمذي ٢/ ٩٧٩)
“Peace be upon you. I have heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) say: ‘Whoever seeks the pleasure of Allah at the expense of the displeasure of people, Allah will suffice him against the burdens of people. And whoever seeks the pleasure of people at the expense of the displeasure of Allah, Allah will leave him and hand him over to the people.’ And peace be upon you.”
Thus, we must speak the truth even if it maybe against our father or most beloved teacher (with the required ettiquetes). Our loyalty lies with Allah (azza wa jall) and his Rasool (SAW) and not with any specific individual (irrespective of his status, lineage or anything else). This makes it incumbent on the Ulama to identify, expose, and refute the danger. This is especially important when this Fitnah concerns an effort of Deen, which has been a great source of revival in the Ummah, as witnessed over the past few decades.
When a matter pertains to the preservation of Deen, exposing the wrong of a person is not considered as Gheebah (backbiting). In fact, labelling such an obligation and duty as impermissible Gheebah is in itself a form of Tahreef (distortion). Instead, this falls under the category of Naseehah (sincere advice and well wishing). In fact, we make Dua that Allah (azza wa jall) guides him and brings him back to the Haqq. None the less, Maulana Abdul Hayy Lakhnawi (RA) mentions in الرفع والتكميل that Imam Ghazali (RA), Allamah Nawawi (RA) along with other scholars have explained certain instances where speaking about the faults of others is permitted and sometimes even necessary. One of the instances mentioned was to warn others about the evil of a person.
فيما ليس بغيبة بغية ذكر النووي في رياض الصالحين والغزالي في إحياء علوم الدين وغيرهما … ومنه ما إذا رأى متفقها يتردد … (الرفع والتكميل ١/ ٥٢)
A chapter has also been dedicated for this in the Muqaddima of Saheeh Muslim (1/62). Also, it is mentioned in Ashbah that Imam Abu Hanifah (RA) advised his student, Imam Abu Yusuf (RA):
وَإِذَا عَرَفْتَ إِنْسَانًا بِالشَّرِّ فَلَا تَذْكُرْهُ بِهِ بَلِ اطْلُبْ مِنْهُ خَيْرًا فَاذْكُرْهُ بِهِ إِلَّا أَنْ تَعْرِفَ إِنْ كُنْتَ فِي دِينِهِ كَذَلِكَ فَاذْكُرْهُ كَذَلِكَ لِلنَّاسِ كَيْلَا يَتَّبِعُوهُ وَيَحْذُرُوهُ (الأشباه والنظائر ص ٥٩٥)
“When you identify wrong in a person, do not associate him with it, but seek the good in him and refer to him with that good, except in matters of Deen. When you identify wrong in his Deen, alert the people so that they do not follow him and become like him.”
When dangers are being posed to the Ummah, staying quiet is not an option. In fact, it would not be permissible to remain quiet allowing falsehood/wrong to spread. When similar Fitan spread in the past, Allah (azza wa jall), out of his infinite mercy, inspired the Ulama to rise and challenge the Fitan. How our Akaabir (RA) (including the likes of Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Ludhyanwi, Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani, Mufti Kifaayatullah and Sheikhul Hadith Maulana Muhammad Zakariyya) rose to the more recent fitnah of Mawdoody (which holds resemblance with our current Fitnah)? How Imam Ahmed Bin Hanbal (RA) rose to fight the fitnah of his time? History will repeat itself as it always does! The messenger of Allah (SAW) said:
يَحْمِلُ هَذَا الْعِلْمَ مِنْ كُلِّ خَلَفٍ عُدُولُهُ يَنْفُونَ عَنْهُ تَحْرِيفَ الْغَالِينَ وَانْتِحَالَ الْمُبْطِلِينَ وَتَأْوِيلَ الْجَاهِلِينَ (مشكاة ص ٧١)
“In every generation the just and reliable individuals will preserve this knowledge, rejecting and negating the distortions made by extremists, the claims of the people of falsehood, and the interpretations of the ignorant.”
We cannot stay quiet and we must not stay quiet, even if people “claim” that we are causing discord and Ikhtilaaf in the Ummah. In response to that claim, firstly consider this text of Imam Ghazali:
ولكن قد تلتبس به المداهنة فأكثر البواعث على الإغضاء على المعاصي المداهنة ، والخوف من وحشتها ونفارها ، وقد يلبس الشيطان ذلك على الغبي الأحمق ، بأنه ينظر إليه بعين الرحمة ومحك ذلك : أن ينظر إليه بعين الرحمة إن جنى على خاص حقه ، ويقول : إنه قد سُخِّرَ لَهُ ، والقدر لا ينفع منه الحذر ، وكيف لا يفعله وقد كُتِبَ عليه ، فمثل هذا قد تصح له نِيَّةٌ في الإغماض عن حق الله تعالى على الجناية على حقه إن كان يغتاظ عند الجناية على حقِّه ، ويترحم عند الجناية على حق الله تعالى .. فهذا مداهن مغرور بمكيدة مِنْ مكايد الشيطان ، فليتنبه له (احياء علوم الدين ٢/ ١٦٨)
Imam Ghazali explains that at times people overlook wrongs / sins that are happening and they justify their overlooking. However, many a times Shaytan tricks a person and many a times the real reason behind his overlooking is Mudaahanah. The test to see if it is Mudaahanah or not is that one should see if that wrongdoer commits a wrong action against his own right (e.g he steals from his shop or swears at him), does he get angry or still look at him with the eye of mercy? If the person is such that he gets angry when a wrong is committed against his own right as oppose to when the right and law of Allah is being violated, then such a person is being deceived by Shaytan and he is a Mudaahin. Thus, we would like to pose a question to those who wish to remain silent and overlook the wrongs of Maulana Saad, that if Maulana Saad was to use disrespectful and inappropriate words against their own direct / close family members, would they get angry in that situation? If they’d become angry in that situation, then how about when inappropriate comments are made about Ambiyaa (AS) and Sahaaba (RA)? Something to think about. Secondly, there is already ongoing Ikhtilaaf, in fact bloodshed has even been witnessed previously. Thus, by raising awareness and fulfilling our duty as Ulema, we will not be creating an Ikhtilaaf or discord, as there is no current unity. Yet, for arguments sake, if one claims that the Ulema are destroying the unity and causing Ikhtilaaf, it is extremely important to keep in mind that not every type of unity is desirable in Shariah. Rather, that unity which blurs the line between truth and falsehood is not acceptable nor desirable.
In fact, Hazrat Thanwi writes in Ashraful Jawaab (Pg 409):
“Not every form of Unity is Praiseworthy and not every form of Disunity is Disparaged/Condemned. Understand properly that unity is only needed and deemed praiseworthy when it is beneficial for Deen, and disunity is only frowned upon when it is detrimental to Deen. When unity is harmful for Deen and disunity is beneficial for Deen, then at that point, disunity shall be sought. The people of this world have clearly understood this reality in their daily activities. Thus, in a court case, when a plaintiff and defendant raise their matter to a court for arbitration, then neither of the two is told, “Abjure your claim, because it has created disunity between the two of you and disunity is discouraged”. Rather, the rule is that the person who is in contradiction of the Truth (Haqq) is told, ‘Return towards the Haqq and abandon your insistence upon the view that is in conflict with the Haqq’. In fact, in some matters, if the plaintiff forgoes his claim, then the government becomes the plaintiff and defends the Haqq. Friends! If disunity is to be condemned in general, then in a court case, the judge ought to punish both the plaintiff and the defendant, as both are perpetrators of disunity. However, neither does this ever happen nor is it logical for such an opinion to be given. Rather, everyone agrees that although both parties are perpetrators of disunity, one party is doing so to uphold the truth (Ḥaqq) and the other party is doing so to uphold falsehood (Bātil). Hence, after investigation and research, the decree should be given in favour of the one who is upon the truth (Ḥaqq) and the court is required to support him. In this scenario, all agree that disunity is not always denigrated; however, regrettably, this rule is not applied to matters of Deen. In fact, [in matters of Deen], it is said to both parties, ‘Stop disuniting and create unity’. Support should be given to the Truth (Ḥaqq).
Brothers! Why is it not investigated as to whose disunity is based upon an effort to defend the truth (Ḥaqq) and whose is to support falsehood (Bātil)? Then the one who is upon the truth (Ḥaqq) may be supported and pressure should only be put on the one who is upon falsehood (Bātil). As for your commanding both of them to create unity, tell me, why should a person upon the truth (Ḥaqq) unite with someone who is upon falsehood (Bātil)? If unity was to be attained between them, then logically this could only occur in one of three situations:
- The individual upon the truth (Ḥaqq) abandons the truth (Ḥaqq) and both unite upon falsehood (Bātil), i.e. the pious individual leaves his piety and becomes irreligious.
- The pious individual stays firm on his piety and the irreligious individual becomes pious.
- The pious individual abandons some of his piety and the irreligious individual abandons some of his irreligiousness.
Now, those with intellect can decide themselves which of these three situations correlates with sound intellect. Indeed, it is only the second situation that can be labelled as being in agreement with sound intellect; the summary of which is that the pious individual has a right of disuniting himself from the irreligious individual, but the irreligious individual does not have the right of disuniting from the pious individual, rather, he is required to unite with the pious person upon the truth (Ḥaqq).”
Hazrat Thanwi (RA) continues, mentioning that this example of disunity was started by Rasūlullāh (SAW) in this world; before his prophethood, everyone was united upon disbelief. He arrived and broke this unity, such that he became the cause of separation between father and son. This disunity is described by Allah Ta’ālā with the following glad-tidings:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنْ تَتَّقُوا اللهَ يَجْعَلْ لَكُمْ فُرْقَانًا وَيُكَفِّرْ عَنْكُمْ مِنْ سَيِّئَاتِكُمْ
“Oh, you who believe, if you develop Allah-consciousness (Taqwā), he will grant you the Separator and he will remove your sins”
In this verse, Allah the Almighty has expressed this Separation as glad-tidings and he has made [this glad-tiding] dependent upon Allah-consciousness (Taqwa). It is for this reason that the Qur’an is labelled Al-Furqan (the divider). We realize from this that the Qur’an does not only unite. In some cases, it unites and in others it divides. It commands one to join those who are upon the truth (Ḥaqq) and to disunite from those who are upon the falsehood (Bātil).
Thus, it is a grave mistake that people make in this day and age, that whenever they see disunity between two groups, they consider both of them to be worthy of blame and [they say], “What kind of Muslims are you? That you differ with one another?” Both are then forced to unite which means nothing except that the pious individual should abandon his piety and adopt irreligiousness and that the individual upon the truth (Ḥaqq) abandon the truth (Ḥaqq) and adopt falsehood (Bātil). This is blatantly wrong. Rather, the demand of sound intellect is that when there is disunity between two groups then it should first be established who is upon the truth (Ḥaqq) and who is upon falsehood (Bātil). Once it is known as to who is upon the truth (Ḥaqq), then nothing should be said to the individual who is upon the truth (Ḥaqq), rather, he should be supported (in his disunity with the individual upon falsehood) and the individual who is upon falsehood (Bātil) should be prevented from disuniting with him. The Qur’an explicitly mentions this in one place:
فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِي تَبْغِيْ حَتَّى تَفِيْءَ إِلَى أَمْرِ اللهِ
“And so, challenge those who transgress until they return to the command of Allah”
And if you do not get the opportunity to investigate [who is upon] the Truth, then who has asked you to intervene? Sit at home! Without prior investigation, don’t rebuke others!”
Another Malfooz of Hazrat Thanwi (RA), mentioned in Ashraful Jawaab, which is also currently relevant (Pg 76):
“In one lecture of mine I mentioned certain customs. After the lecture, one person said that Ulema should not mention in their lectures such topics / touch on such matters, which cause discord and division in the Ummah. So, I said that our mentioning such matters is dependent on your actions. According to the actions and condition of the people, we will speak in our lectures. If the people leave and abstain from such customs, then we will also stop giving such lectures. So, the accusation of causing discord and division is actually on the heads of those who engage in such customs and not on us Ulema.”
Thus, we would like to pose a question. Are the Ulema pointing out the problematic statements the causes for discord and division or are the individuals making such problematic statements the actual causes?
Section 8: Answers to Certain Objections
1) Objection: Maulana Saad has retracted/done Rujoo?!
Answer: The details, realities and concerns regarding the retractions has been discussed with great detail under the Rujoo/retraction section.
2) Objection: Darul Uloom Deoband only voiced their concerns and released their Fatwa once the split of Tabligh had occurred! That means they must have had some sort of ulterior motive! Why didn’t they speak up earlier, especially considering that the so called “questionable statements” were being made prior to the split!
Answer: This has been answered under the section of Rujoo.
3) Objection: So and so group of Ulema or individuals met Maulana Saad and asked him about so and so statement and he retracted in front of them!
Answer: This has been answered under the section of Rujoo.
4) Objection: We shouldn’t voice our concerns, instead we should overlook the problems regarding Maulana Saad due to his illustrious lineage or we are following/siding with Maulana Saad because he is from a very noble family; a family credited for starting this great and accepted work. He is the great grandson of Maulana Muhammad Ilyas (RA)!
Answer: Firstly, the importance and need to speak up and not remain silent has been discussed in detailed under section 6 (one should especially keep in mind the text mentioned by Imam Ghazali to identify Mudaahana when overlooking errors and sins). Secondly, the yardstick for following any person is that his Aqeedah is sound, follows one of the four Mazaahib, his statements and actions are in total conformity with the Sunnah and the laws of Shar’iah. If the above conditions are not met, we will not regard him as an example or an authority even if he may hail from a very noble family and high lineage. In Islam, our yardstick for recognition of a spiritual guide and leader is whether the individual is following the entire Shar’iah or not. We do not simply look at a person’s family or lineage.
Allah (azza wa jall) looks at a person’s piety and not one’s lineage. Nabi (SAW) is reported to have said:
وَمَنْ بَطَّأَ بِهِ عَمَلُهُ لَمْ يُسْرِعْ بِهِ نَسَبُهُ (صحيح مسلم ٣/ ١٦٤٤)
“He who lags behind in doing good deeds, his noble lineage will not make him go ahead.”
Ponder about the uncle of Nabi (SAW) (Abu Lahab), the son and wife of Nooh (AS), the father of Ibrahim (AS), who will not be saved by their illustrious lineage.
Allah says in the Noble Quran:
﴿ فَإِذَا نُفِخَ فِي الصُّورِ فَلَا أَنسَابَ بَيْنَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ وَلَا يَتَسَاءَلُونَ ١٠١ ﴾ [المؤمنون: ١٠١]
“Then, when the Trumpet is blown, there will be no kinship among them that Day, nor will they ask of one another.”
﴿ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍ وَأُنثَى وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوبًا وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌ ١٣ ﴾ [الحجرات: ١٣]
“O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you with Allah is that (believer) who has At-Taqwa. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware.”
Imam Ghazaali (RA) mentions [xcii]: “If one is proud due to being in the lineage of pious ancestors, then this is also foolishness and idiocy. Whatever honour and respect they received, was due to their piety and humility. When they themselves were not proud over their religiousness, then how can their unworthy descendants be proud and assume airs over the honour and respect they enjoyed? The condition of their pious predecessors was such that they feared an evil end. They desired, “If only I was a blade of grass, so that some animal could chew me!” “If only I was a bird, so that I could be eaten by some human or animal!” Those who were possessors of knowledge and action, dashed far away from pride; whilst you, who are void of both these qualities, are proud and boastful of your lineage.”
On the other hand, the moderation of our complete and beautiful Deen is that it also recognises and gives due consideration to noble lineage. Under the following narration:
تَجِدُونَ النَّاسَ مَعَادِنَ فَخِيَارُهُمْ فِي الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ خِيَارُهُمْ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ إِذَا فَقُهُوا (صحيح مسلم ٣/ ١٤٩٨)
Allamah Nawwawi (RA) explains, as mentioned above, that virtue and rank in Islam is based on the Taqwa one possesses. However, if along with that Taqwa, one is also from a noble family, that will now add to his virtue, which shows that we do not disregard the noble lineage of a person.
وَالْفَضِيلَةُ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ بِالتَّقْوَى لَكِنْ إِذَا انْضَمَّ إِلَيْهَا شَرَفُ النَّسَبِ ازْدَادَتْ فَضْلًا (شرح النووي على مسلم ١٦/ ٧٩)
So, we can conclude from the above, that our yardstick for measuring whether or not Maulana Saad should be sided with, followed and listened to must not be his noble lineage. On the other hand, if Maulana Saad comes on to the Haqq completely (as is our desire), then his noble lineage will only add to his virtue and honour.
5) Objection: There is no problem with following, attending the lectures / listening, siding with and promoting Maulana Saad. Take the good and leave the bad.
Answer: It is often said that one should take the good from so and so and leave the bad, but this is merely a statement without any practical basis. Can this yardstick be given to the public (keeping in mind that the majority of the followers and listeners of Maulana Saad are the general public and common people), who struggle to distinguish between right and wrong? It’s like asking a layperson to examine a car and identify what is working well and what isn’t. Another example for this was mentioned above. Imagine a scenario where you visit a doctor, and they are supposed to give you a glass of water with a drop of prescribed medicine. However, they mistakenly add a drop of urine or poison. Although majority of the cup consists of beneficial water, the patient will not drink anything from the cup. Similarly, if an Aalim delivers a 1-hour lecture, 57 minutes of which offer beneficial advice (like the water) however, during the remaining 3 minutes, the Aalim makes a detrimental error (like the drop of urine or poison), the common people should abstain from his entire lecture. We are exposing the public to the negative things being said and expecting them to filter it. We also admit that the talks of Maulana Saad consist of beneficial points, however as explained above, as a precautionary measure, we advise the people to stay away. Who will take responsibility if someone leaves with a matter which is troublesome to his beliefs/Imaan or Deen?
Also, imagine if we applied this statement to every deviant sect or every problematic/controversial speaker? We, as Ulema, would be responsible in the court of Allah for exposing the Imaan and Deen of our innocent general public to potential dangers.
Lastly, we have been advised to be careful and precautious about our company due to some sort of effect rubbing onto us as oppose to adopting the company of anyone and everyone with the motto of taking the good and leaving the bad. The messenger of Allah (SAW) said:
عَنْ أَبِي مُوسَى، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ” إِنَّمَا مَثَلُ الْجَلِيسِ الصَّالِحِ وَالْجَلِيسِ السَّوْءِ كَحَامِلِ الْمِسْكِ وَنَافِخِ الْكِيرِ فَحَامِلُ الْمِسْكِ إِمَّا أَنْ يُحْذِيَكَ وَإِمَّا أَنْ تَبْتَاعَ مِنْهُ وَإِمَّا أَنْ تَجِدَ مِنْهُ رِيحًا طَيِّبَةً وَنَافِخُ الْكِيرِ إِمَّا أَنْ يُحْرِقَ ثِيَابَكَ وَإِمَّا أَنْ تَجِدَ رِيحًا خَبِيثَةً ” (صحيح مسلم ٣/ ١٦١٤)
“Indeed, the example of a good companion and a bad companion is like that of a bearer of musk and a blacksmith. The bearer of musk will either give you some, or you will buy from him, or you will smell a good fragrance from him. And the blacksmith will either burn your clothes or you will find a foul smell from him.”
Under this narration, Allama Nawwawi (RA) explains that the messenger of Allah (SAW) compares the good companion to the bearer of musk and the bad companion to the blacksmith. It also highlights the virtue of associating with righteous people, those of goodness, nobility, and moral excellence/noble character, as well as piety, knowledge, and manners. It warns against associating with the people of evil, innovators, and those who backbite others or frequently indulge in sin and similarly other blameworthy behaviours also.
In Fathul Baari, Hafiz Ibne Hajar (RA) points out the importance of being careful of the company one adopts from the following narration:
عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، رضي الله عنه عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ” أَسْرِعُوا بِالْجَنَازَةِ، فَإِنْ تَكُ صَالِحَةً فَخَيْرٌ تُقَدِّمُونَهَا، وَإِنْ يَكُ سِوَى ذَلِكَ فَشَرٌّ تَضَعُونَهُ عَنْ رِقَابِكُمْ ” … ويؤخذ من الحديث ترك صحبة أهل البطالة وغير الصالحين (فتح الباري ٣/ ١٨٤)
6) Objection: There are certain Ulema also who follow, side with and defend Maulana Saad! it isn’t just Awaam! So, how can he be problematic?
Answer: Firstly, there were Ulema who also sided with Maulana Mawdoody despite his deviance. In fact, Maulana Manzoor Numani (RA) was initially drawn to Maulana Mawdoody and his teachings. After a while, he separated himself from this movement and clarified that it was a “deviant sect.” He went on to write a book in which he mentions (after contemplation and looking back at that stage of his life) the reason behind why he fell into the trap of Maulana Mawdoody, unable to see the harms which others were warning about. His writings contain great lessons for us [xciii]:
“When I initially studied his ‘Tarjumanul Quran’ (a magazine in which Maududi promoted his teachings), a significant effect overtook my heart and mind as well as an unnatural amount of good thoughts regarding Maulana Mawdoody, which was possibly due to my personal weakness. A wise and famous Arabic couplet says:
وَعَينُ الرِّضَا عَنْ كُلِّ عَيبٍ كَلِيلَة
‘An eye that is pleased (with a particular person) is closed (i.e., it is unable to see) any faults.’
It is also narrated in a Hadeeth:
حبك الشيء يعمي ويصم
‘The love for a thing blinds a person and makes him deaf.’
This means that when the love of someone overtakes the mind and heart of a person, the eyes and ears follow the heart. When this happens, a person can no longer see any fault in the thing that has become beloved.”
(Maulana then explains the different stages he underwent in his relationship with Maulana Mawdoody, from becoming acquainted with him, joining his movement, inviting towards him, and eventually separating from him. Much of this is discussed throughout this booklet)
Maulana further writes: “The reality is that throughout this time and even for a lengthy period after that, my mind and heart were overpowered by good thoughts about Maulana Mawdoody and the call/Dawah of his Jamaat-i-Islami so much so that I failed to perceive anything wrong in his writings, during this long period of time. Even the things that (I now) recognize as being a means of Fitnah and leading the Ummah astray, I could interpret each one in such a way that it had a positive meaning. I remember that I perceived some immoderation and the harshness of the Khawaarij in some of his writings. However, I used to soothe myself or at least not pay attention to it by saying to myself: ‘This is the language that is adopted for Da’wat; this is not the language of Fatwa.’ It comes to mind that Mawdoody himself used the same excuse in some of his writings.”
This insightful and honest reflection and retrospection of Maulana Manzoor Numani (RA) contains a great lesson for us. When a great Aalim like Maulana Manzoor Numani (RA) was affected by the Fitnah of Maulana Mawdoody in the manner he was, what makes this Fitnah (which holds resemblance with the Fitnah of Maulana Mawdoody) any different?
Secondly, all the respectable and honourable Ulama are not aware of the nuances / details of the situation and as a result their lack of knowledge of the realities of the entire situation can result in their siding with Maulana Saad or can result in them not understanding the severity of the situation at hand. And those Ulema, who underwent thorough research to investigate the reality of the situation will surely support the point we just mentioned, after seeing the difference in their own outlook and view of the situation.
Thirdly, some Ulema side with Maulana Saad due to his noble lineage. It was reported to us by a respectable Mufti, that he asked a Sheikh ul Hadith in India as to why he supports and sides with Maulana Saad, to which the Sheikh replied that it is due to his lineage and noble family. However, we have answered this matter of following and siding with people based on their lineage above.
Note: It is important to be wary and alert. Sometimes, an Aalim is known for his general Tahqeeqi nature, due to which it is automatically assumed that even in this issue he has carried out thorough research, which may not actually be the case! It is highly possible that such an Aalim could have fallen prey to one of the above-mentioned 3 factors or any other external factor for that matter. It is also possible that such an Aalim could have been ill-informed and been given information by close Mureeds in Nizamuddin, who could be right hand men of Maulana Saad. This could have subsequently influenced the decision and led to a bias/one-sided look or even a weak look into the matter (Alhamdulillah we have researched thoroughly, looking into both sides, reading/listening to the proofs and resources of both sides and even meeting/interacting with Ulema from both sides). Thus, it is extremely important that a person does not let the love of a personality sway him and blind him from the truth (as that Aalim will not be able to save a person on the day of judgement no matter how big/great an Aalim he may be), instead one should use the intellect granted to him by Allah (azza wa jall) and adopt the path of moderation. On the other hand, it is extremely important that one maintains the required levels of respect in such matters for senior Ulema, despite their slip up in this one particular issue. Keep the words of Allamah Zahabi (RA) in mind:
ثم إن الكبير من أئمة العلم إذا كثر صوابه، وعلم تحريه للحق، واتسع علمه، وظهر ذكاؤه، وعرف صلاحه وورعه واتباعه، يغفر له الزلل، ولا نضلله ونطرحه وننسى محاسنه نعم ولا نقتدي به في بدعته وخطئه، ونرجو له التوبة من ذلك (سير اعلام النبلاء ٥/ ٢٧١)
“Then, when a great scholar of knowledge is frequently/regularly correct, his (sincere) pursuit of the truth is known, possesses vast knowledge, his intelligence is evident, he is known for his piety, righteousness, and following (the right path/sunnah), his slip ups are forgiven. We do not consider him as a deviant, discard him, or forget his good. Yes, we do not follow him in his innovations or mistakes, and we hope/expect his repentance from them.”
Thus, when a big Aalim slips in this regard, although we will not consider, follow or promote his view in this particular issue, we will maintain complete respect and consider him excused here (making a suitable interpretation in his defence) not forgetting his status, virtue and high rank in knowledge. On the other hand, we will be firm in our stance, spreading whatever information needs to be spread and refuting whatever needs to be refuted. May Allah (azza wa jall) protect and forgive us all.
Fourthly (back to answering the original objection), a senior and respectable Aalim of South Africa, Maulana Abdul Hameed sb, answered this objection in the following manner: Allah (azza wa jall) mentions in the Noble Quran:
﴿ الم * أَحَسِبَ النَّاسُ أَن يُتْرَكُوا أَن يَقُولُوا آمَنَّا وَهُمْ لَا يُفْتَنُونَ ﴾ [العنكبوت: ١-٢]
“Alif, Lam, Meem. Do people think that they will be left alone because they say, ‘We have believed,’ and they will not be tested?”
This life is a test and currently we are facing a challenging time in South Africa where we are being tested with the Fitnah of Maulana Saad. The test of Allah (azza wa jall) is not easy. If all the Ulema were on one side then it would not be much be much of a test. The challenge comes when there are Ulema on both sides. Hazrat then gave an example of an exam paper. Imagine there is a question being asked with only one option as an answer, as oppose to if there are multiple choices to answer from. The real test is when there are multiple choices to answer from. Likewise, in the situation we find ourselves in, we find certain Ulema siding with Maulana Saad, as a test for us.
7) Objection: Maulana Saad‘s statements are being taken out of context. They are taking snippets and falsely accusing Maulana Saad! They are like Barelwis!
Answer: First and foremost, we would like to mention that one must abstain from falsely attributing statements to anyone nor should anyone take the statements of anyone out of context to paint anyone in a bad light, whether it is for Maulana Saad or anyone else. If someone does this, they will be answerable to Allah. Those who commit such actions should fear the Day of Judgement and keep in mind that we will be accountable on that day.
Secondly, we mentioned amongst the guidelines to the Ulema (which is coming ahead): “We must not resort to or promote violence, heated and unfruitful arguments/fights, screaming and shouting, disrespect, name calling and un called for personal attacks on Maulana Saad and his followers (some of whom are senior Ulema). We must refrain from making provocative/confrontational statements, lying, slandering, attributing incorrect statements to anyone, taking statements out of context as well as negligence and overstepping the bounds.” We also tried our best to follow the above guidelines, ensuring that we don’t take anything out of context. In fact, at times, wherever possible, we listened to the entire Bayan (although listening to the entire bayan is not required to understand the correct context of a statement), in which the statement was made, like the inappropriate statement made against Nabi (SAW) (Walima incident), the link for which has been provided in one of the previous footnotes for the readers to listen and judge for themselves. In addition to this, one important point to keep in mind is that if anyone has been found guilty of taking a statement of Maulana Saad out of context, then we condemn such behaviour. However, this also doesn’t automatically mean that all the other problematic statements have also been taken out of context, nor does it mean that other individuals speaking against Maulana Saad also take his statements out of context.
Thirdly, regarding the comparison made with the Barelwis, we again reiterate that we condemn all those individuals who exceed the bounds in pointing out the errors of Maulana Saad, whether it is due to them taking it out of context, inaccurately translating his words even if it may be done innocently, unnecessarily amplifying statements that are in actual fact not so serious, publicising his statements without verifying if he actually said it or without verifying the exact manner in which he expressed himself or anything else for that matter. However, those who falsely accuse and put a blanket ruling on all the Ulema who are informing the people of the errors of Maulana Saad, amongst whom are definitely those who are doing so considering it to be their religious obligation (as Deoband mentioned), upholding the limits and laws of Shariah with sincerity and dignity, then in that case attention should not be paid to the unjustified comparison to the Barelwis, which is nothing but an emotional reaction to the bitterness of the truth, which they are finding hard to accept. This overstepping of bounds in regards to a big personality (following, accepting and defending whatever he says even if the laws of Shariah are contravened, along with the inability to accept the truth out of love for the big personality, which is how some of the followers of Maulana Saad behave) itself, in fact, is a trait of certain Barelwis. Further supporting this point is that Darul Uloom Deoband mentioned in their 2023 Fatwa (Pg 11) that the followers of Maulana Saad consider his word like the end all and be all.
Continuing this theme of comparisons with deviant sects, this objection of “taken out of context” was a tactic used by the followers of Maulana Mawdoody, to defend his inappropriate statements against the Ambiyaa (AS). Maulana Yusuf Ludhyanwi (RA) writes (Pg 284):
“Regarding the (inappropriate) statement of Maulana Mawdoody regarding Moosa (AS) which was presented and taken from his Tarjumanul Quran, the group/followers of Maulana Mawdoody have two objections … The second objection is that ‘when the statement was taken from his Tarjumanul Quran, they were deceptive in the way they presented the statement, taking it out of context’ … The answer to the second objection is that it is definitely an incorrect claim. To say this much is correct that the statement, which was a very long text, was summarised in a very good way and presented as one sentence. However, it is extremely wrong to say that there was deception/cheating (taking out of context) happening, whereby the author wrongly attributed a statement to Maulana Mawdoody.” Thereafter, Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) brings the entire text of Mawdoody regarding Moosa (AS), which is around 5 pages long and tells the reader to judge for himself whether the statement was taken out of context or not.
Continuing this theme of comparisons with deviant sects, we have found (from personal and first-hand experiences) that quite a few of the followers of Maulana Saad refuse to engage in any sort of fruitful discussion regarding the issues of Maulana Saad and Nizamuddin, despite being people of knowledge / Ulema. Some of them will not say a word, neither presenting proofs nor listen to arguments. Some have even admitted that they have been ordered by certain seniors/elders not to speak about it with others. Instead, they should only discuss amongst each other, behind closed doors (although some of them do engage, possibly ignoring the above directive or possibly because it is only a directive from some of their elders/seniors). This is extremely similar to the belief of تقیہ held by the Shias. The whole purpose of a debate/open discussion, for which the rules of discussion should be abided by to gain the required benefits, is that one can be exposed to the proofs of the opposite party also, which can assist in reaching the right conclusion, the purpose of the discussion being to reach the truth whether it be with yourself or the opposing party and not to embarrass or belittle anyone nor to stubbornly stick with your position despite the truth or correct opinion being manifest on the other side (as we have learnt from our pious predecessors). However, closing this door of discussion (especially for learned individuals), as the Shias have done, is a sign of not being on Haqq, is a sign of a lack of sufficient and adequate proofs and represents an apprehension and fear of the opposing party convincing your group.
Some Nuqool from the books of the Shia (الكافي):
عن سليمان بن خالد قال قال أبو عبد الله يا سليمان انكم على دين من كتمه أعزه الله ومن أذاعه أذله الله
“Abu Abdullah is reported to have said: “O Sulaiman, you are on a religion that, if you conceal it, Allah will honour you, but if you spread it, Allah will humiliate you.”
عن أبي عبيدة الحذاء قال سمعت أبا جعفر يقول والله ان أحبَّ أصحابي إليَّ أورعهم وأفقههم وأكتمهم لحديثنا
“Abu Jafar was heard saying: “By Allah, the most beloved of my companions to me are those who are the most pious, the most knowledgeable (those who possess the most understanding of Deen), and the ones who keep our teachings secret.”
8) Objection: This is like a Fiqhy Ikhtilaaf. This is like the difference of opinion of the Mazaahib/different schools of thought.
Answer: The disagreements among Islamic scholars (Ulama) can be classified into two categories:
1. Fiqhi Ikhtilaf (Disagreement in permissible Ijtihad): This type of disagreement arises in issues where Ijtihad is allowed. Issues where Ijtihad is permissible refers to matters that do not contradict the Quran, Hadith, or Ijma’ (consensus). The differences among the four schools of thought (Mazaahib) exemplify this category. Nabi (SAW) referred to this type of disagreement as a mercy. Imam Suyuti (RA), in his work Jazil al-Mawahib Fi Ikhtilaf al-Madhahib (Pg 25), states:
فصل : اعلم أن اختلاف المذاهب في الملة نعمة كبيرة وفضيلة عظيمة ، وله سر لطيف أدركه العالمون ، وعمي عنه الجاهلون وقد وقع اختلاف في الفروع بين الصحابة رضي الله عنهم خير الأمة ، فما خاص منهم أحداً ، ولا عادى أحدٌ أحداً ، ولا نسب أحدٌ أحداً إلى خطأ ولا قصور … ، وورد أن اختلاف هذه الأمة رحمة من الله لها ، وكان اختلاف الأمم السابقة عذاباً وهلاكاً . هذا أو معناه ، ولا يحضرني الآن لفظ الحديث
“It is important to recognize that the differences among the Mazaahib of this Ummah represent a significant blessing and an important virtue. There is a profound wisdom behind it that is understood by the knowledgeable and overlooked by the ignorant. Disagreements also occurred among the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), who are the finest of this Ummah. None of them argued with each other, held animosity for each other, or accused one another of error or deficiency. It has been reported that the diverse opinions within this Ummah are a mercy from Allah, whereas the differences among previous nations led to their punishment and destruction (This is the meaning of the Hadith; the exact wording may be different.)”
2. Major Ikhtilaf (Disagreement in Matters where Ijtihad is Not Allowed): This form of disagreement occurs in areas where Ijtihad is not permissible, particularly in issues that clearly contradict the Quran, Hadith, or Ijma’. Such disagreements cannot be categorized as Fiqhi Ikhtilaf, as it is entirely impermissible to hold differing views in these matters. This type of disagreement is a matter of truth (Haq) and falsehood (Baatil). Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (RA) referred to this Ikhtilaaf when saying “disagreement is evil.” (Abu Dawood) Examples of this type of disagreement include conflicts with groups such as the Barelwis, Qadiyanis, and other deviant sects. Allama Kafawi (RA) mentions in his book Kulliyyaat (Pg 62):
فإن الخلاف هو ما وقع في محلٍّ لا يجوز فيه الاجتهاد ، وهو ما كان مخالفاً للكتاب والسنة والإجماع
“Disagreement (major) pertains to matters where Ijtihad is not permissible; it pertains to that which opposes the Quran, Sunnah, and consensus.”
These teachings highlight the importance of distinguishing between different kinds of scholarly disagreements: one type is considered beneficial and a manifestation of Allah’s mercy, while the other is viewed as detrimental and contrary to essential Islamic teachings.
Certain problematic issues of Maulana Saad, which we have discussed in detail above, fall into the second category, like our Ikhtilaaf with Maulana Mawdoody, Barelwis etc.
Mufti Abdul Malik writes, in response to the same objection [xciv]:
“Some people argue that the current differences within the Tablighi Jamaat are just a matter of a difference in methodology. Thus, it is inappropriate for the Ulama to oppose any of the two parties. Whereas, the fact is that Maulana Saad: a) Finds fault with the Ambiyaa b) He, in many instances, distorts Quran, Hadeeth and Seerah c) He is fabricating new Usool and laws d) He is disfiguring the Sunnah and Seerah giving it a Bidah form.
Obviously, there is no possibility of then calling this is a mere difference of opinion. If this is just a difference in methodology, what then will a difference in laws and Usool be? A difference in methodology is when there is more than one valid option in a Shari matter. In other words, there are many permissible ways of doing it. Some will adopt the one permissible way, while others will adopt the other. However, when someone chooses the wrong path and then calls it the path of Sunnah and Seerah, this is misguidance upon misguidance and not a difference in methodology. In reality, even when there is a difference in methodology and a person starts calling his own permissible method the Sunnah Mansoosah (the sunnah clearly mentioned in Quran and Hadeeth) or if he says that there is only one way, then this will also be classified as Bid’ah. Then, if he now starts making flawed deductions from the Quran, Hadith, and Seerah to prop up this Bid’ah, it is absolutely clear that it is a gross error to call this a mere difference in methodology.”
Note: If the disagreement between the two Tablighi factions was only and only based on the curriculum/syllabus (Fazaaile Aamaal and Muntakhab Ahaadith) and the concept of Shurah/Imaarah, then one could have said it is a merely a Fiqhy Ikhtilaaf which could have been left to the respective seniors/figures of both groups to handle, without the Darul Iftas getting involved. Based on this, it can be said about those who have come out and incorrectly likened the Tablighi Ikhtilaaf to a Fiqhy Ikhtilaaf, that their sight/attention was simply on the difference of opinion regarding the curriculum and concept of Shurah/Imaarah (not on the problematic issues pertaining to Maulana Saad). The second response, in defence of such individuals, is that they are not fully aware of the details pertaining to Maulana Saad‘s problematic issues, the high probability of which we can attest to, considering the amount we came to know after our research, which we did not previously know.
9) Objection: The ulema are overreacting and taking it one step too far in their refutation. If one was to personally ask Maulana Saad about the Ambiyaa and Sahaba he would speak highly of them and he would say that they are Masoom!
Answer: Consider what Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) writes regarding Maulana Mawdoody (Pg 160): “Maulana Mawdoody himself admits and says the following in Tarjumanul Quran: ‘The one who speaks ill of Sahaba (RA), according to me he isn’t just a Faasiq, rather there is doubt about the Imaan of such a person. The messenger of Allah (SAW) said: whoever holds hatred in his heart for the Sahabah, then such a person’s hatred for the Sahaabah is based on the hatred he has for me.'” Maulana Ludhyanwi (RA) then goes on to say that “those who have read Maulana Mawdoody’s Kitab, Khilaafah wa Mamlookiyah, they will bear witness that the Sahabah (RA) have been spoken ill of in that kitab and that the hatred and aversion Mawdoody has for Sahabah (RA) is extremely evident.” Maulana Ludhyanwi then brings examples from Maulana Mawdoody’s kitab to prove his point.
So, if someone argues on behalf of Mawdoody that the Ulema are overreacting and taking it one step too far in their refutation of him, whereas if you actually ask him and see his works then he has clearly stated that the one who speaks ill of Sahaabah (RA) is not only a Faasiq, rather his Imaan is in doubt, would this be a logical and rational argument? Or would it make more sense to judge Maulana Mawdoody based on the statements he has made regarding the Sahabah (RA)? In the same way, even if Maulana Saad says that he also believes in the infallibility of the Ambiyaa (AS) and holds great honour for the Sahaabah (RA), we will judge and act according to his statements (his inner condition is between him and Allah (azza wa jall)).
10) Objection: Why don’t we make Taweel (finding a suitable interpretation for the statements of Maulana Saad so that they can have an accepted and correct meaning) and consider them slips of the tongue the way we do for other big personalities! He’s human after all. He’s prone to error like everyone else. He gives so many bayans, he’s bound to make mistakes.
Answer: There is no blanket ruling for this concept of considering mistakes as slips of the tongue for Ulema. Rather, the situation and subsequent way of dealing with errors made, will differ from case to case, depending on other potential and extending harms and benefits too.
One thing to consider is that is it a matter of one or two mistakes or numerous errors? We would like to present some examples. Imam A makes a Fatha or Damma mistake or gets stuck during his recitation every once in a while, and is generally punctual and on time for Salah, except maybe a few times throughout the year. Imam B makes a Fatha or Damma mistake in his Qiraat or he misses out words and letters of the Quraan in his Qiraat and he is often coming late for Salah (bad punctuality), delaying the start of Salah. Would you put both these Imams in the same boat? Would you deal with them in the same way? Or would you make an excuse for Imam A and keep him in his job as oppose to Imam B, for whom you would look for a replacement? Let’s take the example of a judge. Judge B many a times makes mistakes in his judgements, as oppose to judge A who seldomly slips up, would the ministry keep Judge B as the judge and risk the outcomes of future cases? Or would they deal with both Judge A and Judge B in the same way? Let us take the example of a teacher. Teacher B quite often makes mistakes whilst teaching an important subject to students, as oppose to Teacher A who slips up seldomly, would the administration manage to tolerate teacher B? Do you think he will still have his job? Do you think that both of them will be dealt with in the same way? The answer is obvious and does not need to be mentioned. Thus, if there is a senior Aalim who seldomly makes mistakes as oppose to another Aalim who has a tendency to err with a long list of mistakes, how can they be treated the same?
Furthermore, it is not as simple as that. There are other factors to consider too. Imagine a senior Aalim, who seldomly makes mistakes, and when you inspect his life he is part of numerous good projects, his Aqeedah is sound, he posseses all the required traits for an influential spiritual guide, he has the trust of the public, he is the cause for so much goodness in the world, now to run him down for a few mistakes, which would have many negative consequences on the Ummah (like negatively impacting all his positive and good work, due to the public losing their faith and trust in him), is an action which lacks wisdom. Instead, if the respected Aalim has passed away then Taweel should be made for him. But if he is still alive, then he should be notified, with the habit of the rightly guided Ulema being to instantly accept and acknowledge their mistake, not repeating it again and clarifying their error to the public according to where and how the mistake was made.
Allamah Zahabi (RA) makes mention of the same notion:
ثم إن الكبير من أئمة العلم إذا كثر صوابه، وعلم تحريه للحق، واتسع علمه، وظهر ذكاؤه، وعرف صلاحه وورعه واتباعه، يغفر له الزلل، ولا نضلله ونطرحه وننسى محاسنه نعم ولا نقتدي به في بدعته وخطئه، ونرجو له التوبة من ذلك (سير اعلام النبلاء ٥/ ٢٧١)
“Then, when a great scholar of knowledge is frequently/regularly correct, his (sincere) pursuit of the truth is known, possesses vast knowledge, his intelligence is evident, he is known for his piety, righteousness, and following (the right path/sunnah), his slip ups are forgiven. We do not consider him as a deviant, discard him, or forget his good. Yes, we do not follow him in his innovations or mistakes, and we hope/expect his repentance from them.”
However, sometimes wisdom demands that an Aalim’s errors should be made public (especially when a lot of effort has already been made to try to correct and notify the individual despite him not taking heed), that people should be warned about such an individual and that interpretations should not be made. A simple example is Maulana Mawdoody. Imagine if someone raised an objection that why don’t you make interpretations and good thoughts about Maulana Mawdoody? To make Taweel etc in such circumstances would be a cause of misguidance for the Ummah.
Lastly, we advise that one should reread section 7 completely. The importance and at times the necessity to speak out against the wrongs/evils of influential figures was discussed above (keep in mind the text of Maulana Abdul Hayy Lakhnawi (RA), Muqaddima of Saheeh Muslim and Ashbah) as well as the fact that all mistakes cannot be treated equally … “In order to understand the gravity of his errors and the severe repercussions they can lead to, know that all mistakes cannot be treated equally. Different types of mistakes have varying repercussions and are subsequently dealt with in different ways. Factors like who (the individual that made the mistake), what (the type of mistake that was made), when, and where also have an impact, as will be discussed below.” Further details, explanations and quotations of Ulema were given above in that section, however we concluded that point with the following: ” So, when Maulana Saad is the influential personality we all know him to be, with a following and platform as big as anyone else in the world, a lot of whom are the general public (Awaam), while he is making the dangerous statements mentioned above (sensitive issues pertaining to Aqeedah as well as mistakes in other than Aqeedah), in big Ijtimaas, it is clear and obvious that this is a very serious issue, which must and must be dealt with by the Ulema for the welfare of the Ummah at large.”
Note: If one takes the time to listen to the bayans of Maulana Saad, in which the problematic statements were made, he will find it difficult to believe that they were slips of the tongue. An example of a slip of the tongue is that one, for example, mistakenly says “the fish in the sky and the birds in the sea seek forgiveness for such a person” as oppose to “the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky”. Can it really be called a slip of the tongue if the point was being discussed for a good 5-10 minutes and if the problematic statement itself or the problematic prelude to the even more problematic statement was repeated thrice or a number of times, which can be seen from some of the statements we have provided above. One should ponder if it is an actual slip of the tongue or well calculated statements, which have become an inherent feature of his lectures, and a part and parcel of his troublesome nature. Even if we, for arguments sake, assume that all his mistakes and errors are slips of the tongue, is it appropriate to have such a spiritual leader and guide whose tongue constantly slips?
Note: Regarding the point that he gives a lot of lectures, so he is bound to make mistakes! Firstly, we reject that point, rather it is not normal for a righteous, knowledgeable, rightly guided Aalim to make the type and number of problematic statements that maulana Saad makes even with the amount of Bayans he gives. Just take a look at the elders of Tabligh from the time of Maulana Ilyas Sb (RA) who would give Bayans daily for hours and hours! A few slip ups and mistakes are understandable, and as mentioned above depending on the case and Maslahah, we may make a Taweel and excuse the Aalim. However, the type and number of mistakes made by Maulana Saad, suggests that he isn’t worthy of the lofty position of being on the mimbar of Nizamuddin. If he can’t give so many bayans without making the type and number of mistakes that he does, then he should be suspended from sitting on the mimbar, and be replaced by someone who can give the same amount of Bayans without making the type and number of mistakes made by Maulana Saad.
11) Objection: You must continue following, obeying and listening to Maulana Saad unless it reaches the level of Kufr / until you don’t see clear Kufr from him. You mustn’t rebel against the Ameer of Tabligh unless you see clear and open disbelief! (Maulana Saad himself more or less alluded to this whilst discussing the incident of Umar (RA) and Bilal (RA), which was mentioned above)
Answer: Mufti Abdul Malik responds to this objection [xcv]: “Now these people have started saying that rebellion/leaving the Ameer (Maulana Saad) is not permissible before clear disbelief! It’s unclear whether or not they truly understand the essence/reality of this issue. Firstly, which type of ruler/Ameer is this issue about? It pertains to the Amir al-Mu’minin and the Sultan of the time … Thirdly, while leaving/rebellion against the Sultan before clear disbelief is considered impermissible, if one has the power, it is obligatory to condemn it verbally. Who doesn’t know the narration: “The best form of jihad is a word of truth in front of a tyrannical ruler.”
As for the matter of obedience (إطاعة), the general principle in Sharia is that obedience is only in what is good, and this applies even to the greatest of the caliphs. In short, these individuals confuse the issues. We need to understand that the issue of rebellion (whether it is to do with negation or affirmation/establishment) does not concern the leader of any particular movement; it is a discussion about general authority, caliphate, and overpowering leadership. The Mas’ala of Khurooj (rebellion) regarding the leader of any group or movement does not come in any Nass.
Look at where they have taken it from! They have brought the issue of rebellion against the Amir al-Mu’minin and the Caliph of the Muslims and incorrectly applied it to the religious responsible person of a religious group. Moreover, they have distorted the argument by extending the prohibition of rebellion to include the condemnation of wrong actions, saying that rebellion against the Amir is forbidden, thus making any condemnation of their wrongdoings is also forbidden! However, it is essential to stop any religious leader of a group from saying anything that goes against the methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah; otherwise, it would lead to the distortion of Sharia.
I’m also mentioning, by the way, that after the caliphate based on the methodology of prophethood and just leadership has ended, the primary responsibility of rulers is no longer worthy of religious leadership. People have realized that they are not worthy of religious leadership. True religious guidance is sought from the Imams, scholars, and righteous individuals. The administrative duties remain for the rulers and sultans, such as building roads, bridges, and protecting people from oppression; these are their essential tasks. This is why it is said that the work they are doing is necessary, and one should not rebel against them.
As for the issue of obedience, Sharia states that obedience is only in what is good. Thus, one should obey them in good matters, but for religious affairs, legal rulings, and religious guidance, one should follow the scholars and the righteous that are worthy of being followed. Therefore, do not rebel against the rulers and sultans! Because they are providing benefits in terms of organization and administration, do not rebel against them unless they commit open and clear disbelief. This matter pertains to the Amir al-Mu’minin and the Caliph of the Muslims. However, unfortunately, this has been applied to the religious responsible person of a religious movement, which is a distortion.
But those who distort this have not considered that obedience to those against whom rebellion is not permissible without open disbelief, (obedience) is also not permissible in matters that are not good. One should not obey the Amir al-Mu’minin or the Caliph of the Muslims in wrongdoing; obedience is only in what is good. It is a separate issue that no rightly guided caliph has ever commanded a wrongdoing, God forbid.
Yet these people here are declaring the obedience to the religious responsible people of a religious group to be general! What new matters are they creating? It is clear that if one remains silent until open disbelief occurs, it will lead to the distortion of religion. Until open disbelief, all forms of misguidance will be presented, one one point will keep coming and everyone will remain silent because open disbelief has not yet happened. Tell me, what could be more dangerous than the distortion and alteration of religion? And we have not even begun the discussion on whether the leadership of the aforementioned individual was established through the proper religious methods; that is a separate discussion.”
For further peace of mind consider the following texts:
«قوله: “وأن لا ننازع الأمر أهله”، أي: الملك والإمارة». (فتح الباري ١٣/ ٨)
«إذا تحققت الإمامة الكبرى لأحد لا يجوز لأحد البغاة الخروج عليه، ويجب اتباعه، وتعزِّر الشريعة هذا الاتباع بلزوم الجماعة، وفي حديث: «لا تخرجوا على الإمام إلا أن تروا كفراً بواحاً» إلخ». (العرف الشذي ٣/ ٣٩٨)
This is one example of where they have incorrectly applied a narration or Daleel which is referring to the Amir ul Mumineen in actual fact. We have realised, after our research, that many of the proofs and narrations used by the followers of Maulana Saad to support their arguments are actually regarding the Amir ul Mumineen and are incorrectly being used. Even if we allow them, for arguments sake, to use the narrations and Daleels that they incorrectly use, they should keep in mind the following text:
وهذا في إمام عُقد له على وجه يصح، ثم فسق وجار.» (المعلم للمازري ٣/ ٥٣)
12) Objection: What do you mean Deoband are against Maulana Saad! This is outrageous! Have you not seen the following Fataawa of Deoband?
“He who calls the people of Markaz Nizamuddin misguided is himself misguided.”
“The people of Markaz Nizamuddin on the whole are Ahle Haq and belong to the Maslak of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamat Ulema. So, even to say that this Jamaat is excluded from Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaat is a matter of abhorrence and misguiding. If any person belonging to the Tablighi Jamaat has any wrong beliefs or thoughts, that’s a different matter. Due to this, the whole Jamaat cannot be misunderstood or considered wrong.
Maulana Saad Saab and other Hazraat Akabireen of Nizamuddin will be the benefactors for the common people, the Ummah and including you, will be benefitted a lot.”
(These are a few examples of the type of Fataawa they present. A list of such Fataawa have been circulating recently)
Answer: The stance of Darul Uloom Deoband is absolutely clear. Refer to the Fataawa/statements released by them in 2016, 2018 and 2023. Also, due to connections with those Ulema who are close to Deoband (Mufti Abul Qaasim), we can assure that the stance of Deoband still stands till today and has not changed. However, the sad reality is that ever since Deoband wrote and took a stern stance against Maulana Saad, instead of accepting their sincere words and advices, the followers of Maulana Saad have tried various different plots to try and counter these Fataawa. Some have tried to discredit and dishonour Darul Uloom Deoband in a bid to subsequently discredit the Fatwa of Deoband. Some have falsely, deceitfully and incorrectly accused Deoband of forcing and threatening the Muftis to sign the Fataawa, without having any proof! This is an often-used trick of theirs. In fact, after the declaration against Maulana Saad signed by the seniors of South Africa, a few of the seniors were accused of being forced or signing without reading the declaration, whilst others accused the Ulema behind the declaration of putting signatures without the knowledge of certain seniors (due to being out of the country at the time the declaration was released, however those seniors or senior had given verbal permission for his name/signature to be added to the declaration). However, shortly after these false allegations were circulating, certain seniors themselves clarified that they were false allegations and that they had happily signed.
Amongst the several ways the followers of Maulana Saad attempt to discredit the Fatwaa of Deoband, one of the ways is by presenting old Fatwas, that have now been deleted from Deoband’s website. However, if one wants a more detailed response for this particular plot of theirs, refer to the document prepared by Kashful Ghubaar, which answers this very objection in great detail. Kahful Ghubaar released this article on 15/10/2024. May Allah (azza wa jall) reward the Ulema behind Kashful Ghubaar.
13) Objection: Wait for Maulana Saad to come for so and so upcoming Ijtimaa at so and so place and see if he says anything controversial or inappropriate! If he doesn’t say anything bad, then what is the issue!
Answer: Maybe we will need to present a real-life example to answer this objection. Imagine that a person has worked at 7 different companies / he has had 7 different jobs in the past 20 years. Over the duration of those 20 years, he has been caught stealing the profits of 3 of those companies, which shows he isn’t the most trustworthy worker to have (however he definitely did not steal from the last company he worked at). Let’s say that you are deciding to start a company and that individual wants to come work for you. Would you hire him based on the fact that he did not steal from the last company he worked at? Or would his previous crimes sway you away from hiring him, due to the doubt in your heart and due to the apprehension that he could possibly go back to his old habits? …
فما هو جوابكم فهو جوابنا
Just like how our love and greed for wealth forces us to make precautious decisions in our worldly lives, the desire for the protection of our Imaan and Deen should spur us on to making precautious decisions in our religious matters, such as choosing spiritual leaders and choosing who to give our Mimbars and platforms to (also keep in mind the real-life situation that was mentioned in the Rujoo section about the health specialist who was recently suspended).
Section 9: Guidelines and Masaail
Guidelines:
There are certain guidelines that must be kept in mind, whilst tackling this issue and fulfilling one’s responsibility:
1) Our intention must be pure and correct. Our intention must be to protect and preserve Deen, fulfilling the responsibility on our shoulders as Ulema. We must not have any hidden agendas. Our enthusiasm/fervour for getting involved must not be fuelled by the desires of our Nafs nor should it be based on any fanaticism. May Allah (azza wa jall) grant us all sincerity. We must also ensure that we are doing this as well wishers for Maulana Saad and his followers, not keeping any hatred or animosity in our hearts for them. Instead, our example is like that of a group of brothers on the path to Jannah. If any one of us slips or goes off track, the rest of us will help our brothers back up and put them back in the right direction, so that we can all reach our destination (Jannah) safe and sound.
2) We must not let any pride subtly creep in whilst dealing with this issue. We must not consider ourselves better than anyone else nor that we ourselves are free from faults. We must be extremely fearful of how and in what condition our own ending and departure from this world will be.
3) In a time of Fitnah our good deeds should increase. We should increase our Tilaawat with the intention of seeking guidance and help of Allah (azza wa jall) from this Fitnah. Also, we should engage in as many good deeds as possible like giving Sadaqah, Zikr, Tahajjud, Salah as well as abstaining from sins even more so now, in order to attract the mercy and help of Allah (azza wa jall). One of the most important actions in these times is Dua. We should continuously make Dua and beg from Allah (azza wa jall) that he guides Maulana Saad (a favour we owe to Maulana Ilyas (RA)), brings him back to the Haqq, corrects his ideologies and way of thinking, grants him correct understanding of Deen, protects him from Ghuloo and making inappropriate statements against Ambiyaa (AS) and Sahaabah (RA), makes him a beacon of guidance, protects him from being a means of misguidance and grant him the ability to openly and sincerely retract whilst fulfilling all the conditions of a correct retraction. In fact, we encourage one and all to continuously make the following Dua (a Dua of Abu Bakr (RA) mentioned in Sharhul Ihyaa) especially in these times, which is so that Allah (azza wa jall) guides us (ourselves) to the Haqq:
اللهم أرنا الحق حقًا وارزقنا اتباعه ، وأرنا الباطل باطلا وارزقنا اجتنابه
“O Allah, show us the truth as truth and grant us the ability to follow it, and show us falsehood as falsehood and grant us the ability to avoid it.”
We should also make the following Dua (a Dua of Imam Ahmed Bin Hambal (RA) which Ibnul Jawzi mentions in his book Sifatus Safwah 2/349), for the guidance of others also:
اللَّهُمَّ مَنْ كَانَ عَلَى هَوًى أَوْ عَلَى رَأْيِي، وَهُوَ يَظُنُّ أَنَّهُ عَلَى الْحَقِّ وَلَيْسَ هُوَ عَلَى الْحَقِّ، فَرُدَّهُ إِلَى الْحَقِّ حَتَّى لاَ يَضِلَّ مِنْ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ أَحَدًا
“O Allah, whoever is upon a desire or an opinion, and believes that he is upon the truth while he is not, guide him to the truth so that he does not mislead anyone from this Ummah.”
One should also take lesson from the inspirational incident regarding Maulana Manzoor Numani (RA), which he mentions himself in his book Tahdeethe Nimat (Pg 225), which shows us the importance of Dua. [The incident is recounted in full in the original document: it relates how, the day after the passing of Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Ilyas (RA) in Rajab 1362 AH, while returning from a Tablighi gathering in Mewat, Haji Abdur Rahmaan (RA) insisted Maulana Manzoor Numani sit with him in a cart, and recounted an incident from about two and a half years prior, in which Maulana Ilyas (RA) woke Haji Abdur Rahmaan up urgently to mention Maulana Manzoor Numani by name — noting he had “gone to the wrong place” (his involvement with the Jamaat-i-Islami of Maududi) and urging Dua and Salah for him. Maulana Numani became convinced that the prayer of these two elders was the actual catalyst of his turning away from the Jamaat-i-Islami.]
4) We should address this issue publicly in Bayans when the need arises and when it is deemed suitable to do so, in an appropriate manner, under the consultation of the senior rightly guided Ulema. Also, we should write books or articles to alert people as well as trying to make people understand privately in a compassionate way. We should speak/write with dignity and respect, using proofs and logical arguments, without letting our emotions get the better of us. We must not resort to or promote violence, heated and unfruitful arguments/fights, screaming and shouting, disrespect, name calling and un called for personal attacks on Maulana Saad and his followers (some of whom are senior Ulema). We must refrain from making provocative/confrontational statements, lying, slandering, attributing incorrect statements to anyone, taking statements out of context as well as افراط وتفريط. It is important to keep in mind that, generally, in times of Fitnah, you get a few groups. One group is on Falsehood. Another group is on Haqq but propagates the Haqq/combats falsehood in the wrong way. Another group is on Haqq and combats the falsehood in the right way. We must ensure that we are from the last group. The second group, although they are on Haqq, can at times cause more damage than harm. We also do not condone any disrespectful behaviour that is carried out towards seniors in an attempt to spread the Haqq.
Whilst we are on this topic, the recent attack on the Shura brothers that occurred in the Tongi Ijtimaa grounds (during the preparation for the upcoming Ijtimaa) is extremely saddening and a big blemish on Maulana Saad and the other leaders/responsible figures of the Nizamuddin faction. According to reports, it has been confirmed that 4 were killed and many more injured, whilst others were reported missing. What is worrying is that this is not the first time this sort of violence has broken out. Mufti Abdul Malik mentions that to the best of his knowledge the attacks in Tongi (about 6-7 years ago) were also a one-sided attack from the Nizamuddin faction. Although, we are not accusing Maulana Saad of planning such murders and attacks, the fact that no public condemnation has yet been delivered (to the best of our knowledge) is concerning. Silence at such times is problematic. In fact, it has been brought to our attention that a group of individuals affiliated with Maulana Saad wrote a letter to him in which they raised their concerns about this very point. They mentioned how they are ardent followers of Maulana Saad but are concerned about attacks of this nature from the followers of Nizamuddin. They explained the severity of killing a Muslim brother with verses and narrations and then urged Maulana Saad to publicly criticize such actions, otherwise statements like such attacks were carried out under his silent directives (mere indication) or at the least he was happy with such incidents even if he played no role. They then said that until such a public condemnation is given, they are going to boycott the Ijtimaas of Maulana Saad (despite being ardent followers of Maulana Saad and Nizamuddin). It is also possible that the problematic ideology and extremist/radical process of thought and teachings that the followers of Nizamuddin are moulded with increase the possibility of such terrible incidents occurring. In fact, Kashful Gubaar mentioned the following in an article that was released on the 29th December 2024 regarding the Tongi attack (explaining what may have led to this outcome): “Over years, his followers have been positioning him as the Ameerul Mu’mineen (Leader of the believers), whose disobedience is regarded as rebellion. Books have actually been written by his followers which claims that anyone who refuses to accept Ml Saad’s leadership is a Baaghi (rebel). One book in an earlier edition, even promoted the call to kill anyone who opposes Ml Saad.”
آج صرف اور صرف اولی الامر کا حکم چلے گا، اور تمام دنیا میں کسی بھی بڑے چھوٹے میں یہ اولی الامر کی نسبت سے حکم نہیں ہے، جو بھی ان کی مخالفت کرے وہ باغی اور فتنہ پرور ہے، واجب القتل ٹھرایا جائے گا، شریعت مطہرہ میں قرآن و حدیث کی روشنی کے بغیر بات بالکل صاف ہے، اور حکم کو پورا کرنے کیلئے کسی اسلامی حکومت کی ضرورت نہیں، تمام امت کے لیے یہ حکم ہے … الخ
In the new edition the follow up to being a rebel has been deleted and according to an audio he has retracted from the part where it is obligatory to kill such individuals. However, the part of being a rebel and a means of Fitnah remains, which still insinuates the same consequences (of murder and violence against such individuals). The Fatwa of Kufr and Haram has been given on those who left Nizamuddin by Maulana Shamim. As well as the above, it has passed in section 3 that Maulana Saad insinuated that leaving Nizamuddin is like apostasy/Irtidaad (according to the context he was speaking in). From the above it has become clear how their problematic ideology and extremist positions can possibly increase the possibility of such terrible incidents occurring. [xcvi]
Masaail:
1) The general masses should be strongly discouraged from attending any Ijtimaa/Jhor held by the Nizamuddin faction, whether Maulana Saad attends or not. As well as this we also urge the Ulema not to attend. Although an Aalim may be able to sift the good from the bad, however his attending can be detrimental in many other ways. This can cause a misconception amongst the general masses that such a scholar also supports the beliefs and ideologies of Maulana Saad, who then may be used as a proof for following him and his ideologies, although the Aalim himself does not support Maulana Saad in his wrong. This may also be a cause for many attending from amongst the general public, who are not capable of sifting the good from the bad. Consider the following text:
وَفِي النَّوَازِلِ سُئِلَ نَصِيرٌ عَنْ رَجُلٍ يَخْتَلِفُ إلَى رَجُلٍ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْبَاطِلِ وَالشَّرِّ لِيَذُبَّ عَنْ نَفْسِهِ إنْ كَانَ هَذَا الرَّجُلُ مَشْهُورًا مِمَّنْ يُقْتَدَى بِهِ فَإِنَّهُ يُكْرَهُ أَنْ يَخْتَلِفَ إلَيْهِ (خلاصة الفتاوى ٤/ ٣٣٥)
“Nasir was asked about a man who frequently visits a person from the people of falsehood and evil to defend himself. If this person is well-known as someone who is followed, then it is disliked for him to visit him.”
We also strongly urge the Ulema Kiraam, as well as the general public, to not attend due to the following narration, mentioned by Hafiz Ibne Hajar (RA):
باب من كره أن يكثر سواد الفتن والظلم … وقد جاء عن ابن مسعود مرفوعا: من كثر سواد قوم فهو منهم، ومن رضي عمل قوم كان شريك من عمل به. أخرجه أبو يعلى … (فتح الباري ١٣/ ٣٧)
“Whoever increases the number of a group, he will be counted from amongst them and whoever is happy with the actions of a group, he will be considered to have taken part in that also.”
2) Amidst the current pandemonium and with emotions running high, one must constantly be wary of overstepping the bounds of Shariah. It should not be that in fending off wrongs/falsehood, we let our Nafs get the better of us and display behaviours unbecoming of a Muslim. Below are a few guidelines that clarify how to interact with brothers associated with the Nizamuddin faction, while upholding the mandates of Shariah.
First and foremost, the Masajid are the houses of Allah (azza wa jall). Thus, those who follow Maulana Saad will not be stopped from entering our Masajid for performing Salah and other acts of worship. However, we strongly recommend that they should not be entertained to engage in Tablighi activity, nor should their Jamaats be allowed to deliver programmes inside the Masjid (we should not be deceived by the slogan of “six points” which some of them use to trojan horse their wrong ideologies), nor should they be allowed to promote or encourage their Ijtimaas/Jhors, due to the wrong ideologies propagated by Maulana Saad, and the fact that some of the members of his faction regurgitate these statements in their Bayans and gatherings. The Masajid are the houses of Allah (azza wa jall) and places of worship, Salah, Zikr, recitation of Quran as well as places for teaching (Taleem) the masses and inviting them towards Deen (Dawah).
Take note of the following texts:
Allamah Nawawi (RA) mentions in his commentary of Saheeh Muslim (5/55):
وقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم إنما بنيت المساجد لما بنيت له معناه لذكر الله تعالى والصلاة والعلم والمذاكرة في الخير ونحوها
“And the saying of the messenger of Allah (SAW), ‘The Masajid have only been built for the purposes for which they were built’ means for the remembrance of Allah, performance of Salah, knowledge, reminders/discussions of goodness, and similar activities.”
Ibne Raslaan (RA) also mentions the same point in his commentary of Abu Dawood (3/312):
(فَإِنَّ الْمَسَاجِدَ لَمْ تُبْنَ لِهَذَا) رواية مُسْلِم: “إِنَّمَا بُنِيَت الْمَسَاجِد لِمَا بنيت له” يدل على أن الأصل أن لا يعمل في المسجد غَيرَ الصَّلَوَات والأذكار وقراءة القرآن والعلم والمُذَاكَرَة في الخير
However, the condition is that the teaching and inviting should be according to Shariah and Sunnah (which Allamah Nawawi (RA) and Ibne Raslaan (RA) alluded to by mentioning the words في الخير). If it is mixed with innovations and other deviations, then such Taleem and Dawah should not be given in the Masjid (or anywhere else), nor should individuals who offer such Taleem and Dawah be given the chance to speak in our Masajid, whether it is Maulana Saad and his followers or the Shias or the Barelwis or the Qadiyanis or any other problematic speaker. Although, the lectures of such scholars/individuals may comprise of beneficial points and advices, however the harm can be detrimental. Consider the example of a litre of water and one drop of urine or poison. Majority of the liquid consists of beneficial water, but one would abstain from drinking due to the harms or disgust of the drop of poison or urine. Likewise, a 1-hour lecture which consists of 55 minutes of beneficial advice and 5 minutes of troublesome words that can be detrimental to a person’s Deen or Aqidah (especially for the general masses who are unable to sift the good from the bad).
If it so happens that in your Masjid their Jamaat has come and has started giving programmes or is mixing with the people inviting towards their Ijtimaa/Jhor/Markaz, then the committee or responsible brothers/Ulema, who have the authority to deal with the issue, should be notified, so that they can deal with the problem in a manner in which the sanctity and rights of the Masjid are not violated (voices being raised, shouting, fighting, bloodshed). The laymen, who do not have such authority, should not try to sort the matter and get involved on their own accord, instead, as mentioned above, they should notify the authoritative individuals, who should deal with the issue with wisdom and an effective manner.
Take note of the following texts:
Ibn ul Haaj (RA) mentions in his Madkhal (2/204):
فصل في ذكر بعض البدع التي أحدثت في المسجد والأمر بتغييرها قال الرسول (كلكم راع وكلكم مسؤول عن رعيته) ولا شك أن المسجد وما يفعل فيه من رعية الإمام والمؤذن والقيم إلى غير ذلك ممن له التصرف … فإذا تقرر أن المسجد من رعية الإمام يحتاج أن يتفقده، فما كان فيه على منهاج السلف الماضين أبقاه وما كان من غير ذلك أزاله برفق وتلطف إن قدر على ذلك …
“The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said, ‘Each of you is a shepherd/responsible, and each of you is responsible for his flock/those under him.’ There is no doubt that the Masjid and what is done in it fall under the responsibility of the Imam, the Muezzin, the caretaker, and others who have some sort of authority … So, when it is established that the Masjid falls under the responsibility of the Imam, he needs to supervise and keep check of it. Whatever is in accordance with the way of the righteous predecessors should be left to remain, and anything else should be softly and kindly removed if he is capable of doing so…”
Ibne Nujaym (RA) mentions in Al Ashbah (Pg 321):
ويكره دخوله لمن أكل ذا ريح كريمة منه ويمنع كل مؤذ فيه ولو بلسانه
“It is disliked for someone who has eaten something with an unpleasant smell to enter (the Masjid), and they should be prevented from doing so. Similarly, anyone who causes harm/trouble, even with their tongue, should also be prohibited from entering.”
Hazrat Thanwi (RA) mentions in Imdadul Fatawa (2/700) [a similar ruling from Durre Mukhtar that one who causes harm/disorder in the Masjid may be prevented from entering, provided that such prevention does not lead to further disorder — keeping in mind the Arabic proverb “He fled from the rain but stood under the gutter”].
Likewise, one should not join, take part or assist them in their work/effort/Ijtimas/Jhors. Although the name of their effort and work is Tabligh, however, the reality is that their effort is mixed with such matters which can be potentially detrimental for a person’s Deen.
Allah (azza wa jall) mentions in the Noble Quran:
وَتَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْبِرِّ وَالتَّقْوَى وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ ٢ [المائدة: ٢]
“And assist one another in righteousness and piety, but do not assist one another in sin and aggression. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in punishment.”
Allamah Nawwawi (RA) points out from the following narration that it is not permissible to assist in wrong matters:
عَنْ جَابِرٍ، قَالَ لَعَنَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم آكِلَ الرِّبَا وَمُوكِلَهُ وَكَاتِبَهُ وَشَاهِدَيْهِ وَقَالَ هُمْ سَوَاءٌ. هذا تصريح بتحريم كتابة المبايعة بين المترابيين والشهادة عليها وَفِيهِ تَحْرِيمُ الْإِعَانَةِ عَلَى الْبَاطِلِ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ (شرح النووي على مسلم ١١/ ٢٦)
As for those who happily host Maulana Saad and his Ijtimaas/Jhors, they should keep the following narration and explanation in mind (as well as the above) and they should ponder about whether or not they fall into or hold any similarity with this category:
الْمُؤْمِنُونَ تَكَافَأُ دِمَاؤُهُمْ، وَهُمْ يَدٌ عَلَى مَنْ سِوَاهُمْ، وَيَسْعَى بِذِمَّتِهِمْ أَدْنَاهُمْ، أَلَا لَا يُقْتَلُ مُؤْمِنٌ بِكَافِرٍ، وَلَا ذُو عَهْدٍ فِي عَهْدِهِ، مَنْ أَحْدَثَ حَدَثًا فَعَلَى نَفْسِهِ، وَمَنْ أَحْدَثَ حَدَثًا أَوْ آوَى مُحْدِثًا فَعَلَيْهِ لَعْنَةُ اللهِ وَالْمَلَائِكَةِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ (التعليق المحمود على سنن أبي داود ٢/ ١٢٤٠)
Despite this, the members of the Nizamuddin faction are still our Muslim brothers. Therefore, the rights of a Muslim over another Muslim will apply. If they are our relatives or colleagues, we should continue to display good character and courtesy when interacting with them, fulfilling any rights they hold over us as well as combatting any bad and disrespectful conduct from the followers of Maulana Saad with noble character.
Also, we should try to explain this current Fitnah to them in a soft and compassionate way. Consider this verse of the Honourable Quran where Allah (azza wa jall) addresses Musa (AS) and Harun (AS):
﴿ فَقُولَا لَهُ قَوْلًا لَّيِّنًا لَّعَلَّهُ يَتَذَكَّرُ أَوْ يَخْشَى ٤٤ ﴾ [طه: ٤٤]
“Speak to him (Firawn) in a soft manner; perhaps he may take heed or fear [Allah]”
On the other hand, one should not mix or socialise with them to the point that the wrong they are involved in is downplayed and forgotten, nor to the point that people consider us from amongst them. Also, extra precaution should be taken when it comes to the extent of socialising and mixing with them, in the case where one fears he could become affected by them and their ideologies or in the case where one fears others could become affected by seeing him mixing with them. Alongside the precaution, at all times, one should avoid conduct that may give rise to animosity and violence.
Section 10: Conclusion
To conclude, we would like to restate the following words of Deoband (which was mentioned under section 5):
لیکن دارالعلوم میں موقف میں اصلاً مولانا کے جس فکری بے راہ روی پر تشویش پر اظہار کیا تھا، اس سے صرف نظر نہیں کیا جا سکتا … کیونکہ مولانا موصوف اپنے انہی دور کے اجتہادات سے ایسا لگتا ہے کہ خدا نخواستہ کسی ایسی جماعت کی تشکیل کے درپے ہیں جو اہل السنۃ والجماعۃ اور خاص طور پر اپنے اکابر کے مسلک سے مختلف ہوگی
“However, one’s attention cannot be turned away and one cannot lose sight of the original position of Deoband’s worry regarding Maulana’s problematic and deviated ideology and process of thought … This is because it seems like, from these Ijtihaadat, (God forbid) that he is in pursuit of promoting and raising such a group, which differs from the way of Ahlus sunnah and especially the way of our Akaabir.”
We simply wish to reiterate that this issue is not just a matter of a few statements; rather, it concerns a fundamental problem with the deviated ideology and problematic thought process of Maulana Saad, which appears to have an extremely concerning trajectory.
One of the objectives of our writings is to raise awareness about the concerns mentioned above. This would not only reassure those who are already opposed to Maulana Saad (shielding them from the constant doubts propagated by his followers), but also remove any uncertainties and provide clarity to those who are doubtful, while encouraging the ardent followers of Maulana Saad to reconsider their stance.
A reminder and message to the Ulema who may still be doubtful or strong followers of Maulana Saad is this: the longer we continue to support him and remain within this bubble of fanaticism, the more long-lasting the ill-effects of this Fitnah will be. A recent example of this is the Fitnah of Maulana Mawdoody, whose long-lasting consequences are still visible today in various parts of the world. The delay in realizing the truth and combatting the Fitnah was a major factor in these ongoing repercussions.
Therefore, we appeal to those who are in doubt and to the ardent followers of Maulana Saad to read the content presented here and reflect upon it sincerely. We suggest performing Istikhara for a period of seven days, if necessary. Mufti Nizamuddin Qasmi (an Aalim currently residing in India) shared in one of his lectures that a group of around 30 young men approached him. They took Baya’t with Maulana Saad and gifted him a large sum of money, approximately 5-600,000 rupees. The Mufti advised them to perform Istikhara, and after doing so, they all left him. Allah (azza wa jall) saved each of them. Whenever anyone would come to him for advice, he would suggest they perform Istikhara and often emphasize the importance of this practice in his Bayans. The truth would become clear to them (even to Maulana Saad‘s own Mureeds), but it must be done with an open heart, sincerity, and conviction. He further mentioned that when Maulana Saad became aware of this, he began speaking against performing Istikhara in such matters. [xcvii] We also advise the respectable reader to read the following article prepared by Maulana Saleem Dhorat Sb beforehand, regarding the method and misconceptions of Istikhara:
It is extremely important that we approach Istikhara with complete sincerity. It must be done with conviction, an open mind and without stubbornness, in an honest search for the truth. Our condition must not resemble that of a young man who has already fallen head over heels for a girl and has fully made up his mind, where the act of performing Istikhara is merely a formality or an attempt to falsely convince himself that the decision was made after seeking guidance through Istikhara. We must be honest with ourselves, at the very least.
In addition to the above, we should turn our attention to Dua, continuously crying and begging before Allah (azza wa jall) to guide us to the truth, whatever that may be. We specifically suggest the following Dua (a Dua of Abu Bakr (RA) mentioned in Sharhul Ihyaa):
اللهم أرنا الحق حقًا وارزقنا اتباعه ، وأرنا الباطل باطلا وارزقنا اجتنابه
“O Allah, show us the truth as truth and grant us the ability to follow it, and show us falsehood as falsehood and grant us the ability to avoid it.”
We also advise the constant recitation of Surah Kahf, which has a special effect in combating Fitnas.
We understand that making such a decision can be difficult, especially when it involves going against one’s father, grandfather, or even Sheikh. We acknowledge the societal, familial, and regional pressures that can weigh heavily during such times. However, we are slaves of Allah (azza wa jall), not of society, family members, or Shuyookh. Life is a test, and leaving Maulana Saad is also a significant test from Allah (azza wa jall). When someone comes from a noble and illustrious family that has brought about a revolution in the Islamic world, when that individual was the means by which your life changed, and when you held that person so dear, to leave them for the sake of Allah (azza wa jall) due to their problematic issues and the harm they now pose to the Ummah is not easy.
Nevertheless, our love for Allah (azza wa jall) and His Deen must surpass our love for any individual or personality. May Allah (azza wa jall) make it easy for us, guide us, and protect us all. Ameen.
Footnotes / References
Many footnotes reference Urdu sources (Darul Uloom Deoband Fatwas of 2016/2023, Maulana Yusuf Ludhyanwi’s refutation, Mufti Abdul Malik’s writings “تبلیغی کام کو سیرت پر لانے کی حقیقت مع مولانا محمد سعد کاندھلوی کے بعض اغلاط”, “انکشاف حقیقت”, Wifaaq ul Ulama booklets, etc.). Below are the verifiable web/media links provided in the original document.
- [iii] Deoband Fatwa 2023: tablighi-jamaat.b-cdn.net (1444-B-0805_11360 …)
- [iv] tablighi-jamaat.com — controversy even after rujoo (statement 2)
- [vi] Walima Bayan (full, ~35 min; statement between 27:12–28:52): youtube.com/watch?v=wf_T1T9KbeA
- [x] Deoband Fatwa Urdu 2016: tablighi-jamaat.b-cdn.net/…/Deoband-Fatwa-Urdu-2016.pdf
- [xvii] youtube.com/watch?v=sjyPeKKRYOk
- [xviii] youtube.com/watch?v=OtKVoaDR2HY (list) (nikamma.mp3)
- [xxxi] Janaza clip: youtube.com/watch?v=NpGo8VUXSoc
- [xxxii] youtube.com/watch?v=1DOrr09uKrc (Min 41–45)
- [xxxv] tablighi-jamaat.com — controversy (section 2, statement 8)
- [xxxvi] youtube.com/watch?v=8ew8Lvp7UZ0
- [xxxix] youtube.com/watch?v=8ew8Lvp7UZ0
- [xl] youtube.com/watch?v=MzR-uUpWkn0
- [xli] youtube.com/watch?v=6bJC7eNqBpY
- [xliii] youtube.com/watch?v=dmmNSKuZgFM (list)
- [xliv] youtube.com/watch?v=bQV1lcxMXjQ (list)
- [xlv] tablighi-jamaat.com — controversy (section 1, statement 10)
- [xlvi] tablighi-jamaat.com — controversy (section 1, statement 7)
- [xlvii] tablighi-jamaat.b-cdn.net (Binnori Town Fatwa)
- [xlviii] youtu.be/jxm-Dsjfh9w (27:32–29:35)
- [xlix] youtube.com/watch?v=WH7GZPO0Y2E (list)
- [li] youtube.com/watch?v=ushieQlViq8 (list)
- [lii] youtube.com/watch?v=dFEttcgTsl4
- [liii] youtube.com/watch?v=JwRg7uJmYCE
- [lxi] youtube.com/watch?v=2V9PcmZWV2M
- [lxxii] Wifaaq ul Ulama: wifaqululama.com/…/file-no-b18.pdf
- [lxxiv] tablighi-jamaat.com (Urdu, Deoband & Maulana Saad 2023)
- [lxxvi] Declaration of Concerned Ulema of South Africa
- [lxxvii] Ulema of Assam on Maulana Saad
- [lxxviii] Kashmir Fatwa: tablighi-jamaat.b-cdn.net/…/FATWAF.pdf
- [lxxix] Bangladesh: Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka; Darul Uloom Moinul Islam Hathazari; Jamia Malibagh Dhaka
- [lxxx] Maulana Saad Bhopal Ijtema (Darul Uloom Farooqiya)
- [lxxxi] Mazahirul Uloom Saharanpur
- [lxxxii] Darul Uloom Dabhel Fatwa
- [lxxxiii] Ulema of Mumbai
- [lxxxiv] Majlis Ilmiya Andhra Pradesh
- [lxxxv] youtube.com/watch?v=iz_OaHQYJkY (Min 28–30)
- [lxxxix] medicalbrief.co.za — headache clinic founder suspended
- [xci] youtube.com/watch?v=vvb-FgN9TMU; iz_OaHQYJkY; aKa7xhLjz0k; IEqIUubbKG0; 1DOrr09uKrc
- [xcvi] tablighi-jamaat.com — Tongi Ijtema Attack 2024
- [xcvii] youtube.com/watch?v=aKa7xhLjz0k (Min 44–47)
Additional citation footnotes (i, ii, v, vii–ix, xi–xvi, xix, xx, xxii–xxx, xxxiii, xxxiv, xxxvii, xxxviii, xlii, lvi–lxxv, lxxxvi–lxxxviii, xc, xcii–xcv) reference printed Urdu/Arabic books and the Deoband Fatwas of 2016 & 2023, as cited inline above.
And Allāh (subḥānahu wa taʿālā) Alone in His Infinite Knowledge knows best
Answered by: Mohammed Patel | Checked and Approved by: Mufti Muhammed Saeed Motara Saheb D.B., Darul Ifta Azaadville
Islamic Date: 3 Sha’baan 1446 | English Date: 2 February 2025
Learn, Practice and Propagate Deen and make others do the same
