Darul Uloom Deoband and many other institutions have issued several Fatwas against Maulana Saad (See: List of Fatwas). For any person, this should be enough to distance oneself from Maulana Saad. This is not only to protect one’s faith but also to prevent the work of Da’wa from being damaged and separated from the Ulema.
We must ask: How can we allow someone who has been issued fatwas to lead this global effort and be the face of Tabligh?
Maulana Saad has tried to counter these fatwas in various ways. Here, we list and answer them all.
Assalamualaykum Brothers, before reading further, please understand that our goal is to protect this effort of Da’wa! We do not promote hate or backbiting. Many people who follow Maulana Saad don’t know what’s happening. They are simply following their local Markaz (Tablighi Centres). The main question is whether one should support Maulana Saad despite these Fatwas, at the risk of dividing Tablighi Jamaat. Isn’t it harmful if such a person becomes the face of Tabligh? Remember, no matter how flawed a Muslim might be, he is still our Muslim brother. We love and dislike only for the sake of Allah.
TLDR; Here are the 10 Ways Maulana Saad Tries to Counter Deoband’s Fatwa:
- Attacking the credibility of Deoband
- Claiming that Maulana Saad already repented and made Rujoo
- Claiming that we should not follow Deoband as Deoband discourages Masturat Jamaat
- Claiming that Deoband misunderstood his “high-level” speech about Taqwa
- Claiming that the Fatwas were politically motivated
- Claiming that they have Ulemas as well, and it is a difference of opinion
- Misquoting Deoband’s Fatwa #69158, claiming those against Nizamuddin are misguided
- Misquoting Deoband’s 2017 Clarification, claiming Deoband has cleared Maulana Saad
- Misquoting Deoband’s older/deleted Fatwas praising Maulana Saad (Fatwas before 2016)
- Misquoting Deoband Fatwa #152687, claiming Deoband have no issues with Maulana Saad and Nizamuddin
#1 – Attacking the credibility of Deoband
Maulana Saad has attacked the credibility of Deoband to discredit the Fatwa. For example, his supporters have claimed that:
- Deoband is not as “pure” as we think. Deoband itself split into two in 1982 (becoming Darul Uloom Deoband & Darul Uloom Waqf). A false one-sided story of this event is being spread, claiming that the Arshad Madani family was evil and politically motivated.
- Deoband today is not the same as Deoband in the past.
- Deoband has been ‘taken over’.
Our Answer
Deoband is an independent institution. It is not controlled by any government and is more reliable than any government-controlled institution worldwide.
Deoband is also the largest representative of the Hanafi School of Thought, which forms the biggest group within the Ulema of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah today. To simply dismiss it because one disagrees with one of its Fatwas is unreasonable.
The 1982 Deoband Split
Regarding the Deoband split, Darul Uloom Deoband went through an administrative split 40 years ago in 1982. Interestingly, the other branch (Darul Uloom Waqf) has never issued any statement supporting Maulana Saad. In fact, until now, we have not seen a single official Fatwa from any well-known institution countering Deoband’s Fatwa against Maulana Saad in detail.
We should also ask: what is the purpose of spreading this 40-year-old Deoband split history to the public? Is it to discredit Deoband because they have split? Are we trying to reject Deoband completely? Reject the Nizami Dar system? All because they said something we don’t like about one person? If the point is to dismiss Deoband since they have split into two, what about Tablighi Jamaat itself, which has also split into two? Would that discredit the entire movement?
#2 – Claiming that Maulana Saad has repented and made Rujoo
After Deoband’s first 2016 Fatwa, Maulana Saad started a Rujoo (retraction) process. This is often used to prove that Maulana Saad has repented.
Our Answer
We have covered Maulana Saad’s Rujoo in detail here. In summary:
- Maulana Saad DID NOT complete a full Rujoo. His Rujoo was only limited to his statement about Prophet Musa AS.
- Maulana Saad continues to make controversial statements even after the Rujoo. Is this a sign that someone has truly repented?
- Darul Uloom Deoband and many other institutions have not withdrawn their fatwas and stance on Maulana Saad. In fact, in 2023, they issued a new fatwa stating that their previous position on him still applies (See the 2023 Fatwa).
#3 – Claiming that we should not follow Deoband as Deoband discourages Masturat Jamaat
It is known that Deoband has not recommended Women’s Jamaat (Masturaat Jamaat). This is a Jamaat where both men and their Mahram (usually the wife) go together.
This reason has been used to claim that we can be selective in following Fatwas. That is, since we do not follow Deoband’s guidance on Masturat Jamaat, we should also not follow their Fatwa on Maulana Saad.
Our Answer
- First, Deoband has never said we must NOT participate in Masturaat Jamaat. They simply don’t recommend it. This is not the same comparison. For example, a recommendation might be: “I don’t recommend bringing your mobile phone to the Masjid as it may distract you during prayers”.
On the other hand, many well-known institutions have encouraged Masturat Jamaats (Example here). - In the case of Maulana Saad, Deoband clearly stated that it is not permissible to listen to or share his speeches. If it is not permissible to listen to him, how can one accept him as their leader?
- Second, not only Deoband has issued a Fatwa but many other institutions have also issued Fatwas on Maulana Saad. Some of these institutions have even encouraged Masturat Jamaat.
- Third, we have not seen any Fatwas from other respected institutions defending Maulana Saad in detail against these Fatwas. This is very different from the Masturat Jamaat issue, where many institutions have supported and praised it.
#4 – Claiming that Deoband misunderstood his “high-level” speech about Taqwa
The following claims have been made:
- Maulana Saad’s speech is a high-level speech. They say he is not speaking in terms of “Fatwa” but in terms of “Taqwa” (God-consciousness).
- The Fatwa was issued based on inadequate analysis. Deoband only listened to parts of his speeches.
- The speeches were taken out of context and were misunderstood.
In Indonesia/Malaysia, we have also heard references to the story of Mansour Al-Hallaj, a 9th Century Sufi who was executed for his controversial poetry.
Our Answer
To answer this, let us first ask:
- Is the claim that Deoband made a mistake a fair assessment? Or is it just because some people don’t agree with their Fatwa?
- Does this mean that whenever a person doesn’t like a Fatwa, they can simply ignore it? What then is the purpose of the Ulema? To simply satisfy personal preferences?
Ultimately, is a biased personal opinion more reliable than Deoband’s impartial judgment? Claiming Deoband’s Fatwa on Maulana Saad was wrong is a biased view. It cannot be compared to an objective and neutral assessment from the well-established Daarul Ifta of Deoband.
Also, saying that Deoband only listened to parts of Maulana Saad’s speeches is far from reality. All of Maulana Saad’s speeches are available and sold in Nizamuddin Markets on CDs. Many are even available on YouTube. Deoband took almost 2 years to finalize this Fatwa (2014-2016).
Their recent 2023 Fatwa shows an even more detailed analysis. To claim these Fatwas were not based on proper analysis is completely unreasonable. They have stated:
It seems that the incumbent person continues to insist on his distorted view and self-made ideas. This proves the position of Darul Uloom Deoband that the matter is not a partial misunderstanding of parts of the speech.
Darul Uloom Deoband Latest Fatwa 2023
Using the story of Mansour Al-Hallaj as an example that Maulana Saad’s speeches were misunderstood
The story of Mansour Al-Hallaj is well known. He was a famous 9th-century Sufi who was executed for his controversial statements. Al-Hallaj’s most controversial statement was “Ana Al-Haq” which means “I am the Truth/Reality.” The term “Al-Haq” can also refer to Allah, and some people believed he was claiming to be God with this statement. It was said that when he was executed, his spilled blood formed the Arabic word ‘Allah.’ However, there is no historical proof of this incident, and it may have been exaggerated by his followers.
The problem with comparing Mansour Al-Hallaj’s story to Maulana Saad’s situation is that the circumstances are very different:
- The Shafi’i judge at that time refused to issue a Fatwa declaring Al-Hallaj misguided. They said that his words alone were not enough to condemn him. This is different from Maulana Saad’s case, where many Fatwas have been issued against him.
- Al-Hallaj’s execution was politically motivated and was arranged by a Shia administrator at that time. Maulana Saad’s Fatwas were issued by one of the most respected Islamic institutions in the world.
- Al-Hallaj was expressing poetry, which is meant to be understood symbolically. Maulana Saad, on the other hand, was giving a Bayan (speech) which is meant to be understood literally.
Interestingly, Mansour Al-Hallaj’s story has also been used by Qadiyanis to justify Mirza Ghulam’s words. (Note: we are not suggesting that Maulana Saad’s current deviation is similar to Mirza Ghulam).
#5 – Claiming that the Fatwas were politically motivated
Some claim that Deoband was pressured to issue the Fatwa. There are even false claims that Deoband was paid to write the Fatwa. They allege that many Ulema left Deoband after the Fatwa was issued. They also suggest that the timing of the Fatwa (during a leadership dispute) indicates a political motive.
Our Answer
These allegations are completely baseless. Anyone can make up such stories! These kinds of accusations are also dangerous as they could provoke Maulana Saad’s more extreme followers toward violence.
There is simply no evidence for these claims. The statement that “Many Ulema left Deoband after the Fatwa was issued” is false. There is no proof of this claim.
As for the timing of the Fatwa, Maulana Saad’s ideas in his speeches have been criticized since 2001. Darul Uloom Deoband itself has been receiving complaints since 2005. Their official study of his statements began in 2014. They even sent letters to Maulana Saad to advise him before publishing the Fatwa, as they wanted to protect his reputation and the good image of Tabligh. They waited for a long time, but Maulana Saad simply ignored them. This issue is therefore not new, and claiming the timing suggests a political motive is incorrect.
#6 – Claiming that they have Ulemas as well, and it is just a difference of opinion
Maulana Saad claims that they also have Ulema supporting them and this is all just a misunderstanding or “difference of opinion.”
Our Answer
This reasoning has misled many people. Here, we respond with 5 simple points:
- The best answer to this is given by our respected Mufti Abdul Malek: “The claim that ‘we also have Ulema’ is highly incorrect and somewhat disrespectful. Shouldn’t we be following the Ulema rather than the Ulema following us?”
- Just because a group has Ulemas with them does not mean the group is automatically right. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (Qadiyani) also had Ulemas who were Hanafi Darul Uloom graduates supporting him. In fact, his successor (Hakeem Noor-ud-Din) was a scholar as well (*Note: We are not suggesting that Maulana Saad’s current deviation is similar to Mirza Ghulam)
Some scholars support politicians; does the fact that these politicians have scholars on their side automatically make them free from corruption? - We are not talking about support from individual Ulema, but from institutions of Ulema. These institutions have studied the matter impartially. In Islam, Ijma of Ulema (Consensus of Scholars) is one of the four valid sources of our religion. Many institutions have issued Fatwas against Maulana Saad. However, there is not a single Fatwa from any well-known institution that has defended Maulana Saad.
- We need to understand what kind of support an Ulama is giving. If an Ulama is simply visiting Maulana Saad, there is nothing wrong with that, nor does it mean they agree with him. Maulana Saad is still our Muslim brother; there is nothing wrong with visiting or talking to him.
- A “difference of opinion” can only exist when there is an actual “difference of opinion”! This happens when there are similar numbers of contradictory Fatwas issued on a matter. Until now, there is not a single Fatwa from any well-known institution that counters in detail the Fatwas against Maulana Saad. This therefore cannot be considered a ‘difference of opinion’.
#7 – Misquoting Deoband’s Fatwa #69158, claiming those against Nizamuddin are misguided
In August 2016, Deoband issued Fatwa #69158:
- Those who say the people of Nizamuddin are misguided are the ones who are misguided!
- People who are in Nizamuddin are of the Ahlul Haq (Righteous People) and Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah!
This Fatwa is often quoted claiming that Deoband actually supports Maulana Saad and that those who oppose him are the misguided ones.
Before anything else, please note that this Fatwa has been deleted from Deoband’s website! Check the following link which no longer exists:
https://darulifta-deoband.com/home/ur/fatwa/69158
We have an old screenshot of that Fatwa before it was deleted:
Our Answer:
First of all, as mentioned before, this Fatwa has been deleted by Deoband!
Second, this Fatwa was issued on August 29, 2016. This date is BEFORE Deoband’s First Fatwa on Maulana Saad (which was issued on November 28, 2016). The newer Fatwa was the result of a more thorough analysis and specifically identifies Maulana Saad as having deviated from the path of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah.
#8 – Misquoting Deoband’s 2017 Clarification, claiming Deoband has cleared Maulana Saad
On August 9, 2017, Darul Uloom Deoband issued a clarification letter stating that they are not involved in the administrative matters of Tablighi Jamaat (i.e., Shura vs. Saad) and remain neutral on this issue.
Click here => Full letter and English translation
Some have claimed that this letter clears Maulana Saad from his errors since Deoband is “Neutral.”
Our Answer
This conclusion is a major stretch. Deoband’s statement does NOT clear Maulana Saad at all. The statement simply says that Deoband has nothing to do with the current Tablighi Jamaat split and supports neither “Saad” nor “Shura” in this administrative matter. This is certainly the proper position for an outside institution to take.
There is also wisdom in Deoband not taking sides on this administrative issue. Deoband is looking at the bigger picture. What if the dispute between Saad and Shura is resolved and Maulana Saad rejoins the Shura? Would this automatically clear him from his problematic statements? Certainly not! The Fatwa on Maulana Saad would still apply as it has nothing to do with Tablighi Jamaat’s administration.
Other Deoband Fatwas on neutrality
Other similar fatwas regarding Deoband’s neutrality concerning the Tablighi Jamaat Split have also been quoted:
As mentioned previously, being neutral on Tablighi Jamaat’s administration does not mean they have cleared Maulana Saad. Deoband is addressing Maulana Saad’s problematic ideologies, not Tablighi Jamaat’s administrative matters. Even if Maulana Saad reunites with the Shura, the Fatwa would still apply.
#9 – Misquoting Deoband’s older/deleted Fatwas praising Maulana Saad
Some older Deoband fatwas that appear positive toward Maulana Saad have been quoted. These Fatwas were issued before the first 2016 Fatwa on Maulana Saad.
These Fatwas have been deleted! For example:
- 2015 Fatwa #69158 on Tablighi Jamaat (Deleted)
- 2014 Fatwa #52989 on Maulana Saad (Deleted)
We only have a copy of the 2014 Fatwa #52989 which reads as follows:
Question:
About 8 to 10 days ago I had a dream where I saw Maulana Saad. His face was facing north. He asked me to give Karguzari about Nurani Masjid. I told him that we normally meet people at Isha time. We would then bring people to the Masjid and give Da’wa to them. This I would do sometimes. All of a sudden he asked me, “Are you serving the markaz people or not?” I said yes, I do Khidmat as well. Then I woke up.
Deoband’s Answer:
Masha Allah, you are a very good person. Maulana Saad and all the respected elders in Nizamuddin are worthy of praise as the ummah gets many benefits from them. Continue making efforts sincerely and follow the Usool. This is important for everyone.
[End of Deleted Fatwa]
Our Answer
These older fatwas have been deleted by Deoband! The deletion shows how seriously Deoband takes its stand against Maulana Saad.
Many of us at Tablighi-Jamaat.com were once Maulana Saad’s followers. We discovered the truth, admitted our mistakes, and had to set aside our pride to accept it.
#10 – Misquoting Deoband Fatwa #152687, claiming Deoband have no issues with Maulana Saad and Nizamuddin
In Darul Uloom Deoband’s Fatwa #152687, someone asks whether a mosque can prohibit a Jamaat if that Jamaat is affiliated with Nizamuddin.
This fatwa has been partially misquoted as:
It is not right to prevent a Jamaat from working in the Masjid because they are affiliated with “Nizamuddin”.
Based on this, some conclude that Deoband has no issues with Nizamuddin and that the Fatwa against Maulana Saad has been withdrawn.
Our Answer
The answer in Deoband’s Fatwa #152687 has only been partially quoted. Deoband’s complete answer is:
If a Jamaat refrains from exaggeration in their Bayans, Da’wa affairs and observes the etiquette of the Masjid while staying there, then it is not right to prevent the Jamaat from working in the Masjid simply because they are affiliated with “Nizamuddin”. Those who prevent the Jamaat from working in the Masjid despite knowing that the Jamaat will refrain from the above-mentioned problematic behaviors, should not do so.
Link to the Fatwa on Deoband’s Site.
Nowhere in this fatwa does Deoband clear Maulana Saad’s mistakes. In fact, it further emphasizes his issues to such an extent that Deoband recommends placing conditions on such Jamaats.
Conclusion
In summary, it is impossible to refute Darul Uloom Deoband’s Fatwa against Maulana Saad. All the counter-arguments presented are like “trying to fit an elephant into a rabbit hole.” Regardless of whatever counter-arguments are given, our opening statement still holds true:
Would we allow someone with a history of reckless driving to drive our car? This is the blessed work of Da’wa! How can we allow someone who has been issued fatwas against him to lead this global effort? Let alone be the face of Tabligh?
May Allah SWT guide us all.