The following is a translation of a Fatwa on 16/5/2026 in Urdu language (Download Original Fatwa – Urdu):
When a person’s signature is found on a document, it proves that the signatory agrees with the contents written in the document and that is precisely his stance. The frank stance of Jāmi‘ah Islāmiyah Ta‘līm-ud-Dīn, Dabhel, Simlak regarding Mawlānā Saad has been publicized on its letterhead with the signatures of the Jāmi‘ah’s principal, Ḥazrat Mawlānā Aḥmad Buzrugh ṣāḥib, Dārul ʾIftāʾ’s patron, Ḥazrat Aqdas Muftī Aḥmed Khānpūrī ṣāḥib, and its Chief Muftī, Ḥazrat Muftī Abbās Dāwūd Bismillāh ṣāḥib (Dāmat Barakātuhum) on 8th Rabī‘ul Awwal 1438 A.H., coinciding with the 8th December 2016.
This proves that in the same manner that this is the stance of the Jāmi‘ah, it is also the position and fatwā of the Dārul ʾIftāʾ. After this stance was publicised, questions regarding this issue were not answered separately. Rather reference was given to this document and stance. Your question was also a link in this chain. Therefore, since Jāmi‘ah and its Dārul ʾIftāʾ’s clear position was already in the public domain, and you are an intelligent religious Islāmic scholar, we thought that even without receiving an answer, you, yourself would conclude that Dārul ʾIftāʾ, Dhabel is still firmly established on this stance.
Regrettably, after such a long time has passed since you asked this question, we have only recently read and heard your messages which state that the document published by Jāmi‘ah is not a fatwā, and since your questions were not answered you, yourself deduced that Jāmi‘ah’s Dārul ʾIftāʾ is uncertain regarding Mawlānā Saad’s erroneous views. Hence, it is now necessary for the Dārul Iftāʾ to answer your question so that the misconception which is being spread regarding a response not being sent, can be dispelled.
Remember that Jāmi‘ah’s Dārul Iftāʾ has clarified in this stance of theirs that Mawlānā Saad has started to promote such views which are contrary to the consensuses of the ‘ulamāʾ and are deviated from the straight path. They are actually very dangerous… This still remains the stance of the Jāmi‘ah and its Dārul Iftāʾ today. Now we will answer your questions.
You have written in the question that: “The people of the Shoora (of Barbados) say that the people of Nizamud-Deen say things which are objectionable from a creedal perspective.”
This is a reality in its own right. Several religious organisations have, in the form of fatwās, pointed out these types of objectional statements of Mawlānā Saad Kandhalvī and the people of Nizāmuddīn. One of the fatwās issued by Dārul ‘Uloom Deoband has strongly refuted their errors in principles and subsidiary matters with lengthy detailed proofs. See Dārul ‘Uloom Deoband’s fatwā 1444 A.H.
Additionally, this was also mentioned in the question that: “In Barbados there are two or three ‘ulamā who follow Nizamuddeen. They say that permission to come to Barbados should be granted to the jamaats which are affiliated with Nizamuddeen and they will work according to whatever guidance is given by the Shoora…. However, the Shoora state that these people follow some of the conditions, but when no one is with them, they incline the masses to them and create instability.”
This reality has also been exposed to us, that after repeatedly guiding them, even though they retract verbally, as soon as they receive an opportunity, the deviation and misguidance of the people of Nizamudeen start to manifest itself. In one of its fatwās, Dārul ‘Uloom Deoband explicitly states that: “Instead of the matter being rectified, their insistence on erroneous extrapolations, alterations in the Dīn and Sharī‘ah and persistence upon fabricated ideas only continue to increase.” (Pg.17)
An additional point mentioned in the question is that: “The Shoora also says that the people of Nizamuddeen make objectional statements regarding creed. Hence, they wish to prevent this fitnah by closing its doors and repelling its harms.”
Yes, it is due to this same objective that the following guideline was given in the Darul Uloom’s fatwā: “The speech of the lecturer which was sent is incorrect according to Sharī‘ah. Majority of the statements in these lectures are based on personal fabricated extrapolations from the Shar‘ī texts and erroneous or weak interpretations of the Qurʾān, ḥadīths and life of the Ṣaḥābahs. It is not permissible to forward these types of talks or publish and promote them in any shape or form.” (Pg.17)
Despite this, the matter has not come under control. The trend of ideological deviation and academic dishonesty increases day by day. In light of this, the following quote of the Shoora listed in the question: “After consultation with their elders they decided that only the people affiliated with the Alami Shoora are allowed to come to Barbados,” is apt and grounded.
The respectable jurists have given detailed guidance on this issue regarding the stance which should be adopted when an adviser (wā‘iẓ), promoter (muballigh), or leader of a people falls prey to misguidance against the Sharī‘ah? Regarding this, Qaḍī ‘Iyāḍ (may Allāh have mercy on him) has spoken bluntly in his renowned compilation ‘Al-Shifā‘. The translation of a portion from it with Mullā ‘Alī Qārī’s (may Allāh have mercy on him) commentary will be reproduced below.
“If the ones finding faults in the honour of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ (or speaking wrongly regarding Shar‘ī matters) are such people from whom religious knowledge, ḥadīths and narrations are sought; or are leaders and judges whose decisions are definitely obeyed; or are such people whose testimonies are accepted; or is such a person whose fatwā is considered reliable regarding rights, then the ruling of all three of these scenarios is that it is binding on those who hear these deviations on religious matters from such individuals to publicly expose these evil and corrupt statements in order to deter the masses from them. Testimonies of what they said should be established so that people can be protected from them.
After that, it is obligatory (wājib) on the leaders of the Muslims who learn about these people’s deviation to warn the people against them. Additionally, It is also necessary to clarify to the masses the kufr (disbelief) of their statements if they entail kufr or the Shar‘ī corruption of their statements if it entails that, so that their harm can be repelled from the Muslims and so that the wājib (compulsory) right of the Leader of the Messengers ﷺ can be fulfilled.
The same rule applies if this person was one who lectures the masses or teaches children in maktabs (religious schools). This is because one can never be assured that the one whose internal condition is this bad would not engrain his kufr and deviation within the people’s hearts. In summary, in order to fulfil the rights of Allāh Ta‘ālā, the Noble Prophet ﷺ and the Sharī‘ah, it is emphatically binding on these leaders to rebuke and censure such people.” (Sharḥ Al-Shifā 2/450-51)
In light of these juristic texts, it becomes clear that Mawlānā Saad Kāndhalvī or any individual or jamaat which is influenced by the ideology of Nizamuddeen should not be invited to Barbados. Their advices, lectures, ta‘līm and tablīgh should not be heard nor should they be given the opportunity to impart it. It is binding on the local groups (jamaats) and Jamiats (councils) to warn the masses who reside there of their poison and to emphatically enjoin the masses to stay far away from them.
In the era of Amīrul Muʾminīn, Ḥazrat ‘Umar Fārūq there was a man by the name of Ṣabī‘gh ibn ‘Asal who used to send people astray by asking question about difficult and ambiguous verses of the Qurʾān. Ḥazrat ‘Umar punished him severely and prevented people from sitting with him. (ʾIzālatul Khafāʾ Pg.236)
After becoming aware of the deviation of the ideology of Nizamuddeen in such a clear manner from the several respectable fatāwā, the people who are still making efforts in giving a foothold to them are sinful for the crime of spreading misguidance in the ʾUmmah. They will also have a direct share and will be a partner in the promotion of the misguidance that will spread due to it. May Allāh Ta‘ālā protect us from fitnahs.
And Allāh knows best.
Written by:
The slave: Muḥammad Ḥifẓur Raḥmān Simlakī
(Associate Muftī) 2th Dhul Qa‘dah, 1447 A.H. coinciding with 16/5/2026
| The Answer is correct: The slave: Aḥmed Khānpūrī (May he be forgiven.) (Muftī at Dārul ʾIftāʾ Jāmi‘ah Islāmiyah Ta‘līmud Dīn, Dabhel) 29th Dhul Qa‘dah Al-Harām 1447 A.H. | The Answer is correct: Abbās Dāwūd Bismillāh (May he be forgiven.) (Muftī at Dārul ʾIftāʾ Jāmi‘ah Islāmiyah Ta‘līmud Dīn, Dabhel) |
| The slave: Maḥmūd Simlakī (Associate Muftī) | The Answer is correct: The slave: ‘Abdul Qayyūm Rājkotī (Associate Muftī) |
| Muḥammad Bismillāh (May he be forgiven.) 30th Dhul Qa‘dah, 1447 A.H. (Associate Muftī) | Imrān Tharādvī (Associate Muftī) |
