Mufti Abdul Malek Markazud Dawa on Maulana Saad

2 comments

1. some facts can be downloaded from below url for english readers
   https://www.dropbox.com/s/06xy4cky1jr89w6/Majmoa%20Khutoot_English_2nd%20Edition.pdf?dl=0

   Reply

2. *A Respectful Rebuttal to the Claims of “Ghulū” in the Book of Mufti Abdul Malik of Dhaka, Bangladesh.
   A Response from the Ulama of Europe and America

   We have read with concern the claims presented in the book of Mufti Abdul Malik concerning the methodology and statements attributed to Hazratji Maulana Saad Kandhlawi and the Markaz of Nizamuddin.

   We fully recognise the standing of Mufti Abdul Malik as a scholar and researcher, and our intention is not to attack his person. Rather, as ulama who are actively involved in the work of daʿwah in Europe and America, we believe that serious allegations of ghulū (excessiveness) should be established through clear, verifiable evidence.

   We therefore respectfully raise the following points:

   *1. Serious allegations require serious evidence*

   Claims of ghulū, extremism or deviation are very serious matters.

   Such accusations should not be based upon isolated statements, anecdotes, second-hand reports or excerpts taken from informal sittings.
   If specific statements have been attributed to Hazratji Maulana Saad Kandhlawi, we respectfully request that Mufti Abdul Malik provide:

   the exact statement;

   the original source;

   the date and location;

   the complete context;

   and, where applicable, the recording or published transcript.

   It is not sufficient simply to state that such views are circulating or have been reported by someone else.

   *2. We, the ulama of Europe, have not encountered these alleged claims as an official policy of the major marākiz*

   Many of us have longstanding involvement with the work of daʿwah and have had contact with major centres, including Nizamuddin Markaz and Dewsbury Markaz.

   We have never understood the alleged positions presented in the book to constitute an officially promulgated policy of these marākiz.

   If Mufti Abdul Malik believes otherwise, we respectfully ask him to identify the authoritative document, official declaration, or clear statement from the responsible authorities establishing such a policy.

   *3. A personal bayan cannot automatically become an official policy
   *

   There is an important distinction between: (a) an official policy or established principle of a markaz, and
   (b) something mentioned by an individual in a particular sitting, bayan or informal gathering.

   If some of the material being relied upon comes from the Kakrail mimbar, individual sittings, private conversations or excerpts from informal bayans, then these must be identified as such.

   An anecdotal report cannot automatically be elevated into an official doctrine or policy of the entire Tablighi effort.

   If an individual makes an incorrect statement, that statement should be corrected and evaluated on its own merits rather than automatically being attributed to an entire movement or markaz.

   *4. Context is essential when quoting scholars*

   Islamic scholarship has always required that statements be understood in their complete context.
   A sentence extracted from a lengthy bayan can sometimes give a very different impression from the speaker’s intended meaning.

   Therefore, before declaring a particular statement to constitute ghulū, it is necessary to establish:

   what was actually said;

   what was intended;

   what preceded and followed the statement;

   whether the statement was subsequently clarified;

   and whether it represents a settled position or merely an expression made during an informal discussion.

   *5. The issue of Mufti Taqi Usmani*

   We are particularly concerned that the respected Pakistani scholar Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani has been brought into this argument in a manner that may give the impression that he rejects or dismisses the entire effort of daʿwah associated with Nizamuddin.

   This would require considerable qualification.

   Mufti Taqi Usmani has, throughout his scholarly career, recognised the importance of daʿwah and the Tablighi effort, while also offering advice and warnings concerning the danger of ghulū.

   There is an important distinction between warning people against excesses within an effort and condemning or dismissing the entire effort itself.

   A caring scholarly correction should not automatically be presented as a rejection of the entire daʿwah movement.

   *6. Advice is not the same as condemnation*

   Senior ulama have always advised those engaged in religious work to avoid exaggeration.

   Such advice can be extremely valuable.
   But saying, “Be careful of ghulū in this matter” is fundamentally different from saying, “This entire effort is misguided.”

   We should be extremely careful not to transform scholarly nasīhah into a blanket condemnation that the original scholar himself may never have intended.

   *7. We respectfully ask: where is the direct evidence?*

   The central question remains:

   Did Mufti Abdul Malik personally hear these alleged statements from Hazratji Maulana Saad Kandhlawi in Nizamuddin Markaz, or are these claims being transmitted through intermediaries?

   If he personally heard them, then we respectfully request that he specify:

   When and where they were heard;

   The exact wording;

   The complete context;

   Whether clarification was sought from Hazratji himself;

   And whether the statement was presented as an official policy of Nizamuddin.

   If, however, the material has reached him through qīl wa qāl (hearsay and reports), then the matter deserves considerably greater caution before being presented as established fact.

   *8. A muḥaqqiq should be especially careful with unverified reports*

   Mufti Abdul Malik is himself regarded as a muḥaqqiq—a researcher and investigator—in matters of scholarship.
   Precisely because of this, we respectfully appeal to him to apply the highest standards of verification to these allegations.

   The Qur’an teaches:
   “O you who believe, if a sinful person brings you news, verify it carefully…”
   (Qur’an 49:6)

   And the principle of tabayyun—verification—is particularly important when the reputation of senior ulama and a major religious effort is being discussed.

   *9. The danger of judging an enormous effort through isolated incidents*

   The Tablighi effort involves Muslims from countless countries, cultures and educational backgrounds.

   Inevitably, mistakes, misunderstandings and inappropriate statements can occur among individuals.

   But an individual’s mistake should not automatically become the theological position of an entire global effort.

   If every movement were judged exclusively by the mistakes or exaggerations of individual participants, very few Islamic institutions or organisations would escape criticism.

   *10. We should distinguish between criticism and dismissal*

   We have no objection to scholarly criticism.
   Indeed, constructive criticism is necessary.
   If something said by Hazratji or anyone else is genuinely contrary to the Qur’an, Sunnah or established principles of Ahl al-Sunnah, then it should be addressed with evidence and clarity.

   But there is a difference between:
   “This particular statement is incorrect and here is the evidence.”
   and:

   “This entire methodology is fundamentally misguided because of statements attributed to its leaders.”

   The second claim requires considerably stronger evidence.

   *11. The Ummah faces greater challenges*

   At a time when Muslim communities in Europe and America are facing enormous challenges—including young Muslims becoming disconnected from their faith, religious apathy, atheistic influences, identity crises and even apostasy—we should ask ourselves whether publications of this nature are helping to unite the Ummah around the fundamentals of īmān and daʿwah.

   There is certainly a place for scholarly correction.

   There is certainly a place for warning against excess.
   But there is also a desperate need for:

   Qur’an;

   Sunnah;

   īmān;

   ṣalāh;

   good character;

   sound Islamic education;

   connection with the masājid;

   and sincere daʿwah to Muslims who are drifting away from Islam.

   Our disagreements should not become so consuming that we lose sight of the enormous responsibility before us.

   *12. The claim that Tablighis believe their work is the only religious effort.*

   One of the claims attributed to Mufti Abdul Malik is that those involved in the Tablighi effort consider their particular work to be the only legitimate religious effort, while regarding other forms of religious service as unnecessary or invalid.

   We respectfully ask: Where is the evidence that this is the official position of Nizamuddin Markaz, Dewsbury Markaz, or any recognised central Markaz of the Tablighi effort?

   As ulama working in Europe and America, many of us have extensive experience with the Tablighi effort.

   We have never been taught that the work of Tabligh is the only work of religion and that other legitimate religious efforts have no value.

   Rather, we understand the Tablighi effort to be one form of serving the Deen, concentrating particularly on the correction of one’s own īmān and ṣalāh, connection with the masjid, learning and remembrance, and inviting Muslims towards obedience to Allah.

   There are many other essential fields of Islamic service:

   teaching Qur’an;

   Hadith;

   Fiqh;

   establishing madāris;

   issuing fatāwā;

   education;

   writing and publishing;

   serving the poor;

   supporting converts;

   defending the Islamic creed;

   youth work;

   social welfare;

   and numerous other legitimate forms of khidmah.

   No recognised Markaz has the right to cancel these activities, nor have we understood Nizamuddin or Dewsbury to make such a claim.

   If Mufti Abdul Malik maintains that this is the official position, then we respectfully request that he produce the specific written statement, official instruction or authoritative declaration from Nizamuddin or another recognised Markaz establishing this claim.

   *13. There is a crucial difference between “this is our work” and “this is the only work”*

   This distinction is fundamental.

   A person saying:
   “This is the work with which Allah has currently connected me, and I should give my time to it.”
   is completely different from saying:
   “This is the only work of Deen, and every other religious effort is invalid.”

   The former is a matter of specialisation and personal commitment.
   The latter is an enormous theological claim requiring clear evidence.

   It would therefore be unfair to take statements encouraging people to dedicate themselves to daʿwah and then transform them into the allegation that all other religious activities are rejected.

   *14. The Masjid as the Centre of Religious Activity — Evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah*

   There is another important matter which deserves clarification.
   If someone argues that masājid should be central to religious activity, this should not automatically be portrayed as an innovation or an extremist position.

   There is strong evidence from the Qur’an, Sunnah and the practice of the Prophet ﷺ and the Ṣaḥābah that the masjid was not merely a place where the five daily prayers were performed.

   The Qur’an itself gives the masjid a much broader significance
   Allah Taʿālā says:
   إِنَّمَا يَعْمُرُ مَسَاجِدَ اللَّهِ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَأَقَامَ الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَى الزَّكَاةَ…
   “The mosques of Allah are maintained only by those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, establish prayer and give zakāh…”
   (Surah al-Tawbah 9:18)

   The concept of ʿimārat al-masājid is therefore not restricted merely to physically maintaining a building.

   The masjid has a central place in the life of the believing community.

   *15. The Masjid of the Prophet ﷺ was the centre of the emerging Muslim community*

   The Masjid al-Nabawi was not simply a place where the Prophet ﷺ led ṣalāh.

   It was a centre for:
   teaching Qur’an;
   teaching the Companions;
   learning religious knowledge;
   receiving delegations;
   spiritual development;
   consultation;
   community affairs;
   and caring for the needy.

   The famous Ahl al-Ṣuffah were connected to the Prophet’s mosque and were among the people who devoted themselves to learning and religious life. The Prophetic mosque therefore functioned as a centre of Islamic education and community development.

   *16. Therefore, saying “the Masjid should be the headquarters/centre” is not inherently an extreme claim*

   This point needs to be made carefully.
   We are not claiming that every Islamic activity must physically take place inside a masjid.
   Nor are we claiming that the masjid is the only institution of Islam.

   Rather:
   The Prophetic model demonstrates that the masjid can and should function as a central hub for the religious life of the Muslim community.

   This includes ṣalāh, teaching, Qur’an, daʿwah, tarbiyah, consultation, community development and connecting Muslims to Allah.

   Therefore, if the Tablighi effort encourages Muslims to revive the masjid as a centre of religious life, this principle itself has a very clear basis in the Prophetic model.

   *17. The mistake would be to turn a correct principle into an exclusive claim*

   Here again, balance is essential.

   We can say:
   “The masjid should be central to Muslim religious life.”
   But we should not say:

   “Therefore every other Islamic institution or religious activity is unnecessary.”

   The first has strong foundations in the Qur’an and Sunnah.
   The second requires separate evidence.
   And this is precisely why we respectfully challenge the allegation attributed to Mufti Abdul Malik that Tablighis consider their own work to be the only work of Deen.

   If this is truly being presented as the position of Nizamuddin, where is the official evidence?

   *18. The real question should be evidence, not perception*

   We therefore respectfully ask Mufti Abdul Malik to distinguish between:
   what an individual Tablighi worker may have said;
   what a particular speaker may have said in a bayan;
   what a local group may practise;
   what a particular Markaz may recommend;
   and what constitutes the official methodology of the central Markaz.
   These are not necessarily the same thing.

   A statement from an individual cannot automatically become:
   “The Tablighi position is…”
   unless there is evidence establishing that it represents the recognised position of the responsible scholars and Markaz.

   *19. A respectful challenge*

   We therefore put forward this challenge in the spirit of academic and scholarly verification:
   If Mufti Abdul Malik maintains that Nizamuddin Markaz teaches that Tabligh is the ONLY legitimate work of Deen and that other religious efforts are not regarded as legitimate, let him produce the authoritative evidence for this claim.
   Not :
   hearsay;

   WhatsApp messages;

   anonymous reports;

   isolated anecdotes;

   edited clips;

   statements from ordinary participants;

   or excerpts from informal gatherings.

   Rather, we ask for an authoritative statement from Nizamuddin or another recognised central Markaz.

   Until such evidence is produced, it is unfair to attribute such a sweeping doctrine to the entire Tablighi effort.

   *20. Our position as Ulama of Europe and America*

   We therefore reiterate:
   We do not claim that Tabligh is the only work of Deen.

   We believe that:
   Daʿwah is one essential part of the wider work of Islam, just as ʿilm, teaching, tarbiyah, fiqh, service to humanity, preservation of Islamic scholarship and many other legitimate activities are essential.

   At the same time, we believe that reviving the masjid as the heart of Muslim religious life has clear precedent in the Qur’an and Sunnah and in the practice of the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions.

   There is therefore no contradiction between supporting the Tablighi effort and supporting madāris, scholars, Qur’an schools, Islamic educational institutions and other legitimate forms of Islamic service.

   The Ummah needs all of these.
   And perhaps this is precisely where our disagreement with the book lies: we should not create divisions between legitimate forms of khidmah when the Ummah desperately needs all of them.

   *Final appeal*

   We respectfully call upon Mufti Abdul Malik—whose scholarship we recognise—to verify these claims directly rather than relying upon qīl wa qāl.

   If necessary, let him visit Nizamuddin with a delegation of senior ulama, present these allegations openly, hear the answers directly, and then publish the findings.

   That would be more consistent with the standard of a muḥaqqiq and with the Qur’anic principle of tabayyun. Conclusion
   Our intention is not to defend any individual from legitimate scholarly criticism. No person is above correction, and no methodology is above examination.

   But fairness demands that accusations be supported by evidence, statements be presented in context, and official positions be distinguished from individual remarks.

   We respectfully remind ourselves and our respected elders that the Ummah needs ʿilm with adab, criticism with justice, and disagreement without division.

   May Allah Taʿālā protect the Ummah from ghulū, preserve our ulama, guide all those engaged in daʿwah, unite the hearts of Muslims, and enable us to spend our energies bringing people closer to Allah rather than becoming consumed by internal disputes.

   Signed,

   The Ulama of Europe and America

   Reply