Respected Maulana Fazlur Rahman is a supporter of Maulana Saad. In 2026, 2 audios were circulated detailing why he is with Maulana Saad.
Here are the two audios:
Translation of Audio 1
“Wa alaikum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
Your forwarded salaam, O Umair. This example is exactly like what happened with Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him). How many books were written against him! Great Muhadditheen wrote books refuting him. Al-Radd ‘ala Nu’man ibn Thabit was written by Ibn Abi Shayba, and Imam Abu Hanifa was subjected to much jarh (criticism of credibility), to the extent that Daraqutni and others declared him weak. But all of this happened due to bias (ta’assub). That is why it has been written in the biography of Imam Abu Hanifa, and it is written for us too, that any jarh done against someone out of bias carries no weight.
Who today can be a greater scholar than Imam Bukhari, whether in Deoband or anywhere else? No one. Yet Imam Bukhari himself wrote about Imam Abu Hanifa with his own pen: “Sakatu ‘anhu wa ‘an ra’yihi wa ‘an hadithihi” meaning ‘they remained silent about him, about his opinion, and about his hadith.’ If this is not interpreted carefully, it is outright falsehood, because there is a very large number of Muslims in the world who follow him. How can Bukhari say that people have abandoned his opinion and his hadith?
So when jarh is done out of bias, if it were to be accepted, then even Imam Abu Hanifa would carry no weight, and all Hanafis should be boycotted. And indeed, these people say exactly that: ‘Boycott them, cut ties with them.’ This is a very great fitnah (trial) that is spreading.
And all these people who have emerged, they all became famous by eating the bread of Darul Uloom. If they had no connection to Darul Uloom, who would even know them? What is their credential in Bengal or anywhere else? What do they have in their hearts, their condition is known to us.
And the same situation we had with Imam Abu Hanifa, we have the same with Nizamuddin. Allah has chosen Nizamuddin. Allah does not make mistakes. He would not have chosen the wrong place for the work of da’wah and tabligh to become known throughout the entire world in this era. Insha’Allah, this is the reality. Nizamuddin will never be shut down. Efforts were made to shut it down, police were paid, complaints were made to governments and government officials, but alhamdulillah, it is still full. There are many times when there is no space, and jamaats are accommodated in nearby mosques.
So there is no need to lose heart. Those of you who are with Nizamuddin, unite strongly together and say: ‘We will stand firm against you, insha’Allah.’ A program has been decided and it will happen insha’Allah. Whether they come or not, it will happen. They sit there spreading this fitnah, and this same fitnah is being run in South Africa as well. There it started in the name of Jamiat, and now it has spread in the name of Tabligh too. Dividing Muslims is their mission, and they are carrying it out.
There is no need to lose heart because of this. Do your work with full confidence. Even if you are in the minority, the people of truth have always been in the minority. So there is nothing to be disheartened about. Keep your head high and say: ‘You accept Imam Bukhari’s words about Imam Abu Hanifa, why do you not follow them? Who is greater than Imam Bukhari, is there anyone in Deoband? Then you should leave the Hanafi madhab, because much has been written against Imam Abu Hanifa, that he is misguided, that he brings opinion and analogy against hadith, that he is distorting the religion,’ and so on.
So keep your head high. And if you wish, you can share all of this message of mine publicly.
Wassalamu alaikum.”
Translation of Audio 2
“Wa alaikum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
There is a lot of fatwa-issuing going on. When the ijtima (gathering) was held in South Africa, full books were published. Even from our Darul Uloom Azaadville, a 97-page book was published. But many people came to the ijtima, people from more than 100 countries attended, so of course they will make noise. Our job is not to respond. We should stay quiet, do our own work, and not get caught up in giving responses.
We also have a message that I gave there in South Africa. I have come from the source at that time, and I have come to the Punjab area after a long time. Here, people are mostly with Nizamuddin. These matters will keep going, they have been going on before as well. But answers have also been given from Maulana Sahib’s side. There is one student of ours in Randfontein, Maulana Abdul Hafiz Eelolwi, he has a full book and he lives in Randfontein. He wrote responses to the objections raised against Maulana Sahib. There are two more books in which responses have been given.
So the responses to these things have already been given, but these people are not ready to listen or accept. So how will you convince them? Just do your own work and say: ‘This fatwa is not correct.’ That’s it. We do not accept this fatwa because the muftis themselves are divided. Some are with Maulana Sahib, some are against him. So we will listen to talks and see. Whatever is in accordance with the Quran and Hadith, we will act on it. And if something appears to us to be against the Quran and Hadith, we will not act on it and will leave it aside.
Just as we do not act on certain statements of Imam Abu Hanifa that appear to go against Hadith, yet we are still Hanafi. Similarly, we are with Nizamuddin, but if something appears to us to be against the Quran and Hadith, we will act on our own understanding, not on someone else’s. We are accountable for our own understanding.
Whatever anyone says, whether it is Maulana Sahib, Nizamuddin, or any scholar, if it appears to be against the Quran and Hadith, we will leave it, just as we leave certain opinions of Abu Hanifa. This is our principle.
There is no need to respond, because responding leads to enmity and opposition, and whatever you say, they will not accept it. So spending time on responses is wasteful and pointless. Just say: ‘Our answer is that we have no answer to give.’ You say whatever you want. We will listen to your talks, participate in the work of da’wah, and if something is against the Quran and Hadith as we understand it, we will not take it. Just as we leave many opinions, even following Imam Zafar’s opinion over Imam Abu Hanifa’s in some cases, and leaving the opinion of the Companions sometimes too, and yet they remain Companions.
That answer which I gave at the occasion of the ijtima in South Africa is sufficient. Someone had sent it to me, the imam there has it, he had sent it to me, I had listened to it, please publish it.
Wassalamu alaikum.”
Mufti Arshad Delhiwala’s Written Response
On 27th May 2026, Mufti Arshad wrote a response to these circulated Audio. Below is a translation of his response:
“If by acting on the opinion of the Sahibayn against Imam Abu Hanifa we still remain Hanafi, then what is the harm in remaining connected to Maulana Saad while abandoning some of his incorrect statements?” — Respected Maulana Fazlur Rahman Azami, South Africa
Written by: Mufti Arshad Dehlawi
The respected Maulana, using Maulana Saad as the subject of comparison and drawing an analogy with Imam Abu Hanifa, argued that just as acting against the Imam’s opinion does not remove one from the Hanafi school, similarly, even if we accept that Maulana Saad Sahib holds some incorrect thoughts and views, we will abandon those views while nonetheless remaining connected to Maulana Saad and Nizamuddin.
The respected Maulana has fallen into a grave misunderstanding. He has drawn an analogy between Maulana Saad Sahib’s statements that contravene the Shariah and his innovations on one hand, and those opinions of Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) upon which the Hanafi scholars do not issue fatwa, or in which they prefer the opinion of the Sahibayn or one of them, on the other. What a world of difference lies between the two.
The nature of the disagreement between the Sahibayn or Imam Zufar and Imam Abu Hanifa is entirely different, and the nature of the disagreement between the scholars of truth and Maulana Saad Sahib is entirely different. That a personality as learned and perceptive as yourself would draw such a resemblance and make an analogy of one upon the other can only cause astonishment.
The first premise I wish to place before you is that avoiding an innovator who has gone astray is something that is commanded by the Shariah, and you will agree with this yourself. And if that misguided innovator is also one who actively invites others to his innovation, then to the attribute of going astray is added that of leading others astray, and avoiding such a person demands even greater care according to the Shariah.
The second premise I wish to present is that whatever disagreement existed among the three Imams, it was in matters that possessed what is known as shar’i existence. Whereas the invented matters whose establishment Maulana Saad Sahib is pursuing, and on the basis of which the scholars are disagreeing with him, do not even possess shar’i existence.
To elaborate on this summary, I wish to present a short passage from Hazrat Maulana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri’s (may Allah illuminate his grave) work, Barahin Qati’ah. Read carefully. Hazrat writes:
“Now hear that shar’i existence, in the terminology of the principles of jurisprudence, refers to that which cannot be known without the Lawgiver informing and stating it, and in which the senses and reason have no role. Thus the existence of such a thing depends upon the directive of the Lawgiver, whether that directive be explicit or by indication and implication. So when a ruling of permissibility has come through any form of directive, that thing has entered into shar’i existence, even if its genus has not appeared in the external world. And know that all shar’i rulings are present through shar’i existence, because the ruling of permissibility or prohibition cannot be known without the directive of the Lawgiver. So whatever has received a comprehensive ruling of permissibility is present in the Shariah in all its particulars, and whatever has received a ruling of impermissibility, its absence is established in the Shariah and its existence is negated. The conclusion then is that whatever has a proof of permissibility from the first three generations, whether it existed externally during those generations or not, and whether or not its genus existed externally, all of that is Sunnah and was present through shar’i existence in those generations. And whatever has no proof of permissibility, whether it occurred during those generations or not, all of that is blameworthy innovation. And know further that its widespread prevalence during that era without censure is proof of its permissibility, while censure of it is proof of its impermissibility. On the same basis, censure of its genus is proof of the impermissibility of its genus, and acceptance of the genus is proof of its permissibility. And remember also that the establishment of any ruling comes only from the Quran and Hadith, and analogical reasoning merely reveals the ruling, it does not establish it. So whatever is established through analogy is in fact established through the Book and the Sunnah.” End of the Shaykh’s words.
As a conclusion then, we say that all those matters which were present through shar’i existence in the first three generations, it is correct to apply the label of religion to them. And when it is correct to apply the label of religion to them, then acting upon the opinion of any mujtahid among them constitutes acting upon religion, because the mujtahid’s opinion is based on a shar’i proof. So when even the abandoned opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa is based on a shar’i proof, even if it did not become the operative fatwa for some reason, and the opinion of the Sahibayn or Imam Zufar is also based on a shar’i proof, then the opinions of both parties, being based on shar’i proofs, are in their own right present through shar’i existence and are considered religion. Even though the Imam’s opinion may not have become the operative fatwa for some reason, it was present through shar’i existence by virtue of being based on a shar’i proof, and due to its shar’i existence, innovation does not become a necessary consequence. So since the Imam does not become a misguided and misleading innovator by virtue of holding those opinions which are not the operative fatwa among Hanafi scholars, there is no shar’i objection in remaining connected to him and in adopting the Hanafi school. This is in contrast to those matters in which the scholars of truth disagree with Maulana Saad Sahib, because those matters do not possess shar’i existence at all. And that which does not possess shar’i existence is not a matter of religion. Rather it is precisely to such things that the term innovation applies, and to this the hadith “whatever is not from it is rejected” points.
Accordingly, Maulana Saad Sahib’s ever-new derivations and corrupt ijtihads, through which he seeks to establish a specific arrangement of tabligh and administrative matters as the religion of the Prophet Muhammad, do not possess shar’i existence at all, because the proofs for them simply do not exist. And when these matters do not possess shar’i existence, they fall outside the bounds of religion and necessarily entail innovation. As a result, the analogy of the first case upon the second becomes invalid.
And with the establishment of innovation, when lying in relation to the hadith of the Messenger and blameworthy tafsir bil-ra’y before gatherings of hundreds of thousands became a daily routine, Maulana Saad Sahib came to be classified not only as an innovator but also as one who has gone astray and leads others astray. And we have written at the beginning of this piece that it is commanded by the Shariah to completely avoid a misguided and misleading innovator.
So now the ruling concerning both has become separately clear. After abandoning the Imam’s opinion, there is no harm in remaining connected to him. In fact, due to the obligatory nature of following a madhab for the sake of something beyond itself, it is necessary to do so, because every opinion of a mujtahid, being based on a shar’i proof, possesses shar’i existence and is thus classified as religion, so innovation is not established, and there is not even a shadow of going astray or leading others astray in the Imam. Whereas the situation of Maulana Saad Sahib is the complete opposite of this. Therefore, completely avoiding him is obligatory according to the Shariah.
