Mufti Taqi Usmani on Maulana Saad

On 2024, April 23, Mufti Taqi Usmani sent a letter criticising Maulana Saad for his mistakes especially claiming something that Mufti Taqi Usmani did not say. On 14 May 2024, after the letter went public, Maulana Saad finally replied to Mufti Taqi’s letter.

Mufti Taqi Usmani’s Letter to Maulana Saad

Below is a full English translation of the Urdu letter issued on 23 April 2024.

Download the full Urdu letter here.

Key summary:

Mufti Taqi explains why he has made the letter public since Maulana Saad has used his name to spread his ideology publicly.
Mufti Taqi reprimands Maulana Saad for claiming that Gasht is Fardh Ayn (compulsory).
Mufti Taqi corrects Maulana Saad for making this claim based on quoting and misinterpreting Mufti Taqi’s book
Mufti Taqi admonishes Maulana Saad not to exaggerate (Ghuloo) in his views regarding Da’wa

[Page 1]

[From Mufti Taqi Usmani]

Respected and honourable Maulana Saad,

Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakaatuh,

I hope you are in good health. Based on my personal relationship with you, I have corresponded with you occasionally on various issues. However, the reason for sending this letter now is that some brothers have sent me several of your speeches, both in audio and written forms. In these speeches, you have incorrectly attributed to me the statement that “Individual Da’wa is obligatory (Fardh A’yn) upon every Muslim”. This incorrect attribution has been made in several of your speeches. Moreover, one such speech delivered during the event of the “Quarterly Mashwara” which happened from 27 to 30 January 2024, has been published in a book named “Irshaadaat-E-Akabir (Speeches of Akaabir)”. In that book, the following has been written:

“May Allah keep His Eminence Mufti Taqi Usmani, blessed with long life and good health. He made a very good point, -why are you arguing?- there are two aspects of Tabligh (propagation of deen) one is Individual (Inferadi) and another is Collective (Ijtimai). One is Fardh A’yn and the other is Fardh Kifayah. The Fardh A’yn one is the individual (Inferadi) Da’wa and every Muslim must invite others individually.” – (Irshaadaat-E-Akabir, page: 163)
“Mufti Taqi Usmani, may he live longer with good health and his guidance be with us forever, says that the Da’wa, Individual (Inferadi) Da’wa, is Fardh A’yn upon each person” ….. “And I think due to this narration “Whoever among you sees an evil must change it with his hand, “Mufti Taqi Usmani states that Individual (Inferadi) Da’wa is Fardh A’yn upon each believer, He has clarified this matter that Da’wa is not Fardh Kifayah (communal obligation). – Taken from (Maulana Saad’s) Fajr Bayan dated 2023 May 13

[Page 2]

“His Eminence (referring to Mufti Taqi Usmani), may Allah grant him a good reward, says that there are two aspects of Tabligh: one is a personal obligation (Fardh A’yn), and the other is a communal obligation (Fardh Kifayah). To personally invite every other Muslim is the personal obligation (Fardh A’yn) for each Mu’min” – Taken from Bayan dated 2023 September 15.

Then in many of your statements, the explanation you made on this topic leads to the conclusion that it is a personal obligation (Fardh A’yn) of every Muslim to go and personally invite each Muslim, and in some (more direct) statements, the method of Gasht has been exclusively mentioned as necessary for observance of this obligation. This conclusion can be drawn from the following excerpt:

“I have stated that the personal invitation (Inferadi Da’wa) was a common practice of the Prophet SAW and his Sahaba. They would sit one-on-one, go to each individual personally- going to each individual and sitting with each person (was their regular practice).” (Excerpt from the speech of 2019/19/8 after Fajr)
“Collective Da’wa (Ijtemai Da’wa) is an honorary task, whereas individual Da’wa (Inferadi Da’wa) was the obligations of the Prophets (Alayhimus Salam). The divine assistance that comes with individual Da’wa will not come through collective speeches (Ijtemai Bayaans). Rather, His Eminence (Hazrat) used to say that your collective speeches will be effective and your words will be accepted by people only when your collective speeches are followed by your individual Da’wa (Inferadi Da’wa). That’s why we have Bayan after Gasht. Without individual Da’wa (Inferadi Da’wa), a collective Da’wa (Ijtemai Da’wa) will not be effective.”
“If it is said that without Gasht Iman is not complete, then it is neither an exaggeration nor beyond bounds. …… The subject of Gasht pertains to enjoining good and forbidding evil (Amr bil-maroof wa Nahi A’nil-Munkar), and when these two obligations are the subject of Gasht and fulfilling these duties from one’s own being is necessary for faith in Allah, then how can faith be completed without Gasht?”

[Page 3]

“I believe that the necessity a Muslim has for Imaan is a similar necessity he has for Gasht. This is because the purpose of Gasht (visiting) and meeting (with others) is: I am performing Gasht by myself to fulfil my personal obligation of enjoining good (Amr-bil-maroof).” – Taken from a speech delivered in Malaysia Ijtema, 2022/10/21

In this regard, it seems that you have probably taken the statement about the obligation of individual Da’wa (Inferadi Da’wa) from my book entitled “Islaahi Khutubaat (Reformative Speeches)”, which is referred in the book titled as ‘Irshaadaat-E-Akabir‘. However, I have explained the meaning of individual Da’wa (Inferadi Da’wa) there in detail which is quoted below:

“When one person sees another person involved in such and such sin, and evil or neglecting a necessary duty (of Deen), then individually informing that person to abandon that evil and to perform good deeds instead is called individual Da’wa and Tabligh (Inferadi Da’wa and Tabligh).

The other is called collective (Ijtimai) Da’wa and Tabligh, which means that a person speaks about Deen in front of a large assembly, gives a sermon, teaches them or goes to others to deliver and spread the message of Deen, like how the way members of our Tablighi Jamaat spread the message of Deen by going to people’s homes and shops. These are collective (Ijtimai) Da’wa. The rules and etiquettes of these two methods of Da’wa and Tabligh are separate and distinct.

Collective (Ijtimai) Da’wa is not a personal obligation (Fardh A’yn), but a communal obligation (Fardh Kifayah), so it is not obligatory for every Muslim to go and preach to others or to go to others’ homes to preach, because it is a communal obligation (Fardh Kifayah).” (Islaahi Khutubaat: Vol: 8, Page: 29)

[Page 4]

In this book, the clear meaning of individual Da’wa (Inferadi Da’wa) has been described in detail, and the summary of which is mentioned in the following saying of the Prophet SAW:

عن عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: «كُلُّكُمْ رَاعٍ وَمَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ، فَالْإِمَامُ رَاعٍ وَهُوَ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ، وَالرَّجُلُ فِي أَهْلِهِ رَاعٍ وَهُوَ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ، وَالْمَرْأَةُ فِي بَيْتِ زَوْجِهَا رَاعِيَةٌ وَهِيَ مَسْئُولَةٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهَا ، وَالخَادِمُ فِي مَالِ سَيِّدِهِ رَاعٍ وَهُوَ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ»، قَالَ: فَسَمِعْتُ هَؤُلَاءِ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَأَحْسِبُ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: «وَالرَّجُلُ فِي مَالِ أَبِيهِ رَاعٍ وَهُوَ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ، فَكُلُّكُمْ رَاعٍ وَكُلُّكُمْ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Umar RA, he heard the Messenger of Allah SAW saying: “Each of you is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock. The Imam is a shepherd and he is responsible for his flock. A man in his family is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock. A woman in her husband’s house is a shepherd and she is responsible for her flock, and the servant in the property of his master is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock.” He said: “I heard these from the Messenger of Allah SAW and I believe that the Prophet SAW also said: “A man in his father’s wealth is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock. So, all of you are shepherds and each of you is responsible for his flock.'” (Sahih Bukhari 120/3)

The summary is: the meaning of individual Da’wa (Inferadi Da’wa) which is mentioned as a personal obligation (Fardh A’yn) is – every person must command good and forbid evil to those under him (i.e. within his supervision). If he sees a person or some person (under him) performing any specific sin, he should invite them to good as much as he can. As it is mentioned in the well-known hadith ‘Whoever among you sees an evil…’

This Hadith never means that it is a personal obligation (Fardh A’yn) for every person to go from house to house to invite others, as it might have been implied from your above-mentioned speeches.

Even If a specific act is to be declared as Fardh A’yn, Firstly, this is an issue of Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqhi Mas’alah) that must be substantiated in the light of the Quran, Sunnah, and the sayings of the Islamic Jurists (Fuqahaa) of the Ummah, and Contemporary scholars or Muftis must also issue Verdicts (Fatwa) concerning this. Declaring something as Fardh A’yn in public lectures is inappropriate. Secondly, when Sharia declares some act to be Fardh A’yn then it also defines the limits of that action and to what extent the A’mal is considered fulfilled. (For example), Salat (prayers) is Fardh A’yn. It has been specified that praying five times a day will fulfill this obligation. Similarly, fasting is Fardh A’yn and fasting in the month of Ramadaan will fulfill this obligation. Zakat too, is Fardh and giving one-fortieth portion will fulfill this obligation. Hajj is Fardh, and performing Hajj in a lifetime will be sufficient to fulfill this obligation.

[Page 5]

The question is- if it is Fardh A’yn to give Da’wa by visiting each Muslim in their homes or by doing Gasht, then what is the limit and quantity for that? How many people should a person invite to fulfill this responsibility? How many Gasht? How many times per year? How many times per month? How many times per week? And each time for how long should these A’mal be performed so that the responsibility is complete? It is evident that you have not specified any such limit nor such a limit can be drawn. Therefore, regarding it as Fardh A’yn can not be accepted by any means.

Alhamdulillah Tablighi Jamaa’t as a whole is performing very praiseworthy work, and to motivate to participate in this work is very virtuous- by the mercy of Allah Ta’ala we also motivate Muslims to participate in this work. However, for this motivation is it necessary to specifically regard the contemporary method to be Fardh A’yn? It is a matter of regret that different speakers from the (Tablighi) Jamaa’t exceed the limit in this matter, and the elders of the Jama’at have been notified by respected Senior scholars (Akaabir Ulamaye Kiram) several times about this matter. However, the news of these types of exceeding limits are reached (to us) every so often, due to which it is feared that – May Allah protect- this jama’at may turn into a sect (Firqah).

It is possible that you will say that you have not mentioned clearly that this specified method is Fardh A’yn, however the general mass will get that understanding by these speeches.

I am often informed about these types of generalized speeches, and I have refuted these in some of my speeches or writings. However, when this saying is incompletely- rather wrongly attributed towards me and also they have been published, I thus find it necessary to openly deny this attribution towards me and clarify the situation.

I have previously presented written opinions about several of your statements and speeches, but I have never published those writings publicly before because the intent was a piece of brotherly advice. You have also announced retractions (Rujo’o) from some of those points. However, since an explanation regarding individual Da’wa (Inferadi Da’wa) has been incorrectly attributed to me which was not my intention, moreover that has been widely spread, therefore, I am sending this (open) letter to those who have asked me about it.

Wassalam
Muhammad Taqi Usmani
1445, Shawwal, 14

2024, April, 23

Maulana Saad’s Response

After the letter went viral, Maulana Saad issued an official response on 2024 May 14. Below is the Urdu text and translation.

The reason for my sending this letter to you is that some of my acquaintances have sent to me one of your lectures in written form in which the following content has been ascribed to me: “Inferadi dawaat is an irrevocable obligation (aka farz-e-ain) upon each and every Muslim, and that, while saying it, I have attributed this ruling to your writings.”

I have understood your writings to mean the following: “That dawaat is Farz-e-ain upon each and every believer (mumin), not Farz e-Kefaya. In other words, every Muslim must go to other Muslims and invite him to virtues. I have also understood that the legitimacy of Gasht is derived from the mandate of “amr bil maaroof wan nahi unil munkar.”

Therefore, my own response in this matter is that my own understanding is that you have posited a specific kind of individualized dawaat to be farz-e-ain. You have characterized such dawaat as follows:

“The upshot of the above is that it is legally binding upon each and every Muslim that (s)he enforces righteousness upon people that are administratively subordinated to him/her, and that (s)he forbids them from sins. This includes the scenario that if one is an eye-witness to another person actually committing a specific act of sin, one must, to the extent practicable, invite that sinner to virtues,” just as the famous hadith-shareef has put it:

مَنْ رَايَ مِنْكُمْ مُنْكَرُ فَلْيُغَيِّرْ بِيَاَدِيْهِ

My characterization of inferadi dawaat as farz-e-ain is predicated on the same meaning and explanation as yours. In particular, I don’t consider the prevalent form or format of Tablighi Dawaat, or any of its methodologies, to be farz-e-ain, instead I treat such form or methods as one among the several feasible avenues for the compliance of the mandate of the obligations of individualized dawaat. Naturally enough, I consider the prevalent Tablighi formats and methodologies to be complementary and beneficial to the compliance of the mandate of the obligations of individualized dawaat.

If I have erred in my understanding of the import of your sayings or writings in this context, then I am tendering unqualified apologies from the bottom of my heart. Going forward, I shall remain ardently attuned to your esteemed spiritual focus, advisories and elucidations. I pray that Allah Ta’ala grants you a long life blessed with vigorous health and emotional well-being, and grants the entire Ummat-e Muslima to benefit from your erudition, clairvoyance (fuyuz) and exalted nobility (barkaat). Ameen!

Respected and esteemed mentor, Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, may Allah perpetuate His blessings upon you, and may Allah SWT enhance us through your knowledge and extend your life. Peace be upon you, and Allah’s mercy and blessings,

I hope you are in good health and well-being. Based on my heartfelt connection with you, I have been corresponding with you on various issues, and you have honoured me with your valuable advice and corrections. The purpose of sending this letter is that some friends have sent me a written form of one of your speeches, in which it is attributed to me that individual invitation (dawah) is a personal obligation (fard ‘ayn) for a Muslim, and it is said that I have attributed this to you. The meaning I have understood is that invitation (Da’wah) is a personal obligation for every believer, not a collective duty Fard Kifayah). That is, every Muslim must go himself to invite, and the topic of Gash is also about enjoining good and forbidding evil (Amar Bil Ma’ruf wa Nahi Anil Munkar).

In this regard, I would like to clarify that you have stated that individual Da’wah is a personal obligation (Fard ‘Ayn), and you have explained that every person must command good to those under their authority and forbid them from evil. Moreover, if someone sees an individual or a group committing a specific evil in front of them, they should invite them to do good to the best of their ability, as stated in the famous hadith, “Whoever among you sees an evil…”. I also understand individual dawah as a personal obligation with this meaning and explanation. Furthermore, I do not consider the current practices of Da’wah and its methods as a personal obligation but as one of the ways to fulfil this duty and as a specific aid and support for it.

If I have misunderstood your intention, I sincerely apologize. I also hope to continue to receive your attention and guidance in the future. My prayer is that Allah keeps you healthy and well for a long time and grants the entire Ummah the ability to benefit from your knowledge, blessings, and virtues. Ameen.

Muhammad Saad
Markaz Banglawali Masjid Basti Hadrat Nizamuddin New Delhi

Mufti Isa Qasmi criticises Maulana Saad’s Response

Mufti Isa Zaid Qasmi from Darul Uloom Deoband has criticised Maulana Saad’s response letter in an audio (https://youtu.be/Z00KsoJ2FPw?si=m42knPD9tkY4FOza).

Maulana Saad was criticised for having a bad track record for breaking promises. His recent response used a tone similar to his previous responses where he promises not to repeat his mistakes, but continues to repeat the controversial statements later on.

Below is the Full Audio transcription:

(Note: Mufti Isa is commenting as an individual Mufti. This is NOT an official response from Darul Uloom Deoband)

**In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful**

“The scholar (Maulana Saad) clarifies that he does not hold any specific or erroneous views and admits any mistakes he might have made. He promises not to repeat such statements in the future. However, in his statements, he is reiterating the same controversial views.”

Initially, when he was warned by Darul Uloom Deoband, he agreed not to repeat his mistakes. In his recent statements, we see the same controversial views being made. Therefore, it is clear that despite making promises, he still continues to propagate these views.

We saw this in January 2017. The scholar (Maulana Saad) wrote a detailed and commendable statement, retracting any statements that could be misinterpreted as devaluing other fields of Islamic work or causing inconvenience to specific groups. He assured that such impressions would not be created in the future.

However, his subsequent statements in 2018 and 2019 failed to demonstrate this. Thus so, Darul Uloom Deoband issued a stricter fatwa in 2023. They adopted a strong position against the scholar’s (Maulana Saad) views. They clarified that listening to or propagating such statements is not permissible. Although the scholar (Maulana Saad) had earlier admitted his mistakes and promised not to repeat them, his later statements show that he did not hold to his promise. This was why, it was necessary for Darul Uloom Deoband to address these issues more firmly.

Shaykh al-Islam Mufti Taqi Usmani (may Allah protect him) mentioned that even if the scholar (Maulana Saad) did not explicitly state that a particular method was obligatory, the general impression from his statements suggested otherwise.

In conclusion, if the scholar (Maulana Saad) sincerely admits his mistake and refrains from making such statements in the future, the issue can be resolved. However, if he continues to repeat these points, it creates problems for other fields of Islamic work and causes unnecessary conflicts among scholars. Thus, it is essential to address and rectify these issues to maintain harmony and respect among the scholarly community.

Maulana Saad’s track record of making many false quotes from Maulana Ilyas and Maulana Yusuf

According to Maulana Shahed Saharanpuri, for years, Maulana Saad has made many false quotes saying that it was said by Maulana Ilyas RA and Maulana Yusuf RA.

Maulana Shahed Saharanpuri was a long-time Muqeem of Nizamuddin, a close companion of Maulana Zubair and the grandson and Khalifa of Sheikh Zakariyya RA. He mentions in his book Ahwal Wa Atsaar Page 425, Link here:

“In the last twenty to twenty-two years, countless quotes and sayings have been falsely attributed to Maulana Ilyas RA and Maulana Yusuf RA from the pulpit. All these false quotes were mostly baseless. This is the reason why thankfully, such quotes failed to spread in the Markaz.”

Source: Ahwal Wa Atsar, Page 425

Translator’s comment

Mufti Sahab’s letter, sent from Karachi, Pakistan, was dated 24 April, 2024. Saad Kandhlawi (SK)’s letter was dated May 14, 2024. I refrain from using the word ‘response’ in the foregoing sentence because SK does not formally acknowledge his actual receipt of the very detailed semi-official letter of the Mufti Sahab, which was written on the official letter-head of the institution he heads or co-heads. Instead, SK posits his letter as a response to his receipt, from unspecified sources with potentially doubtful reliability or authenticity, of one of Mufti Uthmani’s lectures. To quote: “The reason for my sending this letter to you is that some of my acquaintances have sent to me one of your lectures in written form in which the following content has been ascribed to me”. Whereas Mufti Sahab took pains to show that his original April 2024 letter under reference is a direct, one-on-one, correspondence sent with the usual precautions to maximize the likelihood of its receipt by the recipient intended, SK’s reticence about receipt of Mufti Sahab’s detailed letter distances himself potentially from any awareness of the arguments made or facts adduced to in the all-important letter of April 24, 2024. SK’s letter was undoubtedly penned soon after Hadrat Mufti Sahab’s letter had presumably been delivered at the former address in Nizamuddin, India. Mufti Uthmani said in his letter that he had sent several letters like this one to SK on previous occasions and they seemed to have all reached SK safely. It’d be expected that SK would have received this particular letter, too, don’t you agree?

It’s quite possible that SK had actually received the letter under reference, read it, realized that its sender had been on point throughout and that it was going to be well-nigh impossible to rebut its main conclusions. Anyone who craves opportunities for self-correction, repentance, contrition would seize them, declare publicly one’s error, ask for Allah’s forgiveness for any unwitting errors, invoke Allah’s mercy upon his critics for making him a better Muslim, and move on in life. By all accounts, SK is very differently constituted. All his life, SK was entitlement and self-absorption personified. Unlike his father, grandfather, great grandfather and many uncles and first cousins on both sides, he did not satisfactorily complete all prerequisites of the dars-e-Nizami course at Madrasa Kashif ul Uloom and never received the certificate as an alim (this is sourced by Amanatullah Mewati, a member of the Supervising Committee of that madrasa). Unlike his father, grandfather, great grandfather and many uncles and first cousins on both sides, he never spent even three days in Tablighi khuruj under the supervision of an amir (Amanatullah Mewati). Unlike his father and grandfather both of whom benefited from decades-long mentorship of Hadrat Shaikhul Hadith Zakariah Kandhlawi Sahab, his formative years were spent without the molding proximity of any comparable heavyweight momin. He grew into his youth as an angry man full of grievances, entitlement, and a deep personal insecurity that his many enemies were out to plunder him of his pursuit of true greatness. Yet his abrasive, loud and grasping instincts were strong enough to have him land one (out of ten) positions of authority in Inam ul Hasan Sahab’s a’alami shura formed in 1993. (Each of his peers on that committee had, to his credit, several decades’ worth of continuous sacrifice as a foot-soldier of Tabligh.) To earn something worthwhile by proving himself under rules made and administered by others was not for him: he would only be in contention where the fix was already in.

For whatever reasons, SK forces us the reader on the backfoot at the get-go by adopting an evasive, defensive crouch. He does this by distancing himself from the potentially searing fallout of the serious critiques that Mufti Sahab had raised in his letter about the “absurdity” of the jurisprudential methodology underlying several of SK’s widely-attended tablighi lectures, every word of whose contents his blind supporters then fasten on to as they “go to war” against the putative renegades and apostates that follow the Shurayi methodology of Tabligh. His reticence raises questions about whether he was coming into the conversation with the same good-faith aesthetic as Hadrat Mufti Sahab himself.

SK appears to imply that he had never actually received the detailed letter containing both Mufti Sahab’s piercing critiques of his own extremism-tinged sayings and writings, and distancing himself from attributions or ascriptions that were patently self-serving non-sequiturs. SK’s tactics allow him to not directly address, far less rebut, any of the critiques in Mufti Sahab’s letter. His tactic is to quote from the Mufti Sahab’s writing selectively, and then say that his own position(s) were pretty much the same as the Mufti Sahab’s. Anyone in the know who had read Mufti Sahab’s letter closely would be tempted to yell out at this stage that that was simply NOT TRUE. And yet the kind of ‘engineers, doctors, lawyers, and professionals’ who hangs by every word out of SK’s mouth would likely be led into believing that the otherwise esteemed Mufti Sahab—one of Pakistan’s most learned jurists—was actually a fool who hadn’t done his own homework, or a malevolent adversary consumed by Saad’s hatred and bent on unethically taking down a ‘young MUJADDID’ of our times! Whereas the truth is that the protagonists stances on inferadi dawaat are very very different indeed, despite SK’s assertion to the contrary. This parrying tactic is known as gaslighting. The truth is that Saad Sahab avoids, probably dishonestly, being held accountable for his spoken and/or written words by using bad-faith deception. That is a huge disservice to not only the esteemed Mufti Sahab but, much more to the point, to the most august Deen of Allah. It is a really tragic dereliction of duty by the self-proclaimed ‘amir of the whole word’ of Tabligh.

List of Maulana Saad’s Controversial Speeches

See full list here: https://tablighi-jamaat.com/en/maulana-saad-bayan-controversy-even-after-rujoo/