Category Archives: Dawat O Tableegh

Misunderstanding Hikmah in Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil

By Abdul Samad Ali

In this age of decadence where the moral fabric of the society is being ripped apart, there are some deluded people, sadly “scholars” too, who remain silent about falsehood and wrongdoings that surround them. In some cases, they endorse it, for whatever reason. And in many other cases, they conflate refutation and rejection of falsehood with “bad-adab”. As if Adab (propriety) entails accepting falsehood and wrongdoings and not speaking against them; handing out chocolates and gifts to the one who has slapped you; and over-emphasising the Prophetic Jamal while neglecting the Prophetic Jalal.

Allah says in the Qur’an:

“[Believers] you are the best community singled out for mankind: you enjoin what is right, forbid what is wrong, and believe in Allah…” [Surah Aali ‘Imran 3:110]

 ‘Good’ in the Arabic language is ‘Khayr‘ and ‘Bad/Evil’ in the Arabic language is ‘Sharr‘. Why then are the words Ma’rūf and Munkar used? Ma’rūf  literally refers to that which is known, because it is what the heart is familiar with. Munkar  literally refers to that which is not known, as it is not known to the heart but the heart learns it. We don’t have the idea of ‘original sin’ or that children are inherently evil. They have to be taught that as their hearts are originally pure. The reason they begin doing bad things is because they are being taught that by humans or Shayātīn.  [R Nsour, Sharh al-Akhdari]

It is interesting that Allah mentions “you enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong” first and then mentions “and believe in Allah”. Whereas belief in Allah should come first and our actions should then follow. But if we look at the testimony of faith: “There is none worthy of worship except Allah”, we see, as our scholars have mentioned, it is negation (‘There is none worthy of worship…’) followed by affirmation (‘…except Allah’). So, we are negating all deities and refuting all types of falsehood before confirming the Truth; Godhood and Oneness of Allah. One enters the religion with a refutation because falsehood must first be obliterated and only then will true belief manifest. It is also evident from the biography of our Master Muhammad ﷺ that he preached Tawhid (monotheism) for a decade, before conveying anything else, for it is necessary to know the One we are submitting to, before knowing what it is he has commanded us to submit to.

Having said that, to now believe that one must be harsh in preserving the religious boundaries or that we must have a “soft spiritual approach” where transgressions are tolerated, is far from the truth. We discipline our ego, put it aside and love and hate for the sake of Allah only, as that is how our Master Muhammad ﷺ taught us to be. He placed his love and anger appropriately and never got angry for the sake of his own self but only when the rights of Allah were violated.

The conditions for enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong are mentioned by Ibn Rushd in al-Bayan wa’l-Tahsil:

Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong is obligatory upon every Muslim, subject to three conditions:

1.  He should know what ‘right’ is and what ‘wrong’ is. If he is ignorant of the ruling then there is a possibility that he will forbid something that is right and enjoin something that is wrong.

2.  The denunciation of wrong  should not lead to a greater evil, such as if he tells people not to drink alcohol and that may result in murder and the like. In that case, it is not permissible for him to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong.

3.  He should know or think it most likely that his denunciation of evil will put a stop to it, and that his enjoining good will be effective and beneficial. If he doesn’t know that or doesn’t think it (will be effective), then it not obligatory upon him to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong.

The first two conditions are essential for it to be permissible, and the third condition is essential for it to be obligatory. If the first and second conditions are not met, then it is not permissible to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. If the third condition is not met, but the first and second ones are, then it is permissible for him to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, but it is not obligatory.

Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Abdur Rahman bin Qudamah says in Mukhtasar Minhaj al-Qasidin:

Knowing that there is a certain evil in a market that can be reformed, one should rectify it. Every Muslim should reform himself first, keeping obligations and deserting sins. He should then do the same to his household and relatives, then comes his neighbours, then his fellows of his hometown, then citizens of his country. Finally come people of the world.

Lastly, Ustadh Amjad Mahmood mentions that Shaykh Ramadan al-Bouti (rahimahullah) said during a Dars he delivered on Jami’ al-Iman, almost a decade ago:

People often confuse using Hikmah (wisdom) as being soft and gentle. But Hikmah is rather to use the most effective method and treatment, which can sometimes be harsh and other times soft.

May Allah grant us the right understanding of our religion; forgive us for our shortcomings;  and grant us ‘Afiyah (well-being) in religion, in our life in this world and in the world to come. Aameen!



[Majlisul Ulama]

Q. Molana Saad has mentioned that those who leave Banglawali Masjid are murtads. This is a direct attack on Hazarat Molana Ebrahim Dewla Saheb who is Molana Saad’s Ustaad, and upon Molana Ahmed Laat. These two elders had left as they disagreed with Molana Saad. Is Molana Saad’s verdict correct regarding them?

A. If what you say is correct, then Molvi Sa’d is guilty of a great crime. He should then fear the charge of irtidaad rebounding on himself. It is utterly disgusting to brand these seniors ‘murtad’ merely because they left Nizaamiddin.


Q. Molana Saad mentioned that those who do the work of da’wat with ikhlaas they will receive a status higher than the Ambiyaa. Is this correct?

A. This statement is kufr. It is a statement in emulation of Shiahs who believe that the status of their imams is higher than the rank of the Ambiya.


Q. Molana Saad’s followers have resolved that they will conduct Quran Translation Halqas in the masajid. This was decided in their meeting in Cape Town. Is this correct?

A. No, it is not proper for them to engage in Qur’aan translation halqas. If they do so, it will mean that they are forming another sect. They will then no longer be regarded as even a faction of the Tabligh jamaat in view of transgressing the Six Points which constitute the fundamental basis of the Tabligh Jamaat.


Q. Molana Saad mentioned that those that do not accept his Ameership will go to Jahannam? Is this correct?

A. This statement is akin to kufr. Did he receive wahi in this regard? It is absolutely unacceptable for a Molvi to blurt out such haraam rubbish.


Q. One of the seniors of Molana Saad’s followers in South Africa has referred to those that don’t follow Molana Saad’s views as khawarij. Is this correct?

A. This ‘senior’ is a jaahil. He is ignorant of the khawaarij. He must have heard about them, but lacks awareness of them. He is stupid to say the least.


Q. Should the followers of Molana Saad be allowed to conduct programs, mashewrah and be the zimidaar in our Masajid?

A. If they adhere strictly to the Six Points and do not introduce nafsaani politics related to the leadership crisis and fracas of Nizaamuddin, then they should be allowed. Those working on the ground should not stir up haraam problems by becoming embroiled in the haraam leadership struggle. All workers, regardless of which side they are supporting, should pretend that they are not aware of what is taking place in India. They should continue with the Tabligh work within the confines of the Six Points and not introduce any nafsaaniyat. They should not discuss the leadership fracas. Shaitaan has derailed them from Siraatul Mustaqeem with this haraam leadership crisis.


Q. Some say we are splitting the ummah, while some feel this is an issue of Haq and batil. Please comment.

A. If nafsaani politics will be introduced, then obviously the Tabligh Jamaat community will be split. In fact, it has already split, and it appears that this split is permanent and set to be aggravated by all the evil nafsaaniyat surfacing. Those who transgress beyond the Six Points will be plodding baatil and they will be the agents of shaitaan. As long as the haraam crisis is not made an issue by the ground workers, the work will continue on course. But, it appears that shaitaan has already gained the upper hand.


[Majlisul Ulama]

Regarding the ongoing strife and fitnah which has torn the Tabligh Jamaat apart on all levels, Mufti A.K.Hoosen, has issued the following statement: 

“The only problem in Nizaamudeen today is maal (wealth/money). There is a person there, who is self-appointed, who wants to be the Ameer. And if you do not accept his leadership then they (Sa’d’s goondas -thugs) want to assault you. They threaten and intimidate you. Therefore the aalam-e-shura (the world Shura Body of the Tabligh Jamaat) – the world shuraa  has decided that the status quo cannot prevail like this.

The Jamaat’s work must continue everywhere but they must bypass Nizaamuddeen as long as things stay like this. (i.e. as long as the Goonda Sa’d remains in the premises which he has usurped by violence with the aid of his thugs, and from where he has  proclaimed himself to be the ameer of the Tabligh Jamaat of the world). So remember there is no problem with the markaz. The problem is with the self-appointed ameer. And remember he is causing havoc there for his own agenda. So we make dua to Almighty Allah that Almighty Allah removes him or he comes to his senses, because he is doing a great, great disservice to the Ummah for his own hidden agenda and ulterior motives.

Let me make it clear! Maulana Sa’d who is self-appointed is not fit to be ameer. Remember that. That is our fatwa and the fatwa of a thousand ulama. He is not fit to be ameer of the Tabligh Jamaat. So we need to understand. There is no sense playing games and those type of things here.

In Islam you can’t be a self-appointed ameer. An ameer must have profound ‘Ilm, taqwa, and wisdom. One cannot be the ameer because he belongs to a certain family. He lacks in these attributes.

The nonsense he spoke about these types of things and about Nabi Musa alayhis salaam and other issues, disqualifies him from being the ameer.”   End of Mufti A.K. Hoosen’s statement.


This Sa’d character lacks in every attribute necessary for an Ameer of such a huge movement as the Tabligh Jamaat. He has descended into the dregs of villainy by employing gutter-level tactics of goondagerry (thuggery), using his Mewati ignoramuses to employ violence, smashing property and assaulting those whom he perceived are aligned against him. He has brazenly claimed that those who do not accept his leadership are Jahannamis (inmates of Hell).

In South Africa, the agent of Sa’d’s fitnah is one Rashid Norath who is spreading false propaganda in support of Sa’d. More information about these fattaan shall be published, Insha-Allah. The workers on the ground are all caught up in this web of shaitaani fitnah. They are disputing among themselves to the eternal detriment of the tabligh work.

Molvi Sa’d’s Faulty Citation of Tafseer Mazhari

[Majlisul Ulama]

Molvi Sa’d is a fattaan. He has created great fitnah in the name of the Deen. He uses goondas (thugs) to entrench himself in the position of leadership. 

The context in which Sa’d mentioned the episode and the manner in which he presented the opinion of Mazhari, differ vastly from that of Mazhari and the other tafaaseer. Sa’d’s citation denigrates the lofty status of Hadhrat Nabi Musa (Alayhis salaam). Mazhari stated his personal opinion in an academic manner. But Sa’d regurgitated the view in a way to bring disrepute to Nabi Musaa (Alayhis salaam), and he did so in an abortive attempt to ‘prove’ that Tabligh Jamaat ‘khurooj’ and methodology are compulsory and the best.

If he had sound brains, and if he was not driven by power-lust, he would have understood that in the Qur’aan Allah Ta’ala had ordered Nabi Musa (Alayhis salaam) to come to the Mountain for 40 days communion. But Mr. Sa’d presented this episode as if Nabi Musa (Alayhis salaam) had deserted his people when in reality, he went at the command of Allah Ta’ala. 

The opinion in Mazhari and in some other Tafaaseer is personal opinion. It is not official Tafseer. It is a personal view with which we disagree. But there is no need to publicize it among the ignorant masses who will become more confused as Sa’d has done. But the manner in which Mazhari has presented the view does not denigrate Nabi Musa (Alayhis salaam). 

It is essential to understand that Nabi Musa (Alayhis salaam) went to converse with Allah Ta’ala for 40 days on the instruction of Allah Ta’ala. He did not abandon his people. This idea which Sa’d had planted in the minds of his thugs is tantamount to kufr. He felt no shame and no inhibition in opening his mouth and wagging his tongue against such a great Nabi of Allah Azza Wa Jal. This is a clear sign of his deviation. 

Furthermore, Sa’d was very selective in citing the view of Mazhari. In his bayaan, Sa’d had unequivocally mentioned that hidaayat depends on mehnet (effort), and by this he implied Tabligh Jamaat khurooj. He made it clear that hidaayat is not the effect of the Nabi’s Roohaaniyat. In fact, the moron said that  hidaayat is not even in Allah’s control. This is explicit kufr which expels him from the fold of Islam, and renders his Nikah invalid. 

Now, in Tafseer Mazhari and the other Tafaaseer which Sa’d cites in his defence for his kufr, it is explained in the very same tafseer of the Aayat pertaining to Nabi Musa’s departure for communion with Allah Ta’ala, that hidaayat stems from the Roohaniyat of the Nabi. But, Sa’d conveniently ignores this aspect, and selectively adopts the other part of the view which he abortively presents to justify his warped idea of hidaayat

Since he had extracted from Mazhari a view which he utilized to denigrate Nabi Musa (Alayhis salaam), he should have taken the whole view expressed by Mazhari on this issue, not only part of it. However, since one aspect of the tafseer negates the convoluted idea of Sa’d – his claim that a Nabi’s Roohaaniyat has no role in the hidaayat of his Ummah – he selected only the other aspect to defend his indefensible ideology.

In his bayaan, Sa’d said:

“You are labouring under the idea that hidaayat is in the Hands of Allah. However, if hidaayat was in the Hands of Allah, then why did Allah send Nabis?  For giving hidaayat, Allah Ta’ala sent Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam) for the purpose of mehnat (effort).

The Nabis did not spread hidaayat with their inner (i.e. spiritual) tawajjuh and roohaaniyat. All of you listen carefully to what I am saying. In this age there is the deception among Muslims that the Ummat will attain hidaayat by means of the spiritual state (the roohaaniyat) of the Allahwaalo (the Buzrugs). This idea is erroneous.”

It is palpably clear that Sa’d has negated the role and efficacy of the Roohaaniyat of the Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam) in the transmission of hidaayat to their followers. When he has the blatant kufr belief of negating control of hidaayat from even Allah Azza Wa Jal, then it should not be difficult to understand his greater negation of the emanation of hidaayat from the Roohaniyat of the Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam).

In the light of this corrupt, convoluted belief of baatil, read the following tafseer of Mazhari and of the other Mufassireen whose tafseer he has cited to vindicate his denigration of Hadhrat Nabi Musaa (Alayhis salaam).

“I say that the Risaalat of the Ambiya has two objectives:

(1) To teach the people Islam and the ahkaam of Allah and inviting them to act accordingly.

(2) To draw the people to Allah with the strength of their baatini (spiritual) ability, and thereby to inspire their hearts with the Noor of  Imaan and Ma’rifat so that their breasts become bright to enable them to distinguish between Haqq and baatil. But this obligation of the Ambiya could be fully discharged only when the Nabi’s focus is fully on the Makhlooq (his followers). At the time (of the meeting with Allah), Hadhrat Musa was overwhelmed with eagerness and love to be in the Divine Presence to commune with Allah Ta’ala. He was in the state of Sukr (spiritual ecstasy), hence his Baatini Tawajjuh was not focused on his Ummah (at that time). This is why Bani Israaeel was embroiled in fitnah and deviation.”

Thus, Tafseer Mazhari as well as other Mufassireen unequivocally confirm the emanation of  hidaayat as a consequence of theTawajjuh and Roohaniyat of the Nabi, and in this specific case it was Hadhrat Nabi Musaa (Alayhis salaam). Discarding this conspicuous aspect of the tafseer pertaining the Nabi’s Roohaaniyat for the attainment of hidaayat for his followers, Sa’d conveniently adopts only one aspect of the view which proffers the idea of the predication of Bani Isra’aeel’s deviation as a consequence of Nabi Musaa’s departure.

While Tafseer Mazhari and others present this view to an Ulama audience, which is a view based on their personal opinion (Tafseer Bil Raai) in an academic manner without the slightest vestige of denigration or cast of aspersion on the lofty status of Hadhrat Musa (Alayhis salaam), Mr. Sa’d  stated this academic intricacy in a bayaan to a crowd of juhala, and the manner he acquitted himself in the delivery of this bit of tafseer bil raai, was calculated to impugn the lofty Maqaam of Hadhrat Musaa (Alayhis salaam) who is second in rank to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This audacity of Sa’d is intolerable.

The manner of Sa’d’s presentation to his jaahil audience was to convey the clear impression that Hadhrat Musa (Alayhissalaam) had, Nauthubillah!, failed in his mission of Nubuwwat and Risaalat for having caused almost 6 hundred thousand persons of Bani Isra’eel to go astray and worship the golden calf. In essence, Sa’d blamed Nabi Musa (Alayhis salaam) for the calf-worship and shirk of Bani Isra’eel.

It is indeed moronic to formulate such a kufr idea on the basis of the academic intricacy mentioned in Tafseer Mazhari. The strongest daleel to discount and refute this kufr idea of Sa’d is the categorical statement of Allah Azza Wa Jal:

“And (remember) when We promised Musaa forty nights (of communion), then you (Bani Israaeel) worshipped the calf after him and you were indeed oppressors/transgressors.”   [Baqarah, Aayat 51]

“And We promised Musaa thirty nights, and We completed it with (another) ten. Thus the promise of His Rabb was completed with forty nights.” [Al-A’raaf, Aayat 142]

The first fundamental of this issue which every moron can also understand is that Hadhrat Musaa (Alayhis salaam) had gone to Mount Tur at the command of Allah Ta’ala. He did not abandon his post of Nubuwwat to go into I’tikaaf on the mountain.

The second fundamental is that his departure was not a desertion of his people. He left Nabi Haroon (Alayhis salaam) as his Khalifah.

The third fundamental is that the incumbent corollary of answering the Command of Allah Azza Wa Jal, was separation from his Ummah for forty days. Thus, Hadhrat Musaa’s (Alayhis salaam) had no alternative but to separate himself from his flock. The attribution of the calf-worship to Hadhrat Musa (Alayhis salaam), and that too, because he fulfilled the command of Allah Ta’ala, is a blasphemous injustice.

Even if it had to be stupidly assumed that Bani Isra’eel’s deviation was the effect of Nabi Musaa’s departure, he had no choice in the matter. He was answering the command of Allah Ta’ala. The Qur’aan Majeed explicitly attributes the deviation of Bani Israaeel to Saamiri. Furthermore, the Qur’aan states: “We had cast Bani Israaeel in a trial…” The circumstance for the trial, namely Musaa’s departure, was by the command of Allah Ta’ala, not by the volition of Hadhrat Musaa (Alayhis salaam) or any act which he had executed arbitrarily.

The tafseer bil raai of an Aalim many centuries after Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), may not be cited as a basis and justification for a corrupt view which denigrates the lofty status of one of the greatest Ambiya, and which also is in conflict with the text of the Qur’aan Majeed. Such self-opinion should be set aside, and not cited as daleel.

Since Sa’d was seeking a basis and justification for his view of Tabligh Jamaat khurooj being Fardh, he conveniently extracted one aspect of Tafseer Mazhari’s  opinion while concealing the other aspect which is in total conflict of his corrupt view of the denial of the emanation of hidaayat from the Roohaaniyat of the Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam).

Question: Why is Sa’d being castigated, not Mazhari?

Answer: When Fir’oun said: “I am your almighty rabb.”, he became mardood and mal-oon. But when Hadhrat Mansur Al-Hallaaj, uttered the same statement expressed with a slight difference, viz., “Anal Haq (I am Haq-i.e. Allah)”, he remained maqbool and muqarrab. This is the difference. Sa’d followed in the footsteps of Fir’oun, while Mazhari and others were in the footsteps of Mansur (Rahmatullah alayh).

Sa’d blurted out his satanic statement in denigration of Hadhrat Musaa (Alayhis salaam) while Mazhari propounded the view to highlight the lofty status of Nabi Musaa (Alayhis salaam). In the view of Mazhari, the Tawajjuh  and Roohaaniyat of Hadhrat Musaa (Alayhis salaam) are highlighted. No one ever developed even a waswasah of denigration against Hadhrat Musaa (Alayhis salaam) from the tafseer of Mazhari. But in the eyes of every miserable jaahil, the manner of Sa’d’s acquittal demoted the lofty status of Hadhrat Musaa (Alayhis salaam). 

May Allah Ta’ala save us all from the evils of the nafs and the snares of shaitaan. Imaan is suspended between fear and hope, said Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Urdu Translation:









An Analysis of Darul Uloom Deoband’s Fatwa About Maulana Saad Kandhlawi

Due to the letters and questions regarding some of the incorrect ideologies and thoughts and the questionable Bayaans of Janaab Moulana Saad Saheb Kandhelwi received from within the country as well as from beyond, with the signatures of senior Asaatizah Kiraam and the panel of Muftis, an official stance has been taken.

However, before releasing this document, it was brought to our notice that a delegation wishes to come to Darul-Uloom and discuss matters on behalf of Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb. Hence, the delegation came and delivered the message on behalf of Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb that he is ready to make Rujoo’ (retract). Therefore, the unanimous stance was sent with the delegation to Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb. A reply was then received from him, however, Darul-Uloom Deoband was not satisfied with his reply completely, upon which some explanation was sent to Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb in the form of a letter.

In order to protect the blessed effort of Tableegh started by the Akaabir Ulema of Darul-uloom Deoband from becoming mixed up with incorrect ideologies, to keep it on the pattern of the Akaabir and also in order for its benefit and to keep the reliance of the Ulema-e-Haq upon this effort, it is regarded as a Deeni responsibility to present our unanimous standpoint to the Ahl-e-Madaaris, Ahl-e-Ilm and the unbiased people. May Allah Ta’ala protect this blessed effort in every way and grant all of us the ability to remain ideologically and practically on the path of truth.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمد لله رب العالمين، والصلاة والسلام على سيد الأنبياء والمرسلين، محمد وآله وأصحابه أجمعين. أما بعد:

Recently a request has been received from many Ulema and Mashaaikh that Dar-uloom Deoband present its stance regarding the ideologies of Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb khandhelwi. Very recently, letters have been received from the reliable Ulema of Bangladesh and some Ulema from our neighbouring country (Pakistan), together with which various Istiftaas [requests for Fatwas] have come to the Darul-Ifta at Dar-uloom Deoband from within the country. 

Without getting involved in the disagreements within the Jamaat and the administrative matters, we wish to say that since the last few years, the ideologies of Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb khandhelwi were received in the form of letters and Istiftaas. Now, after investigation, it has been proven that, in his Bayaans, incorrect or unfavourable explanation of the Qur’aan and Hadeeth, incorrect analogies and Tafsir bir Ray’ [interpretations based on self-opinion in conflict with Qur’an and Hadith] are found. Some statements amount to disrespect of the Ambiyaa’ (alayhis salaam) whilst many statements are such, wherein he moves beyond the bounds of the majority and Ijmaa’ of the Salaf. 

In some Fiqhi matters also, without any basis, he contradicts the unanimous Fatwa of reliable Darul-Iftas and emphasises his new view upon the general people. He also stresses upon the importance of the effort of Tableegh in such a manner that other branches of Deen are criticised and belittled. 

The method of doing Tableegh by the Salaf is also opposed, due to which the respect of the Akaabir and Aslaaf is lessened, rather, they are belittled. His conduct is in stark contrast to the previous Zimm-e-Daars of Tableegh, viz; Hazrat Moulana Ilyas Saheb (rahmatullahi alayh), Hazrat Moulana Yusuf Saheb (rahmatullahi alayh) and Hazrat Moulana In’aamul Hasan Saheb (rahmatullahi alayh).

Hereunder are some of the quotations we have received from the Bayaans of Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb which have been proven to have been said by him:

“ Hazrat Moosa (alayhis salaam) left his nation and went in seclusion to engage in Munaajaat with Allah Ta’aala, due to which 188 000 individuals went astray. The Asl was Moosa (alayhis salaam), he was the Zimme-Daar. The Asl was supposed to remain. Haroon (alayhis salaam) was a helper and partner.”

“Naql-o-Harkat is for the completion and perfection of Taubah. People know of the three conditions of Taubah, they don’t know the fourth. They have forgotten it. What is it? Khurooj! [i.e. coming out specifically for Tabligh]. People have forgotten this condition. A person killed 99 people. He first met a monk. The monk made him despair. He then met an Aalim. The Aalim told him to go to a certain locality. This killer did Khurooj, therefore Allah Ta’aala accepted his Taubah. From this it is understood that Khurooj is a condition of Taubah. Without it, Taubah is not accepted. People have forgotten this condition. Three conditions of Taubah are mentioned. The fourth condition, i.e. Khurooj is forgotten.”

“There is no place for getting Hidaayat except the Masjid. Those branches of Deen where Deen is taught, if their connection is not with the Masjid, then, by the oath of Allah Ta’aala there will be no Deen in it. Yes the Ta’leem of Deen will take place, not Deen.”

(In this quotation, by connection with the Masjid, his intention is not going to perform Salaah in the Masjid. This is because he said this while talking about the importance of the Masjid and talking about Deen only after bringing a person to the Masjid. He said it while speaking about his specific ideology, the details of which is in the audio. His ideology is thus: to speak about Deen outside of the Masjid is contrary to the Sunnah, and contrary to the manner of the Ambiyaa’ (alayhis salaam) and the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum))

“To teach Deen for a wage is to sell Deen. People who commit Zina will enter Jannah before those who teach Qur’aan for a wage.”

“According to me Salaah with a camera phone in ones’ pocket is invalid. Get as many Fatwas as you want from the Ulema. Listening to and reciting Qur’aan on a camera phone is a disgrace to the Qur’aan, there will be no reward for it. A person will be sinful by doing so. No reward will be attained. Because of doing so Allah Ta’aala will deprive one from the ability of practising on the Qur’aan. Those Ulema who give the Fatwa of permissibility in this regard, according to me they are Ulema-e-Soo, Ulema-e-Soo’. Their hearts and minds have become affected by the Christians and Jews. They are completely ignorant Ulema. According to me, whichever Aalim gives the Fatwa of permissibility, by Allah Ta’aala his heart is devoid of the greatness of the Kalaam of Allah Ta’aala. I am saying this because one big Aalim said to me: “What is wrong with it?” I said that the heart of this Aalim is devoid of the greatness of Allah Ta’aala even if he knows Bukhari. Even non-Muslims may know Bukhari.”

“It is Waajib upon every Muslim to read the Qur’aan with understanding it. It is Waajib. It is Waajib. Whoever leaves out this Waajib act will get the sin of leaving out a Waajib act.”

“I am astonished that it is asked: “With whom do you have Islaahi Ta’alluq?” Why is it not said, that my Islaahi Ta’alluq is with this effort? My Islaahi Ta’alluq is with Da’wat. Have Yaqeen that the A’maal of Da’wat is not just enough for reformation, rather, it guarantees reformation. I have contemplated deeply, this is the reason why those involved in the effort do not stay steadfast. I am saddened over those people who sit here and say that six points is not complete Deen. The person who himself says his milk is sour cannot do business. I was completely shocked when one of our own Saathis asked for leave for a month saying that he wanted to spend I’tikaaf in the company of so and so Sheikh. I said that until now you people have not joined Da’wat and Ibaadat. You have spent at least 40 years in Tableegh. After spending 40 years in Tableegh a person says that he wants leave because he wants to go for one month I’tikaaf. I said that the person who requests leave from Da’wat in order to do Ibaadat, how can he improve his Ibaadat without Da’wat? I am saying it very clearly that the difference between the A’maal of Nubuwwat and the A’maal of Wilaayat, the difference is only that of not engaging in Naql-o-Harkat. I am saying it extremely clearly that we do not make Tashkeel to merely go out to learn Deen, because there are other avenues of learning Deen. Why is it necessary to go out in Tableegh only? The object is to learn Deen. Learn in a Madrasah. Learn in a Khaanqah.”

Some quotations from his Bayaans have also been received from which it becomes apparent that Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb khandhelwi regards the vast meaning of Da’wat to be confined to the current form present in the Tableegh Jamaat. Only this form is expressed as the manner of the Ambiyaa’ (alayhis salaam) and the Sahaabah (radhiyallaahu anhum). Only this specific form is regarded to be Sunnah and the effort of the Ambiyaa’ (alayhis salaam), whereas it is the unanimous viewpoint of the majority of the Ummah that Da’wah and Tableegh is a universal command, regarding which the Shariah has not stipulated any specific form, which, if left out, will equate to leaving out the Sunnah. 

In different eras Da’wat and Tableegh took on different forms. In no era was the divine command of Da’wat completely ignored. After the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum), the Taabi’een, Tab-e-Taabi’een, A’immah Mujtahideen, Fuqahaa’, Muhadditheen, Mashaaikh, Awliyaa’ of Allah and in recent times our Akaabir made an effort in different ways to bring Deen alive on a global scale.

In order to maintain brevity we have only mentioned a few things. Besides these, many other points have been received that go beyond the scope of the Jumhoor Ulema and have taken the shape of a new ideology. These things being incorrect is very apparent, therefore, a detailed treatise is not required here.

Before this, on numerous occasions, attention was drawn to this in the form of letters sent from Darul-Uloom Deoband. It was also brought to the attention of the delegations from “Bangla Wali Masjid” on the occasion of the Tableeghi Ijtimaa’. To date no reply to the letters was received.

Jamaat-e-Tableegh is a purely Deeni Jamaat, which cannot be left to operate in a manner that is ideologically and practically apart from the majority of the Ummah and the Akaabir (rahmatullahi alayhim). The Ulema-e-Haq can never be unanimous nor can they adopt silence over disrespect to the Ambiyaa’ (alayhis salaam), deviant ideologies, Tafsir Bir Raay and whimsical explanation of the Ahaadeeth and Aathaar, because, these types of ideologies will later on cause the entire group to deviate from the path of truth as has happened to some Deeni and Islaahi Jamaats.

This is why we consider it our Deeni responsibility to inform the Ummah in general and the Tableeghi brothers specifically in light of these points that:-
Moulana Muhammed Saad Saheb khandhelwi Saheb, due to a lack of knowledge has strayed from the path of the majority of the Ulema of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah in his ideologies and his explanation of Qur’aan and Hadeeth, which is undoubtedly the path of deviation. Therefore, silence cannot be adopted regarding these matters, because, even though these ideologies are those of a single person, they are spreading with great speed among the general masses.

The influential and accomplished Zimme-Daars of Jamaat who are moderate and composed also wish to turn our attention that an effort needs to be made that this Jamaat which was established by the Akaabir be kept upon the pattern of the majority of the Ummah and that of the previous Zimme-Daars. An effort also needs to made so that the incorrect ideologies of Molvi Saad that have spread amongst the general masses may be rectified. If immediate action is not taken, there is fear that a great portion of the Ummah, which is affiliated to the Tableegh Jamaat will succumb to deviance and take on the form of a Firqah Baatilah.

We all make Du’aa that Allah Ta’aala protect this Jamaat and keep the Jamaat-e-Tableegh alive and flourishing with Ikhlaas upon the manner of the Akaabir. Aameen. Thumma Aameen.

Note: These types of inappropriate statements were made previously by some individuals connected to the Tableegh Jamaat, upon which the Ulema of that time, for example, Hazrat Sheikhul Islam (rahmatullahi alayh) etc. cautioned them after which those individuals desisted from such statements. Now, however, the Zimme-Daars [i.e. the leaders of Tabligh Jama’at] themselves are saying such things, rather, even worse things are being said, as is apparent from the above quotations. They were cautioned, however, they did not heed the caution, due to which this decision and Fatwa is being approved, in order to save the people from deviance.


The original Urdu version is available at this link:–Tableeg/147286

THE KUFR IDEOLOGY OF MOLVI SA’D  (Detailed Analysis by Majlisul Ulama)

QUESTION: Maulana Sa’d of the Tablighi Jamaat, had in a bayaan made some serious claims which have caused some consternation and confusion. Kindly listen to his bayaan and guide us. Are the views expressed by him in conformity with the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah? He claimed: 

1. Khurooj (emerging and travelling in Tabligh) is the Asal (actual objective). He basis his view on the Hadith of Hadhrat Ubay Bin Ka’b (Radhiyallahu anhu).
2. Allah and His Rasool are displeased with those who do not make khurooj in Tabligh.

3. The greatest calamity of this age is that Muslims do not consider it a crime to abstain from khurooj.

4. Hidaayat is not in the Hands of Allah Ta’ala. He had therefore sent the Ambiya to impart Hidaayat.

5. Hidaayat is the effect of mehnet (effort). People had received hidaayat because of the mehnet of the Ambiya.

6. The Ambiya did not spread hidaayat with their tawajjuh and roohaaniyat.  


Ghulu’ (nafsaani extremism) is a satanic affliction bringing bid’ah and even kufr in its wake. A person suffering from the affliction of ghulu’ disgorges any rubbish without applying his mind and without reflecting on the consequences of his stupidities.  

Molvi Sa’d is guilty of ghulu’ (haraam extremism). Unfortunately, the Tabligh Jamaat in general has slipped into ghulu’.  He believes that the specific methodology of the Tabligh Jamaat is Waajib whereas it is not so. The Tabligh Jamaat’s method is mubah (permissible), and will remain mubah as long as ghulu’ and bid’ah do not overtake and destroy the Jamaat by deflecting it from its original path. 

He is confusing or intentionally misusing the Jihaad campaigns of the Sahaabah with the Tabligh Jamaat’s specific methodology, especially of its ‘khurooj’ method. He is equating Tabligh Jamaat khurooj to the Khurooj of the Sahaabah whose Khurooj was for JihaadQitaal –  to subjugate the lands of the kuffaar and to open and prepare the way for the conversion of the kuffaar nations of the world.  In contrast, the methodology of the Tabligh Jamaat excludes non-Muslims. Its field of activity is limited to Muslims. While there is nothing wrong with this, it is wrong and not permissible to find a basis for the specific method of the Tabligh Jamaat in the Jihaad campaigns of the Sahaabah. There is no resemblance. The analogy is fallacious. There is no resemblance between the Tabligh Jamaat’s khurooj and the Jihaad campaigns of the Sahaabah. The Tabligh Jamaat’s khurooj groups do not encounter a thousandth of the hardships, dangers and trials which the Sahaabah had to face and bear in their Jihaad campaigns. The Tabligh Jamaat’s khurooj groups move and live in comfort and even luxury.

The claim that Allah and His  Rasool are displeased with those who do not make khurooj in  Tabligh, is a monstrous lie  fabricated on Allah Ta’ala and  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam). Did Molvi Sa’d receive  wahi with which he could back  up his preposterous falsehood?   This contumacious claim comes within the purview of the Hadith:

“He who intentionally speaks a lie on me, should prepare his abode in the Fire.”  

His ghulu’ has constrained him  to disgorge this haraam flotsam. The baseless premises on which  he has raised this palpable falsehood is that the only method of tabligh is the Tabligh Jamaat’s methodology. Allah Ta’ala and  Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) are not displeased  with anyone who does not adopt the methods of the Tabligh Jamaat.Sa’d has absolutely no Shar’i evidence for substantiating his preposterous claim of ghulu’.

His claim: The greatest calamity  of this age is that Muslims do not consider it a crime to abstain  from khurooj, is nafsaani drivel disgorged without applying  the  mind. The greatest calamity of the Ummah is gross disobedience fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and even kufr.  This is the actual cause for the  fall and disgrace of the Ummah,  not non-participation in Tabligh  Jamaat activities. The Shariah has not ordained Tabligh Jamaat  participation as an obligation.    The Jamaat’s specific methodology is mubah as long as it is not disfigured with ghulu’  and  bid’ah. Presenting it as ‘waajib’  and even ‘fardh ain’, is ultimately  destroy the dangerous. This ghulu’ will original Tabligh  Jamaat. It will then become a deviant sect. With the Sa’d character, the process of deviation has gained much momentum. The Tabligh Jamaat elders have the incumbent obligation of arresting the slide of the Jamaat into deviation. 

His claim: Hidaayat is not in the Hands of Allah Ta’ala. He had therefore sent the Ambiya to impart Hidaayat is tantamount to kufr. This is the most dangerous of Sa’d’s claims. He is clearly espousing an entirely new concept of kufr. The Qur’aan Majeed is replete with aayaat which categorically state that Hidaayat comes from only Allah Ta’ala. Some random Qur’aanic aayaat follow to show the gross and dangerous deviation which Sa’d has introduced under cover of the Tabligh Jamaat.  

(a) “Verily you (O Muhammad!) cannot give hidaayat to those whom you love. But Allah gives hidaayat to whomever He wills, and He knows best who are to be guided.”  

This Aayat explicitly negates the ability of granting hidaayat from Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). 

(b) “And, We have  guided them (given them hidaayat) to Siraatul Mustaqeem. This is Allah’s Huda (guidance/hidaayat) with which He guides whomever He wills from His servants.  [Al-An’aam, Aayat 89]      

It is Allah, Alone who provides hidaayat.

(c) “If Allah had willed, then they would not have committed shirk. And, We did not make you (O Muhammad!) a protector over them nor are you over them a guard.”      

The obligation of the Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was to only deliver the Message – the Deen. Providing hidaayat was beyond the capability of the Ambiya, hence the Qur’aan repeatedly instructs them to say: “Upon us is only to deliver the Clear Message.”  

(d) “Thus, Allah leads astray whomever He wills, and He guides (gives hidaayat) to whomever He wills.”  [Ibraaheem, Aayat 4] 

(e) “Therefore, on the Messengers it is only the Clear Delivery (of the Deen) Verily, We have sent for every Ummat a Rasool so that they (their people) worship Allah and abstain from (worshipping) the devil. Thus, from them are those whom Allah guided, and among them are those upon whom dhalaal (the deviation of kufr) has been confirmed.”  [An-Nahl, Aayats 35 and 36] 

(f)  “(Even) if you (O Muhammad!)  ardently desire that they be guided, then too, verily Allah does not guide those whom He has caused to go astray, and for them there is no helper.”  [An-Nahl] 

(g) “If  Allah had so wished, He would have made you all one Ummah, but He misleads whoever He wills and He guides whomever He wills.”  [An-Nahl, Aayat 93]

(h) “And, if your Rabb had willed, He would have made all mankind one Ummah, then they would not have differed.”  [Hood, Aayat 118] 

(i) “If Allah had willed, He would have gathered them on guidance. Therefore never be among the jaahileen (believing that you can guide them all).”  [An-Aaam, Aayat 35] 

(j) “Whomever Allah wishes, He leads him astray, and whomever He wishes, he establishes him on Siraat-e-Mustaqeem.”  [An-Aaam, Aayat 39] 

(k) “If Allah had so desired, they would not have committed shirk. And, We did not make you (O Muhammad!) a guard over them, nor are you for them a protector.” [An-Aam, Aayat 107] 

(l) “If He had willed, then most certainly He would have guided you all.”   (An-Aam,  Aayat 150) 

(m) “If your Rabb had desired, then all people on earth would have accepted Imaan. What! Do you want to compel people until they become Mu’mineen?” [Yoonus, Aayat 99] 

(n) “And, whomever Allah misleads, there will be no guide forhim.”  [Ra’d, Aayat 33]

The aforementioned are merely  some Qur’aanic Aayaat chosen at  random for the edification of  Molvi Sa’d. The Qur’aan, replete with Aayaat of this kind,  categorically confirms that Hidaayat is a prerogative  exclusively of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Hidaayat is in entirety reliant on Allah Ta’ala, NOT on mehnet (effort) as Molvi Sa’d contends. Apportioning Hidaayat  to human beings is ordained by Allah Ta’ala. It is not the effect of the effort of the Ambiya, and to a greater extent not the effect of mehnet of the Tabligh Jamaat. 

While all people are required to  strive and struggle in whatever occupation/profession they are  involved, the end result, its success or failure, is the decree  of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Thus, a man  makes mehnet in the quest of his  Rizq; in the quest of Knowledge,  and in many other pursuits. But  the final result is Allah’s decree.  The Rizq we received is not on  account of our effort. It is not  permissible, and it is nugatory of  Imaan to believe that the  consequences of Taqdeer are  reliant on personal and not on  Divine Directive.

The Qur’aan repeatedly declares  that Hidaayat effort, is Allah’s prerogative, not the effect of the was mehnet of the Ambiya. If mehnet is the criterion and imperative requisite for Hidaayat, Rasulullah’s uncle Abu Talib,  Hadhrat Nooh’s wife and son, Hadhrat Loot’s wife, Hadhrat  Ibraaheem’s father and innumerable others closely  associated with the Ambiya would not have perished as kuffaar
They would all have acquired the treasure of Imaan as a direct  effect of the supreme Ambiya.  Thus, Sa’d’s contention that mehnet of the Hidaayat is not in  the control of Allah Azza Wa Jal  is blatant kufr. He must renew his Imaan. It is haraam for the Tabligh Jamaat elders to tolerate such a deviate within the ranks of the Jamaat.  

Molvi Sa’d with his jahaalat, pivots hidaayat on mehnet (struggle/striving). This is a capital blunder which is the effect of ignorance. If the basis of hidaayat was mehnet, then his argument will imply that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had, nauthubillah, failed in his duty of mehnet because there were many who did not accept Imaan despite all the efforts of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). And the same ‘failure’ stemming from the kufr view of Sa’d, will apply to all the Ambiya.  

On the death occasion of his beloved uncle, Abu Taalib, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) pleaded with all his heart in the effort to guide his uncle. But Abu Talib rebuffed Rasulullah’s mehnet, and died without Imaan. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) spared no effort – he left no stone unturned in his mehnet to guide people. But, many remained mushrikeen and rebuffed all his efforts. It is palpably clear that hidaayat is not the consequence of the muballigh’s mehnet. It is the effect of Allah’s Will. He guides whomever He wills. The Qur’aan is categorical in this averment. 

This Sa’d character is incapable of understanding even simple Qur’aanic aayaat and the facts of reality. The Nabi was Allah’s Messenger. His duty was to only discharge the obligation of delivering the message of Allah Ta’ala. Hence the Qur’aan repeatedly instructs the Ambiya to say: “Upon us is to only deliver the Message.”  

The Maqsood is not mehnet. The Maqsood (Objective) is to discharge the obligation with which the Bandah has been entrusted. Whether a person will be guided or not, is beyond the control and ability of the muballigh. Hidaayat is the prerogative of Allah Ta’ala. 

Molvi Sa’d claims that the deception of Muslims is their belief that change in the Ummah will occur by way of the spiritual state (Roohaaniyat) of the Auliya. This is obviously wishful thinking and the charge is false. No one entertains this idea. It is merely Sa’d’s hallucination. The Ummah’s condition will change only if Muslims obey Allah’s Shariat whether they make Tablighi Jamaat type of khurooj or not. The Ummah’s rotten state is not because Muslims do not participate in Tabligh Jamaat activities. It is because of the flagrant transgression of fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr in which the Ummah is sinking.  

Abstention from Tabligh Jamaat activities is not sinful. Participation is not Waajib. Non-participation in Tabligh Jamaat activities never was the cause of the fall and humiliation of the Ummah. In fact, the Ummah had scraped the dregs of the barrel of disgrace and degeneration many centuries before the birth of the Tabligh Jamaat.   

The Khurooj during the era of the Salf-e-Saaliheen and even thereafter was always only for the purpose of Jihaad – Qitaal Fi Sabeelillaah. There never ever was mass khurooj for tabligh. While khurooj for tabligh is permissible and meritorious, it is not Waajib and the idea of it being waajib is haraam ghulu’ which culminates in Sa’d type dhalaal and kufr.  Applying to the Tabligh Jamaat activities the narrations which relate explicitly to Jihaad, is dangerous deviation. The thawaab of tabligh –i.e. tabligh of any method, not of only the Tabligh Jamaat, is immense. But to mislead the masses by presenting the Jihaad narrations as if they apply to the specific methodology of the Tabligh Jamaat is not permissible. It is a fabrication for which there is no basis in the Shariah

Molvi Sa’d’s istidlaal from Hadhrat Ka’b’s Hadith is utterly baseless. His interpretation of the Hadith is baseless and erroneous. He is gumraah (astray) and leading others into gumraahi. Firstly, his claim that Khurooj whether it is khurooj in actual Jihad, or khurooj for Tabligh Jamaat activity, is the asal (i.e. actual objective), is manifestly baatil, baseless and corrupt. The objective of Jihaad is I’laa Kalimatullah for the sole purpose of gaining Allah’s Pleasure. This is the Asal, not khuroojKhurooj is merely a method for the acquisition of the Asal. But, Sa’d has placed the cart in front of the horse. 

The displeasure incurred by Hadhrat Ka’b (Radhiyallahu anhu) for failure to participate in the specific Jihad campaign of Tabook, was ‘disobedience’. He had failed to observe the command to emerge. He had unilaterally without valid reason decided to remain behind. This was his error for which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had ordered the boycott. 

Furthermore, Hadhrat Ka’b’s error pertained to Khurooj related to actual JihaadQitaal fi Sabeelillaah. It was not a khurooj for the specific method of tabligh which the Tabligh Jamaat had innovated some decades ago.  If Sa’d’s logic is to be accorded  any credibility and validity, it will  follow that the Hadhrat Ka’b’s  failure to make Khurooj consequences of should be  extended to all those who refuse  to make khurooj for Tabligh  Jamaat activity. The logical result  would be to boycott the almost  3 billion Muslims of this era who  not only do not participate in  Tabligh Jamaat khurooj,  but they  also deny  the essentiality  of participation in the specific methodology of the Tabligh Jamaat.

A grave error of the Tabligh Jamaat is the predication  of all the Jihaad narrations to their specific method of tabligh, whilst there is absolutely no  affinity between the Tabligh  Jamaat and Jihaad, i.e. the type  of Jihaad of the Sahaabah.  Whilst the absence of this affinity is not sinful, the appropriation of  the Hadith narrations pertaining  to Jihaad is inappropriate and  not permissible. The Tabligh  Jamaat has as its goal the  reformation of Imaan and the impartation of the basic teachings of the Deen. Qitaal in our era for  the  acquisition of  these  fundamental requisites is not a condition as it was during the era  of the Sahaabah. Qitaal was imperative to subjugate the lands of the kuffaar for removing the obstacles in the path of  establishing the Deen. But this  method of Qitaal does not form  part of the Tabligh While  the  Tabligh Jamaat’s methodology. Jamaat may not be criticized for  this, the criticism for misusing the Jihaad narrations is valid.

Molvi Sa’d’s claim:“In this age  people do not regard as a crime and a sin reduction in  emerging  in the Tabligh Jamaat’s way  (of khurooj).”, is another stupid  fallacy. There is no Shar’i basis  for believing that it is a crime and sinful to refrain from the specific khurooj methodology of the  Tabligh Jamaat. Sa’d has no  affinity with the Ilm of the Deen,  hence he acquits himself as do  the juhala, disgorging just any  drivel of his nafs.

He presents the fallacious analogy of gheebat,  speaking lies, theft, zina and riba  in his ludicrous attempt to liken  the so-called ‘sin and crime’ of  non-participation in Tabligh Jamaat khurooj the  aforementioned kabeerah sins. 
This is a monstrous lie fabricated  against the Shariah. The major  sins of zinariba, liquor, etc.  are substantiated by Nusoos of  the Qat’i category, while the  contention of abstaining from Tabligh Jamaat khurooj being a crime and a sin is the horrid  product of corrupt personal opinion stemming from ghulu’.   

He finds fault with those who say  that it is sinful to indulge in zina,  liquor and gheebat, but not  sinful to abstain from the Tabligh Jamaat khurooj. This haraam  opinion is scandalously baatil. Sa’d’s ideology is scandalous. He constitutes a grave danger for proper functioning of the Tabligh  Jamaat. The deviation from the  Jamaat’s original principals  bodes evil for the Tabligh Jamaat. It is Waajib for the elders of the  Tabligh Jamaat to eradicate the evil and eliminate the rot which  is gnawing at the foundations of the Jamaat.


Darul Ifta Deoband’s Fatwa on the Tabligh Jama’at

Resolutions of the Tablighi Jama’at [Nizamuddin Markaz Dispute]


[Majlisul Ulama]

Some quarters as well as enemies of the Tabligh Jamaat are disseminating an erroneous perception basing it on the recent Fatwa issued by Darul Uloom Deoband.  One press report states:“This is for the first time the Darul Uloom has come out openly against the Tabligh Jamaat and its head…..”

This is an erroneous perception. Darul Uloom Deoband did not criticize the Tabligh Jamaat per se. Nor did Darul Uloom criticize the ‘head’ of the Tabligh Jamaat. This is a false perception. The Tabligh Jamaat has no Ameer. Its affairs have been conducted by a Shura since many years. Darul Uloom Deoband criticized an individual who had installed himself in Nizaamuddin (the Tabligh Jamaat headquarters) by means of violence.

Darul Uloom at no stage criticized the Jamaat. Just as we do, so too has Darul Uloom criticized the errors and deviations which become attached to an institution. All Deeni institutions deteriorate with the passage of time. Bid’ah and deviations are innovated and the shayaateen who join the institutions attempt to dig up the foundations of the Deeni institutions. The satanic plot is to derail the Deeni Institution from Siraatul Mustaqeem.

Bid’ah and dhalaal  have crept into and derailed almost all Deeni institutions, be they the Madaaris, the Khaanqahs or the Tabligh Jamaat. Darul Uloom has highlighted the excesses which some of the Jamaat members have innovated, and has warned that if this trend is not arrested and eliminated, the Jamaat will develop into a sect of baatil just as all the Sufi Tareeqahs have gone astray and have become cults of bid’ah and shirk. Even the ‘shaikhs’ associated with the Ulama of Deoband are today plodding the way of baatil under khaanqah guise. Despite calling themselves Chishtiyyah, they are following in the footsteps of the Barelwi grave-worshippers. 

The Tablighi Jamaat is an Institution of the Ulama of Deoband, hence it pains us when we observe deviation becoming attached to the Jamaat, and cause for greater pain is the intransigence of some of the elders of this age. Those who proffer valid criticism and sincere naseehat are regarded as enemies of the Tabligh Jamaat. 

A fundamental error of the Ulama, which has led to the current crisis in the leadership of the Tabligh Jamaat, is the accursed policy of dubious‘ hikmat’ (baseless wisdom and diplomacy). When a defect or bid’ah develops or when the evil of ghulu’ is introduced, the elders tend to sweep it under the carpet. With time, the carpet is unable to conceal the amount of rot and stench emitted by constant under-carpet sweeping. The stench ultimately becomes unbearable. It is then like a bloated corpse bursting. In fact, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) had made this prediction about Darul Uloom Deoband. He had compared the expansion and material development and progress of the Darul Uloom with a bloating corpse. He said: “The day the bloated corpse bursts, everyone will flee from the stench.” And that moment did happen when Darul Uloom split into two factions over material and worldly issues. This history is well-known. 

The Tabligh Jamaat is currently wallowing in this self-same disease – nafsaaniyat. If it is established that Molvi Sa’d who has installed himself in Nizaamuddin is disseminating a kufr ideology, then there is no alternative other than to cut him down and remove him from Nizaamuddin. However, if he is repentant and submits fully to the Code of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, and accepts to strictly follow the Maslak of the Akaabir Ulama of Deoband, then the crisis could be easily resolved. 

The Jamaats on the ground should continue with the work of Da’wat and Tabligh as if nothing has happened. The work of the Jamaat should not become adversely affected by the crisis in Nizaamuddin. They should adhere to the Six Points and not become involved in disputes pertaining to the leadership. It is nothing but nafsaaniyat and shaitaaniyat for the workers on the ground to fan the flames of discord by siding with this or that faction. They should ignore the leadership crisis and continue with the work of Da’wat and Tabligh for the Pleasure of Allah Ta’ala. 

It must be reiterated that Darul Uloom Deoband is not anti-Tabligh Jamaat just as it is not anti-Madaaris or anti-Khaanqah. But drawing attention to the ills and offering advice and remedies are not to be misconstrued. A Muslim has the incumbent duty of presenting naseehat to his errant brother. Abstention from Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar is the cause for numerous cancerous mutations in the Ummah.

Darul Ifta Deoband’s Fatwa on the Tabligh Jama’at

[The recent developments which has been taking place in the Markaz Nizamuddeen and some fatwas issued by Darul Uloom Deoband has put the laymen into quandry regarding the Jama’at activities.

Some Miscreants and opposers are taking advantage of this and they are trying to create a fitnah from those developments by highlighting the work of Tabligh in a negative manner.

In the following Question & the Response, the Darul Uloom Deoband makes its stance clear to the laymen to continue to work with the Jama’at, the disputes of the elders should be left to them to decide and this should never effect the laymen and in the propagation of the da’wah work albeit with certain points which needs to be reflected upon]:

Question: Is Mufti Saeed Ahmad Paalanpuri against the Tabligh Jama’at or not? The reason why I am asking is that I received a  message that it is his Fatwa, that the Tabligh Jama’at is dressing itself in the costume of another sect. Should I now dissociate from the Jama’at? For a month now I am in a quandary as to what is right and what is wrong. I can’t even sleep at night. I am worried. I don’t know what my objective should be. Please guide me.

Response by Darul Uloom Deoband:

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem 

Neither is Mufti Saeed Ahmad Sahib nor any Aalim of Darul Uloom Deoband against the Tabligh Jamaat. Yes, some Tabligh members have deviated and indulged in ghuluw (haraam fanaticism). They are speaking a lot of errant nonsense. Examples are give below, one should follow this individually:

1. They apply Aayaat of the Qur’aan purely referring to Jihaad, to Tabligh work. This is another form of Tahreef (interpolation).

2. The Madaaris of Islam are redundant and of no benefit. Ilm Deen is acquired by going out with the Jamaat.

3. What have the Ulama done until now? They have done nothing. Whatever has spread of Deen has not been by the hands of the Ulama, rather it has spread through the Tabligh Jama’at. The Ulama have done 4% of work whilst the Jama’at Brothers 96%. Furthermore, the Ulama have not done work for the sake of Allah,  but for salaries.

4. If any Aalim gives Tafseer of the Qur’aan they stop him and say that only Fadhaail A’maal should be read; no other kitaab should be read.

5. There is no need for Taqwa and Tazkiyah Nafs. By going out with the Jama’at all these will be achieved.

6. They do not keep any Aalim as Imaam or Mudarris who has not given one year out with the Jama’at. If unknowingly such an Aalim is kept and thereafter it becomes known that he did not go out for a year, they remove him from Imaamate and Teaching. They do not give their daughters in marriage to him.

7. They despise the Ulama. They debate with them.

8. Whoever has not given a chillah is not thought of as a Deendaar, in fact not even as a Muslim.

9. Whoever does not join the customary Nizaamuddeen Tabligh, no matter how much Deeni service he may have done, they do not consider that to be Deeni work.

Many issues of a similar nature have constrained not only Mufti Saeed Sahib Paalanpuri, but also other Ulama and Buzrugaan-e-Deen to say that the Tabligh Jama’at is on course of becoming a new sect. Leaving aside the methodology of the Qur’aan and Hadith they are following their own methodology and innovated ‘deen’.

Observing all these developments, intelligent and pious people of the Deen  are really concerned.  Observing developments of this nature in the Markaz of Nizaamuddeen, responsible members of the Tabligh Jama’at have not only become concerned, they have distanced themselves.

This is the result of deviating from the Balanced Path. Do not leave the work of the Jama’at. Do continue with the work. However, do not deviate from the Balanced Way. Do the work in the manner and according to the Usool which Hadhrat Maulana Ilyaas Sahib had laid down for this work. Insha-Allah, then no one will  point fingers.

Wallahu Ta’ala A’lam               

Darul Ifta, Darul Uloom Deoband.