Tag Archives: Errors of Molvi Sa’d

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.

[END OF STATEMENT FROM DARUL ULOOM DEOBAND]

The original Urdu version is available at this link:
http://www.darulifta-deoband.com/home/ur/Dawah–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.  

ANSWER 

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.

Related Posts: THE TABLIGHI JAMAAT – DEOBAND’S FATWA AND AN ERRONEOUS PERCEPTION

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

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