TABLIGH JAMAAT AND ITS FACTIONS
A Brother of the Tabigh Jamaat writes:
“I am writing to you because I have been associated with the work of Dawah & Tabligh since I was quite young. It’s through this effort I came to study Islam and became aware of Ulama & Mashaikh-e-Haq.
I became fond of Hadrat Masih-ul-Ummah Mawlana Maseehullah Khan (rah) and was granted the opportunity to sit in the Majalis of Mawlana Dr.Tanveer Ahmed Khan (rah) of Pakistan & Mawlana Ahmed Sadiq Mehtar sahib of Los Angeles, California.
I account all my Deeni practices & any adherence to Deen due to the effort of Tabligh and the Jamaats who made efforts in places like U.S. & Canada and made unaware people aware of the Shariah &Sunnah.
The TablighiJamaat split has caused a lot of confusion and even some chaos. But I would like to know which side is on Haq?
I have done some extensive research on each side and I want to be corrected if I err in my understanding in anyway. The work of Tablighi Jamaat championed by Mawlana Ilyas Kandhelvi is trying to create the environment of Madinah during the time of Sahabah. The famous quote of Mawlānā Yusuf Kandhelvi, stating:
“I want every Muslim household to resemble the household of the Sahabah, at the very least, I want every Muslim man to follow 1/3 of their day to resemble the schedule of a Sahabi living in Madinah.”
This work tries to emulate the environment & schedule structure followed by the Sahabah living in Madinah, emulating the activities of Dawah & Muzakirah, Taleem, Zikr & Ibadah and Khidmah which took place in Masjid-e-Nabawi during the time of the Prophet and the Righteous Khulafa. After reading multiple speeches and statements of the founders of the Tablighi Jamaat. I came to the conclusion which I stated above.
I now have a list of questions for which I seek guidance:
1. Does an Ameer of a Deeni organization or government have to be appointed only by a Shura? Shah Waliullah has stated multiple reasons for a self-appointed Ameer. One reason Shah sahib states is one who is able to manage and make administrative decisions and take responsibility. Is this understanding correct? Since 1995 and the death of Mawlana Inamul Hasan (rah), Mawlana Saad sahib along with Mawlana Zubairul-Hasan sahib (rah) have been making the administrative, operational & Islaahi decisions from Markaz Nizamuddin, which the world Tablighi Marakiz seeked guidance from.
2. So after Mawlana Zubairul-Hassan death, Mawlana Saad sahib should have stepped down from his position of 27 years and appoint a Shura over him? Does that make any sense?
3. The elders of Tabligh convinced Haji Abdul Wahab sahib, to appoint a worldwide international Shura. Mawlana Saad sahib rejected an international Shura, citing the following reason of Indian government officials being very hostile to Muslims and any Deeni activities, Tablighi Jamaat cannot have a Pakistani & Bengali council oversee Markaz Nizamuddin which is located in India. This will bring unnecessary scrutiny by the Hindu Nationalist Indian Government run under Modi.
4. Mawlana Saad sahib appointed an Indian Shura of Markaz Nizamuddin, which included Mawlana Ahmed Laat & Mawlana Ibrahim Dewla. He did not include any foreigners/non-Indians in the Nizamuddin Shura. Similarly there are only Pakistani nationals in the Raiwind shura and Bengali nationals in the Kakrail shura.
5. Some fights or chaos broke out in Nizamuddin amongst the Mewatis & other groups. Mawlana Ahmed Laat &Mawlana Ibrahim Dewla along with their supporters left Nizamuddin and they implemented and enforced the International Shura.
6. Does the Shariah or Seerah support a Shura model in any Islamic organization or government, without an Ameer? Tablighi Jamaat has hundred of millions of followers, it can be an Islamic nation if it had geographical and governmental authority. Can a Shura oversee all affairs with a weekly or monthly rotating Ameer. Is there any Shar’ee basis of a rotating Ameer with a Shura?
7. According to my knowledge and Tehqeeq Mawlana Saad sahib began putting restrictions and limitations on the elders of Tabligh in Nizamuddin which they did not like, hence revolted, for example:
- Paying for ones own airfare & transportation costs. The concept of spending my money & my time are the basic principles of Tabligh. The elders were demanding local Halaqas and countries for First-class airfare & luxury accommodations inside Masajid & Marakiz. Mawlana Ahmed Laat self- confessed in a recording that he flies with his wife to the USA & Dubai in first-class airfare. First-class airfare from India to the US is about $13,000 USD per person.
- No relatives of elders can attend Tablighi Ijtemas & benefit from the special food & travel accommodations provided by the locals. People only appointed from Mushwara should attend Tablighi Ijtema.
- Implementing Tajweed & Quran Recitation Halaqas inside homes amongst women and children with their Mahram men. The elders objected to this stating Mawlana Saad is bringing new innovations to Tabligh. Mawlana Saad referred to the incident of Umar (ra) and how he embraced Islam through the recitation of the Qur’an.
- The addition of reading Muntakhab Ahadith in TablighiTaleem circles, a book compiling Quranic verses & Authentic graded Hadith on 6 points so Tablighi workers can refer to this book when giving speeches. Many Ulama complained of Tablighi workers swaying away and making ignorant statements in their speeches. Muntakhab Ahadith was introduced by Mawlana Saad sahib to educate Tablighi workers on 6 points. The elders also disagreed and revolted against the reading of Muntakhab Ahadith in Jamaat and at-home Taleem circles.
8. MawlanaSaad sahib statement during the Covid pandemic when Masajid were being closed:
“People who support closing of Masajid during the pandemic are worst than animals. During plagues, the Sahabah flocked to the Masajid, we are advocating shutting Masajid down is mind-boggling.”
The Shura-side halted all Deeni &Tablighi activities while Mawlana Saad sahib and Nizamuddin were advising all Jamaats to reopen Masajid and invite people back to the Masajid. There were specific instructions sent to the U.S. Tablighi Markaz to gain tally of how many people stopped coming to the Masjid for each Salah and invite all those brothers back to the Masajid.
9. Mawlānā Saad sahib is advocating a complete Sunnah lifestyle emulating the Sahabah. He is lecturing to simplify lifestyles, make Nikah simpler and easy, adopt Taqwa & sincerity, refrain from photography and interest-bearing loans, limit smart phones as he calls it the weapons of Baatil forces, limit and refrain from technology especially in the Majalis of Ulama. He is asking Tablighi workers to walk towards the Majalis of Ulama because there is even reward in the footsteps taken in the search of ‘Ilm. Five time daily Salah with Jamat in the Masjid, making Tahajjud, a daily routine. Attending the Quranic Duroos & Tafseer conducted by Ulama-e-Haq
10. The fatwa given by Darul Uloom Deoband has not been adopted by others. Mazahir al-Uloom and a group of Ulama under Mawlana Salman sahib Mazahiris refuted the fatwa also. Mawlana Yusuf Motala of U.K. refuted the fatwa of Darul Uloom Deoband. This fatwa on face value seems more like a political hack concocted by Mawlana Arshad Madani &Mawlana Ahmed Laat to further divide the Ummah and stir confusion.
11. Mawlānā Saad has publically stated in the Bhopal Ijtema and in multiple recordings in public speeches, that he is Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaat adopted by the Akabir of Darul Uloom Deoband. Anyone who sways away from the Akabir of Deoband to him is considered astray. He has retracted any statements that meant to hurt the sentiments of Darul Uloom Deoband.
12. Mawlānā Saad sahib has written letters to Raiwind & Kakrail markaz to embrace them. Inviting all those who have left Nizamuddin to come back and reconcile. He has advised all those that follow him to make dua and not fight with others & strictly prohibited any Nizamuddin followers to place any restrictions or reservations on any other Muslim or Jamaats.
He stated, our entire work revolves around populating Masajid, how dare we stop anyone from coming to the Masjid.
13. Mawlana Saad sahib also stated I am no Hadrat, and there is no Hadrat in Nizamuddin. I am here because of my responsibility and staff. The staff referring to the Jamaats that frequent Markaz Nizamuddin.
Please shed some light on this and make corrections as needed. Request for Dua
Wasalam Abdul Hameed (End of letter)
OUR ANSWERS AND COMMENTS
There is considerable nafsaaniyat and shaitaaniyat being practised by both the antagonistic factions of the Tabligh Jamaat. We have heard weird accounts of both factions. Both factions are in grievous and egregious error, and both groups are responsible for the evil split.
Regarding Amaarat (Leadership), the Sunnah is for this Institution to be headed by ONE Ameer. While Shura is Masnoon and essential as commanded by the Qur’aan Majeed, the imperative requisite is to have one Ameer. While the Ameer will consult and listen to advice, such advice cannot be imposed on him. According to the Qur’aan Majeed, the final decision rests on the Ameer.
The Raiwand system of a Shura committee being the ‘Ameer’ or acting as the ‘Ameer’ is baseless and is devoid of Shar’i substance. On the other hand, while the factors you have explained and attributed to Molvi Sa’d are valid, he (Molvi Sa’d) is not fit to be the Ameer. His understanding of the need for there to be one Ameer is valid, but he is not qualified for this post.
We have heard many negative stories about him. Regardless of how much he has attempted to distance himself from the ugly, haraam violence of his followers at the Nizaamuddin Markaz and elsewhere, he cannot be absolved. The blame is laid at his door. He appears to have been the instigator of the violence.
He has acquitted himself with abomination in the leadership tussle, and so has the Raiwand clique. Despite the correctness of his stance, namely, the need for one Ameer, he was supposed to have resigned and taken a back seat when he saw that the Jamaat will be split into two hostile factions over the leadership issue. He should have compromised and accepted Raiwand’s leadership in order to maintain the unity of the Tabligh Jamaat.
In exactly the same way should the Raiwand clique have reacted. When they understood the intransigence of Sa’d and when they foresaw the lamentable split looming, they should have submitted and accepted Sa’d’s leadership regardless of his nafsaaniyat. But both factions were dwelling in their drunken state of nafsaaniyat, hence for both parties, the splitting of the Jamaat into two hostile camps and the perpetuation of the hostility were acceptable. And, this hostility has been ever incremental. This is evidence for the insincerity of the leaders of both factions.
If one of the parties had been in possession of valid Aql, its members would have withdrawn from the arena of conflict to ensure that the unity of the Jamaat be maintained. But, all of them accorded preference to the inordinate dictates of the nafs, and succumbed to the inspiration of Shaitaan.
The superficially pious pontification you have attributed to Molvi Sa’d is without Ikhlaas. That is, while he states what is correct, his insane clinging to the leadership at the cost of having ruined the Tabligh Jamaat, is glaring evidence for his insincerity.
The answers to your numbered questions are as follows:
1) A Deeni organization should have one Ameer. This Ameer should consult with any person whom he believes has the ability and experience to offer sound Shar’i advice. There is no need for the institution of a formal Shura committee as is the case nowadays. Such formal shura committees are in emulation of western kuffaar methods.
Even if the Ameer is self-appointed, his leadership will be Islamically valid regardless of his insincerity for which he will have to account to Allah Ta’ala. Also, due to lack of Ikhlaas and preponderance of nafsaaniyat, the Deeni work will be shorn of barkat and Allah’s nusrat.
Shah Waliullah’s explanation pertains to validity of the Amaarat of the self-appointed Ameer. It does not advocate such a leadership which is despised by the Ulul Amr.
Molvi Sa’d had egregiously erred in having usurped the leadership. After the death of Maulana Zubair, it was necessary for the Tabligh Jamaat elders to appoint an Ameer. If they had done so, then Molvi Sa’d would have been a baaghi (contemptible rebel) for rejecting the appointee of the Elders of the Jamaat.
There was no state of anarchy, and no crisis to warrant Sa’d’s usurpation of the leadership. Unilaterally taking control of the movement would have been justifiable only in a state of chaos threatening to derail and ruin the Jmaat from its course. But the chaos was a later consequence. The chaos and crisis developed in consequence of the usurpation of the leadership perpetrated by Molvi Sa’d.
2) After the death of Maulana Zubair, the elders of the Jamaat should have convened a meeting to appoint an Ameer, not a Shura group to act as an ‘ameer’. Then it would have been obligatory on Sa’d and all others of the Jamaat to accept the appointment of the new Ameer. However, we have understood that Molvi Sa’d was not prepared for another Ameer to be appointed. He was hell-bent to install himself as the Ameer, and that opened up the door for all the hostility, split and fitnah.
3) If the suggestion to establish an international Shura was for the appointment of an Ameer, then it was 100% correct. If there was no intention of appointing an Ameer, but for the Shura to act as ameer, then the idea was in conflict with the Massnoon and Shar’i method.
The arguments proffered by Molvi Sa’d as stated in your question 3 are drivel, bereft of any Shar’i validity.
4) The appointment of the Indian Shura by Molvi Sa’d was drivel. It was a nonsensical attempt to entrench himself as Ameer. In the Islamic context there is no need for a shura committee. While it is incumbent (Waajib) for the Ameer to consult, he may consult with any persons whom he deems qualified to offer sound advice. The obtainal of advice is not confined to a specific committee or group of people. The Khulafa-e-Raashideen who ruled empires did not have such appointed shura committees. They consulted with whomever they desired.
The shura committees of both Raiwand and Nizaamuddin have no Sunnah basis and are mere puppets of the nafs.
5) Leaving the Nizaamuddin Markas because of the hooliganism and violence was correct. Sa’d is fully responsible for the hooliganism. His arguments to absolve himself are baseless.
6) The shura model of both groups have no support in the Sunnah and Shariah. A rotating ameer is nonsensical and smacks strongly of nafsaaniyat.
7) The issue is not the valid/good activities introduced by Molvi Sa’d. The issue is the leadership greed which has destroyed the Tabligh Jamaat. The first point in your question 7 is valid on entirety. It is utterly disgraceful and haraam for the Molvis of the Jamaat to have usurped and squandered so much money travelling first class by plane. Wasting $13,000 per person is extreme shaitaani Israaf and egregiously obscene.
Preventing relatives of elders from attending Ijtimahs and ‘special’ food and accommodation is improper. Just what is this ‘special’ food and accommodation all about? We do not understand what these specialities are and why are there high and low classes in the Tabligh Jamaat.
The other acts mentioned in number 7, appear superficially valid although others who are more aware of the Tablighi Jamaat undercurrents may have good reasons for criticizing these innovations of Molvi Sa’d.
8) Keeping the Musaajid open during the covid satanism is obviously correct while the closure by the shura faction is akin to kufr.
9) Whatever is mentioned in No.9 is 100% correct.
10) We do not know to which fatwa of Deoband you have referred.
11) Being of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah is not sufficient for Rectitude.
12) The advice of Molvi Sa’d mentioned in No.10 sounds hollow and insincere.
13) In fact he believes that he is greater than the greatest Hadhrat. His conduct of clinging to the leadership and other statements which he has made from time to time convey that he has a satanically bloated ego. Although he may claim deceptively that he is not a ‘hadhrat’, it is clear that he is a hooligan. He had schemed the violence and the shaitaaniyat which had culminated in the split of the Jamaat.
In the final analysis, the splitting of the Jamaat and its spiritual demise are the consequences of the haraam ghulu’ which has characterized the Jamaat for decades. It is this ghulu’ which has created appalling arrogance in all wrungs of the Tabligh Jamaat. Acts of the Sunnah have been displaced with Bid’ah. The Tabighis, including their elders, act as if there every step is the effect of Wahi. They have exceeded Shar’i limits and have fallen foul of the Haqq. They fall within the scope of the Qur’aanic Aayat:
“Whoever transgress the limits of Allah, verily he has committed zulm on himself.”
13 Rabiuth Thaani 1443 – 18 November 2021