7) In the tafsîr of the third âyat of the sûrat az-Zumar, he says, “One who has tawhîd and ikhlâs does not ask anything from somebody other than Allah. He does not trust in anybody who has been created. People deviated from the tawhîd preached by Islam. Nowadays, awliyâ’ are worshipped in every country. People ask intercession of them just as the pre-Islamic Arabs worshipped angels and statues. There exists no intermediary or intercession between Allah and men in respect of tawhîd and ikhlâs revealed by Allah,” With these words, he announces that he is a Wahhâbî.
8) This socialist writer thinks of himself as a scholar of tafsîr and misinterprets many âyats. For example, he says in his interpretation of the seventh âyat of the sûrat an-Nisâ’, “Men have one share from what the parents and the close relatives left. Women also have one share from what the parents and the close relatives left. It is, little or much, one share, as prescribed...” On the other hand, Islamic scholars said about the same âyat, “Men have shares from what the parents and the close relatives left. Women also have shares from what the parents and the close relatives left. Whether the property left is little or much, they will be given their shares in the prescribed amounts.” Its reason also has been explained in al-Baidâwî’s tafsîr. Especially about the âyat following that one, he says, “We do not see any evidence of abolition here. To our opinion this âyat is explicit. It is fard as prescribed,” and thus he does not feel shame to write that he interprets according to his opinion. However, the scholars of tafsîr, chiefly al-Baidâwî, said that this âyat was mustahab, though there were also those who said that it was wâjib. And it has been applied accordingly in all Islamic countries.
After quoting the preceding âyat, he says, “Allâhu ta’âlâ has distributed possessions and property to society. Society is obliged to use these possessions well. Society essentially owns all possessions. Heirs [trustees] have the right to use these possessions only with the permission of society,” thus slandering Islamic religion and attempting to reform it. He struggles to imbue the younger generations with his socialistic ideas under the name of tafsîr.
9) In his books World’s Peace and Islam and Islamic Studies, he says, “The zakât is a tax. The government collects this tax. It is not an interaction that takes place between two individuals face to face. It is not an individual gift or alms that is passed over from hand to hand. It is not a mode of order which Islam prescribes to separate the zakât of one’s property with one’s own hands and to distribute it with one’s own hands. The word which says that the property of which zakât has been given cannot be counted as stocked property [kanz] is not correct. The government can lay hands on it.” These words of Sayyid Qutb are not suitable with Islam, and they are his own wrong thoughts[83]. It is written in all the books of fiqh that the property of which zakât has been paid is not kanz and that the government can by no means lay hands on it. It is written in al-Ahkâm as-sultâniyya and also in many valuable books, “ ‘Zakât’ and ‘alms’ are used in the same meaning in the Qur’ân. Nobody has any share from Muslim’s property besides its zakât. A hadîth declares, ‘There is no claim to [others’] property besides zakât.’ The possessions for which zakât has to be paid are of two kinds: al-amwâl az-zâhira and al-amwâl al-bâtina. Al-amwâl az-zâhira are the possessions that cannot be hidden. Examples of these are crops, fruits and the four-footed stock animals that graze in the field. Al-amwal al-bâtina are those possessions that can be hidden. Examples of these are gold, silver and commercial goods. The government cannot demand the zakât of al-amwâl al-bâtina. The owner has the right to pay their zakât. If he pays it to the government with his own wish, then the government takes it and distributes it to the kind of persons defined by Islam, thus helping the owner. The government’s duty is only to demand the zakât of al-amwal az-zâhira and distribute it to the prescribed persons. The government’s owning this right requires its being independent, Islamic and just and learned in those branches of religious knowledge concerning zakât. If the government is cruel in collecting zakât but just in giving it to the prescribed persons, it is permissible to pay it to the government though the owner may distribute it himself. If the government is just in collecting zakât but cruel in distributing it, it is wâjib not to pay zakât to the government; it is not permissible to pay it to such a government. If the government takes the zakât with the owners’ wish or by force, zakât will not have been paid. It is necessary for the owners themselves to separate and distribute it to the prescribed people, again. Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam) used to distribute the collected zakât to the persons whom he deemed suitable. Then, Allâhu ta’âlâ declared the kinds of persons one by one whom zakât would be paid and commanded not to spend it at other places. It has been reported unanimously that an unbeliever should not be paid zakât.”
It is written at the end of the section on kafâlat in ad-Durr al-mukhtâr, “At-Tarsûsî says that it is not permissible for the Sultan [the government] to expropriate anybody’s property. Only, if the zakât-collecting officials of Bait al-mâl, governors and the clerks of Bait al-mâl oppress Muslims and misappropriate their property, the government can confiscate this illegally obtained property. So is the case with the clerks and officials of pious foundations. If they spend prodigally, lead a life of dissipation and revelry and build apartment houses for themselves, the government confiscates their property and dismisses them from office. It returns the property which they have obtained unjustly to the pious foundations. If it is not known for certain from what pious foundation they have taken them, it gives them to Bait al-mâl. Khalîfa ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) sent Abû Huraira (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) to Bahrain as a governor to collect zakât. Later he dismissed him. He commandeered his possessions and took his 12,000 gold coins away from him. After a while, he wanted to assign him this same duty again but the latter refused it. This fact is reported by Hâkim and others.” On this account, Ibn ’Âbidîn comments: “The government’s commandeering the possessions of the officials of Bait al-mâl means its taking the zakât goods misappropriated by them back from them and giving them to Bait al-mâl, that is, putting them back to their place. The government cannot spend these possessions at other places. Abû Huraira (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) said, ‘Hadrat ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) sent me to Bahrain to collect zakât. Then he dismissed me from this duty and took away my twelve thousand gold coins. After a while he wanted to give me this duty again. I refused it.’ Upon hearing this, Abû Khâtam (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) said, ‘Though Yûsuf (’alaihi ’s-salâm) was an exalted prophet, much higher than you are, he wanted to do such a duty. Why did you not accept it?’ He answered, ‘He was Yûsuf (’alaihi ’s-salâm). He was a prophet. He was a prophet’s son, a prophet’s grandson, and a prophet’s great-grandson. As for me, I am the son of Umayya. I fear to say something which I don’t know, to do something which I don’t know, thus to be disgraced before my Allah and His human creatures and to cause my possessions to be commandeered.’ It is understood that, according to Abû Huraira’s (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) madhhab, it was permissible for the officials of zakât to accept presents, but it was not permissible in Hadrat ’Umar’s (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) madhhab; so he acted in accordance with his own madhhab and took his possessions, which he had collected as presents, away from him.” As it is seen, Hadrat ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) did not lay hands on the possessions of the rich. On the contrary, he took the unjust earnings of those officials who laid hands on the possessions of the rich and gave them back. In Islam no one can lay hands on anybody else’s possessions. Also in this respect, Islam differs from communism and socialism.
10) At various places of his tafsir book, Sayyid Qutb quotes the hadîth, “The poor have rights also in the property besides zakât,” and says that the government will take the zakât by force and that, in addition, the government may commandeer the excessive possessions of those who do not give alms. He leads the matter down to communism. In order to make them evidences for these ideas of his, he misinterprets the âyats and hadîths, His attempt to be of service causes disservice, instead. The above hadîth does not show that giving alms is fard like giving zakât, but it shows that it is worthy of much more thawâb than other supererogatory kinds of worship, for it has been declared that those who do not give the poor their due, which is called zakât, will be tormented in Hell. No torments has been mentioned for those who do not give the right called alms, but it has been said that it is very much blessed. Likewise, Islamic scholars have reported unanimously that the rights of “saluting, visiting the sick and going to the place where one is invited,” which are declared in the hadîth “A Muslim has five rights upon another Muslim,” are not fard. On the other hand, the following hadîths quoted from Zawâjir show clearly that the case in not so with zakât: “Protect your property by giving zakât! Cure your sick relatives by giving alms! Protect yourselves from calamities by praying”; “The property of which zakât has been paid cannot be counted as kanz, (treasury cursed by Allâhu ta’âlâ) even if it were buried under the ground. The property of which zakât has not been paid becomes kanz even if it were left in the open”; “Stinginess and îmân do not stay together in a Believer’s heart!” Hadrat Ibn Hajar al-Makkî explained the ‘stinginess’, which is censured in the hadîths, as ‘not paying zakât’.
11) Though the âyat, “We told them to become low monkeys,” informs clearly that those Jews who had fished on Saturday were metamorphosed into monkeys, he has attempted to change this âyat by saying, “They were reduced to the low grade of monkeys. They must not have become monkeys physically,” supposing himself to be a mujtahid like Imâm Mujâhid. Great scholar ’Abd al-’Azîz ad-Dahlawî writes in his Persian Tafsîr-i ’Azîzî detailedly that their figures and appearances turned into monkeys and that they died after living three days, thus answering those who say like Sayyid Qutb.
12) Again in his tafsîr book, he says, “No rule has been mentioned in the Qur’ân about making the captives slaves. Islam has eradicated slavery.” Realizing that this opinion of his is wrong, he changes his tone and says, “Islam eradicated slavery, except for the legitimate captives of war, for, in those days, it was not powerful enough to force society to admit a rule which was against traditions.” Through this absurd logic, he tries to cover his error. He cannot deny the fact that, in the year 7 A.H., Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) distributed the captives which he had captivated in the Ghazâ of Khaibar to his companions as slaves and jâriyas and this has been practised for centuries in Islamic states. But, as if Islam had brought rules for societies of unbelievers -he supposes so- he puts forward a very horrible idea: “Islam was not powerful enough to have its rules admitted.” He could not think that this lack of power would refer to Allâhu ta’âlâ and would cause unbelief. Indeed, Islam has not brought any rules, that is, commands and prohibitions, to unbelievers. Islamic rules are for Mulims and Muslim societies. Islam demands one single thing from unbelievers: To have îmân. The reason why the dhimmîs have to obey mu’âmâlât is because they are counted as Muslims legally.
13) Sayyid Qutb puts forward his own point of view also on marrying those women who are disbelievers with holy books and attempts to compete with mujtahids. His only stock for interpreting, writing religious books is his knowledge of Arabic, which is concomitant with his nationality. The most serious error of this writer, whose single art is being a good translator, is that he has not realized that he has to be a muqallid in religious knowledge. As a matter of fact, only mujtahids’ opinions are worth being followed on the interpretations of explicit âyats and hadîths and in those teachings about which there is no explicit âyat or hadîth. The opinions of non-mujtahids, i.e. muqallids like us, cannot be religious knowledge. Those religiously ignorant people who put forward ideas disagreeing with mujtahids’ opinions are called “religion reformers” or “zindîqs”. These are the people who want to demolish the religion from behind the cover with which they disguise themselves as religious men. The true man of religion means the true Muslim who learns the explanations and opinions of mujtahids after years of lucubration and who conveys them to the people of his time in a way they can comprehend.
Sayyid Qutb, knowing Arabic well due to his nationality, attempted to compare the socialistic teachings he had studied and defended in admiration for forty years with the Qur’ân. Not having read the books of Islamic scholars and being influenced by Muhammad ’Abduh, chief of Egyptian freemasonic lodge, he began to write his books advocating anti-madhhabism and Wahhâbism in the final years of his life. His book Social Justice in Islam,published in 1948, teems with his subversive, heretical ideas. Saying that we should hold fast to the Qur’ân, he towed the youth behind his heretical thoughts. I wish he had read the writings of those mujâhids who had studied and understood Islam well, such as ’Abd al-Qâdir Udah and Ahmad al-’Adwî al-Azharî who were contemporary with him; thus he would have learned the superiority of the Ahl as-Sunna scholars and attained the fortune of holding fast to their path, which is the only path to salvation. In fact, even those who said that he was an Islamic scholar could not refrain from saying, “His research into knowledge and philosophy has gifted him an unfaltering îmân,” meaning that his îmân was heretical and was based not on Islamic teachings but on philosophical thoughts.
Some people who occupy religious posts and pass themselves off as religious authorities, besides getting decieved by the modernist, heretical ideas of Sayyid Qutb, strive to disseminate his un-Islamic ideas among the youth. And some others try to exploit this situation by mistranslating his tafsîr and some parts of his other books and publishing them for high prices. They attack our books because they reveal the facts, awaken the youth and thereby pose a hindrance to their exploitation. Because they cannot afford criticisms based on knowledge and documentation, they have recourse to lies and slanders. These liars cannot give any evidence for their accusations when they are defied to do so.
The following fatwâ of Hadrat Ahmad ibn Hajar al-Makkî, a prominent Islamic scholar, is sufficient to understand how heretical and harmful Sayyid Qutb’s tafsîr, Fî dilâl al-Qur’ân, is:
“The law courts should take preventive measures against those who, instead of quoting from the tafsîrs of Islamic scholars, write their own ideas as tafsîr and offer such tafsîrs to the people. Such tafsîrs are heretical and superstitious. Men of religious posts who publish them are heretics endeavouring to mislead others away from the right path.”
A Muslim who reads this fatwâ, which is quoted from al-Fatâwâ al-hadîthiyya,should not be deceived by the writings of ignorant, heretical men of religious posts, should hold fast to the Ahl as-Sunna books, which those heretics try to defame, and should not buy or read the false, poisonous books of other heretics whom they praise highly and systematically.
58 - There is a group of people who have been visiting Islamic countries and preaching and advising Muslims under the name Tablîgh jamâ’at. Leaving India and Pakistan in gangs of three to five persons, these people have been going all over the world. They say that they try to spread Islam. They claim to be in the path of as-Sahâba. Some of them also say that they follow the Hanafî madhhab and admire Ibn Taymiyya. Although most of what they say is useful and true, the fact that they never mention the names and words of Islamic scholars and seem to conceal part of the Ahl as-Sunna knowledge arouses suspicion and anxiety. In the following, the writings of some of the religious authorities living in India and Pakistan about them is given:
“They are heretics. They call themselves Jamâ’at at-tablîgh. Their centre is in Delhi [with large branches in Karachi and Lahore in Pakistan.] Wherever they go, they lay very much stress upon performing salât. They give useful and necessary religious information. They call these activities of theirs ‘kast’ in Urdu language. It is said that their organization was founded by an Indian named Mawlânâ Muhammad Ilyâs. This man was born in Kandla in 1303 A.H. (1886). He was Rashîd Ahmad Gangohî’s disciple. It is written on the 43rd and 49th pages of the book Mawlânâ Ilyâs Urankî dînî Da’wat by one of Ilyâs’s close disciples that he stayed with him for ten years. When Rashîd Ahmad died in 1323 (1905) he was taught by Khalîl Ahmad Sahâranpûrî. In his Urdu book, Khalil Ahmad [d. Medina, 1346 (1928)] says that the Devil is more learned than Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm). Rashîd Ahmad said on the 51st page of Barâhin-i qâti’a that Khalîl Ahmad’s book was a blessed one and kept it at the place called ‘Bait-i ’ain-i Islâm.’ Rashîd Ahmad was the khalîfa of Hâji Imdâdullah al-Madanî [d. Mecca, 1317 (1899)], and was first taught by Ismâ’il Dahlawî, who wrote on the 38th page of Taqwiyat al-îmân which is the Urdu translation of Ibn ’Abd al-Wahhâb’s Kitâb at-tawhîd, ‘Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) died and rotted away. He became soil. He who believes that he will intercede in Resurrection becomes a polytheist.’ Another tutor of Ilyâs was Ashraf ’Alî Tahanawî who also was a khalîfa of Hâji Imdâdullah of the Chishtiyya tarîqa. In the first part of his Urdu book Hifz al-îmân, he writes very loathsome things which reduce the high grade of Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) to the low degree of a child, of a mad person or of animals. All the four tutors of Ilyâs became unbelievers because of such writings of theirs in their books. Ilyâs praises, exalts and excessively respects these unbelievers. He says that they were the most eminent awliyâ’ of their time. The 114th page of the book Malfûzât-i Hadrat-i Mawlânâ Ilyâs Rahmatullâhi ’alaih is full with such praises. He says about his shaikh Rashîd Ahmad, ‘Had not I seen him, my heart would not have attained tranquility. Whenever I woke up at night I would go to his room, look at his face and then come back and go to sleep. His love, like the blood in my veins, has penetrated everywhere in me.’ (pp. 44, 49, Mawlânâ Ilyâs Urankî). Allâhu ta’âlâ declares in the last âyat of the sûrat al-Mujâdala, ‘Those who believe in Allâhu ta’âlâ and the Day of Resurrection will dislike those [unbelievers] who do not obey Allâhu ta’âlâ and His Messenger (’alaihi ’s-salâm). Allâhu ta’âlâ will fill with îmân the hearts of those who dislike unbelievers even though they are their fathers, sons, brothers or relatives.’ All the members of Tablîgh jamâ’at exaggerate and praise Ilyâs and his teachers very much and say ‘rahmatullâhî ’alaih’ when they mention or hear their names. They spread their above-mentioned books everywhere.
“The Ahl as-Sunna scholars wrote many books in order to refute the Tabligh group and to reveal the fact that they were heretics. They could not answer these books at all. Hadrat Mawlânâ ’Abd al-’Alîm Siddîqî wrote that Ilyâs’s teachers were in an endeavour to demolish Islam from within.”[84]
When Ilyâs died in 1363 (1949) the successor was his son, Muhammad Yûsuf Kandhlavî [b. Delhi, 1335 (1917); d. Lahore, buried Delhi, 1394 (1974)]. Yûsuf’s three-volume book, Hayât-us-Sahâba, was translated into Turkish and published in 1395 (1975). Because as-Sahâba are praised much in this book it arouses admiration in the reader. However, there is a famous saying: “Judge a man by his actions, not by his words.” One who believes in the superiority of as-Sahâba and loves them has to follow in their path, which is the path shown by the Ahl as-Sunna scholars. The sign of love for as-Sahâba is to learn the fiqh books of one of the four Ahl as-Sunna madhhabs, to endeavour to disseminate their teachings and to lead a life in conformity with them.
Muhammad Yûsuf was succeeded by his son, Shaikh In’âm al-Hasan, who was a hadîth teacher at Mazâhir-i ’Ulûm Madrasa in Saharanpur, India. Abu ’l-Hasan ’Alî Nadvî, the director of Nadwat al-ulamâ’ [founded in Lucknow, India in 1310 (1891)], praises al-Imâm ar-Rabbânî Ahmad as-Sirhindî and his services in his book ad-Da’wat al-Islâmiyya[Lucknow, 1395 (1975)], but adds his praises for Ismâ’îl Dahlawî (killed in 1246), Nadhîr Husain Dahlawî (d. 1320), the madrasa in Diobend which was founded by Muhammad Qâsim Nanawtawi [d. 1317 (1899)], one of the Khulafâ’ of Imdâd-ullah, in 1288 (1871), Ashraf Alî Tahanawî (d.1362), the Tablîgh group and its founder, Muhammad Ilyâs. This faqîr, the author, has read the book Taqwîm al-bayân, Persian translation of Ismâ’il Dahlawî’s Taqwiyat al-îmân [Pakistan, 1396 (1976)] and come to the conclusion that Ismâ’îl is not only a sheer ignoramus but also a non-madhhabî idiot who strives to decry the right by alloying it with the wrong. May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect Muslims from reading and believing such heretical writings and falling into endless calamity! Âmin!
In the Shawwal 1399 A.H. (1979) and following issues of the monthly periodical al-Muallim which is published by the Jamiyat al-’ulamâ’ called “Samasta” located in the Malappuram City of the Kerala State, South India, Mawlawî Abû Ahmad, one of the Ahl as-Sunna scholars, wrote under the heading ‘Disclosure of the Suspicions about Jamâ’at at-Tabligh’:
“Various groups of people have appeared in North India who say that they will renew the religion and disseminate it everywhere. Many people, judging them only by their ostensible statements, follow them without investigating their and their founders’ faith. Upon seeing their inner nature, many of them have departed and expose their lies and tricks. History has witnessed many such heretics, who are slaved by their nafs and vicious thoughts. They have interpreted the documents of Islam wrongly. They dissent to the rotten principles of Ibn Taimiyya and Muhammad ibn ’Abd al-Wahhâb an-Najdî. Those who know little about religious knowledge think that they are on the right path and believe that they serve Islam. One of these heretical groups is that which follow the path invented by Mawlânâ Ilyâs. They call themselves ‘Jamâ’at at-tablîgh.’ They travel around the world. With their worship, attractive speech and attire, they look like religious, pious people. They never speak about their beliefs and the path they follow. They began to spread their seed in Kerala, too. The ’ulamâ’ of Samasta Kerala have opened jihâd against them by displaying their heretical books, beliefs and background and their founders’ life-stories and path. Studying them, they understood their artifice and that they were ahl al-bid’a. They issued the fatwâs that they had dissented from the righteous path of Ahl as-Sunnat wa ’l-Jamâ’a and that they were on the route of bid’a and dalâla (heresy). These fatwâs of the ’ulamâ’ of southern and northern India and Ceylon Island became an ijmâ’. And we, with the guidance of Allâhu ta’âlâ and by keeping on the footsteps of the Salaf as-Sâlihîn, will explain their vicious beliefs and heretical path:
“The founder of this heretical path was Muhammad Ilyâs ibn Ismâ’il, who was born in 1303 A.H. (1886) and died in 1363 (1944). He formerly taught at Mazâhir al-’ulûm Madrasa. When he became unsuccessful there, he started to live as a shaikh. He made his living by writing amulets and prayers for ignorant people. Meanwhile, he established the tarîqa of ‘Tablîgh’. Jamâl Muhammad Sâhib, Director of the madrasa called ‘Kulliyat-i kaid-i millat’ in Madras, gave extensive information about this movement in the July 24, 1976 issue of the paper Jandaraka.
“Head of Jamâ’at at-tablîgh, which is located in Delhi, and his friend Muhammad Idris al-Ansârî explain the causes of the establishment of this path in the booklet Tablîgh-i Dustûr al-’amal (published by the Jamal printing house in Delhi) in this way: ‘If thought well and the history is studied, it will be seen that men could not attain to peace and bliss with the four fundamental usûl. This is understood from the 139th âyat of the sûrat Âl ’Imrân which states “You are more honourable and superior than them, for you have belief.” Firstly, the aim of Islam is to change the bâtin (internal aspect), that is, the heretical beliefs and habits. Secondly changing them is possible only through the way chosen by prophets. Thirdly, the works done up to now by Muslims either singly or wholely have not been for this aim, and they did not follow the way of prophets. Fourthly, for this reason, it is necessary to establish a sâlîh jamâ’a (pious community), that is, Jamâ’at al-Islâmiya, which must work according to the way shown by Islam. Now, this job is done by Muhammad Ilyâs, one of the sâlih servants of Allah. Gathering the ones who want to work in the way of Islam, he formed a new community called the Jamâ’at at-tablîghiyya.’
“Look at these words! According to the leader of the Jamâ’at at-tablîghiyya, the works done by al-Ummat al-Muhammadiyya, singly or wholely, for fourteen hundred years were not in the way of prophets (’alaihi mu ’s-salâtu wa ’s-salâm) and were not aimed at changing the heretical beliefs that had spread among human beings; therefore, it has become a must to establish a new jamâ’at! Those who have wanted to separate al-Ummat al-Muhammadiyya and to start a new heretical movement against Ahl as-Sunna have always come about by saying such words; claiming that the whole Ummat Islâmiyya has deviated from the right path and dissented from the way of salvation, they have founded new paths. They have put their invented, corrupt, heretical ideas forth in this way.
“Another similar one, Abul Ala Mawdûdî, recently founded an organization called Jama’at Islami in Pakistan. On the fifteenth page of his Urdu booklet Min Musliman ur mawjûduhû sîyasî, he explains the cause of his founding this organization in this way: ‘I have investigated and studied much. I decided to take the present Islamic ring off my neck. If I did not do so, I, too, would be in the footsteps of the irreligious called ilhâd and dahriyya [he calls the religion of his ancestors as ‘ilhâd and dahriyya’.] Therefore, I have put forth a new religion conformable to the meaning of kalimat at-tawhid.’ He claimed to be the first true Muslim of his time and called everybody, Muslim or not, to this new religion.
“Muhammad Ilyâs said the same, claiming that what the Ummat al-Muhammadiyya had done for centuries were not conformable to the way of prophets. Muhammad Manzûr an-Nu’mânî, on the twelfth page of his booklet Malfûzât, quotes him: ‘All of what the Ummat al-Muhammadiyya do now are rites and customs. Those who taught religion and directed religious affairs depended on rites and customs.’ Muhammad Hasan Khân, one of the leaders of Jamâ’at at-tablîgh, wrote in the preface to Miftâh at-tablîgh, ‘Because religious affairs are misdirected at the present time, many people are caught by the current of shirk, kufr and ilhâd. Pitying at this situation of men, Allâhu ta’âlâ sent Shaikh Muhammad Ilyâs as a mu’jiza to awaken Muslims from unawareness and to initiate them into the spirit of religion. This mujâhid endeavoured to awaken people in the Mivat town, south to Delhi, as possible as the conditions of his time permitted.’ It would not be easy for them to answer the question, from where did Ilyâs find the right path while the whole Umma was in kufr and dalâla?’
“In summary, the group of Jamâ’at at-tablîgh, like their other upstart colleagues, say that the Ummat al-Muhammadiyya has fallen for dalâla, dissented from the right path. These words are exactly opposite to what our Prophet (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) had conveyed, for he said in a hadîth reported by at-Tirmidhî, ‘My umma do not agree on deviation.’ This hadîth absolutely tells that the knowledge on which the mujtahidîn, that is, Muslim scholars agreed are always right. Not only scholars, but also every sane person will immediately understand this.
“In the following, the establishment of the Jamâ’at at-tablîghiyya will be detailed:
“Abu ’l-Hasan Alî Nadvî, famous authority on religion and history in India, quotes the fou