Maududi Sahib in the Mirror of His Beliefs and Ideologies
Maulana Abu al-Ala Maududi (deceased: 22 September, 1979) was generally not from the Ahl al-Sunnah. There are many matters in which he deviated from the beliefs and ideologies of Ahl al-Sunnah, to the extent that in the chapter of Aqeedah (creed), he appeared to be among the Mu’tazilah and sometimes the Jahmiyyah. The belief in the Names and Attributes is the foundation and basis of the belief in Tawheed. He erred in this chapter. Even in respect to the Prophets, Maulana was not free from mistakes, and his treatment of the Companions is well known to all. His approach to the authentication and weakening of Hadith is not that of the traditional Muhaddithin (Hadith scholars), but is largely based on rationalism. It should be remembered that the true methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah is complete trust in the Salaf al-Salih , whether in beliefs, ideologies, actions, or principles; following the footsteps of the Salaf in every matter is the hallmark of Ahl al-Sunnah. Islam has existed in every era; it is not possible that Islam exists in some eras and disappears in others. Absolutely not; rather, it remains a guiding light for the people of every era in its original form and conditions, and the Salaf al-Salih have followed it. However, Maulana Maududi rejected the paths of the Salaf and invented new paths, deviating from the path of truth. Below, some of his views are being reviewed; please observe.
Stumbling Blocks in Names and Attributes
The chapter of Names and Attributes is an important part of Muslim belief, and Maulana Maududi has faced significant difficulties in this chapter. Below are nine such points; readers should study them:
◈ Maulana Maududi Sahib (الرحمن الرحيم) writes in his Tafseer:
“It is like when we describe a person’s generosity by saying ‘generous,’ but when that is not enough to quench our thirst, we add ‘giver.’ When describing color, if ‘fair’ is not sufficient, we add the word ‘bright.’ When mentioning height, if saying ‘tall’ is not satisfying, then we also say ‘slender.'”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 44/1)
Maulana explains the word (الرَّحِیم) as a meaningless term, which has no meaning or significance, whereas Allah Almighty has combined His two names in many places in the Holy Quran, one of which is this. (الرَّحْمنِ) is on the pattern of فعلان, this pattern is used to indicate the vastness of something. The meaning of ﴿الرحمن﴾ is One whose mercy is very vast. (الرّحِیم) is on the pattern of فعیل, which proves that Allah Almighty is extremely merciful; each name has its own distinct indication, there is no question of any racial or color-related meaning here.
The translation of ◈(ثم استوى على العرش) is as follows:
“Then He appeared on the throne of dominion.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 282/2)
This translation is against the Quran, Sunnah, and consensus. It is established from the Quran, Hadith, consensus, and nature that Ar-Rahman is exalted on His Throne. Was Allah Almighty not ruling on the Throne before?
◈ As for the statement that God’s Throne was initially on water, its meaning in our understanding is that God’s dominion was over the water.
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 325/2)
This is a clear misinterpretation and distortion. None of the true scholars express this meaning; the interpretations and meanings of the Quran and Sunnah that are authentic are those established from the Companions and the Imams of the Salaf.
Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy on him (597 AH), writes:
إجماع السلف منعقد على أن لا يزيدوا على قراءة الآية، وقد شذ قوم فقالوا : العرش بمعنى الملك، وهذا عدول عن الحقيقة إلى التجوز، مع مخالفة الأثر، ألم يسمعوا قوله عز وجل وكان عرشه على الماء أتراه كان الملك على الماء؟
“The consensus of the righteous Salaf is that no addition should be made to the recitation of the verse. Some people, having adopted an unusual view, have said that the Throne means kingship. This is a deviation from reality to metaphor, and also contradicts the hadith. Have they heard the statement of the Exalted Allah: ﴿وكان عرشه على الماء﴾ ‘Its Throne was upon the water.’ Did they hear that Allah’s dominion (kingship) was upon the water?”
(Zad al-Masir: 213/3)
“The Creator Himself is not established in any place.”
(Tafheem al-Quran: 590/2)
Whereas Allah Almighty has informed about Himself that He is exalted above the Throne.
If a child is asked, “Where is Allah?” he will point upwards or say with his tongue: “He is above.”
It is also not conceivable that Allah Almighty resides in any specific place, because His essence is free from the constraints of time and space.
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 87/6)
“And the concept of the Divine Essence given to us in the Holy Quran also prevents us from thinking that He is a body, dimension, or a transcendent being settled in a place, and that any creature can carry Him.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 41/6)
The Ahl al-Sunnah are cautious regarding the attributes of Allah Almighty. They take the texts in their apparent meanings. They accept what Allah has informed about Himself as true, negate what He has negated, and remain silent on what the Salaf remained silent about.
Shaykh al-Islam Allama Ibn Taymiyyah Malti (728 AH) says:
حقيقة الأمر في المعنى أن ينظر إلى المقصود، فمن اعتقد أن المكان لا يكون إلا ما يفتقر إليه المتمكن، سواء كان محيطا به أو كان تحته فمعلوم أن الله سبحانه ليس في مگان بهذا الاعتبار، ومن اعتقد أن العرش هو المكان، وأن الله فوقه، مع غناه عنه، فلا ريب أنه في مكان بهذا الاعتبار، فمما يجب نفيه بلا ريب افتقار الله إلى ما سواه، فإنه سبحانه غني عن ما سواه، وكل شيء فقير إليه، فلا يجوز أن يوصف بصفة تتضمن افتقاره إلى ما سواه .
“The reality is that the purpose should be considered. Whoever thinks that a house is that which a resident depends on, even if the house surrounds him or is beneath him, then obviously Allah Almighty is not in any house in this regard. Whoever believes that the Throne is a house and Allah is exalted above it, and He is not dependent on it, then undoubtedly Allah Almighty is in a house in this regard. Therefore, what must be negated is that Allah Almighty is not dependent on anyone; everything is dependent on Him. It is not permissible to attribute to Him any attribute that necessitates His being dependent.”
(Durr al-Ta’arud al-‘Aql wa al-Naql: 249/6)
He also says:
لكن قياس الله الخالق لكل شيء الغني عن كل شيء الصمد الذي يفتقر إليه كل شيء بالمخلوقات الضعيفة المحتاجة عدل لها برب العالمين ومن عدلها برب العالمين فإنه في ضلال مبين .
But Allah Almighty, who is the Creator of all, the Most Self-Sufficient, and so indifferent that everything depends on Him, to compare Him to needy and weak creatures is equivalent to equating the creation with the Lord of the Worlds, and whoever equates the creation with the Lord of the Worlds is clearly misguided.
(Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah: 622/3)
Allama Ibn Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him (751 AH), writes:
استواؤه وعلوه على عرشه سلام من أن يكون محتاجا إلى ما يحمله أو يستوي عليه بل العرش محتاج إليه وحملته محتاجون إليه فهو الغني عن العرش وعن حملته وعن كل ما سواه فهو استواء وعلو لا يشوبه حصر ولا حاجة إلى عرش ولا غيره ولا إحاطة شيء به سبحانه وتعالى بل كان سبحانه ولا عرش ولم يكن به حاجة إليه وهو الغني الحميد بل استواؤه على عرشه واستيلاؤه على خلقه من موجبات ملكه وقهره من غير حاجة إلى عرض ولا غيره بوجه ما ونزوله كل ليلة إلى سماء الدنيا سلام مما يضادما علوه وسلام مما يضاد غناه وكماله سلام من كل ما يتوهم معطل أو مشبه وسلام من أن يصير تحت شيء أو محصورا في شيء تعالى الله ربنا عن كل ما يضاد كماله وغناه وسمعه وبصره سلام من كل ما يتخيله مشبه أو يتقوله معطل وموالاته لاولیائہ، سلام من أن تكون عن ذلك كما يوالي المخلوق المخلوق، بل هي موالاة رحمة وخير وإحسان وبر .
Allah Almighty’s being established and exalted on His Throne is free from the need of any bearer, or being in need of that on which He is exalted; rather, the Throne and its bearers are in need of Him. Allah is free and independent of the Throne, its bearers, and everything else. This establishment and exaltation is not something confined or limited. Allah Almighty does not need the Throne or anything else, nor is He encompassed by anything. There was a time when Allah existed, but the Throne did not exist, nor did He need the Throne. He is self-sufficient and exalted. His being established on the Throne and exalted over His creation is among the reasons for His sovereignty and might, which in no way requires (a term used in theological discourse meaning something that exists with a being but is not established by itself). His every night descent is not contrary to His exaltation, self-sufficiency, and perfection. Similarly, He is free from all the illusions of suspension and manifestation. He is also free from being subordinate to anything or being confined within anything. Our Lord is free from every defect that contradicts His perfection, self-sufficiency, hearing, and sight. Allah Almighty is free from the thoughts of suspension and the inventions of manifestation. His love and affection for His saints is not like the love of creation for creation, but this love is due to mercy, goodness, kindness, and benevolence.
(Bada’i al-Fawa’id : 136/2)
The affirmation of the attribute of Hand (for Allah Almighty) has been a contentious issue between Ahl al-Sunnah and Jahmiyyah, while Maududi Sahib writes about it:
“The meaning of ‘He has power in His Hand’ is not that He possesses a physical hand, rather the word is used metaphorically in the sense of ‘control.’ Just as in Arabic and in our language when it is said that the powers are in someone’s hand, it means that he is the owner of all those powers, and no one else has any share in it.”
(Tafheem al-Quran : 41/6)
They also write:
“By the phrase ‘both hands,’ it is probably intended to indicate that this new creation possesses two important aspects of Allah’s creation. One is that it has been given an animal body, by which it is a species among animals. The second is that a soul has been placed within it, by which it has become the most noble and superior among all earthly creatures.”
(Tafheem al-Quran: 348/4)
The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah reject this. It is attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him:
له يد ووجه ونفس كما ذكره الله تعالى في القرآن، فما ذكره الله تعالى فى القرآن من ذكر الوجه واليد والنفس فهو له صفات بلا كيف ولا يقال : إن يده قدرته أو نعمته لأن فيه إبطال الصفة وهو قول أهل القدر والاعتزال ولكن يده صفته بلا كيف.
“The Hand, Face, and Self of Allah Almighty, as mentioned by Allah Almighty in the Holy Quran. The Face, Hand, and what the Lord Almighty has mentioned in the Holy Quran are His attributes, whose modality cannot be described, nor can it be said that His Hand means power or blessing, because that would negate the attribute, which is the belief of the Qadariyyah and Mu’tazilah. Rather, the Hand is an attribute of Allah Almighty, whose modality is unknown.”
(Al-Fiqh al-Akbar, p. 27)
They also say:
لا يوصف الله تعالى بصفات المخلوقين، وغضبه ورضاه صفتان من صفاته بلا كيف وهو قول أهل السنة والجماعة وهو يغضب ويرضى ولا يقال : غضبه عقوبته ورضاه ثوابه ونصفه كما وصف نفسه أحد صمد لم يلد ولم يولد ولم يكن له كفوا أحد حي قيوم قادر سميع بصير عالم، يد الله فوق أيديهم ليست كأيدي خلقه وليست جارحة، وهو خالق الأيدي ووجهه ليس كوجوه خلقه وهو خالق كل الوجوه ونفسه ليست كنفس خلقه وهو خالق كل النفوس ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير .
“Allah Almighty will not be described with the attributes of creation. Both anger and pleasure are attributes of Allah Almighty, but their nature will not be explained; this is the methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah. Allah Almighty becomes angry and is also pleased. It will not be said that Allah’s anger means His punishment and His pleasure means His reward. We will describe Allah’s attributes as Allah أحد صمد صمد لم يلد ولم يولد ولم يكن له كفوا أحد حي قيوم قادر سميع بصير the All-Knowing has described Himself. ﴿يد الله فوق أيديهم) The hand of Allah is above their hands. Allah’s hand is not like the hands of creation, nor is it a bodily limb; He is the Creator of all hands. Similarly, His face is not like the faces of creation; He is the Creator of all faces. His self (essence) is not like the selves of creation; He is the Creator of all selves. The command of the Exalted Allah is: (ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير) “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”
(Al-Fiqh al-Akbar, p. 161)
Khatib Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, may Allah have mercy on him (463 AH), says:
أما الكلام في الصفات، فإن ما روي منها في السنن الصحاح، مذهب السلف إثباتها وإجراؤها على ظواهرها، ونفي الكيفية والتشبيه عنها، وقد نفاها قوم، فأبطلوا ما أثبته الله، وحققها قوم من المثبتين، فخرجوا في ذالك إلى ضرب من التشبيه والتكييف، والقصد إنما هو سلوك الطريقة المتوسطة بين الأمرين، ودين الله تعالى بين الغالي فيه والمقصر عنه، والأصل في هذا أن الكلام في الصفات فرع الكلام في الذات، ويحتذى في ذلك حدوه ومثاله، فإذا كان معلوما أن إثبات رب العالمين إنما هو إثبات وجود لا إثبات كيفية، فكذالك إثبات صفاته إنما هو إثبات وجود لا إثبات تحديد وتكييف . فإذا قلنا : لله يد وسمع وبصر، فإنما هي صفات أثبتها الله لنفسه، ولا نقول : إن معنى اليد القدرة، ولا إن معنى السمع والبصر العلم، ولا نقول : إنها جوارح ولا نشبهها بالأيدي والأسماع والأبصار التي هي جوارح وأدوات للفعل، ونقول : إنما وجب إثباتها لأن التوقيف ورد بها، ووجب نفي التشبيه عنها لقوله : (ليس كمثله مي ء﴾
, (ولم يكن له كفوا أحد﴾
“The attributes of Allah Almighty that are narrated in authentic hadiths, the pious predecessors affirm them by taking their apparent meanings and negate any modality or comparison. Some groups have negated these attributes, thereby rejecting what Allah has established. Some people have affirmed them but fell into the errors of comparison and hardship. The correct approach is to take a middle path between these two groups, as the religion of Allah is between exaggeration and negligence. In fact, speaking about the attributes of Allah is essentially speaking about the Essence of Allah. The same method used for the Essence of Allah should be applied to His attributes. It is obvious that affirming the Lord of the Worlds is affirming His Essence, not His modality. Similarly, affirming the attributes is affirming existence, not modality or limitation. Therefore, when we say that the attribute of Hand, Hearing, and Sight is established for Allah, it means that these are attributes which Allah Almighty has affirmed for Himself. We do not say that Hand means power, or Hearing and Sight mean knowledge, nor do we consider them as limbs (physical organs), nor do we liken them to hands, ears, and eyes, which are physical organs and instruments of action. Rather, we say that affirming them is obligatory because they are established by the Shariah, and negating comparison is also extremely necessary, as Allah Almighty says: (ليس كمثله شيء﴾
‘There is nothing like unto Him.’ And He also said: ﴿ولم يكن له كفوا أحد ﴾
‘And there is none comparable to Him.'”
(Siyar A’lam al-Nubala by Al-Dhahabi: 284/18, and its chain is authentic)
The coming of Allah Almighty is established in the Holy Quran; it is His attribute.
Maulana Maududi Sahib writes:
“The original words are:
whose literal translation is: ‘Your Lord will come.’ But it is obvious that there is no question of Allah Almighty moving from one place to another.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 333/6)
This is an explicit denial of the Quranic words.
Allama Ibn Qayyim Rahmatullah (751 AH) writes:
مما يوفح لك ذلك أن النزول والمجيء والإنيان، والاستواء، والصعود والارتفاع كلها أنواع أفعال، وهو الفعال لما يريد، وأفعاله كصفاته قائمة به، ولولا ذلك لم يكن فعالا ولا موصوفا بصفات كماله، فتزوله ومجيته واستواؤه وارتفاعه وصعوده ونحو ذلك، كلها أفعال من أفعاله، التي إن كانت مجازا فأفعاله كلها مجان ولا فعل له في الحقيقة، بل هو بمنزلة الجمادات، وهذا حقيقة من عطل أفعاله، وإن كان فاعلا حقيقة فأفعاله نوعان : لازمة ومتعدية، كما دلت النصوص التي هي أكثر من أن تحصر على النوعين . وبإثبات أفعاله وقيامها به تزول عنك جميع الإشكالات، وتصدق النصوص بعضها بعضا وتعلم مطابقتها للعقل الصريح، وإن أنكرت حقيقة الأفعال وقيامها به سبحانه اضطرب عليك هذا الباب أعظم اضطراب، وبقيت حائرا في التوفيق بين النصوص وبين أصول النفاة، وهيهات لك بالتوفيق بين النقيضين والجمع بين الصدين، يوضحه : إن الأوهام الباطلة والعقول الفاسدة لما فهمت من نزول الرب ومجيئه ، وإثيانه وهبوطه ودنوه ما يفهم من مجيء المخلوق وإثيانه وهبوطه ودنوه وهو أن يفرغ مكانا ويشغل مكانا نفت حقيقة ذلك فوقعت في محذورين : محذور التشبيه ومحذور التعطيل، ولو علمت هذه العقول الضعيفة أن نزوله سبحانه ومجينه وإثيانه لا يشبه نزول المخلوق وإنيانه ومجيئه، كما أن سمعه وبصره وعلمه وحياته كذالك، بل يده الكريمة ووجهه الكريم كذلك، وإذا كان نزولا ليس كمثله نزول، فكيف تنفى حقيقته، فإن لم تنف المعطلة حقيقة ذاته وصفاته وأفعاله بالكلية وإلا تناقضوا، فإنهم أي معنى أثبتوه لزمهم في نفيه ما ألزموا به أهل السنة المثبتين لله ما أثبت لنفسه، ولا يجدون إلى الفرق سبيلا .
It becomes clear from this that the attributes of descent, coming, establishing (istiwa), ascending, and elevation are all active attributes. Allah Almighty, Whom He wills, He can do perfectly. His active attributes are like His essential attributes. If this were not so, He would neither be an active doer (one who performs every action perfectly) nor be characterized by attributes of perfection. The attributes of descent, coming, establishing, ascending, elevation, and other such attributes of Allah are among His actions. If these active attributes were metaphorical, then all His actions would be metaphorical, and in reality, no action would remain; rather, all actions would become like those of inanimate objects. This is the reality of suspension (ta’teel). If Allah Almighty is accepted as a true doer, then His actions will be of two types:
◈ Necessary (Lazimiyah)
◈ Transitive (Mutadiyah)
Countless texts indicate both these types. Affirming the attributes of actions and establishing them with the Divine Essence immediately resolves all your doubts and suspicions. All texts support each other.
They confirm and you will also begin to understand them in accordance with clear intellect. If you deny these attributes or do not consider them established with the Divine Essence, then you will fall into severe confusion regarding this issue and will keep trying to find agreement between the texts and the deniers of the Divine Attributes. It is impossible to reconcile two opposites and contradictions.
Some further clarification:
When false notions and corrupt intellects interpret the Lord’s descent, coming, descending, and drawing near in the sense that applies to creatures’ descent, coming, descending, and drawing near—meaning the necessary movement from one place to another—they will negate the reality of these Divine Attributes. Moreover, they will fall into two errors.
◈ Tashbih (Anthropomorphism)
◈ Ta’til (Negation)
If these weak minds understood that the descent and coming of Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He, is not similar to the descent and coming of the creation, just as the Creator’s hearing, sight, knowledge, and life are not similar to those of the creation, rather His hand and face are also not similar to those of the creation. If the descent of Allah is not considered similar to that of the creation, then its reality will not be negated. The Mu’attilah have fallen into contradiction by completely denying the reality of Allah’s essence, attributes, and actions, because whatever meaning they establish, the same objection arises in negating the attributes as arises against the Ahl al-Sunnah in affirming the attributes of Allah, and they find no way out of this difference.
(Mukhtasar al-Sawa’iq al-Mursalah, pp. 450-451)
He also says:
هذا التزول إلى الأرض يوم القيامة قد تواترت به الأحاديث والآثار ودل عليه القرآن صريحا .
“The hadiths and the sayings of the companions regarding the Divine descent towards the earth on the Day of Judgment are numerous, and the Quran also clearly indicates this.”
(Mukhtasar al-Sawa’iq al-Mursalah, p. 466)
Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Sahib writes:
“There is a school of thought among the predecessors regarding the descent of the Almighty Lord that the reality of descent is meant, but we do not know the modality. Similarly, the predecessors’ view regarding hearing, sight, hand, and establishing on the Throne is the same. The later scholars interpret these as meaning the pleasure, satisfaction, and attention of Allah. The excellent view is that of the predecessors.”
(Khazain al-Sunan, p. 403)
Indeed, the excellent view is that of the predecessors. Some later scholars who interpreted these are deviating from the methodology of the Salaf and it is a kind of negation. Maulana Maududi considers the human soul as a reflection or feather of the Divine attributes, which is the belief of Wahdat al-Wujud.
He writes:
“It is understood from this that the soul breathed into man is actually a reflection or feather of the Divine attributes.”
(Tafheem al-Quran: 502/2)
Literary Errors Regarding the Prophets Peace Be Upon Them
Maulana Maududi’s pen is completely unaware of the respect and literary etiquette required for the Prophets. He has made strange statements about great Prophets.
Regarding the Jihad of the Holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, he writes:
“After the failure of preaching and admonition, the caller to Islam took the sword in hand.”
(Al-Jihad fi al-Islam, p. 174)
About the Prophets peace be upon them, he writes:
“Even the Prophets faced the danger of robbery by the evil self; thus, a warning was given to a great Prophet like Hazrat Dawood (David) at one occasion.”
(Tamhimat, p. 163)
Regarding Sayyiduna Nuh (peace be upon him), it is written:
“Sometimes, even a noble and exalted person like a prophet, at a delicate psychological moment, is overcome by his human weakness for a short while. But as soon as he realizes this, or Allah makes him realize that his step is falling below the required standard, he immediately repents and does not hesitate for a moment in correcting his mistake. What greater proof of the moral elevation of Hazrat Nuh (peace be upon him) can there be than this: his young son drowns right before his eyes, and this sight breaks his heart, yet when Allah warns him that the son who abandoned the truth and sided with falsehood, and whom you consider yours merely because he was born from your loins, this is merely a sentiment of ignorance, he immediately disregards the wound in his heart and returns to the mindset required by Islam.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 344/2)
Regarding Sayyiduna Dawood (peace be upon him), it is written:
“This is the admonition that Allah Almighty gave to Prophet Dawood at that moment, along with accepting his repentance and giving glad tidings of high ranks. From this, it automatically becomes clear that the act committed by him involved some desire of the self, had some connection with the improper use of sovereign authority, and it was an act that did not befit any ruler who governs with justice.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 327/4)
It is also written:
“However, its essence was only that Prophet Dawood (peace be upon him) was influenced by the common customs of the Israeli society of his time and requested a divorce from her.”
(Tafheemaat: 56/2)
Regarding the Dhimmi, it is written:
“No matter how great a sin a ruler commits, his responsibility is not nullified even by stopping the jizya, killing a Muslim, insulting the Prophet ﷺ, or dishonoring a Muslim woman; none of these invalidate his responsibility in his favor.”
(Al-Jihad fi al-Islam, p. 289)
Regarding the infallibility of the Prophets, it is written:
“This is a subtle point that Allah Almighty, by His will, has allowed some minor slips to occur from every Prophet at some time, so that people do not consider the Prophets as gods and realize that they are human beings, not God.”
(Tafheemaat: 56/2)
Warning:
The dignity and greatness of the noble Prophets (peace be upon them) demand that even the slightest disrespectful thought be avoided in their presence. The pen should be carefully guided through these difficult paths so that neither the original event is altered nor is there any audacity or disrespect shown towards the pure and noble personalities of the Prophets.
In this regard, the role of the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah is a leading one, as they have given the Prophets and Messengers of Allah their due respect, mentioned them with words befitting their prophetic status. Every Prophet is honorable for us; anyone who speaks ill of even one Prophet is either suspicious or deliberately uses words that violate their respect, and such a person has no connection with Islam. Therefore, the choice of words regarding the noble Prophets and great Messengers must be extremely cautious. In this lies safety and goodness.
Accusations against the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them)
The Companions of the Prophet, may Allah be pleased with them, are the most honorable personalities on the face of the earth, upon whom Allah, the Lord of Glory, bestowed favors, was pleased with them, promised them Paradise, and the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, taught respect for them. On the other hand, Maulana Maududi, standing among the Rawafid, makes such baseless accusations against the noble personalities of the Companions that one is left astonished.
Maulana Maududi writes:
“Stranger than this is that sometimes even the Companions were overcome by human weaknesses and would hurt each other. Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, heard that Abu Huraira, may Allah be pleased with him, did not consider Witr prayer necessary, and said: Abu Huraira, may Allah be pleased with him, is a liar. Hazrat Aisha, at one occasion, said about Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, and Abu Saeed Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him, that what do they know about the Hadith of the Messenger, they were children at that time. Once, when Hazrat Hasan bin Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, was asked about the meaning of Shahid and Mashhood, he explained it. When it was said that Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, and Ibn Zubair, may Allah be pleased with him, say this and that, he said: Both are liars. Hazrat Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, once called Mughirah bin Shu’bah, may Allah be pleased with him, a liar. Ibadah bin Samit, may Allah be pleased with him, while explaining a certain issue, accused Masood bin Aws Ansari, may Allah be pleased with him, of lying, although he is among the Badri Companions.”
(Tafheemaat 296/1)
The accounts of these events are as they are, but the word “kadhb” does not always mean a lie; rather, it is also used in the sense of error. So, one companion’s opinion being declared an error by another companion is common. Maududi Sahib is trying to convey from these points that the companions considered each other liars.
Mufti Taqi Usmani Sahib writes:
“The fact is that entering the sea of blood of the disputes among the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) requires great caution, and injuring one party in defense of another is a behavior that takes a person away from the path of moderation of Ahl al-Sunnah.”
(Tafseer, p. 345)
Cause of the Defeat at the Battle of Uhud:
Maulana Maududi Sahib writes about the Battle of Uhud:
“The main reason for the defeat at Uhud was that the Muslims (the noble companions) were overcome by greed for spoils at the very moment of victory and instead of completing their task, they engaged in looting the booty.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran 287/1)
Then, while condemning usury, they write:
“Wherever usury exists in a society, it causes two types of moral diseases within it. Among those who take usury are greed, stinginess, and selfishness. Among those who give usury are hatred, anger, and envy. The defeat at Uhud involved some part of both these diseases.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 1/288)
Allegation of nepotism against Sayyiduna Uthman رضي الله عنه:
Sayyiduna Uthman ibn Affan رضي الله عنه is the third rightly guided Caliph and Amir al-Mu’minin. He has countless virtues and merits. He is among the Ashara Mubashshara (the ten promised Paradise). He is the double son-in-law of the Holy Prophet ﷺ. His caliphate was marked by peace and tranquility. It was an era of the elevation and conquests of Islam. The banner of justice and fairness was held high.
Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in رحمه الله (233 AH) says:
كل من يشتم عثمان أو طلحة أو أحدا من أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم دجال لا يكتب عنه وعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين .
“Whoever insults Sayyiduna Uthman رضي الله عنه, Sayyiduna Talha رضي الله عنه, or any companion of the Prophet, he is the Dajjal; no hadith should be written from him. Upon him is the curse of Allah, the angels, and all mankind.”
(Tarikh Ibn Ma’in narrated by al-Duri: 2670)
Maulana Maududi Sahib, after consuming the writings of Orientalists and Rafidah, has leveled all kinds of accusations against Sayyiduna Uthman رضي الله عنه. Maulana is not willing to accept Sayyiduna Uthman رضي الله عنه as worthy of the caliphate at all; he writes:
“Hazrat Usman (may Allah be pleased with him), upon whom the great responsibility of this task was placed, did not possess all the qualities that were granted to his esteemed predecessors. Therefore, during his caliphate, the opportunity arose for ignorance (Jahiliyyah) to infiltrate the Islamic social system. Hazrat Usman (may Allah be pleased with him) tried to stop this danger by sacrificing his life, but it could not be stopped. After that, Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) stepped forward and made the utmost effort to save the political authority of Islam from the domination of ignorance, but even his sacrifice of life could not prevent the counter-revolution. Eventually, the caliphate of Ali, the era of the prophetic methodology, came to an end, the kingdom of oppression took its place, and thus the foundation of governance was established again on ignorance instead of Islam.”
(Tajdeed wa Ahya-e-Deen, p. 28)
Thus, the cloak of caliphate of Sayyiduna Uthman رضي الله عنه, which the Prophet Muhammad صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم had commanded to be kept on and those who demanded its removal were called hypocrites, Maulana Maududi portrays this great caliphate as an incompetent caliphate. Then he does not stop there, but further levels many more accusations.
He writes:
“When Hazrat Uthman رضي الله عنه became the successor, gradually he deviated from that policy, he repeatedly appointed his relatives to very important positions and granted them other such privileges, which generally remained a target of objection among the people.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat p. 106)
There is no truth to this. Rather, it is the result of suspicion. Sayyiduna Uthman رضي الله عنه appointed whoever was capable to the position. If someone was worthy of the position, he was given the post, whether he was a relative or not. The real basis was competence.
Maududi Sahib himself writes:
“No one can deny that the people from his family whom Sayyiduna Uthman رضي الله عنه appointed to these government positions proved high-level administrative and military capabilities, and many victories were achieved through them.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, p. 108)
None of the Ahl al-Sunnah hold the opinion about Sayyiduna Uthman ibn Affan رضي الله عنه that he favored his own people and neglected others, or that he was careless in generosity towards his own.
Also, the Caliph has the authority to appoint anyone to any position or to dismiss anyone. Others have no right to object to this. Especially the Rightly Guided Caliph whose caliphate is according to the method of Prophethood, there is no justification for objecting to him.
Furthermore, during the caliphate of Sayyiduna Uthman رضي الله عنه, no companion or follower objected regarding nepotism.
Maududi Sahib writes:
“When Walid bin Uqbah arrived with the governorship of Kufa and reached Hazrat Saad bin Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: I do not know, after us you have become wiser, or after you we have become fools? He replied: Abu Ishaq, do not be angry, this is kingship; in the morning someone enjoys it, and in the evening someone else. And Hazrat Saad said: I think, indeed you people have left it as kingship.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, p. 108)
This is a false narration. The chain below Hukm bin Utaybah is unknown. Hukm is a fabricator, and the hearing (sama’) is not specified.
Also, he writes:
“Almost similar thoughts were also expressed by Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him).”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, p. 108)
This is a false narration. Muhammad bin Sirin’s hearing from Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) is not established.
The chain below Ja’far bin Sulayman is unknown.
Giving a wrong impression about Sayyiduna Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) based on these narrations is not a sign of justice.
Maududi Sahib writes:
“Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) in the last six years of his rule appointed his relatives and family members to government positions and assigned the khums of Egypt (i.e., the khums of the spoils of Africa which came from the province of Egypt) to Marwan and gave financial gifts to his relatives, justifying this by saying that it was a form of maintaining kinship ties, which Allah has commanded. He also took money from Bayt al-Mal and borrowed funds, saying that Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) had given up their rights to this wealth, and he took it and distributed it among his relatives. This is what people disliked.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, p. 326)
This is a false narration.
◈ Muhammad bin Umar Waqidi is “abandoned and a liar.”
◈ Zahri is a fabricator; the hearing (sama’) is not specified.
◈ Zahri did not live during the time of Sayyiduna Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). Imam Zahri was born in 58 AH and died in 124 AH, whereas Sayyiduna Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) died in 35 AH. How could he report news about Sayyiduna Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him)?
Imam Yahya bin Ma’in (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
مرسل الزهري ليس بشيء.
“Zahri’s Mursal is nothing.”
(Tarikh Ibn Ma’in narrated by Al-Duri: 1027)
Imam Bayhaqi, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
مراسيل الزهري ردينة.
“Zahri’s Marasil are rejected.”
(Al-Sunan Al-Kubra: 107/10)
Maududi Sahib writes:
“In Africa, Abdullah bin Saad bin Abi Sarh reconciled with the Patriarch there for three hundred Qintars of gold. فأمر بها عثمان لآل الحكم Then Hazrat Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, ordered that this amount be given to the family of Al-Hakam, that is, the father of Marwan bin Al-Hakam.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, p. 327)
This is Waqidi’s fabrication. Muhammad bin Ka’b Qarzi did not live in the time of Sayyidna Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him. Muhammad bin Ka’b was born in 40 AH and died in 120 AH, while Sayyidna Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, died in 35 AH. How can he report news about Sayyidna Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him?
Maududi Sahib writes:
Hazrat Usman رضي الله عنه once explained his conduct in a gathering where Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Saad bin Abi Waqqas, Hazrat Zubair, Hazrat Talha, and Hazrat Muawiya رضي الله عنهم were present, and objections regarding his financial grants were being discussed:
“My two predecessors were strict regarding their own selves and their relatives, but the Messenger of Allah صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم used to give wealth to his relatives. I belong to a family whose people have limited means. For this reason, in return for the service I am rendering to this government, I have taken some money from this wealth, and I believe I have the right to do so. If you people consider this wrong, then decide to return this money. I will accept your decision.” Everyone said: You have spoken very rightly. Then those present said: You have given money to Abdullah bin Khalid bin Asid and Marwan. Their statement was that this amount was given to Marwan as fifteen thousand and to Ibn Asid as fifty thousand. Accordingly, this amount was recovered from both and returned to the Bayt al-Mal, and the people were satisfied and left the gathering.
(Caliphate and Monarchy, p. 328)
The narration is very weak; Ishaq bin Yahya bin Talha bin Ubaidullah Quraishi is a “weak and rejected narrator.” Ahmad bin Hanbal, Yahya bin Ma’in, Bukhari, Fulas, Abu Hatim, Abu Zur’ah, Nasai, Tirmidhi, Mujalli, Saji, Ibn Hibban, Muhammad bin Saad, Darqatni, Ibn Adi, and Aqili and others, may Allah have mercy on them, have declared him weak, a rejecter of hadith, and abandoned in hadith.
Maududi Sahib writes:
“Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, said: The people to whom I appointed offices were also appointed to offices by Umar bin Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, towards the end of his life. Then why do people object to me? Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, replied: Umar, whenever he appointed someone as a governor of a place, if he received any objectionable news about him, he would severely reprimand him. But you do not do this. You are lenient with your relatives. Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, said: They are also your relatives. Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, replied: لعمري إن نهم مني لقريبة، ولكن الفضل في غيرهم . ‘Indeed, I also have close kinship with them, but others are superior to them.’ Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, said: Did not Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, appoint Muawiyah, may Allah be pleased with him, as governor? Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, replied: Umar’s slave Sarfa was not as afraid of him as Muawiyah, may Allah be pleased with him, was afraid of him. Now the situation is that Muawiyah, may Allah be pleased with him, does whatever he wants without asking you and says: This is the order of Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him. But you do not say anything to him.”
(Caliphate and Monarchy, p.331)
It is a false narration.
◈Waqidi fabricated it.
◈Abdullah bin Muslim bin Ubaidullah Qurashi did not have hearing or meeting with Sayyiduna Uthman رضي الله عنه.
Maududi Sahib writes:
“When criticism against Hazrat Uthman رضي الله عنه began from all sides in Medina and the situation became such that except for a few companions like Zaid bin Thabit, Abu Saeed Al-Saadi, Ka’b bin Malik, and Hassan bin Thabit رضي الله عنه, there was no companion in the city who spoke in support of the noble one.”
(Caliphate and Monarchy, p.330)
It is a false narration.
◈Waqidi fabricated it.
Abdullah bin Muslim bin Ubaidullah Qurashi did not have hearing or meeting with Sayyiduna Uthman رضي الله عنه.
It seems these are the fabricated acts of the Rafidha, due to which Sayyiduna Uthman رضي الله عنه is accused of nepotism.
Maududi Sahib writes:
“The aspect of Hazrat Usman (may Allah be pleased with him)’s policy was undoubtedly wrong, and a wrong act is wrong in any case, no matter who committed it. Trying to justify it unnecessarily through sophistry is neither demanded by reason and justice nor by religion, which does not require that a companion’s mistake be denied as a mistake. However, the fact is that except for this one aspect, in all other respects his character as a Caliph was exemplary, leaving no room for objection. Moreover, during his caliphate, overall good was so dominant and such a great work for the elevation of Islam was taking place that despite dissatisfaction with this particular aspect of his policy, the common Muslims throughout the entire realm were not even ready to entertain the thought of rebellion against him anywhere.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat p. 116)
The policy that Maududi Sahib is referring to, you have already observed its reality; there is no need to say more. This is merely the advocacy of the Rawafid. To tarnish the personality of a rightly guided Caliph based on false traditions is a loss of faith.
Warning:
It is alleged against Uthman رضي الله عنه that he brought back Hakam bin Abi al-As and his son Marwan, whom the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had exiled, to Medina during his caliphate. This is an unfounded and baseless incident. Neither did the Holy Prophet exile Hakam bin Abi al-As and his son Marwan, nor did Sayyiduna Uthman bin Affan call them back to Medina.
Remember that the Rawafid have interfered in Islamic history for centuries. Many baseless and unsupported statements have been made part of history. One who has no connection with narrators and chains of transmission should not blindly trust historical traditions. Whoever does so has gone astray from the path of the believers.
Maududi Sahib has passed away, now his companions should change their opinion about Sayyiduna Uthman bin Affan رضي الله عنه. Avoid making serious accusations like nepotism against Sayyiduna Uthman رضي الله عنه.
Accusation against Sayyiduna Muawiya رضي الله عنه:
Syed Abul A’la Maududi Sahib wrote:
“Another very cunning innovation that began during the era of Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) was that he himself and all his governors, by his command, would shower curses and insults upon Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) from the pulpit. Even in the Prophet’s Mosque, on the pulpit of the Messenger, right in front of the Prophet’s sacred chamber, the most beloved relative of the Prophet was insulted, and the children and closest relatives of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) heard these insults with their own ears.
Insulting someone after their death was not only against Shariah but also against human ethics, and especially contaminating the Friday sermon with such filth was a severely disgusting act from the perspective of religion and morality.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat p. 174)
Dear readers! On the cited page of Tabari, there is nothing about Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه like this. Maududi Sahib has passed away; now the reference is needed from those friends who continue to justify his bold claims.
Until this is proven, we have the right to say that this is a slander on a Sahabi, and neither Shariah nor human ethics permit this.
Maududi Sahib writes:
“Hazrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz came and, like other wrong traditions of his family, changed this narration as well and in the Friday sermon, instead of ‘Sab Ali,’ he started reciting:”
إن الله يأمر بالعدل والإحسان وإيتاء ذي القربى وينهى عن الفحشاء والمنكر والبغي يعظكم لعلكم تذكرون ۔
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, p. 174)
The question is, what were those incorrect traditions that Umar bin Abdul Aziz (may Allah have mercy on him) changed? Is it called research to argue based on false stories? If deviation from the methodology of the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah, considering oneself independent of the hadith scholars, and teaching disbelief about the companions of the Pure Prophet is called research, then forgive us, O Prophet! Our faith is not satisfied with this research.
If the Day of Judgment is true, then we do not want to have the defamation of the companions of Muhammad ﷺ recorded in our book of deeds; we do not want it to be written in our record of deeds that this servant, God forbid, called Sayyiduna Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) and Sayyiduna Amr bin Aas (may Allah be pleased with him) hypocrites and sinners. نعوذ باللہ ثم نعوذ باللہ۔
The reality of the vilification of Sayyiduna Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him):
Maududi Sahib, while objecting to Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه, writes:
“The affiliation of Ziyad bin Sumayyah is also among those actions of Hazrat Muawiyah رضي الله عنه in which he violated a fundamental principle of Shariah for political purposes. Ziyad was born from a slave girl named Sumayyah from Ta’if. People said that during the Jahiliyyah period, Hazrat Muawiyah’s father, Abu Sufyan رضي الله عنه, had committed adultery with this slave girl, and she became pregnant from him. Abu Sufyan رضي الله عنه himself once hinted that Ziyad was from his seed. Despite this, this person proved to be a highly capable strategist, organizer, military leader, and possessed extraordinary abilities. During the caliphate of Hazrat Ali رضي الله عنه, he was a strong supporter and had rendered significant services. After him, Hazrat Muawiyah رضي الله عنه took testimonies regarding his father’s adultery to make him his supporter and helper and provided proof that Ziyad was indeed an illegitimate child. On this basis, he declared him his brother and a member of his family. This act is obviously morally reprehensible, but legally it was also a clear unlawful act because in Shariah, lineage is not established through adultery. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم gave a clear command that a child belongs to the one on whose bed he is born, and for the adulterer, there are stones and pebbles. Umm al-Mu’minin Hazrat Umm Habibah رضي الله عنها refused to accept him as her brother for this reason and observed purdah from him.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, p. 175)
Istilhaq:
لغة : مصدر استلحق ، يقال : استلحقه ادعاه .
“Istilhaq is derived from the root word istalhaqa yastalhiq, which is the verbal noun of the verb. It is said: He called him.”
(Lisan al-Arab, Taj al-Arus, and Al-Sihah under the root L-H-Q)
اصطلاحا : هو الإقرار بالنسب، والتعبير بلفظ الاستلحاق هو استعمال المالكية، والشافعية، والحنابلة، وأما الحنفية فاستعملوه في الإقرار بالنسب على قلة .
“In terminology, acknowledgment of lineage is called Istilhaq. The Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali schools use the term Istilhaq. The Hanafi school uses it very rarely in this sense.”
(Hashiyat al-Bujairimi ‘ala Sharh al-Minhaj: 3/91, Fath al-Aziz: 3/61, Al-Sharh al-Kabir Hashiyat al-Dusuqi: 3/4121)
Claiming a genealogical relationship with a child is called Istilhaq. Relatives can also perform Istilhaq.
Conditions of Istilhaq:
There are some conditions for the permissibility of Istilhaq, without which it is not valid.
◈ Istilhaq can be done with a child whose lineage is unknown (majbul al-nasab). If the child’s lineage is known to be from another person, then the claim of Istilhaq is not correct. Because you are breaking his lineage and attaching him to yourself. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) cursed the one who leaves his father and affiliates himself to another.
◈The person with whom you are establishing lineage should have a probable proof in your lineage and his lineage, neither should there be any other claimant to this child nor any way through which your lineage with him can be denied. For example: you should not be suffering from any condition that makes having offspring impossible. Similarly, there should not be such an age difference between you and the child that rationally makes your lineage with him impossible.
◈The person with whom the lineage is being established should confirm it.
◈The purpose of establishing lineage should not be to change the child’s lineage.
Remember, if the truth is known, then establishing lineage is obligatory, and if it is false or the lineage is denied, then it is forbidden, because it is ingratitude.
Establishing Lineage of Muawiyah:
As for the issue of Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه being called by a nisbah, it is narrated that Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه attributed Ziyad bin Sumayyah to his father Abu Sufyan, whereas he was previously known as Ziyad bin Ubaid Thaqafi. This is completely baseless. The narration from which an argument can be made in this regard is as follows.
Abu Ishaq Subayi رحمه الله says:
إن زيادا لما قدم الكوفة، قال : قد جئتكم في أمر ما طلبته إلا إليكم، قالوا : ادعنا إلى ما شئت، قال : تلحقون نسبي بمعاوية، قالوا : أما بشهادة النور فلا، فأتى البصرة، فشهد له رجل .
“It is narrated from Abu Ishaq Subayi رحمه الله that Ziyad came to Kufa and said: I want to make a request from you. The people of Kufa said: We are present, what do you want? He said: Introduce me to the relative of Muawiyah. They said: We cannot introduce you based on false testimony. Ziyad came to Basra, and then a man gave testimony.”
(Tarikh al-Tabari: 215/5)
The chain is weak.
◈ Umar bin Bashir al-Hamdani is weak. Yahya bin Ma’in رحمه الله has declared him weak.
Imam Abu Hatim رحمه الله says:
ليس بقوي يكتب حديثه وجابر الجعفي أحب إلي منه۔
“He is not strong, the hadith will be recorded. I prefer Jabir Ba’si (a liar) over him.”
(Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil by Ibn Abi Hatim: 100/6)
This is a relative weakening.
◈ Abu Ishaq Sabi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, is mixed. It is not known regarding Umar bin Bashir al-Hamdani whether he narrates before mixing or after mixing.
Even if we assume the narration is authentic, then also the affiliation of Muawiyah, may Allah be pleased with him, is correct under the mentioned conditions.
◈ Before the affiliation of Muawiyah, Ziyad’s lineage was unknown; his mother’s name was Sumayyah, and the father’s name was not known. That is why he was also called Ziyad bin Abiyah. Saying Ziyad bin Ubaid Thaqafi is not correct and is not established even from a weak narration. Therefore, (assuming the narration is authentic) the affiliation of Muawiyah, may Allah be pleased with him, to Ziyad as his father Abu Sufyan is correct.
◈ Ziyad and Abu Sufyan رضي الله عنه have a likely established lineage, because the age difference between them is consistent with that of a father and son. Secondly, Abu Sufyan رضي الله عنه was neither castrated nor afflicted with any condition at that age, and there was no other claimant to lineage.
◈ When it was said that Ziyad was an illegitimate son of Abu Sufyan رضي الله عنه, then there is no need for the acknowledgment of the one to whom he is attached, i.e., Abu Sufyan رضي الله عنه.
◈ The attachment of Muawiyah (assuming the authenticity of the narration) does not mean changing the lineage of the attached Ziyad, because before that he was known by his lineage and there is no other claimant, and also Abu Sufyan رضي الله عنه is said to have an illegitimate son. Firstly, nothing like this is proven, but even if it is considered proven, then according to the mentioned conditions, the attachment of Muawiyah will be correct. And all praise is due to Allah.
Maulana Maududi writes about Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه:
“In the matter of the distribution of war booty, Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه also violated the explicit injunctions of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, p. 174)
Sayyiduna Umar ibn al-As writes about the world:
“Two such acts occurred from Hazrat Amr ibn al-As رضي الله عنه, which cannot be called anything but wrong.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, p. 144)
Regarding Sayyiduna Mughirah ibn Shu’bah and Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه, it is said:
“The initial movement for Yazid’s succession was not based on any sincere feeling, rather an elder, for his personal interest, appealed to another elder’s personal interest and gave birth to this proposal, and both gentlemen (Sayyiduna Mughirah and Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه) disregarded the fact that by doing so they were leading the Ummah of Muhammad into a certain path.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, p. 150)
Deviation from the Principles of the Muhaddithin
The authentication and criticism of Hadith is the art of the Imams of Hadith, and their investigations are to be trusted; this is the view of Ahl al-Sunnah. It is possible that sometimes the chain of narration (isnad) is authentic but the text (matn) is objectionable, but the decision on this matter is to be made only by the Muhaddithin. If they declare the text of a narration to be objectionable, then so be it. However, there is no reason to declare those narrations objectionable which they have accepted unanimously. This is because the Muhaddithin lived during the era of Hadith compilation, met the narrators, maintained contact with them, examined their conditions, and then weighed every individual without considering the research of any single person as final.
If he is lying, then which lies did he tell and where? If he is truthful, then is his memory also strong? If the narrator’s memory is strong, then has he narrated any rejected traditions? How much adherence does a narrator have? Was the narrator affected by confusion at any stage of his life? Is the narrator a fabricator? If someone is accused of fabrication, is this accusation true? If someone has been criticized for falsehood, was the critic personally biased? Is the narrator an innovator? Despite being an innovator, does he speak the truth?
Meaning that the conditions of the narrators were collected with such meticulousness, the practice of the hadiths was observed, fatwas were examined, the actions of the narrators of hadith were considered, and only then were the rulings of the hadiths compiled and established as a universally accepted law throughout the entire Ummah. These were not mountains of straw that anyone could blow away in the air.
Whereas Maulana Maududi repeatedly rejects the unanimous research of the muhaddithin and dismisses hadiths solely on the basis that they are beyond his understanding.
Maulana Maududi writes:
“A group, by exaggerating in traditionism, reaches such an extent that the truthfulness of a few narrators of Bukhari and Muslim is more dear to them, and they do not care that this results in accusing a Prophet of lying.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 167/3)
Similarly, it is written:
“Although its chain of narration is weak, its conformity with the Quran removes its weakness, and these other narrations are stronger, but their lack of conformity with the apparent statement of the Quran makes them weak.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 200/3)
Further, it is written:
“As far as the chains of narration are concerned, most of these narrations have strong chains, and regarding the narration itself, there can be no doubt about its authenticity, but the content of the hadith is clearly against reason and is loudly proclaiming that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) could never have said this, as it has been transmitted. Trying to remove such narrations from people’s minds solely on the basis of the authenticity of the chain is to make the religion a subject of ridicule.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 337/4)
They further write:
“Considering the numerous different chains of narration that have reached the hadith scholars, it is difficult to say that they are completely baseless, but it seems that there was some misunderstanding by Hazrat Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) in understanding the statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him), or he might not have heard the entire statement.”
(Rasa’il wa Masa’il, pp. 832-833)
Regarding the hadith about the Dajjal, they write while declaring it doubtful:
“For example, among the hadiths related to the Dajjal, it is evident from the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) own clarifications that he was not given knowledge by Allah regarding the location, time, and personality of the Dajjal.”
(Rasa’il wa Masa’il, vol. 3, p. 375)
Regarding the beard, they say:
“The Shariah has not prescribed any specific limit regarding the beard.”
(Rasa’il wa Masa’il, p. 435)
They write about Sunnah:
“People generally think that everything the Prophet ﷺ did in his life is Sunnah, but although this is largely correct, it is also somewhat incorrect.”
(Rasaail wa Masaail, page 440)
Tafseer bil-Ra’y
Tafseer by opinion is the method of the people of innovation, while the Ahl al-Sunnah interpret the Quran using the Quran, Hadith, and the sayings of the Salaf. In this chapter, Maulana has followed the path of the people of innovation.
He writes:
“From this soul, its pair was created. The detailed nature of this is not known to us. Generally, what the people of Tafseer state, and what is also mentioned in the Bible, is that Eve was created from Adam’s rib. The Talmud provides even more detail, stating that Hazrat Eve was created from the thirteenth rib on the right side of Hazrat Adam (peace be upon him), but the Book of Allah is silent on this matter, and the Hadith presented in support of it does not convey the meaning that people have understood. Therefore, it is better to leave the matter as ambiguous as Allah has kept it and not waste time in specifying its detailed nature.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran 1 / 319-320)
The ahadith mentioned in this chapter are clear. The famous Sunni exegetes Imam Tabari and Hafiz Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on them, have explained the command of Allah Almighty: ﴿وخلق منها زوجها) to mean that Hawwa (Eve), peace be upon her, was created from the rib of Sayyiduna Adam, peace be upon him.
Allama Fakhr al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him, considered this statement to be the consensus and wrote:
هو الذي عليه الأكثرون .
“Most of the exegetes say this.”
(Tafsir al-Razi: 477/9)
Ismail bin Abdul Rahman bin Abi Karima al-Saddi, may Allah have mercy on him (127 AH), says:
خلقها الله من ضلعه .
“Allah created Hawwa from the rib of Adam, peace be upon him.”
(Tafsir al-Tabari: 341/6, and its chain is Hasan)
He also says:
خلق منها زوجها، جعل من آدم حواء .
“That his wife was created from him means that Hawwa was created from Adam.”
(Tafseer al-Tabari: 342/1, and its chain is Hasan)
They interpret (وسخرنا مع داود الجبال يسبحن والطير) as:
“From these instructions, what is understood is that when Prophet Dawood (peace be upon him) used to sing songs of praise and glorification of Allah Almighty, the mountains would echo with his loud and melodious voice, the birds would stop, and a special atmosphere would be created.” 🌿
In the interpretation of (ورفعنا فوقكم الطور), it is written:
“But now it is difficult to explain its details; it should only be understood in summary that when the covenant was taken at the foot of the mountain, such a terrifying situation was created that it seemed to them as if the mountain was about to fall upon them.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran 82/1)
This is a clear distortion of the Quranic verse, as if Maududi Sahib thought that the mountain moving upwards was something impossible, so he changed its meaning altogether, but perhaps he forgot that Allah Almighty is capable of everything.
And the command of Allah Almighty: In the interpretation of ﴿ألم تر إلى الذين خرجوا من ديارهم وهـ ألوف حذر الموتل), it is written:
“This indication is towards the event of the Exodus of the Children of Israel. These people came out of Egypt in very large numbers.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran:184/1)
No commentator has mentioned this. This is Maududi Sahib’s own invention.
In the interpretation of “seven heavens,” he writes:
“What is the reality of the seven heavens? It is difficult to determine. Humans in every era have formed various concepts about the heavens or, in other words, the beyond the earth, based on their observations or conjectures, which have continuously changed. Therefore, it would not be correct to base the meaning of these words of the Quran on any one concept. One should simply understand that either it means that Allah has divided the entire universe beyond the earth into seven firm layers, or that the earth is located in a part of this universe which consists of seven layers.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran 61/1)
The sky is a creation of Allah Almighty. This is a fact that is established by the Quran, mutawatir hadiths, and sound reason. However, Maududi Sahib is casting doubt on the reality of the “seven heavens.” This can never be correct. The hadiths of Mi’raj clearly indicate that Maududi Sahib’s classification is completely false.
Maulana Taqi Usmani Sahib rightly said:
“There are many points in Tafheem-ul-Quran that are against the established beliefs and sayings of the majority, therefore, according to the questioner, it is not correct to read or have it read without criticism.”
(Fatawa Usmani, Vol. 1, p. 214)
Maulana Ahmad Raza Bijnori Sahib says about “Tafheem-ul-Quran”:
“At the places where he has differed from the majority of commentators and the great scholars of the Ummah and recorded his uniqueness, it is obvious that these cannot be accepted, and their number is very large. I have criticized many points in Anwar-ul-Bari. Further criticism will be possible after completing Anwar-ul-Bari, InshaAllah. We have marked one hundred problematic points in the six volumes of Tafheem. In our view, to avoid Tafseer bil Ra’y (interpretation based on personal opinion), it is necessary that firstly, the solution of the Quranic verses should be presented in the light of other verses and then the Ahadith and narrations of the Sahabah and Tabi’een, and secondly, the circumstantial evidence and events should be given secondary importance. Those who have adopted the opposite method have not been able to avoid the error of Tafseer bil Ra’y.”
(Malfoozat Allama Syed Anwar Shah, pp. 217-218)
Scholars’ Views Regarding Maududi Sahib
Sheikh Maqbool bin Hadi, Wadi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, writes:
الذي يظهر أن به شيئا من التشيع، وهو يعتبر من أئمة البدع، فجزى الله بعض الإخوة خيرا فقد ألف كتابا بعنوان زوابع في وجه السنة وبين حال أبي الأعلى المودودي وغيره من أولئك الذين يهاجمون سنة رسول الله وتضعيفهم أحاديث صحيحة في الصحيحين من أجل الأهواء .
“It is evident that there was some Shi’ism found in Maududi; he should be counted among the Imams of the people of innovation. May Allah reward our brother well, he has authored a book titled ‘Zawaabi’ Fi Wajh al-Nabi,’ in which he has included Abu al-A’la Maududi and others among those who attack the Sunnah of the Prophet and consider the Ahadith of the Sahihayn weak merely following their own desires.”
(Fada’i’ wa Nasa’ih, p. 165; Ijabat al-Sa’il, p. 494)
Maulana Nausheen Ahmad Madani Sahib says about Maududi Sahib:
“He does not declare takfir, I consider him misguided.”
(Maktubat Sheikh al-Islam, vol. 3, p. 95)
Mufti Rashid Ahmad Ludhianvi Sahib says:
“After this writing of the servant, Maududi Sahib wrote the book ‘Khilafat wa Mulukiyat,’ in which he openly spat venom against some of the Companions (رضي الله عنهم). Even after seeing this book, if someone still does not believe in Maududi Sahib’s animosity towards some of the Companions (رضي الله عنهم), then this is evidence that there is hatred and enmity towards the Companions (رضي الله عنهم) in their own heart as well. The reality is that the feat of erasing the greatness of the Companions (رضي الله عنهم) from the hearts of Muslims and creating doubts, suspicions, hatred, and enmity in hearts regarding this sacred group, which Maududi Sahib alone has accomplished, the entire Shia community could not even achieve a fraction of it in their entire lifetime. Before Maududi Sahib, there does not appear to be a single Muslim who harbored hatred towards any Companion, but today Maududi Sahib has completely poisoned a group of Muslims with this deadly venom.”
(Ahsan al-Fatawa, Vol. 1, pp. 210-211)
Mufti Muhammad Shafi Usmani Sahib writes:
“The fundamental mistake of Maulana Maududi Sahib, according to the humble writer, is that he followed personal ijtihad in matters of beliefs and rulings, even if his ijtihad was against the consensus of the majority of the Salafi scholars, whereas, according to the humble writer, he did not fulfill the conditions of the office of ijtihad. Due to this fundamental mistake, many things in his literature are incorrect and against the consensus of the Ahl al-Sunnah scholars. Besides this, the manner in which he criticized the Salafi scholars and even the Companions of the Prophet, may Allah be pleased with them, in his writings is extremely wrong. Especially in ‘Khilafat wa Mulukiyat’ (Caliphate and Monarchy), some Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, were not only criticized but also blamed, and despite attention being drawn to this by various circles, the insistence on this approach is completely contrary to the style of the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah scholars. Moreover, the overall effect of his general literature on its readers is often that the desired trust in the pious predecessors is lost.”
(Jawahir al-Fiqh, Vol. 2, p. 172/17)
Warning:
Sheikh Hamad Ansari, may Allah have mercy on him (1343 AH), says:
“Once, some friends and I went to meet Maududi Sahib. At that time, he was staying at a hotel named ‘Bathaa’ in Riyadh. It was Asr time when we arrived, and he was performing the Asr prayer. I carefully observed his prayer. After the prayer, I asked him: You need to research your prayer; you neither raise your hands nor pause in your prayer, etc., etc. He replied: My school of thought is Hanafi.”
(Al-Majmoo’ fi Tarjamat al-Sheikh Hamad bin Muhammad al-Ansari li Ibn Abd al-Awwal: 604/2)
