Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi’s Beliefs and Ideologies
Maulana Abul A’la Maududi (died 3 Rajab 1399 AH, 22 September 1979 CE) was generally not from the Ahl-e-Sunnat. There are many matters in which he deviated from the beliefs and ideologies of the Ahl-e-Sunnat, to the extent that in the chapter of belief (Aqeedah), he strayed so much that he is seen standing in the ranks of the Mu’tazilites and sometimes the Jahmiyyah. The belief in the Names and Attributes (Asma wa Sifat) is the core and foundation of the belief in Monotheism (Tawheed). His eminence has stumbled in this chapter. Disrespect towards the noble Prophets also fell to the Maulana’s share, and his weak remarks regarding the Companions are open before everyone. His methodology for grading Ahadith as authentic (Tashih) or weak (Tad’eef) is also not that of the Muhaddithin, but is largely based on rationalism (Aql-parasti).
It should be remembered that the original methodology (Manhaj) of the Ahl-e-Sunnat is complete reliance on the pious predecessors (Salaf as-Saliheen). Whether it is beliefs, ideologies, actions, or principles, following in the footsteps of the Salaf in every matter is the very definition of the Manhaj of Ahl-e-Sunnat. Islam has existed in every era; it cannot be that Islam is present in some eras and disappears in others. Absolutely not. Rather, it has remained a guiding light for the people of every era with its original form and states, and the Salaf as-Saliheen kept walking on it. But Maulana Maududi rejected the paths of the Salaf and invented his own new paths, and deviated from the path of truth (Sirat al-Mustaqeem). Below, a few of his ideologies are being examined. Please observe.
The chapter of Asma wa Sifat is an important part of the Muslims’ beliefs; Maulana Maududi has severely stumbled in this chapter. Below are nine such instances, friends should study them:
① Maulana Maududi writes in the Tafseer of ﴾الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ﴿:
“Its example is such that, just as when describing someone’s generosity we use the word ‘Sakhi’ (generous) and when we feel it insufficient, we add ‘Data’ (bestower) to it. When praising complexion, if we don’t find ‘Gore’ (fair) enough, we add the word ‘Chitte’ (white) to it. When mentioning tallness, if saying ‘Lamba’ (tall) doesn’t satisfy us, we also say ‘Tadanga’ (lanky) after it.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 1/44)
Maulana is portraying ﴾الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ﴿ as meaningless/superfluous words, having no actual meaning or concept, whereas Allah the Almighty has paired His two names in numerous places in the glorious Quran, and this is one of those places. ﴾الرَّحْمٰنِ﴿ is on the scale of Fa’laan; this scale is brought to express the vastness of a thing. The meaning of ﴾الرَّحْمٰنِ﴿ is the One whose mercy is vastly extensive. ﴾الرَّحِيمِ﴿ is on the scale of Fa’eel, which proves that Allah the Almighty is extremely merciful. Every single name has its own distinct denotation; there is no such thing as “fair and white” here.
And he translates ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ like this:
“Then He manifested Himself on the throne of governance.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 2/262)
This translation is against the Quran, Sunnah, and consensus (Ijma). It is established from the Quran, Hadith, consensus, and natural disposition that Ar-Rahman is elevated over His Throne (Arsh). Did Allah the Almighty not have governance over the Throne beforehand?
“As for the decree that God’s throne was previously on the water, the meaning we understand from it is that God’s kingdom was over the water.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 2/325)
This is clear misinterpretation (Ta’weel) and distortion (Tahrif). None of the scholars of truth state this meaning; only those interpretations and meanings of the Quran and Sunnah are reliable which are proven from the Companions and the Imams of the Salaf.
Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi (May Allah have mercy on him, 597 AH) writes:
“It is the consensus of the Salaf as-Saliheen that no addition should be made to the recitation of the verse. Some people, adopting an anomaly, have said that the meaning of the Throne is kingship. This is a deviation from the literal to the metaphorical, and is also in opposition to the Hadith. Have they not heard the statement of the Exalted: وَكَانَ عَرْشُهُ عَلَى الْمَاءِ ‘His Throne was upon the water’? Was Allah’s ownership (kingship) upon the water?”
“The Creator Himself cannot possibly be in any specific place.”
Whereas Allah the Almighty has informed about Himself that He is elevated over the Throne. If a child is asked, “Where is Allah?”, he will point upwards or say with his tongue: “He is above.”
⑤ “Regarding Allah the Almighty, it cannot even be imagined that He resides in a specific place, because His Being is pure from the limitations of time and space.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 6/87)
⑥ “And the concept of the Divine Being that has been given to us in the glorious Quran also prevents us from imagining that this Being, Who is free from body, direction, and place, settled in a place and that some creation carries Him.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 6/41)
The Ahl-e-Sunnat remain cautious regarding the attributes of Allah the Almighty. In this chapter, they keep the textual evidences (Nusoos) on their apparent meanings. Whatever Allah the Almighty has informed about Himself, they accept it as proven; whatever He negated, they negate. Whatever the Salaf remained silent about, we also remain silent about.
Sheikh-ul-Islam Allama Ibn Taymiyyah (May Allah have mercy on him, 728 AH) says:
“The reality is that the intent will be looked at. Whoever thinks that a ‘place’ is something whose inhabitant is dependent on it, whether that place surrounds him or is beneath him, then evidently Allah the Exalted is not in any place in this sense. But whoever believes that the Throne is a place and Allah is elevated above it, not being dependent on it, then in this sense, undoubtedly Allah the Exalted is in a place. Therefore, what must be negated is that Allah the Exalted is dependent on anyone; rather, everything is dependent on Him. It is not permissible to attribute Him with any such attribute that implies His dependency.”
(Dar’ Ta’arud al-Aql wa al-Naql: 6/249)
And he says:
“But as for Allah the Almighty, Who is the Creator of all, the most Self-Sufficient from all, and so independent that everything is dependent on Him, to draw an analogy between Him and the dependent and weak creations is tantamount to equating the creation with the Lord of the Worlds, and whoever equates the creation with the Lord of the Worlds is in manifest error.”
(Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah: 3/622)
Allama Ibn al-Qayyim (May Allah have mercy on him, 751 AH) writes:
“Allah the Exalted’s establishing Himself (Istiwa) and being elevated over His Throne is pure from Him being dependent on a carrier, or being dependent on what He is elevated upon. Rather, the Throne and the carriers of the Throne are dependent on Him. Allah the Exalted is independent of the Throne, the carriers of the Throne, and everything else. This Istiwa and Uluww (elevation) is such that it does not involve any confinement. Allah the Exalted has no need for the Throne or anything else, nor does anything encompass Him. Rather, there was a time when Allah the Exalted existed but the Throne did not, nor did He have any need for the Throne. He is Self-Sufficient and Praiseworthy. His establishing Himself over the Throne and His ascendancy over His creation is from the requirements of His kingship and omnipotence, which in no way require the earth, etc. His descending every night does not contradict His elevation, independence, and perfection. Similarly, He is pure from all the illusions of the Mu’attilah and the Mushabbihah. He is also pure from the Divine Being being underneath anything or being confined in anything. Our Lord is free from every defect that contradicts His perfection, independence, hearing, and seeing. The Divine Being is pure from the imaginations of the Mushabbihah and the fabrications of the Mu’attilah. His love and alliance with His close friends is not like the love of creation with creation; rather, this love is due to mercy, goodness, beneficence, and virtue.”
(Bada’i al-Fawa’id: 2/136)
The affirmation of the attribute of ‘Yad’ (Hand for Allah the Exalted) has been a highly debated issue between the Ahl-e-Sunnat and the Jahmiyyah, whereas Mr. Maududi writes regarding this:
“Authority being in His hand does not mean that He possesses a physical hand, rather the word has been used idiomatically in the meaning of ‘grasp’. Just like in Arabic, in our language too, when we say that powers are in the hands of so-and-so, it means that he alone is the owner of all powers, no one else has any interference in it.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 6/41)
And he writes:
“By the word ‘both hands’, the intention is probably to indicate that this new creation possesses two important aspects of Allah the Almighty’s magnificent creation. One is that he was given an animalistic body, due to which he is a species from the genus of animals. Secondly, that soul was blown into him due to which he became the most honorable and superior among all earthly creations in his attributes.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 4/348)
The scholars of Ahl-e-Sunnat refute this. It is attributed to Imam Abu Hanifah (May Allah have mercy on him):
“Allah the Exalted has a Hand, a Face, and a Self, as Allah the Exalted has mentioned in the pure Quran. Whatever the Lord Exalted has mentioned in the noble Quran regarding the Face, Hand, and Self, they are His attributes, whose nature (Kaifiyyah) cannot be described, nor can it be said that by His Hand, power or blessing is meant, because this necessitates the nullification of the attribute, which is the belief of the Qadariyyah and Mu’tazilah. Rather, the Hand is an attribute of Allah the Exalted, whose exact nature is unknown.”
(Al-Fiqh al-Akbar, page 27)
And he says:
“Allah the Exalted will not be attributed with the attributes of the creation. Wrath and Pleasure are both attributes of Allah the Exalted; their exact nature will not be described, this is the methodology of the Ahl-e-Sunnat. Allah the Exalted becomes angry and also becomes pleased. It will not be said that Allah’s wrath means His punishment and His pleasure means His reward. We will describe Allah’s attributes just as Allah has described His own attributes. يَدُ اللَّهِ فَوْقَ أَيْدِيهِمْ ‘The Hand of Allah is over their hands.’ Allah’s Hand is not like the hands of the creation, nor is it a bodily organ; He is the Creator of all hands. Similarly, His Face is not like the faces of the creation; He is the Creator of all faces. His Self (Essence) is not like the selves of the creation; He is the Creator of all selves. The statement of the Exalted is: ﴿لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ﴾ ‘There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.'”
(Al-Fiqh al-Akbar, page 161)
Khatib Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (May Allah have mercy on him, 463 AH) says:
“Regarding the Divine Attributes that are narrated in authentic Ahadith, the Salaf as-Saliheen affirm them while taking their apparent meaning and negate their modalities and likeness to creation (Tashbeeh). Some factions, while negating these attributes, have nullified that which Allah had affirmed. Some people did affirm them, but fell into the misguidances of anthropomorphism and specifying modalities. Whereas the correct path is to adopt the middle way between the two factions, and the religion of Allah the Exalted is between extremism and negligence. In reality, discussing the attributes of the Divine Being is discussing the Divine Being itself. The same methodology will be adopted for them as is adopted for the Divine Being. It is an axiomatic truth that affirming the Lord of the Worlds is affirming His Existence, not His modalities. Similarly, affirming the attributes is affirming their existence, not their modality or limitation. Therefore, when we say that the attributes of Hand, Hearing, and Sight are proven for Allah, the meaning will be that these are attributes which Allah the Exalted has affirmed for Himself. We will not say that the meaning of Hand is power and the meaning of Hearing and Sight is knowledge, nor will we declare them as limbs (bodily organs), nor will we compare them to hands, ears, and eyes which are bodily organs and tools for performing actions. Rather, we will say that affirming them is obligatory because they are proven from the Shariah, and negating anthropomorphism is also strictly necessary, as is the statement of Allah the Exalted: ﴿لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ﴾ (Ash-Shura: 11) ‘There is nothing like unto Allah.’ And He said: ﴾وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ﴿ (Al-Ikhlas: 4) ‘And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him.'”
(Siyar A’lam al-Nubala by adh-Dhahabi: 18/284, with an authentic chain)
The Lord Exalted’s ‘Coming’ (Ityan) is proven in the glorious Quran; it is His attribute.
⑦ Maulana Maududi writes:
“The actual words are: ﴾جَاءَ رَبُّكَ﴿ whose literal translation is: ‘Your Lord will come.’ But obviously, there is no question of Allah the Almighty moving from one place to another.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 6/333)
This is a blatant denial of the Quranic words.
Allama Ibn al-Qayyim (May Allah have mercy on him, 751 AH) writes:
“From this, it became clear that the attributes of Descending (Nuzul), Coming (Maji’, Ityan), Establishing (Istiwa), Ascending (Su’ud), and Elevating (Irtifa’) are all attributes of action. Allah the Exalted can perfectly do whatever He wills. His attributes of action are just like His attributes of Essence. If it were not so, He would not be the ‘Effective Doer’ (Fa’aal), nor would He be attributed with the attributes of perfection. Allah the Exalted’s attributes of descending, coming, arriving, establishing, ascending, elevating, and other attributes are actions from His actions; if these attributes are metaphorical, then all His actions would be metaphorical, and no action would truly remain in reality. Rather, all actions would become like inanimate objects. This is the reality of the Mu’attilah. If Allah the Exalted is truly accepted as the Doer, then His actions will be of two types: ① Intransitive ② Transitive.
Countless textual evidences denote both these types. By affirming the attributes of actions and establishing them with the Divine Being, all your doubts and suspicions vanish instantly. All the texts verify each other and you will also understand them to be agreeable and compliant with clear intellect. If you deny these attributes or do not consider them established with the Divine Being, you will fall into severe turmoil in this matter and will keep trying to find a reconciliation between the textual evidences and the deniers of the Divine attributes. To combine and reconcile two contradictions and opposites is impossible.
Some further clarification: When false illusions and corrupt intellects infer from the Lord Exalted’s descending, coming, coming down, and drawing near the same meaning that is inferred from the descending, coming, coming down, and drawing near of the creation (which necessitates transferring from one place to another), they end up negating the reality of these Divine attributes. And they fall prey to two misguidances: ① Anthropomorphism (Tashbeeh) ② Nullification (Ta’teel). If it could just penetrate these weak intellects that Allah, the Glorious and Exalted’s descending and coming is not similar to the creation’s descending and coming, just as the Creator’s hearing, sight, knowledge, and life are not similar to the creation’s; rather, His Hand and Face are also not similar to the creation. If Allah’s descending is not considered similar to the creation, its reality will not be negated. The Mu’attilah, by completely negating the reality of Allah the Exalted’s Essence, attributes, and actions, fell into a contradiction, because whatever meaning they do affirm, the same objection is raised against them for negating the attributes that they raise against the Ahl-e-Sunnat for affirming the Divine attributes, and they find no way out of this discrepancy.”
(Mukhtasar as-Sawa’iq al-Mursalah, pages 450-451)
“Regarding the Divine descent to the earth on the Day of Judgment, the Ahadith and the narrations of the Companions are definitively continuous (Mutawatir), and the Quran also explicitly signifies it.”
(Mukhtasar as-Sawa’iq al-Mursalah, page 466)
Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar writes:
“Regarding the descending, etc., of the Lord, the Mighty and Majestic, one school of thought of the early scholars (Mutaqaddimeen) is that descending means actual descending, but we do not know its exact nature. Similarly, regarding hearing, sight, hand, and establishing upon the Throne, the stance of the early scholars is exactly this. The later scholars (Muta’akhkhireen) make interpretations, stating that it means Divine pleasure, approval, and attention. The reliable view is indeed that of the early scholars.”
(Khazanat us-Sunan, page 403)
Therefore, the reliable view is that of the early scholars. The interpretation made by some later scholars is a deviation from the methodology of the Salaf and a type of nullification (Ta’teel). Maulana Maududi considers the human soul as a reflection or shadow of the Divine attributes, which is a pantheistic (Wahdat al-Wujud) belief.
He writes:
“…… From this, it is known that the soul which has been blown into the human being is actually a reflection or shadow of the Divine attributes.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 3/502)
Maulana Maududi’s pen is entirely unacquainted with the requirements of reverence and respect for the Prophets. He has engaged in strange kinds of discourse regarding the great Prophets.
He writes about the Jihad of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him):
“When, after the failure of preaching and exhortation, the caller to Islam took the sword in hand……”
(Al-Jihad fil Islam, page 174)
Regarding the Prophets (Peace Be Upon Them), he writes:
“Even the Messengers faced the dangers of the highway robbery of Shirk, thus a glorious Messenger like Hazrat Dawud (AS) was reprimanded on one occasion.”
(Tafheemat, page 163)
Regarding Sayyiduna Nuh (AS), he writes:
“Sometimes, on a delicate psychological occasion, even a supreme and noble human being like a Prophet is momentarily overcome by his human weakness. But as soon as he realizes or is made to realize by Allah the Exalted that his step is falling below the required standard, he immediately repents and does not hesitate for a moment to correct his mistake. What greater proof of Hazrat Nuh’s (AS) moral sublimity can there be than the fact that a young son has just drowned before his eyes and this sight is tearing his heart apart, but when Allah the Exalted warns him that to consider the son who left the truth and sided with falsehood as his own merely because he was born from his loins is purely a sentiment of ignorance (Jahiliyyah), he instantly, disregarding the wound of his heart, turns back to the perspective that is the requirement of Islam.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 2/344)
Regarding Sayyiduna Dawud (AS), he writes:
“This is the reprimand which Allah the Exalted issued to Hazrat Dawud on that occasion, along with accepting his repentance and giving him the glad tidings of elevated ranks. From this, it automatically becomes evident that the act which was committed by him had some involvement of the desires of the self, it also had some connection to the illegitimate use of authoritative power, and it was such an act that did not befit any ruler governing with truth.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 4/327)
And he writes:
“But its reality was merely this, that Hazrat Dawud (AS), being influenced by the common custom of the Israelite society of his time, had requested Uriah for a divorce.”
(Tafheemat: 2/56)
Regarding a Dhimmi, he writes:
“No matter how great a crime a Dhimmi commits, his pact is not broken, to the extent that stopping the payment of Jizya, killing a Muslim, blaspheming against the Prophet (PBUH), or violating the honor of a Muslim woman are also not invalidators of his pact.”
Regarding the infallibility of the Prophets, he writes:
“It is a subtle point that Allah the Almighty intentionally lifted His protection from every Prophet at some point or another and allowed one or two slips to occur, so that people do not mistake the Prophets for God and know that they are human beings, not God.”
(Tafheemat: 2/56)
Warning:
The requirement of the honor and greatness of the Prophets (Peace Be Upon Them) is that even the slightest disrespect in their court should be avoided. The pen should be navigated through those difficult paths with such care that neither the actual event is altered nor any undue audacity is implied against the pure personalities like the Prophets.
In this regard, the role of the scholars of Ahl-e-Sunnat is a leading one, who gave complete reverence to the Prophets and Messengers of Allah the Exalted and remembered them with words befitting their prophetic glory. Every Prophet is venerable to us. A person who speaks ill of even a single Prophet, commits disrespect in his matter, or deliberately remembers them with words contrary to their reverence, has no connection with Islam. Therefore, the selection of words regarding the Prophets and the great Messengers should be extremely cautious. Safety and goodness lie in this alone.
The Companions (May Allah be pleased with them) are the most revered personalities in the world and on earth, upon whom Allah, the Lord of Honor, bestowed His favors. He was pleased with them, promised Paradise for them, and the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) taught to revere them. On the other hand, Mr. Maududi, standing in the ranks of the Rawafidh (Shias), levels such vile accusations against the blessed personalities of the Companions that one is left astounded.
Maulana Maududi writes:
“Stranger than that is that sometimes even the Companions would be overcome by human weakness and they too would take jabs at each other. Ibn Umar (RA) heard that Abu Hurairah (RA) did not consider Witr obligatory; he said: ‘Abu Hurairah (RA) is a liar.’ Hazrat Aisha, on one occasion, remarked about Anas (RA) and Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (RA) that what do they know about the Hadith of the Prophet, they were just children in those days. Hazrat Hasan bin Ali (RA) was once asked the meaning of ‘Shahid’ and ‘Mashhud’; he explained its Tafseer. It was submitted that Ibn Umar (RA) and Ibn Zubair (RA) say such and such. He said: ‘Both are liars.’ Hazrat Ali (RA), on one occasion, declared Mughira bin Shu’bah (RA) a liar. Ubadah bin Samit (RA), while explaining a certain issue, accused Mas’ud bin Aws al-Ansari (RA) of lying, even though he is among the Companions of Badr.”
(Tafheemat: 1/296)
Whatever the context of these narrations may be, the word “Kizb” (lie) does not always mean a deliberate falsehood; rather, it is also used in the sense of making a mistake. So, for one Companion to declare another Companion’s opinion a mistake is common. Through these points, Mr. Maududi is trying to portray that as if the Companions considered each other liars.
Mufti Taqi Usmani writes:
“The fact is that to enter this sea of blood regarding the mutual disputes of the Companions (RA), great caution is required. In defending one faction of the Companions, to disparage the other faction in any way is a course of action that takes a person far away from the moderate path of the Ahl-e-Sunnat.”
(Tajalliyat, page 345)
The Cause of Defeat in the Battle of Uhud:
Maulana Maududi writes regarding the Battle of Uhud:
“The major cause of the defeat at Uhud was that the Muslims (noble Companions), at the exact moment of success, were overcome by the greed for wealth, and instead of taking their task to completion, they engaged in looting the spoils of war.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 1/287)
Then, while condemning interest, he writes:
“The society in which usury exists develops two types of moral diseases due to usury. In those who take usury: greed, avarice, stinginess, and selfishness. And in those who pay usury: hatred, anger, malice, and jealousy. In the defeat of Uhud, some portion of both these types of diseases was involved.”
Sayyiduna Uthman bin Affan (RA) is the third Rightly Guided Caliph and the Commander of the Faithful. He has countless virtues and merits. He is among the ten promised Paradise. He is the double son-in-law of the Prophet (PBUH). His era of Caliphate was marked by peace and tranquility. It was an era of the exaltation of Islam and conquests. The flag of justice and fairness was held high.
Imam Yahya bin Ma’in (May Allah have mercy on him, 233 AH) states:
كُلُّ مَنْ يَشْتُمُ عُثْمَانَ أَوْ طَلْحَةَ أَوْ أَحَدًا مِّنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ دَجَّالٌ لَا يُكْتَبُ عَنْهُ وَعَلَيْهِ لَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ وَالْمَلَائِكَةِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ.
“Whoever curses Sayyiduna Uthman (RA), Sayyiduna Talha (RA), or any one of the Companions of the Prophet (PBUH) is a Dajjal, Hadith shall not be written from him. Upon him is the curse of Allah, the angels, and all of mankind.”
(Tarikh Ibn Ma’in bi-Riwayat ad-Duri: 2670)
Maulana Maududi, regurgitating the morsels of the Orientalists and the Rawafidh, has leveled various types of accusations against Sayyiduna Uthman (RA). Maulana is not even ready to acknowledge Sayyiduna Uthman (RA) as fit for the Caliphate in the first place, he writes:
“Hazrat Uthman (RA) was burdened with this immense weight, while he did not possess all those characteristics that were granted to his glorious predecessors. Therefore, during his era of Caliphate, Jahiliyyah found the opportunity to infiltrate the Islamic collective system. Hazrat Uthman (RA) tried to block the path of this danger by sacrificing his own head, but it could not be stopped. After this, Hazrat Ali (RA) stepped forward; he made the utmost effort to save the political power of Islam from the dominance of Jahiliyyah, but even the sacrifice of his life could not stop the reverse revolution. Ultimately, the era of the Caliphate upon the Prophetic methodology came to an end, monarchy took its place, and in this way, the foundation of the government was once again established on Jahiliyyah instead of Islam.”
(Tajdid wa Ihya-e-Deen, page 28)
So it implies that the mantle of Caliphate of Sayyiduna Uthman (RA), which the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) commanded him to wear and declared those demanding him to remove it as hypocrites, Maulana Maududi portrays this magnificent Caliphate as an incompetent one. Then he does not stop at this, but rather levels many more accusations.
He writes:
“When Hazrat Uthman (RA) became the successor, he gradually deviated from this policy. He ruthlessly bestowed major and important posts upon his relatives and granted them other such concessions which generally became a cause for suspicion among the people.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, page 106)
There is no reality to this. Rather, it is the result of insolence. Whomever Sayyiduna Uthman (RA) appointed to a post, he kept competence in mind. If he was capable of that post, he gave him the post, whether he was a relative or a non-relative. The actual basis was competence.
Mr. Maududi himself writes:
“No one can deny that those individuals from his family whom Sayyiduna Uthman (RA) gave these government positions, they provided proof of high-level administrative and military capabilities, and many conquests took place at their hands.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, page 108)
None among the Ahl-e-Sunnat holds this opinion about Sayyiduna Uthman bin Affan (RA) that he favored his own and neglected others, or says that Sayyiduna Uthman (RA) was imprudent regarding his generosity towards his kin.
And the Caliph has the authority to delegate a post to whomever he wishes, or dismiss anyone. Others have no right to object to it. Especially a Rightly Guided Caliph whose Caliphate is upon the Prophetic methodology, there is no justification for objecting to him.
To top it off, no Companion or Tabi’i raised an objection regarding nepotism during the Caliphate of Sayyiduna Uthman (RA).
Mr. Maududi writes:
“When Walid bin Uqbah reached Hazrat Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (RA) with the decree for the governorship of Kufa, he (Sa’d) remarked: ‘I do not know if you have become wiser after us, or if we have become fools after you?’ He replied: ‘O Abu Ishaq, do not get enraged, this is just monarchy; if someone enjoys its tastes in the morning, someone else does in the evening.’ And Hazrat Sa’d said: ‘I understand, truly you people will end up turning this into a monarchy.'”
(Al-Isti’ab li-Ibn Abdil Barr: 3/1552, from a transmitter)
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, page 108)
This is a fabricated narration. Below Hakam bin Utaibah, the chain is unknown. Hakam is a Mudallis and did not explicitly state hearing.
And he writes:
“Almost similar thoughts were also expressed by Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud (RA).”
(Al-Isti’ab li-Ibn Abdil Barr: 3/1552, from a transmitter)
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, page 108)
It is a fabricated narration. Muhammad bin Sirin did not hear from Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Mas’ud (RA). Below Ja’far bin Sulaiman, the chain could not be identified.
To form a wrong impression about Sayyiduna Uthman (RA) on the basis of these narrations is not justice.
Mr. Maududi writes:
“Hazrat Uthman (RA) in the last six years of his rule gave government posts to his relatives and family members, and wrote off the Khums of Egypt (i.e., the one-fifth of the war spoils of Africa, which had come from the province of Egypt) for Marwan, and gave financial grants to his relatives, and made the interpretation in this matter that this is maintaining the ties of kinship, which Allah has commanded. He also gave money from the Bait-ul-Maal and took loans, and said that Abu Bakr and Umar (RA) had forgone their right from this wealth, and I have taken it and distributed it among my relatives. It is this very thing that people disliked.”
(Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d: 3/64)
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, page 326)
It is a fabricated narration.
① Muhammad bin Umar al-Waqidi is “Matruk and Kazzab”.
② Zuhri is a Mudallis, he did not explicitly state hearing.
③ Zuhri did not find the era of Sayyiduna Uthman (RA). Imam Zuhri was born in 58 AH and died in 124 AH. Whereas the passing of Sayyiduna Uthman (RA) occurred in 35 AH, how could he possibly give news regarding Sayyiduna Uthman (RA)?
④ Imam Yahya bin Ma’in (May Allah have mercy on him) says:
مُرْسَلُ الزُّهْرِي لَيْسَ بِشَيْءٍ.
“The Mursal narrations of Zuhri are nothing.”
(Tarikh Ibn Ma’in bi-Riwayat ad-Duri: 1027)
⑤ Imam Yahya (May Allah have mercy on him) says:
مَرَاسِيلُ الزُّهْرِي رَدِيئَةٌ.
“The Marasil of Zuhri are rejected.”
(As-Sunan al-Kubra: 10/107)
⑥ Mr. Maududi writes:
“In Africa, Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Sarh had made a settlement with the patrician there for three hundred Qintars of gold. فَأَمَرَ بِهَا عُثْمَانُ لِآلِ الْحَكَمِ ‘Then Hazrat Uthman (RA) ordered this amount to be bestowed upon the family of Hakam, meaning the family of Marwan bin Hakam’s father.'”
(Tarikh al-Tabari: 3/316)
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, page 327)
This event is a fabrication. Muhammad bin Ka’b al-Qurazi did not find the era of Sayyiduna Uthman (RA). Muhammad bin Ka’b was born around 40 AH and died in 120 AH. Whereas Sayyiduna Uthman’s (RA) passing occurred in 35 AH. How can he give news regarding Sayyiduna Uthman (RA)?
Mr. Maududi writes:
“Hazrat Uthman (RA) himself on one occasion in a gathering where Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas, Hazrat Zubair, Hazrat Talha, and Hazrat Muawiyah (May Allah be pleased with them) were present, and objections against his financial grants were under discussion, gave a detailed explanation of his conduct:
‘Both my predecessors acted strictly in the matter of themselves and their relatives, but the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) used to give wealth to his relatives. I am from a family whose people have meager livelihoods. For this reason, in exchange for the service I am doing for this government, I have taken money from this wealth and I believe I have the right to do so. If you people consider this wrong, then make a decision to have this money returned. I will accept your word.’ Everyone said: ‘You have spoken this matter very correctly.’ Then the attendees said: ‘You gave money to Abdullah bin Khalid bin Asid and Marwan,’ their statement was that this amount was given in the sum of fifteen thousand to Marwan and fifty thousand to Ibn Asid, thus this amount was made to be returned to the Bait-ul-Maal from both, and the people got up from the gathering satisfied.”
(Tarikh al-Tabari: 2/335)
The narration is severely weak, Ishaq bin Yahya bin Talha bin Ubaidullah al-Qurashi is a “Da’if and Munkar-ul-Hadith” narrator. Ahmad bin Hanbal, Yahya bin Ma’in, Bukhari, Fallas, Abu Hatim, Abu Zur’ah, Nasa’i, Tirmidhi, Ajli, Saji, Ibn Hibban, Muhammad bin Sa’d, Daraqutni, Ibn Adi, and Uqaili, etc. (May Allah have mercy on them) have declared him Da’if, Munkar-ul-Hadith, and Matruk-ul-Hadith.
Mr. Maududi writes:
“Hazrat Uthman (RA) said: ‘The people whom I have given posts, after all, Umar bin Khattab (RA) had also appointed them to posts, then why are people objecting only to me?’ Hazrat Ali (RA) replied: ‘Whomever Umar appointed as ruler of a place, if any objectionable thing about him reached him, he would take him to task severely, but you do not do this. You show leniency to your relatives.’ Hazrat Uthman (RA) said: ‘They are your relatives too.’ Hazrat Ali (RA) replied: لَعَمْرِي إِنَّ رَحِمَهُمْ مِنِّي لَقَرِيبَةٌ، وَلَكِنَّ الْفَضْلَ فِي غَيْرِهِمْ۔ ‘By my life, my relationship with them is close, but excellence lies in others.’ Hazrat Uthman (RA) said: ‘Did Umar (RA) not make Muawiyah (RA) a governor?’ Hazrat Ali (RA) replied: ‘Even the slave of Umar (RA) did not fear him as much as Muawiyah (RA) feared him. Now the situation is that Muawiyah (RA) does whatever he wants without asking you and says: This is the order of Uthman (RA). But you say nothing to him.'”
(Tarikh al-Tabari: 2/338)
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, page 331)
It is a fabricated narration.
① Waqidi has forged it.
② Abdullah bin Muslim bin Ubaidullah al-Qurashi has no hearing or meeting with Sayyiduna Uthman (RA).
③ Mr. Maududi writes:
“In Madinah, when criticism started coming against Hazrat Uthman (RA) from every side, the situation became such that apart from a few Companions like Zaid bin Thabit, Abu Asid Sa’idi, Ka’b bin Malik, and Hassan bin Thabit (RA), there was no Companion left in the city who would open his tongue in defense of his eminence.”
(Tarikh al-Tabari: 2/338)
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, page 330)
It is a fabricated narration.
① Waqidi has forged it.
② Abdullah bin Muslim bin Ubaidullah al-Qurashi has no hearing or meeting with Sayyiduna Uthman (RA).
It seems that these are the fabricated machinations of the Rawafidh based on which the accusation of nepotism is leveled against Sayyiduna Uthman (RA).
③ Mr. Maududi writes:
“This aspect of Hazrat Uthman’s (RA) policy was undoubtedly wrong, and a wrong action is wrong in any case, no matter who committed it. To try to prove it right through arbitrary interpretations is neither a requirement of reason and justice, nor is it a demand of the religion that a Companion’s mistake should not be recognized as a mistake. But the fact is that leaving aside this one aspect, in all other aspects his character as a Caliph was an exemplary character, leaving no room for objection. Furthermore, overall goodness was so dominant in his Caliphate and such great work for the exaltation of Islam was taking place in his era, that despite being dissatisfied with this specific aspect of his policy, the general Muslims throughout the state were not prepared to even entertain the thought of rebellion against him in their hearts anywhere.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, page 116)
The reality of the policy Mr. Maududi is mentioning, you have already observed, there is no need to say more. This is purely the “nonsense” of the Rawafidh. To implicitly stain the personality of a Rightly Guided Caliph based on fabricated narrations is detrimental to one’s faith.
Warning: Uthman (RA) is criticized that he recalled Hakam bin Abi al-Aas and his son Marwan, whom the Prophet (PBUH) had exiled, back to Madinah during his Caliphate. This is a chainless and baseless story. Neither did the noble Prophet (PBUH) exile Hakam bin Abi al-Aas and his son Marwan, nor did Sayyiduna Uthman (RA) recall them to Madinah.
Remember that in Islamic history, there has been centuries of interference by the Rawafidh. Many chainless and baseless things were made part of history. He who has no acquaintance with the narrators and the chain of transmission should not blindly trust historical narrations. Whoever did so, deviated from the path of the believers.
Mr. Maududi has left this world; now his companions should change their opinion regarding Sayyiduna Uthman bin Affan (RA). They should avoid leveling a severe accusation like nepotism against Sayyiduna Uthman (RA).
Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi has written:
“Another extremely abominable innovation started in the era of Hazrat Muawiyah (RA), that he himself and all his governors upon his order, would shower abuses on Hazrat Ali (RA) from the pulpit during sermons, to the extent that in the Prophet’s Mosque on the Prophet’s pulpit and in front of the Prophet’s shrine, the most beloved relative of the Prophet was abused, and the children and closest relatives of Hazrat Ali (RA) used to hear these abuses with their own ears. (At-Tabari, Vol 2, page 188; Ibn al-Athir, Vol 3, page 232, Vol 2, page 153; Al-Bidayah, Vol 8, page 359, Vol 9, page 80). Abusing someone after their death was contrary not only to the Shariah but even to human morals, and specifically polluting the Friday sermon with this filth was a strictly heinous act from the perspective of religion and morality.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, page 164)
Respected Readers! There is nothing of this sort regarding Sayyiduna Muawiyah (RA) on the mentioned page of Tabari. Mr. Maududi has passed away; now a reference is demanded from those friends who constantly provide certificates of justification for his audacities.
As long as this is not proven, we are justified in saying that this is a slander against a Companion; let alone the Shariah, even human morals do not permit this.
Mr. Maududi writes:
“Hazrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz came and, like the other wrong traditions of his family, changed this tradition too, and in the Friday sermon, instead of ‘abusing Ali’, he started reciting this: ﴿إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَالْإِحْسَانِ وَإِيتَاءِ ذِي الْقُرْبَىٰ وَيَنْهَىٰ عَنِ الْفَحْشَاءِ وَالْمُنكَرِ وَالْبَغْيِ ۚ يَعِظُكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ﴾”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, page 174)
The question is, what were those wrong traditions which Umar bin Abdul Aziz (RA) changed? Is research the name of deriving arguments from false stories? If deviating from the methodology of Ahl-e-Sunnat, considering oneself independent of the Muhaddithin, and teaching corrupt beliefs regarding the pure Companions of Mustafa is research, then excuse us sir! Our faith is not satisfied with this research.
If this reckoning is the truth, we do not want to have the disparagement of the Companions of Muhammad (PBUH) written in our record of deeds. We do not want it written in our record of deeds that this servant, God forbid, used to call Sayyiduna Muawiyah (RA) and Sayyiduna Amr bin al-Aas (RA) hypocrites and transgressors. God forbid, and again God forbid.
The Reality of Muawiyah’s (RA) Istilhaq (Adoption/Claiming Lineage):
Mr. Maududi, while objecting to Sayyiduna Muawiyah (RA), writes:
“The Istilhaq of Ziyad bin Sumayyah is also among those actions of Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) in which he violated an established rule of the Shariah for political motives. Ziyad was born from the womb of a slave girl of Ta’if named Sumayyah. People claimed that in the era of ignorance, Hazrat Muawiyah’s (RA) father, respected Abu Sufyan (RA), had committed adultery with this slave girl and she became pregnant by him. Hazrat Abu Sufyan (RA) himself had also once hinted that Ziyad is from his sperm. Upon growing up, this person proved to be a high-class statesman, organizer, military leader, and a possessor of extraordinary capabilities. During the Caliphate of Hazrat Ali (RA), he was a strong supporter of his and performed very important services. After him, Hazrat Muawiyah (RA), to make him his supporter and helper, took testimonies regarding his noble father’s adultery and gathered the proof that Ziyad was his illegitimate son. Then, on this very basis, he declared him his brother and a member of his family. How abominable this decision is from a moral perspective is obvious, but from a legal perspective too, it was an explicit unlawful act, because in the Shariah, no lineage is established through adultery. The clear command of the Prophet (PBUH) exists that the child belongs to him on whose bed he is born, and for the adulterer there are stones. The Mother of the Believers, Hazrat Umm Habiba (RA), for this very reason refused to accept him as her brother and observed Purdah from him.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, page 175)
Istilhaq:
لُغَةً: مَصْدَرُ اسْتَلْحَقَ، يُقَالُ: اسْتَلْحَقَهُ ادَّعَاهُ.
“Lexically: It is the verbal noun of Istalhaqa. It is said: He claimed him (included him in his lineage).”
(Lisan al-Arab, and Taj al-Arus, and As-Sihah under the root L-H-Q)
“In terminology, the acknowledgment of lineage is called Istilhaq. The Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali scholars use the term Istilhaq. The Hanafis use it very rarely in this meaning.”
(Hashiyah al-Bujairami ala Sharh al-Manhaj: 3/91, Fath al-Aziz: 3/61, Ash-Sharh al-Kabir ma’a Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi: 3/412)
Claiming a blood relationship with a child is called Istilhaq. Relatives can also do Istilhaq.
Conditions for Istilhaq:
There are a few conditions for the permissibility of Istilhaq without which it is not considered valid.
① Istilhaq can be done for a child of unknown lineage; if the lineage of that child is known from another person, then the claim of Istilhaq is not valid. Because you are breaking his lineage and attaching it to yourself. The Noble Prophet (PBUH) cursed the one who attributes himself to someone other than his own father.
② The one you are doing Istilhaq with, there should be a possibility of proof in your lineage and his lineage. Neither should there be another claimant for that child, nor should there be any avenue through which his lineage with you can be falsified. For example: you should not be suffering from an ailment that makes having children impossible. Similarly, the age difference between you and the child should not be such that rationally your Istilhaq with him is impossible.
③ The one being claimed for Istilhaq should verify it.
④ The intention of Istilhaq should not be to alter the child’s lineage.
Remember that if the child is known, then Istilhaq is obligatory, and if it is a lie or the lineage is denied, then it is Haram, because it entails ingratitude for a blessing.
The Istilhaq of Muawiyah:
As for the issue of Sayyiduna Muawiyah’s (RA) Istilhaq, it is stated that Sayyiduna Muawiyah (RA) attributed Ziyad bin Sumayyah to his father Abu Sufyan, while he was previously famous by the name Ziyad bin Ubaid as-Thaqafi. This matter is entirely baseless. In this regard, the narration from which an argument can be derived is this.
Abu Ishaq As-Sabi’i (May Allah have mercy on him) says:
“It is narrated from Abu Ishaq As-Sabi’i that Ziyad came to Kufa and said: ‘I want to make a demand of you.’ The people of Kufa said: ‘We are present, what do you need?’ He said: ‘Connect my lineage to Muawiyah.’ They said: ‘We cannot connect it with false testimony.’ Ziyad came to Basra and one person testified.”
(Tarikh At-Tabari: 5/215)
The chain is weak.
① Umar bin Bashir al-Hamdani is weak. Yahya bin Ma’in (May Allah have mercy on him) has called him weak. Imam Abu Hatim (May Allah have mercy on him) says:
لَيْسَ بِقَوِيٍّ يُكْتَبُ حَدِيثُهُ وَجَابِرُ الْجُعْفِيُّ أَحَبُّ إِلَيَّ مِنْهُ.
“He is not strong, his Hadith is written. To me, Jabir al-Ju’fi (a liar) is dearer than him.”
(Al-Jarh wat-Ta’dil by Ibn Abi Hatim: 6/100) This weakening is severe.
② Abu Ishaq As-Sabi’i is Mukhtalit (one whose memory deteriorated). Regarding Umar bin Bashir al-Hamdani, it could not be known whether he narrated before the deterioration or after it.
③ Even if we hypothetically accept the narration as authentic, still Muawiyah’s (RA) Istilhaq is correct based on the aforementioned conditions.
① Before Muawiyah’s (RA) Istilhaq, Ziyad’s lineage was unknown; his mother’s name is Sumayyah, his father’s name was unknown. That is why he was also called Ziyad bin Abih. Calling him Ziyad bin Ubaid as-Thaqafi is not only incorrect, it is not even proven by any weak narration. Therefore (conditional to the authenticity of the narration), Muawiyah’s (RA) Istilhaq of Ziyad to his father Abu Sufyan is correct.
② The lineage between Ziyad and Abu Sufyan (RA) bears the possibility of proof, because the age proportion that can exist between a father and son is present between the two. Secondly, Abu Sufyan (RA) was neither castrated at that age nor afflicted with any hindering ailment, and there was no other claimant of Istilhaq either.
③ When it was said about Abu Sufyan (RA) that Ziyad was his illegitimate child, there was no need for the confession of the one being claimed for (Abu Sufyan RA).
④ In Muawiyah’s (RA) Istilhaq (conditional to the authenticity of the narration), the intention is not to change the lineage of the claimed Ziyad, because neither was he of known lineage before this, nor is there any other claimant, and he is also called the illegitimate child of Abu Sufyan (RA).
Firstly, nothing of this sort is proven, but even if it were considered proven, the Istilhaq of Muawiyah would be correct according to the aforementioned conditions. And all praise belongs to Allah.
Maulana Maududi writes regarding Sayyiduna Muawiyah (RA):
“Even in the matter of distributing the spoils of war, Hazrat Muawiyah (RA) violated the clear commands of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, page 174)
“These two actions were committed by Hazrat Amr bin al-Aas (RA), about which there is no choice but to call them wrong.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, page 144)
“The initial documentation for Yazid’s succession did not occur on the basis of any righteous sentiment, rather an elder, for his own personal interest, appealed to the personal interest of another elder and gave birth to this proposal, and both gentlemen (Sayyiduna Mughira and Sayyiduna Muawiyah RA) turned a blind eye to the path they were putting the Ummah of Muhammad on by doing this.”
(Khilafat wa Mulukiyat, page 150)
The grading of Hadith as authentic (Tashih) and weak (Tad’eef) is the science of the Imams of Hadith (Muhaddithin), and in this, only their research will be relied upon; this is the view of the Ahl-e-Sunnat. It is possible that sometimes a chain is authentic but the text is rejected (Munkar), but only the Muhaddithin will decide this. If they declare the text of a narration as Munkar, then so be it, but there is no reason to declare those narrations as Munkar which they have unanimously accepted. Because the Muhaddithin found the era of the compilation of Hadith, met its narrators, maintained connections with them, scrutinized their conditions, and then, without making the research of any single individual absolute, every person was weighed in the balance.
If he is a liar, what lies did he tell and where? If he is truthful, is his memory also strong? If the narrator’s memory is strong, did he also narrate any rejected narrations? How much corroboration does a narrator have? Did the narrator fall victim to memory deterioration at any part of his life? Is the narrator a Mudallis? If someone is accused of Tadlis, is this accusation correct? If someone has been criticized for lying, was the criticism due to personal bias? Is the narrator an innovator? Despite being an innovator, does he speak the truth?
Meaning that with such meticulousness the conditions of the narrators were compiled, the practice upon Ahadith was observed, the Fatwas were reviewed, the actions of the narrators of Hadith were pondered upon, and only then the rules of Ahadith were compiled and became prevalent in the whole Ummah as an established law; these were not mountains out of molehills that anyone could blow away in the wind as they pleased.
Whereas Maulana Maududi repeatedly belies the unanimous researches of the Muhaddithin and rejects the Ahadith simply on the basis that they are beyond his comprehension.
Maulana Maududi writes:
“One faction, going to extremes in narrator-worship, reaches such a limit that the truthfulness of a few narrators of Bukhari and Muslim is dearer to them, and they do not care that this levels an accusation of lying against a Prophet.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 3/167)
Similarly, he writes:
“Although its chain is weak, its conformity with the Quran removes its weakness, and these other narrations, although stronger in their chains, are weakened by their non-conformity with the apparent statement of the Quran.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 3/200)
Furthermore, he writes:
“As far as the chains are concerned, the chain of most of those narrations is strong, and as for the remaining narrations, their authenticity cannot be questioned. But the content of the Hadith is contrary to clear intellect and is crying out loud that the noble Prophet (PBUH) would never have said this thing the way it has been transmitted… To try to shove such narrations down people’s throats merely on the strength of the authenticity of the chain is to make a mockery of religion.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 4/337)
“Whatever matter has reached the Muhaddithin through so many different chains, it is difficult to say about it that it is entirely baseless, but it seems that either Hazrat Abu Hurairah (RA) made a mistake in understanding the Prophet’s (PBUH) statement, or he could not hear the complete thing.”
(Rasa’il wa Masa’il, pages 832-833)
While declaring the Hadith about the Dajjal doubtful, he writes:
“For example, the Ahadith that have been narrated concerning the Dajjal, from them this matter is known from the Prophet’s (PBUH) own explicit statements that he was not given knowledge from Allah the Exalted regarding his location, time, and personality.”
(Rasa’il wa Masa’il, page 375)
Regarding the valley, he says:
“Regarding the valley, the Lawgiver (Prophet) has not fixed any limit.”
(Rasa’il wa Masa’il, page 435)
Regarding the Sunnah, he writes:
“Regarding the Sunnah, people generally think that whatever the Prophet (PBUH) did in his life, all of it is Sunnah, but this matter, despite being correct to a large extent, is also wrong to an extent……”
(Rasa’il wa Masa’il, page 440)
Tafseer bil-Ra’y is the method of the people of innovation. The Ahl-e-Sunnat do the exegesis of the Quran through the Quran, Hadith, and the sayings of the Salaf. Maulana has adopted the path of the people of innovation in this chapter.
He writes:
“From this soul, its mate was created. Its detailed nature is not in our knowledge. Generally, the matter that the people of Tafseer mention and which is also stated in the Bible, is that Hawwa (Eve) was created from the rib of Adam. In the Talmud, it is told in more detail that Hazrat Hawwa was created from the thirteenth rib on the right side of Hazrat Adam (AS). But the Book of Allah is silent about this, and the Hadith that is presented in its support, its meaning is not what people have understood. Therefore, it is better to leave the matter concise just as Allah has kept it concise, and time should not be wasted in determining its detailed nature.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 1/319-320)
The Ahadith narrated in this chapter are clear. The famous exegetes of the Ahl-e-Sunnat, Tabari and Hafiz Ibn Kathir (May Allah have mercy on them), have explained the meaning of this statement of the Exalted: ﴿وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا﴾ exactly this, that Hawwa (AS) was created from the rib of Sayyiduna Adam (AS).
Allama Razi (May Allah have mercy on him) has declared this opinion as strong and wrote:
هُوَ الَّذِي عَلَيْهِ الْأَكْثَرُونَ.
“Upon which most exegetes are in agreement.”
(Tafseer ar-Razi: 9/477)
Isma’il bin Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Karimah As-Suddi (May Allah have mercy on him, 127 AH) states:
خَلَقَهَا اللَّهُ مِنْ ضِلَعِهِ.
“Allah created Hawwa from his rib.”
(Tafseer At-Tabari: 6/341, with a Hasan chain)
And he says:
خَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا، جَعَلَ مِنْ آدَمَ حَوَّاءَ.
“He created from him his mate, its meaning is that Hawwa was created from Adam.”
(Tafseer At-Tabari: 1/342, with a Hasan chain)
And he interprets ﴾وَسَخَّرْنَا مَعَ دَاوُودَ الْجِبَالَ يُسَبِّحْنَ وَالطَّيْرَ﴿:
“What is understood from these statements is that when Hazrat Dawud (AS) used to sing songs of praise to Allah the Exalted, the mountains would echo with his loud and melodious voice, and the birds would stop, and a state of trance would be set.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 3/175)
And in the Tafseer of ﴾وَرَفَعْنَا فَوْقَكُمُ الطُّورَ﴿ he writes:
“But now it is difficult to detail it, one should just understand that at the time of taking the covenant at the foot of the mountain, such a terrifying situation was created that it seemed to them as if the mountain was going to fall upon them.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 1/821)
This is a clear distortion of the Quranic verse, it is as if Mr. Maududi felt that perhaps the mountain being raised above is an impossible thing, therefore its very meaning should be changed, but perhaps he forgot that Allah the Exalted has power over all things.
In the Tafseer of the statement of the Exalted: ﴿أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ خَرَجُوا مِن دِيَارِهِمْ وَهُمْ أُلُوفٌ حَذَرَ الْمَوْتِ﴾ he writes:
“This is a reference to the event of the Exodus of the Children of Israel……”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 1/184)
In the Tafseer of “Seven Heavens,” he writes:
“What is the reality of the seven heavens? Determining this is difficult. Man mentions the sky or the atmosphere in time, and according to today’s observations and experiments, he is establishing various concepts, which keep constantly changing. Therefore, by adopting any concept, I have not considered the meaning of these Quranic words restricted to any specific meaning. I felt that it means the ancient universe beyond the earth, which Allah has divided into seven layers.”
(Tafheem-ul-Quran: 1/61)
The heaven is a creation of Allah the Almighty. This is a reality which is established by the Quran, Mutawatir Ahadith, and sound intellect. But Mr. Maududi is creating affectation in the reality of the “seven heavens”. This can never be that in the face of explicit verses, Ahadith, and clear rational proofs, this stratified detail of Mr. Maududi is absolutely false.
Maulana Taqi Usmani rightly stated:
“Many things in Tafheem-ul-Quran are contrary to the established facts and sayings of the majority. Therefore, according to the questioner, reading and teaching it unconditionally is not correct.”
(Fatawa Usmani, Vol 1, page 214)
Maulana Ahmad Raza Bijnori says about “Tafheem-ul-Quran”:
“Those places where he, separating himself from the majority of exegetes and the elders of the Ummah, has penned his own isolated opinions, it is obvious that they cannot be acceptable and their number is very large. I had criticized many places in Anwar-ul-Bari. Further criticism will be possible after finishing Anwar-ul-Bari, Insha’Allah. We have marked one hundred self-made places in the six volumes of Tafheem. In our view, to avoid Tafseer bil-Ra’y, it is necessary to first present the solution to the Quranic verses in the light of other verses and then the Ahadith and the narrations of the Companions and Tabi’in, and keep reason and events in a secondary degree. Those who have adopted the opposite method cannot escape the error of Tafseer bil-Ra’y.”
(Malfuzat Allama Sayyid Anwar Shah, pages 217-218)
Sheikh Muqbil bin Hadi al-Wadi’i (May Allah have mercy on him) writes:
“Obviously, some Shi’ism is found in Maududi; he should be counted among the leaders of the people of innovation. May Allah grant a good reward to a brother of ours, he has authored a book named «Zawabi’ Fi Wajh as-Sunnah», in which he has counted Abul A’la Maududi, etc., among those who attack the Sunnah of the Messenger and declare the Ahadith of the Sahihayn as weak merely in pursuit of their desires.”
(Fadha’ih wa Nasa’ih, page 165; Ijabah as-Sa’il, page 494)
Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani says about Mr. Maududi:
“I do not declare him a disbeliever, but I consider him misguided (Zalal).”
(Maktubat Sheikh-ul-Islam, Vol 3, page 95)
Mufti Rasheed Ahmad Ludhianvi says:
“After this writing of the servant, Mr. Maududi wrote the book «Khilafat wa Mulukiyat», in which he openly spread poison against some Companions (RA). Even after seeing this book, if someone does not believe in Mr. Maududi’s stance on some Companions (RA), then it is proof that in his own heart too there is malice and enmity towards the noble Companions (RA). The reality is that the monumental task Mr. Maududi has accomplished of erasing the reverence of the esteemed Companions (RA) from the hearts of Muslims and creating doubts, suspicions, malice, and hatred in the hearts regarding this sacred group, the entire Shia group in their whole lifespan could not do even a tenth of it. Before Mr. Maududi, not a single Muslim is seen who held malice against any Companion, but today Mr. Maududi has completely poisoned a group of Muslims with this deadly poison.”
(Ahsan-ul-Fatawa, Vol 4, pages 210-211)
Mufti Muhammad Shafi Usmani writes:
“In the view of this lowly one (Ahqar), Mr. Maududi’s fundamental mistake is that he used to follow personal reasoning (Ijtihad) in beliefs and rulings, even if his Ijtihad was contrary to the majority of the scholars of the Salaf, whereas in the view of this lowly one, the conditions for the rank of Ijtihad are not present in him. Due to this fundamental mistake, many things in his literature are wrong and contrary to the majority of the scholars of Ahl-e-Sunnat. Besides this, the manner of criticism he adopted in his writings against the scholars of the Salaf, and even the noble Companions (RA), is extremely wrong. Especially in «Khilafat wa Mulukiyat», the way some noble Companions (RA) were made the target of not just criticism but also reproach, and the attitude of insistence that was adopted despite being reminded by various circles, is completely contrary to the style of the majority of the scholars of Ahl-e-Sunnat. And the overall impact of his general literature heavily felt on its readers is that the required reliance on the pious predecessors does not remain.”
(Jawahir al-Fiqh, Vol 2, pages 171-172)
Warning:
Sheikh Hammad al-Ansari (May Allah have mercy on him, 1418 AH) says:
“Once, I and some of my friends went to meet Mr. Maududi. At that time, he was staying at the «Al-Batha» hotel in Riyadh. It was the time of Asr; when we arrived, he was offering the Asr prayer. I started looking closely at his prayer. After the prayer, I asked him: ‘You need to do research on prayer, you neither do Raf’-ul-Yadain nor is there any stillness in your prayer, etc., etc.’ He replied: ‘My Madhhab is Hanafi.'”
(Al-Majmu’ Fi Tarjamat ash-Sheikh Hammad bin Muhammad al-Ansari li-Ibn Abdil Awwal: 2/604)
Explore the historical Ahl-e-Sunnah perspective on Yazid bin Muawiyah. Discover why prominent Sahaba, Ahl-e-Bayt, and scholars chose silence over rebellion. Read More
Is performing a second congregational prayer (Jam'at-e-Thani) in the mosque after the first one allowed? Detailed analysis with authentic Hadith… Read More
A detailed analysis proving that the famous quote attributed to Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal — “Can a believer love Yazid?”… Read More
A detailed examination of classical Shia scholarly consensus on the alteration (Tahrif) of the Quran, backed by quotes from major… Read More
In an age of rising blasphemy against the Prophet ﷺ, studying his Seerah is not just recommended but essential. This… Read More
Is it necessary to treat children equally when giving gifts (Hibah) in Islam? Can parents give more to a son… Read More