PART 2
MOLVI SA’D OF NIZAAMUDDEEN
“WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN SUPERIOR IMAAN OVER THE THREE TYPES”
A Brother says that Maulana Sa’d’s bayaan was presented to The Majlis out of context. He says:
“It is absurd to believe that Ml Saad is saying that our Imaan alal itlaaq from every aspect/in general is superior to the Imaan of Sahaaba radhiyallu anhum, Malaaikah and Ambiya alayhimus salaam….”
In fact in the very same Bayaan Ml Saad Saheb mentioned “After Malaaikah, Ambiya and Sahaaba, the best Imaan is the Imaan of those who came after me, who without seeing me, will bring Imaan on me.”
Comment
Even if the recording provided to us was not the full bayaan of Molvi Sa’d, he had categorically declared in his talk:
“WE (Hame) have been given Imaan superior to these three kinds:
the Malaaikah, the Ambiya and the Sahaabah.”
He repeated this satanic declaration thrice. He emphasized on “WE”. Yes, the whole world knows that ‘We’ Muslims of today are the worst scoundrels. We, the entire Ummah of today, are fussaaq and fujjaar and even kuffaar of the worst order. How did he manage the audacity to elevate us of this era to a pedestal higher than that of the Ambiya, Sahaabah and Malaaikah?
The Brother, in vindication of Molvi Sa’d, argues:
“It is absurd to believe that Ml Saad is saying that our Imaan alal itlaaq from every aspect/in general is superior to the Imaan of Sahaaba radhiyallu anhum, Malaaikah and Ambiya alayhimus salaam…”
No, it is not absurd. It is only anticipated that the ignorant audience will understand that Molvi Sa’d believes that the Imaan of us fussaaq and fujjar is ‘alal itlaaq’ superior. ‘Alal itlaaq’ means in every way, totally and completely. The Molvi was addressing the laiety. He was not addressing the Talaba at a Darul Uloom who can understand about technicalities such as juz’i fazeelat.
The Hadith on which he based his weird notion has technical and academic import. Ignoring the technical meaning which befits only a Talaba audience, Molvi Sa’d spun it to produce the effect of denigration of the Imaan of the Ambiya (Alayhimus Salaam), the Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu anhum) and the Malaaikah (Alayhimus salaam). He emphasized several times that “We have been given superior Imaan over the three types”. The ‘three types’ he mentioned refers to the Ambiya, Sahaabah and Malaaikah.
In fact, predicating them with the term “these three types/kinds”, is also derogatory of their lofty status. They are not animals to describe them in such demeaning terms.
Furthermore, the Brother defending him has proffered his own interpretation to defend Molvi Sa’d. What he says does not exude from the words of Molvi Sa’d. Even if we assume that Molvi Sa’d does not truly believe in the alal itlaaq fazeelat of our Imaan over and above that of the “three kinds”, such a conclusion does not stem from his declaration. His declaration to an awaami audience was a categorical affirmation of fazeelat alal itlaaq.
The “Juzi fadheelat/virtue” stated by Darul Uloom Deoband is not a factor lending support and validity for Molvi Sad’s gaffe. The “juzi fadhielat” factor is not the contention. Molvi Sa’d’s talk does not convey this factor. The audience he was addressing did not have the vaguest idea of the technicality of ‘juzi fadhielat’. Furthermore, Molvi Sa’d did not clarify nor elaborate on his highly erroneous claim. All the morons who had listened to his bayaan will most certainly understand and accept the alal itlaaq meaning, viz., that in every aspect “We have been given superior Imaan over these three types”.
Given the culture of GHULU’ of the Tableeghi Jamaat of both factions, the understanding we have stated above is not far-fetched. In stark conflict with the Qur’aanic command: “Do not commit ghulu (haraam extremism) in your Deen.”, the Tabligh Jamaat is notorious for the perpetration of GHULU’ in a variety of acts.
In the Hadith Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has mentioned that he (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) should not be assigned fazeelat over Nabi Yoonus (Alayhis salaam). Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
“NEVER should anyone of you say that I am better than Yoonus Bin Matta (i.e. Nabi Yoonus – Alayhis salaam).”
This Hadith could be mismanipulated by corrupt ta’weel (interpretation) to elevate Nabi Yoonus (Alayhis salaam) above the status of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Ahaadith which are befitting for a Talaba audience and which require academic exposition should not be presented as general naseehat for the awaam (laeity).
The two factors of pivotal importance in this argument are (1) fazeelat alal itlaaq and (2) juzi fazeelat. The type of audience addressed by Molvi Sa’d and the tenor and tone of his bayaan affirm No.1. Thus, the interpretations assigned to his gaffe by his supporters are bias based on emotion not on facts.
In defence of Molvi Sa’d, the Brother says:
“In fact in the very same Bayaan Ml Saad mentioned: “After Malaaikah, Ambiya and Sahaaba, the best Imaan is the Imaan of those people who came after me, who without seeing me, will bring Imaan on me.”
This averment is absurd. Firstly, it is a self-contradiction. Molvi Sa’d’s emphasis was on ‘our’ Imaan – “We have been given superior Imaan over these three types.”. Secondly, it is simple logic that after the Ambiya and Sahaabah came the people who did not see Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Now what is the meaning of “the best Imaan” in this context? With whom are the later people being compared? “After the Ambiya and Sahaabah” there were no other Mu’mineen except those who did not see Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
In the analogy of the Ambiya and Sahaabah there were two groups: (1) The Ambiya and the Sahaabah, and (2) Those who came after them. Here a comparison is valid. But with regard to those who came after the Ambiya and Sahaabah, there are no two groups for a comparison. They are plain Mu’mineen. The expression ‘best Imaan’ made by Molvi Sa’d is therefore absurd in addition to being self-contradictory.
The Brother further states:
“NB Ml Saad Saheb had mentioned in his Bayaan that “the reason for me quoting this Hadith is because Muslims today are generally negligent of Imaan and they should realise the value of Imaan given to them because without Imaan we can’t have steadfastness, nor gain victory over Baatil, neither will the promises of Allah to us be fulfilled and neither will we be blessed with Ikhlaas.”
The Brother, has partially and selectively quoted Molvi Sa’d. In this statement too, Molvi Sa’d has contradicted himself. Molvi Sa’d did not say that Muslims today are “generally negligent of Imaan.” On the contrary, he said that today Muslims “are more versant with Imaan than A’maal.”
Then he progresses to say that steadfastness, etc. are reliant on Imaan. Although this is correct, he concludes this statement by saying that “everything depends on Yaqeen”.
Now what is Imaan and what is Yaqeen? Every person knows what is the meaning of Imaan. The belief of Tauheed in the heart coupled to verbal expression of the Shahaadat are Imaan. Yaqeen is something else. It is an attribute stemming from Imaan and its degree is proportionate to the degree of Taqwa.
While Imaan is valid without Yaqeen, there is no Yaqeen of any degree minus Imaan. But Molvi Sa’d claimed the opposite, namely, Imaan is dependent on Yaqeen. Thus in self-contradiction he stated that everything – ikhlaas (sincerity), steadfastness, victory etc., are not possible without ‘Yaqeen’. This is palpably incorrect. Imaan and Ikhlaas are not reliant on Yaqeen, but Yaqeen is reliant on Imaan.
For the conclusion we have stated, the bayaan of Molvi Sa’d has not be taken out of context as claimed by the Brother.
1 Rabiul Awwal 1446 – 6 September 2024