will have seen that all the sects, whether Hanafis,
Ahl-i Hadith, Deobandi, or Barelvi, and all the Sufi
orders such as Chishtiyya, Qadiriyya, etc., have had fatwas
of heresy and apostasy pronounced against them. And
not only sects, but the prominent men of these sects
have had fatwas directed against them
Husain of Delhi (Ahl-i Hadith) was called
disputant, doubter, follower of base passions,
jealous, dishonest and alterer (of the Quran).
Husain Batalavi, along with the above Maulana,
was called devil, atheist, stupid, senseless,
faithless, etc. This fatwa bears the seals of
82 Ulama of Arabia and elsewhere.
of Amritsar (Ahl-i Hadith) had fatwas directed
against him which were obtained in Makka. It is
written about his commentary of the Quran:
``It is the writing of
a misguided person, one who has invented new
doctrines. In his commentary he has collected beliefs
such as re-incarnation and the doctrines of the
Mu`tazila [an early extreme Muslim sect]. It is
neither permissible to obtain knowledge from Maulana
Sana-ullah, nor to follow him. His evidence cannot be
accepted, nor can he lead prayers. There is no doubt
regarding his heresy and apostasy
commentary deserves to be cut to pieces. In fact, it
is forbidden to see it except for the purpose of
Makka, pp. 15--20)
Ahmad Madani (Deobandi):
Referring to an
article of his, the weekly Tarjuman Islam of
Lahore carried the following extract in its issue for
10 November 1961:
``Maulana Husain Ahmad
Madani, Deobandi, was a first-rate scholar and
servant of Quran and Hadith. He needs no
introduction. But one was very shocked by a letter of
his which contained the grotesque idea of the denial
of Hadith. This concept goes beyond the Mu`tazila,
and breaks the records of the ideologies of Chakralvi
All those whose record
is said to be broken by Husain Ahmad Madani, have had
fatwas of kufr directed against them.
This makes it clear that Maulana Madani too is
considered a kafir.
Abul Ala Maudoodi and
his party have been the subject of fatwas by Ulama
of nearly every sect.
1. Mufti Muhzar-ullah,
of Jami Fatehpuri in Delhi, wrote in his fatwa:
``On the very face of
it, these things [beliefs of Maudoodi's party]
exclude a Muslim from the Sunnis, and lead to
divisions among the believers, and is the basis of
making a new sect. But looking closely, these things
take one to heresy. In this case, they do not make a
new sect, but result in one's entry into the group of
2. Maulana Hafiz-ullah
of Aligarh has written:
``Whatever was the
position of the Zarar mosque, similar is the
position of this [i.e. Maudoodi's] party.''
[Note: The Zarar
mosque was a mosque built by some hypocrite Muslims
in Madina during the Holy Prophet's time for the
purpose of conspiring against Islam].
The word kufr
is used about the Zarar mosque in the Holy
Quran. Hence the same word applies to these people.
3. Maulana Izaz Ali,
Deobandi, wrote in his fatwa:
``I consider this
[i.e. Maudoodi's] party to be even more harmful for
the faith of the Muslims than are the Ahmadis.''
4. Mufti Sayyid Mahdi
Hasan, President-Mufti of the theological school at
Deoband, writes in his fatwa:
``If an Imam of a
mosque agrees with the views of Maudoodi, it is a
hateful matter to pray behind him.''
5. Maulana Husain
Ahmad Madani (Deobandi) wrote in a letter to
movement is against the righteous tradition in Islam.
It is like the [extremist] sects of old such as
Mu`tazila, Khwarij and Rafiz. It resembles modern
sects such as Qadiani, Chakralvi [deniers of Hadith],
Naturi [rationalist], and Baha'i [i.e. the Baha'i
religion]. It seeks to make a new Islam. It is based
on principles, beliefs and practices which are
against the Sunnis and Islam.''
6. The Committee of Ulama
of Maulana Ahmad Ali wrote in a poster against
``His reasoning is
devilry against the Quran.''
It is then added:
``May God save all
Muslims from Maudoodi and the evil and deceit of his
so-called Islamic Party.''
Sir Sayyid Ahmad
Khan [prominent Muslim modernist leader and
founder of the Aligarh University for Muslims, d.
In his biography Hayat-i
Jawaid by Maulana Hali, the storm of condemnation
and takfir against Sir Sayyid is fully
detailed. Read some of these lines:
``Sir Sayyid was
called atheist, irreligious, Christian,
nature-worshipper, anti-Christ, and many other
things. Fatwas that he was a kafir were
prepared, and signatures of Maulavis of every town
and city were obtained. Even those who remained
silent against Sir Sayyid as regards takfir,
were called kafir.''
``All the Muslim sects
in India, be they Sunni or Shiah, conformist or
non-conformist, the seals and signatures of the known
and unknown Ulama and priests of all these are
on these fatwas.''
A fatwa was
obtained from Makka, bearing the seals of Muftis of
all the four schools, in which it was written:
``This man is an
heretic, or he was inclined to unbelief (kufr)
from Islamic law in some aspect
If he repents
before he is arrested, and turns away from his
misguided views, and there are clear signs of
repentance from him, then he should not be killed.
Otherwise, it is obligatory to kill him for the sake
of the faith.''
Jinnah and Iqbal
[revered in Pakistan as fathers of the nation]:
Sir Sayyid had at
least expressed views on religious matters. But these
people also called Jinnah as ``the great kafir''.
Even a true believer like Iqbal had a fatwa of
kufr directed against him."