“Who could assure us that an order which Islam brought in a century is applicable in all the following centuries despite so many conditions that have changed in contradistinction to that century?” (Page 27)
He wanted Islam’s basis to change in every century. He supposed that we ignorant people could change Islam as we wished. He could not understand the fact that we, who are not mujtahids but muqallids, could not lay our hands upon or speak ill of Islamic knowledge. Islamic knowledge has two divisions: religious knowledge and scientific knowledge. Religious knowledge which is stated openly in the Qur’ân and the Hadîth cannot be changed by the great scholars who are mujtahids, either. Besides, there is no great scholar who is in the grade of ijtihâd today. It is not permissible to modify even those acts of worship pertaining to buying and selling, nikâh[1] and punishments in contempt of the conditions stipulated by Islam. Sayyid Qutb’s attempts to change Islam was intended to bring French and socialistic laws in place of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s commands. As a matter
---------------------------------
[1] Marriage contract as dictated by Islam. Please see Endless Bliss, V, 12 for detail.
of fact, these wishes of his have been quoted and refuted in the preceding paragraphs.
“Islam is a whole. Its separated parts should be united, and the differences should be removed.” (Page 35)
Religious knowledge in Islam is divided into two sections:
1) Facts that are to be believed through heart.
2) Things that are to be done with the heart or the body.
The knowledge to be believed through heart is certainly a whole and was taught by Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) and conveyed by as-Sahâbat al-kirâm. Learning this knowledge from them, the Ahl as-Sunna scholars wrote this knowledge in their books. All Muslims have to read these books and unite in the same one îmân. Muslims should unite, and there should not be disagreement or faction. For achieving this, all Muslims should unite in the belief of Ahl as-Sunna, which is the only right path, and they should not deviate into the heretical groups prophesied by our Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm). There cannot be another way for unity. It was necessary also for Sayyid Qutb to learn this knowledge of îmân and not to spread the absurd heresies born from his head and from
the head of his notorious masonic master, Muhammad ’Abduh, under the name of religious knowledge and not to cause faction. But, with his above-quoted writing, Sayyid Qutb attacked the four true madhhabs. He wished the madhhabs to be abolished and a false religion in the name of Islam to be established. Also, all the anti-madhhabite people such as Jamâl ad-dîn al-Afghânî, ’Abduh and Mawdûdî and the zindîqs such as Qâdiânî (Ahmadî) and Bahâ’î were on the same path. As our Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm) declared, the four madhhabs into which Ahl as-Sunna parted are Allâhu ta’âlâ’s compassion, and as he commanded, the mujtahids had to perform ijtihâd. But heretics have wished the madhhabs to be abolished and a new religion, a collection of the laws of Christians, Jews and communists, to be invented. In order to deceive Mulims,
they call this new religion “Islam” for the time being.
Allâhu ta’âlâ has not revealed openly and definitely all the teachings pertaining to ’Ibâdât, marriage, trade and human rights. He willed those teachings which were not detailed or clear to be explained by the Prophet Muhammad (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam). And His Prophet explained them, but not completely, leaving those teachings he did not clarifiy to be explained and applied to daily events by the ’ulamâ’ who were mujtahids. While
these ’ulamâ’ did this duty, some differences arose among them. Thus the madhâhib came forth. In carrying out his ’ibâdât, every Muslim chooses and follows the madhhab which is suitable and easy for his country’s social usages and customs, climate and his physical abilities. Existence of different madhhabs is a blessing and convenience for Muslims.
“Proprietorship can be established only with the confirmation and the prearangement of the shâri’ (lawgiver of the Sharî’at). This right is something which the shârî’, who is sort of the public’s representative, has specially put into the individual’s possession.” (Page 156)
It is true that property becomes one’s personal property with the permission of the shâri’, but the shâri’ (Maker of Islam) is Allâhu ta’âlâ Himself, that is, He is the One who orders and forbids. Muballigh (Messenger) who announced Islam was His Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm). Not only property but also every right has been a right because Allâhu ta’âlâ has permitted it. Each person’s property and rights have become property and rights because Allâhu ta’âlâ has permitted and ordered them. It is for this reason that nobody can take away one’s property unless one gives it willingly.
“It is extravagance and harâm to build magnificent villas by spending millions of dollars in a country where millions of people are in need of simple dwellings and clothes.” (Page 185)
It is never harâm for a person who has paid his zakât to the poor and who earns through halâl with the sweat of his brow to have villas built. It is halâl and blessed. It is harâm to sit idly, not to work and to remain poor, or to waste one’s earnings for things that are harâm and then live in a simple dwelling. Why should the studious people be guilty because of lazy people who waste their possessions on the things that are harâm? It is halâl for those who pay their zakât to live in villas, to dress smartly and to utilize all the facilities attained by scientific inventions. Allâhu ta’âlâ declares, “I like My human creatures to use the blessings which I have given them,”
and “I will give the one who works.” It is worship to work and earn. It is not a sin to be rich. Allâhu ta’âlâ likes those rich people who thank Him. It is harâm to be conceited and to consider oneself superior to others because one is rich. It is written in Qisâs-i anbiyâ’: “Hadrat Zubair ibn Awwâm (radiy-Allâhu ’anh)- one of al-Asharat al-Mubashshara, the ten people who were given the good news that they would go to Paradise, was a merchant. He became very rich, owning
enormous property and vast areas of land in Medina, Basra, Kûfâ and in Egypt. He had a thousand servants, but he used to distribute all his income to the poor. Also Hadrat Talha (radiy-Allâhu ’anh), another one of those who were given the good news of Paradise, was rich. He used to dress smartly and go about with beautiful suits on him. There was a precious ruby stone on his ring. Also Hadrat ’Uthmân (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) among al-Asharat al-mubashshara, was a very rich merchant. By contributing ten thousand gold coins and so many camels loaded with goods to the Ghazâ of Tabuk, he attained Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) prayers.
“Richness is not an imperfection. The hadîth ash-sherîf, ‘It is happiness to be rich during the final ages of the world,’ is written in Râmuz al-ahâdîth. Such prophets as Ibrâhîm, Dâwûd and Sulaimân (’alaihimu ’s-salâm) were very rich. Many of he poor among as-Sahâbat al-kirâm were reported to have said, ‘The rich, in addition to worshipping as much as we do, are earning much thawâb by performing charitable deeds with their wealth,’ thus longing for the situation in which the rich who thanked Allâhu ta’âlâ in this way were.”
“Caliphate, after the four caliphs, turned into kingship which was passed from the father over to the son by way of inheritance. Public property was made mubâh (permitted) for the relatives and sycophants of these persons and harâm for meritorious people who were adherent to Islam. Umayyads’ coming into power was harmful. Had Hadrat ’Umar remained in caliphate a couple of years longer, or had Hadrat ’Alî been the third caliph, or had Hadrat ’Uthmân been twenty-five years younger than he was when he came into power, the face of Islamic history would have been rather different. Hadrat ’Umar used to take away from the rich what was more than they needed of their property and distribute them to the poor equally.” (Page 247)
With these writings of his, he misrepresents Hadrat ’Uthmân (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) as incompetent in administration. The hadîths telling about his superiority in administration and policy could hardly be tallied. Let us also quote the most famous one of them here: “The highest of my companions is Abû Bakr. Then comes ’Umar. Then comes ’Uthmân. Then comes ’Alî (radî-Allâhu ’anhumâ).” The superiority expressed in the Hadîth is a superiority in every respect. In Hudaibiya, at such a dangerous time as the enemy was making preparations for war, our Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm) chose Hadrat ’Uthmân (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) as
the ambassador so that he would talk to the enemy and make an agreement. He was among the six persons whom Hadrat ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh), when he was about to pass away, considered worthy and capable of becoming Khalîfa after him. Our Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm) stated, “Allâhu ta’âlâ has put the true word on ’Umar’s tongue.” ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh), who always spoke correctly and appropriately as noted in the hadîth, recommended him by saying, “ ’Uthmân is worthy and capable for caliphate.” But Sayyid Qutb said, “No, he was not worthy of it. Islam’s progress came to a standstill because of him.” His administrative, political and military accomplishments when he was Khalîfa are portrayed in detail in the Turkish book Hak Sözün Vesîkalarý, (translated into English in 1992)[1].
Sayyid Qutb’s likening Islamic Khalîfas to the kings of unbelievers and saying that they prohibited meritorius people who were adherent to Islam from public property is another slander against Islamic Khalîfas. I have given its answer detailedly in the forty-fourth paragraph. Pages of reasonably written histories and of the books of Islamic scholars are full with writings refuting these slanders of his.
“With a comparison to Hadrat ’Umar’s disposal of prohibiting al-muallafat al-qulûb from being given zakât, we can do some similar disposals on the expenditures of zakât. We may, instead of giving them in cash or in gold, establish factories and industrial foundations for them. We can buy shares for them in some foundations and institutions. Thus they will be provided with a continual source of food and income far from the meaning of a temporary gifting, which is incompatible with today’s civil requirements and which is sacrificed in vain.” (Page 298)
All as-Sahâbat al-kirâm were profound scholars, mujtahids. Especially the Four Khalîfas were Rasûlullah’s (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) counsellors when he was alive and representatives after his death. It is declared in a hadîth, “Hold fast to my path and, after me, to the path led by the Four Khalîfas! Their path is the right path.” We have to follow the unanimity of as-Sahâbat al-kirâm. Of the teachings which they communicated unanimously, a person who disbelieves the ones that are widespread among Muslims becomes a disbeliever.
Sayyid Qutb thinks he is a mujtahid like ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu
---------------------------------
[1] Documents of the Right Word, 480 pp., available from Hakîkat Kitâbevi, Fâtih, Istanbul, Turkey.
’anh). He attempts to change the list of people whom zakât will be given. Our religion has declared clearly to whom and how zakât will be given. For a thousand years no scholar has attempted to change this. Our religion has also explained very well how to establish a source of income for the poor with zakât. A Muslim who has well understood Islam will easily find out how to establish factories and industrial foundations and how to support jihâd and pious foundations in a way suitable with Islam with the money of zakât. The techniques of doing this are desribed in the book Endless Bliss, I, 7. Islam has shown how Muslims will work in each century and the ways of utilizing the inventions of the century. There is no reason or necessity for the anti-madhhabite people such as Sayyid Qutb to attempt to change Islam.
Of the four kinds of zakât goods, the zakât of crops and animals and the zakât which is collected from importers by the zakât official called ’âshir are taken and delivered to proper people by Muslims’ ruler. Individuals or institutions or non-Muslim governments have no right to collect these kinds of zakât or to deliver them. They cannot establish zakât banks or zakât ministry. The zakât given to them will not be acceptable. A Muslim who lives under the authority of a non-Muslim government should pay any kind of zakât to one of the persons described in the Qur’ân or to the person whom they have appointed to be their proxy, either in person or by proxy. We should perform our worship suitably with the books of the Ahl as-Sunna scholars.
He quoted the eighth âyat of the sûrat an-Nisâ’, “While the property of inheritance is divided, if any relatives, orphans and needy people [who are not inheritors] are present there, give them something [out of it],” and commented:
“This âyat expresses clearly that the relatives, orphans and the poor will get a share from the property of inheritance. Naturally, some changes and appropriations can be made concerning the property of inheritance. Some shares can be allotted in accordance with the state of the inheritors and the society. The âyat says, ‘If... present,’ which means ‘If ever exists.’ ” (Page 305)
Islamic scholars said about this ayat that it was an act not commanded but recommended because it deserved thawâb and blessings. Those scholars who said that it was a command also said that this âyat was abolished with the other âyats about inheritance that were revealed after it. It is written in Tafsîr-i
Husainî, “This âyat is about those who are present there while the property of inheritance is distributed. It is good to give a little share to the onlooking orphans and poor people who are present there as alms.” Hadrat Sanâ’ullah ad-Dahlawî wrote in his at-Tafsîr al-Mazharî, “While the property of inheritance is divided and distributed, something is given to the relatives, to the orphans and to the poor people present there as alms. Sa’îd ibn Jubair and Dahhâk reported that this âyat was abolished when the âyat
“Yûsikumullah’ was revealed Some scholars said that it had not been abolished. Ibn ’Abbâs said that those inheritors who had reached the age of disretion and puberty would give something little from the property of inheritance that fell into their share. If the inheritors were small, their trustee or proxy would give it, or they would express regrets (for their hesitancy about acts of disposal concerning the inherited property) because it belonged to orphans. As Muhammad ibn Sîrîn reported, ’Ubaidat as-Salmânî divided the property of inheritance and distributed it to the orphans. Then he ordered them to slaughter a sheep. It was cooked and given to the people mentioned in the âyat and they ate it. And he said, ‘If it weren’t for this âyat, I would pay for the sheep.’ It is not fard but mustahab to give something
to these people.” As it is seen, the inheritors will give as much as they want to. Nothing can be taken away from them by force. Sayyid Qutb changes the word ‘present’ in the âyat into ‘existing at any place’. No Islamic scholar has made such a change up to now. The person who translated this book from Arabic might have understood Sayyid Qutb’s error and tries to explain it away by saying that it is possible to take inheritance tax from the inheritors and give it to those who are not inheritors, thus changing the âyat altogether. It was quite a long time ago when the Islamic scholars predicted that one day the ignorant would be religious authorities and nothing would remain for the Devil to do.
In his book Fî dilâl al-Qur’ân, attempting to interpret the 33rd âyat of the sûrat al-Mâ’ida, Sayyid Qutb writes the ijtihâds of the four madhhabs and says, “In this respect, we consider Imâm Mâlik’s opinion to be worth preference. We are in favour of his opinion.” This writing of his again shows that he is not a member of any madhhab, that he thinks of himself as superior to the imâms of madhhabs and that he knows nothing of the knowledge of usûl al-fiqh. A few pages later, in the subject of punishing the thief, he gives the ijtihâds of the four madhhabs and says, “But
Imâm Abû Yûsuf opposes al-Imâm al-a’zam, and a third point of view, different from the other two, comes forward,” and thus he uses indecent, irreverent terms against the imâms of the madhhabs and their ijtihâds. He thinks ijtihâds as mere thoughts and ideas. On the contrary, Islamic religion is a religion of good manners and beautiful morals. Islamic scholars have been the representatives of Islamic religion in good manners and beautiful morals, and they have introduced it to the world as such. Sayyid Qutb differs from Islamic scholars in this respect, too.
When interpreting the 93rd âyat of the sûrat al-Mâ’ida, he says, “About the context of this statement in the Qur’ân, I could not find a way of interpretation which relieves one’s soul among the ones which the mufassirs mentioned. Among those which I read, I liked the one which Ibn Jarîr at-Tabarî mentioned best, though it is not in a capacity to relieve me sentimentally.” However, for example, the Qur’ân commentary by al-Baidâwî, who has been loved and respected by all mufassirs, and also its annotation by Shaikh-zâda explain this âyat more clearly and satisfactorily. Hadrat Sayyid ’Abdulhakîm Arwâsî, a great Islamic scholar of profound knowledge and an expert in tasawwuf, explained this âyat at the Bâyezîd Mosque in Istanbul for many days, quoting from the
annotation of al-Baidâwî’s Qur’ân commentary and from the Qur’ân commentaries by Abussu’ûd and Ni’metullah, thus satisfying the souls of those cultured youngsters who listened to him in admiration. If Sayyid Qutb, too, had been honoured with attending the lectures and suhba of such a profound Islamic scholar who was perfect both in bâtinî and zâhirî knowledge, and if he had attained a few drops of his ocean of knowledge and ma’rifa, he would have understood something from the overt meanings, expressions, indications, denotations, necessitations and implications of âyats. Perhaps he would have perceived what tafsîr and mufassir meant. The faid of those lectures, softening and purifying the hearts that were hard like rocks and pitch-black, could make people distinguish the right from the wrong and tremble with feeling
the greatness of Islamic scholars and of the Salaf as-Sâlihîn. Surely, they realized the highness of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunna so well that they fully believed that for attaining endless bliss there was no other way than following them. Hadrat al-Imâm ar-Rabbânî Ahmad al-Fârûqî repeatedly stated in his book Maktûbât that these scholars were the ones who were lauded in by the hadîths, “They are the prophets’ inheritors,” and “Their ink will weigh heavier than the
Sayyid Qutb’s attempt to exploit an âyat from the Mâida sûra in order to authenticate his undervaluation of hundreds of scholars of Tafsîr, which he parenthesizes with a laudation of an equivocal name, Muhammad ibn Jarîr[1], betrays the fact that he is a heretic without a certain madhhab. See how the famous book Fat’h al-majîd,
too, praises Ibn Jarîr on its 294th page: “There has been nobody more learned than Muhammad ibn Jarîr ibn Yazîd at-Tabarî on the earth. He was one of the mujtahidîn. He did not copy (taqlîd) from anybody. He had many disciples educated in his own madhhab. He passed away in the year 310[A.H.]” It writes that Ibn Jarîr was a non-madhhabite. And Sayyid Qutb approves and praises only this person among the ’ulamâ’ of tafsîr.
’Abd al-Ghanî an-Nablusî wrote: “Though it is permissible to hold an imitative belief (taqlîd) on what you hear concerning i’tiqâd, you will be sinful because you have not studied and examined. In a’mâl and ’ibâdât, it is permissible through unanimity of scholars to follow (taqlîd) a madhhab leader without research. Since there has not been any person for a long time to accumulate in himself the conditions for being a mujtahid, it is necessary to learn one of the four madhhabs. And this is possible only by reading a dependable book or by asking and learning from a pious scholar. There is no mujtahid mutlaq any more. But until the end of the world, there will be those mujtahids who are dependent on one of the four madhhabs and who can perform
---------------------------------
[1] The following information is given under the entry TABARÎ ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaih’ in the biography section of the Turkish book Seâdet-i-ebediyye: “Abû Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarîr (224 [A.D. 839]-Tabaristân-310 [A.D. 923]-Baghdâd) was a great scholar profoundly learned in the branches of Tafsîr and Hadîth. Two of his most valuable works are Jâmi’ul-bayân, a book of Tafsîr consisting of twenty-three volumes, and Târîh-ul-umam, a masterpiece of history, which was abridged by a Shiite named Alî bin Muhammad Shimshâtî. This Shiite-laced abridgement, which was translated into Turkish and entitled Taberî Târîhi (History of Tabarî), misleads those who read it. It is written on the sixty-eighth (68) page of the book Mukhtasar-i-Tuhfa-i-ithnâ ashariyya by Alûsî
that Muhammad bin Jarîr bin Rustam Tabarî is a Shiite. And that Muhammad bin Abil-Qâsim is another Shiite is written in Asmâ-ul-muallifîn. These people should not be confused with Hadrat (Abû Ja’far Muhammad) ibn Jarîr. On the other hand, a book of Tafsîr which is mistaken for the book of Tafsîr of Tabarî entitled Jâmi’ul-bayân is the Shiite book of Tafsîr entitled Tabarsî, a pseudo title for the book Majma’ul bayân by Fadl bin Hasan Tabarî (d. 548 [A.D. 1153], a member of the aberrant Shiite sect Imâmiyya.
ijtihâd and give fatwâ in matters within a madhhab. It is not permissible to learn religious knowledge only by reading any religious book or by asking and understanding from anybody who passes for a religious man. Among those who have been said to be religious men, ignoramuses, zindîqs, sinners and hyprocrites who have written their own thoughts as religious knowledge or who have tried to demolish Islam from within and also those who earned their living by serving them as their assistants have always existed. Being a real religious man requires possessing knowledge, ’amal and ikhlâs, i.e. taqwâ. For guiding men to happiness, a religious man should first of all have the i’tiqâd of Ahl as-Sunna, that is, he has to follow as-Sahâba and obey ijmâ’ al-Umma.”[1]
As for Sayyid Qutb; when observed with due attention, it will be seen that he is only an orator who brings the readers into raptures with his zealous and falsely adorned writings, which is the natural art of a journalist or a politician. Like a broker who puts a covered treasury up for sale, he only praises Islam and, instead of opening it and exhibiting the jewels in it, he tries to hush up Islamic scholars and their books from the youth and exhibits his own ideas as religious knowledge. While trying to enchant his readers with an actor’s role, he is not aware that he has contradicted and denied himself various times. It is feared very much that his following writing, -which a student brought and showed us-, in the interpretation of the 115th âyat of the sûrat al-Mâ’ida may lead his readers to kufr: “The story of the Descent the Table set (with viands) is not mentioned in Christian books as it exists in the Qur’ân. In these gospels, which were written after Hadrat ’Îsâ’s death...” On the other hand, he himself explained the âyat, “They did not kill ’Îsâ (’alaihi ’s-salâm). They did not hang him,” detailedly before. The âyat-i-kerîmas never state that Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’ was killed; they state that he was exactly taken up (tawaffî) to heaven. All his books shout out the fact that he was not a scholar of tafsîr or a religious man but a skillful writer with a strong Arabic, a keen intellect and extensive imagination. Politicians, in order to attain their desires, exploit the things that are loved and respected so well and give them such vividness that only those who know the matter closely can see whether they are sincere in their writings. Yet those who cannot sense their inner purposes, already vulnarable to the exploitation because of their admiration for the thing exploited, easily succumb to their plans,
---------------------------------
[1] Al-hadîqat an-nadiyya, p. 460.
tag along behind them and accompany them to their disastrous destination. As a matter of fact, thousands of Egyptian youngsters enraptured by Sayyid Qutb’s writings were led to torments in this world and the next. And now, with the apprehension that young people, who thirst for Islamic knowledge, may fall for those heretical and aberrant writings, -or for their all the more exacerbated mistranslations fudged by some false men of religion-, we feel deep pity and sorrow for them.
A strange malady is rife among ignorant and incompetent people: maligning the past and animadverting on the ancestry. Wahhâbîs and Sayyid Qutb evince the terminal cases of this malady. “After as-Sahâba, for many centuries Muslims made undestructible barricades between the Qur’ân and life. The Qur’ân became melodies at mihrâb and prayers at graves. Eventually, laying his finger on this great problem of Islam, Sayyid Qutb has written his book Fî dilâl al-Qur’ân,” they say. We would ask them: Who established those Islamic universities which spread the teachings and the light of the Qur’ân over the world and which founded the home of today’s civilization? Our ancestors adapted their lives to the Qur’ân perfectly in knowledge, in jihâd, in science and in morals. Hundreds of thousands of books which they wrote and various Islamic civilizations which they established have been praised in world’s annals. Sayyid Qutb’s followers who make fun of our ancestors’ reciting the Qur’ân for the dead should know well
that our Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm) commanded to visit graves and to recite the Qur’ân for the dead, and also he himself did so. Our ancestors, in order to obey this command, this sunna, visited the dead and recited the Qur’ân for their souls. Thus they held fast to the Qur’ân and to the Sunna in everything they did. Those who say, “Sayyid Qutb’s book is not a series of narrations,” think that they praise him, while in fact they betray his disgrace, for a religious teaching which is not narrated (riwâya) from Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) or from as Sahâbat al-kirâm is called a “bida’”. It is declared in a hadîth sherîf, “All religious teachings which are not narrated from us but which have been fabled later are bida’.”
Another hadîth declares, “No worship of the inventors of bida’ is acceptable. They will go to Hell.” These hadîths clearly show that the followers of Sayyid Qutb are very wrong and that only Ahl as-Sunna will be rescued, for Sayyid Qutb refuses the narrations coming from the Salaf as-Sâlihîn. On the other hand, Ahl as-Sunna hold fast to the narrations which the
Salaf as-Sâlihîn broght from Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm). It is written in the commentary of al-Birghiwî’s Wasiyyat-nâma, “It is fard for every Muslim to learn the madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunna and the i’tiqâd reported by these scholars and to correct his belief in accordance with it. Everybody should learn this. They should not remain ignorant, for a belief which does not agree with Islam is very harmful. Recently bida’ have spread far and wide. There are very few people left who know the i’tiqâd of Ahl as-Sunnat wa ’l-Jamâ’a. Ignorance has covered the entire world. The words of those scholars whose deeds are suitable with their knowledge are dependable. There are many people who are deprived of knowledge but who have disguised themselves as scholars and become famous. We should not fall for their appearance and fame. There is the famous saying: ‘A semi-religious man will ruin one’s faith; a half doctor will ruin one’s
body.’ Recently, many ignorant people using names such as shaikh, ’âlim or murshid have been deceiving Muslims and leading them to heresy. May Allâhu ta’âlâ protect Muslims from believing them! We should beware these heretics very much. We should not follow the books and the words of any person who passes for a religious man, who might cause us to fall into heresy. We should not follow those fatwâs and decisions which have not been derived from fiqh books and which have been given by modernists, and we should look for and find one who knows the matter and ask him and learn the truth of the matter.” Every Muslim should take this advice of Islamic scholars as a warning for himself, come to his senses and should not believe the deceptive advertisements and misleading propagandas of heretical books.
It is dismaying to know that there are people who look on Sayyid Qutb’s heretical thoughts as ‘sagacious tafsîrs’. We should hold fast not to the corrupt thoughts produced by Sayyid Qutb but to the teachings which Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Messenger (’alaihi ’s-salâm) understood and conveyed from the Qur’ân and to the real books of tafsîr which the Ahl as-Sunna scholars built up by gathering these teachings. Those who want to attain happiness by sheltering in the shade of the Qur’ân should believe not those books of tafsîr written by this person or that but the correct books of tafsîr written by the Ahl as-Sunna scholars. Those who will make one attain to happiness are not the inheritors of Sayyid Qutb, but they are the Ahl as-Sunna scholars, who are Rasûlullah’s (’alaihi
’s-salâm) inheritors:
Sayyid Qutb’s followers say that he was a Shâfi’î. However,
being in one of the four madhhabs requires belonging to the Ahl as-Sunna first. If a person dissents from the Ahl as-Sunna and dislikes Sunnîs, his claim to be in one of the four madhhabs is an attempt to deceive Muslims.
A Muslim who glances through Sayyid Qutb’s tafsîr book enjoys reading the explanations of âyats, and his soul becomes exhilarated, for these explanations were taken from the Ahl as-Sunna scholars’ tafsîr books. On the other hand, reading Sayyid Qutb’s heretical writings, and their translations, which are incompatible with Islam’s main sources, annoys a Muslim and blackens his heart. Sayyid Qutb’s stunning mediocrity is perceived at once. It is seen that he attempts to explain îmân and islam with philosophical thoughts. It is for this reason that those reasonable Muslims who have read the Ahl as-Sunna scholars’ books, which enliven the souls, and who can realize the greatness of these exalted scholars, read those real books of tafsîr today also and they not
only reject Sayyid Qutb’s books, but also try to protect the youngsters from reading them.
Though he interspersed his heretical ideas throughout his tafsîr book, Fî dilâl al-Qur’ân, it is deemed, in order to satisfy the readers, useful to be informative with a few of them briefly:
1) When beginning to interpret the sûrat al-Baqara, he says, “Each sûra has a peculiar musical effect and harmony.” Our master Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm) said, “Ghinâ (music) increases hypocrisy in the heart.” Does the Qur’ân ever have such an effect? It clears away the darkness caused by music. It illuminates the heart and the soul. It is written in the commentary of al-Birghiwî’s Wasiyyat-nâma, “You should not listen to the things that are read melodiously. The men of tarîqa of our time are very ignorant and obstinate. They recite poems melodiously. They equate the sensual emotions stirred by music with the flavour inherent in the acts of worship. Such heretics who ignore the Book and madhhabs are the pioneers of the Dajjâl’s soldiers. I advise the Believers not to believe them, otherwise you will go out of the religion! Do not deviate from the way of Sunna, Ahl as-Sunna! Do not listen to those who read the Qur’ân al-kerîm, call the adhân and say the dhikr and prayers melodiously! Silence them! The fatwâ book
Tâtârhâniyya writes that there is unanimity of scholars on that it is harâm to do these (acts of worship) melodiously. The scholars of fiqh have put forward many evidences and documents showing that it is harâm.”
2) “Migration to Medina was done under some compulsion,” he says. On the other hand, Islamic scholars report that the Hegira was done not under fear, trouble or compulsion but with Allâhu ta’âlâ’s decree and permission. It is written in Al-mawâhib al-laduniyya, “Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) commanded his companions to go from Mecca to Medina. He remained in Mecca, awaiting Allâhu ta’âlâ’s permission. One day, Jabrâ’il (’alaihi ’s-salâm) came and said, ‘The unbelievers of Quraish will kill you. Do not sleep in your bed tonight.’ The next day he brought the âyat permitting him to migrate.” Islamic scholars said and wrote so decently about Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam).
3) “Various opinions have been put forward in interpreting the letters that exist at the beginning of some sûras of the Qur’ân. We take one of these opinions, which counts them as indicating that the Qur’ân is made up of these letters,” he says. The Ahl as-Sunna scholars say, “These letters are of the mutashâbihât; Allâhu ta’âlâ has concealed their numerous meanings. He has revealed some of them only to His beloved Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm) and to ’Ulamâ’ ar-râsihîn, who are his inheritors.” It is declared clearly in other âyats that the Qur’ân was sent down in Arabic letters. It is not something to be slighted that he gives such a meaning to these letters and is reluctant to write what Abû Bakr, ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ) and the scholars of tafsîr said.
This also betrays his crass ignorance of the mysteries in the Qur’ân and the Divine Ma’ârif which have been inspirations for the great men of tasawwuf.
4) “Scholars of tafsîr and tawhîd explained detailedly which one, the earth or the sky, had been created earlier. But they should have known the fact that being earlier and later are human terms. It should not be forgotten, again, that such terms have been used so that the infinite descriptions be comprehended by the limited human mind. The disputations which Islamic thinkers set about on these terms of the Qur’ân are nothing but the tragedy of mixing Greek philosophy and the religious controversies among Jews and Christians with the pure Arab mind and the brilliant Islamic intellect,” he says. See the terms which Sayyid Qutb uses against Islamic scholars and the Salaf as-Sâlihin! Could you imagine a Muslim whose heart would not feel sharp pain from these
insults and impertinences which he does
against the scholars of tafsîr and kalâm? By saying, “They should have known,” he attempts to give lessons to these exalted scholars. By saying, “It should not be forgotten,” he imputes ignorance to the most prominent people of the auspicious century praised by Rasûlullah (’alaihi ’s-salâm). This passage shows that he has not heard about the subtle knowledge in the books Islamic scholars wrote about time and space. If he had read and understood the books of Islamic scholars, he would not have spoken ill about Islam’s most beloved personalities, and he would have known his place and behave himself. It is true that, like in his novels The Thorns, A Child from the Village and The Magic City, he gives the impression of being a scholar to the youth in his Qur’ân commentary which he wrote with a fluent style and deceptive words, thus attaching young minds to himself; but those who have woken up from unawareness by reading the blessed writings of Islamic scholars notice at once his poisonous ideas and aberrant attitude which he interspersed among these attractive writings of his.
5) Like in his statment, “To me, this experiment was made in order to train the person who would become the caliph of the world,” he sees himself in a magnifying mirror by saying “to me” at many places of his tafsîr book. It is understood here that he is not ignorant, but vulgarly ignorant. If he had learned the zâhirî knowledge of the Qur’ân by reading al-Baidâwî’s tafsîr and its annotation and at-Tafsîr al-kabîr and understood something from the mysteries in the Qur’ân by reading Ni’matullah’s Tafsîr
and the tafsîr book Rûh al-bayân by Hadrat Ýsmâil Hakký of Bursa, he would have known his place and perhaps behave himself.
6) When interpreting the 117th âyat of the sûrat al-Baqara, he says, “The Creator does not have any match. And here the philosophy of Wahdat al-wujûd remains completely outside Islamic conception, and Islam refuses the concept of Wahdat al-wujûd of non-Muslims,” thus showing that he knows nothing of tasawwuf. He supposes that the inspirations and kashfs of the great men of tasawwuf were only philosophy. He goes to an extreme in insolence by saying “non-Muslims” about the ’Ulamâ’ ar-râsihîn, for the teachings of Wahdat al-wujûd that had existed before Islam also had been put forward by the men of tasawwuf belonging to ancient revealed true religions. Greek philosophers
and the unbelievers of the Alexandria school had appropriated these teachings stealing them from the religious men of tasawwuf. The knowledge of Wahdat al-wujûd is not an invention of philosophers, but it is the ma’rifa and kashf of those believers who occupied high grades in the religion[1].
7) In the tafsîr of the third âyat of the sûrat az-Zumar, he says, “One who has tawhîd and ikhlâs does not ask anything from somebody other than Allah. He does not trust in anybody who has been created. People deviated from the tawhîd preached by Islam. Nowadays, awliyâ’ are worshipped in every country. People ask intercession of them just as the pre-Islamic Arabs worshipped angels and statues. There exists no intermediary or intercession between Allah and men in respect of tawhîd and ikhlâs revealed by Allah,” With these words, he announces that he is a Wahhâbî.
8) This socialist writer thinks of himself as a scholar of tafsîr and misinterprets many âyats. For example, he says in his interpretation of the seventh âyat of the sûrat an-Nisâ’, “Men have one share from what the parents and the close relatives left. Women also have one share from what the parents and the close relatives left. It is, little or much, one share, as prescribed...” On the other hand, Islamic scholars said about the same âyat, “Men have shares from what the parents and the close relatives left. Women also have shares from what the parents and the close relatives left. Whether the property left is little or much, they will be given their shares in the prescribed amounts.” Its reason also has been explained in al-Baidâwî’s tafsîr. Especially about
the âyat following that one, he says, “We do not see any evidence of abolition here. To our opinion this âyat is explicit. It is fard as prescribed,” and thus he does not feel shame to write that he interprets according to his opinion. However, the scholars of tafsîr, chiefly al-Baidâwî, said that this âyat was mustahab, though there were also those who said that it was wâjib. And it has been applied accordingly in all Islamic countries.
After quoting the preceding âyat, he says, “Allâhu ta’âlâ has distributed possessions and property to society. Society is obliged to use these possessions well. Society essentially owns all possessions. Heirs [trustees] have the right to use these
---------------------------------
[1] For details on Wahdat al-wujûd, see Endless Bliss, I, chapter 40, and III, chapter 56.
possessions only with the permission of society,” thus slandering Islamic religion and attempting to reform it. He struggles to imbue the younger generations with his socialistic ideas under the name of tafsîr.
9) In his books World’s Peace and Islam and Islamic Studies, he says, “The zakât is a tax. The government collects this tax. It is not an interaction that takes place between two individuals face to face. It is not an individual gift or alms that is passed over from hand to hand. It is not a mode of order which Islam prescribes to separate the zakât of one’s property with one’s own hands and to distribute it with one’s own hands. The word which says that the property of which zakât has been given cannot be counted as stocked property [kanz] is not correct. The government can lay hands on it.” These words of Sayyid Qutb are not suitable with Islam, and they are his own wrong thoughts[1]. It is written in all the books of fiqh that the property of which zakât has been paid is not kanz and that the government can by no means lay hands on it. It is written in al-Ahkâm as-sultâniyya and also in many valuable books, “ ‘Zakât’ and ‘alms’ are used in the same meaning in the Qur’ân. Nobody has any share from Muslim’s property besides its zakât. A hadîth declares, ‘There is no claim to [others’] property besides zakât.’ The possessions for which zakât has to be paid are of two kinds: al-amwâl az-zâhira and al-amwâl al-bâtina. Al-amwâl az-zâhira are the possessions that cannot be hidden. Examples of these are crops, fruits and the four-footed stock animals that graze in the field. Al-amwal al-bâtina are those possessions that can be hidden. Examples of these are gold, silver and commercial goods. The government cannot demand the zakât of al-amwâl al-bâtina. The owner has the right to pay their zakât. If he pays it to the government with his own wish, then the government takes it and distributes it to the kind of persons defined by Islam, thus helping the owner. The government’s duty is only to demand the zakât of al-amwal az-zâhira and distribute it to the prescribed persons. The government’s owning this right requires its being independent, Islamic and just and learned in those branches of religious knowledge concerning zakât. If the government is cruel in collecting zakât but just in giving it to the
---------------------------------
[1] See the paragraphs 49-53 above, and Endless Bliss, V, chapter on zakât.
prescribed persons, it is permissible to pay it to the government though the owner may distribute it himself. If the government is just in collecting zakât but cruel in distributing it, it is wâjib not to pay zakât to the government; it is not permissible to pay it to such a government. If the government takes the zakât with the owners’ wish or by force, zakât will not have been paid. It is necessary for the owners themselves to separate and distribute it to the prescribed people, again. Rasûlullah (sall-Allâhu alaihi wa sallam) used to distribute the collected zakât to the persons whom he deemed suitable. Then, Allâhu ta’âlâ declared the kinds of persons one by one whom zakât would be paid and commanded not to spend it at other places. It has been reported
unanimously that an unbeliever should not be paid zakât.”
It is written at the end of the section on kafâlat in ad-Durr al-mukhtâr, “At-Tarsûsî says that it is not permissible for the Sultan [the government] to expropriate anybody’s property. Only, if the zakât-collecting officials of Bait al-mâl, governors and the clerks of Bait al-mâl oppress Muslims and misappropriate their property, the government can confiscate this illegally obtained property. So is the case with the clerks and officials of pious foundations. If they spend prodigally, lead a life of dissipation and revelry and build apartment houses for themselves, the government confiscates their property and dismisses them from office. It returns the property which they have obtained unjustly to the pious foundations. If it is not known for certain from what pious foundation
they have taken them, it gives them to Bait al-mâl. Khalîfa ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) sent Abû Huraira (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) to Bahrain as a governor to collect zakât. Later he dismissed him. He commandeered his possessions and took his 12,000 gold coins away from him. After a while, he wanted to assign him this same duty again but the latter refused it. This fact is reported by Hâkim and others.” On this account, Ibn ’Âbidîn comments: “The government’s commandeering the possessions of the officials of Bait al-mâl means its taking the zakât goods misappropriated by them back from them and giving them to Bait al-mâl, that is, putting them back to their place. The government cannot spend these possessions at other places. Abû Huraira (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) said, ‘Hadrat ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) sent me to Bahrain to collect
zakât. Then he dismissed me from this duty and took away my twelve thousand gold coins. After a while
he wanted to give me this duty again. I refused it.’ Upon hearing this, Abû Khâtam (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) said, ‘Though Yûsuf (’alaihi ’s-salâm) was an exalted prophet, much higher than you are, he wanted to do such a duty. Why did you not accept it?’ He answered, ‘He was Yûsuf (’alaihi ’s-salâm). He was a prophet. He was a prophet’s son, a prophet’s grandson, and a prophet’s great-grandson. As for me, I am the son of Umayya. I fear to say something which I don’t know, to do something which I don’t know, thus to be disgraced before my Allah and His human creatures and to cause my possessions to be commandeered.’ It is understood that, according to Abû Huraira’s (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) madhhab, it was permissible for the officials of zakât to accept presents, but
it was not permissible in Hadrat ’Umar’s (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) madhhab; so he acted in accordance with his own madhhab and took his possessions, which he had collected as presents, away from him.” As it is seen, Hadrat ’Umar (radiy-Allâhu ’anh) did not lay hands on the possessions of the rich. On the contrary, he took the unjust earnings of those officials who laid hands on the possessions of the rich and gave them back. In Islam no one can lay hands on anybody else’s possessions. Also in this respect, Islam differs from communism and socialism.
10) At various places of his tafsir book, Sayyid Qutb quotes the hadîth, “The poor have rights also in the property besides zakât,” and says that the government will take the zakât by force and that, in addition, the government may commandeer the excessive possessions of those who do not give alms. He leads the matter down to communism. In order to make them evidences for these ideas of his, he misinterprets the âyats and hadîths, His attempt to be of service causes disservice, instead. The above hadîth does not show that giving alms is fard like giving zakât, but it shows that it is worthy of much more thawâb than other supererogatory kinds of worship, for it has been declared that those who do not give the poor their due, which is called zakât, will be tormented in Hell. No torments has been mentioned for those who do not give the right called alms, but it has been said that it is very much blessed. Likewise, Islamic scholars
have reported unanimously that the rights of “saluting, visiting the sick and going to the place where one is invited,” which are declared in the hadîth “A Muslim has five rights upon another Muslim,” are not fard. On the other hand, the following hadîths quoted
from Zawâjir show clearly that the case in not so with zakât: “Protect your property by giving zakât! Cure your sick relatives by giving alms! Protect yourselves from calamities by praying”; “The property of which zakât has been paid cannot be counted as kanz, (treasury cursed by Allâhu ta’âlâ) even if it were buried under the ground. The property of which zakât has not been paid becomes kanz even if it were left in the open”; “Stinginess and îmân do not stay together in a Believer’s heart!” Hadrat Ibn Hajar al-Makkî explained the ‘stinginess’, which is censured in the hadîths, as ‘not paying zakât’.
11) Though the âyat, “We told them to become low monkeys,” informs clearly that those Jews who had fished on Saturday were metamorphosed into monkeys, he has attempted to change this âyat by saying, “They were reduced to the low grade of monkeys. They must not have become monkeys physically,” supposing himself to be a mujtahid like Imâm Mujâhid. Great scholar ’Abd al-’Azîz ad-Dahlawî writes in his Persian Tafsîr-i ’Azîzî detailedly that their figures and appearances turned into monkeys and that they died after living three days, thus answering those who say like Sayyid Qutb.
12) Again in his tafsîr book, he says, “No rule has been mentioned in the Qur’ân about making the captives slaves. Islam has eradicated slavery.” Realizing that this opinion of his is wrong, he changes his tone and says, “Islam eradicated slavery, except for the legitimate captives of war, for, in those days, it was not powerful enough to force society to admit a rule which was against traditions.” Through this absurd logic, he tries to cover his error. He cannot deny the fact that, in the year
13) Sayyid Qutb puts forward his own point of view also on marrying those women who are disbelievers with holy books and attempts to compete with mujtahids. His only stock for interpreting, writing religious books is his knowledge of Arabic, which is concomitant with his nationality. The most serious error of this writer, whose single art is being a good translator, is that he has not realized that he has to be a muqallid in religious knowledge. As a matter of fact, only mujtahids’ opinions are worth being followed on the interpretations of explicit âyats and hadîths and in those teachings about which there is no explicit âyat or hadîth. The opinions of non-mujtahids, i.e. muqallids like us, cannot be religious knowledge. Those religiously ignorant people
who put forward ideas disagreeing with mujtahids’ opinions are called “religion reformers” or “zindîqs”. These are the people who want to demolish the religion from behind the cover with which they disguise themselves as religious men. The true man of religion means the true Muslim who learns the explanations and opinions of mujtahids after years of lucubration and who conveys them to the people of his time in a way they can comprehend.
Sayyid Qutb, knowing Arabic well due to his nationality, attempted to compare the socialistic teachings he had studied and defended in admiration for forty years with the Qur’ân. Not having read the books of Islamic scholars and being influenced by Muhammad ’Abduh, chief of Egyptian freemasonic lodge, he began to write his books advocating anti-madhhabism and Wahhâbism in the final years of his life. His book Social Justice in Islam, published in 1948, teems with his subversive, heretical ideas. Saying that we should hold fast to the Qur’ân, he towed the youth behind his heretical thoughts. I wish he had read the writings of those mujâhids who had studied and understood Islam well, such as ’Abd al-Qâdir Udah and Ahmad al-’Adwî al-Azharî who were contemporary with him; thus he would have learned the superiority of the Ahl as-Sunna scholars and attained the fortune of holding fast to their path, which is the only path to salvation. In fact, even those who said that he was an Islamic scholar could not refrain from saying, “His research into knowledge and philosophy has gifted him an unfaltering îmân,” meaning that his îmân was heretical and was based not on Islamic teachings but on
Some people who occupy religious posts and pass themselves off as religious authorities, besides getting decieved by the modernist, heretical ideas of Sayyid Qutb, strive to disseminate his un-Islamic ideas among the youth. And some others try to exploit this situation by mistranslating his tafsîr and some parts of his other books and publishing them for high prices. They attack our books because they reveal the facts, awaken the youth and thereby pose a hindrance to their exploitation. Because they cannot afford criticisms based on knowledge and documentation, they have recourse to lies and slanders. These liars cannot give any evidence for their accusations when they are defied to do so.
The following fatwâ of Hadrat Ahmad ibn Hajar al-Makkî, a prominent Islamic scholar, is sufficient to understand how heretical and harmful Sayyid Qutb’s tafsîr, Fî dilâl al-Qur’ân, is:
“The law courts should take preventive measures against those who, instead of quoting from the tafsîrs of Islamic scholars, write their own ideas as tafsîr and offer such tafsîrs to the people. Such tafsîrs are heretical and superstitious. Men of religious posts who publish them are heretics endeavouring to mislead others away from the right path.”
A Muslim who reads this fatwâ, which is quoted from al-Fatâwâ al-hadîthiyya, should not be deceived by the writings of ignorant, heretical men of religious posts, should hold fast to the Ahl as-Sunna books, which those heretics try to defame, and should not buy or read the false, poisonous books of other heretics whom they praise highly and systematically.