I'd like some infor on syed qutb, like what he said that was wrong etc. Also, have any sunni scholars written refutations of him?
Maulana Yusuf Ludhyanvi rahimahullah has written on him in his "Gumrah-kun Nazariyaat aur Siraat-e-Mustaqeem" about his criticism of Uthmaan Radhi Allaahu `anhu.
hizmetbooks has something on him.
Imam al-Zarqani said in his book Manahil al-Irfan: 'Our Scholars agreed that if a word carries 99 aspects of disbelief and one aspect of faith, it must be interpreted according to the best of meanings, which is faith'.
Visit www.asharis.wordpress.com and the Marifah website
Yes the turkish sunni site www.hizmetbooks.org has quite a bit on him and some of the other major reformers of the last century like Rashid Rida, here is an example of the Syed Qutb stuff:Originally Posted by faqir
REFORMER SAYYID QUTB THINKS HIMSELF SUPERIOR TO MADHHAB IMAMS
In his book Fi dilal al-Qur'an, attempting to interpret the 33rd ayat of the surat al-Ma'ida, Sayyid Qutb writes down the ijtihads of the four madhhabs and says, "In this respect, we consider Imam Malik's opinion as worth preference. We are in favor of his opinion." This writing of his again shows that he is not a member of any madhhab, that he think of himself as superior to the imams of madhhabs and that he knows nothing of the knowledge of usul al-fiqh. A few pages later, in the subject of punishing the thief, he gives the ijtihads of the four madhhabs and says, "But Imam Abu Yusuf opposes al-Imam al-azam, and a third point of view, different from the other two, comes forward," thus he uses indecent, irreverent terms against the imams of the madhhabs and their ijtihads. He thinks ijtihads as mere thoughts and ideas. Whereas, Islamic religion is a religion of decency and beautiful morals. Islamic scholars have been the representatives of Islamic religion in decency 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 ayat of the surat al-Ma'ida, he says, "About the context of this statement in the Qur'an, 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 Jarir at-Tabari mentioned most, though it is not in a capacity to relieve me emotionally." Whereas, for example, the Qur'an commentary by al-Baidawi, who has been loved and respected by all mufassirs, and also its annotation by Shaikh-zada explain this ayat more clearly and satisfactorily. Hadrat Sayyid 'Abdulhakim Arwasi, a great Islamic scholar of profound knowledge and an expert in tasawwuf, explained this ayat at the Bayazid Mosque in Istanbul for many days, quoting from the annotation of al-Baidawi's Qur'an commentary and from the Qur'an commentaries by Abussuud and Ni'matullah, thus relieving the souls of those cultured youngsters who listened to him in admiration. If Sayyid Qutb, too, had been honored with attending the lectures and sohbat of such a profound Islamic scholar who was perfect both in batini and Zahiri knowledge, and if he had attained a few drops of his ocean of knowledge and marifa, he would have understood something from the clearness, context, indications, denotations, necessitations and implications of ayats. Perhaps he would have perceived what tafsir and mufassir meant. The faid of those lectures, softening and purifying the hearts that were hard like stone 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-Salihin. Surely, they could understand the highness of the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnat so well that they fully believed that for attaining endless bliss there was no other way than following them. Hadrat al-Imam ar-Rabbani Ahmad al-Faruqi repeatedly stated in his book Maktubat that these scholars were the ones who were praised by the hadiths, "They are the prophets' inheritors," and "Their ink will weigh heavier than the blood of martyrs."
By putting forth the ayat from the surat al-Ma'ida, Sayyid Qutb's belittling hundreds of the 'Ulama' of tafsir except Ibn Jarir whom he praises displays that he is non-maddhabite. See how the famous book Fat'h al-majid, too, praises Ibn Jarir on its 294th page: "There has been nobody more learned than Muhammad ibn Jarir ibn Yazid at-Tabari on the earth. He was one of the mujtahidin. He did not copy (taqlid) from anybody. He had many disciples educated in his own madhhab. He passed away in the year 310[A.H.]" It writes that Ibn Jarir was non-madhhabite. And Sayyid Qutb approves and praises only this person among the 'ulama' of tafsir.
'Abd al-Ghani an-Nabulusi wrote: "Though it is permissible to believe out of imitation (taqlid) what one hears concerning itiqad, one will be sinful because one has not studied and examined. In a'mal and 'ibadat, it is permissible through unanimity of scholars to follow (taqlid) a madhhab leader without research. Since there has not been any person for a long time to accumulate the conditions for being a mujtahid in himself, it is necessary to learn one of the four madhhabs. And this is possible only by reading a dependable book or by asking and understanding 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 ijtihad and give fatwa in matters within a madhhab. It is not permissible to learn religious knowledge by reading just any religious book or by asking and understanding from just anybody who passes for a religious man. Among those who have been said to be religious men, ignoramuses, zindiqs, sinners and hypocrites who have written their own thoughts as religious knowledge or who have wanted to demolish Islam from the inside and also those who earned their living by serving them as their assistants have always existed. Being a real religious man requires to posses knowledge, 'amal and ikhlas, that is taqwa. For guiding men to happiness, a religious man should first of all have the itiqad of Ahl as-Sunnat, that is, he has to follow as-Sahaba and obey ijma' al-Umma." [Al-hadiqat an-nadiyya, p. 460.]
As for Sayyid Qutb, when attentively observed, it will be seen that he is just an orator who brings the readers into raptures by his zealous writings, which are 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 has not noticed that he has contradicted and denied himself at many times. It is feared very much that his following writing in the interpretation of the 115th ayat of the surat al-Ma'ida may bring his readers to kufr: "The story of the Descent of the Meal is not mentioned in Christian books as it exists in the Qur'an. In these gospels, which were written after Hadrat 'Isa's death..." On the other hand, he himself has explained the ayat, "They did not kill 'Isa ('alaihi 's-salam). They did not hang him," detailedly before. The Qur'an never says that he was killed; the hundred and fifty-seventh ayat of Maida Sura purports, "They did not kill Isa, nor did they hang him," while another ayat al-karima purports that he was exactly taken up (tawaffi) to heaven. All his books are bawling to inform with the fact that he is not a scholar of tafsir 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, treat the things that are loved and respected so well and give them such a vividness that only those who know the matter closely can understand if they are sincere in their writings. But those who cannot understand it, being admirers of the thing under discussion become tools for his desires, run after him, thus dragging themselves into calamity together with him. As a matter of fact, thousands of Egyptian youngsters enraptured by Sayyid Qutb's writings were led to torments in this and the next worlds. And now we pity and worry for the youngsters who have been thirsty for learning their religion that they would be deceived by his anti-madhhabite, heretical writings, or by those bogus men of religion who mistranslate their already heretical books.
There has been a disease spread among ignorant and incompetent people: to speak ill of the past, to misrepresent our ancestors as if they had been deficient. The disease has gone beyond the limit in the Wahhabite book and in Sayyid Qutb: "After as-Sahaba, for many centuries Muslims made indestructible barricades between the Qur'an and life. The Qur'an became melodies at mihrab and prayers at graves. Eventually, to lay his finger on this great problem of Islam, Sayyid Qutb has written his book Fi dilal al-Qur'an," they say. We would ask them: who established those Islamic universities which spread the teachings and the light of the Qur'an over the world and which founded the home of today's civilization? Our ancestors adapted their lives to the Qur'an completely in knowledge, in jihad, in science and in morals. Hundred thousands of books which they wrote and various Islamic civilizations which they established have been praised in world's histories. Sayyid Qutb's followers who make fun of our ancestors' reciting the Qur'an for the dead should know well that our Prophet ('alaihi 's-salam) commanded to visit graves and to recite the Qur'an for the dead, and also he himself did so. Our ancestors, in order to obey this command, this sunnat, visited the dead and recited the Qur'an for their souls. Thus they held fast to the Qur'an and to the Sunnat 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 reveal his disgrace, for a religious teaching which is not narrated (riwaya) from Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) or from as Sahabat al-kiram is called a "bidat'". It is declared in a hadith ash-Sharif, "All religious teachings which are not narrated from us but which have been fabled later are bidat'." Another hadith declares, "No worship of the inventors of bidat' is acceptable. They will go to Hell." These hadiths clearly show that the followers of Sayyid Qutb are very wrong and that only Ahl as-Sunnat will be rescued, for Sayyid Qutb refuses the narrations coming from the Salaf as-Salihin. But Ahl as-Sunnat hold fast to the narrations which the Salaf as-Salihin brought from Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam). It is written in the commentary of al-Birghiwi's Wasiyyat-nama, "It is fard for every Muslim to learn the madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunnat and the itiqad reported by these scholars and to correct his beliefs in accordance with it. Everybody should learn this. He should not remain ignorant, for a belief which does not agree with Islam is very harmful. Recently bidat' have spread far and wide. There are very few people left who know the itiqad of Ahl as-Sunnat wal-Jamaat. Ignorance has covered the whole 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 half-religious man will ruin one's faith; a half doctor will ruin one's body.' Recently, many ignorant people using names such as shaikh, alim or murshid have been deceiving Muslims and leading them to heresy. May Allahu ta'ala protect Muslims from believing them! We should beware these heretics very much. We should not follow the books and the word of any person who passes for a religious man, who might cause us to fall into heresy. We should not follow those fatwas and decisions which have not been derived from fiqh books and which have been given by modernists, but we should look for and find the one who knows the matter and ask him and learn the truth of the matter." Every Muslim should take these advices of Islamic scholars as warnings for himself, come to his senses and should not believe the deceptive advertisements and misleading propagandas of heretical books.
Those who call Sayyid Qutb's heretical thoughts "sagacious tafsir" are so astonishing. We should hold fast not to the corrupt thoughts produced by Sayyid Qutb but to the knowledge which Allahu ta'ala's Messenger ('alaihi 's-salam) understood and conveyed from the Qur'an and to the real books of tafsir which the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars built up by gathering this knowledge. Those who want to attain happiness by sheltering in the shade of the Qur'an should believe not those books of tafsir written by this person or that but the correct books of tafsir of the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars. Those who will make one attain to happiness are not the inheritors of Sayyid Qutb, but they are the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars, who are Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) inheritors:
Sayyid Qutb's followers say that he was a Shafi'i. Whereas, being in one of the four madhhabs requires belonging to Ahl as-Sunnat first. For a person who dissents from Ahl as-Sunnat, especially if he dislikes Ahl as-Sunnat, it means to deceive Muslims to claim to be in one of the four madhhabs.
A Muslim who glances through Sayyid Qutb's tafsir book is greatly pleased to read the interpretations of ayats, and his soul becomes cheerful, for these interpretations were taken from the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars' tafsir books. But, upon reading Sayyid Qutb's heretical writings, and their translations, which are incompatible with Islam's main sources, a Muslim gets annoyed. His heart darkens. Inferiority of Qutb's level is perceived at once. It is seen that he attempts to explain iman and Islam with philosophical thoughts. It is for this reason that those reasonable Muslims who have read the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars' books, which enliven the souls, and who could perceive the greatness of these exalted scholars, have been reading those real books of tafsir today also and, let alone rejecting Sayyid Qutb's books, they have been trying to protect the youngsters from reading them.
Though he sprinkled his heretical ideas in every part of his tafsir book, Fi dilal al-Qur'an, 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 surat al-Baqara, he says, "Each sura has a peculiar musical effect and harmony." Our master Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) said, "Ghina (music) increases hypocrisy in the heart." Does the Qur'an 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-Birghiwi's Wasiyyat-nama, "You should not listen to the things that are read melodiously. The men of Tariqa of our time are very ignorant and obstinate. They recite poems melodiously. About the sensual emotions caused by music, they say that they feel them out of 'ibada. Such heretics who ignore the Book and madhhabs are the pioneers of the Dajjal'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 Sunnat, Ahl as-Sunnat! Do not listen to those who read the Qur'an al-karim, call the adhan and say the dhikr and prayers melodiously! Silence them! The fatwa book Tatarhaniyya writes that there is unanimity of scholars on that it is haram to do these melodiously. The scholars of fiqh have put forward many evidences and documents showing that it is haram."
2) "Migration to Medina was done under some compulsion," he says. But Islamic scholars report that the Hegira was done not under fear, trouble or compulsion but with Allahu ta'ala's decree and permission. It is written in Al-mawahib al-laduniyya, "Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) commanded his companions to go from Mecca to Medina. He remained in Mecca and waited for Allahu ta'ala's permission. One day, Jabrail ('alaihi 's-salam) came and said, 'The unbelievers of Quraish will kill you. Do not sleep in your bed tonight.' The next day he brought the ayat permitting him to migrate." Islamic scholars said and wrote so decently about Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam).
3) "Various opinions have been put forward in interpreting the letters that exist at the beginning of some suras of the Qur'an. We take one of these opinions, which counts them as indicating that the Qur'an is made up of these letters," he says. The Ahl as-Sunnat scholars say, "These letters are of the mutashabihat; Allahu ta'ala has concealed their meanings, which are many. He has revealed some of them only to His beloved Prophet ('alaihi 's-salam) and 'Ulama' ar-rasikhin, who are his inheritors." It is declared clearly in other ayats that the Qur'an 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 Abu Bakr, 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anhuma) and the scholars of tafsir said. Hence it is understood that he knows nothing of the mysteries in the Qur'an and the Divine Ma'arif which have been inspirations for the great men of tasawwuf.
4) "Scholars of tafsir and tawhid 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'an are nothing but the disaster of mixing Greek philosophy and the religious controversies in 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-Salihin! Which Muslim's heart would not feel sharp pain from these insults, these impertinences which he does against the scholars of tafsir and kalam? By saying, "They should have known," he attempts to give lessons to these exalted scholars. By saying, "It should not be forgotten," he belittles by ignorance the most prominent people of the auspicious century praised by Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam). 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 the apples of Islam's eyes, 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'an commentary 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 placed among these attractive writings of his.
5) Like in his statement, "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 tafsir book. It is understood here that he is not ignorant, but vulgarly ignorant. If he had learned the Zahiri knowledge of the Qur'an by reading al-Baidawi's tafsir and its annotation and At-tafsir al-kabir and understood something from the mysteries in the Qur'an by reading Nimatullah's Tafsir and the tafsir book Ruh al-bayan by Hadrat Ismail Hakki of Bursa, he would have known his place and perhaps behave himself.
6) When interpreting the 117th ayat of the surat al-Baqara, he says, "The Creator does not have any match. And here the philosophy of Wahdat al-wujud remains completely outside Islamic conception, and Islam refuses the concept of Wahdat al-wujud of non-Muslims," thus shows that he knows nothing of tasawwuf. He supposes that the inspirations and kashfs of the great men of tasawwuf were just a philosophy. He becomes as insolent as saying "non-Muslims" about the 'Ulama' ar-rasikhin, for the knowledge of Wahdat al-wujud that had existed before Islam also had been put forward by the men of tasawwuf of the ancient revealed religions which were right. Greek philosophers and the unbelievers of the Alexandria school had appropriated this knowledge stealing it from the religious men of tasawwuf. The knowledge of Wahdat al-wujud is not an invention of philosophers, but it is the marifa and kashf of those believers who were of high rank in the religion. [For details on Wahdat al-wujud, see Endless Bliss, I, chapter 40, and III, chapter 56.]
7) In the tafsir of the third ayat of the surat az-Zumar, he says, "One who has tawhid and ikhlas does not ask anything from somebody other than Allah. He does not trust in anybody who has been created. People deviated from the tawhid preached by Islam. Nowadays, awliya' are worshiped in every country. People ask intercession of them just as the pre-Islamic Arabs worshiped angels and statues. There exists no intermediary or intercession between Allah and men in respect of tawhid and ikhlas revealed by Allah," With these words, he announces that he is a Wahhabi.
8) This socialist writer thinks of himself as a scholar of tafsir and gives wrong meanings to many ayats. For example, he says in his interpretation of the seventh ayat of the surat an-Nisa', "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..." But Islamic scholars told about that ayat, "Men have share from what the parents and the close relatives left. Women also have share from what the parents and the close relatives left. Whether the property left is little or much, they will be given their shares as much as prescribed." Its reason also has been explained in al-Baidawi's tafsir. Especially about the ayat following that one, he says, "We do not see any evidence of abolition here. To our opinion this ayat is explicit. It is fard as prescribed," and thus he does not feel shame to write that he interprets according to his opinion. Whereas, the scholars of tafsir chiefly al-Baidawi said that this ayat was mustahab, though there were also those who said that it was wajib. And it has been performed so in all Islamic countries.
After quoting the preceding ayat, he says, "Allahu ta'ala has distributed possessions and property to the society. The society is obliged to use these possessions well. The society originally owns all possessions. Heirs [trustees] have the right to use these possessions only with the permission of the society," thus slandering Islamic religion and attempting to reform it. He struggles to inoculate the youth with his socialistic ideas under the name of tafsir.
9) In his book World's Peace and Islam and Islamic Studies, he says, "The zakat is a tax. The government collects this tax. It is not a procedure 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 zakat of one's property with his own hands and to distribute it with one's own hands. The word which says that the property the zakat of which 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. [See the paragraphs 49-53 above, and Endless Bliss, V, chapter on zakat.] It is written in all the books of fiqh that the property the zakat of which has been given is not kanz and that the government can by no means lay hands on it. It is written in Al-ahkam as-sultaniyya and also in many valuable books, " 'Zakat' and 'alms' are used in the same meaning in the Qur'an. Nobody has any share from Muslim's property besides its zakat. A hadith declares, 'There is no claim to [others'] property besides zakat.' The possessions the zakat of which has to be given are of two kinds: al-amwal az-zahira and al-amwal al-batina. Al-amwal az-zahira 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-batina are those possessions that can be hidden. Examples of these are gold, silver and commercial goods. The government cannot demand the zakat of al-amwal al-batina. The owner has the right to give their zakat. If he gives 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 zakat of al-amwal az-zahira 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 zakat. If the government is cruel in collecting zakat but just in giving it to the prescribed persons, it is permissible to give it to the government though the owner may distribute it himself. If the government is just in collecting zakat but cruel in distributing it, it is not permissible but wajib not to give it to the government; if it takes the zakat with the owners' wish or by force, the zakat will not have been given. It is necessary for the owners themselves to separate and distribute it to the prescribed people, again. Rasulullah (sall-Allahu alaihi wa sallam) used to distribute the collected zakat to the persons whom he deemed suitable. Then, Allahu ta'ala declared the kinds of persons one by one whom the zakat would be given and commanded not to spend it at other places. It has been reported unanimously that an unbeliever will not be given zakat."
It is written at the end of the section on kafalat in Durr al-mukhtar, "At-Tarsusi says that it is not permissible for the Sultan [the government] to lay hands on anybody's property. Only, if the zakat-collecting officials of bait al-mal, governors and the clerks of bait al-mal betray the people by misappropriating Muslims' possessions, the government can lay hands on their possessions, which they have obtained unjustly. So is the case with the clerks and officials of the pious foundations. If they spend prodigally, lead a life of dissipation full of dancing and build apartment houses for themselves, the government lays hands on their possessions and dismisses them from the service. It returns the possessions which they have obtained unjustly to the pious foundations. If it is not known for certain from which pious foundation they have taken them, it gives them to bait al-mal. Caliph 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anh) sent Abu Huraira (radi-Allahu 'anh) to Bahrain as a governor to collect zakat. 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 Hakim and others." On this account, Ibn 'Abidin comments: "The government's commandeering the possessions of the officials of bait al-mal means its taking the zakat goods misappropriated by them back from them and giving them to bait al-mal, that is, putting them back to their place. And the government cannot spent these possessions at other places. Abu Huraira (radi-Allahu 'anh) said, 'Hadrat 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anh) sent me to Bahrain to collect zakat. 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, Abu Khatam (radi-Allahu 'anh) said, 'Though Yusuf ('alaihi 's-salam) 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 Yusuf ('alaihi 's-salam). 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 Abu Huraira's (radi-Allahu 'anh) madhhab, it was permissible for the officials of zakat to accept presents, but it was not permissible in Hadrat 'Umar's (radi-Allahu 'anh) madhhab, who 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 (radi-Allahu '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 hadith, "The poor have right also in the property besides zakat," and says that the government will take the zakat 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 interprets the ayats and hadiths wrong. While trying to be useful, he becomes more harmful. The above hadith does not show that giving alms is fard as giving zakat, but it shows that it is worthy of much more thawab than other supererogatory kinds of worship, for it has been declared that those who do not give the poor their due, which is called zakat, 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 thawab. 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 hadith "A Muslim has five rights upon another Muslim," are not fard. Whereas, the following hadiths quoted from Zawajir show clearly that zakat is not so: "Protect your possessions by giving zakat! Cure your sick relatives by giving alms! Protect yourselves from calamities by praying"; "The property on which zakat has been given cannot be counted as kanz, (treasury cursed by Allahu ta'ala) even if it were buried under the ground. The property on which zakat has not been given becomes kanz even if it were left in the open"; "Stinginess and iman do not stay together in a believer's heart!" Hadrat Ibn Hajar al-Makki explained the 'stinginess', which is blamed in the hadiths, as 'not giving zakat'.
11) Though the ayat, "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 ayat by saying, "They were reduced to the low grade of monkeys. They must not have become monkeys in body," supposing himself to be a mujtahid such as Imam Mujahid. Great scholar 'Abd al-'Aziz ad-Dahlawi writes in his Persian Tafsir-i 'Azizi 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 tafsir book, he says, "No rule has been mentioned in the Qur'an 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 the society to admit a rule which was against the common usage." Through this absurd logic, he tries to cover his error. He cannot deny the fact that, in the year 7 A.H., Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) distributed the captives which he had captivated in the Ghaza of Khaibar to his companions as slaves and jariyas and this has been practiced for centuries in Islamic states. But, as if Islam had brought rules for societies of unbelievers -he supposes so- he puts forward a very horrible idea: "Islam was not powerful enough to have its rules admitted." He could not think that this lack of power would refer to Allahu ta'ala and would cause unbelief. Whereas, Islam has not brought any rules, that is, commands and prohibitions, to unbelievers. Islamic rules are for Mulims and Muslim societies. Islam demands one single thing from unbelievers: To have iman. The reason why the zimmis have to obey muamalat is because they are counted as Muslims legally.
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 on account of his country. The greatest error of this writer, whose single art is his being a good translator, is that he has not realized that he has to be a muqallid in religious knowledge. Whereas, only mujtahids' opinions are worth being followed on the interpretations of explicit ayats and hadiths and in those teachings about which there is no explicit ayat or hadith. The opinions of non-mujtahids, that is, we muqallids, cannot be religious knowledge. Those religiously ignorant people who put forward ideas disagreeing with mujtahids' opinions are called "religion reformers" or "zindiqs". These are the people who want to demolish the religion from behind the curtain with which they disguise themselves as religious men. The true man of religion means the real Muslim who learns the explanations and opinions of mujtahids by wearing out the elbows for years and who conveys them to the people of his time in a way they can comprehend.
Sayyid Qutb, knowing Arabic well on account of his country, attempted to compare the socialistic teachings he had studied and defended in admiration for forty years with the Qur'an. 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 Wahhabism in the final years of his life. His book Social Justice in Islam, published in 1948, is full with his destructive, heretical ideas. Saying that we should hold fast to the Qur'an, he towed the youth behind his heretical thoughts. I wish he had read the writings of those mujahids who had studied and understood Islam well, such as 'Abd al-Qadir Udah and Ahmad al-'Adwi al-Azhari who were contemporary with him; thus he would have learned the superiority of the Ahl as-Sunnat 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 iman," meaning that his iman was heretical and was based not on Islamic teachings but on philosophical thoughts. Some people who occupy religious posts and pass themselves off as religious authorities, besides getting deceived by the modernist, heretical ideas of Sayyid Qutb, strive to disseminate his un-Islamic ideas among the youth. And some others who want to profit from his condition mistranslate his tafsir and some parts of his other books and publish them for high prices. They attack our books which display the realities and awaken the youth and thus lessen their profit. Because they cannot make criticisms based on knowledge and documentation, they recourse to lies and slanders. When asked to prove their claims about my books, these liars and slanderers cannot show them in my books.
The following fatwa of Hadrat Ahmad ibn Hajar al-Makki, a prominent Islamic scholar, is sufficient to understand how heretical and harmful Sayyid Qutb's tafsir, Fi dilal al-Qur'an, is: "The law courts should take preventive measures against those who, instead of quoting from the tafsirs of Islamic scholars, write their own ideas as tafsir and push such tafsirs in front of the people. Such tafsirs are heretical and superstitious. Men of religious posts who publish them are heretics endeavoring to turn others away from the right path."
A Muslim who reads this fatwa, which is quoted from Al-fatawa al-hadithiyya, should not be deceived by the writings of ignorant, heretical men of religious posts, should hold fast to the Ahl as-Sunnat books, which they try to defame, and should not buy or read the false, poisonous books of those heretics whom they praise highly and systematically.
REFORMER SAYYID QUTB'S ATTACK ON HADITHS
60 - When religion reformers want to annihilate a command of Islam, they attack hadiths as a last resort. They say that the hadith which that command depends upon is mawdu'. Upon finding out that they cannot make believe, they say, "It is a daif hadith, if not mawdu'; a daif hadith cannot be depended upon for a judgement." For example, it is haram for men to wear gold rings. Religion reformers say that the hadith telling this is daif and gold ring is not haram. Their words contradict themselves, for, since a daif hadith cannot be depended upon for a judgement, the hadith from which the judgement, "Gold ring is haram," was derived must be sahih, which is the truth of the matter. The Ahl as-Sunnat scholars studied the hadiths hair-splittingly and sifted out all mawdu' hadiths. They derive the fard, halal and haram only from sahih and mashhur hadiths. In the commentary of the book Manar, Ibn Malak states this fact clearly: "A daif hadith cannot necessitate or make wajib. A religious deed cannot be performed according to a hadith which cannot be understood whether it is sahih or not." In the section on wudu' in Radd al-mukhtar, is commentary to Durr al-mukhtar, Ibn 'Abidin says, "It is not necessary for the muqallid to search for the proofs, documents of the decisions which the mujtahids have made."
The person who attacks the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars and who is irreverent towards fiqh books belongs to none of the four madhhabs. 'Abdullah ibn 'Isa Sanani, in his book Saif al-Hindi fi ibanati tariqati 'sh-shaikhi 'n-Najdi (ed. 1218 A.H./1803), proves with documents that those who say "mawdu' " for sahih hadiths are of no madhhab and that they strive to demolish Ahl as-Sunnat. Mudarris Sayyid 'Abdullah Effendi, in his book Irsal al-makal, answers those who speak ill of hadiths by saying that they are daif or mawdu', and he refutes Ibn Taymiyya and as-Shawkani, the leaders of this mischief.
There is a separate branch of knowledge called usul al-hadith, in which 'mawdu hadith' does not mean 'made-up hadith'. Today, those who know nothing of this knowledge think of its lexical meaning and suppose that it means 'made-up hadith.' [For more detailed information on this knowledge and on mawdu hadiths, see the fifth chapter in the book Endless Bliss, II.]
The book Usul al-hadith by the great scholar Imam Muhammad al-Birghiwi is very valuable. Dawud al-Karsi wrote a commentary to this book in 1251 A.H. (1835) which was commented again by Yusuf Effendi of Harput in 1292 (1875) and was printed in Istanbul a year later. The following passage is translated from this Arabic work:
"All the hadiths reported by a person who was known to have lied when reporting any hadith are called mawdu' or muftari hadiths, for there was the probability that all the hadiths he reported were made-up, slanderous. As it is seen, in usul al-hadith, a hadith called mawdu' does not have to be made-up, for, even if the person who was caught in his lying with one hadith repented and became pious, all the hadiths he reported would still be said to be mawdu'. The book Tadrib by Imam as-Suyuti and also many of the hadith scholars say that this is so. The heretical groups, in order to lead Muslims out of the right path, and apostates, in order to trick Muslims, invented hadiths. And some tekke shaikhs invented hadiths in order to encourage in worship and to frighten against sinning. It is haram to invent hadith with such good intentions, and it is kufr if it is intended to trick Muslims. The hadiths praising the suras in the tafsir books of as-Salabi, al-Wahidi, az-Zamakhshari, al-Baidawi and Abu 's-Su'ud are claimed to be mawdu' by some ignorant people. It is obvious that the hadiths that praise the suras al-Fatiha, al-Anam, al-Kahf, Ya Seen, ad-Dukhan al-Mulk, az-Zilzal, an-Nasr, al-Kafirun al-Ikhlas, al-Falaq and an-Nas are sahih. The writers of these books quoted in their books the hadiths that were claimed to be mawdu' because they considered them as sahih, hasan or at least daif, or because they had conveyed them just as they were from the hadith scholars whom they depended on, or because they would not admit that they were mawdu'. With the help of the fairly certain presumption, it can be decided if a hadith is sahih; it cannot be known for certain. There are many hadith which the majority of hadith scholars said to be sahih but which other scholars of this branch did not say so. Many others were not able to understand whether they were sahih or not, for it was very difficult to understand if a hadith was sahih. It could be understood only with presumption; it could not be understood certainly. In order to make sure that a hadith is made-up, one of its narrators had to say, "I invented this"; or it should have been known for certain that the person who, he said, had told it to him had died before he was born; or the saying which was said to be a hadith should have been incompatible with Islam, with reason, with calculation or with experience, and it could not have been explained away differently. Only the hadith scholars can understand all these. These profound scholars also may be mistaken in understanding them. It is for this reason that there have been scholars who said 'sahih', 'hasan' or 'daif' about many of the hadiths for which Abu 'l-faraj ibn al-Jawzi said 'mawdu' in his book Mawduat. Imam az-Zahabi said that the majority of the hadiths written in that book were dependable and beautiful hadiths. We have derived what we have written up to here from the books Taqrib by Imam an-Nawawi, Tadrib by as-Suyuti and Nukhba by Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Askalani." [Imam Muhammad al-Birghiwi, Usul al-hadith, p.91.]
It is of great disrespect, unscrupulousness and unreasonableness to suppose that the greatest scholars like al-Baidawi, Imam al-Ghazali, Jalal ad-din as-Suyuti, Sadr ad-din al-Qonawi and Sana'ullah PaniPuti were too ignorant to distinguish a sahih hadith from a made-up hadith, or to suppose that they were as irreligious as not to protect their religion or not to feel pangs of conscience in recording made-up hadiths as sahih hadiths. We have told at length in the seventh and eighth paragraphs of our book how strictly Islamic scholars studied hadiths. An intelligent and reasonable person who reads those writings will certainly realize that a religion reformer, who shows so much effrontery as to say that there are made-up hadiths in the books of such a great scholar as Imam al-Ghazali, is worth cutting his tongue and burning his books. To say that those exalted scholars could not understand the hadiths while their successor Ibn Taymiyya could is not a word which anyone besides the enemies of the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars can say. Those who cannot comprehend the greatness of Islamic scholars suppose that those exalted leaders also wrote with their short reasons and aberrant thoughts, like they do. They use so base words as to say, "Al-Ghazali's discernment remained under the bad influence of social ideas." They cannot comprehend that each of his writings is an explanation of ayats and hadiths. If a person who praises al-Imam ar-Rabbani is sincere in his word and if he likes that exalted leader's writings, he should follow these writings and love the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars, whom al-Imam ar-Rabbani praises highly, and he should not be disrespectful towards them. A scholar only can appreciate the value of a scholar. Not to realize the value of the Ahl as-Sunnat scholars, or to strive to blemish, to criticize those blessed persons, causes one to depart from al-firqat an-najiyya (the group of Salvation), and he who departs from Ahl as-Sunnat becomes either a heretic or an unbeliever. [Mawlana Hamd-Allah ad-Dajwi, Al-basa'ir li-munkirit-tawassuli bi-ahl al-maqabir, Pashawar, Pakistan, 1385, p. 52.] As it is written on page 65 of the book Hidayat al-muwaffiqin by Abu Muhammad Viltori, one of the 'ulama' of India, 'Allama Ahmad Sawi al-Maliki said on the ayat "Idha nasita" of the surat al-Kahf in the marginalia of Jalalain's tafsir: "It is not permissible to follow a madhhab other than the four madhhabs. One who does not follow one of the four madhhabs is in heresy (dalala) and also leads others to heresy. Some of such people become kafir, because, one of the things that cause kufr is to attempt to drive rules from ayats and hadiths."
Although I may not agree with the teachings of Syed Qutb, the literature provided by Hizmetbooks needs to be taken very cautiously. They seem to refute everyone, even going so far as claiming that 'Ulema such as Rashid Ahmad Gangohi and Hakeemul Ummat Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (ra) became kaffirs.
i swear, when people start claiming that everyone is kaffir.. that's when i start fuming.... i dont understand wht the hell is wrong with some people.... why do we have to resort to takfeer? i mean isn't there room for idfference of opinion? Allah save us from this fitnah of takfeer.....
Syed Qutb is insha Allah a shaheed for the sake of Allah. He stood up to the tyrant Nasser and was killed for that. Our sheikh, the Reviver of Jihad, the Sheikh of Jihad in this century, mentioned Syed Qutb as the one who influenced him the most.
And we take from the pouncing lion of Allah against the house of Saud, Sheikh Hamoud al Uqla when he defended Syed Qutb against the attacks of the madkhalis. Wherein Sheikh Hamoud may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned his mistakes and warned people to judge fairly and look into his good deeds.
So he did make mistakes. And may Allah forgive him for it.