Discussion Between Maulana Ismaeel Nakhuda & Sajid Umar

The following is a discussion that took place via email between Maulana Ismaeel Nakhuda, and Sajid Umar from the 'salafi' Al Kauthar Institute.

Sajid Umar's comments have been placed as quotations, and the names of both Maulana Ismaeel Nakhuda and Sajid Umar at the end of their comments have been made bold so that the discussion is easy to follow. Some of Sajid Umar's spelling mistakes have also been corrected in order to make it more reader friendly (except for "mujaddith"[?] - I wasn't sure if he intended by it, muhaddith or mujaddid, so left it as it is). Finally, the discussion has not been changed and has been left in it's entirety with nothing being added or omitted except for Sajid Umar's contact details - even the general bold and coloured text from the original discussion has been reproduced. The email addresses of both parties have been removed for the sake of privacy. What follows is an introduction to the discussion by Maulana Ismaeel Nakhuda himself.

---

Assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh,

Dear respected Ulama,

I'm sending you a series of exchanges between myself and a tutor with Al Kauthar Institute -- a Salafi organisation that is making inroads within traditional Deobandi/Hanafi communities, such as those within the UK and South Africa, and now also in Reunion.

The individual with whom I exchanged these emails also appears on South African Islamic radio channels. My intention is solely to raise awareness among our contemporary Ulama. There are two emails from myself and three from the Al Kauthar tutor. The emails are long and I recommend reading them all from beginning till end to understand the discussion properly and the double speak with which Al Kauthar operates to rope unsuspecting Hanafis in.

Please pray for me and if there are any excesses on my behalf, then please do not hesitate to highlight.

Kind regards

[Maulana] Ismaeel Nakhuda

---

---

Wa alaykum salam wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh,

Dear Brother Sajid,

I pray this email reaches you well. Jazakallah khayr for the email and the kind words regarding that article. I’m a little bit more than surprised that you fail to remember the person who made those comments, as you were present at that very moment. Rather, it was you who made those remarks and many more. I wonder why you now seem to forget and shed crocodile tears.

There were several people present and all can verify what you mentioned that night. There was a lot more that you said and which I have summarised below in point format:

• You claimed to be Hanafi and to support this mentioned a whole host of Deobandi/Hanafi Ulama who host you in South Africa and the UK and have praised your in-depth knowledge of the Hanafi school.
  
• You also in intensely criticised myself and those who were with me for spending the night in Muzdalifah and said we should have, like yourself and the rest of the group, left for Mina at midnight, thrown stones at the first Jamarat before fajr (on the night of the 9th), done the stoning ritual before noon over the next two days (for which you cited the extremely weak and marjuh opinion of Imam Azam Abu Hanifah (ra)), and done the Tawaf al-Ifadha and Tawaf al-Wida together in a singular Tawaf on the morning of the third day (a Jama‘ bayn al-Tawafayn so to speak). All of this would have been against the Hanafi mathhab.
• You also heavily criticized our decision to perform the Tawaf al-Ifadha before we had done the Jamarat of the second and third day of stoning.
• At one point you also spoke about the Hanafi mathhab, how it was weak and needed to be reformed.
  
• You also mentioned the Darul Ulooms and Maulana-types who you said were out of touch and blind imitators, and then — while sitting in Mina, just a stone throw from the Middle Jamarat in the days of Hajj — criticised Imam Abu Hanifah’s (ra) knowledge of hadith, saying he only knew 17 Hadiths. What, however, made your remarks all the more poignant was your insistence on being a Hanafi.
  

In all my years in Saudi Arabia and inter-actions with Saudis from across the board, I had never been exposed to such rabid anti-Hanafism. To be honest, it didn't bother me at all. However, your insistence on being a Hanafi – a sort of doublespeak so to say – spurred me to clarify your utterances and draw people’s attention to the modus-operandi.

I look forward to hearing from you. I'm also particularly interested in reading how you will “address this instructor directly, as well as the institute as it is not befitting for any institute to have an instructor mentioning this.”

Please pray for me during the blessed month.

Yours

Ismaeel

---

---

Assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh,

Dear Shaykh Sajid,

Eid Karim. To begin with, I’d like to mention that I also love you for the sake of Allah and that there is nothing personal in this matter. I have found your last email rather intriguing – the verbal acrobats that you indulge in are entertaining.

I notice that instead of addressing my previous email, wherein which I listed a number of contentious issues that you mentioned in Mina, you have written a lengthy and emotional email in which you make several allegations against myself. These allegations, although interesting, can be described as red herrings, designed to divert attention away from the real issue and discredit me. They also lack coherence, something that I intend to exemplify below.

You mention that you have come to learn that I am a madrassa graduate and allege I denied being so when asked. You also mention that we had a “good chat” the next morning over tea and that I mentioned to you my readings of al-Mughni. I firmly believe your memory is failing you, shaykh. I have never seen al-Mughni, let alone read it! Memory failure seems to be a consistent issue in correspondence with you – there is an entire list of contentious issues that you mentioned to me in Mina and which I have produced in my previous email. You seem to have forgotten uttering them and brushed them aside cavalry style.

With regards to the madrasa graduate issue, let me be clear that over our conversation I did not deny being one. Prior to clarifying that, let me place some context in how that conversation went: on the third day of pelting, while I was enjoying a gentle massage on the electric massage chair and indulging in light banter with an elderly Saudi gentleman (in Arabic), you came over, interrupted us and addressing the elderly Saudi asked whether I spoke Arabic. The gentleman answered in the affirmative and you asked me whether I was a maulana or madrassa graduate or something to that effect. I answered, as is the way of our Ulama, that I had studied a little and over the conversation mentioned at which institute. It is not my way or the way of our Ulama in general to wear our qualifications on our sleeves. I also feel this is one of the demands of humility. It is, rather, the way of our Ulama to leave small clues in their answers to give the impression that yes the said person may be a Madrassa graduate – it is then up to the questioner to pick up on that and ask a more specific and less open question to determine this. Failure to understand this is not my fault. I suppose with age will come maturity. However, to then allege that I lied close to the Jamarat is grave.

There are other inconsistencies in your email. For example in several places you exhibit much praise for me, that you found my manner of speech appealing, that the humbleness touched you, that you hold me in high esteem etc. However, at the same time, and in the same breath, your praise is then balanced off with stern criticism and allegations of spreading lies, and that “a brother in your tent was reduced to tears due to the statements of yourself and others with you.” You also mention that other brothers who were in our tent, the majority of whom were very much elated and pleased by your anti-Hanafi diatribe, “recollected that I had to ask so many times 'to have chance to speak' after continuously being interrupted by your travel partner. A name was not produced, but he can be recognized in person or via a picture.”

The literary mechanisms you employ in structuring arguments and levelling criticism covertly are interesting – I noticed that while speaking with you during Haj. While studying journalism, one whose writings I often read was a professor in media sociology, Teun Van Dijk. Van Dijk identified how the British media, during the 1980s and 1990s, moved away from overt racism, as was the norm in the 1970s and 1960s, and headed towards covert racism. He also highlighted how those with prejudices would often use specific literary mechanisms to veil their racism. For instance, they would carefully structure their racism with a qualifier that could then be used later to counter any allegations of racism. The argument would, in a dumbed down fashion, go thus: “I have lots of black friends, but why are so many black people criminals or rapists?” So, if someone were to later level a charge of racism, one would counter by saying, “No, I have lots of black friends.” Although that example is confined to a single sentence, they can get more sophisticated and such mechanisms can be employed across several paragraphs. Your criticism of me is of the same ilk and your criticism of Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) on that fateful night in Mina was also of the same fashion. While claiming to be Hanafi, praising the fiqh of Imam Abu Hanifah, mentioning Hanafi Ulama who praised you (all qualifiers to lend weight to your criticism), you then indulged in severe criticism of the mathhab, those who follow it, the Hanafis’ supposed lack of understanding of Hadith, the Salafi-esque understanding of the Imam’s saying that if a Sahih Hadith were to appear then abandon my mathhab etc., and the claim that Imam Muhammad’s prowess in Hadith only came after he went to Imam Malik. You mention in your email that your discussion revolved around the need “to respect other math-habs.” What has the above to do with respect in differences of fiqh?

I call this smooth talking and smooth-operating. It is nothing save double-speak, employed to confuse the general masses and remove trust from the Hanafi mathhab and Deobandi Ulama. The untrained eye may not easily be able to understand this, but those who have some sort of familiarity with the Islamic sciences would easily be able to identify the problem. You mention yourself you had no idea I was a Madrassa graduate, I think you got caught off guard on this occasion. You also mention that I hardly know you, yes, this is the case. But I have seen enough to form a judgment regarding how much of a Hanafi you are, and the contempt in which you hold the Hanafi Mathhab, its adherents and maulana-types.

Regarding a brother in our tent being reduced to tears, let me make clear I have no recollection of this. You failed to mention this at that time, nor did that brother identify himself to me. I am interested in learning who that brother is and which statement made him cry. During my time with the Etqaan Haj group, apart from those who were with me, I only explained the Hanafi fiqh pertaining to the manasik to one person. That person was a South African Gujarati brother who had noticed we were Gujarati, had spent the night in Muzdalifah and pelted the Jamarat on the first day of pelting after sunrise and spoke to me. During our conversation, this brother explained he was from South Africa, Hanafi because he came from a Hanafi background and that he had done the manasik as advised by the English-speaking alim (who it later transpired was yourself) and that this involved jam’ bayn al-salatayn in Arafah in the tent, leaving Muzdalifah at midnight and pelting before sunrise. Over the course of our conversation, he also mentioned how his aunt was performing Haj with a South African group and had explained to him that he should have, as a Hanafi, performed the manasik according to the mathhab, which is also according to the Sunnah. This brother was clearly distressed and in worry. I explained to him the Haj according to the mathhab and said I was unclear in how to remedy his problem. I explained that seeing his aunt is here in Haj (and that a prominent South African mufti was providing fiqhi guidance to the group), that he should contact her and explain his predicament. I’m assuming this brother then went back to you.

Later that evening, after Isha, you came and began your discussion. Regarding this you mention that your “whole discussion was not to hang my hanafi fiqh, but express to you all the need to respect other math-habs as well.” You also mention that other brothers who were in our tent – the majority of whom were very much elated and pleased by your anti-Hanafi diatribe – “recollected that I had to ask so many times 'to have chance to speak' after continuously being interrupted by your travel partner. A name was not produced, but he can be recognized in person or via a picture.”

Regarding the above, let it be clear that your comments contained severe criticism of the Hanafi mathhab, as mentioned in my previous email, maulana-types and madrassahs. It definitely wasn’t a flowery explanation of the need to respect mathhabs etc but rather a sophisticated session in Hanafi bashing. A few laudatory comments regarding the Hanafis does not set that right. In fact, such were your oratory skills that one of the Hanafis who was with me later became worried and asked whether our Haj was correct. I cannot recall one of my travel partners asking questions and interrupting. None of us interrupted, rather we asked constructive questions. Let it also be clear that it wasn’t a speech or a khutbah, but you had come, indulged in some light banter and then began discussing the manasik and then moved on to the Hanafi mathhab. I never once interrupted, rather I humbly requested opportunities to speak and all of my questions revolved around utterances you made regarding the Hanafi mathhab and were, in a very layman fashion, designed to advise you of the fallacy of your comments. You mentioned that the Hanafis don’t know Hadith, at which, in a layman fashion, I asked a question: well what about the Hanafi Darul Ulooms? They teach the Sihah Sittan from beginning to end, something that hardly happens outside the sub-continent. You mentioned that Imam Abu Hanifah didn’t have access to Hadiths. So I mentioned, in a layman fashion: Well how could he have been a mujtahid, one of the requisites of a mujtahid is having stupendous knowledge of Hadith. You mentioned that the there is no ijtihad in the Hanafi Darul Ulooms, so I asked, in a very simplistic and dumbed-down fashion: Well what about Mufti Taqi Usmani, he’s described as the Hanafis biggest Mufti, he’s doing all this ijtihad in Islamic finance. All of the Darul Ulooms have Darul Iftas, what happens there? You mentioned something else about Hadith and the Hanafis, at which I mentioned that the Hanafi mathhab was formulated, according to Allamah Shibli Numani, by Imam Abu Hanifah and 40 of his senior students and that there were experts in all fields sitting there when that happened.

There were many other issues that were touched upon and after a short while, clearly frustrated by my questions, you ceased to allow me to speak. You might describe the above questions as interruptions. I, however, don’t. In your email you ask why I did not correct you, or offer advice. The simple answer to that is that those questions were there to advise you. You, however, failed to take them on board and ceased to give me the opportunity to speak. It quickly dawned on me that you were set in your ways and that there is little opportunity to actually engage; for me adhering to the Quranic injunction, fa qalu salama, became the most apt thing to do.

In fact, on that very night, you mentioned that the coaches on the morning of the third day of Jamarat would be leaving early in the morning at around 8am and that all pelting should be done after fajr. You also explained to us, that as Hanafis we shouldn’t have a problem with this, as there is a view of Imam Azam to this effect. This view, Shaykh Sajid, is actually a weak and marjuh opinion of Imam Azam – I didn’t know this at the time and only researched this much later. However, I firmly resolved not to pelt the Jamarat before noon. I expressed this to you and you mentioned that the group wouldn’t have transport to Jeddah. So I said there are many taxis about. We’ll stay in our tent, pelt the Jamarat and make our own way home. The next day, you came and mentioned that we wouldn’t be allowed to stay in our tent in Mina as there is a Shiah procession to take place on our street and the Civil Defense and Haj officials have ordered all tents in our street to close, that pilgrims have to pelt early and that no Hajis would be allowed to stay in their tent. I found this claim extremely strange. Nevertheless, to give you the benefit of the doubt, we made arrangements to leave Etqan’s tent for a friend’s tent several kilometres away where we rested. We then walked several kilometres back to the Jamarat, pelted and then trekked back to collect our belongings and then head back to Jeddah. On our way to the Jamarat and on the way back we chanced past the Etqan tent and lo behold, the tent (in fact all tents on that street) were open, with pilgrims and organisers inside. The street was not closed and pilgrims were freely moving. I mentioned the above to several Saudi friends in Makkah (who work in the Haj) and Haj officials (working in the Saudi media gave me the opportunity to become acquainted with people across the public and private sectors), they all said no such procession would be allowed! Shaykh Sajid, what explanation do you have for this?

You also mention that no one from your friends “could bear testimony to your accusations, and the general feeling is that the witnesses you can provide are those that attended hajj with you and were your companions.” The same argument could be used in a reserved fashion and I could easily say the same about your friends. Very interesting use of language indeed.

I also find it intriguing that you wish to write a response to those allegations against the elders of Deoband. My advice is to preach closer to home. There is, for example, Shaykh Tousif Rahman in Jeddah, who is known for his anti-Deobandi comments, and Shaykh Abu Usama at-Thahabi, imam of Green Lane Mosque, who has been on record criticising Imam Abu Hanifah. The fact that you also hold talks at Green Lane should put you in good stead to advise the misguided.

Finally let me make clear, I have no personal beef with you. Your (unnamed) friend, from up north and currently in Saudi, may tell you otherwise, but I have no personal beef with you. My heart is clean; you are a talented young man with many capabilities. I believe channelling your energies elsewhere will benefit you and the Ummah. There are certainly clear misconceptions in your mind regarding the Hanafi mathhab, its adherents, and the institutes that espouse this methodology – perhaps openly and without double-speak engaging senior muftis may help you.

Yours

Ismaeel

PS I wish I had recorded the conversation.

---