The compiler of the book Jamaal bin Fareehaan al-Haarithee wrote in a note to a fatwa of Shaykh Salih al-Fawzaan, whilst noting that the book was read and checked by the Shaykh and given his approval prior to printing, on page 221 of the 2nd edition:

So if it is said:

Why are an-Nawawi and IbnHajr excused and that which occurred from them, yet Sayyid Qutb and al-Bannaa and Mawdoodi and their likes are not excused?

Then the answer is from two angles:

First: That there is a great difference between the two groups, for that which is with an-Nawawi and Ibn Hajar of firm grounding in knowledge, benefit for the Muslims actually negates and covers what occurred from them of errors. And the people of knowledge have explained these errors, have warned from them. Hence, the danger of that has ended by this notification by the people of knowledge. As for Sayyid Qutb and Bannaa, then they do not have a firm grounding and an abundance of knowledge, and neither do they have abundance of action [that is in accordance with the Sunnah], and nor do they have the benefit brought about by the likes of an-Nawawi and Ibn Hajr and others from the senior scholars.

The other angle: Ibn Hajar and an-Nawawi never called to their errors and nor did they call to partisanship, or the Takfir of Muslim societies, or to uniting the ranks (of Ahl us-Sunnah) with the Rafidah (Shi'ah) or the Christians, or the Magians, or any of the astray sects. And the society was not harmed by their errors (i.e. those of Ibn Hajar and an-Nawawi), as opposed to those of Sayyid Qutb and Bannaa and others. For they (Qutb and Bannaa) never saw any difference between the futile, false doctrines (aqaa'id), rather doctrines of kufr, and between the correct and sound doctrines. And nor did they see any difference between a Raafidee, or a Christian and others and between a Muslim. And they brought about a lot of harm to the Muslims (by their methodologies) and did not actually rectify their condition. And many of the people have shown partisanship towards their ideas that oppose the Book and the Sunnah and they also show enmity towards Ahl us-Sunnah, and this is one of the greatest of harms.

We can add here what we mentioned in a previous article:

What's the Difference Between the Books of Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, an-Nawawi and those of Sayyid Qutb

Ibn Hajar, an-Nawawi: Take out the ta'weels that Ibn Hajr fell into in all of his various works and what are you left with? Tens of thousands of pages of truly beneficial knowledge in a wide range of subjects - in hadeeth, in fiqh, in aqidah, in adab, in mu'aamalah and so on and so on. We have great works such as Fath ul-Bari, and Buloogh ul-Mar'aam and really, this deserves a separate article on its own. Their errors are completely drowned in the mountains and oceans of goodness, which continue to benefit the Muslims in their deen to this day.

Sayyid Qutb: Take out all of the ta'weels and Jahmite Ash'ari beliefs out of Sayyid Qutb's works and you are left with the doctrines of the Rafidah in attacking the Companions and accusing them with nifaq, ghish, khadee'ah (hypocrisy, deception, treachery) and Takfir of all Muslims and declaring them as apostates, followed by the manifestos of secular atheist Jews in calling for bloody violent revolutions in the Muslim lands - which have left a trail of destruction and ruin in the Ummah, as well as allowing the ghazw of the Muslim lands to be justified. And spawning the various groups of Takfir and factions of the khawaarij and unleashing them upon the Ummah. So as a result today, we have the Ummah poisoned by the manifestos of secular atheist Jews of focusing on the rulers, governments and violent revolutions, in the name of Social Justice, the slogan of Dhul-Khuwaisarah at-Tamimi, whilst belittling and mocking the methodology of the Prophets in calling to Allaah, in which there is wisdom and intellect (see here). Is there any good in Qutb's books? There was no innovator who never had any good, or something of the truth - otherwise no one would have ever followed an innovator. So if Qutb had some good, then al-Harith al-Muhaasibee had mountains more goodness than any 20th century ignoramus - and the way of the Salaf towards him is known - and in general all the Innovators of Islaam had something of goodness.

Thanks Qutb (and Banna), you really aided the deen and the dunyaa!

And be sure to read this:

• Ali al-Timimi on the Emergence of Takfiri Leninism in 1965 Egypt and The Obligation to Warn From Its Evil - (see here)