Before the president announced the lockdown, the imaam of the Robertsham Musjid made the announcement of closing the Musjid. He justified the closure of the Musjid by saying that during the famine in Madinah, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) had waived the penalty of cutting the hands of thieves. The imaam said that because of the famine Hadhrat Umar decided to override the law of cutting off the hand of a thief. Thus, according to the imaam at certain times because of the circumstances the Law of Allah can be overridden. Is this correct?
It is kufr bunkum which the moron sucked out of his thumb to bootlick the government. The Qur’aan cannot be overridden. Overriding the Qur’aan is Kufr. It is unthinkable that Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) had overridden the Qur’aan.
The moron is too stupid. He has not understood what he read in the kitaab. If indeed he does understand the statement of Hadhrat Umar, but tore it out of its context to offer bootlicking appeasement, then it is worse than stupidity. Perhaps stupidity may be a mitigating factor. But deliberate mutilation of the ahkaam and misuse of the Ahaadith are acts of kufr. The lesser of the evils to be adopted in favour of this moron imaam is to say that he is plain stupid and ignorant, lacking in the ability to even understand the texts in the Kutub.
It should be understood that all the ahkaam of the Shariah have conditions. The hukm applies when the conditions are found. In the absence of the conditions, the hukm will not apply. For example, Salaat is valid only with wudhu. If it is said to a person without wudhu that he may not perform Salaat, only a moron will conclude that Salaat has been suspended for him.
When it is said to a musaafir that whilst on the journey he may abstain from fasting, it will not be concluded that the Faqeeh has suspended Fasting due to circumstances. The Faqeeh has merely stated the hukm of the Shariah. He does not override the Qur’aan because the Qur’aan itself grants the concession.
Similarly, if in dire straits of life-threatening starvation a person consumes a bit of pork to save his life, it will not be said that he has overridden the Qur’aan because the Qur’aan itself allows for this concession. The hukm of cutting the hand for theft, has not been left to the opinion of morons. There are rules, conditions and restrictions applicable for the validity of this Hadd (prescribed penalty).
According to the Shariah, Sarqah (Theft) has a specific technical definition just as zina has. Theft which produces the consequence of cutting the hand does not bring every kind of theft within its purview. Stealing fruit and vegetables, stealing any valuables on display, stealing from a partnership business, stealing when driven by hunger, stealing from close relatives, etc. are all exempt from the penalty of cutting the hand. If a man steals anything which is not under lock and key, his hand cannot be cut off. All these exceptions have been explicitly mentioned by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
Now only a moron says that Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) has overridden the Qur’aan’s Law with his opinion on the basis of the circumstance of the famine. Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) had not stated anything new. He did not introduce a new law to override the Shariah or the Qur’aan. He merely stated the Law as Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had taught.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “There is no cutting (of the hand of a person who is driven to steal) by the pangs of hunger.”
Presenting the tafseer of this Hadith, Shamsul Aimmah Sarakhsi states in his Kitaab, Al-Mabsoot:
“The penalty of cutting does not apply during famine because Dhuroorah (dire need) renders permissible eating from the wealth of another person a quantity sufficient for the need. Thus, this (the famine) prevents cutting. Makhool narrated that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “There is no cutting (the hand) when the pangs of hunger prevail.”
Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) said:
“We do not cut (the hand) over (the theft of) meat, nor during a famine.”
This is the hukm of the Shariah. It was not the qiyaas (reasoning/opinion) of Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu). It was not a concession introduced by him on the basis of the circumstances. It was a law of the Shariah pronounced by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The moron imaam is too stupid to understand a simple mas’alah.
Qata’ yad (Cutting the hand) not being the punishment for stealing food, meat, vegetables, and the like, is not restricted to famine and dire straits of hunger. In normal circumstances too, the hand is not cut for theft of these products. Thus, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) did not enact any new law. He merely informed of the Shar’i Hukm. There was therefore no need for Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) to resort to Ijtihaad for enacting a law for the exigency during the famine. The law already existed. But the moron Imaam being a member of the league of the Satanist Munaafiqeen, stupidly utilized his silly ‘ijtihaad’ in his ludicrous and abortive attempt to camouflage his kufr with some Islamic appearing veneer.
Of greater villainy than his stupidity is his attempt to elevate himself to the status of Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu). Assuming that Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) did temporarily suspend a Shar’i hukm because of dire circumstances, it would be perfectly acceptable and it would constitute a Law of the Shariah. Regarding Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu), our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “If a Nabi had to come after me, it would have been Umar.”
Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Hold on firmly with the jaws to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khulafa (i.e. the Four Khulafa).” Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) equated the Sunnah of his Khulafa after him to his own Sunnah the observance of which is Waajib. Thus, the addition in the Fajr Athaan, the ruling of three Talaaqs issued in a single statement being three, banning women from the Musaajid, and the 20 raka’ts Taraaweeh being performed in Jamaat as we do, are the introductions of Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) which enjoy the Ijma’ (Consensus) of all the Sahaabah.
The moron imaam has attempted to elevate himself to Hadhrat Umar’s lofty status. The jaahil reasoned that since Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) had resorted to ijtihaad regarding the cutting of the hand mas’alah, he (i.e. this moron imaam) also enjoys similar authority which entitles him to resort to ‘ijtihaad’ on the basis of which the Musjid can be closed to appease the kuffaar when even the government had not ordered the closure.
Firstly, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) did not override the Qur’aan. He merely stated the Law as Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had laid it down. Secondly, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) placed the seal of authority on the validity of the Ijtihaad and enactment of ahkaam of Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu). Thirdly it is absolutely contumacious, self-conceited and the portrayal of ludicrous jahaalat for this jaahil imaam to believe that he has the same authority of resorting to ijtihaad as Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu).

12 Sha’baan 1441 – 6 April 2020

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.