Masks in Salaah

Masks in Salaah
It is the trait of a coward to write anonymously. They lack the courage to stand firm and unwavering upon their views regardless of opposition; hence, fear constrains them to cover themselves in a niqaab and veil of anonymity. Despite ostensibly being males, they suddenly become purdah-nasheen ladies and even their voices become awrah. One such male pseudo “purdah-nasheen lady” has been writing some baatil articles under a cloak of anonymity. In a previous article he has hallucinated himself as being a Muhaddith capable of overriding the illustrious Muhadditheen of the past using his own contemporary, puerile “Jarh wat-Tadeel”. Most recently, he has brought out an article supporting the wearing of masks in Salaah as well as social-distancing, thus opposing the 1,442 years of how this Ummah has
performed Salaah and, more importantly, opposing the direct commands of Rasoolullaah .صلى الله عليه وسلم
Generally, articles written anonymously are not worth responding to, because if the writer is too much of a coward to attach his name to what he has written, then what he has written is not worth reading let alone
responding to. Nevertheless, due to some requests we have received to refute the baatil disgorged by the anonymous pseudo purdah-nasheen lady, we will answer briefly, In Shaa Allaah.

  1. He starts off his anonymous article by saying that there are two potential approaches on how to answer the issue, one of them being “using an independent Ijtihad to deal with this issue.” To “use an independent
    Ijtihad”, one has to be a Mujtahid. There are no Mujtahideen in this era, hence this point is moot and this “potential approach” is invalid and so it is كالعدم (like something that does not exist). If the anonymous writer believes himself to be capable of independent Ijtihad, then he is indeed a lost cause.
  2. His second mistake is that he says: “The Fuqaha have concluded a general rule; to cover the mouth during Salaah is disliked (Makruh).” This explanation of makrooh is incorrect. In a previous publication we wrote which was published by the Mujlisul Ulama of South Africa, the issue of makrooh was explained in detail. Those who wish to understand the issue of makrooh in more detail may refer to that publication, In Shaa Allaah. The term makrooh is a technical term employed by the Fuqahaa. Practically, there is no difference between haraam and makrooh tahreemi. The consequence of both is sin. Furthermore, the ruling of the Fuqahaa is that if Salaah is performed in a way that is makrooh, then Qadhaa of it must be done if the time of that Salaah has not yet lapsed. Makrooh does not simply mean “disliked”. The term used by the writer, “disliked”, gives the impression to the readers that makrooh means that a person has the choice of whether to do it or not. A person has no such choice. Makrooh must be avoided just as haraam must be avoided.
  3. The anonymous male purdah-nasheen lady then stupidly tries to dupe the readers by mentioning acts such as coughing, leaning against a wall for support, etc., and lumping wearing a mask and social-distancing in amongst those actions. Firstly, the Fuqahaa never spoke about wearing a mask in Salaah as is being done today: they were against a person even just covering his face in Salaah with his hand or with a turban, etc. The wearing of the “niqaab of Iblees” during Salaah is entirely different and much worse. It is therefore ludicrous for the anonymous writer to have lumped all of these actions together. Either he knows and is being devious in an attempt at misleading, or he is simply stupid. Perhaps the constant wearing of the mask has starved him of oxygen and led to his brain becoming “vermiculated”.
  4. The anonymous writer states: “In extenuating circumstances, something impermissible can become permissible.” This is a principle that is widely abused in this day and age, as each person has taken to deciding for himself what these “extenuating circumstances” are. Once again, cowardice causes these people to hallucinate extenuating factors and circumstances which do not exist in reality. Ulamaa-e-Soo’, hallucinating “extenuating circumstances”, pray in churches under crosses and in the presence of idols, attend kufr interfaith gatherings, take part in LGBTQI+ rallies, etc. For the Ulamaa-e-Soo’ these days, anything and everything is an “extenuating factor” that permits the legalisation of any haraam act in the world and even kufr itself.

    The anonymous male purdah-nasheen lady says: “When warranted by circumstances, pronouncing a statement of kufr is permitted.” What he fails to explain to the readers is what exactly those “circumstances” are. The Fuqahaa are very strict in that regard; they state that fear of being beaten up
    or even being arrested is not enough of an “extenuating factor” to permit uttering kufr. They state that the extenuating factor that permits uttering kufr is the guaranteed threat of death or loss of limb. A hallucinated threat does not count. Explaining this, they mention that if a person is threatened
    by the kuffaar that if he does not utter kufr, they will kill him after some time, then even this does not count as a valid extenuating factor which would make it permissible for him to utter kufr, unless the ones making the threat are such that there is absolute certitude that they will definitely carry it out.
    The readers can tell from this how strict the rules are for the uttering of kufr under coercion to become permitted. A person cannot utter kufr simply because of an imaginary fear or an imaginary threat that may or may not be carried out. Cowardice is highly unbecoming of any Muslim, let alone of an `Aalim of Deen. Cowardice is for kuffaar and Munaafiqeen, not for those who have Imaan in their hearts.
    Furthermore, the Fuqahaa have explained that even in such circumstances where, if a person does not utter kufr, he will definitely be killed, it is still better for him to rather not utter kufr and to choose death instead, and if he does so, he will be a Shaheed.
  5. Why has the anonymous writer translated the word غزاة as “holy battle”?
    The word means “an invasion; an incursion; a raid; an attack; an assault; a military expedition; a conquest”. It is the same as the word ghazwah. The word “holy”, however, is not connected to it. “Holy” is a term used by Christians. We, as Muslims, do not use Christian terminology. All Jihaad is for Allaah Taaalaa; if it is not for Allaah Taaalaa, it is not Jihaad, so there is no need to add stupid Christian words like “holy” to it. Jihaad is Jihaad.
    Furthermore, when the term “Jihaad fee Sabeelillaah” is used, it refers to fighting on the battlefield. Mozlem “apologists” labour tirelessly in a futile attempt at changing that meaning to anything and everything else besides fighting on the battlefield.
    For what reason has he added the word “holy” from his own side? In Islaam there is Jihaad. This term “Holy War” is taken from the kuffaar.
  6. The anonymous writer claims that when the Plague of Amwaas broke out in Shaam, Hadhrat Umar ibn al-Khattaab رضي الله عنه simply “applied his mind and decided to return to Madeenah.” That is a blatant lie. Hadhrat Umar رضي الله عنه made his decision after consulting with the senior
    Sahaabah-e-Kiraam who were present from the Muhaajireen and the Ansaar.
  7. At this point, the anonymous writer denudes himself of his niqaab of Iblees and exposes his nifaaq. He disgorges ridiculous bunkum by trying to use the concession to fast whilst on a journey as proof that people MUST wear a mask in Salaah, asking the question: “Will a person not be answerable before Allah Ta’ala if he does not take the concession and something goes wrong?”
    The amount of jahaalat, blatant stupidity present in this one ridiculous paragraph alone is enough to strip the article of all Ilmi value and render it unfit for anything besides being chucked like a dirty rag into the writer's niqaab-wearing anonymous face. If the person had any shred ofIlm of
    Deen, he would not have written such trash. There are certain questions which are so ridiculously stupid that they do not deserve an answer. In fact, even to take out time to respond to such stupid questions is in itself a form of stupidity. It is the equivalent of responding to a fool who asks, “Who says the moon isn’t actually a ball of cheese?”
    This person should shut up and focus on studying Deen instead of blurting out rubbish. Each nonsensical article is even more stupid than the previous one, yet in his vermiculated mind he probably feels himself to be a great Mujtahid and Muhaddith, that perhaps he can start his own Madh-hab and we can do away with the four Madhaahib of Haqq and all follow this moron instead.
  8. It is difficult to even describe the amount of shivering cowardice present in the next part of his article. The male purdah-nasheen lady is so overwhelmed with fear of the kuffaar and even fear of his own shadow that he cites Salaat-ul-Khawf as proof for the new-fangled fong-kong “prayer” being done today! Allaahu Akbar! Is it possible for a person of sound Imaan to be filled with so much cowardice? Does he understand what Salaat-ul-Khawf is?
    Salaat-ul-Khawf is a form of Salaah made on the Battlefield, by Mujaahideen, in order to continue fighting the enemy. This Salaah was performed in the past when Mujaahideen were in the heat of the battle and the kuffaar were in their faces with swords and the battle was raging. You want to draw a parallel between that and a person sitting in a Masjid, him and a few others, in peace, no battle taking place, no shots being fired, no bombs being dropped overhead, and yet say Salaat-ul-Khawf applies to them? If you have so much fear while sitting in a Masjid with a handful of other Muslims, everything quiet, no fighting taking place, how in the world would you handle being on a battlefield?
    The Muslims have been taught a Duaa to get rid of cowardice. This person should read that Duaa. As it is, he is so terrified that he might faint just by seeing his own shadow.
    One `Aalim rightly said: “Many get cowardly in times like this. They don’t want to speak the truth. They don’t want to hear the truth. They don’t want to even practice the truth. Some are so terrified today they are even afraid to think the truth.” That is the condition of this anonymous writer.
  9. The male purdah-nasheen lady cloaked in anonymity avers: “…Based on these principles and after having consulted with many medical experts in the field who believe that covering the mouth/nose, as well as practicing social distancing will be useful in curbing the spread of the deadly virus, the Fuqaha have deemed this as a valid enough excuse for its implementation during Salah, and the Salah will be done with the full reward received.”
    He has written that section in bold.
    Firstly: due to your cowardice, you have misunderstood and misapplied every “principle” that you have quoted, so your averment is not “based on any principles”. It is simply based on being a coward overwhelmed with fear. More precisely, it is based on being overwhelmed with the “wahn” mentioned in the Hadeeth. Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم stated that in the latter days, the reason for this Ummah being devoured by the kuffaar will be due to the wahn in their hearts. Sahaabah-e-Kiraam رضي الله عنهم enquired
    what this “wahn” is, so Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said that it is: “Love for the Dunyaa and fear of death.”
    Hubb-ud-Dunyaa wa Karaahiyatul Mawt
    Secondly: the “many medical experts” you refer to are Satanists who simply push the agenda fed to them by Shaitaan and the agents of Dajjaal. To them, whatever Islaam says is harmful and must be avoided. Only fools with no connection to Deen follow them. Other “medical experts in the field” have stated that the mask brings more harm than good, so which “medical experts” will be taken? Only those who promote and further the cause of Satanism and eradication of Islaam?
    Thirdly: who are these “Fuqaha” you speak of? There are no Fuqahaa and Mujtahideen alive today. Give us the names of these so-called “Fuqaha”.
    Today, people who have not even learnt how to perform istinjaa correctly have suddenly become “Fuqaha” and “Muhadditheen” who think they can change the Shareeah based on their own whims and desires and the whims and desires of the kuffaar whose boots they lick with relish. We conclude with just one, single point which neither he nor any of his fellow anonymous male purdah-nasheen ladies will be able to answer: “There were many plagues in the past. Show us where Sahaabah-e- Kiraam wore masks and did social-distancing, or where the Taabioon did so, or where the Atbaa-ut-Taabieen did so.”
    It is kufr to call for changing Salaah. Despite plagues in the past like the Black Plague which resulted in the deaths of more than 200 million people, never ever did the Fuqahaa call for changing the form of Salaah. Were they unaware of the “principles” cited by the anonymous writer? Does he and his so-called “medical experts” understand the Deen of Islaam better than Sahaabah-e-Kiraam did?
    His entire article is bereft of any `Ilmi value. The “proofs” he presents are no more than a smokescreen. Any reader who sincerely wishes to follow the Haqq will easily see through it. It is nothing more than the excuses presented by a coward who is desperately trying to justify his cowardice.
    والله تعالى أعلم وعلمه أتم وأحكم
  • Muhammad Huzaifah ibn Adam Aal-Ebrahim

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.