Democracy: Is the Population Responsible for Killing Muslims?

By Hud Lesprit -July 4, 2022


It has become a recurrent trend where Muslims all over the World are deemed collectively responsible for terrorist attacks which have unfortunately lead to the deaths of civilians in the West.
When the pundits are mature enough to recognize that most Muslims have nothing to do with these killings, they instead blame Islam, alleging the religion to be the root cause of these violent transgressions.
This is just a petty attempt to try and seem tolerant while still blaming all Muslims. Undoubtedly, no true Muslim would say that he condemns Islam. So according to such a claim, this would make all Muslims moral allies to terrorists.
What is the difference, then, between blaming Islam and blaming Muslims?
RELATED: French Politician: Muslim Terrorism Happens Very Conveniently Before Elections
Now, let me first be very clear in stating that we condemn the actions of terrorist extremist groups and that they do not represent the true beliefs, laws, and teachings of Islam. They are shady individuals, criminals, often have questionable ties to various intelligence agencies, and are not known in the Muslim community for their knowledge or steadfastness. And often their Islam can even be doubted.
That being said, let us now talk about the Islamophobes that use this line of reasoning. 
These hypocrites quickly label all Muslims as belligerents, when they themselves are not willing to acknowledge the blood on their hands for their active role in the killing of millions of Muslims.
Nobody wants to take on the blame for the devastating crimes committed by democratic governments throughout the Muslim world.
Bush killed millions of Iraqis?
They will tell you:
“It is not my fault! He’s the one that did it, not me!”
But in a democracy, isn’t the head of state the representative of the population? One assumes power in such a system by the majority of the voters voting him into office. And those who did not vote for him still endorse the system which he used to get elected. They also recognize his legitimacy in representing them as the elected leader of their country.
RELATED: Why There Is No Such Thing as a Democracy in the Modern World
How then can anyone escape the logical conclusion that, when Bush commanded the killing of millions of Iraqis, every defender of democracy within the USA is also accountable?
They want Muslims to collectively assume the blame for 9/11, but who voted for Osama bin Laden?
Who voted for Cherif and Said Kouachi, or the murderers of Charlie Hebdo?
Who voted for Omar Mateen before he killed dozens of people in Orlando?
Muslims certainly didn’t. All Muslims of sound mind know that these individuals strayed far from the true beliefs, laws and teachings of Islam, and we would never accept these criminals as our representatives.
RELATED: Maryam Petronin: The Ex-Hostage Macron Doesn’t Want You To Know About
Meanwhile, most of the killings against Muslims in the last century have been perpetrated by elected officials who were chosen and appointed by the population. And the citizens are to blame according to the principles of democracy.
Certainly, most Western people do not want to be seen as culpable for the crimes of their governments, much like Muslims around the world do not want to be held accountable for the crimes of random terrorists. Unfortunately, most Western people are not aware of the crimes their governments commit due to the brainwashing they receive at the hands of the mainstream media.
But, as we have seen, Muslims have far more grounds to deny this accountability. It seems logical that, for Westerners to be able to deny accountability, they would have to renounce their governments and claim that they are not true representatives of the will of the people. Maybe they could renounce the concept of democracy as a whole and admit its deep flaws.
Until Westerners renounce the liberal philosophy underlying their bloodthirsty governments, they are in no position to criticize Muslims or Islam.


Question: A student mufti in an article comments as follows on the Ahaadith which appear in Hidaayah:

“In brief, there is no doubt that al-Hidaya contains narrations that are extremely weak and often untraceable. It was for this reason that scholars such as ‘Allamah al-Zayla’i penned books in locating, grading and consolidating those reports, like Nasb al-Raya. Furthermore, ‘Allamah Zayla’i, in many instances was compelled to throw the towel in as well, confessing his inability to locate some of those narrations. Thereafter, when Hafiz lbn Hajar wrote his abridgment of Nasb al-Raya, al-Dirayah, he located many reports that ‘Allamah Zayla’i failed to, but he as well was unsuccessful in numerous places. Shortly after, ‘Allamah Qasim ibn Qutlubugha wrote a book entitled, Munya al-Alma’, as a completion in locating further reports, and amazingly he found approximately forty such reports. Very important to note that ‘Allamah Qasim mentions that many people claim that Ali al-Marghinaani (Sahib al-Hidaya) mentioned reports that are not found, however many of these reports are found in the works of the early Mujathids, like lmam Muhammad in his al-Asl, with Asaaneed.

In the al-Jawahir wa al-Durar of ‘Allamah al-Sakhawi there is one place where Hafiz lbn Hajar was asked regarding such books of fiqh which contain reports that we cannot find nowadays or very weak narrations, so he replied that there are three possibilities: 1. it is authentic according to him 2. The books containing those narration were destroyed during the Tatar invasion. l can’t remember the third answer he wrote, but you get the point. Finally, you should read al-Ajwiba al-Fadila of ‘Abd al-Hayy al-Laknawi he addresses a similar issue.”


The character who wrote the rubbish regarding Hidaayah is a moron. In Islamic parlance such morons who pose as ‘muftis’ are termed ‘mufti maajin’. Shaami dubs deviates and morons of this ilk, Haatibul Lail (gatherer of wood in the darkness of the night). Without the slightest hesitation we can safely contend that shaitaan has colonized the brains of this moron who dared to write his khuraafaat against the illustrious Mujtahid, Saahib-e-Hidaayah. Before having embarked on his exercise of satanism, he should have supplicated for thorns to grow on his tongue. That would have been infinitely superior than the shaitaani drivel which he has uttered.

Allaamah Zayla-ee (rahmatullah alayh) is a peanut in comparison with Saahib-e-Hidaayah. His kitaab, Nasbur Raya, has no pedestal in relation to Hidaayah.

Be assured that every Hadith which Saahib-e-Hiddayah cites as the Mustadal for any mas’alah, is a confirmed Saheeh Hadith. The illustrious Fuqaha are not subservient to the Hadith classification science of the Muhadditheen. The Fuqaha were Muhadditheen in their own right, and the Muhadditheen were subservient to them in practical implementation of the ahkaam of the Shariah. It was not the other way around.

Moron ‘muftis’ are agents of Iblees. Shaitaan has harnessed them into his nefarious plot to dismantle the Deen with the aid of juhala who have suddenly become ‘muftis’. These jaahil ‘muftis’ suffering from the hallucination of being mujtahids lack the ability of even reciting correctly the texts of the kutub. They halaalize alcohol, carrion and riba with hollow and deceptive arguments by means of which they dupe the Toms, Dicks, Harrys, Jills, Janets, and Janes. They are the wolves leading the ignorant masses to Jahannam with their corrupt ‘academic’ expertise.

Allaamah Zayla-ee’s “throwing in of the towel” is a clear admission of his knock-out defeat, and lying ignominously sprawled at the illustrious and mubaarak feet of Saahib-e-Hidaayah. If Allaamah Zayla-ee had to be reborn, he would not reach the mubaarak toes of Saahib-e-Hidaayah. His inability to locate the sources of the Ahaadith which constitute the Mustadallaat of Hidaayah, speaks volumes for his mediocrity in the stupendous field of Ilm in which Saahib-e-Hidaayah excelled and operated.

This miserable mufti maajin is too darn stupid to understand that the appearance of a Hadith in Hidaayah is by itself the highest degree of authenticity. The fact that a Hadith found its way into Hidaayah, is clear testification for its authenticity. But stultified brains are incapable of comprehending this simple fact stated by the illustrious Fuqaha. He lacks understanding of the concept of Talaqqi bil Qubool. This fellow should concentrate on gaining better expertise in the masaa-il pertaining to the rudimentary acts of Istinja.

He has not yet set foot in the kindergarten of Ilm at the higher level, yet his jahl constrains him to wag his insolent and najis tongue against a Waarith-e-Nabi of the lofty status of Saahib-e-Hidaayah.

The inability of Ibn Hajar to locate the sources of the Ahaadith casts no aspersion on the integrity of Saahib-e-Hidaayah nor detracts from the authenticity of the Ahaadith of Hidaayah. On the contrary, it illustrates the deficiency if the research of Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh). It is a monstrous stupidity to fault a Hadith on the basis of one’s deficient research or inability to locate specific information. If an authority says that “I did not or I cannot locate it”, it does no flow from this confession of ‘throwing in the towel’ that the Ahaadith cited by Saahib-e-Hidaayah are Daheef or Maudhoo’. If Zayla-ee and Ibn Hajar did not succeed in discovering the sources of the Ahaadith which Saahib-e-Hidaayah had ascertained and confirmed centuries prior to their appearance, it will then be only a moron who will contend that th Ahaadith in Hidaayah are ‘weak’ or ‘fabricated’.

Both possibibilities postulated by Allaamah Sakhaawi fully vindicate the authenticity of the Ahaadith of Hidaayah, and explain the reasons for the gross inability of the later critics in locating the sources of the Ahaadith narrated in Hidaayah.

May Allah Ta’ala save the Ummah from the villainy and shaitaaniyat of these cardboard maajin ‘muftis’ who are today available two for a cent. They are churned out like sausages.

[Mujlisul Ulama]


‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Rashīd al-Nu‘mānī (d. 1420 H) writes:

That which our Fuqahā’ – may Allāh have mercy on them – cited of hadīths and narrations in their works without describing a sanad or a source, as al-Sarakhsī (d. 490 H) does in al-Mabsūt, al-Kāsānī (d. 587) in al-Badā’i‘ and al-Marghīnānī (d. 593 H) in al-Hidāyah, these are hadīths and narrations which they found in the books of our early Imāms like al-Imām al-A‘zam (d. 150) and his two students [Abū Yūsuf and Muhammad], Ibn al-Mubārak (d. 181 H), al-Hasan al-Lu‘lu’ī (d. 204 H), Ibn Shujā‘ al-Thaljī (d. 267 H), ‘Īsā ibn Abān (d. 221), al-Khassāf (d. 261 H), al-Tahāwī (d. 321 H), al-Karkhī (d. 340 H) and al-Jassās (d. 370 H) – may Allāh (Exalted is He) have mercy on them.

Then those who sourced al-Hidāyah, al-Khulāsah and so on appeared, and they searched for these narrations in the records [of hadīths] compiled after [the year] 200 by the scholars of hadīth, and when they did not find [them] in them, they assessed them to be ‘strange’.

Some hold a bad opinion about these Imāms of the Fuqahā’, and attribute to them little knowledge of hadīth, and far-removed are they from that! How many a suspended hadīth (ta‘līq) there is of al-Bukhārī in his Sahīh on which the like of Ibn Hajar said: ‘I did not find it’, so will that which is suspected of our Hanafī masters be suspected of al-Bukhārī?! Rather, al-Sarakhsī, al-Kāsānī and al-Marghīnānī relied in this subject on their Imāms who are recognised for [their] retention (hifz), trustworthiness (thiqah) and reliability (amānah), just as al-Baghawī relied in his Masābīh on the authors of the well-known collections.

The Hāfiz of his time, Qāsim ibn Qutlūbughā (802 – 879 H), said:

“The early ones from our [Hanafī] scholars – may Allāh have mercy on them – would dictate juristic rulings and their evidences from the prophetic hadīths with their chains, like Abū Yūsuf in Kitāb al-Kharāj and al-Amālī; Muhammad in Kitāb al-Asl and al-Siyar; and likewise al-Tahāwī, al-Khassāf, [al-Jassās] al-Rāzī, al-Karkhī except in the Mukhtasars. Then those who depended on the books of the early ones came and cited the hadīths in books without clarifying the chain or the source.” (Munyat al-Alma‘ī, p. 9)

Had we wished, we would have cited many examples for you from the examples of these hadīths which those that sourced them assessed them to be ‘strange,’ while they are found in the book al-Āthār, for example, but space does not allow it.” (Al-Imām Ibn Mājah wa Kitābuhu l-Sunan, pp. 73-4)


The hadīth master and faqīh, ‘Allāmah Qāsim ibn Qutlūbughā, compiled Munyat al-Alma‘ī as an index of hadīths which al-Zayla‘ī and/or Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī could not locate in their respective works on sourcing the hadīths of al-Hidāyah, but which upon further inspection have been found to have a source. Here are a few examples:

The author of al-Hidāyah quoted the hadīth, “When the sun deviates [from its midpoint], then offer the Jumu‘ah prayer with the people.” Hāfiz al-Zayla‘ī said: “Strange”, meaning he could not locate it. Hāfiz Qāsim ibn Qutlūbughā replied: “Rather, Ibn Sa‘d narrated it in al-Tabaqāt from the hadīth of Mus‘ab ibn ‘Umayr.” (Munyat al-Alma‘ī, p 31)

The author of al-Hidāyah quoted the hadīth, “When you see anything of these horrors, take recourse to Allāh with supplication.” Hāfiz al-Zayla‘ī said: “Strange with this wording.” ‘Allāmah Qāsim replied: “Muhammad ibn al-Hasan narrated it in al-Asl from the mursal of al-Hasan [al-Basrī].” (Munyat al-Alma‘ī, p 32)

The author of al-Hidāyah quoted the hadīth, “There is no marriage except with witnesses.” Hāfiz al-Zayla‘ī said: “Strange,” and Hāfiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Aqalānī said: “I have not seen it with this wording.” ‘Allāmah Qāsim replied: “Muhammad ibn al-Hasan mentioned it as what reached him, and al-Khatīb narrated it from the hadīth of ‘Alī.” (Munyat al-Alma‘ī, p 40, 60)

The author of al-Hidāyah mentions that Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyib narrated that the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) ordered the freeing of umm al-walads (female slaves who bore their masters’ children) and that they are not to be sold. Hāfiz Ibn Hajar said: “I did not find it.” ‘Allāmah Qāsim replied: “Muhammad ibn al-Hasan narrated it in al-Asl.” (Munyat al-Alma‘ī, p 61)

It is mentioned in al-Hidāyah that ‘Alī (may Allāh be pleased with him) gave the decree that if a woman besides one’s wife is brought to him and he is informed that this woman is his wife and he has intercourse with her, then there is no punishment on him but he must give her dowry. Hāfiz Ibn Hajar said: “I did not find it.” ‘Allāmah Qāsim replied: “‘Abd al-Razzāq [al-San‘ānī] narrated it.” (Munyat al-Alma‘ī, p. 61)

Describing the rank of the author of al-Hidāyah in hadīth, Mawlānā Nu‘mānī wrote in a private letter to his student, Muftī ‘Abdul Mālik of Bangladesh:

It is to be noticed that al-Laknawī counted the author of al-Hidāyah from the group that are strangers to the knowledge of hadīth, and that is incorrect. How [can this be so] when the author of al-Hidāyah compiled a list of his teachers [in hadīth] from which al-Qurashī quoted in al-Jawāhir al-Mudiyyah in many places, and I quoted them in the footnotes of al-Dirāsāt…There are many beneficial points in the biographies of the teachers of the author of al-Hidāyah in al-Jawāhir. There is the chain of the author of al-Hidāyah and a mention of his reading of the two Sahīhs, Jāmi‘ al-Tirmidhī, Sharh Ma‘ānī al-Āthār of al-Tahāwī, the Masānīd of al-Khassāf and other [hadīth collections] to his teachers.

It is established that the author of al-Hidāyah only transmitted from the books of his predecessors from the muhaddithūn of the Hanafī Fuqahā’ as is clear from reading Munyat al-Alma‘ī. In al-Hidāyah there are hadīths from al-Asl of Imām Muhammad, and his Kitāb al-Āthār, and other books of the Imāms. [Some of] these books were not under the range of al-Zayla‘ī’s and Ibn Hajar’s reading.” (Al-Madkhal ilā ‘Ulūm al-Hadīth al-Sharīf, Markaz al-Da‘wat al-Islāmiyyah, p. 103)


Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūtī said:

“The hadīth which al-Rāfi‘ī cited, we did not find a sanad for it. Nor is it found in the books of hadīth available now. The late Huffāz say of the like of this, “It has no basis.” The scrupulous [of them] suffice with their statement, “We did not find it,” which is better. It has reached me that Hāfiz Ibn Hajar was asked about these hadīths which our Imāms and the Hanafī Imāms cite in Fiqh [works] drawing evidence from them and are not known in the books of hadīth, so he answered: “Many of the books of hadīth, or most of them, have been lost in the eastern lands due to civil wars. Perhaps those hadīths were transmitted in them and they have not reached us.” (Quoted in Al-Madkhal ilā ‘Ulūm al-Hadīth al-Sharīf, p. 93)

The Early Fuqaha Had Their Own Chains For The Hadith, Many Of Which May Not Have Reached Us

The jurist (faqih) may cite an evidence which is the evidence of the Imam himself, and it is reported in a hadith book of the later hadith scholars who came after the time of the Imams of the schools of law, such as the 4 Sunan, Masanid, Mujam works etc. The hadith scholar adjudges it to be weak based on its chain of narration, or perhaps even fabricated, thus it cannot be acted upon with this chain of narration.

However at the same time that this hadith has been reported by the Imam with his own specific chain of narration which is Sahih or can be relied upon, but this Sahih chain is not mentioned in the hadith collection you have in front of you.

So someone comes along in the twentieth century and analyses the hadith from the route of the muhaddithin in their books, and finds that the hadith cannot be relied upon, so he will hurry to criticize and find fault with the ruling in the madhab which is based on this hadith. But if he looks in the works of the Imams he will find that the very same hadith has reached us with a Sahih or Hasan chain of narration.

A Misunderstanding Which Leads To Harbouring Bad Opinion Of The Madhabs

The lack of comprehending the previous point has caused some to harbour a bad opinion of the madhahib for when they checked the hadith mentioned in the books they may see the scholars of hadith classifying many of the hadith as: ‘fabricated, weak or not known in a marfu form’.

Thus the they think that these ahadith are from the deductions of the Imam of the Madhab himself, which then leads to the doubt of: ‘How can we accept the leadership in religious matters and Ijtihad for someone who deduces from fabricated and weak narrations, and attributes to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) the statement which are actually the words of a companion (sahabi) of follower (tabiee)?’.

Example Of A Hanafi Ruling Which Has A Sahih Chain From The Imam But Was Only Discovered Later

An example to illustrate the above point is the following: Al-Marghinani mentions in al-Hidayah (4:139) with its commentary Fath al-Qadir the hadith:

“Ward off the legal punishments (hudud) due to doubts”.

He mentions that it is marfu, it was referenced by al-Zaylai in Nasb al-Rayah (3:333) in a mawquf form from Sayyidina Umar, Muadh ibn Jabal, Uqbah bin Amir, and in the chain of narration to them is Ibn Abi Farukh, and he is abandoned as a narrator, and from al-Zuhri, and he is follower (Tabi) whose words are not a proof.

Due to this weakness Ibn Hazm attacked these narrations in al-Muhalla, but the was refuted by Kamal Ibn al-Hummam in Fath al-Qadir, for he established for the hadith its meaning from another hadith mentioned in the two Sahih’s that:

“He (Allah bless him and give him peace) said to Maiz: perhaps you (only) kissed, perhaps you (only) touched, perhaps you (only) winked/signalled”.

The fine point Ibn al-Hummam is making here is that the first hadith which is supposedly weak is supported in meaning by this second hadith where the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is trying to ward off implementing the legal punishment. Thus Ibn al-Hummam established the authenticity of the first narration from the same meaning implicit in the second.

The Authentic Chain For This Hadith Found With Imam Abu Hanifah Although The Well Known Chains For It Are Weak, And Was Missed By Many Hadith Specialists

The hadith mentioned by al-Marghinani which al-Zaylai declared weak in marfu form is however narrated by Imam Abu Hanifah in his Musnad (p.32), its chain of narration being:

“From Miqasam from Ibn Abbas that he said: The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said…”.

Miqasam is trustoworthy (thiqah), he was declared trustworthy by Ahmad bin Salih al-Misri, al-Ijli, Yaqub bin Sufyan and al-Darqutni.

There is no other Sahih chain of narration for this hadith except this one of Imam Abu Hanifah. So from this example we learn that the Imams had their own specific chains of narrations which are not often referred to when referencing ahadith.

So look at this example and take note. The Hafidh of hadith al-Zaylai could not not find this Sahih chain, and Ibn al-Hummam who was a great hadith scholar himself did not abandon the position of his madhab just because he couldn’t find a Sahih chain for this narration, rather he tried to look and see if there was anything which could be used as a proof for the position of the Imam, he did not abandon the position of the madhab as some nowadays would have done, but rather stuck with the madhab and in the end was borne out as being correct, whilst the Hadith which Saahib al-Hidaya qouted which eluded ALL the later Muhaddithun (e.g. Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Hadi, 7th Century, branded it an outright fabrication) turned out to be completely Saheeh!

CDC Data: 70% of USA Population Have Not Had 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Dose of COVID-19 Vaccine

Never forget, Biden December 2021: “This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. The unvaccinated. Not the vaccinated, the unvaccinated. That’s the problem.”

54.7 million people remain unvaccinated
37.9 million people received 1st dose, and refuse the 2nd dose
90.2million people received 2nd dose, and refuse the 3rd dose

Fool Me Once, Shame on You;
Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me;
Fool Me Thrice, Turn off CNN.

74.2 million people in the USA have not had a single dose of a Covid-19 Vaccine, & another 157 million have refused a 2nd or 3rd dose according to CDC

The American people have seen right through President Biden’s propaganda and lies on the effectiveness of the Covid-19 injections because according to CDC data, 70% of the entire population of the USA have not had either a first, second or third dose of the Covid-19 vaccine.


Abortion in Islam: The Stance of the Ḥanafīs and Other Schools

By Muslim Skeptic Team -July 2, 2022

The following is a guest post from Mufti Zameelur Rahman, esteemed scholar and researcher residing in the UK.


Once the soul has been breathed into the foetus at 120 days from conception, it is a live human being. To abort the foetus after this is murder (qatl al-nafs) – of course, a major, grave sin.

The ruling of abortion before the soul is breathed into the foetus or “ensoulment” (nafkh al-rūḥ) is a matter of dispute in the Ḥanafī madhhab.

Since there was nothing explicit from Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and his students, it was the “Mashāyikh” of the Ḥanafī madhhab, i.e. those fuqahā’ capable of ijtihād that came after Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and his students, who ruled on the matter of abortion.

Ibn Nujaym (926 – 970 H), a major Ḥanafī commentator on Fiqh from Egypt, notes:

“It appears that this issue (of abortion) has not been reported explicitly from Abū Ḥanīfah [or his students]. Hence, (the jurists) would refer to it using the expression: ‘They (i.e. the Mashāyikh) said.’”[1]

The different views on abortion pre-ensoulment will be outlined below. For good reasons (that will be explored below), the dominant opinion amongst later Ḥanafī scholars was that abortion pre-ensoulment is in principle impermissible, but, if there is an ‘udhr (extenuating circumstance, to be defined below), it will be permissible.

We find, for example, a late Ḥanafī text by the Syrian scholar, Khalīl ibn ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Naḥlāwī (d. 1350 H/1931 CE), stating:

“It is [prohibitively] disliked for (a woman) to drink medicine to abort her foetus (both) before and after it has taken form (i.e. has discernible features like a finger), except for an ‘udhr. [The ‘udhr] is like a breastfeeding woman, when pregnancy is evident in her and her milk ceases [as a result], and the father of the child cannot afford to pay a wet-nurse, [so] it is feared (i.e. strongly believed) the child will die. [This permission to abort] the foetus [for an ‘udhr] is for as long as it is a muḍghah or ‘alaqah, and no part of it has taken form (i.e. taken complete form at 120 days – see below).”[2]

Muḍghah and ‘alaqah refer to the third and second forty-day periods respectively in the development of the foetus, as described in a ḥadīth (more on this below).

Al-Naḥlāwī is in fact quoting this from an earlier text, al-Hadiyyat al-‘Alā’iyyah, by ‘Alā’ al-Dīn ibn ‘Ābidīn (d. 1306 H/1888 CE), the son of the famous Ibn ‘Ābidīn. [3]

The Disagreement of the Mashāyikh

Explaining the disagreement amongst the early Mashāyikh, Burhān al-Dīn Ibn Maẓah (551 – 616 H) states in his al-Dhakḥirah al-Burhāniyyah:

“When the woman wants to expel the (male) fluid after it has reached her womb, is that permissible for her? (The Mashāyikh) said: If she wants to expel it after the period in which the soul has been breathed into it, that is not permissible, as she will then be a murderer. Based on the apparent reality, it is considered to be living. That is not permissible for her just as it would not be after (the baby) separated from her (post-birth).

“If she wants to expel it before the duration in which the soul is breathed into it, is that permissible for her or not? The Mashāyikh differed over this. Some said there is no harm in this because when it is before the passage of the duration in which the soul is breathed into it, expelling what is in her womb is the same as coitus interruptus (‘azl). We have mentioned that coitus interruptus is permissible, so too with this. According to Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand:

‘When she wishes to abort the child, she can do so when no feature of it is discernible.’

“Faqīh ‘Alī ibn Mūsā (d. 305 H) would say:

‘That is [prohibitively] disliked, because the end-result of the (male) fluid after it falls inside the womb is life, as it does not need the activity of anyone after that for the soul to be breathed into it. When its end-result is life, it assumes the ruling of life. This is like the egg of a wild animal of the Ḥaram: since its end-result is that it will become a wild animal, it is given the ruling of a wild animal, such that if the Mūhrim (the person in the sacred state of Iḥrām) destroys an egg (of the wild animal), he will be liable for compensation. So too, here. This is different from coitus interruptus. The soul will not be breathed into (the discharged sperm) except after someone effecting an activity, namely inserting it in the womb. Hence, its end-result is not life in contrast to the situation we are discussing (i.e. abortion).’

“The time of the features being discernible (istibānat al-khalq) and the soul being breathed (into it) is specified at 120 days based on the famous ḥadīth. And Allāh knows best.”[4]

Burhān al-Dīn Ibn Māzah presents a somewhat similar commentary in his al-Muḥīṭ al-Burhānī.

Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand

The view of the permissibility of aborting the foetus pre-ensoulment is cited from an enigmatic collection called “Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand”. Ibn Māzah most likely received this citation from the Wāqi‘āt of his uncle, the highly-influential jurist, al-Ṣadr al-Shahīd Ḥusām al-Dīn ‘Umar ibn Māzah (483 – 536 H). In the latter work, al-Ṣadr al-Shahīd cites the Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand as transmitting the view that a woman will not be sinful for aborting the foetus if it is before it has any discernible features.[5]

The authorship of Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand and when it was written is unknown, but it probably was compiled some time in the fifth century (400s) of Hijrah, and gained popularity via the citations from it by al-Ṣadr al-Shahīd. The same ruling is cited in Yatīmat al-Dahr from “Majmū‘āt al-Samarqandī”, which appears to be a reference to the same Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand.

Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand also records the alternative view that abortion pre-ensoulment is permissible when the woman already has a breastfeeding baby and her milk has ceased, putting her baby’s life in danger. In the latter ruling, Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand equates istibānat al-khalq with ensoulment.[6]

Who Was Faqīh ‘Alī ibn Mūsā al-Qummī (d. 305)?

Faqīh ‘Alī ibn Mūsā al-Qummī, from whom the impermissibility of aborting the foetus pre-ensoulment is reported, is probably the earliest Ḥanafī jurist from whom a judgement on abortion is recorded. He was the Ḥanafī Muftī of Nishapur. Al-Sam‘ānī refers to him as

“the imām of the Ḥanafīs in his era”.

One of the Ḥanafī scholars of that time commented:

“We agreed that we did not see from our [Ḥanafī] fellows before him anyone more accomplished in Fiqh than him.” [7]

Al-Dhahabī has an entry on him in his Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, in which he says:

“Imām ‘Allāmah, the shaykh of the Ḥanafīs in Khurāsān, Abu ‘l- Ḥasan ‘Alī ibn Mūsā ibn Yazīd al-Qummī al-Naysābūrī. He was the scholar of the Ahl al-Ra’y in his time without contest. He authored books including Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, a valuable book…He acquired Fiqh from Muḥammad ibn Shujā‘ al-Thaljī (181 – 266 H)… al-Ḥākim mentioned him and exalted him and praised him and said he died in the year 305.” [8]

Al-Dhahabī also praises his knowledge of Ḥādīth. Faqīh ‘Alī ibn Mūsā al-Qummī was thus an authoritative Ḥanafī jurist, only three generations after Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, who ruled that abortion pre-ensoulment is impermissible.

The Statement of QāḍīKhān

As the statement of QāḍīKhān is critical to later Ḥanafī discourse on the issue of abortion, we will quote this first before unpacking some of the further points in Ibn Māzah’s statement. Ḥasan ibn Manṣūr al-Ūzjandī, famously known as QāḍīKhān (ca. 510 – 592 H), writes:

“They (the Mashāyikh – i.e. some of them) said:

‘If she aborts the foetus with treatment, if no feature is discernible, she is not sinful.’

“(QāḍīKhān) said: I do not agree with this because when the Muḥrim breaks the egg of a wild animal he is liable for compensation given it is the point of origin of the wild animal. Since one is liable for compensation in that case, she would at least incur a sin in this case when she aborts without an excuse. However, she is not sinful to the same degree as murder. If she aborts after the features are discernible, a ghurrah (penalty for murdering a foetus) will be due.

“When pregnancy is evident in a breastfeeding woman and her milk ceases [as a result], and the father of the child cannot afford to pay a wet-nurse, [so] it is feared (i.e. strongly believed) the child will die, they said: it is permissible for her to undergo treatment to push out the blood for as long as the foetus is a nuṭfah or ‘alaqah or muḍghah, no feature of it having been formed. They have stipulated that period as 120 days. They only considered it allowable for her to abort the foetus by pushing out blood because it is not a human. Hence, it is permissible for the purpose of saving a human.” [9]

The concluding passage is critical to understanding what QāḍīKhān and others meant by an “‘udhr”. In the example cited, if the mother carried on with the pregnancy there is a strong likelihood her breastfeeding child will die. Hence, to save the life or limb of an actual person, it is allowed to abort the foetus, as the foetus is not yet a person. Similarly, if there is a high likelihood, based on health complications, of the mother dying from the pregnancy, it will be permitted to abort the foetus. Muftī Rashīd Aḥmad Ludhiānvī (1922 – 2002 CE) thus includes amongst those things that are an ‘udhr: a religious, skilled doctor telling the woman that if her pregnancy continues, there is a strong likelihood she would lose life or limb.[10]

In short, when the embryo has embedded itself in the womb, it is regarded as potential life, which like the egg of a wild animal, will be treated as actual life. Hence, it is impermissible to terminate. But because it is not truly living, for a situation where an actual life is threatened as a direct consequence of its prolonged existence, it will then be permissible to terminate.

QāḍīKhān is not the first to mention the analogy with the egg of a wild animal, as it was recorded from Faqīh ‘Alī ibn Mūsā before him. Hence, ‘Umar ibn Nujaym (d. 1005 H), the younger brother of Ibn Nujaym, notes:

“QāḍīKhān has precedent for his explanation (from Faqīh ‘Alī ibn Mūsā).” [11]

Nor is QāḍīKhān the first to mention the ‘udhr. His source is the same Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand as documented earlier. [12] But QāḍīKhān lends his authoritative voice to the view transmitted from Faqīh ‘Alī ibn Mūsā and states the exception is when there is an ‘udhr like that recorded in Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand.

RELATED: Abortion and Pro-Choice Inconsistencies


The notion of the soul being breathed into the foetus at 120 days is based on a well-known ḥadīth of ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anh) reported in al-BukhārīMuslim and other collections. In the wording of Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār, with an authentic chain, ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anh) narrates from the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam):

“The fluid-drop remains in the womb for forty nights as a nuṭfah, forty nights as an ‘alaqah and forty nights as a muḍghah. Then an angel is sent to it …” [13]

After citing this ḥadīth, al-Taḥāwī (239 – 321 H) reports via his teacher, Ibn Abī ‘Imrān (ca. 200 – 280 H), from Muḥammad ibn Samā‘ah (130 – 233 H) from Imām Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī (132 – 189 H) that the soul is breathed into the foetus after 120 days of conception. [14]

Al-Sarakhsī says:

“It is established by explicit textual evidence that the soul is breathed into the foetus after four months, as mentioned in the ḥadīth of Ibn Mas‘ūd…” [15]

Hence, Imām Muḥammad (one of the founding imāms of the Ḥanafī school) and those after him agreed ensoulment occurs at 120 days from conception – which is thus the point at which the foetus is considered to be alive.

Istibānat al-Khalq/Taṣwīr/Takhlīq (The Features Being Discernible)

A ḥadīth of Ḥudhayfah ibn Asīd (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anh) recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim mentions that the foetus is shaped at 42 days. [16] Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī quotes some scholars who reconciled the ḥadīth of Ḥudhayfah (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anh) with that of Ibn Mas‘ūd (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anh) as follows:

“In the first forty days the characteristic of ‘semen’ dominates the foetus, in the second forty days, the characteristic of ‘alaqah (congealed blood) dominates, and in the third forty days, the characteristic of muḍghah (lump of flesh) dominates, even if it had already been formed. The ḥadīth of Ibn Mas‘ūd does not mention the time when the foetus is formed.” [17]

Muftī Taqī Usmani comments that there is a “less conspicuous formation” that takes place at this earlier period of 42 days, and “a conspicuous formation” that takes place upon the completion of four months. [18]

Thus, “istibānat al-khalq” could refer to when the foetus has identifiable features (fingers etc.) and it could also refer to when it has reached 120 days. We have already encountered the statement of al-Naḥlāwī above, where the term was used in both ways: for the initial physical istibānat al-khalq and the subsequent spiritual, complete istibānat al-khalq.

Abu ‘l-‘Abbās al-Nāṭifī (d. 446) states in his Wāqi‘āt:

“Its features are not discernible except at 120 days. It is a nuṭfah for forty days, an ‘alaqah for forty days and a muḍghah for forty days.” [19]

We have also seen how in al-Dhakhīrahistibānat al-khalq and nafkh al-rūḥ are treated the same under the discussion of abortion. Hence, in al-Nahr, ‘Umar Ibn Nujaym comments:

“Based on what is in al-Dhakhīrah, it is evident that by ‘formation’ they meant only ensoulment.” [20]

It is also inferred from a ruling of Imām Muḥammad that he understood istibānat al-khalq to occur at 4 months. (See the footnote for reference.) [21]

We have also seen that Fatāwā Samarqand, the very source for the ruling of the permissibility of abortion pre-ensoulment, itself specifies istibānat al-khalq as occurring at 120 days.

However, in al-Qunyah, al-Zāhidī (d. 658 H) quotes ‘Ayn al-A’immah al-Karābīsī as saying:

“‘Formation’ means that the hair, finger, foot and the like become evident.” [22]

Ibn ‘Ābidīn also cites this in Radd al-Muḥtār[23]

Hence, what exactly is meant by “istibānat al-khalq” in the terminology of the jurists is ambiguous. It could refer to the stage at around 6 weeks when discernible features begin to show, or it could refer to the much later stage, when it is regarded as fully human (17 weeks).

The criterion of istibānat al-khalq is also invoked in other issues (like nifās & when a slave-woman is regarded as “Umm al-Walad”). Whether the earlier period of “inconspicuous formation” is intended in these issues or the later period of “conspicuous formation” is not the topic of discussion. However, based on the reasoning found in Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand and copied in Fatāwā QāḍīKhān, that abortion is permitted for an ‘udhr because it is “not” yet “a person”, we can say that their understanding (as they state explicitly) is that istibānat al-khalq is synonymous with ensoulment in this ruling.

The text in Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand that states the alternative view: “She is not sinful for aborting the foetus before the features are discernible” (a ruling that is then reproduced by several jurists afterwards) could however refer to the earlier period or the later one. But, given the rule is found in the very same compilation, Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand, it would suggest it is referring to the 120 day period.

RELATED: “Muslim” Activists Melt Down Over Possibility of Abortion Ban

Other Views

According to the author of Jawāhir al-Akhlāṭī, the fatwā in his time is it is permissible to abort the foetus both before and after it takes form provided it is before ensoulment, because of the corruption prevalent in the time. [24]

That is, because the time is corrupt, and the child will grow up without proper tarbiyah and care, it is allowed to abort the child. The author of Jawāhir al-Akhlāṭī is not a known figure, and it is not known from which era he was (although he lived some time before the 11th century of Hijrah). His view was quoted in al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah and in Laknawī’s footnotes to al-Hidāyah. Given it is not known who he was and from what era he was, his statement doesn’t carry much weight.

It appears the author of Jawāhir al-Akhlāṭī is analogising the issue to ‘azl. The original ruling is that the man is not permitted to do ‘azl without the permission of his wife, nor is the woman allowed to take means to prevent herself from getting pregnant without the permission of her husband. The later jurists, however, allowed them to do so without the permission of their spouse because of the “corruption of the time”. But ‘azl and abortion are not analogous as pointed out by Faqīh ‘Alī ibn Mūsā al-Qummī and QāḍīKhān. Moreover the corruption that was the concern in those times is countered by a greater corruption in these times from the western influence of not wanting children at all, as noted by ‘Allāmah Ẓafar Aḥmad al-‘Uthmānī in I‘lā’ al-Sunan[25]

The text of Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand that says: “She is not sinful for aborting the foetus before the features are discernible” is reproduced in al-Fatāwā al-Sirājiyyahal-IkhtiyārTuḥfat al-Mulūkal-Durr al-Mukhtār amongst other texts.

In al-Qunyah, al-Zāhidī quotes from Abu ‘l-Faḍl al-Kirmānī (457 – 543), ‘Ayn al-A’immah al-Karābīsī, ‘Alā al-Dīn al-Tarjumānī (d. 645) the opposite judgement:

“She is sinful for aborting the foetus before it has taken form, whether a freewoman or a slave-woman.” [26]

From the three, Abu ‘l-Faḍl (‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad) al-Kirmānī is a prominent jurist, considered the leading Ḥanafī scholar of Khurāsān in his time. Ibn al-Shiḥnah (851 – 921 H), citing Qunyah, refers to the views of these three personalities in his discussion on abortion in the commentary on Manẓūmah Ibn Wahbān.

Al-Zāhidī’s personal view is that abortion is permissible before istibānat al-khalq in the sense that ‘Ayn al-A’immah al-Karābīsī defined it i.e. when the foetus gains physical features (not the later, 120 day period). [27]But it is not clear if he believed this with respect to the female slave alone, or for both the slave and freewoman.

Later Ḥanafī Commentators

Ibn Wahbān (728 – 768 H) supports the view of QāḍīKhān and attempts to reconcile the alternative view transmitted in Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand by saying:

“The permissibility of abortion [transmitted from the earlier jurists] is considered to be in the situation of ‘udhr; or, it means she is not sinful in a manner equivalent to murder.” [28]

Ibn al-Humām (790 – 861 H) writes:

“Is abortion permissible after falling pregnant? It is permissible provided no part of it has taken form. Furthermore, in several places, they have said this only occurs after 120 days, which means that by ‘formation’ they meant ensoulment, otherwise it is wrong because, based on observation, formation occurs before this period.” [29]

Hence, Ibn al-Humām restates the passed-down verdict of permissibility from Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand, while noting that by ‘istibānat al-khalq’ they mean ‘nafkh al-rūḥ’.

Ibn Nujaym quotes the passage of Fatḥ al-Qadīr and Fatāwā QāḍīKhān and then comments:

Reliance ought to be on (what is found in Fatāwā QāḍīKhān) because it has a sound basis on which analogy was made.” [30]

While Ibn ‘Ābidīn (with al-Ḥaskafī’s text) quotes QāḍīKhānDhakhīrahManẓūmah Ibn WahbānNahr and Qunyah, the discussion doesn’t add anything substantial to what we gather from these earlier texts. Ṭaḥṭāwī and Sindī’s commentaries on Durr also do not add anything substantial.

The Preferred Ḥanafī Stance

QāḍīKhān’s authoritative judgement presents a via media between the different views for aborting a foetus pre-ensoulment. Ibn Nujaym argues it is the view that ought to be relied upon given the strength of its evidential basis. Ibn Wahbān argues it can be reconciled with the judgement of those who say it is not sinful by understanding it to refer to the situation of ‘udhr.

Nonetheless, the view of unconditional permissibility before ensoulment is a legitimate, though weaker, view in the Ḥanafī madhhab. It is the view mentioned in Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand and reproduced in numerous texts. Hence, if there is a situation of extreme and genuine hardship (ḍarūrah), this view can be resorted to for fatwā. Muftī Maḥmūd Ḥasan Gangohī (1907 – 1996) was asked about a woman who became suicidal for the shame she would face after falling pregnant from zinā. He allowed the abortion in this situation. [31]It may be that his fatwā was based on the extreme circumstance/ḍarūrah which justified using the view of unconditional permissibility. However, in a case where the woman would not feel extreme shame, but wants to abort merely for her own comfort or ease, this would not be a ḍarūrah; for a Ḥanafī to take the dispensation of a weaker view in this instance would fall under sinful ittibā‘ al-hawā (following of desires). [32] For giving fatwā on ḍarūrah, careful deliberation and consultation is required. [33]

Other Madhhabs

The Mālikī madhhab holds the strictest stance. Qāḍī Abū Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabī (468 – 543 H) states:

“The child has three stages. (First), a stage before it comes into existence, during which it ceases (to be) via ‘azl – this is permissible. (Second), a stage after the womb has taken hold of the semen. At this point, it is not permissible for anyone to interfere with it by stopping it from growing, as practised by the riffraff amongst the traders. When the menstrual period of their slaves stops, they make them drink medication that causes (their wombs) to slacken so the semen pours out with it and the pregnancy is terminated. The third is after its formation before the soul is breathed into it. This is more severe than the first two in prohibition, based on the ḥadīths narrated about it…As for when the soul is breathed into it, it is murder without disagreement.” [34]

Summarising the Mālikī stance, Shaykh Muḥammad ‘Illīsh (1217 – 1299 H) writes:

“When the womb holds the semen, it is not permissible for the couple, nor one of them, nor the slaveowner (of a female slave) to take means to abort it before it takes form, according to the mashhūr (accepted & well-known view), nor, by agreement, after it takes form. Taking means to abort it after the soul has been breathed into it is forbidden by absolute consensus and is considered murder.” [35]

In the Shāfi‘ī madhhab, Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī (909 – 974 H) writes in his authoritative Tuḥfat al-Muḥtāj:

“They (i.e. the Shafi‘ī jurists) differed over the permissibility of taking means to remove the nuṭfah, after its implantation in the womb. Abū Isḥāq al-Marwazī (d. 340 H) said it is permissible to abort the nuṭfah (the foetus in the first forty days) and the ‘alaqah (the foetus in the second forty days). That has been reported from Abū Ḥanīfah (too). In Iḥyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn, in the discussion on ‘azl, it indicates towards its prohibition. This is the more apt view, because after implantation (the foetus) is veering towards taking on a physical form that is prepared for the soul to be breathed (into it); while ‘azl is not like that.” [36]

In another part of the same work, he reiterates this saying:

“They differed over taking means to remove what has not reached the point of ensoulment, i.e. 120 days. That which is apt, in agreement with Ibn al-‘Imād (d. 808) and others, is: prohibition (ḥurmah). The permissibility of ‘azl should not be conflated with it, given the evident difference between them. When the semen is being discharged it is completely lifeless and not ready to take on life in any way; as contrasted with when it is implanted in the womb and the early stages of formation occur, which is gauged through signs. According to a ḥadīth of Muslim, it is after 42 nights.” [37]

In this passage, he suggests the impermissibility of aborting the foetus is only after the first 42 days, a view similar to that of the Ḥanbalī madhhab (see below).

Al-Haytamī also says in his commentary on the Arba‘ūn al-Nawawiyyah that the view that it is unconditionally permissible before 120 days is

“weak because ‘azl and abortion are not the same. ‘Azl at most is to take means to stop the establishment (of the sperm), so how can an established zygote be analogised to it, when it may even have taken form?!” [38]

Al-Haytamī refers to a discussion of the Iḥyā ‘Ulūm al-Dīn of Imām al-Ghazālī (450 – 505 H) to support his stance. Al-Ghazālī said:

‘Azl is not the same as abortion and burying a live baby, because that is a crime against an actualised existence. The (actualised existence) too has degrees. The first degree of existence is that the sperm falls in the womb and mixes with the woman’s fluid and becomes ready to accept life. Spoiling that is a crime. If it becomes a muḍghah and ‘alaqah, the crime is worse. If the soul is breathed into it, and the form is completed, the crime increases in severity. The peak of severity in the crime is after it has detached (from the mother), alive. We only say that the point of origin for the cause of its existence is from the point that the sperm falls in the womb and not from when it emerges from the urethra (of the man) is because the child is not created from the man’s sperm alone, but from both man and woman, either from his fluid and hers or from his fluid and the menstrual blood.” [39]

As part of a lengthy discussion, Shams al-Dīn Ramlī (919 – 1004 H) states in his authoritative Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj:

“The preferred view is its unconditional prohibition after ensoulment, and its permissibility before.” [40]

However, from the same discussion, it appears he inclines to abortion becoming progressively more prohibitive as it gets closer to the 120 day mark.

Hence, there is a dispute over the preferred view in the Shāfi‘ī madhhab, but it is generally believed al-Haytamī’s judgement is favoured over al-Ramlī’s when they differed. [41]

Thus, the Mawsū‘ah Fiqhiyya Kuwaytiyya presents Ibn Ḥajar’s view as the preferred Shāfi‘ī stance. [42]

According to the Ḥanbalī madhhab, abortion is permissible in the first forty-day-nuṭfah stage, but impermissible after that. [43]

Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī says:

“A group of jurists permitted the woman to abort what is in her womb provided the soul has not been breathed into it, treating it like ‘azl. This is a weak view, because the foetus is a (potential) child that has become established, and it may take form. In ‘azl there is no (potential) child at all. He only took a means to stop it becoming established…Our (Ḥanbalī) fellows have said explicitly that when the child becomes an ‘alaqah, it is not permissible to abort it given it is a child that is established, as opposed to a nuṭfah, as it has not yet become established.” [44]

Mar‘ī ibn Yūsuf al-Karmī (d. 1033 H) states:

“A female may take medication to expel a nuṭfah but not an ‘alaqah.” [45]


All madhhabs agree that aborting a foetus after 120 days is murder and thus completely forbidden.

The preferred view of the Ḥanafī madhhab is that aborting a foetus before 120 days is in principle forbidden. The exception is if continuing the pregnancy threatens the life or limb of the mother or any children she may have. In situations besides these, a muftī may resort to the view of permissibility only in circumstances of genuine ḍarūrah.

The preferred view of the Mālikī madhhab is of unconditional impermissibility. The preferred view of the Shāfi‘ī mahhab is disputed, with Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī favouring the view of impermissibility before 120 days. The preferred view of the Ḥanbalī madhhab is it is permissible in the first forty days, but forbidden after that.

As one can appreciate from the legal discussions, there is substantial commonality across the madhhabs in how they viewed the foetus in the different stages and how they regarded ‘azl to be different from abortion. The implanted zygote is prepared to take on life, while discharged semen is not.

Some people assume the dominant position across the madhhabs is that of general permissibility before ensoulment. As evident from the above discussion, the dominant position is in fact the opposite.

RELATED: Does Islam Allow Abortion? False Equivalencies and Reflexive Centrism


  1. والظاهر أن هذه المسألة لم تنقل عن أبي حنيفة صريحا، ولذا يعبرون عنها بصيغة: قالوا (البحر الرائق، ج ٣ ص٢١٥ 
  2. ويكره لها أن تشرب دواء لإسقاط حملها قبل التصور وبعده إلا لعذر كالمرضعة إذا ظهر بها الحمل وانقطع لبنها وليس لأبى الصبي ما يستأجر به المرضعة ويخاف هلاك الولد ما دام الحمل مضغة أو علقة ولم يخلق عضو (الدرر المباحة، دار الفتح، ص٢٢٩ 
  3. الهدية العلائية، مكتبة الإمام الأوزاعي، ص٢٨٣ 
  4. الذخيرة البرهانية، دار الكتب العلمية، ج٧ ص٣٦٥-٣٦٦ 
  5. امرأة عالجت في إسقاط ولدها قال: لا تأثم ما لم يبين شيء من خلقه لأنه ما لم يكن شيء من خلقه لا يكون ولدا (الواقعات، رسالة الدكتوراة، ص٤٠٧ 
  6. امرأة مرضعة ظهر بها حبل وانقطع لبنها وتخاف على ولدها الهلاك وليس لأب هذا الرضيع سعة حتى يستأجر الظئر هل يباح لها أن تعالج في استنزال الدم؟ يباح ما دام نطفة أو مضغة لم يخلق له عضو لأنه ليس بآدمي ومدته بالأيام (المصدر السابق ص١٨٩ 
  7. علي بن موسى بن يزداد وقيل يزيد القمي…إمام الحنيفة في عصره…كذا ذكره السمعاني…أحمد بن هارون الحنفي يقول: قدم علينا علي بن موسى القمي يعني الحنفي نيسابور فأجمعنا على أنا لم نر قبله من أصحابنا أفقه منه (الجواهر المضية ج٢ ص٦١٨-٦١٩ 
  8. سير أعلام النبلاء، مؤسسة الرسالة، ج١٤ ص٢٣٦ 
  9. فتاوى قاضيخان ج٣ ص٣١٢ – ٣١٣ 
  10. أحسن الفتاوى ج٨ ص٣٤٨ 
  11. وإن قاضي خان مسبوق بما مر من التفقه (النهر الفائق، ج٢ ص٢٧٧ 
  12. وفي نكاح فتاوى أهل سمرقند: امرأة مرضعة ظهر بها حبل وانقطع لبنها ويخاف على ولدها الهلاك وليس لأب هذا الولد سعة حتى يستأجر الظئر هل يباح لها أن تعالج في إسقاط الولد؟ قالوا: يباح ما دام نطفة أو علقة أو مضغة لم يخلق له عضو لأنه ليس بآدمي، ومدته بأيام (الفتاوى التاتارخانية، ج١٨ ص٢٠٤ 
  13. قد حدثنا يونس قال أخبرنا ابن وهب قال حدثني جرير بن حازم عن سليمان بن مهران عن زيد بن وهب عن عبد الله بن مسعود قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: وتكون النطفة في الرحم أربعين ليلة نطفة وأربعين ليلة علقة وأربعين ليلة مضغة ثم يبعث إليه الملك إلخ (شرح مشكل الآثار، رقم ٣٨٧٠ 
  14. وقد استدل محمد بن الحسن بذلك في الجارية إذا اشتراها رجل وهي من أولات الحيض وتأخر حيضها فقال إذا مضت عليها أربعة أشهر وعشرة أيام حل له منها ما يحل له منها لو حاضت، قال: لأن الروح تنفخ في تلك المدة إن كان بها حمل، فيتبين أن في بطنها ولدا فيعف عن وطئها لذلك أو لا يتبين ذلك، فيسعه عنده وطؤها لأن أمرها بذلك يغلب على القلوب أنه لا حمل بها معه، كما حدثنا ابن أبي عمران قال: حدثنا محمد بن سماعة عن محمد بن الحسن بهذا القول (شرح مشكل الآثار ج٩ ص٤٨٦ 
  15. ثبت بالنص أن الولد تنفخ فيه الروح بعد أربعة أشهر كما ذكره في حديث ابن مسعود رضي الله عنه (المبسوط، ج٦ ص٤٤ 
  16. صحيح مسلم ٦٦٨٣ 
  17. وقد حمل بعضهم حديث ابن مسعود على أن الجنين يغلب عليه في الأربعين الأولى وصف المني وفى الأربعين الثانية وصف العلقة وفى الأربعين الثالثة وصف المضغة وإن كانت خلقته قد تمت وتم تصويره وليس في حديث ابن مسعود ذكر وقت تصوير الجنين (جامع العلوم والحكم، ص١٣٧) 
  18. تكلمة فتح الملهم، دار القلم، ج٥ ص٢٤١ 
  19. خلقته لا يستبين إلا في مائة وعشرين يوما: أربعين يوما نطفة وأربعين يوما علقة وأربعين مضغة (الواقعات للصدر الشهيد نقلا عن الواقعات للناطفي ، ص١٨٣ 
  20. وبما في الذخيرة تبين أنهم ما أرادوا بالتخليق إلا نفخ الروح (النهر الفائق، ج ٢ ص٢٧٧ 
  21. وَيَدُلُّ عَلَى مَا قَالَهُ مَا فِي شَرْحِ الْوَهْبَانِيَّةِ لِابْنِ الشِّحْنَةِ عَنْ الْمُنْتَقَى عَنْ هِشَامٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدٍ تَزَوَّجَ امْرَأَةً لَمْ يَكُنْ قَبْلَهُ لَهَا زَوْجٌ وَبَنَى بِهَا فَجَاءَتْ بِوَلَدٍ لِأَقَلَّ مِنْ سِتَّةٍ مِنْ النِّكَاحِ فَالنِّكَاحُ فَاسِدٌ عِنْدِي وَعِنْدَ أَبِي يُوسُفَ؛ لِأَنَّهُ تَزَوَّجَهَا وَهِيَ حَامِلٌ، وَإِنْ جَاءَتْ بِهِ وَقَدْ اسْتَبَانَ بَعْضُ خَلْقِهِ لِأَكْثَرَ مِنْ أَرْبَعَةِ أَشْهُرٍ وَعَشْرٍ فَالنِّكَاحُ جَائِزٌ وَإِنْ جَاءَتْ بِهِ لِأَقَلَّ فَفَاسِدٌ. اهـ. 
  22. وفيه نظر دل عليه قوله عقيب هذا: والتصوير أن يظهر عليه شعر أو أصبع أو رجل ونحوه فإن ظهر فهو ولد (القنية ص١٧٣ 
  23. والتصور كما في القنية أن يظهر له شعر أو أصبع أو رجل ونحو ذلك (رد المحتار، دار عالم الكتب، ج ٩ ص٦١٥ 
  24. العلاج لإسقاط الولد إذا استبان خلقه كالشعر والظفر ونحوهما لا يجوز وإن كان غير مستبين الخلق يجوز، وأما في زماننا يجوز على كل حال وعليه الفتوى، كذا في جواهر الأخلاطي (الفتاوى الهندية، ج٥ ص٤٣٦ 
  25. الفقيه من عرف حال زمانه، وقد نشأت في أوربا جماعة من النساء تسعى في تقليل النسل وقطعها وتعلم أخواتها أنواعا من الحيل لقطع الحبل وانتشترت دعوتها إلى أقصى البلاد من الهند والعرب ومصر والشام، ولو تمت حيلة هؤلاء الخبيثات لأفضت إلى قطع النسل وفساد العالم إلخ (إعلاء السنن ج١٧ ص٤٠٤ 
  26. فك عك عت) تأثم بإسقاط السقط قبل أن يصور حرة كانت أو أمة (القنية ص١٧٣ 
  27. فقبل التصوير لا يكون ولدا فينبغي أن يجوز (المصدر السابق 
  28. قال ابن وهبان: إباحة الإسقاط محمولة على حالة العذر أو أنها لا تأثم إثم القتل (النهر الفائق، ج٢ ص٢٧٦ 
  29. وهل يباح الإسقاط بعد الحبل؟ يباح ما لم يتخلق شيء منه، ثم في غير موضع قالوا: ولا يكون ذلك إلا بعد مائة وعشرين يوما، وهذا يقتضي أنهم أرادوا بالتخليق نفخ الروح وإلا فهو غلط لأن التخليق يتحقق بالمشاهدة قبل هذه المدة (فتح القدير، ج٣ ص٣٨٠ 
  30. وينبغى الاعتماد عليه لأن له أصلا صحيحا يقاس عليه (البحر الرائق، ج٣ ص٢١٤ 
  31. الفتاوى المحمودية، ج١٨ ص٣٢١ 
  32. الحيلة الناجزة ص١٤ 
  33. والحق أن أحوال الحاجة التي تؤثر في تغيير بعض الأحكام أمر يعسر ضبطه بضوابط جامعة مانعة، والمناط فيه على الملكة الفقهية والمذاق السليم الذي لا يحصل بمجرد مراجعة الكتب، وإنما يحتاج إلى طول الممارسة في صحبة فقيه متمكن له باع في الفقه في جانب ومعرفة الناس في جانب آخر (أصول الإفتاء وآدابه ص٢٧٤)، والأحسن قبل الإفتاء في مثل هذه المسائل أن يشاور المفتي غيره من العلماء والفقهاء وأن لا يتعجل فيها بالإفتاء (أصول الإفتاء وآدابه، ص٣١٠ 
  34. قال ابن العربي: وللولد ثلاثة أحوال: حال قبل الوجود ينقطع فيها بالعزل وهو جائز، وحال بعد قبض الرحم على المني فلا يجوز لأحد حينئذ التعرض له بالقطع من التولد كما يفعله سفلة التجار….فأما إذا نفخ فيه الروح فقه قتل النفس بلا خلاف (المسالك في شرح موطأ مالك، ج٥ ص٦٦٤-٦٦٥ 
  35. إذا أمسك الرحم المني فلا يجوز للزوجين ولا لأحدهما ولا للسيد التسبب في إسقاطه قبل التخلق على المشهور، ولا بعد اتفاقا، والتسبب في إسقاطه بعد نفخ الروح فيه محرما إجماعا وهو من قتل النفس (فتح العلي المالك، ج١ ص٣٩٩ 
  36. واختلفوا في جواز التسبب إلى إلقاء النطفة بعد استقرارها في الرحم فقال أبو إسحاق المروزي يجوز إلقاء النطفة والعلقة ونقل ذلك عن أبي حنيفة، وفى الإحياء في مبحث العزل ما يدل على تحريمه وهو الأوجه لأنها بعد الاستقرار آيلة إلى التخلق المهيأ لنفخ الروح ولا كذلك العزل (تحفة المحتاج، ٧ ص١٨٦ 
  37. واختلفوا في التسبب لإسقاط ما لم يصل لحد نفخ الروح فيه وهو مائة وعشرون يوما، والذي يتجه وفاقا لابن العماد وغيره: الحرمة، ولا يشكل عليه جواز العزل لوضوح الفرق بينهما بأن المني حال نزوله محض جماد لم يتهيأ للحياة بوجه بخلافه بعد استقراره في الرحم وأخذه في مبادي التخلق ويعرف ذلك بالأمارات وفي حديث مسلم أنه يكون بعد اثنتين وأربعين ليلة أي ابتداؤه (تحفة المحتاج، ج٨ ص٢٤١ 
  38. واختلفوا في التسبب لإسقاط ما لم يصل لحد نفخ الروح فيه وهو مائة وعشرون يوما، والذي يتجه وفاقا لابن العماد وغيره: الحرمة، ولا يشكل عليه جواز العزل لوضوح الفرق بينهما بأن المني حال نزوله محض جماد لم يتهيأ للحياة بوجه بخلافه بعد استقراره في الرحم وأخذه في مبادي التخلق ويعرف ذلك بالأمارات وفي حديث مسلم أنه يكون بعد اثنتين وأربعين ليلة أي ابتداؤه (تحفة المحتاج، ج٨ ص٢٤١ 
  39. إحياء علوم الدين، دار المنهاج، ج٣ ص٢٠٤ 
  40. والراجح تحريمه بعد نفخ الروح مطلقا وجوازه قبله (نهاية المحتاج، ج٨ ص٤٤٣ 
  41. واختلفوا في الترجيح بين قولهما أعني ابن حجر والرملي عند التخالف، فذهب أهل حضرموت والشام والأكراد وداغستان وأكثر أهل اليمن وغير ذلك من البلدان إلى أن المعتمد ما قاله ابن حجر (الفوائد المدنية، ص٥٩ 
  42. الموسوعة الفقهية الكويتة، ج٢ ص٥٩ 
  43. المصدر السابق 
  44. وقد رخص طائفة من الفقهاء للمرأة في إسقاط ما في بطنها ما لم ينفخ فيه الروح وجعلوه كالعزل وهو قول ضعيف لأن الجنين ولد انعقد وربما تصور، وفى العزل لم يوجد ولد بالكلية وإنما تسبب إلى منع انعقاده…وقد صرح أصحابنا بأنه إذا صار الولد علقة لم يجز للمرأة إسقاطه لأنه ولد انعقد بخلاف النطفة فإنها لم تنعقد بعد، وقد لا تنعقد ولدا (جامع العلوم والحكم، دار ابن كثير، ص١٣٤-١٣٥ 
  45. ولأنثى شربه لإلقاء نطفة لا علقة (غاية المنتهى، ج١ ص٨١ 


Dr Tess Lawrie: “Individuals in white coats are – knowingly or unknowingly – harming our babies”

By Oliver May

THE Government’s push for children and infants to take a Covid jab has been likened to having a gun put against their heads.

Dr Tess Lawrie of the World Council for Health has been an avid campaigner for the safe and effective treatment of Covid with ivermectin, a drug with more than 40 years’ of safety data and which won the Nobel Prize in 2015.

And writing in her most recent Substack article, Dr Lawrie describes the push by the UK Government for children and infants to take a Covid jab as “toxic”.

She added: “The Covid-19 injections, lately approved for use on six-month olds and upwards in the US, are toxic. When government officials, big pharma CEOs and public health policymakers tell you these shots are safe, they are lying.

“Please take a look at the pharmacovigilance databases to see what is happening to our children.

“As of 17 June 2022, the US’ reporting system (VAERS) states 116 children have died following injection with the Covid-19 vaccines. 1,335 have suffered from myocarditis, 461 are permanently disabled. It is estimated that only 1 to 10% of adverse events are reported, so the actual figures will be far higher.

“Children are dying. They are in pain. Their beautiful immune systems are severely compromised. Some never even get the chance to take their first breath.

“As for the Pfizer trial on infants, their shoddy data reveals one in 73 infants aged 6 to 23 months old experienced an adverse event following injection. Please read Jessica Rose’s post that explores this in more detail.

“It is quite possible that in administering these vaccines to prepubescent children, we are rendering an entire generation infertile. By causing inflammatory reactions in ovaries and testes, this new type of vaccine could effectively be castrating them.

“This may sound extreme, but can you prove me wrong? You’d need data to show that children who receive the Covid-19 vaccine before puberty go on to be fully fertile. But there are no such data. Our children are the data. They are the guinea pigs being experimented on by white coats from afar. They do not see our children – they only see a number in a database.

“Now, if you are someone who agrees that the Covid-19 vaccines are risky, but that childhood immunisations are safe, I have news. Look at this, from the UK’s National Health Service webpage listing the childhood immunisation schedule:

“The NHS has quietly included Covid-19 in its list of childhood vaccinations. It wants parents and children to accept this experimental injection as a normal part of growing up.

“Given the lack of safety testing for Covid-19 vaccines, what does this tell us about all the others on that list? How can anyone be confident that every vaccine on the childhood immunisation schedule is safe?”

There’s more.


Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person. —Genesis 2:7 A Jewish group, Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor of Boynton Beach, Florida has challenged a new Florida law prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks on the grounds of religious freedom rights. According to Jewish law, life begins at the first breath. The basis for this position is the passage cited above from Genesis. It is upon that line and others that Judaism takes the position that identity and the rights of personhood come into being at the first breath and not before. Moreover, the Talmud, the body of Jewish civil and ceremonial law, asserts that a fetus is a part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life. So, therefore, a pregnant woman convicted of murder, for example, may be executed without fear that more than one human life is being taken. And, though it is widely agreed that abortion is permitted if continuing the pregnancy poses a threat to the life of the mother, the precise definition of “threat to the life” has varied widely among scholars, some including the mental as well as the physical health of the mother, as in the case of rape and incest. The synagogue contends that the law “prohibits Jewish women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and this violates their privacy rights and religious freedom,” adding that people who “do not share the religious views reflected in the act will suffer” and that it “threatens the Jewish people by imposing the laws of other religions upon Jews.” Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor’s Rabbi, Barry Silver, observed that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed the law at an evangelical church. Concerned that when the line between religion and government begins to blur those who suffer most are the minority religions. “Every time that wall starts to crack, bad things start to happen,” Rabbi Silver said. Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg, scholar in residence at the National Council of Jewish Women agrees. “This ruling would be outlawing abortion in cases when our religion would permit us,” she said, “and it is basing its concepts of when life begins on someone else’s philosophy or theology.” The lawsuit filed by Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor poses some weighty questions: What happens when religious freedom for one faith violates that of another’s? And to what degree may the state be the final authority on morality? A recent Pew Research survey found that 85% of Jews favor abortion in most or all cases, or more than any other religion surveyed. But only 2.4% of American adults identify as Jews. These percentages lead to a third question: Does majority rule also apply to whatever is the religious majority? In signing the Florida bill into law Governor DeSantis has opened the floor to a problem that will need a truly Solomonic resolution. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and are not necessarily those of World Religion News.

Read more at World Religion News: “Does Religious Freedom Include The Right to Have An Abortion?”


14th November 2020

As Salam ualaikum, Will it be halal or Haram to take the upcoming COVID-19​ vaccine? If it is Haram to take and become a mandatory what do we do living here in the West? Jazakallahu khairan


Physicists agree that the Covid-19 Vaccine is a synthetic pathogen and not a vaccine as it does not meet the legal definition. Since this technology is by definition not a vaccine, I cannot categorise the answer under medicine and I advise caution whether taking or not taking the injection.

Vaccines is a legally defined term. Technically, this “Covid19 Vaccine” is a medical device. This medical device has not yet been confirmed to protect or prevent transmission by any authority or independent experts.

According to ingredients, independent experts have found that there’s very little to no information on key ingredients. A large amount of the ingredients that are published and known are found to be harmful for humans but individually do not fall under the Haraam category.

I also checked Fact Checkers who state that the claim of harmful and toxic ingredients inside the Covid-19 jabs are false but none of the fact checkers provided any scientific or medical evidence of it being false but instead pushed claims on how dangerous the virus is which is a political approach and not an academic one.

In conclusion, due to insufficient data, the concealment on adverse effects, lack of information on the unknown ingredients and the established harms of the known ingredients, we would consider it Haraam at this stage due to the number of deaths caused after these new types of injections were rolled out. Every person should be well-informed by asking the doctor what exactly they are being injected with and if the administer of it takes full responsibility if it harms you.……


Pandemic Makes Billionaires Every 30 Hours, 263 Million Could Be Pushed Into Poverty In 2022: Oxfam

Billionaires’ wealth has risen more in the first 24 months of Covid-19 than in 23 years combined, Oxfam International.

As the world’s elite gather at Switzerland’s Davos for the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, the rights group Oxfam International released a report noting that the Covid-19 pandemic has produced a new billionaire every 30 hours, whereas it could push nearly 1 million people into extreme poverty every 33 hours this year.

Releasing a report titled “Profiting from Pain” in Davos, Oxfam further said as the cost of essential goods rises faster than it has in decades, billionaires in the food and energy sectors are increasing their fortunes by $1 billion every two days.

The report showed that 573 people became new billionaires during the pandemic, at the rate of one every 30 hours.

“We expect this year that 263 million more people will crash into extreme poverty, at a rate of a million people every 33 hours,” Oxfam International said.

The WEF, which describes itself as an international organisation for public-private partnership, is hosting its annual meeting in Davos after a gap of more than two years.

“Billionaires are arriving in Davos to celebrate an incredible surge in their fortunes. The pandemic and now the steep increases in food and energy prices have, simply put, been a bonanza for them. Meanwhile, decades of progress on extreme poverty are now in reverse and millions of people are facing impossible rises in the cost of simply staying alive,” said Gabriela Bucher, Executive Director of Oxfam International.

Billionaires’ wealth has risen more in the first 24 months of Covid-19 than in 23 years combined. The total wealth of the world’s billionaires is now equivalent to 13.9 per cent of global GDP, marking a three-fold increase from 4.4 per cent in 2000, the report added.

Bucher further said billionaires’ fortunes have not increased because they are now smarter or working harder.

“Workers are working harder, for less pay and in worse conditions. The super-rich have rigged the system with impunity for decades and they are now reaping the benefits. They have seized a shocking amount of the world’s wealth as a result of privatisation and monopolies, gutting regulation and workers’ rights while stashing their cash in tax havens — all with the complicity of governments,” she added.

Bucher further said, “Meanwhile, millions of others are skipping meals, turning off the heating, falling behind on bills and wondering what they can possibly do next to survive. Across East Africa, one person is likely dying every minute from hunger. This grotesque inequality is breaking the bonds that hold us together as humanity. It is divisive, corrosive and dangerous. This is inequality that literally kills.”

Oxfam’s new research also showed that corporations in the energy, food and pharmaceutical sectors — where monopolies are especially common — are posting record-high profits, even as wages have barely budged and workers struggle with decades-high prices amid the coronavirus pandemic.

According to the report, five of the largest energy companies — BP, Shell, TotalEnergies, Exxon and Chevron — are together making $2,600 profit every second, and there are now 62 new food billionaires.

Together with just three other companies, the Cargill family controls 70 per cent of the global agricultural market and the family alone now has 12 billionaires, up from eight before the pandemic.

From Sri Lanka to Sudan, record-high global food prices are sparking social and political upheaval, while 60 per cent of low-income countries are on the brink of debt distress.

“While inflation is rising everywhere, price hikes are particularly devastating for low-wage workers whose health and livelihoods were already most vulnerable to Covid-19, particularly women, racialised and marginalised people. People in poorer countries spend more than twice as much of their income on food than those in rich countries,” Oxfam said.

It further said that 2,668 billionaires — 573 more than in 2020 — own $12.7 trillion, an increase of $3.78 trillion, while the world’s 10 richest men own more wealth than the bottom 40 per cent of humanity or 3.1 billion people.

It said the richest 20 billionaires are worth more than the entire GDP of Sub-Saharan Africa.

“A worker in the bottom 50 per cent would have to work for 112 years to earn what a person in the top 1 per cent gets in a single year. High informality and overload due to care tasks have kept 4 million women in Latin America and the Caribbean out of the workforce. Half of working women of color in the US earn less than $15 an hour,” other findings of the research showed.

Oxfam further said the pandemic has created 40 new pharma billionaires and alleged that pharmaceutical corporations like Moderna and Pfizer are making $1,000 profit every second just from their monopoly control of the Covid-19 vaccine, despite its development having been supported by billions of dollars in public investments.

“They are charging governments up to 24 times more than the potential cost of generic production, while 87 per cent of people in low-income countries have still not been fully vaccinated,” according to Oxfam.

“Over two years since the pandemic began, after more than 20 million estimated deaths from Covid-19 and widespread economic destruction, government leaders in Davos face a choice: act as proxies for the billionaire class who plunder their economies, or take bold steps to act in the interests of their great majorities,” Bucher said.

“One common economic sense measure above all will put this to the test: whether governments will finally tax billionaire wealth,” she asked.

Oxfam recommended that the governments should urgently introduce one-off solidarity taxes on billionaires’ pandemic windfalls to fund support for people facing rising food and energy costs and a fair and sustainable recovery from Covid-19.

Argentina has adopted a one-off special levy dubbed the ‘millionaire’s tax’ and is now considering introducing a windfall tax on energy profits as well as a tax on undeclared assets held overseas to repay International Monetary Fund debt.

Oxfam also called for ending the crisis profiteering by introducing a temporary excess profit tax of 90 per cent to capture the windfall profits of big corporations across all industries.

It estimated that such a tax on just 32 super-profitable multinational companies could have generated $104 billion in revenue in 2020.

The rights group also urged governments across the world to introduce permanent wealth taxes to rein in extreme wealth and monopoly power, as well as the outsized carbon emissions of the super-rich.

An annual wealth tax on millionaires starting at just 2 per cent, and 5 per cent on billionaires, could generate $2.52 trillion a year — enough to lift 2.3 billion people out of poverty, make enough vaccines for the world, and deliver universal healthcare and social protection for everyone living in low- and lower middle-income countries, it added.

Oxfam said its calculations are based on the most up-to-date and comprehensive data sources available. Figures on the very richest in society come from the Forbes billionaire list.

A Hanafi scholar behind the compilation of Sahih al-Bukhari

Islam Reigns

Imam Is-haaq ibn Ibraheem al-Handhali al-Marwazi al-Hanafi, most commonly known as Ibn Rahuyah (rahimahullah) [d. 238 H] was the student of Imam ‘Abdullah ibn Mubaarak (rahimahullah) who was a student of Imam al-‘Adham, Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah). He was known as Ameer al-Mu-mineen (the leader of the believers) in Hadith. [See: Abu Ghuddah, Umaraa al-Mu-mineen fi al-Hadith 113]

He was one of the greatest Hadith scholars of his time. He dictated 11 000 Hadiths from his memory. He passed away during the night of mid-Sha’ban. Imam Al-Bukhari was among his students. [See for example: Al-Kalaabadhi, Rijaal Sahih al-Bukhari 1/72, Adh-Dhahabi, Siyar ‘Alaam an-Nubala 11/118 and Al-Mizzi, Tahdheeb al-Kamaal 2/10]

Imam Al-Kardari and Imam As-Salihi ad-Dimashqi mentioned him among the narrators who reported from Imam Abu Hanifa and his companions. [See respectively: Al-Kardari, Al-Manaaqib 2/241, As-Salihi, ‘Uqud al-Jumaan 99]

Hafidh Ibn Hajar said about Imam Al-Bukhari, “His determination became stronger on this…

View original post 158 more words


Assaamualaikmum. It seems that this whole Russia Ukraine war is some type of mechanism used to kill the economists of the world.
With a falling economy and a recession in sight what does Mufti Saheb suggest people invest in to be able to withstand such a recession?

27 Zul Qa’dh 1443 – 28 June 2022

The only safe investment nowadays is gold coins.

Keep the focus on Allah Ta’ala. Make dua for aafiyat.



Mujlisul Ulama of S.A.

this is from the majlis vol 21 number 10 January 2013

Brother in the prevailing circumstances the best investment is gold coins. People who had purchased krugerrands five years ago have earned more than 100% profit when they sold their coins. Coins purchased a couple of years ago for R6000 are worth more than R15,000 today. Gold coins are a clean and fully Shar’i compliant investment.
But on-line gold dealing is not permissible. No other investment pays such huge dividends as gold coins.

from majlis vol 24 number 5 august 2017

Do not be deceived by the creature called ‘islamic banking’. There is no halaal Islamic banking anywhere in the world. All so-called ‘islamic’ banks are Riba banks halaalized by liberal molvis and sheikhs – scholars for dollars. They dub their riba and baatil transactions with fancy Islamic terminology to dupe the ignorant public. They are in the same category as these evil carrion halaalizing outfits.
Those who have surplus cash, should invest in gold coins to offset the effects of erosion by inflation.