VACCINATION FATWAS?

QUESTION

I have read three fatwas on the issue of vaccination. The one was issued by Jamiatul Ulama (JUSA), the other one by Mauritanian Ulama, and the third one issued by Dar al-Salam Islamic Research Centre –Pretoria, which is a comment on the two fatwas. There is no clear directive regarding vaccination in all three fatwas. What is the correct view of the Shariah?

ANSWER

The so-called ‘fatwa’ of bogus ‘jusa’, that is the NNB (No Name Brand jamiat of Fordsburg) is bunkum. The statement issued by this bogus entity is devoid of Shar’i substance. It is essentially a bootlicking propaganda stunt to appease the atheists, the Munaafiqeen doctors, and the government. The ghutha (stupid drivel) which the NNB jmaiat has excreted in its statement has been answered in detail by us in many publications which are available on our website.

The Fatwa by the Mauritanian Ulama proclaims the Haq although they have erred on the issue of vaccination. It appears that the Mauritanian Ulama have not understood what exactly vaccination is. In their Fatwa the Mauritanian Ulama state:

“It is not proper to support any vaccine until its safety has been completely verified…” They also advise that the state should “make the vaccines optional without mandating them on the people for travel nor tying certain services to vaccination.”

These statements are in total cognitive dissonance with the Haq stated very candidly by the Mauritanian Ulama. They have quite correctly criticized and condemned the satanic covid vaccination. However, they have mellowed their stance of Haq with the aforementioned statements. Despite acknowledging and condemning the harms of the covid vaccines, they have erred in their advice to the government.

There is no safety in vaccines. These are satanic potions designed by the atheists to further their Dajjaali conspiracies. These potions of the atheist witches and sorcerers consist of filth and poison. Vaccination is the introduction of disease into the human body. There is absolutely no scope for its permissibility in the Shariah. On this score the Mauritanian Ulama have erred.

As for the views proffered by the Dar al-Islam Centre, it is not a fatwa which can guide Muslims. It is a flaccid statement taking up issue with the NNB jamiat without condemning the deception and utter incongruity of these molvis who have bartered away their Imaan for the jeefah (carrion) of this dunya. Their statement merely compares the NNB’s view with the Fatwa of the Mauritanian Ulama. It is not a fatwa for the guidance of Muslims.

9 Rabiul Awwal 1443 – 16 October 2021

THE COVID CONSPIRACY

THE COVID CONSPIRACY

REVEALED: 26 out of the 27 Lancet scientists who trashed theory that Covid leaked from a Chinese lab have links to Wuhan researchers

  • The Lancet letter published in March 2020 called claims that Covid-19 originated in lab ‘conspiracy theories’
  • It was signed by 27 scientists from across the globe working in virology and other medical science fields
  • The widely-read letter effectively ended all debate about origins of the global coronavirus pandemic
  • Investigation by The Telegraph has found 26 out of 27 had connections to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology

By Chris Jewers For Mailonline

Published: 11:24 BST, 11 September 2021 | Updated: 18:11 BST, 15 September 2021 e-mail

Of the 27 scientists who wrote a letter in The Lancet medical journal dismissing the possibility that Covid-19 originated from a Wuhan lab, 26 have links to its Chinese researchers, their colleagues or its benefactors, a new investigation has revealed.

On March 7 last year, the influential journal published the letter in which the 27 scientists said they ‘strongly condemned conspiracy theories’ surrounding the origins of the coronavirus pandemic that has impacted all corners of the world.

All debate into whether Covid-19 had man-made origins or leaked from the lab in Wuhan – the Chinese city that was ground-zero for the virus – was effectively shut down by the letter.

Of the 27 scientists who wrote a letter in The Lancet medical journal dismissing the possibility that Covid-19 originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (pictured), 26 have links to its Chinese researchers, their colleagues or its benefactors, a new investigation has revealed

However, an investigation by The Daily Telegraph newspaper into the signatories has found that 26 of the 27 had some link to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the leak was suspected – calling into question their impartiality.

Signatories include Dr Peter Daszak, the British president of EcoHealth Alliance, which funnelled money into controversial research at a Wuhan Institute of Virology, and UK Government scientific adviser Sir Jeremy Farrar.

Only one – Dr Ronald Corley, a microbiology expert from Boston University – has been found to have no links back to funders or researchers at the Wuhan institute.

Below, the MailOnline looks at those signatories named by The Telegraph’s investigation – and other key figures and organisations – to have links with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Covid-Conspiracy

ABORTED HUMAN FOETUSES NOT ONLY IN VACCINES – SOFT DRINKS TOO ARE PART OF THE SATANISM

Some shareholders of PepsiCo, Incorporated put forward the following proposal to the directors of the Company:

“RESOLVED:

Shareholders request that the Board of Directors adopt a corporate policy that recognizes human rights and employs ethical standards which do not involve using the remains of aborted human beings in both private collaborative research and development agreements.”

Rejecting this proposal, the Company stated:

“The Proposal may be excluded under rule 14a-8i(7) because it pertains to matters relating to the company’s ordinary business operations.”

These are non-Muslim shareholders who are appalled by the rot and satanism of the company in which they have invested. But, today’s molvis, muftis and sheikhs are licking the boots of the atheists by peddling their haraam satanic wares. They crookedly employ and misinterpret Qur’aanic Aayaat, Ahaadith and Fiqhi texts in support of their shaitaani narratives spun in defence of their atheists handlers.

Deepening the sinister satanic dimension, the Company in refusing to deal with the Proposal of its own shareholders, averred:

“The second consideration is the degree to which the proposal attempts to ‘micro-manage’ a company by “probing too deeply into matters of a complex nature upon which shareholders as a group, would not be in position to make an informed judgment.”

Shareholders themselves being highly perturbed by the information that their company utilizes aborted human foetuses in their flavourings, had made the aforementioned proposal. However, the ‘deep probing’ of the shareholders spells disaster for the company’s sales. Millions all over the world will desist from consuming Pepsi on account of this information which exposes the satanism, disease and filth of soft drinks, not of only Pepsi, but of all similar drinks.

Denials by soft drink and VACCINE manufacturers should be outrightly rejected. When the directors of the company refuse to answer to even their bosses, the Shareholders, what can then constrain them to honestly answer to outsiders who have absolutely no say and no control over the satanic companies?

In order to continue bootlicking the atheists and the Bill Gates, Pharma & Iblees cartel, moron molvis, juhala muftis and dacoit sheikhs in pursuit of dollars and other sinister agendas, swallow the falsehood of vaccines not being manufactured from aborted human foetuses.

Whatever these agents of Iblees proffer in vindication of their deglutition is not dissuasive to men of Intelligence. The satanic villainy of these Munaafiq agents of shaitaan is repeatedly exposed by reliable information from reliable sources.

The collaboration by muftis with the Bill Gates cartel is indeed most lamentable. Their zig zag, fence-sitting fatwas, and also outright condonation fatwas expose the nifaaq and kufr lurking in their hearts. These agents of Iblees act as if there will be no Maut and no Qabr for them.

SOFT DRINKS ARE HARAAM!

VACCINES AND VACCINATION ARE HARAAM!!!

5 Rabiul Awwal 1443 – 12 October 2021

MACKOOJI’S KUFR ON CONTAGION

DEVIATE MACKOOJI’S KUFR ON CONTAGION – OUTRIGHT REJECTION OF RASULULLAH’S EXPLICIT DECLARATION

“LAA ADWA” – “THERE IS NO CONTAGION IN DISEASE”

(Rasulullah- Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)

Some miscreant, Mackoojee, parading as a ‘mufti’, in a flapdoodle article consisting of some flaccid arguments to bolster his baatil, kufr opinion of ‘validity’ of contagion, blatantly and stupidly misinterpreting Qur’aanic Verses and Ahaadith, says:

“PROOF FROM THE QUR-AAN AND HADITHS OF CONTAGIOUS SICKNESSES”

Pandemic or not, wherever your death has been decreed, you will taste death. The Qur-aan talks of a nation that fled an epidemic and left their native city fearing a plague death.”

Then the moron presents the Qur’aanic Aayat:

“Have you not seen those who left their homes, thousands in number, to escape death? So Allah told them: “Be dead”. Then He raised them alive…. (Baqarah:243)

According to the tafseer on the ayah, Allah Ta’ala sent a very severe punishment to that nation that He killed them all. All died. Then Allah Ta’ala revived them again through their prophet’s dua’s.”

Just what is the deviate trying to prove with this Aayat? The Aayat knocks out the bottom from his kufr contagion view. Allah Ta’ala had slain the entire populace of tens of thousands because they believed in contagion as the Mulhid Iblees Mackooji believes and propagates to promote the wares of Bill Gates, Pharma & Iblees. This miscreant’s brains are convoluted with kufr, hence he stupidly proffers this very Aayat which denounces and proscribes the shirki/kufr idea of contagion.

The thousands believing in contagion had fled from their town/city and went into self-imposed quarantine to, fleeing from Maut which they believed they could thwart by escaping the hallucinated ‘contagion’ of the plague which had ravaged their town. Despite Mackooji conceding that the flight of the populace from the plague was such a sin which justified “a very severe punishment”, the jaahil presents this Qur’aanic Aayat to substantiate the kufr of the atheists and to peddle the wares of Bill Gates, Pharma & Iblees. There is absolutely not the slightest vestige of proof in this Qur’aanic Aayat for the hallucinated validity of contagion.

Excreting another LIE, the Mulhid, Mackooji says:

“According to a tafseer, Samiriyi the person who misled Bani Israeel with the calf statue in the absence of Musa a.s. got the curse of a contagious sickness that he was condemned to stay away from people and continue saying: “No touching please.”

The condition which had settled on Saamiri was a Curse which had a peculiar effect which may not be interpreted as Adwaa (there is contagion) in negation of the explicit ‘Laa adwa’ declaration of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). A command of our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) on which is based a Shar’i mas’alah may not be abrogated with a peculiar occurrence applicable to a specific person thousands of years prior to the Islam taught by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). On the contrary, the Qur’aan abrogated even the Taurah, Injeel and all previous Shariats. It is the height of jahaalat and kufr to attempt abrogation of the directives of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with episodes which had transpired thousands of years ago. The episode of Saamiri mentioned in the Qur’aan Majeed has absolutely no relevance to contagion. Saamiri’s condition was a lifelong punishment imposed on him for his treacherous idol-making. His condition was peculiar and exceptional.

Citing another Hadith, Mackooji translates: “The sickly contagious should not be brought close to the healthy.” Either he is too stupid or he is guilty of chicanery for not translating “Laa adwaa”, mentioned in the very same Hadith. Firstly, there is no mention in the quoted Hadith about “sickly contagious” as the miscreant mentions. While the word ‘sick/sickly’ is mentioned, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not say “sickly contagious”. This is a lie and a kufr fabrication attributed by Mackooji to our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). On the contrary, negating contagion, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) states in the very same Hadith: “Laa adwaa”. After negating contagion, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) mentions the ‘sick’.

Secondly, the ‘sick’ mentioned in this narration cited by the jaahil fake mufti, refers to sick camels, not to human beings. The advice of not bringing the sick camel in touch with healthy camels, was due to the embedded kufr contagion belief which lingered on in the hearts of people since the era of jaahiliyyah, and to this day this kufr idea persists. In fact Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had said that this idea will continue lingering in the hearts of the people, hence he explicitly and emphatically refuted it by saying: “Laa adwaa’.

It is kufr to present a narration to refute the explicit declaration of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). An interpretation should be found to reconcile the apparent contradiction, or a suitable meaning should be ascribed to it, and in the event of inability to reconcile, it should be set aside. But it may not be presented to set aside, refute and abrogate what Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had explicitly ordered.

In another flaccid bid to prove existence of contagion, Mackooji presents a Hadith which he translates:

“Reported in Muslim that a leprous man was between the Thaqeef group of people (that came to Madina). So Rasulullah Swalallahhou Alaihi Wasallam sent to inform him that: “We have already taken his oath of allegiance from far and hence he should step back.”

Then, the miscreant jaahil presenting his kufr interpretation of this nafration, says:

“Allegiance is done normally hand with hand. But Rasouloullah (Swalallahou Alaihi Wasallam showed us to keep distance from contagious disease.”

This is a blatant lie ascribed to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by the jaahil, mulhid, bogus mufti. There is absolutely no reference to “keeping distance” from the sick. Whatever the reason was for instructing the leper to return, it never was maintenance of devil’s distance as these munaafiqeen of our day are observing at the behest of the atheists.

The jaahil fails to understand that the leper was not ordered to separate himself from the delegation in which he was. The other members of the group were not ordered to distance themselves from the leper. The leper was not ordered to go into quarantine, The people of Thaqeef were not ordered to adopt devil’s distance from the leper. The leper was not prevented from the Musjid. The leper was not isolated in any way whatsoever. He was only instructed to return. If the reason was to adopt devil’s distance, Rasulullah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) would have ordered this. He would not have contented himself with only the return of the leper. This leper freely mingled with society. He was not isolated in any way. There is no proof whatsoever in this Hadith for the contagion theory which the mushrikeen and atheists propagate and which the munaafiqeen have lapped up.

Committing more fraud, Mackooji cites the Arabic text of a Hadith, but deceptively and dishonestly translates only a portion which in his necrotized mind he believes supports the contagion theory of the atheists. Thus he says:

“Hazrat Abu Hureirah r.a. said Rasouloullah Swalallahou Alaihi Wasallam said:

“….run away from a leprous just like you run from a lion.”

Then adding his stupid commentary, he says:

“Normally, it is sunnah to visit a sick and make du’as for him. But here we are prescribed by medical sunnah to stay away from contagious diseases. Hence all healthy precautions prescribed by our health authorities is under this sunnah protocol of protecting oneself from contagious diseases.”

We do not know for how many dollars acquired from the atheist authorities has this miserable jaahil mufti sold his Imaan. He very stupidly and cunningly omits in his translation. This miscreant as well as all other munaafiqeen are misinterpreting Qur’aanic Aayaat and Ahaadith, not for reconciling apparent contradictions as is the practice of the true Ulama. The objective of these mkscreants is to use and misuse the Ahaadith to peddle and promote the kufr theories of the atheists. They have bartered away their Imaan for dollars. They have been appointed as agents of Iblees to promote the covid satanism of Bill Gates, Pharma & Iblees.

The aforementioned Hadith in which the miserable jaahil has committed chicanery begins off with the explicit negation of contagion. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Laa adwaa (there is no contagion), no tiyarah, no haammah and no safar.” After making this explicit declaration, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) added the portion of fleeing from the leper. Whatever the reason for fleeing from the leper may be, it was never because of contagion because Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) refuted contagion before making mention of the leper. Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) made it abundantly clear that there is “no contagion”. He preceded the leper portion with negation of contagion thereby clarifying that fleeing from a leper is not on account of contagion. Whatever the reason may be, it is not contagion, hence the negation stated explicitly by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

If the disease was contagious, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would not have first negated contagion. But, we see that before mentioning about the leper, our Nabi corrected the shirki belief of contagion which was embedded in the minds of the people. The manner of the expression of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) means: Flee from the leper. However, leprosy is not contagious. This is the clear purport of “Laa adwaa” mentioned before proffering the advice of fleeing from a leper, and this portion of the Hadith, that is, “Laa adwaa” has been concealed by the Mackooji chap in a futile attempt to hoodwink ignoramuses.

Tiyara refers to bad omens. Haammah are owls bringing bad luck in terms of the shirki belief of the Mushrikeen. Safar is the belief that misfortune befalls people during the month of Safar. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) refuted all three beliefs of shirk in the same breath, in one statement.

Further negating the contagion rubbish promoted by the Mackooji jaahil, is the fact that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah during the plague did not flee from infected persons. On the contrary, they all huddled together in the Musjid. It is indeed an act of egregious perfidy to utilize the Hadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to refute him and to negate the explicit Laa adwaa declaration made by our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The logical conclusion of negating contagion, that is, interpreting Laa adwaa to mean adwaa, is to also confirm the validity tiyarah, haammah and safar just as the rubbishes confirm validity for contagion despite the express negation stated by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The rationale underlying the advice to flee from the leper was because of the embedded belief of contagion in the minds of the people, especially the simple village folk and Bedouins. It was a belief so ingrained that it could not be easily eradicated from fickle minds. Precisely for this reason Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Four things of Jaahiliyyah will remain in my Ummah. (1) People will not abstain from taunting on the basis of lineage (i.e.racialism). (2) Wailing (on the occasion of someone’s death). (3) Rain is caused by the moon. (4) The belief of contagion.”

Today even these moron molvis, paper muftis, sheikhs and the glut of munaafiqeen believe in the very same shirki concept of contagion which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had refuted more than fourteen centuries ago. The atheists have perpetuated this belief of shirk, and at their behest the jaahil mufti is promoting the shirki belief.

Whilst Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) negated contagion, the munaafiqeen extravasate the very opposite by refuting Rasulullah’s explicit negation of contagion. And, this they do to bootlick the atheists for the dollars. Now why did the jaahil Mackooji conceal the ‘Laa adwaa’ statement which preceded the leper issue? His hidden kufr agenda is quite conspicuous.

Furthermore, despite the advice to flee from the leper, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), himself did not flee. On the contrary, he ate with a leper from the same bowl, saying: Have Tawakkul! This was Rasulullah’s practical refutation of the shirki belief of contagion. Both verbally and practically, by word and deed, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) negated contagion.

Regarding the Hadith which prohibits people from going to a region affected by a plague, the jaahil Mackooji flaunting his kufr-coated jahaalat comments:

“The sunnah teach us to visit the sick. But in these contagious cases, we are instructed to take medical precautions of distancing and segregating.”

Only brains necrotized by kufr are capable of venturing such rubbish understanding of the Hadith. While outsiders are prohibited from entering the epidemic zone, the thousands within the plague-afflicted locality are not ordered to adopt the stupid, ludicrous, satanic ‘medical precautions of distancing and segregating’. Those within the precincts of the plague-ravaged area who are the ones most at ‘risk’ of contracting the disease according to the theory of the baboonist atheists who happen to be the handlers of Mackooji and others of his ilk, are not segregated. The Hadith does not prescribe any devil’s distancing or devil’s segregating for them. No protocols have been prescribed for them by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alahyhi wasallam). The only protocols which Muslims, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah knew during a plague was to rush to the Musjid and increase Istighfaar and Dua.

If contagion was a reality, most certainly, Allah Ta’ala would have revealed detailed protocol guidance to adopt as precautions against the hallucinated contagion. The theory of contagion and its meaning are not new. This was known to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He made specific reference to it, negating and refuting it. Now whoever promotes the opposite in refutation of the explicit Laa adwaa declaration of our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), eliminates his Imaan.

5 Rabiul Awwal 1443 – 12 October 2021

MURTADS IN THE TEMPLE

MURTADS IN THE TEMPLE OF SHIRK

QUESTION

Some Muslim men and females went to a Hindu temple to visit a Hindu priest. The priest was seated on his stage apparently engaging in some prayer/ritual while the Muslims were standing in attendance with their hands folded in front of them. What does the Shariah say in this regard? What is the status of these Muslims?

ANSWER

The Muslims described in the question have become MURTADDS. They have lost their Imaan. If they wish to be Muslims and return to the fold of Islam, they should repent, renew the Kalimah and also their marriages.

In this era in close proximity to Qiyaamah, Muslims are increasingly bartering away their Imaan, becoming murtad, for the miserable carrion of worldly and nafsaani gains and objectives. We are in that era about which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that a person will be a Mu’min in the morning and by the evening he will become a kaafir. Some will be Mu’min at night while becoming kaafir in the morning. Their state will hover and vacillate wildly between the extremes of Imaan and Kufr.

Regarding this era, Hadhrat Abdullah Bin Amr (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrating a Hadith, said:

“A time will dawn when the people will gather in their Musaajid and perform Salaat whilst not a single one will be a Mu’min.”

May Allah Ta’ala keep our Imaan intact until the very last breath of life.

2 Rabiul Awwal 1443 – 9 October 2021

eating is not a time for verbal tabligh and naseehat

ASSALAMU ALAIKUM 9th Shawwaal 1426 (12-11-2005)

Hassaan Sulaiman, Karachi, Pakistan

Respected Brother,

Firstly, it is imperative to understand that the time of eating is not a time for discussion even if the conversation pertains to a Deeni issue. Only if the subject is of urgency and requires immediate attention may one indulge in talk while eating whether it be a necessary worldly or Deeni matter. Remember that it comes in the Hadith that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would sit in a very very humble, even in a croucing manner, while eating. He said that he was a slave and he ate like a slave the food his Master (Allah Azza Wa Jal) presented to him.

In fact, the aversion for discussion during eating is so marked that the obligation of Wujoob has been waived if someone makes Salaam to you while eating. It is not necessary to respond to even Salaam while eating.

From the aforegoing you should understand that eating is not a time for verbal tabligh and naseehat. It is a time to reflect on the wonderful Ni’mat of food which our Raaziq bestows to us. Concentrate on the bounty and kindness of Allah Ta’ala when eating, and be immensely grateful and thankful when every morseful journies successfully down the gullet to reach its abode in the stomach. Thousands of people suffocate and die annually as a consequence of food getting stuck in their throats. The Mashaaikh have advised that with each morsel (lukmah) of food one takes into the mouth, one should recite: Al-Maajido. This is not Masnoon. It is the advice of the great Auliya. You will now realise from the aforegoing explanation that you should adopt a sombre, humble and reflective attitude and mood while eating food.

Deeni Naseehat is a serious act of of ibaadat. It should not be embarked on in a frivolous and noisy environment such as restaurants. This type of naseehat will not exercise any good moral and spiritual effect on the listner Restaurants are venues where fussaaq and fujjaar of a variety of persuasions gather. The Aswaaq (bazaars) are the worst places. These are places where the shayaateen gather, according to the Hadith. On his way our from the heavens on the occasion of his expulsion, Shaitaan supplicated to Allah Ta’ala to garnt him places of majlis, where there will be audiences for him Allah Ta’ala said: Your majlis will be the bazaars and the street corners. It does therefore not behove a man of the Deen to waste time unnecessarily in places frequented and loved by Shaitaan. Make use of the bazaars to the degree of fulfilling your need in the same way as you make use of the toilet to fulfil your need.

(1) It is not permissible to unnecessarily sit in the restaurants to have tea. If a person has a home where he can have his tea and meals, then it is not permissible to have meals and eat and drink in the public. Those who eat unnecessarily in the public are Mardoodush Shahaadat. It is understandable if a musaafir who has no friends, no host, etc. to see to his needs, eats at a restaurant. But for local persons, this is not permissible. If the food of the restaurant is cheaper than what can be prepared at home, then one may buy the food, take it home and eat it in the privacy and sanctuary ofm the home. Eating in public is in conflict with the Sunnah culture of Islam.

(2) As far as ‘capturing the sidewalk’ is concerned, the mas’alah is that the street, pavement and sidewalk are public property. It is mubah for anyone to trade in such places provided they do not cause difficulty to people. If they obstruct the movement of people, then it will not be permissible for them to trade in such public places. But as we have seen in Pakistan and India, there is absolutely no conception of morality regarding the sidewalks. In fact, the municipalities and police collect ‘licence’ fees from the traders who sell on the sidewalks. In view of the kuffaar authorities of Pakistan there is no enforcement of the Shariah’s rules pertaining to public property. It is a case of corruption controlling. In this scenario the issue of legality and illegality in relation to this type of public property has to be set aside.
The occupation of sidewalks by traders is another issue. Even if they cause takleef to people by obstructing the people, it remains permissible to buy from them. But it is not permissible to unnecessarily sit at the tables to eat or to drink tea. There will be some concession for travellers who have no place to eat. But, it is not permissible in general to sit at tables for meals. It is in conflict with the Sunnah culture of Islam.

(3) It is not permissible in general to eat at restaurants or in any public place. Occasionally, if there is a need, one may eat at such places. But do endeavour to find a private place to eat. Usually when we are on a journey and we have no host, and we are constrained to buy food at a restaurant, we do not eat inside the restaurant, even in Makkah and Madinah. We take the food out, find a Musjid or a park or a quiet place and eat on the ground.

Was-salaam

A.S.Desai

Should a woman change her name to her husband’s when she marries or keep her fathers/maiden name?

Question:

Should a woman change her name to her husband’s when she marries or keep her fathers/maiden name?

ANSWER:

ASSALAMU ALAIKUM

10 Safar 1431 (26-01-2010)

Respected Brother,

Your e-mail pertaining to the maiden name of a woman refers.

While there is no Shar’i incumbency for a woman to adopt the surname of her husband, it is not prohibited. There is also no Shar’i incumbency on a woman to go through a kaafir legal process and spend a large sum of money to have her adoptive (husband’s surname) changed.

In this era, more especially in non-Muslim countries where we live, a woman takes to her husband’s surname merely as a convenience in the same way as we make use of the Christian calendar. In fact, it is haraam to expunge the Islamic calendar. It is Waajib for Muslims to keep alive the Islamic calendar. Many important Shar’i masaa-il are linked to the Islamic calendar. Yet most Muslims even the anonymous author calling for the compulsory cancellation of the husband’s surname, do not use the Islamic dates.

Non-Arab Muslims all over the world from the very early epoch of Islam did not adopt the Arab custom of naming themselves , e.g. Abdullah Ibn Muhammad ibn so and so…, despite the fact that it was Rasulullah’s style and the style of the Sahaabah. There is no incumbency to adopt an Arab style which the Shariah does not impose on us.

If we are going to write only Islamic dates on cheques and other legal documents in the kuffaar country, it will create serious problems. Despite Islamic dates being Waajib, circumstances constrain us to adopt the Christian calendar. In a single city there may be 10 families, all having the same surname, e.g. Ahmad, since Ahmed was their father. In every Ahmed family there is a Maryam, Aisha, Faatimah, etc. Every Maryam thus is ‘Maryam Binti Ahmed’. We have therefore ten women with the name ‘Maryam Binti Ahmed’. Now when one of them dies, if it is announced only that Maryam Binti Ahmad has passed away, no one will know to whom the reference is made. Thus, circumstances constrain us to say: “The Maryam Binti Ahmed died who is the wife of Abdullah Qaasim. Instead of saying or writing on the notice board, ‘Maryam Binti Ahmed, the wife of Abdullah Qaasim, there is no Shar’i restriction to stating the same long sentence in an abbreviated form such as ‘Maryam Qaasim’. Everyone in the town/neighbourhood will know exactly who this particular Maryam who has died is.

Instead of each time when there is a need, to say “Aishah Binti Abdullah, the wife of Husain Patel”, the abbreviation, Aishah Patel is used. This merely conveys the information that Aishah is Husain Patel’s wife, and nothing more. If ‘Aishah’ Patel’ is haraam, then saying ‘Aishah is the wife of Husain Patel’ will likewise be haraam. But just as this is drivel, so too is the former drivel.

With regard to the wife adopting the husband’s surname, it was never ‘eagerness to copy the West’ which led to this. Copying the West on this issue is the furthest from the minds of Muslims, even modernist Muslims. Yes, dress-styles, eating from tables, with knives and forks, shaving the beard, kuffaar hair styles and many other practices which Muslims have adopted are undoubtedly in imitation of the kuffaar West, hence haraam.

It is a pity that the writer of the article has selected to remain anonymous. If he reveals himself then we could direct a number of questions to him to ascertain the degree of his adoption of western life styles. From the style of his writing and thinking it is almost certain that he is a Salafi. If so, then his permanent practice will be to strut around with a bare head in public. They don’t believe in Rasulullah’s headgear. Salafis have adopted the western haraam practice of shunning headgear. Another salient practice of almost all Salafis is to dress exactly like kuffaar with jeans, T-shirts and the like. While they turn a blind eye to such haraam, futile and destructive practices which they have copied from the West, they harp on non-issues which have been adopted for convenience without the intention of emulating the west.

It is not contended that Islam requires a woman to change her name at marriage. By the same token, Islam does not prohibit a woman from adopting her husband’s surname. The imagined prohibition is a figment of someone’s mind. While there may be “nothing in the Sunnah to indicate that a woman should take her husband’s name after she gets married”, there is also nothing in the Sunnah to indicate that we should ride or not ride in cars and planes, and use or not use phones and adopt and use or not the innumerable amenities and practices which have become part of life. Is there anything in the Sunnah to indicate that Muslims should not wear headgear and strut around in public with bear heads like the kuffaar?

The absence of an indication in the Sunnah is not a principle for prohibition. There are principles in Fiqah – in the Shariah – on which the ahkaam are formulated. Wildly fluctuating personal opinion has no share in formulating Shar’i rulings.

Adopting the husband’s surname was simply not a practice among the Arabs. This is not a basis for prohibition. The objector should produce a Shar’i daleel for prohibition.

When a woman adopts her husband’s surname, she is not concealing her lineage. She is not denying that a certain man is her father. The entire community is fully aware of her lineage. Her lineage is not lost by adopting her husband’s surname.

The Qur’aanic verse cited by the anonymous objector has no reference to a woman adopting her husband’s surname. It pertains to an adopted child. In this regard there is an imperative need to retain and publicize the adopted child’s surname to avoid confusion. If this is not done, the child could end up marrying his own sister or sister marrying her own brother. Since concealing the child’s lineage leads to confusion, deception and possible haraam, it is essential to declare the child’s lineage. But there is no such concealment and confusion in the case of a woman adopting her husband’s surname.

The adoption of the husband’s surname is not motivated by any idea of ‘honour’. It is simply an issue of convenience like the adoption of the Christian calendar, nor is it an expression of love as the objector reads into the issue.

While originally she is the daughter of so and so, we shall go further and say that she forever remains the daughter of so and so. But, at the same time she has become the wife of so and so. There is no prohibition in saying that she is the wife of so and so. This is the reality.

When her husband dies or she is divorced and marries another man, what Shar’i prohibition is there to prevent her from taking the new surname? This question of the objector is superfluous.

The rulings to which the objector refers, are not attached to her name as he alleges. The rulings are related to her physical being. Her name change brings no change to the rulings pertaining to inheritance, her mahram, etc. Everything remains exactly the same despite her assumption of her husband’s surname. It is palpably drivel to say that “taking her husband’s name overlooks all that”. It overlooks nothing at all.

The claim: “Besides, the husband has nothing that makes him better than his wife’s father.” , is erroneous. The husband has much which makes him better than her father with regard to her. After marriage, her greater obedience shifts from her parents to her husband. In relation to the wife, the husband has greater say and authority over her than her father. She is subservient to her husband to a far greater degree than to her father. Now when her entire being is subordinate to her husband, what wrong is there if her name too becomes subordinate to her husband? What Shar’i argument is there to prohibit the subordination of her name?

The fact that we shall be called by our father’s name in the Hereafter is no prohibition for adopting the husband’s surname. Some prohibited things in this world will become permissible in Jannat. And, some permissible things of the Hereafter are prohibited for us here in this world.

The argument of the objector is without merit. It is permissible for a woman to adopt her husband’s name. Such adoption is devoid of emulation of the West or any other haraam factor. And Allah knows best.

Was-salaam

A.S. Desai

For

Mujlisul Ulama of S.A..


O Allah, make us the ones who guide aright & are guided aright, who are neither misguided nor do they lead others astray. At peace with Your friends, at war with Your enemies. Loving with Your love those who You love. Despising with Your antagonism those of Your creatures who oppose You. O Allah, this is the supplication & it is up to You to grant it. This is the effort & the reliance is on You.

‘FATWA’ OF THE CANADIAN IMAMS

FATWA OF THE CANADIAN IMAMS

THE IGNORANCE AND DEVIATION OF THE CANADIAN IMAMS THEIR BASELESS, STUPID VACCINE ‘FATWA’

A liberal/modernist council of imams of Canada states in its statement in support of the satanic covid call of the atheists:

“Due to the strong compulsion and compelling urgency to save lives and stop the spread of the disease, vaccines are strongly recommended.”

This misleading and deceptive claim is utterly baseless, lacking in entirety in Shar’i daleel. This kuffaar bootlicking cartel of Canadian imams has not presented any evidence from the Shariah for their “strong compulsion and compelling urgency to save lives and stop the spread of the disease”. Their entire case is the product of meekly submitting to whatever has been disgorged by the atheists and munaafiqeen who are primarily these doctors who masquerade as Muslims whilst their hearts are saturated with kufr and nifaaq. Thus, their conclusion is based on what they say are “consultations with medical advisors and at the request of many Muslim medical practitioners, healthcare providers and concerned Muslims.” This entire cartel is person’a non grata in Shar’i terms.

Every person understands that the ‘consultations’ were with only such entities who are subservient to the instructions of the Bill Gates atheist cartel. The consultations were with handpicked morons who peddle the kufr theories of the atheists. Informed persons of intelligence, in fact, even these miserable imams are well aware of the diametrically opposite view held by and propounded by thousands of medical doctors, experts and scientists of the highest class in terms of their own kuffaar criteria. Yet, these unfortunate imams grovelling at the boots of the atheists, in their bid to appease the government, have not even hinted at the opposite view which fully corroborates the Laa adwaa (Disease is not contagious) concept stated explicitly and emphatically by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Why would professed Muslims, especially ‘imams’  sweep under the carpet and conceal  views which support  the Islamic concept stated by our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and descend into the  inequity of  vigorously  supporting  and promoting the view of atheists, which  negates  the latter? That is because they suffer from the disease of Nifaaq(Hypocrisy). They leave no stone unturned to appease those kuffaar who they have appointed to be their leaders, and this villainy is dictated by worldly and nafsaani agendas.

FatwaOfCanadaImaams

Download this book

Proclaiming The Haqq

PROCLAIMING THE HAQQ

INTRODUCTION

In March 1998, Shaikh Huzaifi, delivered a Jumuah Khutbah of pure Haqq in Musjidun Nabawi in Madinah Munawwarah.

In his Khutbah, the Honourable Shaikh analyzed and exposed the conspiracies and kufr of the Shiahs, Yahood and Nasaaraa.

He candidly criticized the kufr interfaith movement as a dark plot of the kuffaar to undermine and destroy Islam. Immediately after delivering this message of the Haqq, the evil Saudi Regime dismissed the Shaikh from his post. However, circumstances constrained the regime to re-instate him.

Today the Islamic character of Saudi Arabia under the ooppressive domination of the current kaafir king, has vanished. Western kufr law and culture are rapidly displacing all forms of the Deen in all spheres of life. The Saudi state has now effectively become Darul Kufr.

Note: The English rendition of the Shaikh’s Arabic Khutbah was not prepared by “The Majlis.” We have produced it verbatim.

Proclaiming the Haqq