A husband can never rape his wife. when a man marries a woman and pays her mahr, she becomes lawful for him. If she refuses conjugal relations in spite of being in his nikah and after having accepted the mahr, then the la’nat (curse) of Allah and the malaaikah descend on her. The laws of the kuffaar are satanic. A woman who denies conjugal relations to her husband is termed naashizah (grossly disobedient). She is not entitled to receive maintenance from her husband. The case of husband- rape in America is a reflection of the corruption and immorality of kufr society.

If a Muslim’s wife refuses to have conjugal relations with her husband without valid shar’i reason, e.g. she is not sick, then he is allowed to force himself on her. However, living in a kufr country one should be careful of being charged for statutory rape. If the woman is of such a low degree of imaan that she will not hesitate to report the matter to the police. If she is such a woman, then the best course would be to divorce her. When a wife refuses to fulfil the rights of the marriage and refuses to permit conjugal relations, then it is no use living with such a woman. This advice of divorce is given if it has become the practice of the woman to refuse conjugal relations. Howerer, if her refusal is an occasional thing, one should not take drastic steps.


Our attitude and method of naseehat are spontaneous and stems from the heart. It is difficult to change one’s style——a style which emanates from the heart and which is the product of Deeni concern. While superficially it appears to be logical to argue that more people may be attracted to our message if we adopt a softer attitude, at the back of our minds we discern that in practice this will not be so. Inspite of our outward “harshness”, in actual fact there is no real harshness. We simply state the Haqq and we detest to leave people in ambiguity regarding any Deeni issue. Over the years many thousands of people from all over the world and from all walks of life have referred to us for Deeni guidance. Even modernists, university students, professionals, doctors, lawyers, young girls who do not observe Purdah, fussaaq and others, all refer their hearts’ problems to us, and this despite the fact that they are modernists and aware of the orthodox and strict stand of the Majlis. Something is attracting them in spite of their modernity. We believe that, that something is the Haqq. When a word comes from the mouth it reaches only the ears of the audience. But when it emanates from the heart, it penetrates the hearts of the audience.
Brother, we do not choose deliberate hard words to convey our naseehat. Allah Ta’ala has created people with different attitudes and different dispositions. In this world there is a need for all types. At times, the normal and usual ‘soft’ naseehat is not sufficient to jolt people from their slumber of indifference. A strong injection or an amputation is sometimes necessary. Sometimes a sweet medicine simply is of no avail. Just as there was Isaa alayis salaam so too was there Musaa alayhis salaam. Both had different attitudes and dispositions, poles apart. In the same way, there was Umar radhiallahu anhu on the one extreme and Uthmaan radhiallahu anhu on the other extreme. But both were on the Haqq and both had their respective successes. Anyhow, in this matter Allah Ta’ala knows best. Make dua for us that Allah Ta’ala grants us good hidaayat and the ability and taufeeq to give naseehat in the proper and in a beneficial manner. If we are wrong in our attitude, may Allah Ta’ala forgive us and rectify our wrong.
We are not perturbed by what others comment in regard to our style. We firstly endeavor to recognize the Haqq and for the sake of Allah Ta’ala the naseehat is made in the way in which we think is only proper. We have seen considerable dividends over the years in our style. Even if initially some people may conclude that we are crazy, ultimately the very same people, if they are sincere, will be attracted by the Haqq in some way or the other.
The writer has nothing much to tell about himself. He is just as ordinary as you. He is in need of your duas and the duas of other friends and well-wishers. His Ilm is deficient and he lacks in Taqwa. However, by the Fadhl of Allah Ta’ala and the barakat of his Sheikh, Hadhrat Masihihhullah rahmatullah alayh he has managed to walk a tight-rope and remain on the Haqq while surrounded by baatil. This is not due to any goodness or virtue of the writer, but due solely the Fadhl of Allah Ta’ala and the duas of the Asaatizah and the illustrious Sheikh who has guided us when we were plunged in darkness.


Nike has many adverts like the above. Pushing the love of sports and games. Someone mentioned that they same thing is mentioned in the Qur’an meaning “life is a game, or life is sport” so why do muslims speak out against sport and play when the quran speaks on the same terms. The question was sent to the majlis ulama of south africa and the response is recorded below. this question was asked by in 1998. the advertising words may have changed but the theme is still the same at Nike.

The Qur’aanic aayat: “This worldly life is but play and amusement….” in fact denounces such futility and play. At the end of the aayat, it is said: “And, the Aakhirah is best for those who fear. What have you no sense?” In other words, those who opt for the play and amusement preferring it to the abode of the Aakhirah lack intelligence. The aayat in question as well as many other verses and numerous Aahadith condemn futility and the play and amusement of this world.

The idiomatic expression as appearing in the aayat clearly conveys disgust for the play and amusement of the world. On the contrary the Nike advertisement conveys by its style and tenor encouragement for the futility of this world. those versed in Qur’aanic Arabic will readily understand the meaning the aayat conveys.


Question: regarding the last issue of the majlis there is a hadith regarding a woman not taking off her burqa in any place that is not the home of her husband.
what should we take from this hadith?
does it mean that when a woman goes out with her husband and the husband is with the men in one room and the ladies are in another room the wife should still sit in burqa?
does it mean that women that work in hospitals or schools where there is purdah, they still have to wear their burqas while teaching etc.?
what should we understand from the hadith?

Answer: The fact that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) cursed the woman who removes her jilbaab in a place other than her home indicates the emphasis of maintaining hijaab. If a woman visits friends and relatives, there is the possibility of ghair mahram male relatives or her friend’s husband accidentally coming within view. This happens often in homes, especially small houses. The ghair mahram’s gaze is sure to fall on her gaudy or adorned dress which she wears under her jilbaab. The Fuqaha have explicitly ruled that it is not permissible for a man to look at any garment of a woman. Gaudy feminine garments also excite passion in man. For this reason it is Makrooh for a man to drink water from a glass if he is aware that a woman has drunk from it, and vice versa.
A man whose eyes accidentally fall on the beautiful dress of a woman even from behind, is sure to be passionately excited. Most men who lack Taqwa, instead of reciting Ta-awwuz and Wa La Houla, will begin fantasizing about the woman. As it is, his own wife is ‘stale’ for him. Even if he did not see the face of the woman, her dress is likely to influence his heart. It is therefore not permissible for a woman to be careless by removing her jilbaab when she visits other homes. She can remove her Niqaab, but she should not strut about in the homes of other people without her jilbaab. Rasulullah (sallallahu layhi wasallam) said: “A woman advances (comes forward) in the form of shaitaan, and retreats in the form of shaitaan.” In other words, whether a man sees a woman from the front or from behind, shaitaan is eveready to excite his nafsaani passion. Hence, as far as possible, a woman should not unnecessarily remove her outer-cloak when she is visiting relatives and friends.
In the first place, there is no hijaab in the hospitals and schools of today. It is not permissible for women to work in surroundings where they are unable to observe proper Shar’i hijaab. In a truly Islamic state, the authorities will make proper arrangements for correct observance of hijaab in such places where it is essential to have female staff, e.g. females-only hospitals. Furthermore, every law has exceptions. An exception cannot be cited to undermine the general law.


Eating chilli peppers is good for the lungs and helps clear stuffy noses due to colds, says Irwin Ziment, professor of medicine UCLA. He also recommends hot peppers for emphysema, sinusitis, hay fever, asthma and chronic bronchitis. Hot foods thin secretions in the air passages.

FIGHTS NAUSEA Recent tests in Denmark showed that ginger reduced seasick sailors’ vomiting by 70%. British research found ginger as effective as drugs at relieving nausea after surgery.
REDUCES INFLAMMATION. In Japan, an anti-inflammatory drug is based on gingerol, the aromatic compound in ginger. A study at Denmark’s Odense University found that three quarters of 56 patients with rheumatoid arthritis or muscular discomfort got relief from pain and swelling after taking ginger daily for at least three months.
THINS BLOOD. Several studies suggest ginger makes blood platelets less likely to stick together, helping to prevent blood clots that lead to heart attacks and strokes. A Danish researcher, K.C. Srivastava, found the same effect in cumin, turmeric and especially cloves, which are stronger than aspirin in this aspect.
(The Hadith too mentions the medicinal properties of cloves – YMMA)
KILLS GERMS. Ginger and turmeric, destroy bacteria including salmonella, a common cause of food poisoning.



Nov 19 Posted by Editor, cairnsnews

Forced vaccinations now can be legally stopped-no quality control for 32 years

Wide ramifications for Australia

Latest links to court case:  https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/168629

Case 1:18-cv-03215-JMF Document 18 Filed 07/09/18

Vaccine injury lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,&  Del Bigtree, producer of the suppressed anti-vaccine documentary, Vaxxed and the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) are credited with this victory. They demanded the relevant government documents proving that all federally approved vaccines had been tested for quality over the past 32 years — and there were none.

Here are the huge legal and practical implications in this legal victory for the American people:

A recent US court case revealed there has been no quality control over vaccines manufactured by big-pharma for at least 32 years. Autism rates are excepted to drop dramatically now that parents can stop the poison being injected into their kids

o This means that the US Department of Health and Human Services and all vaccine makers have been lying to the American people for over 30 years about the effectiveness and safety of vaccines; this may
ultimately mean that continuing the existence — at least in their current form — of five US “healthcare” agencies are now in doubt: the CDC, the FDA, the IOM, the NIH and the “Health” part of DHHS itself;
this may also threaten the existence of state medical boards and exclusive medical guilds like the AMA:

o This means that vaccine makers have been fraudulently exempt from what all other pharmaceutical drug makers have been forced to do concerning biannual recertification for quality and effectiveness — meaning that that their vaccines have never been tested for quality and have had no proven safety or effectiveness for over 30 years;

o This case can now be legally cited by all parents fraudulently mandated by any government/organizational regulation/requirements that they must vaccinate their children for school or any other activity to stop
the forced vaccination of their children;

o This case can now be legally cited by all employees being mandated by their employers to be vaccinated in order to retain their jobs;

o This case can now be legally cited by all those who seek compensation for vaccine injury, making it likely that the pharmacidical vaccine industry can in the near future be legally bankrupted out of existence, like Bayer-Monsanto after the landmark legal victory won by the dying landscaper in San Francisco several weeks ago, as well as their stock value plummeting precipitously;

o The future of allopathic medicine in its current form is now in doubt, as well as that of the global pharmacidical cartel, since almost all of the drugs allopathic practitioners prescribe come from pharmacidical corporations which have also committed vaccine fraud and injury;

o The existence of the deep-state corporate mainstream news media will now also be further endangered, since 70% of their income stream comes from the global pharmacidical cartel, which in America has been
responsible for 750,000-1 million human sacrifices per year for at least the past half century;

o Autism rates will now likely plummet, freeing the American people from another deep state-engineered debility, and providing further evidence of mass vaccination-caused autism;

o All government officials who have passed laws legalizing vaccine fraud at the state, national, or international level, or otherwise aided and abetted this vaccine fraud can now be charged with vaccine fraud, criminal malfeasance and in some cases, war crimes under the Nuremberg Code.


This letter from Dawn Bell, an American health professional, warns that vaccines are not safe and become ineffective after 10 years. She says her daughter was injured by vaccination:

In the recent mumps outbreak, 100% of the mumps cases were college students, who were ALL 100% vaccinated. 90% (9 out of 10) people who died from last years flu epidemic had received the flu shot.

Herd immunity can only be achieved when 85% of the population is immune to a disease. Vaccines are only good for about 10 years, at absolute max 20 years, so most people over the age of 20 are not immune any longer. So now you have created a situation of a “false” immunity.

Those who get the chicken pox are immune for life, those who get the vax are not. I do believe, maybe to your surprise that vaccines can and have saved lives, however, think about when MD’s we’re giving out antibiotics like popcorn at the movies, it started having a bad affect on our immune systems and gut. It’s propbable to think that the same thing might start happen with the overuse of vaccines.

For really deadly diseases, hey I’m all for it, but they started making so much money that you all of a sudden had to start getting vaccines for everything, even the everyday childhood diseases and for stuff like Hep B at 1 day old, really? The rise in autism and other sensory diseases has been mind boggling, as well as childhood autoimmune disorders.

32 people get sick from ecoli and FDA tells everyone to stop buying romaine lettuce, but thousands report issues with vaccines and it’s pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Then everyone is surprised when people get upset and start asking questions.

I’m an Occupational Therapist and was all in with the vax thing, until I watched my daughter lose Speech ability directly following a vaccine. I was one telling everyone it was a coincidence until I saw it happen with my own eyes to my own kid. They have NEVER done safety studies in these vaccines have NEVER been studied being given all at once as they do.

It’s common sence that all of these vaccines given to a child with a developing immune system and neuro system might have some issues. It’s the lying about it that really has everyone worried though. When they say safety studies have been done when no one can find them, then Kennedy offers $$ for anyone who show they have been done. Of course no one could produce them so hence this lawsuit and of course, they haven’t. My OBGYN told me the flu shot was studied and proven safe during pregnancy.

So I go to work, as a nurse friend for the flu vax insert and guess what? It clearly stated it had not been studied in children or pregnant woman and if given to pregnant woman you should call and add them to a registry. Furthermore, on the front of the box, it stated to NOT give to kids under 5! I could keep going, but I’ll end with, have you watched the CDC video aproving the Hep vax?

If not, you should because it’s extremely interesting! First, they give to 1 day old babies and it’s never been approved for those under 18. When asked if it was safe to give with other vaccines they said they didn’t know but we’re making the assumption it was generally safe like other vaccines. Then when asked about the “new” mutated gene thing they said the same thing, “we’re making the assumption that’s it’s safe like other vaccines.”

They were then asked about the heart and autoimmune markers seen in their internal study and they acknowledged that they saw the markers and were going to monitor it and make determination Dec 2020 whether not there was a problem, and in the mean time it’s being given to day old babies. So yes, there are concerns that need to be addressed about the safety of vaccines and I’m thrilled that it’s finally being addressed!!!

19 Sha’baan 1442 – 2 April 2021


Question number one is it permissible for a women in burqa to ride in a lift alone, and here alone means without a mahram and when no one else is in the lift.

(1) Yes, it is permissible for a woman to ride alone in a lift if she is properly clad in hijaab dress. But the problem is that she will not be able to guarantee that she will be alone in the lift. She might start off alone, but if the lift stops at a floor and men enter, what will she do? So, while in principle it is permissible for a woman to be alone in a lift, in practice it is not permissible because her safety and her Purdah cannot be guaranteed. If circumstances compel her to use a lift, she should be accompanied by her mahram.

Question number two is it permissible for a man to get into a lift when a women is in the lift with her fasiq husband who doesn’t care about purdah?

(2) It is not permissible for a man to get into a lift if there is a woman inside even if she is accompanied by a mahram who is not a faasiq. If the mahram is a fasiq, then the position is worse.

Question number three, is it better not to get on the lift when a man who is not a fasiq is on the lift with his wife who is in purdah?

(3) In our view it is not permissible for a man to get into a lift if the lift is occupied by a woman with even a pious mahram. The lift is a small room (cubicle). It is not permissible for a ghair mahram to be in such a small cubicle with a woman even if she is accompanied by a mahram. When Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) arrived in the Land of Madyan and when Nabi Shuayb (alayhis salaam) sent his daughter to call him, then when Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) began walking, he instructed the female to walk at a distance behind him. This was the demand of Purdah and to avoid the eyes falling on the woman if she had to walk in front. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘A woman approaches in the form of shaitaan, and she departs in the form of shaitaan.’ In other words, shaitaani temptation exists when she comes toward you as well as when she moves away, and you view her from behind.

Personally i’ve been avoiding all situations in my apartment complex, although i live on the seventh floor. if i’m alone and people get on the lift with me i get off the lift whether there is a mahram, or not and whether the woman is in burqa or not. my friends including the ulema feel i’m going to far.

(4) Your attitude and practice in this regard are 100% in conformity with the letter and spirit of Shariah. Maintain it, and do not worry what your friends and the Ulama over there say. Minds, hearts and attitudes today are all influenced by western liberalism, hence Islamic culture appears strange to even the Ulama of this era. The following Hadith aptly suits
our era: ‘Islam began forlorn. Soon will it return to that forlorn state. Therefore give glad tidings to the forlorn ones.’


Once Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) saw a man performing Salaat with his izaar (lower garment) hanging below his ankles. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) instructed him to renew Wudhu and repeat the Salaat. When someone asked the reason for renewal of Wudhu, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that the Salaat was not valid. Allah Ta’ala does not accept a Salaat if the trousers is below the ankles. This is the rule applicable to all haraam acts perpetrated during Salaat. Salaat performed with the clothing of the kuffaar, with jeans, T-shirt, with logos inscribed on the garments, with short sleeves exposing the elbows, with such tight-fitting pants which display the form of the buttocks, etc. is NOT VALID.
Salaat in such a reprehensible manner has to be incumbently repeated. The offensive clothes should be discarded. If deficiency of Imaan does not allow the criminal to completely abandon the haraam western/kuffaar dress style, then at least he should ensure that when performing Salaat he is dressed correctly so that at least his Salaat is not flung back into his face from the heavens like a filthy rag as is mentioned in the Hadith.

Wearing the trousers on or below the ankles is haraam at all times. The sin is aggravated if this haraam style is adopted in Salaat. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had ordered not only the repetition of the Salaat. He had ordered also renewal of Wudhu. The same command will apply to Salaat performed with the devil’s mask (i.e. the corona virus mask). In fact the stricture regarding this mask is more severe in view of the fact that it is accompanied by the kufr belief of disease being contagious, and also because it is in flagrant violation and rejection of Rasulullah’s prohibition of face covering during Salaat.

I usually wear a half burqah and pants when performing Namaaz. The burqah is just above the waistline. An Apa told me that my Namaaz is not valid with this burqah. She said that I should repeat my Namaaz. Is she correct? What happens with the Namaaz which I had performed in the past with such a burqah?
The Apa is 100% correct. With the cloth which in terms of the Shariah is not a burqah, your Namaaz is not valid. For a Muslim female it is shameless for her legs to be exposed. Pants are not sufficient covering for the legs. You should make qadha of your past Namaaz.


In the Shariah there is a principle called Ahwanul Baliyyatain which means the ‘lesser of two evils or the lesser of two calamities. In terms of this principle, when one is confronted with two evils or two calamities, one should opt for the lesser one. In some quarters this principle has been misunderstood. Even some learned men misinterpret it, thus involving people in the commission of haraam. The operation of this principle is based on a condition. This condition is the non-existence of a lawful alternative. This principle cannot be availed of, if a lawful option exists. Only when confronted by two evils and there is no exit may this principle be applied. When there is simply no other alternative, the Shariah orders that one should save oneself from the greater calamity by acceptance of the lesser calamity.

An example of the operation of this principle is given in the Qur’aan Majeed. Eating haraam meat is permitted to save one’s life. When a person is in the dire straits of starvation and no halaal food is available, then to save oneself from death, consumption of even pork becomes permissible. The conditions for this permissibility are:
(1) Total unavailability of halaal food of any kind whatever.
(2) Eating only sufficient to save one’s life.
Eating to satiation is haraam as well as eating for taste or pleasure. The two evils or calamities in this example are death due to starvation and consumption of haraam. The lesser evil according to the Shariah, not according to our logic, in this example is consumption of haraam to the extent of need.
A principle cannot be applied in isolation of its shuroot (conditions). It is not lawful to apply the principle and ignore the conditions which are essential for the validity of the principle. Thus, if a halaal option is available, it will be haraam to apply the principle of Ahwanul Baliyyatain
Once this has been understood there will be no difficulty in applying this principle. However, if someone is simply bent on misinterpretation for the purpose of gaining nafsaani satisfaction, then there is no rational argument for such a person. This man of dhalaal is not the subject of this address.
Some examples will be cited to illustrate the misinterpretation of this principle, which is generally motivated for the mismanipulation of situations at the behest of the nafs.
The question is asked: Is it better for a woman to work in her husband’s shop or elsewhere in a stranger’s business where she will be among ghair mahrams? Since the lesser evil is for a wife to be with her husband in his shop, misguided learned men advise that the woman should work in her husband’s shop. Even though she will be constrained to commit many Purdah violations and ruin her modesty in the purdahless environment of the shop. They argue that in view of it being the lesser evil, it is permissible for her to be employed in her husband’s shop.
This fallacious argument has completely ignored the essential condition of this principle. There is a third lawful- alternative available here, and that is adherence to the original command of Allah Ta’ala, viz., women should remain in the holy precincts of their homes. In the first instance it is haraam for women to emerge unnecessarily from their homes. It is the obligatory duty of the husband to ensure that he maintains his family. It is not the duty of the wife to earn and feed the family nor assist with this obligation. It is a kabeerah sin to pull her out of the sanctity of the home and plunge her into an environment of immorality and Hijaab violations. In this example, the woman is not compelled by anyone to choose between two evil options. She simply has to reject both options and remain at home in obedience to the Qur’aanic command:
“And (O you women!) remain within your homes.”
It is better for a woman to participate in a thikr session in a Madrasah hall than to wander around in a hypermarket. Since ‘the lesser evil is the former, votaries of public halqah thikr claim that she should participate in this form of thikr. Again, the essential condition for the application of this principle is ignored. A woman is not under compulsion to either visit the hypermarket or to participate in the thikr session. Since there is no such obligation or compulsion or need for her, it is not permissible for her to invoke this principle. She has to simply reject both options and follow the Islamic injunction of remaining at home. In fact, inviting women to participate in public lectures, thikr, Taraaweeh, etc., is not influenced by the principle of Ahwanul Baliyyatain. It is simply a new-fangled teaching of misguided learned men who seek to justify their errors by resorting to misinterpretation of the principles and teachings of the Shariah.


Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) branded a woman who goes on a journey without a valid Shar’i mahram as one who does not believe in Allah and the Day of Qiyaamah. A woman who proceeds on any journey without a valid mahram, be it for Hajj, is cursed. Her ibaadat is rejected and she remains under the la’nat of Allah Ta’ala and His Angels as long as she is on the journey and away from her home.
A mahram refers to a male who is a close relative of a woman with whom marriage never was permissible nor will ever be permissible. Father, grandfathers, sons, maternal uncles, paternal uncles and nephews are in this category. A woman is allowed to go on a journey with these mahram males. However, there are two conditions which qualify a mahram to be valid for accompanying the female. These are:
(1) Buloogh (adulthood)
(2) Aadil (uprighteous)
If the male is under 15 years, he will not be adequate for being the mahram of a woman on a journey.
If the mahram is baaligh (an adult) but is a faasiq, i.e. not uprighteous, then too it will not be permissible for a female to travel with him even if he happens to be her father or son.
A grave misunderstanding is that as long as the male is an adult and a close relative, a woman can travel with him. When the mahram cannot fulfil the duties for which he has to accompany the woman, his companionship with her is meaningless, in fact detrimental for her Imaan and Akhlaaq (character).
The duty of the Shar’i mahram is to safeguard the honour of the woman with whom he is travelling. He has to attend to all her needs and affairs along the journey. He has to protect her and ensure that she remains in hijaab/purdah. It is his Waajib duty to keep her safe from all aspects of moral fitnah to the best of his ability. If the mahram is a faasiq, he will obviously be careless and unconcerned in such matters which the Shariah imposes on him. The most important duty of the mahram is to guard the hijaab of the woman. A modernist/faasiq in the first place does not believe in the
Qur’aanic ahkaam of Hijaab. He is not concerned with whom the woman will speak and mingle nor does he see anything wrong with strange men conversing with the woman. Such a mahram is vile, shameless and dishonourable. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) described such a mahram as a dayyooth (evil cuckold).
He is NEVER an adequate mahram for a woman on a journey. It is haraam for a woman to go on a journey with such a
mahram even if he happens to be her son.
Another misunderstanding is the idea that as long as a mahram is accompanying the woman, other males may also travel in the same vehicle on pleasure trips. It should be well understood that to do so will be permissible only when necessary. But to plan a pleasure trip or a holiday from home in such a way that all and sundry travel in the same vehicle, is not permissible. The common holidaying practice is for a man to travel together in the same vehicle with his
sisters-in-law or other females for whom hijab is waajib (obligatory). Even if a mahram is with, the purpose of his
companionship is defeated and negated in this situation. Contact with ghair mahram males with its evil moral consequences is an almost certainty in this situation.
A lad who has just become baaligh (attained puberty) although technically a valid mahram, will be inadequate for the journey if he lacks full jurisdiction over the female with whom he is travelling. His companionship is meaningless if he is unable to exercise authority over the woman. If the woman travelling with him is domineering and refuses to obey him in Shar’i matters, then such a mahram is not adequate for the journey because he will not be in position to fulfil the duties of mahramiyyat which the Shariah imposes on him. This is the same as a lawful guardian of a minor. If the guardian is unable to fulfil the duties of guardianship, custody of the minor may not be assigned to him notwithstanding his initial right of guardianship. Nowadays, people are extremely careless in these matters. Women go in droves on journeys, especially Hajj journeys either without mahrams or with incompetent mahrams. Instead of the Hajj journey being an ibaadat of thawaab, it is transformed into a journey of athaab (punishment).