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

MUFTI TAQI’S BAATIL CORRUPT COVID VACCINE ‘FATWA’

The following Istifta’ (questionnaire) was submitted to Mufti Taqi Uthmani:

Is it permissible to take the corona vaccination? Is it incumbent for the government to compel everyone to submit to vaccination? What if someone acquires a fake vaccination certificate?

Mufti Taqi’s Response

While a fatwa was requested, Mufti Taqi Sahib merely made some comments in his statement camouflaged as a fatwa. His statement is not a fatwa. The one who posed the question remains in the same darkness in which he was at the beginning.

In his response to the question of permissibility or impermissibility of the covid/corona vaccination, Mufti Taqi Uthmani stated:

“It is permissible per se to use any halaal medicine or food as a precaution against sickness on condition that at the time (of its use) no haraam and impure substance had been added. Regarding the corona vaccine, if it is not established by means of some reliable source that it is contaminated with impure substances nor is its harm for the health been confirmed by reliable medical research or by compelling presumption (zann-e-ghaalib) nor is there solid evidence that it is being used for an unlawful objective, then taking the vaccine will be permissible according to the Shariah although not incumbent.”

Our Comment

The aforementioned averment is typical of Zig Zag muftis whose liberal and misleading ‘fatwas’ are the effects of dubious and even sinister agendas. That halaal medicine uncontaminated with haraam substances is permissible, is known to every Muslim, even to the most ignorant one.

The one who had posed the question is aware that halaal and pure substances are halaal and permissible. His question does not pertain to pure substances. The question relates directly to the satanic covid/corona vaccine and the satanic vaccination methodology of the atheists.

Taqi Sahib building his case of support for the Pakistani government who bootlicks the atheist West, has presented the above introduction to provide the kuffaar Pakistani government with a licence to justify with its satanic covid oppressive programme. It is indeed lamentable that Taqi has grovelled in a cesspool of inequity to provide cover for the vaccine which has been confirmed by the research of top medical experts and scientists to be an evil, dreadfully harmful potion or a devil’s cocktail.

It is difficult to believe that Mufti Taqi is ignorant of the innumerable research results which condemn vaccination by medical experts, doctors and scientists who have and are vehemently cauterizing the false satanic vaticination of this haraam covid vaccination. Thousands of pages have been published by experts regarding the horrible side effects, maiming and deaths caused by this potion of Iblees which Mufti Taqi is marketing on behalf of the government and other sinister western satanic forces.

It is quite obvious that Mufti Taqi is fully aware of the opposite view – the anti-vaccine view of innumerable medical experts. His feigning ignorance in this regard is pure chicanery designed to mislead. Despite being aware of the researches of the experts and scientists, he speaks ambiguously, without issuing a straightforward, simple fatwa. He does not inform whether the covid vaccination is halaal or haraam. He sits on the fence zigzagging without providing guidance.

The factors of permissibility stated by Mufti Taqi in his abovementioned averment are all non-existent in so far as the covid vaccine is concerned. Contrary to the deception perpetrated by Mufti Taqi, the facts are:

(1) The vaccine is impure

(2) It is poisonous. It is laced with poisonous and impure substances.

(3) It does not cure. On the contrary, it harms, maims and kills.

(4) It is never a precautionary method for saving from the disease.

The conditions which he has enlisted for the vaccine to be halaal are all non-existent. There is emphatic reliable research studies of by top class atheist experts, which prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the vaccine is absolutely harmful. But, Mufti Taqi deems it prudent to submit to the atheist view which is in diametric conflict with the Shariah. And, he feels constrained to tow the government line because of his close association with the fussaaq, fujjaar and kuffaar rulers. Yet, Mufti Taqi does not commit himself since being a molvi/mufti he has to look behind him where the Ulama-e-Haqq are hounding him. He leaves the conclusion to be made by the one who posed the question.

The texts which Mufti Taqi Sahib quotes from the Fiqh Kutub merely state some principles. But these are not helpful for the masses. A fatwa should state whether the issue is permissible or not. If a Mufti is truly unaware of the issue, he should not zigzag and talk drivel. He should not flaunt expertise by citing Arabic texts from the Kutub, which do not assist the one who posed the question. If Mufti Taqi Sahib is genuinely ignorant of the ear-piercing dins of condemnation of the vaccine by innumerable experts, he should state his unawareness and refer the questioner to other Muftis who are versed in the matter.

In another zigzagging exercise, Mufti Taqi states:

“It is not necessary for the government to compel every citizen to take the corona vaccine. However, if the relevant institution regards the corona vaccine to be necessary protection against the disease, then the government may advise every citizen to be vaccinated. Nevertheless, if anyone abstains from the vaccine due to personal reasons, he will not be a sinner.”

Our comment

Firstly, Taqi Sahib has not determined whether the vaccine is halaal or haraam. Due to feined ignorance, he is silent on this issue. Despite his non-committal stance, he justifies the government’s endeavour to have all citizens be vaccinated with the potion of Iblees. His advice to the kaafir government of Pakistan is devoid of Shar’i substance. Advice is permissible only on sound basis – on understanding of the issue, not on conjecture.

He says that if a person abstains from vaccination for some personal reason, then he will not be sinful. This implies that abstention from vaccination for no valid reason renders a person sinful. But this is manifestly baatil. In the very first instance, vaccination is HARAAM, hence the issue of valid reason for abstention does not arise. It is haraam to adopt a haraam method.

Secondly, even if we should hallucinatingly assume that vaccination is indeed 100% beneficial and bereft of any harm, then too the higher option of merit is abstention since it would be the demand a man’s Taqwa. In substantiation, the Maaliki Fuqaha explained:

“There is no doubt that the refusal of medical treatment, placing one’s reliance upon Allah and acceptance of what He decrees, is among matters endorsed by the revealed law. This is supported by what Al-Bukhari reports from ‘Ata b. Abi Rabah from Ibn ‘Abbas that a woman came to the Prophet—upon him Allah’s blessing and peace—and said, “I suffer from seizures to the point that my body becomes exposed. So, pray to Allah for me.” He said, “If you would like, you can endure it and be rewarded with Paradise. And if you would like, I can ask Allah to cure you.” She responded, “I will endure it.” She, then, said, “I become exposed. So, pray to Allah for me not to become exposed.” So, he prayed for her. Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani said in Fath al-Bari while commenting on this hadith,

The hadith indicates the merit of the one who suffers seizures, that the reward for enduring the tribulations of the world is Paradise, and that embracing the more difficult is superior to taking dispensations for those who know what they can withstand and are not too weak to cling to adversity. It also contains evidence of the permissibility to refuse medical treatment, that treatment of all ailments with supplication and taking refuge to Allah is more beneficial than treatment with prophylaxis (aqaqir), and that the effect of that and the body’s reaction to it is greater than the effect of medicine on the body. It, however, benefits for only two reasons: (1) with respect to the sick person, it is [from] sincerity of intention; (2) The other, with respect to the one seeking medical intervention, is the strength of his spiritual focus and the strength of his faith (taqwa) and trust (tawakkul).”

In At-Tamhid, Ibn Abdul Barr (Rahmatullah alayh) says:

“Among the best of this Nation (this Ummah) were its Salaf (Predecessors and Fuqaha who were people who endured sicknesses until Allah Ta’ala took them away. They abstained despite having access to physicians. But none of them was condemned for having refused medical treatment.”

Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (Rahmatullah alayh) said:

“I prefer for a man who has Tawakkul and pursues this path to abandon medical treatment such as consuming medicine, etc.”

Thus, Qaadhi Iyaadh (Rahmatullah alayh) recorded Ijma’ on medical treatment being non-obligatory. It is therefore haraam to compel any person to submit to even valid, halaal medication, leave alone haraam vaccination. Further, in their Fatwa, the Maaliki Ulama of Mauritania say:

“And Al-Nawwawi said in Al-Majmu’, “And it is recommended that the sick not be forced to medicate and to consume other things like food.” And if it is not permissible to force the sick who is suffering from extreme illness to medicate, then how is it permissible to force the healthy who has not been afflicted with any sign of illness? And how can trust and surrender to the divine decree be something desirable for the sick who suffers from an actual illness and that not be desirable for a healthy person who is fearful of an expected illness?”

Once when Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) was confined to bed by sickness, he was advised to call a physician. In response, Ameerul Mu’mineen said: “If I know that my cure is to simply place my hand on my head, I shall then too desist from so doing.” This was his Taqwa and Tawakkul.

Therefore, those who collude with the kuffaar governments and the atheist devils, and issue satanic ‘fatwas’ designed to stampede the ignorant masses to submit to haraam ‘medical’ treatment such as satanic vaccination are all agents of Iblees.

False vaccination certificates

On the issue of acquisition of false vaccination certificates, Mufti Taqi said:

“To acquire false corona vaccination certificates is deception and falsehood which is not permissible. It is necessary to abstain from this.”

While this response is a fatwa for the question, it is highly erroneous and baatil. Firstly, from what Mufti Taqi has mentioned in his statement, he feigns ignorance of the vaccine. Whether it is beneficial or destructive, he pretends not to know. Therefore, he has no Shar’i basis for unequivocally claiming that it is sinful and not permissible to acquire false vaccination certificates.

If a rapist/robber enters your home and searches for your wife/daughter who has gone into hiding somewhere in house, will it be sinful to LIE to the scoundrel and say that there are no women in the house? Or will it be rewardable to speak the ‘truth’, reveal her whereabouts and condone the violation of her chastity by the rapist/robber while you, the scoundrel dayyooth stands by cowardly such as these spineless Muftis and Shaikhul Islams and Grand Muftis of today?

If a robber wants to steal your money or harm you physically, will it be permissible or impermissible to LIE in order to save yourself from the evil of the robber? Only the likes of Mufti Taqi has the erudition to say that it is not permissible to lie even in these circumstances.

This is exactly what Mufti Taqi’s fatwa pertaining to false certificates imply. Let the scoundrel rape your wife and rob you of your money on the basis of your ‘truth’. According to him, observance of his conception of the ‘truth’ is imperative regardless of the injury and harms stemming from the satanic potion of Iblees. Thus, obedience to the kuffaar government is incumbent in terms of his warped logic which is nothing but chicanery designed to mislead Muslims and to bootlick the rulers.

In an abortive bid to justify obedience to the kuffaar government, Mufti Taqi cited an Arabic test without presenting its translation. The translation is:

“It is incumbent on the Muslim to obey his ameer in all permissible things. Therefore, if the ameer orders commission of a mubah (permissible) act, then it is incumbent (Waajib) to act accordingly. If the ameer prohibits a mubah act, then it is haraam to do it……Hence, the Fuqaha have stated explicitly that obedience to the ameer in acts which are not sins is Waajib……Ibn Aabideen said: ‘When the ameer instructs to fast on the days which are not prohibited, then this becomes incumbent………

But, this obedience is Mashroo’ (is of Shar’i significance and import) when the order (of the ameer) is due to a maslahah (valid expedient), not stemming from hawaa (base desire) zulm (oppression/injustice), for verily the haakim (ruler) should not be obeyed per se (li thaatihi). He has to be obeyed from the perspective of him being the mutawalli for the benefit of the masses.”

Even a cursory glance at this text will dispel the basis Mufti Taqi claims for his corrupt fatwa of obedience to the kuffaar Pakistani government. The ‘incumbency’ to obey the ameer in terms of the aforegoing text is conditioned with the following stipulations:

(a) The act must be mubah, i.e. permissible in the Shariah

(b) The ameer’s decree must not be motivated by his base desire (hawaa) and zulm (oppression/injustice)

(c) There must be maslihat (an expediency which is for the benefit of the masses).

Germane to the satan’s potion (vaccine) and the satan’s method (vaccination), all three stipulations are missing. The vaccine is haraam. There exists overwhelming and tumultuous evidence for the hurmat of the potion of Iblees.

The law compelling vaccination is pure zulm motivated by hawaa, and there is no valid maslihat for the people in this dreadfully harmful satanic vaccination which the governments have acquired from Bill Gates in lieu of millions of dollars.

The hallucinated ‘benefit’ of the potion of Iblees has been lapped up from the vomit of the atheists. All the noise, sound and fury which these wayward molvis and muftis have churned up are designed to appease the atheists and kuffaar governments. They are misinterpreting Qur’aan and Ahaadith not for reconciling superficial contradictions in the texts, but to justify the kufr and satanic protocols of the atheists. Their very motive is corrupt and kufr.

Furthermore, the principle stated above is not cast in Wahi or in the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Men of intelligence are entitled to scrutinize the decrees of the ameer and to determine for themselves the validity of the imposition. Should they dissent from the claimed validity, they will have the Shar’i right to differ and to disobey and to reject what Mufti Taqi seeks to convey as if it is the effect of Wahi.

Consider the example of fasting on permissible days. The ameer will firstly have to have a really strong and viable basis for ordering the populace to keep Nafl fasts on certain days on which the Shariah has not made it Waajib to fast. In our opinion a valid reason would be to act against Zindeeqs who believe that it is not Masnoon to fast on Mondays and Thursdays, rather it is bid’ah and haraam. If such an idea of zandaqah becomes embedded in the masses, then the ameer will have the right to order the masses to fast on Mondays and Thursdays until the evil corrupt idea of the zanaadqah has been eradicated. However, despite this validity, it will not be sinful for individuals to silently abstain from fasting, that is, without opposing the decree of the ameer.

Qadha’, i.e. the post of being a Qaadhi, is Fardh-e-Kifaayah. Despite the extreme importance of this position and despite the order of the Khalifah, Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh) and Imaam Muhammad (Rahmatullah) resolutely refused to submit to the command of the Khalifah.

Imaam Abu Hanifah opted for imprisonment and being flogged rather than obeying the Khalifah on this extremely important and Waajib issue. And, so did Imaam Muhammad, Imaam Nisaa’i and other illustrious Ulama of the Salafus Saaliheen.

The eminent Sahaabi, Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) disobeyed the Khalifah and refused to take the oath of allegiance, despite this being mubah and even necessary, and so did Hadhrat Abdullah Bin Zubair (Radhiyallahu anhu) disobey the Khalifah to the extent of declaring his own Khilaafat in Makkah Mukarramah. There are many episodes of the Salafus Saaliheen disobeying the oppressive orders and commands of the tyrannical rulers who were NOT kuffaar such as the rulers and regimes in sway of Muslim countries.

The government of Pakistan is decidedly kuffaar. It has abolished the Shariah and substituted in its place the western kuffaar concept of baboonic democracy. Mufti Taqi and all molvis of similar thought should hang their heads in shame for satanically labouring to make Muslims subservient to even the haraam and kufr demands of the kuffaar regime. At the minimum, he should weld his lips and remain silent if he is unable to stand up in opposition to the oppression and tyranny of the kaafir government. It is absolutely despicable and treacherous for an Aalim to lick the boots of the kuffaar government, and worse to mislead the ignorant masses with corrupt fatwas camouflaged with Qur’aanic verses, Ahaadith and texts from the Fiqh Kutub which have no relevance to the situation and scenario for which guidance is sought.

The principle overriding the rule cited by Mufti Taqi, and that too baselessly, is the declaration of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam):

“There is no obedience to any makhlooq (created being) in any act which involves disobedience to Khaaliq (Allah, The Creator).”

CONCLUSION

(1) Mufti Taqi’s discourse is not a Fatwa. It is merely a statement which provides no guidance for Muslims. Only the portion pertaining to false certificates is a fatwa, but a baseless one.

(2) The entire discourse is baatil in that it is irrelevant to vaccines and vaccination. He feigns ignorance, hence he remains non-committal sitting on the fence.

(3) The conditions listed by Mufti Taqi for permissibility of medication are all non-existent regarding vaccines and vaccination. Vaccines are laced with poisons and haraam substances. Vaccines cause dreadful harms and injury.

(4) Mufti Taqi is guilty of chicanery designed to delude the Muslim masses and to bootlick the government.

(5) His fatwa pertaining to false certificates is absolutely baseless, stupid and treacherous. There is no daleel whatsoever in the Shariah for claiming that such false certificates are haraam and sinful.

(6) The Arabic texts cited by him do not support his baatil contentions.

12 Safar 1443 – 20 September 2021

CRITICIZING THE DEAD MUDHILLEEN

Recently, two famous Mudhilleen had perished in South Africa. Both had died of ‘Covid’ and both promoted vaccination. Since the Ulama-e-Haq condemned them even after their death, their supporters took offence at the condemnation and the followers of the Mudhilleen started to cite Ahaadeeth that the deceased should not be reviled and only the good of the deceased should be spoken about.

The Message Of Safar

The Message Of Safar…
“THERE IS NO CONTAGION” ALL Beliefs, Talks & Fear-Mongering Regarding Contagion Is Pure BALDERDASH!!!
This Is The 1400-Year-Old Message Of Safar!
Nabi (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) clearly said, “There is NO contagion (of disease), no evil omens (with owls, etc.) and no (bad luck in the month of) Safar.” (Bukhari Shareef)

VACCINATION FATWA OF OF MAURITANIA

HARAAM VACCINATION – FATWA OF THE ULAMA OF MAURITANIA

THE FOLLOWING ARE EXTRACTS FROM THE FATWA ISSUED RECENTLY BY THE ULAMA OF MAURITANIA

“Imam Ahmad said, “I like for the one who believes in the efficacy of trust and pursues this path to abandon medical treatment such as drinking medicine and other things.” For this reason, Qadi ‘Iyad conveyed unanimous consensus on the non-obligation to medicate.”

There is no doubt that the refusal of medical treatment, placing one’s reliance upon Allah (i.e. Tawakkul) and acceptance of what He decrees, (i.e. Tafweez) is among matters endorsed by the revealed law. This is supported by what Al-Bukhari reports from ‘Ata b. Abi Rabah from Ibn ‘Abbas that a woman came to the Prophet—upon him Allah’s blessing and peace—and said, “I suffer from seizures to the point that my body becomes exposed. So, pray to Allah for me.” He said, “If you would like, you can endure it and be rewarded with Paradise. And if you would like, I can ask Allah to cure you.” She responded, “I will endure it.” She, then, said, “I become exposed. So, pray to Allah for me not to become exposed.” So, he prayed for her. Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani said in Fath al-Bari while commenting on this hadith,

The hadith indicates the merit of the one who suffers seizures, that the reward for enduring the tribulations of the world is Paradise, and that embracing the more difficult is superior to taking dispensations for those who know what they can withstand and are not too weak to cling to adversity. It also contains evidence of the permissibility to refuse medical treatment, that treatment of all ailments with supplication and taking refuge to Allah is more beneficial than treatment with prophylaxis (aqaqir), and that the effect of that and the body’s reaction to it is greater than the effect of medicine on the body.

The Maliki Ibn ‘Abd Al-Barr said in Al-Tamhid, And there were among the best of this nation, its predecessors, and scholars, people who endured ailments until Allah removed them despite having access to physicians. They, however, were not condemned for refusing treatment. And if treatment had been one of the required norms (al-sunan al-wajibah), then those who refused to utter incantations and take medication would have been deemed blameworthy. And this is something of which we know no one who says.

And Al-Nawwawi said in Al-Majmu’, “And it is recommended that the sick not be forced to medicate and to consume other things like food.” And if it is not permissible to force the sick who is suffering from extreme illness to medicate, then how is it permissible to force the healthy who has not been afflicted with any sign of illness? And how can trust and surrender to the divine decree be something desirable for the sick who suffers from an actual illness and that not be desirable for a healthy person who is fearful of an expected illness?……………..

Experts have expressed that the vaccines prevent neither illness nor infection from pathogens.

Allah, Glorified and Exalted, has given to sane adults the freedom of choice and burdened them with the responsibility of themselves. Allah, the Exalted, says, “Whoever follows guidance, follows guidance for his soul. And whoever strays, only strays against it.” Therefore, the Shariah forbids forced conversion to the religion. Allah, the Exalted, says, “There is no compulsion in religion.” And if forced conversion to the religion is forbidden, how could it be lawful to force one to adhere to health measures? And what freedom of action remains for a person once his compulsion to take health measures is completed? If it is permitted for a government to force a person to vaccinate on the basis of public interest, then this means that it is permitted for it to force a man to marry three or four wives on the basis of public interest! It is also permitted for it to force a woman to marry a man she does not desire, to travel outside [the country] to study on the basis of public interest or to perform military service on the basis of public interest. It would also be permitted for it to force the farmer to become a carpenter, a carpenter to become a tailor, and a physician who has memorized the Qur’an to teach in a religious school (mahzarah). And all of that is on the basis of public interest. Such things are not affirmed by either sacred or secular law, while the examples [following this flawed logic] are many. …………

It is not proper to support any vaccine until its safety has been completely verified. However, the safety of these vaccines is uncertain. The manufacturing companies are indemnified. The authorization for them was only for emergency use. And the side effects of these vaccines that the manufacturing companies have announced are many and serious, and most of them have appeared.3 Also, the effects of these vaccines on pregnant women and those with chronic illness is unknown. And they are vaccines the least of which can be said of them is that they incite dispute. In France and other European countries protests have persisted since October of 2020 until they reached their fortieth week with the attendance of tens of thousands among whom are the leaders of political parties, members of parliament, military officers, professors of medicine, and organizations of civil community. ……

The World Health Organization has been exposed to blackmail by pharmaceutical companies. This is in addition to statements made by Bill Gates going back to 2011 wherein he said that the reduction of the population will be completed via forced vaccination.

Signed by

  • Shaykh Muhammad al-Sufi b. Mukhtass, Imam of the Hayya Central Mosque
  • Shaykh Muhammad ‘Abd Al-Qadir b. al-Dad, Shaykh of Mahdarah al-Malikiyyah in

Arafat and author of Al-Mawrid Al-Shahi fi al-Fiqh al-Maliki

  • Shaykh Muhammad al-Amin wald Aqah, Imam of a central mosque in Barimir
  • Shaykh Khalid Wald Aslamu, Imam Masjid al-Hidayah in Riyadh
  • Shaykh Muhammad Mahmud Wald Muhammadi
  • Shaykh Babah Wald al-Lahamud
  • Shaykh Ahmad Mahmud Wald Haddu, Imam of Masjid Baskujim
  • Shaykh Adumu Wald al-Jili, Imam of Jami’ al-Da’wah wa al-Tabligh in Dar al-Na’im
  • Shaykh ‘Isa Wald Muhammad Wald Hamati
  • Shaykh Abu Bakr b. Ahmad b. Yarim, Imam of Masjid Maryam in Dar al-Barakah, Rusu
  • Shaykh Ya’qub b. Sa’id, Imam of Masjid Damal Dak
  • Shaykh Ahmadu b. Muhammad Sultan, Imam of Jami’ Hamzah
  • Shaykh ‘Ali Jalu, Imam of Jami’ al-Ihsan
  • Shaykh Muhammad Mahmud b. Sayyid ‘Ali, Imam of Jami’ al-Bayt al-Ma’mur
  • Shaykh Muhammad al-Mashri Wald Muhammad al-Hajj, Imam of Masjid al-Sabkhah
  • Shaykh Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali al-Shinqiti
  • Shaykh Ahmad Ba’bu al-Naji, College professor and Imam of Jami’ Abu Bakr al- Siddique in Tafarrugh Zinah
  • Shaykh ‘Abd Allah Wald Arbayyah
  • Shaykh Muhammad Yasliim Wald ‘Abd Allah, Imam of Jami’ al-Mihsab

23 Muharram 1443 – 1 September 2021