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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mujlisul Ulama]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūtī said:

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

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

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

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

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

A Misunderstanding Which Leads To Harbouring Bad Opinion Of The Madhabs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Muslim Skeptic Team -July 2, 2022

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Disagreement of the Mashāyikh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fatāwā Ahl Samarqand

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

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

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

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

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

“the imām of the Ḥanafīs in his era”.

One of the Ḥanafī scholars of that time commented:

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

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

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

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

The Statement of QāḍīKhān

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED: Abortion and Pro-Choice Inconsistencies


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

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

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

Al-Sarakhsī says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Views

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Later Ḥanafī Commentators

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

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

Ibn al-Humām (790 – 861 H) writes:

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

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

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

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

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

The Preferred Ḥanafī Stance

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

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

Other Madhhabs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī says:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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



What is the meaning of ‘Waqf Qur’baani”? Khanqah Imdadia Ashrafia of Karachi, Pakistan is advertising its “Waqf Qur’baani” project, and is asking for contributors. This is the first time I have heard that Qur’baani of animals also comes within the scope of Waqf. Please explain this concept.


There is no ‘Waqf Qur’baani’ concept or teaching in Islam. Waqf is germane to assets. The Waaqif (the one who makes the Waqf) relinquishes his ownership which reverts to Allah Ta’ala. Waqf is the dedication of an asset in the Path of Allah Ta’ala. The asset remains and its benefits are utilized for the intended purpose of the Waqf, e.g. a property is made Waqf for a Musjid, Madrasah or Yateem Khaanah; a land is made Waqf for a Qabrustaan.

Animals which are slaughtered, regardless of the noble purpose such as Qur’baani/Sadqah, are not Waqf. The act of Qur’baani/Sadqah is rewardable. There is thawaab for it. This cannot be termed Waqf.

Qur’baani is either Waajib or Nafl. It is not Waqf.



Can one animal be made Qur’baani for several deceased persons?


Qur’baani of a small animal (goat/sheep) is for only one person whether the person is alive or dead and whether it is Waajib or Nafl Qur’baani. Qur’baani of a big animal (ox/ buffalo/camel) can be made for seven persons, dead or alive.

However, the thawaab of one animal or one share may be intended for many persons whether alive or dead. The Qur’baani will be for the person making it, but the thawaab will be according to his intention.


I did not make Qur’baani for many years although it was Waajib on me. Will the seven shares in a cow suffice for Qadha Qur’baani of seven years?


No, it will not suffice. For Qadha Qur’baani a whole animal is incumbent. Either a goat/sheep or a big animal. Regardless of the seven shares in a big animal, the animal will suffice for only Qadha of one year.


Is it permissible to give Qur’baani meat to the kuffaar?


According to the Hanafi Math-hab, it is permissible. It is not permissible for Shaafis.


Is it permissible for a person to sell his Qur’baani meat?


It is not permissible to sell one’s own Qur’baani meat.


If a person on whom Qur’baani is not Waajib buys an animal with the intention of making Qur’baani, can he later cancel his intention and not make the Qur’baani?


If he purchases an animal during the days of Qur’baani with the intention of Qur’baani, then making Qur’baani of the animal is compulsory. He may not cancel his intention.


If someone buys an animal for Qur’baani. However, before slaughtering it, the animal died. What is the ruling?


If Qur’baani is Waajib on the person, he has to purchase another animal for Qur’baani. If Qur’baani is not Waajib, then it is not necessary to buy another animal.


What should be done with the milk of the Qur’baani animal?


The milk should be given as Sadqah to the poor.


It has happened in the past that the Qur’baani animals become mixed and the owners are unable to recognize their specific animals. In this scenario what should be done?


Everyone should slaughter any animal from the flock. The Qur’baani of everyone will be valid.

26 Zul Qa’dh 1443 – 27 June 2022

The Influence of Television

The Influence of Television

This article should be regarded as advice specifically for the Munaafiq, Faajir, Faasiq RIJS (FILTH) molvis who are blatantly, brazenly and most flagrantly committing KUFR by selling their souls to Iblees who has urinated into their brains to become television actors. Furthermore, the arch mudhil, Taqi Usmaani is the prime Agent of Iblees in this Jahannami saga. Purely on the instruction and influence of Iblees did Mr.Taqi open up the door for this television fitnah with His stupid, haraam halaalizing of pictography.

by Hazrat Maulana Yunus Patel Saheb (rahmatullah alayh)

One of the many sunnats of the Ambiyaa (‘alaihimus Salaam) is that of Hayaa (shame and modesty), a quality which is sorely missing in the lives of the majority of Muslims today and which should otherwise be an outstanding characteristic and feature of all Muslims, whether married or un-married.

Television is such an evil that if our society only understood its reality, then they would find no excuse to watch. Its spiritual harm is that it takes away the hayaa and shame of our men, women and children.

The content of most television programmes is nothing but immodesty and indecency, which invites nothing but immodesty and indecency – into our homes, into our lives and the lives of our children.

However, this truth and reality seems to just pass over the understanding of even those Muslims who have some link with Deen.

Many are regular with Salaah, they are seen in the Musjid, they are wearing the garb of the pious and yet they will be the ones to present flimsy and feeble excuses to view television programmes.

Let us consider this situation of sin from the following view – which Alhamdulillah, has been a means of many getting rid of the television.

If a person has to knock on your door and tell you : ‘I would like to use your lounge to commit adultery.’

Or a group of some friends have to request you : ‘We would like to use your home to gamble and enjoy our liquor.’ Or a group of youngsters have to tell you : ‘We have chosen your home as a venue for our partying, dancing, drug-taking and fornicating.’ Or a Christian family has to request you : ‘We would like to use your home as a venue for our church ceremony : The marriage of our daughter as well as the baptism of our grandchild.

We have already obtained the consent of one of our priests.’ Or some idol-worshippers have to suggest : ‘We would like to carry out some of our religious rites in your home. We would like to bring our idols also. You are more than welcome to observe or participate in our rites. ’

Many Muslims, on hearing such requests, will get very angry; will express disgust – if not swear and curse such suggestions.

However, these very same Muslims who will even resort to swearing and cursing such proposals, invite into their homes all of the above by the switch of the television, by hiring English and Hindi films and DVDs and downloading porn and other films from the Internet. There is so much of adultery, partying and other filth that we seem to just welcome into our homes – least realizing the consequences.

Just to give you one example and this is but the tip of the iceberg – and it is said with the intention of removing the blindfold that most parents wear :

A father of four children mentioned to me that he had got rid of his television and he thereafter explained why.

He said that late one night he heard strange noises from his children’s room. On opening the door of their room, he found their television switched on.

This is our concept of modesty , parents must have their own television, to view all kinds of filthy programmes in their privacy, and children must have their own television to view all kinds of indecency in their privacy (Na-uzu Billah).

The father mentioned that there were dirty and obscene scenes of naked people on the television screen. He mentioned that it was filthy and that it shocked him; but what had him even more shaken was that his children were all undressed, engaging in the same kind of indecent acts.

They were imitating the pornography they were viewing. He said himself, that until then he had not considered the harm of television. It took this kind of incident to wake him up. This is just one example of so many. Do we wish to face something similar ?

Do we care to even know what our sons and daughters are doing in the secrecy of their rooms ? The fact that many demand that no one ‘invade’ their space and privacy to the extent of having ‘No Entry’ signs on their doors, should have parents a little more than worried especially if they are viewing television and are surfing the net or have free access with cell phones.

Many have written, that after watching certain films or programmes, the desire came strongly into their hearts to take drugs, drink liquor, murder their parents, indulge in homosexuality, engage in adulterous relationships, commit suicide, rape, and so much else – and many of them do so.

Moreover, with sins like television and evil, lustful glancing, Allah Ta’ala removes the love between husband and wife and even ones children become disobedient.

There are many husbands who entertain thoughts of and fantasize of other women when with their wives. And they will when they are watching different actresses and television presenters.

Many wives are guilty of the same infidelity having seen or socialized with ghair-mahareem. Many women are so infatuated and obsessed with some soccer player or cricket player that they become dissatisfied with their husbands, and spend their time fantasizing.

Had the person not viewed all those ghair-mahareem (impermissible women) on the television screen and computer screen, and had lowered his gaze in real life situations, then he would not have desired that which he cannot have, and there would not have been dissatisfaction with his (or her) spouse.

Moreover we complain that there is no barkat in our homes; there is no barkat in our wealth; there is no barkat in our time. Our children are rebellious. The husband is having an extra-marital relationship. The daughter has accepted Christianity. The son is on drugs and the list of complaints does not end.

Then who is to blame except the one who brought all of this Haraam into the home by purchasing the television and exposing the family to so much of sin.

Great ‘Ulama became Bay’at upon the hands of Maulana Hakeem Fakhrudeen (Rahmatullah ‘alaih). He mentioned that there was a time, that with the rising and setting of the sun, he saw nothing but noor in Surat.

The atmosphere was one of noor. The day commenced with Salaah, Tilawat, Zikrullah.

After the cinemas and television and videos flooded Surat, there was nothing but ‘zulmat’ (darkness).

With the distraction of such entertainment, Ibaadah becomes a forgotten duty.

One Wali of Allah Ta’ala, on visiting a home, mentioned that he perceived the sin of Zina (adultery) from the walls of that home. He was able to recognize this due to the purity of his heart. The residents of that home were not indulging in adultery but they were watching the sin on television.

When fire burns against a white wall, it blackens the wall. The Ahle-Dil (pious people), with their purified hearts, see the fire of sins which has burnt and blackened the white hearts of the Muslims.

Would that we take lesson and take measures to protect ourselves and our children.

22 Zul Qa’dh 1443 – 23 June 2022





Molvi Irfan Nauyock of Mauritius issued a fatwa that there is no Eid Salaah during lockdown because there is no Izn Aam in private properties. Is his fatwa valid? Must we abandon Eid Salaat? On the basis of this fatwa, we are to abandon even Jumuah Salaat since Ithn Aam is also a condition for the validity of Jumuah Salaat.


The honourable Molvi Irfan did not apply his mind correctly hence his erroneous fatwa. Firstly, private property does not negate Izn Aam (general permission to the male Muslim public to attend). The condition of Izn Aam does not hinge on Waqf property. As long as musallis have free access to the venue during the Salaat time, the condition of Ithn Aam is satisfied.

The ‘fatwa’ of Molvi Nauyock is a jumble of confusion in which he sought to acquit himself like a mujtahid, hence he made a mess of the numerous narrations from the different Math-habs. He has no entitlement to resort to the variety of Hadith narrations on which the different Math-habs base their respective views. Furthermore, the vast majority of narrations does not even support the Izn Aam condition of the Hanafi Math-hab.

As a muqallid, he is required to remain within the confines of the Math-hab. Since he is a professed Hanafi muqallid, he had no right to indulge in a twaddle of excrescent citations which clearly displays cognitive dissonance.

According to the Hanafi Math-hab, even if the venue is not a Musjid, Eid and Jumuah Salaat will be valid with a minimum of four males (one to act as Imaam, and three Muqtadis). We fail to understand the ambiguity of ‘imaam’ in the current context of Muslim life. If by ‘imaam’, the Molvi means ‘Sultan’, then he dwells in confusion. The Ummah today has no political Imaam, i.e. Sultan/King/Ameerul Mu’mineen. Jumuah and Eid Salaat have been performed by the Ummah since time immemorial all over the world in places where there was no Sultan. Thus, introducing the ‘imaam/sultan’ factor is a flapdoodle indulgence, and so is the issue of ‘private property’. Eid and Jumuah Salaat are valid even in private property to which the Muslim male community is given access during the Salaat time.

It is extremely short-sighted, to say the least, to issue a fatwa for the abandonment of Jumuah and Eid Salaat solely on the basis of the rubbish lockdown satanism of the atheists. Assuming that Eid Salaat is not valid in private homes in terms of the Hanafi Math-hab (although it is valid), then too, the imperative demand will be to incorporate into our Math-hab the method and view of the other Math-habs in order to safeguard this significant, important and vital Act of Ibaadat. We shall opt for the fatwa of the other Math-habs in order to guard the Eid Salaat and to prevent Muslims from forgetting this important Practice of the Deen. It is not permissible to allow an Act of Ibaadat to become antique and discarded.

It is absolutely ludicrous to set aside the Haqq of the other Math-habs for compliance with the satanism of the atheists who have ordered the devilish lockdown. When there is scope in the Hanafi Math-hab for borrowing from the other Math-habs during occasions of dire need, then it will be imperative to do so, and not to abandon the Shar’i Hukm. However, as far as Eid and Jumuah Salaat are concerned during the satanic lockdown, there is no need for Hanafis to look askance to the other Math-habs in view of the fact that the condition of Izn Aaam is satisfied even in private homes.



29 Shawwaal 1443 – 31 May 2022



Mentioning one of the Signs of the Approaching Hour of Qiyaamah, Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“The dunya will be pursued (and acquired) by means of the amal of the Aakhirat.”

Falling into the snare of Iblees, the Jamiatul Ulama KZN had organized an ostensibly deeni programme/lecture for women at the Musgrave Musjidul Fitnah which recently had become a stepping stone for the commission of zina. The unfortunate Jamiat KZN, like all other deviated liberals, using the Deen as its platform, lured women out from their homes to attend a stupid, shaitaani-inspired ‘nikah’ and ‘talaaq’ talk.

While the shaitaaniyat was given a deeni front, the motive was pure nafsaaniyat. These inexperienced, short-sighted junior molvis appear to be enamoured by the ladies, hence in blatant conflict with the Qur’aan they lured women out of their homes to attend their stupid talk which they attempted to camouflage with Deeni hues. But people of Deeni intelligence are able to see right through the veil of nafsaaniyat which motivated this nafsaani programme.

The Jamiat KZN fellows are supposed to be ‘ulama’. They are supposed to be aware of the following two fundamental requisites of Hijaab/Purdah:

(1) “(O Women!) Remain glued within your homes and make not a display of yourselves like the exhibition of Jahiliyyah” (Qur’aan)

(2) The unanimous Fatwa of the Sahaabah and Salafus Salaaliheen banning women from the Musjid for even the Fardh Salaat.

In the light of these two essentials, besides the numerous other Qur’aanic Aayaat and Ahaadith further confirming these essential requisites of Hijaab, it is pure shaitaaniyat and deception of the nafs which have adorned haraam and presented it as ‘halaal’, to lure women out from their homes to attend the nikah and talaaq talk of some moron molvi/s who has/have effaced their Imaani hayaa at the behest of the bestial dictates of the nafs.

What degree or type of shaitaani logic have these molvis utilized to halaalize a haraam act – the emergence of women for listening to talks – a haraam act which was declared haraam by the Sahaabah? What has happened to the brains of these molvis? It is clear that their Aql has become vermiculated by the inordinate dictates of their bestial nafs. When women were banned from the Musjid for even the Fardh Salaat in the noblest of ages despite the fact that they were permitted by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to attend, then by what stretch of brains can it ever be permissible for them to attend the Musjid or its environs to listen to the talks of molvis who themselves are victims of their ravenously bestial nafs?

These molvis who lure women out of their homes into the public domain under deeni guise are Signs of Qiyaamah and they come fully within the glare of the Hadith:

“Soon shall there be in my Ummah such people in whom will permeate these ahwaa (bestial/nafsaani lusts) just as rabies diffuses in a person not leaving untouched either joint or vein.”

This is the condition of the molvis of this age. They quote the Qur’aan while blatantly flouting its commands. Then they shamelessly present satanic adornment of stupid interpretations and hallucinations to justify their haraam fatwas.

The women who attend, are all afflicted with the tendencies of prostitutes and lesbians, hence they rip off their veil of Imaani hayaa to prowl in their finery and perfumed like the lewd women in brothels in the public. They then justify their zina-wanderings with the corrupt ‘daleels’ provided by molvis who act at the behest of their nafs. These molvis are the primary cause for the corruption and humiliation of the Ummah. They are the worst scoundrels under the “canopy of the sky’ according to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

If these jamiat entities fade away into oblivion, it will indeed be a great boon for this Ummah. Their villainy prompted Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to say that he feared them (the molvis) more than even his fear for Dajjaal. May Allah Ta’ala have mercy on this Ummah by removing the scourge and ghutha (rubbish) of the Aimmah-e-Mudhilleen. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“The Saalihoon (the Pious Ulama and Auliya) are departing (from the world) in quick succession one after the other. Then there will remain only ghutha (rubbish/waste matter) such as the chaff of dates or barley. Allah will have no care whatsoever for them.”



QUESTION: Some Ulama in UK have issued the fatwa that it is permissible to establish separate facilities for females at the Musjids for Salaat. They cite Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh) and Mufti Taqi Usmani in support. What is Shariah’s ruling?

ANSWER. As far as Mufti Taqi is concerned he is person’a non grata. He is a liberal who has lost his Islamic bearings many years ago. He has opened the avenue for the fitnah of immorality and riba with his corrupt fatwas halaalizing pictography and so-called ‘islamic’ banking. Meanwhile, all his halaalizing practices, especially banking fatwas are designed for the dollars. The capitalist bankers pay tens of thousands of dollars for fatwas of permissibility for their riba products.

As far as their citing Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh) is concerned, they merely flaunt their jahaalat. They are morons wallowing in ghabaawat. Haafiz Ibn Hajr (Rahmatullah alayh) said that it is only a GHABI (a chap whose brains are densely clogged with nafsaaniyat and worldly objectives) who will have the temerity to claim that it is permissible for women to gatecrash into the Musaajid.

All the arguments of ‘hikmat’ proffered by the legalizers of this Prohibition are spurious excrescences of the nafs. We have elaborately discussed and refuted all their ghutha (rubbish) arguments in seven booklets which are available on our website. It is not permissible to have facilities for females in the Musaajid. The Sahaabah had enacted Ijma’ on this Prohibition, hence no one’s view can ever override this sacred Consensus.


28 Shawwaal 1443 – 30 May 2022

Ikhtilāṭ: A Critical But Neglected Islamic Prohibition

What is Ikhtilāṭ?
As the “human being has been created weak” (Qur’ān, 4:28) and “no temptation (fitnah) is greater for men than women” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 5096), the Sharī‘ah has placed strict safeguards against men and women interacting.
One of these safeguards is the prohibition of unnecessary mixing (mukhālaṭahikhtilāṭimtizājijtimā‘) between non-elderly men and women, something upheld by the vast majority of the classical jurists. Mixing refers to there being no segregation between men and women; that is, men and women are together in the same place, and don’t have their own areas or seating places. Unfortunately, due mainly to influences of non-Islāmic systems of morality, many Muslims have become very relaxed with regards to this ruling. Some even oppose and ridicule it.
RELATED: The Basis for Gender Separation in Islam
Ḥijāb primarily means to screen women from men but also has the secondary meaning of being fully covered when a woman’s person is exposed to onlookers due to some need, e.g. on the streets, in the markets or during Ḥajj. The obligation of Ḥijāb began towards the end of the 5th year of Hijrah with the revelation of verses in Sūrat al-Aḥzāb. From this time onward, care was taken to ensure non-elderly men and women do not unnecessarily intermingle or mix.
RELATED: Yes, Islam Forces Muslim Women to Wear Hijab
The Example of ‘Ᾱ’ishah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) During the Incident of Slander

The incident of slander (ifk) referred to in verses of Sūrat al-Nūr occurred in the 6th year of Hijrah, after the revelation of Ḥijāb. Thus, while explaining its background,
‘Ᾱ’ishah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) said:
“I had come out with the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) after Ḥijāb was revealed and thus I was carried in a hawdaj and put down in it.”[1]
‘Ᾱ’ishah’s (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) person was completely concealed in the hawdaj.
Ibn Ḥajar explains:
That is, after the command of Ḥijāb was revealed, meaning the concealment of women from men looking at them, while before that they were not forbidden [from this]. She said this as an explanation for why she was concealed in the hawdaj, to the point that this led to them [later on in the journey] carrying it when she was not inside it while they believed she was inside it; as distinguished from before the Ḥijāb, as it may have been that women then rode on the backs of the saddles without a hawdaj.[2]
When later in the journey ‘Ᾱ’ishah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) returned from searching for her misplaced necklace to find the caravan had left, she explains:
I headed towards my position where I was, and I assumed that they would find me missing and come back for me. While I was sitting at my place, my eyes overcame me and I slept. Safwān ibn al-Mu‘aṭṭal al-Sulamī al-Dhakwānī was behind the army, and he proceeded in the morning to where I was resting, and saw the shape of a person sleeping. He came to me and recognised me when he saw me, as he had seen me before Ḥijāb. I woke up when he said innā lillāhi wa innā ilayhi rāji‘ūn upon recognising me, so I covered my face with my Jilbāb, and by Allāh he did not say to me a word and nor did I hear from him anything besides innā lillāhi wa innā ilayhi rāji‘ūn” [3]
This demonstrates that after the revelation of Ḥijāb, extreme care was taken to ensure men did not see women in general circumstances, while in cases of necessity she was covered fully.
Non-Observance of Ḥijāb before its Obligation Cannot be Advanced as Evidence
There are narrations of Ṣaḥābah drinking wine in the time of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) or engaging in mut‘ah marriage. These narrations obviously cannot be advanced as evidence as they occurred before the prohibition of these acts. Similarly, it will be mistaken to use incidents before the revelation of Ḥijāb as proof for the permissibility of unnecessary mixing. Likewise, incidents in which elderly women are in reference are not evidence that this would be allowed for non-elderly women. For example, Sahl ibn Sa‘d (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhumā) explained that the young Ṣaḥābah came to eat at a woman’s house after Jumu‘ah, and in one version, it is clarified that she was an elderly woman (‘ajūz). [4]
Related: Western Hatred for Hijab: Have Muslims Contributed to the Problem?
Women’s Attendance of Congregational Ṣalāh in the Time of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)
The congregational Ṣalāh that would take place in the time of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) would not entail mixing. Some narrations indicate that women were only permitted to emerge for Ṣalāh in the night (i.e. for Fajr and ‘Ishā’). [5]
‘Ᾱ’ishah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) said:
“The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) would pray Fajr, and women from the believers would attend with him wrapped up in their cloaks, and then they would return to their houses while no-one recognised them.” [6]
Note, that these women would return immediately after the Ṣalāh and were not recognized by anyone.
Measures were taken for men and women to not mix.
Umm Salamah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) said: “[The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)] would make salām, and the women would turn away and enter their houses before the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) [and the male companions] turned away.” [7]
Al-Zuhrī, a narrator of this ḥadīth, explains: “This was so that the women turn back before the men catch up with them.” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 875) Ibn Ḥajar comments that this ḥadīth shows “the reprehensibility of men mixing with women on the roads, let alone in homes.” [8]
The Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: “The best rows of men are the first and the worst of them are the last, and the best rows of women are the last and worst of them the first.” (Saḥīḥ Muslim)
Again, this is to show that men and women are to be separate from one another. One narration even indicates that there was a separate entrance for women in the time of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). [9] Women’s emergence for ṣalāh was premised on such principles being adhered to. Once these principles were not maintained, and decadence became the norm amongst people, the ruling changed[10].
Separate Sessions for Men and Women
Female companions complained to the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) that “the men have overpowered us with you, so arrange a day for us…” (Saḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 101) This shows men and women would not gather together in the same place – otherwise, there would be no reason the women could not attend with the men.
Segregation During Ṭawāf
A governor of Makkah from the early part of the second century of Hijrah, Muḥammad ibn Hishām, stopped women completely from making Ṭawāf when men were making Ṭawāf, i.e. they had completely separate times for making ṭawāf. (Fatḥ al-Bārī, 4:548-9) ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ (26 – 114), the great scholar of Makkah, questioned this, stating that the wives of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) made Ṭawāf when there were men present. His well-known student, Ibn Jurayj (80 – 150 H), at this, asked: “How was it that [women] were mixing with the men [in Ṭawāf]?” He said: “They would not mix, ‘Ᾱ’ishah would perform Ṭawāf screened from the men, not mixing with them.” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 1618)
In other words, even in Ṭawāf, in the blessed era of the Salaf, men and women would keep separate from one another. Al-Fākihī (ca. 210 – 275 H) reports with his chain to Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī: “‘Umar forbade men from making ṭawāf with women. He once saw a man making ṭawāf with the women and he struck him with a whip.” [11]
The later intermingling that became commonplace in the Ḥaram was censured by the scholars. Mullā ‘Alī al-Qārī (ca. 930 – 1014 H) describes what “the women of Makkah do today, in terms of mixing with men in that area” as “a great abomination”. (al-Maslak al-Mutaqassiṭ, p79) Another great Makkan Ḥanafī scholar before him, Ibn al-Ḍiyā’ (789 – 853 H), writes in his detailed work on Ḥajj: “From the vilest of abominations is what the ignorant women amongst the commoners do during Ṭawāf, mixing with men together with their husbands while their faces remain uncovered.” [12]
Ibn al-Ḍiyā’ has another work listing the ills that occurred in the Ḥaram, called Tanzīh al-Masjid al-Ḥarām ‘an Bida‘ al-Jahalat al-‘Awāmm. Amongst these ills, he mentions women coming into the Maṭāf and the Masjid on auspicious nights and mixing with men. (ibid. p34) A similar complaint was made even before by the Shāfi‘ī imām, al-‘Izz ibn Jamā‘ah (694 – 767 H), who added: “We ask Allāh to inspire the ruler to eradicate these abominations.”[13]
Avoiding Intermingling on the Roads
Ibn Ḥibbān narrates in his Ṣaḥīḥ that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said:
Women do not have the middle of the path.”
Ibn Ḥibbān explains that when a woman comes out for a need, she should not walk in the middle of the path. This is because men walk in the middle, and doing so may result in men and women coming in very close proximity to one another.[14] This is the teaching of Islām in the case of the road, so it would be even more emphasized in the case of closed environments.
Women Taught Behind Screens
‘Ᾱ’ishah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā), perhaps the greatest female teacher amongst the ṣaḥābah, would teach from behind a screen (ḥijāb/sitr) as mentioned in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. Aḥmad ibn Hanbal narrated that a group of students of ḥadīth came to the great muḥaddith, Abu l-Ashhab (70 – 165 H), and did not know which ḥadīth to ask of him until his daughter informed them from behind a screen of a ḥadith to learn from him. (Musnad Aḥmad, 33:401) From the blessed time of the Salaf, immense care would be taken to avoid intermingling – and this was despite the fact that their hearts were infinitely purer than ours.
The Qur’ān says that if men (i.e. the male ṣaḥābah) are to ask something of the wives of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), they are to do so “from behind a screen” because “that is purer for your hearts and their hearts”. (Qur’ān, 33:53)
If the purest of hearts, that of the male companions and the wives of the Prophet, are affected by such interactions, people after them are in far greater need of such measures.
Not Intermingling at the Funeral Procession
According to a group of the imāms, it is recommended to stand behind the bier as it is being carried to its burial place. However, al-Ṭaḥāwī recorded from ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) and his student, al-Aswad ibn Yazīd, that they would at times walk in front of the bier because women were following it from behind. This was done in order to avoid mixing with them.[15]
Al-Ṭaḥāwī says: “[The students of Ibn Mas‘ūd] would discourage [walking in front of the bier] and then would do it for an excuse, as that is better than mixing with women when they are close to the bier.” (ibid.) Badr al-Dīn al-‘Aynī al-Ḥanafī adds in his commentary: “because mixing (mukhālaṭah) with non-related women is ḥarām, while going ahead of the bier is permissible.” [16]
Shāfi‘ī Imāms Forbidding Intermingling
Abū ‘Abdillāh al-Ḥalīmī (338 – 403 H), one of the major early Shāfi‘ī mujtahids, said: “Allāh says: ‘O you who believe, protect yourselves and your families from the Fire.’ Included in the totality of this is that a man protects his wife and daughter from mixing with men and conversing with them and being alone with them.” [17]
Al-Māwardī (364 – 450 H), another major early Shāfi‘ī authority, said: “A woman is forbidden from mixing with men and is ordered to stay in the house [when there is no need to come out].” [18]
Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī (393 – 476 H), another major Shāfi‘ī authority, states: “[Jumu‘ah] is not obligatory on a woman because of what Jābir (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) narrated…and because she may mix with men and that is ḥarām.” [19]
Imām al-Ghazālī (450 – 505 H) said: “When the speaker is a non-elderly man (shābb), attractive to women in dress and appearance, with plenty of poems, gestures and movements, and women attend his gathering, this is an abomination (munkar) which must be prevented, since the corruption in this is greater than the benefit…It is obligatory to erect a screen/barrier between men and women that prevents seeing [one another], as that is also an anticipated cause of corruption. Norms bear testimony to these abominations.” [20] Note, al-Ghazālī wrote this more than nine-hundred years ago.
Imām Mālik on a Woman Eating with her Husband’s Friends
Some refer to the statement of Imām Mālik in his Muwaṭṭa’ on a woman eating with her husband or brother along with their male companions who are unrelated to her. However, an early Mālikī authority from ‘Irāq, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn al-Jahm (d. 329 H), explains that Imām Mālik is here referring to an elderly woman (‘ajūz/mutajāllah). [21]
This is consistent with Imām Mālik’s other remarks, as he clearly opposes intermingling and makes distinctions between elderly and non-elderly women. It is narrated in the ‘Utbiyyah that Imām Mālik said: “I believe the ruler is to head towards workers on account of women sitting with them, and I believe he is not to leave a non-elderly woman sitting by these workers; as for an elderly woman and a lowly slave, who would not be suspect for sitting, and nor would the one sitting next to her be suspect, I see no problem with that.” [22]
Ibn Rushd al-Mālikī (450 – 520 H) comments on this passage from al-‘Utbiyyah: “Indeed the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said: ‘I did not leave a temptation more harmful for men than women,’ and he said: ‘Create distance between the persons of men and women.’” [23]
Furthermore, Imām Mālik states, as reported in the Muwaṭṭa’, that a man may give salām to an elderly woman, but not to a non-elderly woman.
RELATED: Yes, How Women Dress Is Everyone’s Business
Imām Abū Ḥanīfah Forbids Women from Attending the Masjids
Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and his students did not allow non-elderly women emerging for Ṣalāh (al-Aṣl, 1:365), let alone another activity not sanctioned in Sharī‘ah and not based on genuine need. The reason for this is to prevent men and women interacting or being tempted by one another to engage in the impermissible (e.g. looking with desire, speaking unnecessarily, touching etc.).
Ikhtilāṭ Vs Khalwah
Some people argue that since mixing is not khalwah (being in solitude with a woman), it is not a sin. But khalwah is a separate, graver, sin, while mixing and intermingling is also a sin, though of a lesser category. The fact that intermingling does not necessarily entail khalwah does not mean it is not sinful.
RELATED: Is Islamic Gender Separation a Sign of Backwardness?
Conclusion: Statement of Ibn al-Ḥājj
In short, it is not permissible for non-elderly men and women to remain unnecessarily in a place where each gender is not designated their own separate area/space. Difficulties encountered in adhering to this principle does not negate its importance. Those engaged in this sin should try to eliminate it from their lives, or at minimum reduce it as far as possible, and constantly turn to Allāh in tawbah and ask Him to make for them a means to leave it completely. The corruption in the present time and the prevalence of such immoral practices and attitudes does not justify becoming lax or complacent about these matters. Rather, because of this prevalence, it would be a greater necessity to draw attention to its prohibition.
In this respect, I end with this fitting quote from the great Mālikī imām, Ibn al-Ḥājj (ca. 657 – 737 H), who lived more than seven-hundred years ago:
[The learned man] should teach [his womenfolk] the Islāmic teaching (sunnah) of coming out when she is compelled to do so. It has been transmitted that a woman comes out in the lowliest and roughest of her clothing, dragging her cloak behind her [to the length] of one hand span or an arm’s length…The Islāmic teaching (sunnah) has stipulated that her walking should be along the walls…Look, Allāh have mercy on us and you, at these teachings (sunan), how they have been erased in our time, to the point that they have come to be like something unknown, because of what [women] do of the opposite of these Shar‘ī states. Thus, a woman sits at home as is known of her normal manner, with lowly garments and avoiding adornment…and then when she wishes to come out, she becomes clean and adorned, looks to the finest clothing and jewellery she possesses and wears it, and then comes out on the road as if a bride that has appeared; and she walks in the middle of the road, mixing with men, and they have a way of walking – to the point that the men, I mean the righteous amongst them, retreat to the walls to make space for them on the road; while others mix with them…All of this is caused by not looking to the sunnah and its principles, and what the Salaf of this ummah (Allāh be pleased with them) have passed upon. When a learned person draws attention to this and its likes, these holes are closed, and the blessing of that would be hoped for everyone. Those who turn back from what ought not be, this is an excellent destination, and those who do not turn back will know that he/she is engaging in sin and so will remain broken hearted due to that. The goodness in being broken is known, and it is hoped the one who is broken will repent and turn back. [24]
Note: Circumstances and situations which arise in the land of non-Muslims, or in lands that have adopted non-Muslim norms, that are beyond our control, and which might temporarily constrain us to enter into environments of free-mixing to fulfil a genuine personal need (ḥājah), cannot justify introducing such an abomination in places under our control (like private residences or masjids) or entering such places without need. “Need” here refers to something that to avoid would cause unbearable distress and hardship to individuals (Asbāb al-‘Udūl, p261). For example, to not go into the market to purchase basic necessities would undoubtedly cause unbearable distress. There is no ḥājah for introducing free-mixing within homes/masjids/madrasahs, or to enter places where it is taking place without any need.
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 4750; Fatḥ al-Bārī, Dār Ṭaybah, 10:386 
ibid. 10:395 
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 4750; Fatḥ al-Bārī, Dār Ṭaybah, 10:387 
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 6248 
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 865; Fatḥ al-Bārī, 3:109-10 
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 372; Fatḥ al-Bārī, 2:89 
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 850; Fatḥ al-Bārī, 3:89 
ibid. 3:92-3 
Sunan Abī Dāwūd, 460; Badhl al-Majhūd, Dār al-Bashā’ir al-Islāmiyyah, 3:186 
(see: darulmaarif.com/women-attending-the-masjid-a-clarification/). 
Akhbār Makkah, Dār Khaḍir, 1:252 
Akhbār Makkah, Dār Khaḍir, 1:252 
Hidāyat al-Sālik, p1022-3; al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā al-Fiqhiyyah, 1:201-2 
Ṣaḥīh Ibn Ḥibbān, 5601 
Sharḥ Ma‘ānī al-Ᾱthār, 1:485 
Nukhab al-Afkār, 7:268 
al-Minhāj fī Shu‘ab al-Imān, 3:398 
al-Ḥāwi al-Kabīr, 2:51 
al-Muhadhdhab, Dār al-Qalam, 1:358 
Iḥyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn, Dār al-Minhāj, 4:639 
al-Jāmi‘ fi l-Sunan wa l-Ᾱdāb wa l-Maghāzī wa l-Tārīkh, 214 
al-Nawādir wa l-Ziyādāt, 8:243; al-Bayān wa l-Taḥṣīl, 9:335 
ibid. 9:336 
al-Madkhal, 1:244-5 

The Muslim Skeptic




Please check the two Urdu fatwas we are sending you. According to these fatwas it is halaal to consume ‘farmi’ (broiler) chickens regardless of the haraam feed they are fed. What is the status of these fatwas? Are they valid according to the Shariah?


The issue pertaining to the consumption of artificial/broiler/incubated chickens is not whether the chickens if slaughtered correctly are halaal or haraam. The issue is whether these diseased chickens, fed haraam feed are tayyib, healthy and good to consume or not. Are they good or bad for the health of people? This is the question.

The Fataawa of permissibility issued by the Darul Ulooms, confirm that the Muftis are out of touch with reality. The obligation of a Mufti is not to acquit himself like a Madrasah Ustaadh explaining academic technicalities to the Talaba. Whatever the Muftis have stated in their fatwas is not supposed to be for the consumption of the masses. The Muftis are supposed to bear in mind the physical and spiritual welfare of the masses.

Regarding broiler (‘farmi’) chickens, the Muftis have failed to understand that a factor (sabab) for hurmat is Dharar (harm). We are not saying that the chicken which is fed with haraam feed is haraam even if slaughtered correctly. The issue is the dharar factor which thousands of kuffaar experts have confirmed.

These broiler chickens cause numerous diseases including cancer, heart problems, liver problems, etc., etc. We have published considerable literature on this subject. The Muftis of the Darul Ulooms in India and Pakistan are living in dreamland. They are ignorant of the reality, hence they issue bunkum (ghutha) fatwas which only cause more harm to the masses both physically and spiritually.

These Muftis of today fail to understand that along with physical damage to the human body comes spiritual harm as well. Both the body and the soul suffer from physical disease as well as from spiritual disease. The job of the Mufti is to strengthen the bond between man and his Khaaliq. The job of the Mufti is not to weaken the resolve and Imaan of the masses with Fiqhi technicalities.

Everyone is aware that the male’s satr is from the navel to the knees. It will be indeed moronic for a Mufti to advise the masses that since Salaat is valid with only the satr covered, they may go to the Musjid with their entire bodies exposed, covering only the Satr. Thus, the Imaam Sahib and the muqtadis may on a hot day perform Salaat in this semi-naked form because the satr is covered. This in fact is the attitude of the Muftis of this era. They lack insight, and they have nafsaani agendas.

That is why these same muftis have made permissible the haraam covid protocols of the atheists, and have even closed the Musaajid. To satisfy the atheists, these Muftis have argued away by means of ta’weel baatil the La Adwa Hadith.

The Fiqhi technicalities posited by these Muftis are not denied. The contention is that these chickens are diseased and cause many diseases in human beings. The disease dharar has been proved by the evidences of innumerable authorities on this subject.

In the first fatwa is mentioned: “And, if someone on his own refrains from eating farmi chickens then he may do so as he wish. However, the fatwa is on its hillat and permissibility.”

The Mufti Sahib has disgorged drivel. These chickens are extremely harmful, hence the fatwa is on hurmat. The Mufti appears to be ignorant of the dharar factor, hence his fatwa is erroneous.

In the second fatwa is mentioned:

“Nothing can be declared haraam on the basis of mere speculation of people nor does Eemaan exit by eating chicken.”

No one has ever claimed that the devourer of these diseased chickens becomes a kaafir. The Mufti has spoken trash in this comment. This Mufti Sahib has spoken without the application of his mind and on the basis of jahaalat. His ignorance has constrained him to infer that those who prohibit eating these chickens have structured their case on the basis of ‘speculation’ (baseless opinion). It will be salubrious for the Mufti Sahib to understand that this claim which he has tendered is in fact based on baseless speculation. He simply disgorged bunkum with his baseless speculation. He has acquitted himself stupidly without daleel.

The fatwa of prohibition is not based on ‘speculation’ as the Mufti stupidly claims. It is based on irrefutable facts – on evidence which cannot be logically and practically refuted. If these Muftis have any respect and concern for the Haqq, they should make an in-depth panoptic research (wasee’ mutaala-ah) of the broiler chicken haraam, shaitaani industry. Then if they are sincere, they shall not fail to understand that the DHARAR Sabebe Hurmat (factor of prohibition) stands out as clear as daylight.

In his penultimate statement of Fatwa No.2, the Mufti states:

“Regarding the question of it being harmful to the health then only the doctors can give a better answer to it.”

This statement proves the gross and staggering ignorance of the Mufti on this subject. It is haraam for a Mufti to issue a fatwa on the basis of his jahaalat. In churning out fatwas on the basis of ignorance, the Mufti poses a threat to both the Imaan and health of the masses. Such a mufti is labelled Mufti Maajin. He has no Shar’i license to issue fatwas regardless of him being a mufti whether in Darul Ifta of Deoband or of Mazaaharal Uloom.

There exists a deluge of expert literature published by doctors and experts who had made in-depth research and who have practical experience of this satanic broiler chicken industry. The avalanche of literature is sufficient to drown the Muftis who baselessly issue fatwas of jawaaz for harmful poisoned chickens which cause much disease.

Is the Mufti sincere or does he have a commercial and nafsaani agenda to submit to? Is he genuinely unaware of the mass of evidence proving the dharar of these poisoned, diseased chickens which ruin the health of the masses?

The fatwas of hillat issued by these Mufti Maajins is dismissed with the contempt it deserves.


17 Shawwaal 1443 – 19 May 2022


A girl trapped in a marriage with extremely lewd and filthy in-laws, laments:

“I got married 5 months ago. The problem is my in-laws don’t allow me any privacy. After the nikaah at my parents’ house we were put to sit in seclusion for about 1 hour. Then we went to an apartment. My father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law came with us in the same car. My father-in-law drove. In the car was also my sister-in-law who sat between my husband and I. 
When we got to the apartment, there were only 2 rooms, so they put my sister-in-law with myself and my husband in the same room on the same bed between us two. We stayed there for 3 nights and this continued. She slept between my husband and myself. We didn’t even get to talk because of her presence in the room and between us.
Then I went back to my parents because they dropped me off as our room wasn’t ready yet.  After 6 weeks my father brought me here to my in-laws house and my mother-in-law says the rule of her house is that my room door cannot be closed. Secondly my sister-in- law comes to sleep between us two (husband and wife) again although she is 18 years.  She only doesn’t come on Friday nights but still our door cannot be closed. 
When I complained, my mother-in-law says I must make sabr or I will get divorced. My husband also fought with his parents but they say if we move out they’ll curse him, and they will fire him from work.
I can’t do anything without my mother-in-law’s permission. I can’t even make a cup of tea if she says no.

Our Answer and Comment
This is truly a bizarre scenario. The attitude of your in-laws is HARAAM, lewd, stupid and full of shaitaaniyat. They have absolutely no shame. They are shameless fussaaq and fujjaar. In these evil circumstances prevailing at their home, it is best that you leave and go back to your parents. Your mother-in-law must be a witch, and so is your sister-in-law.
It is incredible that the sister-in-law sleeps between husband and wife. This type of immorality and utter shamelessness is unheard of in Muslim society. As long as they do not prepare a separate apartment for you, remain at your parents. If your mother-in-law threatens you with divorce, it is better to be divorced than to live with such filthy-minded people who are bereft of the slightest vestige of shame.