Many Muslims have written regarding the haraam, shaitaani practice of photography and videoing inside the Musaajid. This evil is becoming an incremental calamity. One Brother justly complaining about this evil, writes:

“Something very serious which the Muslim community needs to rectify urgently is – the removal of permanent haraam videography embedded in some Musjids. CCTV cameras are installed INSIDE some Musjids in the front or side, facing the musallis and recording them as they perform salaah. There are also cameras recording musallis making wudhu. These cameras can be viewed locally or remotely (through the internet) by anybody who has access. A few Musjids have the very same brands of cameras installed – the same brands whose manufacturers have been marketing cameras to profile and oppress Muslims in those lands. 

Aside from the picture maker being cursed by Allah Ta’ala, if these cameras are not removed completely, then in time to come, our children and the unwary will become desensitized to it, and consider it permissible.”

(End of the Brother’s Complaint)

The primary factor for the prohibition of this evil act of shaitaan is the Command of Allah Ta’ala. Denial of this Command is kufr which expels one from the fold of Islam. The La’nat of Allah Azza Wa Jal is of fundamental importance for the imperative need to eliminate these shaitaani instruments from the Musaajid. Those trustees who have brazenly and blatantly introduced these instruments of Kabeerah sins are among the signs of Qiyaamah. They are scoundrels which are perpetrating khiyaanat in the Amaanat of the Mutawalliship post they are occupying. People who believe haraam to be halaal are murtads.

The arguments they proffer to justify their kufr are stupid and satanically inspired. All these scoundrel, illegitimate trustees, to soothe their conscience, cite Taqi Usmani as their ‘daleel’ for permissibility. Regarding such devilish molvi-worship, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“They take their ahbaar (molvis/muftis) and their ruhbaan (buzrugs) as gods besides Allah…..”

As for the issue of becoming “desensitized in time to come”, this calamity is already a reality. There is no need for “time to come”. Right now, currently, most moron molvis and zig zag muftis, in addition to having been desensitized and no longer having the haziest idea of the evil and notoriety of this very major sin of pictography, have even halaalized it, ostensibly making taqleed of their liberal imaam in this haraam field, namely, Taqi Usmani of Karachi, Pakistan. It is the total desensitization of Imaan which has already ruined millions of Muslims, and this attitude has emboldened them to install the devices of Iblees in the Musaajid.

They have absolutely no concern for the grave warnings of Athaab sounded by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) for the picture-makers. Our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “The worst-punished on the Day of Qiyaamah will be the picture-makers.” This one Warning suffices for Muslims whose Imaan has not been extinguished. The ultimate desensitization of the Muslim’s heart to inhibition for haraam, leads to the elimination of Imaan.

The first step in the satanic process of desensitization is Istikhfaaf of the Ahkaam, i.e. to regard the laws of Allah Ta’ala as being insignificant. The next step is to resort to satanic baatil ta’weel (corrupt, baseless interpretation) to halaalize the haraam act. And, this is fatal for Imaan, and this is the calamity in which most Muslims are today drowning.

It is the obligation of the regular musallis to apply pressure on the scoundrel trustees and the imaam who has sold his Rooh for a pittance in the belief that these miserable, rubbish trustees are the providers of his Rizq. Thus, they practically exhibit their lack of belief in the Razzaqiyat of Allah Ta’ala. The very first being who made a picture was Iblees. It was by means of pictures that the seeds of idolatry and shirk were sown. In a different form today have Muslims introduced idolatry into the Musaajid. They are in fact sowing the seeds with pictography for the ultimate introduction of idols and crosses into the Musaajid.

This conclusion is not far-fetched. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that Qiyaamah will not come until Muslims will worship the cross in the Musaajid, and Arab women will gyrate with their hinds, dancing around idols. All the signs and introductory measures for shirk are being cultivated by Muslims today.

Musjid trustees and Musjid imams should understand that tomorrow they will rot in their graves. But such decomposition will not save them from the Athaab of the Qabr. Such Athaab is not for remorseful sinners. It is for scoundrels who flagrantly, intransigently and arrogantly are obstinate in their rebellious halaalization of haraam.

28 Sha’baan 1444 – 21 March 2023

Is it permissible to bury a Muslim in a non-Muslim graveyard?

As salaamu alaikum

Dear hazrat 

In the USA some Muslim communities purchase a number of plots in an existing graveyard for the use of any Muslim when he/she dies. Is this situation permitted in Islam in light of the fact that Muslims are not to be buried in nonmuslim graveyards? In addition to that I believe if a graveyard is built then state law would forbid one from not allowing any nonmuslim from being buried there. Any citizen would be allowed to be buried in there. If that is true is there any other option available for Muslims in light of the fatwa below :

Q. Is it permissible to bury a Muslim in a non-Muslim graveyard? 

A. It is not permissible.  The prohibition is obvious. It is even prohibited for a kaafir to assist with the burial of his Muslim relative. The authoritative Kitaab, Badaaius Sanaa’ says in this regard: “It is Makrooh (i.e. reprehensible, not permissible) for a kaafir •to enter the grave of his Mu ‘min relative because the Wrath and Curse (of Allah) settle on the place where a kaafir is. Hence, the grave of a Muslim should be saved from these (calamities). “To save a Muslim from the Wrath and Curse of Allah Ta’ala ,, he/she should never be buried in the graveyard of the kuffaar.

The majlis vol 16 no 02

Was salaam 

Hassan Sulaiman 

13 Sha’baan 1444 – 6 March 2023

Hassan Sulaiman

Respected  Brother,

Your  e-mail refers.

It is not permissible  to bury  Muslims in a kuffaar graveyard. The
situation described   by you is not permissible.



Mujlisul  Ulama of S.A.





Now that the severe and tremendous evil of Suwar (images/pictures) of animate objects has been clarified through the words of Hadhratayn, both of whom also uphold the Ijma’ (consensus) that whatever new means or technology are employed to produce Suwar of animate objects, they will still carry the very same ruling, let us demonstrate that the “Daleel” on which the two Muftiyayn have based the preposterous contention that digital Suwar are fake Suwar, is a non-existent Daleel that collapses and vanishes into thin air, under a scrutiny that does not last more than few paragraphs.

The primary “Daleel” of the venerable Muftiyayn, both of them, is the fact that digital Tasweer do not have the quality of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability).

Mufti Taqi Saheb states in this regard, in his manifestly ridiculous assertion that digital Suwar resemble a shadow more than they resemble non-digital Suwar (images/pictures):

“As for pictures which do not have durability [thabat] and stability [istiqraar] and are not drawn on something with lasting quality, they resemble more a shadow than they do pictures.”

And, Mufti Rafi Saheb states in his Fatwa:

“As for it not being a picture; because a picture in its true meaning, comes into existence when it is carved, drawn, or formed onto something with the quality of istiqraar (stability) and thabat (durability) in its existence…It therefore is apparent from this description that the images and scenes that appear on the screens do not have istiqraar or thabat, rather they appear and disappear in a second 60 times. This is the reason the digital image cannot be regarded as a ‘picture’ ‘surah’ in actuality.”

Take note of the distinctly conspicuous absence of even the slightest semblance of a Shari’ Daleel to substantiate the wholly arbitrary and fanciful claim that the level of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability) determines the Suwar-status of a Suwar (images/pictures). This fact, in itself, renders the Fatwa completely null and void. Any Fatwa that attempts to make an exception out of a particular form of Tasweer, or a particular form of music, or a particular form of alcohol, or a particular form of any other abominable evil, without proper Shari’ Daleel, renders the followers of such a Fatwa as those who “take gods besides Allah.”

In any case, let us play along with this Daleel-less claim of the venerable Muftiyayn and demonstrate that even their fanciful theory linking the level of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability) with the definition of a picture, falls apart completely and evaporates away into non-existence, when placed under the slightest scrutiny.

We ask the venerable Muftiyayn regarding a newly-invented machine that paints the picture of an animate object on a slate, and then wipes the slate clean after 10 minutes. Would such a picture fall under the category of Tasweer, despite the level of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability) only being 10 minutes?

According to the position of the venerable Muftiyayn as borne out by their Fatwas, they are bound to categorically declare as Haraam all such pictures (images) produced by this contraption.

Now we ask the ruling if we were to lower the level of “istiqraar” and “thabat” to a measly one minute. Would the images produced under the new setting carry the same ruling as those produced in the first scenario?

Again, the venerable Muftiyayn are bound to issue the same ruling of Hurmat (prohibition).

Now, let us further reduce the level of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability) of the paintings produced by this machine to the exact same level as what Mufti Rafi Saheb claims is the reason why digital Suwar (images/pictures) cease to become Suwar (images/pictures) here:

“It therefore is apparent from this description that the images and scenes that appear on the screens do not have stability nor durability, rather they appear and disappear in a second 60 times. This is the reason the digital image cannot be regarded as a ‘picture’ ‘soorah’ in actuality.”

Thus, let us adjust the setting of our newly-invented contraption to paint a life-like picture and wipe the slate clean every 1/60th of a second. That is, 60 paintings are painted and displayed in one second, by our unique, man-made contraption.

We ask the venerable Muftiyayn, what is the ruling of each one of the 60 paintings that are painted and wiped away?

If the venerable Muftiyayn are hesitant in answering, or issues a Halaal Fatwa for all those 60 life-like paintings that are clearly visible to the passer-by, we then ask: Why the hesitancy? Or, to what level do we need to raise the level of “istiqraar” and “thabat” back again, so that the hesitancy or Fatwa of Halaal dissolves away, and the previous Fatwa of Hurmat can be affirmed again as vehemently as in the first two scenarios? Perhaps if we were to raise the level of “istiqraar” and “thabat” back to, let’s say, 1 painting per minute, or 2 paintings per minutes, or 3 paintings per hour, etc. the hesitancy or Fatwa of Halaal will suddenly transform back to Haraam. The Muftiyayn will not be able to offer a clear and definitive answer to this question, nor will they be able to produce any Shari’ Daleel for any specific amount of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability) which would instantly transform a fake Soorah (image/picture) into a real Soorah.

We ask the venerable Muftiyayn regarding a special paint that only lasts for a limited time, before fading away. Again, what level of “istiqraar” or “thabat” does the painted picture need to have to be classed as real painted picture? And, what level of “istiqraar” or “thabat” causes the painted to cease to be a painted picture? And, what is the Shari’ basis for averring that painted pictures cease to be painted pictures in an issue which has been declared amongst the greatest of evils by the Shariah? Again, the venerable Muftiyayn will have no proper and consistent answers for any of the questions above.

The baselessness of the fanciful and wholly arbitrary theory of the venerable Muftiyayn is thus manifest. In reality, the venerable Muftiyayn have absolutely no Shari’ Daleel for their contention that it is the level of “istiqraar” (stability) or “thabat” (durability) that determines the Suwar-status of Suwar. They have no Shari’ Daleel for deriving a specific number of hours, minutes, or seconds of “istiqraar” or “thabat” which renders a picture, whatever the means of its creation, into a fake, fraudulent, and imposter picture.

Rather, it is manifestly clear that the “Daleel” of the venerable Muftiyayn is a fake, fraudulent and hallucinatory Daleel, unlike the Suwar-status of digital Suwar (images/pictures) of animate objects which is the most real, life-like, potent, and damaging form of Suwar ever to have been invented by man.

Falsehood spawns more falsehood. One absurdity leads to multiple absurdities. Hence, Mufti Rafi Saheb, in his Fatwa, is constrained to make the following absurd and false claim:

“Looking at the above mentioned difference between the actual picture and the figure that appears on the screen, the experts of this field have specified the difference in terminology also; where they have termed the figure captured by the photography camera as “Soorah” and the visible figure on a screen as an “Aks”.

The Arabic word in the original Fatwa of Mufti Rafi Saheb is “Aks” which has been erroneously translated by the translator as “image”. “Aks” means “reflection”. No expert in the world, not even a so-called one, ever calls the Suwar (images/pictures) on television screens, computer screens, phone screens, etc. “reflections”. Rather, BOTH the words “pictures” and “images” are employed interchangeably and liberally as borne out by even a perfunctory reading of the writings of experts on digital pictography. Something is truly amiss with a Fatwa that makes such ridiculously false averments as the ones above, and something is even more amiss with the droves of Muftis and Maulanas who simply regurgitate such absurdities as if they are the gospel truth, simply because such Fatwas conform to their base desires.

Regarding such Daleel-less Fatwas of misguidance whose absurdity, incongruity, and falsity is manifest, and which are identical in status to Daleel-less Fatwas today that claim that music produced electronically is no longer the music prohibited in the Ahadith, or that alcohol produced chemically is no longer alcohol, or that perceived “benefits” or widespread prevalence of an abominable evil can transform it into Halaal, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Whosoever has issued a Fatwa which was not substantiated correctly, then the burden of sin will be upon the one who issued the Fatwa.”

Prior to these worst of eras in which the Halaalizers of Haraam started abounding aplenty, the sanctity of the prohibition of pictures of all animate objects was deeply entrenched and a strongly embedded belief in the hearts of the Muslim masses in general.

For the grave evil of Halaalizing what Allah has made Haraam, and for the hundreds of millions of Muslims for whom this deeply embedded sanctity of prohibition would have been a normally insurmountable stumbling block for Shaytaan to lure them eventually into addiction to pornography, into addiction to social media Zina, into addiction to films and television, into addiction to video games, into addiction to Kuffaar sports idolatry, and into addiction to countless other evils which are EXCLUSIVELY available through the means of digital form of Suwar (images/pictures) only, a terrible and unimaginably weighty burden of sins will have to be borne by ALL those who have contributed, whether actively or in silent condonation, towards the propagation and implementation of such Baatil, Daleel-less Fatwas that Halaalize the abominable evil of Tasweer in its most potent form.

“And upon us is only to convey (the Haqq)” (Qur’an)

11 Sha’baan 1444 – 4 March 2023




Irked by the stupidity of the argument of Mufti Taqi in his futile attempt to bolster his flaccid and flapdoodle fatwa of the permissibility of digital pictures, a Sister from Pakistan posed the following question to him:


Muhtaram Janaab Taqi Sahib!     Assalamu Alaikum

With your fatwa you have made pictures lawful (jaaiz). According to your fatwa, the digital picture is a reflection, hence permissible. According to my understanding, a reflection relates to the object. As long as the person or object is present, the reflection will remain in the medium in which it is reflected. The reflection will disappear immediately with the removal of the object/person, for example, the reflection in a mirror. The reflected image immediately disappears with the removal of the object.

Now what type of reflection is this digital ‘reflection’ which is retained (even after disappearance of the person/object), and could be reproduced at will and fancy, e.g. U-tube, Facebook and other Dajjaali social media which present all these ‘reflections’ as pictures?

The bayaans (i.e. with the pictures) of the Ulama, Muftis and Buzrugs are all preserved. Night and day these are being viewed. Kindly answer my question.


Our fatwa is not that the digital picture is a reflection. Our fatwa is that prior to the printing of the digital picture on paper, etc., it resembles a reflection on the screen, etc. where it does not have permanency. Therefore there is no incumbency for the definition of reflection or for all the features of a reflection to apply to this (i.e. the image on the screen).

It should be clear that according to the respected seniors of Darul Uloom Karachi and many Ulama and respected Muftis of other countries, the haqeeqat (reality/nature) of the digital picture is that it is neither Bi-aynihi (per se) a true picture nor Bi-aynihi a true reflection because a true picture is engraved on a surface and it is preserved with permanency on that surface.

Also, it is not a reflection Bi-aynihi because the reflection is subservient to the reflected object. Now when the digital picture is not subservient to the reflected object, but could be reproduced without the reflected object, it will not be a reflection Bi-aynihi (per se). However, it has a greater resemblance with a reflection than with a picture. That is why we say that it has a greater resemblance with a reflection.

Shah Muhammad Tafaddhul Ali

Affirmed by the Mufti of Daarul Ifta Jaami’ Daarul Uloom Karachi

(Mufti Taqi Usmani)

(End of Mufti Taqi’s fatwa)


Indeed this weird fatwa is bizarre in the sphere of skulduggery and humbug. The ludicrous idea that the image appearing on a television screen or any similar media screen is neither a picture nor a reflection is a shaitaani view urinated into the brains of these miscreant, wayward Karongi Muftis to provide them with a straw for presenting as a ‘daleel’ to further hoodwink and bamboozle the ignorant masses and the ulama-e-soo’ who have latched onto Mufti Taqi’s baatil haraam halaalization of haraam pictography.

Labelling the haraam television/video pictures as ‘digital’, Mufti Taqi has shamelessly, blatantly and most insincerely halaalized a shaitaani act, namely Tasweer Saazi (pictography) which the Shariah has made haraam on the basis of explicit Nusoos of absolute certitude (Qat’iyyat).

It is indeed satanic to fabricate the irrational and stupid, hybrid ‘reflection-picture’ phenomenon simply to provide ‘daleel’ for Mufti Taqi’s view of permissibility which has thrown open the floodgates of pornography and immorality. It is indeed an insult to intelligence and a mockery of their own brains to forge and fraud this stupid, illogic and totally untenable proposition of the hybrid phenomenon. No man of Aql-e-Saleem will ever accept this ludicrous and stupid phenomenon which has existence in only the hallucination of these Muftis. Due to the absolute moronity of this concept, we are constrained to ask these Karongi Muftis, including Mufti Taqi: Kiya dimaagh kharaab ho gaya? What are your brains vermiculated?

Their argument is pure nonsense and absolutely coprophilic. They stupidly and satanically claim that prior to the printing of the digital image on a surface, e.g. paper, it resembles a reflection. Thus, they are constrained to concede that this hallucinated reflection is transformed into a haraam picture once it is given permanency on a surface of any medium, enabling the reproduction of the image.

Note well that in her Istiftaa’ (question) the Sister asks firstly about the reproduced picture, that is the picture created by the digital process. It is not the process or method of production which is in question. The issue is the picture. Hence, regardless of the method by which the picture is created it remains haraam tasweer. Now, whether the image is made by pen, brush, sculping, photography, the digital process or any other means yet to be invented, it will be a haraam picture if it is of an animate object.

In another Istiftaa’ which shall, Insha-Allah, form the subject for another article, the Sister asked these miscreant Muftis whether it is at all permissible for females to look at the snouts of the molvis and muftis appearing on youtube and facebook regardless of the image on the screen being a picture or a reflection. In that Istiftaa’ too, she truncated the Muftis and drove them into a corner of confusion from which extrication is impossible.

Even the kuffaar who are the manufacturers of this process of digital pictures will mock at the stupidity of the hybrid reflection-picture concept of these silly muftis who have are making a laughing stock of themselves with their weird, irrational and stupid concept. How can a picture be part reflection and part picture at one and the same time? The image in a mirror or in water is never a picture in the meaning of the term given by the Shariah. Yes, even the reflection in the mirror is haraam to view if haraam factors are present, e.g. the image of a ghair mahram female/male or the depiction of nudity and the like.

Thus, if we too should momentarily descend into the pits of jahaalat to accept that even the reproduced image on the internet screen is NOT a picture, then too, it is not possible for the most stupid, moron, maajin mufti to claim that looking at pornography on the video/internet screens is permissible. Just as viewing obscenity and pornography in a mirror is haraam, so too, in fact to a higher degree, will it be haraam on these Ibleesi and Dajjaali social media platforms.

It  should be well understood, and for which understanding, much brainpower is not a requisite, that all digital images on computer/video screens are haraam pictures in the meaning of the Shariah regardless of whether these screen images are produced digitally or by the phenomenon of reflection, and whether the show on the screen is live or ‘dead’. The hurmat is the same.

Let it also be understood that the image on the screen is NEVER a reflection even in a live show. While in the mirror one views a true reflection of the object, on the screen which may be thousands of miles from the screened object/person, it is not the reflection of the latter. It is a true picture produced after the image of the object is preserved in whatever contraption and method devised for this purpose.

The moron molvi is not standing infront of the screen for his image to be reflected thereon. His image is secured thousands of miles away in a device, then reproduced to form the picture which is transmitted with extreme speed to be reproduced at the receiving end for depiction on the screen. So these muftis of Karongi should go to the zoo and try to convince some baboons of their hybrid reflection-picture theory which places the seal on the khataabiyyat (vermiculation) of their dimaagh (brains).

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had predicted that in the era in close proximity to Qiyaamah, Muslims will halaalize liquor with fancy names. This prediction may be extended to other haraam acts and practices halaalized by the zigzag muftis who are experts in the Ibleesi art of issuing zigzag fatwas to bamboozle the ignorant and the unwary.

Insha-Allah, the other Istiftaa’ of the Sister and baatil fatwa of Mufti Taqi shall be discussed in another article.

6 Sha’baan 1444 – 27 February 2023

The amplifiers of minor into major sins

We often do a major disservice to Allah by judging sins via our own fallible standards; this can cause minor sins to amplify into major ones

Some sins, by their nature, are ruinous. And yet, they are perceived to be small, because of how frequently they are put on display. One such example is that of Ghība (backstabbing). Despite it being a major sin, it will nevertheless feature in most gatherings, whilst few will bat an eyelid.

However, had one – for example – stolen a sum of money, all will be appalled, denouncing his theft in the harshest of expressions. Whilst the latter had stolen from people’s wealth, the former had stolen from their honour. And yet, the reactions are inconsistent.

This happens when people, instead of assessing sins according to what they are to Allah, assess them according to what they are to themselves.

The scholars of Islam are agreed that:

الذنوب تنقسم إلى صغائر وكبائر بنص القرآن والسنة وإجماع السلف وبالاعتبار

“Sins are categorised into minor and major ones. This is by way of Qur’ān, Sunnah, and the consensus of the predecessors and logic.” [1]

Much has been said and authored about the major sins. This piece will focus on the minor ones, address their traits, as well as several misconceptions that surround them.

Defined by many traits

1 | Being erased by avoiding major sins

Unlike major sins that require a conscious repentance, minor sins – amongst other ways – are erased by avoiding major sins.

Allah says:

إِنْ تَجْتَنِبُوا كَبَائِرَ مَا تُنْهَوْنَ عَنْهُ نُكَفِّرْ عَنْكُمْ سَيِّئَاتِكُمْ وَنُدْخِلْكُمْ مُدْخَلًا كَرِيمًا

“If you avoid the great sins you have been forbidden, We shall wipe out your minor misdeeds and let you in through the entrance of honour.” [2]

Good news, therefore, to those patiently restraining themselves from the major sins. Their struggles are noticed, appreciated, and they are actively erasing their minor sins.

2 | Minor sins are passively erased through good deeds

The Prophet (ﷺ) said:

الصَّلَوَاتُ الخَمْسُ، وَالْجُمْعَةُ إلى الجُمْعَةِ، وَرَمَضَانُ إلى رَمَضَانَ، مُكَفِّرَاتٌ ما بيْنَهُنَّ إِذَا اجْتَنَبَ الكَبَائِرَ

“The five daily prayers, from one Friday to another, and from one Ramadan to the other, are expiation for the sins between them, so long as the major ones are avoided.” [3]

So, again, good news to those who are intentional in their worship, having avoided the auto-pilot feature in their relationship with Allah.

Their daily, weekly, and yearly acts of worship are not only adding to their good deeds, but also erasing sins that they may have forgotten about.

3 | Minor sins can grow into major ones

The title of ‘minor’ often runs the risk of being deemed insignificant or harmless by the perpetrator, though it is not that simple.

The Prophet (ﷺ) said:

إِيَّاكُمْ وَمُحَقَّرَاتِ الذُّنُوبِ فَإِنَّهُنَّ يَجْتَمِعْنَ عَلَى الرَّجُلِ حَتَّى يُهْلِكْنَهُ

“Beware of sins that are deemed small, for they gather upon a person, till they destroy him.” [4]

Drawing attention to a much-ignored reality, Imam Ibn al-Qayyim said:

وها هنا أمرٌ ينبغي التفطُّن له، وهو أن الكبيرة قد يقترن بها من الحياء والخوف، والاستعظام لها ما يلحقها بالصغائر، وقد يقترن بالصغيرة من قلة الحياء، وعدم المبالاة، وترك الخوف، والاستهانة بها ما يلحقها بالكبائر، بل يجعلها في أعلى المراتب، وهذا أمرٌ مرجعه إلى ما يقوم بالقلب

“There is a matter that should be noticed: a major sin may be coupled with an inner sense of shame and fear of Allah, where the doer considers it enormous, thus shrinking it to a minor sin.

“Similarly, a minor sin may be associated with a sense of shamelessness, carelessness, fearlessness, and viewing the sin as insignificant, thus amplifying it into a major sin, and may even raise it to the highest levels of crime.

“This is a matter that is traced back to the heart.” [1]

So, what are these accompanying factors that magnify minor sins, factors that are worse than the sin itself?

1st | الإحتقار | Belittlement of Sin

Some will argue,

“It’s only a minor sin. Others are doing far worse.”

In reality, such a statement could only be uttered by one who is yet to harbour any true sense of awe towards Allah.

Such an individual has forgotten that the One disobeyed was no mere mortal, but the Sovereign of the Heavens and the Earth, the Owner of all dominion, the King of kings, who is the worthiest of all fear, hope, love, and glory.

Our predecessors would say:

لا تنظر إلى صغر الذنب ولكن انظر إلى عظمة من عصيت

“Do not look at the smallness of the sin, but consider the greatness of the One Whom you have disobeyed.” [5]

Ibn Mas’ūd said:

إِنَّ الْمُؤْمِنَ يَرَى ذُنُوبَهُ كَأَنَّهُ قَاعِدٌ تَحْتَ جَبَلٍ يَخَافُ أَنْ يَقَعَ عَلَيْهِ وَإِنَّ الْفَاجِرَ يَرَى ذُنُوبَهُ كَذُبَابٍ مَرَّ عَلَى أَنْفِهِ فَقَالَ بِهِ هَكَذَا

“The believer views his sins as a mountain which he sits beneath, fearing that it may collapse on him at any moment.

“As for the rebellious one, he sees his sins as insignificant as a fly which lands on his nose, which he casually swats away.” [6]

With time, however, the belittlement of sin will give rise to the second amplifier.

2nd | الإصرار | Insistence upon Sin

Even the most devout fall prey to Satanic suggestions; thus is the nature of man.

However, the believer’s mark of distinction is that he desists, weeps in regret, and makes peace with Allah soon after.

Even if he slips up many times after this, he repeats the process just as many times.

As Allah says in describing the pious:

وَلَمْ يُصِرُّوا عَلَى مَا فَعَلُوا وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ

“..and they do not persist in what they have done while they know.” [7]

It is only when such sins are accompanied with insistence, where one develops a long-term stubborn relationship with them, that their dangers become catastrophic.

Imam Ibn al-Qayyim said:

الإصرار على الصغيرة قد يساوي إثمه إثم الكبيرة أو يربى عليها

“Insistence upon a minor sin could bear the same weight of a major sin, or more.” [8]

The primary drivers behind such insistence are threefold; these are: Jahl (ignorance), Ghafla (a distracted heart), and lack of Hayā (shyness) of Allah.

The ignorance diminishes the size of the sin in one’s eyes, making it seem unworthy of any bother; the distracted heart causes him to forget that he is even upon a sin; whilst the lack of shyness of Allah causes the sin to become part of his routine, like anything else he does habitually without thinking.     

‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Abbās said:

 لا صغيرة مع الإصرار ولا كبيرة مع الاستغفار

“There is no minor sin with insistence, and there is no major sin with repentance.” [9]

With time, however, insistence upon sin gives rise to yet a third amplifier.

3rd | المجاهرة | Proclamation of Sin

Everyone has skeletons in his closet, but the priority of a believer, when falling weak, is to conceal his doings.

He sees his sins as chinks in his armour, blemishes to his faith, and dirt to his name. And so – with his heartbreak – he veils them.

Such an individual is near to Allah’s mercy, as the Prophet (ﷺ) said:

مَنْ سَرَّتْهُ حَسَنَتُهُ وَسَاءَتْهُ سَيِّئَتُهُ فَذَلِكُمْ الْمُؤْمِنُ

“Whoever is pleased by his good deed and saddened by his sin is the believer.” [10]

Proclamation of sins, however, is the archenemy of the above, where the utter carelessness towards his Lord transforms what may have been a minor sin into a major one.

For example, an ‘artist’ who globalises his sinful habits via his lyrics, an influencer who posts of his/ her religious weaknesses in clothing, appearance, or weekend activity to the online community, or a businessman who markets his Shisha, dating, alcohol, interest-based services, or anything that is prohibited is, at his core, publicly celebrating his sin.

What is the outcome of such acts of proclamation?  

The Prophet (ﷺ) said:

كُلُّ أُمَّتِي مُعَافى إلاَّ المُجَاهِرِينَ ، وَإنّ مِنَ المُجَاهَرَةِ أنْ يَعْمَلَ الرَّجُلُ باللَّيلِ عَمَلاً ، ثُمَّ يُصْبحُ وَقَدْ سَتَرَهُ اللهُ عَلَيهِ ، فَيقُولُ : يَا فُلانُ ، عَمِلت البَارِحَةَ كَذَا وَكَذَا ، وَقَدْ بَاتَ يَسْتُرُهُ رَبُّهُ ، وَيُصبحُ يَكْشِفُ ستْرَ اللهِ عَنْه

“Every one of my followers will be safe, except those who expose their wrongdoings.

“An example of this is that of a man who commits a sin at night, which Allah has covered for him, but by morning he says: ‘O so-and-so, I committed such and such sin last night’, while Allah had kept it a secret.

“During the night, Allah covered it up, but by day, he uncovers Allah’s veil on him.” [11]

Such proclamation of sin, with time, will give rise to the fourth amplifier of sin.

4th | الجرأة على المعصية | Audaciousness with Sin

This is in reference to a brazen audacity that causes the sinner to not think twice about any sin that crosses paths with him, be it a recent trend, the latest ‘–ism’, a shady financial opportunity, or DMs that are welcomed or sent.

There is no second thought, but a bold and daring advance every time.

This is similar to the story of the people of the garden mentioned in Surat al-Qalam, who made a resolve, saying:

أَن لَّا يَدْخُلَنَّهَا ٱلْيَوْمَ عَلَيْكُم مِّسْكِينٌۭ

“Do not let any poor person enter your garden today.” [12]

Nothing was going to hold them back, totally fixed on their purpose:

وَغَدَوْا۟ عَلَىٰ حَرْدٍۢ قَـٰدِرِينَ

“And they left early, bent on their purpose.” [13]

From their reactions to when advice is offered to this category – the audacious sinner – it would seem that they were not believers in an afterlife, plagued with sarcasm, dismissiveness, or even mockery.

This is similar to that arrogant individual who, when he heard the Qur’ānic verse…

قُلْ أَرَأَيْتُمْ إِنْ أَصْبَحَ مَاؤُكُمْ غَوْرًا فَمَنْ يَأْتِيكُمْ بِمَاءٍ مَعِينٍ

“Say, ‘If your water were to sink into the Earth, then who else (other than Allah) could bring you flowing water?’” [14]

…replied in brazen arrogance:

تأتي به الفؤوس والمعاول

“Axes and shovels will bring it.”

So, his eyes dried up and lost his vision. [15]

Whatever that sinful opportunity may be, the audacious sinner will pick it up without hesitation, enjoy it without a trace of guilt, and may even sleep that evening with a perfectly clear conscience.

Imam Ibn al-Qayyim said:

وفرحه بها أشد ضررًا عليه من مواقعتها

“The sinner’s happiness with his sin is of greater harm to him than the sin itself.” [1]

With the claws of the above dug deep into the life of a sinner, the fifth and most dangerous amplifier sets in.

5th | اليأس | Despair due to Sin

Having fallen prey to the above, he finally pacifies any remaining trace of a guilty conscience within himself, via the false pretence that Allah’s mercy falls short of his sins.

So, he continues upon his misguided ways, ignoring all pleas from family, and advice from friends, to reform his ways. 

Shaytān spends a lifetime attempting to detain man by constructing prison walls around him, brick by brick. A brick of lustful gazes, a brick of prohibited income, a brick of delaying prayer, a brick of intoxicants, a brick of fornication, a brick of interest, until a lofty and impenetrable building is complete.

However, should a droplet of Allah’s mercy fall upon a sinner, the walls of this building will come crashing down in a single moment, for no sin can stand in the way of Allah’s mercy, when it descends. [16]

Indeed, there is no room for despair, when the name of our Lord is al-Rahmān.

Ibn ʿAbbās said:

قد دعا الله إلى مغفرته من زعم أن المسيح هو الله ، ومن زعم أن المسيح هو ابن الله ، ومن زعم أن عزيرا ابن الله ، ومن زعم أن الله فقير ، ومن زعم أن يد الله مغلولة ، ومن زعم أن الله ثالث ثلاثة ، يقول الله تعالى لهؤلاء : 

“Allah has (even) invited to His forgiveness those who claim that Jesus is Allah, those who claim that Jesus is the son of Allah, those who claim that ʿUzayr is the son of Allah, those who claim that Allah is poor, those who claim that the Hand of Allah is stingy, and those who claim that Allah is one of three, saying to them all:

أفلا يتوبون إلى الله ويستغفرونه والله غفور رحيم

‘Will they not repent to Allah and ask Him for forgiveness? And Allah is forgiving and merciful.’

ثم دعا إلى توبته من هو أعظم قولا من هؤلاء ، من قال أنا ربكم الأعلى وقال ما علمت لكم من إله غيري

“In fact, He invited to His forgiveness the one who did worse than this: the Pharaoh, who announced, ‘I am your lord, the most high’, and said: ‘I do not know of a God for you, other than me.’” [17]

He concludes by saying:

من آيس عباد الله من التوبة بعد هذا فقد جحد كتاب الله

“So whoever causes people to despair from repentance after this, has denied the Book of Allah.” [17]

So what is the solution?

As mentioned in the opening paragraph, the weight of sins is not to be measured according to our human standards.

What we may classify as ‘minor’ may be, in Allah’s Eyes, the most major of them, either because of the gravity of the sin itself, or – as shown above – because of accompanying factors that amplify it, factors that are completely invisible.

The only viable solution to this all, then, is a wholesale retreat to Allah and a wholesome apology to Him, as the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) would say:

اللهُمَّ اغْفِرْ لِي خَطِيئَتِي وَجَهْلِي، وَإِسْرَافِي فِي أَمْرِي، وَمَا أَنْتَ أَعْلَمُ بِهِ مِنِّي، اللهُمَّ اغْفِرْ لِي جِدِّي وَهَزْلِي، وَخَطَئِي وَعَمْدِي، وَكُلُّ ذَلِكَ عِنْدِي، اللهُمَّ اغْفِرْ لِي مَا قَدَّمْتُ وَمَا أَخَّرْتُ، وَمَا أَسْرَرْتُ وَمَا أَعْلَنْتُ، وَمَا أَنْتَ أَعْلَمُ بِهِ مِنِّي، أَنْتَ الْمُقَدِّمُ وَأَنْتَ الْمُؤَخِّرُ، وَأَنْتَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

“O Allah, forgive my faults, my ignorance, my excesses in my matters, and all what are better aware of than myself.

“O Allah, forgive my faults of seriousness and playfulness, and those which I committed accidentally and deliberately, and all of these failings are in me.

“O Allah, forgive me those sins that I’ve advanced or delayed, and those which I committed in privacy or in public, and you are better aware of them) than myself.

“You are the First and the Last and over all things you are able.” [18]

Source: Islam21c


[1] Madārij al-Sālikīn

[2] al-Qur’ān, 4:31

[3] Muslim, on the authority of Abu Hurayrah

[4] al-Bukhari, on the authority of Ibn Mas’ūd

[5] al-Nasā’i

[6] al-Bukhārī

[7] al-Qur’ān, 3:135

[8] Ighātha al-Lahfān

[9] Jāmi’ al-‘Ulūm wa al-Hikam

[10] al-Tirmidhi, on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar

[11] al-Bukhārī and Muslim, on the authority of Abū Hurayrah

[12] al-Qur’ān, 68:24

[13] al-Qur’ān, 68:25

[14] al-Qur’ān, 67:30

[15] Tafsīr Jalāl al-Dīn al-Mahalli

[16] Elaborating on this meaning, Imam Ibn al-Qayyim said:

بنى ما بنى حتى إذا ظن **** ان ما بناه وطيد راسخ الاسس محكم

اتى العفو من كل القواعد ما بنى *** فخر عليه سقفه المتهدم

ولو أن ألفا من بناة جنوده*** بنوا كل يوم الف بيت ورمموا

لهَدت بيوتَ الكل توبةُ مخلص *** على ما جناه وصح منه التندم

[17] Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr

[18] Muslim, on the authority of Abu Musa




Over the December holiday period I had visited Port Elizabeth. I noticed a strange phenomenon in the Fajr Salaah at a Masjid where I visited relatives. There is only one Masjid in the area.

What I found very strange was that in the second rakaat after the imaam came up from ruku he stood disproportionately long compared to the first rakaat and when he went into the sajda the same thing happened. That is the first sajda was almost double the duration of the second sajda.

Upon enquiring, my relative explained that the reason for this strange method of performing the Fajr salaah is to accommodate the Shaafi musalies. It is to give the Shaafi musalies a chance to raise their hands and make their dua as they normally do if the imaam was a Shafi, and the extra long first sajda is to give them a chance to catch the imaam in sajda.

I have never seen this type of namaaz anywhere else in the world where there are different durations in the rukns of the salaah to such an extent that I strongly felt that the imaam delayed going into ruku in the second rakaat, making Sajda Sahu necessary because of the long delay.

Is salaah valid in this manner. Do I have to repeat my fajr salaah. I would appreciate clarity in this regard.


The imaam of this Musjid is a jaahil. Among the Signs of Qiyaamah is the appointment of juhala, fussaaq and fujjaar to positions of Amaanat. Imaamate is a position of Amaanat (Trust) of exceptional loftiness. But today, most imaams of the Musaajid are Juhala and mercenaries, hence they trade and betray the Deen for the miserable jeefah(carrion) crumbs of the dunya. For them the boodle the trustees pay them is worth more than the Deen of Allah Ta’ala.

The clownish antics of the imaam at the Musjid you have described, invalidate the Salaat. Sajdah Sahw does not rectify a Salaat which is marred with intentional acts which are alien to Salaat. Sajdah Sahw is valid when the musalli unintentionally errs. But what this jaahil imaam does is nafsaaniyat and shaitaaniyat.

The simple way for the Shaafi’ muqtadis behind a Hanafi imaam is to recite the shortest Qunoot. Which is valid in the Shaafi’ Math-hab. This will enable the Shaafi’ to easily link up with the Imaam in Sajdah. Thus, there is absolutely no need for the imaam to despoil and corrupt the Salaat with his mockery of monkey stunts. Salaat is not up for foolery. Salaat is the Central Pillar upholding the entire Edifice of the Deen.

Furthermore, the jaahil with his silly tricks is unwittingly committing shirk. Instead of his focus being Allah Ta’ala, he misuses Salaat to conform to the baseless desires of people.

19 Rajab 1444 – 10 February 2023

Javed Ghamidi’s Vile Attack on the Ḥijāb

In the current day and age of widespread Feminism, there are many females who target and attack the ḥijāb. However, it may come as a shock to many that the seeds for this terrible sickness are also being planted by the famous male ḥadīth rejecter, Javed Ghamidi. In fact, his poison on this topic has spread to a considerable degree, and women use his position to discard the ḥijāb.

Study this interview with Javed Ghamidi.

Let us first take a look at the view of Javed Ghamidi, which he has stated time and again. He has explained it in different ways, sometimes in brief and on other occasions, in greater detail.

Question: Is ḥijāb important or is it by choice?

Answer: At night, I explained in detail, and according to my recollection, I have mentioned this hundreds of times. In our religion, there are two types of issues. If you look at the content of the religion, it comprises of two types of issues. One type comprises of all those things that have been made obligatory. We refer to them as farḍ, sometimes as wājib, i.e., they have been made obligatory or binding.

What does this mean? It means that Allāh Ta’ālā has obligated us to do them. If we will do them, Allāh Ta’ālā will reward us. If we do not carry them out, he will take us to task. For example, the thirty fasts of Ramaḍān. This has been made obligatory upon the Muslims.

RELATED: Hijab Is Not a Choice

Then there are some things that are not made obligatory, but Allāh Ta’ālā says that He prefers and likes them and that they should be carried out. So, those things that are good, they fall into the second category. If you carry them out, it will be good. For example, there are 4 Rak’ats in the farḍ of Ẓuhr Ṣalāh. Or, there are 2 Rak’ats of Ṣalāh that are farḍ in Fajr. One must perform them in every condition. One must present himself before Allāh Ta’ālā. However, you performed 2 Rak’ats of optional Ṣalāh together with it. This is up to you, if you want to, you can perform them. If you do not want to, then you do not have to perform them. In matters of worship, this is referred to as Nafl, i.e., optional. In general issues, they are referred to as Mustaḥabb. This is the positive angle of the religion.

The negative angle is that some things are forbidden – prohibited – and are not permitted. There are some things that are Makrūh, i.e., disliked.

So, there are two categories in each angle, i.e., positive and negative in the obligations, and positive and negative in the prohibitions.

So, in general conditions, women, i.e., the condition where women are obligated by Allāh Ta’ālā, when they go to the marketplace, when they go to work, or they are in the house, or wherever, they should wear modest clothing, lower their gazes, and protect their private parts. Men have been instructed to do the same. Men and women have been commanded equally in this regard. There is no other restriction besides this.

However, you know that women love beauty and adornment. They have a flair to wear jewelry, beautify themselves and so on. If they dress in this way, not in normal dress, they are not in a normal position, then in this case, Allāh Ta’ālā tells them to cover themselves, and so, besides the face, hands and feet, they should cover themselves. This will be binding when they adorn themselves and beautify themselves. If they are not adorned and beautified, then the question arises: Should they wear the dupatta or scarf all the time? The answer is that it is something good, something liked, but not obligatory. This is the entire religion.

RELATED: Yes, Islam Forces Muslim Women to Wear Hijab

Response to Ghamidi[1]

وَقُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَى جُيُوبِهِنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَائِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَائِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَائِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ أَوِ التَّابِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُولِي الْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ أَوِ الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَى عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاءِ وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِنْ زِينَتِهِنَّ وَتُوبُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ

«And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allāh in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed»[2]

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لِأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَنْ يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا

«O Nabī, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allāh Forgiving and Merciful»[3]

Ṣafiyyah bint Shaybah reports that ‘Aishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā used to say: When these words were revealed – “and to draw their veils all over Juyūbihinna (i.e., their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)” – they took their izārs (a kind of garment) and tore them from the edges and covered their faces with them.[4]

This report clearly refutes the lies spun by Javed Ghamidi. There is no mention of normal conditions and conditions where the Ṣaḥābiyyāt raḍiyallāhu ‘anhunn beautified themselves. The command was given and they immediately carried it out.

Ibn Ḥajar raḥimahullāh said in Fatḥ al-Bārī:

There is a report of Ibn Abī Hatim via ‘Abd-Allāh ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Khaytham from Safiyyah that explains this. The report says: We mentioned the women of Quraysh and their virtues in the presence of ‘Aishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā and she said: “The women of Quraysh are good, but by Allāh I have never seen any better than the women of the Anṣār, or any who believed the Book of Allāh more strongly, or had more faith in the Revelation. When Sūrat al-Nūr was revealed – “and to draw their veils all over Juyūbihinna (i.e., their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)” – their menfolk came to them and recited to them what had been revealed, and there was not one woman among them who did not go to her apron, and the following morning they prayed wrapped up as if there were crows on their heads.

It was also narrated clearly in the report of al-Bukhārī narrated above, where we see ‘Aishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā, who was so knowledgeable and pious, praising them in this manner and stating that she had never seen any women who believed the Book of Allāh more strongly or had more faith in the Revelation. This clearly indicates that they understood from this verse – “and to draw their veils all over Juyūbihinna (i.e., their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)” – that it was obligatory to cover their faces and that this stemmed from their belief in the Book of Allāh and their faith in the Revelation. It also indicates that women observing ḥijāb in front of men, and covering their faces, is an act of belief in the Book of Allāh and faith in the Revelation. It is very strange indeed that some of those who claim to have knowledge say that there is nothing in the Qur’ān or Sunnah that says that women have to cover their faces in front of non-maḥram men, even though the Ṣaḥabiyyāt did that in obedience to the command of Allāh in His Book, out of faith in the Revelation, and that this meaning is also firmly entrenched in the Sunnah, as in the report from al-Bukhārī quoted above. This is among the strongest evidence that all Muslim women are obliged to observe ḥijāb.[5]

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَدْخُلُوا بُيُوتَ النَّبِيِّ إِلَّا أَنْ يُؤْذَنَ لَكُمْ إِلَى طَعَامٍ غَيْرَ نَاظِرِينَ إِنَاهُ وَلَكِنْ إِذَا دُعِيتُمْ فَادْخُلُوا فَإِذَا طَعِمْتُمْ فَانْتَشِرُوا وَلَا مُسْتَأْنِسِينَ لِحَدِيثٍ إِنَّ ذَلِكُمْ كَانَ يُؤْذِي النَّبِيَّ فَيَسْتَحْيِي مِنْكُمْ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَسْتَحْيِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ وَإِذَا سَأَلْتُمُوهُنَّ مَتَاعًا فَاسْأَلُوهُنَّ مِنْ وَرَاءِ حِجَابٍ ذَلِكُمْ أَطْهَرُ لِقُلُوبِكُمْ وَقُلُوبِهِنَّ وَمَا كَانَ لَكُمْ أَنْ تُؤْذُوا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَلَا أَنْ تَنْكِحُوا أَزْوَاجَهُ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ أَبَدًا إِنَّ ذَلِكُمْ كَانَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ عَظِيمًا

«O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Nabī except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Nabī, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allāh is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allāh or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allāh an enormity»[6]

RELATED: Javed Ghamidi: An Introduction to a Prominent Hadīth Denier

Supporting Narrations

‘Aishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā narrated: “The riders used to pass by us when we were with the Messenger of Allāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam in iḥrām, and when they drew near to us, we would lower our jilbabs from our heads over our faces, then when they had passed, we would uncover them again.[7]

Asma bint Abi Bakr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā said: We used to cover our faces in front of men.[8]

These authentic reports are clear in their purport. We can make out from them that Javed Ghamidi has tried, and continues to try, pushing his evil plot on uncovering the women for all and sundry to gape and gaze at. He has deceitfully employed a tactic of dividing the laws of Islām according to his own whims and fancies, without reference to any of the great scholars of Islām. By doing this, he has removed the importance of the law as a whole from the minds and hearts of his audience. This is a tactic employed by Modernists to undermine and destroy the sharī’ah – which is noble and pure and held in the highest regard by Muslims worldwide. The sad part of the whole issue is that he has lied and continues to lie about it, by saying, ‘There is no other restriction besides this.’

He twists and distorts the purport of obligations and then adds his own conditions for practice. It is part of the nature of women to dress up and adorn themselves when going out of the home, and it is at that very juncture that Javed Ghamidi attempts to make sure that they leave uncovered. Women adorn and beautify themselves for the very purpose of gaining the approval of onlookers, and here, Javed Ghamidi says that it will be ‘a good thing’ if they wear ḥijāb after adorning themselves to go out. What kind of twisted thinking is this? It seems he believes that everyone is as foolish as he is.

May Allāh Ta’ālā save us from such devious and evil ploys. Āmīn.

RELATED: Javed Ghamidi and the Ḥadīth Rejecter’s Trojan Horse


  1. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/13998/verses-and-ahadith-about-hijab-in-islam 
  2. Sūrah An-Nūr: 31 
  3. Sūrah Al-Aḥzāb: 59 
  4. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 
  5. Aḍwā Al-Bayān vol.6 p.594 
  6. Sūrah Al-Aḥzāb: 53 
  7. Sunan Abī Dāwūd, 1833; Sunan Ibn Mājah, 2935; classed as ṣaḥīḥ by Ibn Khuzaymah 4,203 
  8. Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzaymah, 4/203; Mustadrak al-Ḥākim, 1/624  

Follow Mufti Abdullah on Twitter: @MuftiAMoolla



Q.   Is it permissible for women to add false hair (not human hair) to their hair?

A.   The Qur’aan Majeed mentioning the oath taken by shaitaan on the occasion of his expulsion from the Heavens, says:

       “I (i.e. Shaitaan) will  most surely lead them astray; I shall surely instil false hopes in them; I  shall surely command them and they will cut the ears of animals, and I shall surely command them to change their appearances (created by) Allah. Whoever takes shaitaan as a friend besides Allah, verily he has incurred  manifest loss.”

(Aayat 119, Surah Nisaa’)

Every act which is in conflict with the Shariah  is the inspiration of Shaitaan. When Allah Ta’ala cursed him and expelled him from the heaven, he (shaitaan) resolved to mislead mankind.

Among the ways in which shaitaan induces people  to change the appearances which Allah Ta’ala has created for them, are shaving beards,  women cutting their hair,  women implanting false hair, tattooing and the like.

It is gross ingratitude and also gross inferiority of complex to  be dissatisfied  with the natural hair, natural colour and natural appearance Allah Ta’ala has created for people. False hair is satanically  deceptive and displays  rejection of the manner Allah Ta’ala has created  for a person. He knows  why he has created people  in the manner they find themselves.

The West – the Yahood and Nasaara—who have been the colonial masters of African and Eastern countries for centuries, have cultivated a gross sense of inferiority in African, Arab and Eastern people. These people now believe that even their natural appearances are defective, and that the appearance of the American and European is to be adopted and emulated. This is indeed a most humiliating attitude which exists widely among African, Arab and Eastern people. It is this evil of inferiority stemming from Western slavery that induces Africans, Arabs and Eastern people to believe that their own appearances are ugly and defective, hence the need to adopt the appearances of the Americans and Europeans.

But, instead of  rising in esteem, the imitators make greater fools of themselves. Every person   is able to understand the folly and stupidity of those who use false hair to ‘beautify’ themselves.  However, the opposite is achieved. They render themselves hideously ugly.


Medicine and medical treatment are not compulsory

Q. In the hospital here (in U.S.A.) you can refuse any type of treatment, we want them to do cpr but in order to get cpr and electric shocks they require that they  put a tube down your throat. Is it permissible to refuse the cpr? 
This tube can be long term and makes the patient dependent on this tube. They will remove this tube to clean, at which time they will make an incision in your throat. According to their science this process can cause brain damage and long term damage. The process causes such extreme pain that it requires them to physically tie you down.This process also causes them to give you the maximum pain medicine a human can take due to the extreme pain this causes. The process of inserting and removing the tube can cause a coma according to their sciences. Is it permissible to deny the cpr and electric shock under these circumstances? Also the patient is 90 years old.
A. Medicine and medical treatment are not compulsory according to the Shariah even if a person will die in consequence of abstention from medicine. If the patient refuses medical treatment for whatever reason, he/she will not be sinful. While medical treatment is permissible, the savage type described by you is not permissible. Such torture is worse than the hardship of the sickness. When medical treatment involves such ugly and brutal torture as described in the question, then one should never submit to it. Repose reliance on Allah Ta’ala. Increase Istighfaar, Thikrullaah and make Dua. One will die only at the appointed time with the command of Allah Ta’ala. Focusing on Allah Ta’ala, the shortness of life and the eternal pleasure of Jannat will, Insha’Allah, increase the spiritual stamina for Sabr, Tafweedh and Ridha.

the majlis vol 26 no 8