What is the Fatwa on selling TV’s? We always understood it to be Haraam. Please comment on the following fatwa of a mufti:
“QUESTION Is it permissible for one to sell a TV?
ANSWER Televisions are mainly used for the purpose of viewing Haram content. The harms of television are known to all. However, a TV does not serve a singular purpose, rather it is a multi-purpose item. It has several permissible uses such as, displaying Salah times; Deeni advices; CCTV; education. In principle, if an item has both permissible and impermissible uses, it will be permissible for one to sell it. The income from such a sale will be Halal. If the buyer uses the item for sinful activities, the seller will not be responsible if he does not employ impermissible methods to sell the TV, for example, advertising the quality of the screen and sound through animate pictures and music.” (End of fatwa)
The Mufti dwells in gross error. His zig-zag fatwa is baseless. The objective of a fatwa is guidance, not misguidance. With the zig-zag fatwa the mufti aids in the commission of sin and transgression in flagrant violation of the Qur’aanic prohibition: “Do not mutually aid one another in sin and transgression.”
Since this mufti has made selling televisions halaal, what is the purpose of his statement: “Televisions are mainly used for the purpose of viewing Haram content.”? It is a meaningless comment which highlights the zig-zag trajectory of today’s muftis. In view of the fact that the primary purpose of television is viewing zina, fisq and fujoor and its foundational principle is haraam pictography, the actual fatwa is that it is haraam to sell these satanic devices. It is an illustration of puerility for the mufti to introduce in his fatwa the principle pertaining to selling items which can be used for both permissible and impermissible acts. Mention of this principle is his zig-zag attempt to camouflage his egregious error. It is not like selling a knife or a gun which are primarily used for halaal purposes. Since television is primarily used for haraam, he was supposed to issue a short and crisp fatwa of hurmat (prohibition). The question pertains to television in general, and that implies television used in haraam ways for haraam purposes. The question does not pertain to monitors/screens. The questioner asks about television employed in haraam manner, that is with pictures, for haraam purposes, that is zina, porno, fisq and fujoor. No one is so stupid as to ask about permissibility of mere screens / monitors used for Salaat timetables. The mufti has degenerated into a moronic quagmire with his zig -zagging style of ‘fatwas’. Any moron can understand from the question that the person asks about pornotelevision — television displaying pictures and the deluge of filth and muck disseminated by television. While he acknowledges that television is mainly used for haraam, he issues his fatwa on something which is
totally unrelated to the haraam content. Since the questioner posed his question regarding the ‘content’ which
the mufti himself describes as ‘haraam content’, his fatwa of permissibility is satanically zig -zagging designed to mislead and misguide. If the device is required for a lawful purpose, the questioner would have posed the
question differently. The halaal usage is the exception. Television is used for “haraam content” in 99.9% of cases. The mufti who appears to be a victim of western liberalism, viewed the question with squint eyes or in an upside down manner which obscured the reality of the hurmat, hence the zig-zag ‘halaal’ consequence.
Selling television is HARAAM. The income is haraam. A glaring stupidity in the ‘fatwa’ is that the mufti has not answered the question posed to him. While the mustafti’s (the one who asked the question) question pertains to carrion, the mufti’s answer relates to halaal mutton. In other words, the mustafti’s question relates to the usual popular television depictions in which features pictures of animate objects, naked women, lewdness, immorality, fisq and fujoor. The reason why the mustafti seeks a fatwa on an issue which is conspicuously haraam, is because the ulama-e-soo’ who are stupidly understood to be ‘senior muftis’ or stupid ‘grand muftis’, have halaalized this device of Iblees. However, since the conscience of the mustafti is suffering
pangs of confusion, he posed the question in an endeavour to assuage his heart which by virtue of Imaan repels baatil. Regarding the heart of the Mu’min, Rasulullah ( S a l l a l l a h u a l a y h i wasallam) said: “Sin is
that which disturbs your heart.” In order to gain the correct fatwa, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) instructed the true Mu’min: “Seek a fatwa from your heart.” In this age of fisq and fujoor in which the muftis are trading the Shariah for tuppence, one has to be extremely circumspect and not hasten to seek answers from muftis. They pave the pathway of Jahannam with their corrupt and convoluted fatwas of dhalaal.
The mustafti did not ask a fatwa regarding Salaat timetables or Qur’aanic Aayaat displayed on the screens of
such televisions which are used for only halaal purposes. The mustafti who has more brains than most muftis, is fully aware that it will be downright stupid to ask about Salaat timetables and the like. Any moron understands what exactly the mustafti’s question is all about. But the zig zagging mufti with his zig zagging
twaddle ‘daleels’, twiddles with the Deen with his silly and flaccid diversionary ‘proofs’ with which he diverts the attention from the actual question.



Q. Is it permissible for a wife to take a job outside the home? Can the husband prevent her?
A. It is not permissible for the wife to take a job outside the home even with the permission
of the husband. It is not permissible for her to do any work even from home without the
permission of her husband. The maintenance is the responsibility of the husband. If he provides the maintenance, and he refuses permission for his wife to work and earn even from home, then it will not be permissible for her to undertake any job even from within the precincts of the home. The husband is under Shar’i obligation to prohibit and prevent his wife from leaving the house to work or to participate in any kind of function.

Q. My husband works in an office among females who are immodestly dressed. He says that he keeps his eyes cast down. He also says that Muslim doctors and even Ulama work with women. What is the Shariah’s law in this regard?
A. The doctors and even Ulama who do not observe proper Hijaab and who work with women are not the Shariah. Their activities and their mingling with women in their professions and occupations may not be presented as a valid basis. The only basis is the Shariah, not the practices of people even if they are great Ulama. If their practices are in conflict with the Shariah, it will remain haraam and not become halaal because they happen to be ‘great’ Ulama. It is not proper and not permissible for a Muslim male doctor to attend to female patients. He should divert them to female doctors. Only if there is a valid reason upheld by the Shariah may a male doctor attend to a female and vice versa. There are numerous non-Muslim female
doctors who can handle Muslim female patients. A Muslim doctor is not supposed to work in a hospital where he has to incumbently interact with females. Thus, their actions are not Islamic proofs for permissibility.
Your husband should himself make a sincere attempt to work elsewhere where he will not be in the company of women. He is bound to fall into the pit of zina. Shaitaan and the Nafs are deceiving him.

Q. Is it permissible to donate human milk?
A. Human breast milk is haraam. Breast milk is only halaal for under two year old infants. Donating or selling human milk or any part of the human body is haraam.

Q. Will a woman be a faasiq if she does not wear niqaab?
A. A woman who does not wear Niqaab in public is worse than a faasiqah. She is a faajirah (immoral).

Q. Will the wife be disobedient if she refuses to submit to her husband’s demand for oral sex?
A. The one who makes such a filthy satanic demand is worse than a pig. Oral or shaitaan sex is haraam. The wife should not submit to the swine-filth of the husband. She will not be disobedient. She is under Shar’i obligation to refuse the haraam instructions and haraam lusts of her husband. How can a human being who is termed Ashraful Makhluqaat (The Noblest of Creation) descend into such depths of swine-inequity?

Q. Is marriage to a Salafi girl valid?
A. Marriage with a Salafi girl is valid just as marriage with a Muslim prostitute is valid. However, such a marriage will be full of misery, hence inadvisable. There will be no compatibility and the marriage is likely
to break down and end in divorce. The Deeni differences and conflicts between Salafis and the Muqallideen of the Math-habs constitute an unbridgeable chasm.

Q. Does the period of breastfeeding differ for boys and girls?
A. The period of breastfeeding is two years for both boys and girls.

Q. My mother is extremely sick and complains a lot. What advice can I give her?
A. Be of service to her to the best of your ability. Tell her that it comes in the Hadith that sickness is a purifier. It cleanses us from all our sins provided that we do not complain. Complaining will not cure the sickness. On the contrary the sickness will become worse. Sickness is also a ni’mat (favour) of Allah Ta’ala. He purifies us here on earth with sicknesses and other difficulties so that we can enter Jannat fully purified. Advise your mother to keep her tongue constantly engaged in Thikrullaah. Maut can come at any moment. Therefore, the tongue should always be engaged in some Thikr to ensure departure from this dunya with
the Kalimah on the tongue.

Q. Is imitation jewellery permissible?
A. Imitation jewellery is permissible for women except rings. Rings must be of either gold or silver.

Q. Is it proper for a man to marry a second wife only for the sake of his lust?
A. Allah Ta’ala permits a man to marry four women. As far as ‘lust’ is concerned, everyone marries to satisfy his/her lust. The primary motive for marrying even one wife is to gratify lust. Initially people marry only to satisfy lust even if only one wife is taken. Allah Ta’ala has created lust in people, hence He is aware that men require more than one wife to satisfy their lust lawfully. Never voice yourself against any Law of Allah Ta’ala. Recite Istighfaar and make Taubah.

Q. Why is it not permissible for women to attend walimahs. During the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), they would go to walimahs.
A. Just as it is not permissible for women to attend the Musjid even if there are separate entrances, so too is it forbidden for women to attend ‘walimahs’ nowadays. Furthermore, the ‘walimahs’ nowadays are farcical and bid’ah. In fact, it is not permissible for even men to attend the reception organized by the girl’s parents on the day of the Nikah. Such a reception is not the walimah. Women used to attend the Musjid for Salaat during the age of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). However, this was unanimously banned later by the Sahaabah.
The same applies to walimahs and to all other merrymaking functions.

Q. How many holes may a lady pierce in her ears?
A. A lady may pierce her ears only with one hole in each ear. More than one is the style of the kuffaar.

Q. My husband has cheated on me. He has struck up adulterous relationships. My heart is broken. I don’t know what to do. My health is suffering. I want to run away. Please give me some advice.
A. Countless women are undergoing the same heart-breaking problems. When men lack Taqwa, they conduct themselves like atheists. They really do not believe that Allah Ta’ala is seeing them and that the Recording
Angels are writing their misdeeds. However, do understand well that your broken heart is a wonderful treasure by Allah Ta’ala. Allah Ta’ala, in His Own Words, said to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam):
“I am with every broken heart.” Your grief will not be in vain. You will receive immense rewards for patiently bearing the grief. Focus more on Allah Ta’ala. Do not ruin your health on account of the shenanigans of your husband. Maintain your health and use it to gain nearness to Allah Ta’ala. Increase ibaadat. Life on earth is short. It is full of trials. May Allah Ta’ala grant you strength and steadfastness on the Deen. May Allah Ta’ala guide your husband and protect you.

Q. A man has two wives. The one wife lives with him while the other wife lives in her own house about 100 kilometres away. This wife demands equal nights. What is the Shariah’s rule?
A. In the scenario mentioned by you, if the wife who lives 100 kilometres away desires equal nights, then she has to reside in a house procured for her by her husband in the town where he lives. She cannot demand equal nights living in her own house 100 km from her husband.

Q. I do not allow my children to visit their grandparents – my parents and my wife’s parents.
They have televisions, and in general they do not observe the rules of the Shariah such as purdah, mushtabah / haraam food, etc. They are accusing me of breaking family ties. Am I breaking family ties?
A. In fact, it is not permissible to send your children to relatives who are not strict on the Deen. Refraining from sending the children does not mean that you are severing family ties. It is the Waajib obligation of parents to ensure that the Akhlaaq of their children are not compromised by relatives. Nowadays, the safest is to stay at home, and not to visit even relatives. We are trapped in an era of fitnah and fasaad. A home where the Deen is observed is a holy sanctuary visited by the Malaaikah of Rahmat. On the other hand, houses such as the homes of your parents are haunts for the shayaateen. These people lack the haziest idea of the meaning of family ties and what constitutes disruption of breaking of family ties. Furthermore, it is haraam to uphold
‘family ties’ when in conflict with the Shariah.

Q. Is there a special thikr or amal for anxiety and depression? When my evil past comes to mind, I develop anxiety and go into depression.
A. When anxiety develops, do not brood on the past. Do not entertain the thought which is the cause for the anxiety. Instead, lapse into Thikrullah. Perform two raka’ts Nafl and engage in Thikrullah. Shaitaan tries to derail a person by causing anxiety in this manner. A Mu’min equipped with the weapon of Thikr does not suffer depression. Anxiety is an assault of shaitaan, and its antidote is Thikrullah. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Shaitaan sits glued on the heart of man. When he (man) makes thikr, shaitaan
flees. When he (man) is oblivious (ghaafil), shaitaan casts his waswasah.”

Q. I have found out that my husband is conducting relationships with women via his cell phone. He refuses to give me the password. What should I do?
A. 99% of the men of this age, including molvis and sheikhs, are involved in cellphone zina and pornography. There is nothing you will be able to do in these circumstances. Men and women are drowning in deluges of moral filth – zina and porno – of the cellphone. Little children are also addicted to this device of shaitaan. The
entire Ummah across the board, is buffeted madly in this whirlpool of cellphone filth. People no longer have Imaan. They have become atheists. They are in entirety bereft of any concept of Allah’s Omnipresence. They
have become munaafiqs. Whilst they blabber with their mouths about the Recording Angels, they sin flagrantly in front of these Malaaikah and with Allah Ta’ala looking at them. But since they do not really believe in the Presence of Allah Ta’ala and His Malaaikah, they sin recklessly. You can only constantly offer good advice to your husband and adopt Sabr. If you are unable to bear his evil abuse with patience then your marriage will end. Thus, your choice is between Sabr and Talaaq.
Q. The separation between a husband and wife was in terms of Khula’. Is it correct that the Iddat of this woman is 30 days?
A. The Iddat of a woman whether separated by Talaaq or Khula is the same. It is three haidh periods if not pregnant. If pregnant, it ends with the delivery of the child.


Q. There is a WhatsApp group thing, which appears to be gambling. A number of people contribute money. Lots are drawn. One person collects the whole sum of the contributions. A lot of muslim females are now joining this group and recruiting more people to join the group. A muslim female told me she put in R500, and she walked away with R3000. Is this scheme permissible?
They literally just add a R500 into the group, they not selling any goods or services.
For example, you added to group of 15 people. You are the 15th person, you add a R500. Once everyone has given a R500, then they pay the 1st person in the group, then they remove that person. Then you get moved to the 14th position, and they add another person to be person number 15. Then no. 15 pays a R500.
The cycle carries on until you reach number 1 on the list, then you get paid all the money paid from everyone
else. You only put in R500 once. But you will walk away with R7000.

A. The scheme is haraam gambling. It is not permissible to join this gambling group. The prize won is haraam and should be given into charity to the poor. Shaitaan has inspired these evil people with this scheme. The whole scheme from beginning to end is haraam.

from the majlis vol 25 no. 10



Mufti Ebrahim Desai, in a fatwa, says that it is permissible to wear a covid mask. He says that the prohibition in the Hadith falls away when the mask is worn because of a need. The need is the danger of being infected with the covid disease. He quoted from several kitaabs of the Hanafi Fuqaha. One such quotation is:

“Covering one’s mouth in Salah is prohibited due to the Hadith of Abu Dawud and others. It will only be permissible to cover at the time of need.” (Emphasis not mine)

The mufti basis the permissibility on the need “to save oneself from being infected”. Is this fatwa valid?


This is one more of the zigzag fatwas for which the wayward mufti has a penchant. There is no valid Shar’i substance in his zigzag fatwa which is designed for bootlicking the atheists and the government. This miserable mufti is a sell-out. He has become a traitor to the Deen. He mis-manipulates the texts of the Shariah for sinister agendas. The current shaitaani objective is to accord Shar’i acceptability to the baatil covid shaitaaniyat dinned into his ears by anti-Islam forces.

The Hadith and the texts of the Fuqaha are abundantly clear. With clarity the prohibition is stated. The exception is an exigency of Dhuroorat (real need), not a hallucinated need, and not a need according to the kufr theories of the atheists.

No one denies the principle of Dhuroorat. But every imaginary ‘need’ does not come within the Shariah’s concept of Dhuroorat. If there is genuine Dhuroorat, Salaat may be performed wearing only a female’s panties or even stark naked. When there is legitimate Dhuroorat in the meaning of the Shariah’s concept, then liquor and pork may also be consumed, and for such consumption there is no need for the rubbish ‘halaal’ certificates of the Carrion & Pork cartel.

The conjectured or imagined ‘need’ on which the zigzagger basis his corrupt fatwa is underlined by the kufr contagion belief which is in blatant denial of the explicit La Adwaa proclamation of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This miserable miscreant mufti shamelessly peddles the idea of the atheist in stark denial of the Law stated by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

In view of the Shariah’s explicit negation of the kufr idea of contagion, there is absolutely no need to don the niqaab of Iblees in Salaat. Thus, the original Mas’alah remains in its place. The exception proffered by the miscreant has no basis. It is spurious and baatil, hence donning the niqaab of Iblees in Salaat is Haraam. The fear of infection is unfounded and kufr.

Furthermore, wearing the niqaab of Iblees in the current context of the circumstances is not only Makrooh, it is kufr, and it invalidates Salaat. Donning the Ibleesi niqaab is accompanied by the kufr belief of contagion. It is the kufr idea of the atheists which this miserable mufti is promoting.

The function of a true Mufti is to strengthen the bond with Allah Ta’ala, not to widen the existing chasm between the bandah and Allah Ta’ala. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Seek a fatwa from your heart.” The sincere searcher of the Truth should, with an unbiased mind, scrutinize the fatwa of this wayward mufti.

Who and what is this mufti promoting with his zigzag fatwa? The fatwa of the heart will adequately reply this question. Everyone can understand that the fatwa of permissibility for donning the niqaab of Iblees is designed to promote the theory of the atheists and to curry favour with the government. There is no Deeni objective for this confounded baatil fatwa.

He completely side steps the original purport of Rasulullah’s prohibition, and clings on to the straw of the exception on the fallacious basis of imaginary dhuroorat to peddle the wares of Bill Gates and his ilk.

The fatwa of Deoband is just as putrid as the fatwa of mufti Ebrahim Desai. Deoband is no longer a reliable institution. We scrutinize the fatwas emanating from today’s Darul Ifta if Deoband. The Janaazah of Ilm has long ago departed from Darul Uloom Deoband. Now there remains only a skeleton. Their fatwa also emphasizes on the exception instead of the prohibition stated with clarity by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Both fatwas are bunkum. It is haraam to don the niqaab of Iblees. Salaat with the evil niqaab on, due to the kufr belief underlying it, is not valid.

22 Jamaadil Awwal 1442 – 6 January 2021

The Major Signs Of Islam In Our Times

For the love of the Mujaddid, Imam Rabbani

… and who are the self-hating Islamites?

As-Salamu ‘Alaikum

Years ago, a jew visiting my blog once asked me – “What do you mean by ‘self-hating Islamites’? What’s an Islamite? Is it something like Canaanites mentioned in the Torah?” I replied that the term ‘self-hating’ was borrowed from their own jargon of ‘self-hating jews’. As for “Islamites”, I said that I just imply by it – CLAIMANTS TO ISLAM, people who profess Muslim names, and supposedly identities, but either have left Islam or are severe heretics.

Recently, a brother asked me to list out some of the major perennialism and modernism infested bid’ahs of our times. I decided to list both out in a tabular form as the signs of Islam negate the posion of kufr and bid’ah. In any case the signs of Islam are the negators of the bid’ahs. The anti-dote of a poison is that which negates…

View original post 2,961 more words

The Concept of Limited Liability

Q: Is the limited liability clause, which is found in all listed companies, permissible in Shari’ah? Without including this clause, a company cannot be legally registered as a listed company and this will pose restrictions on Muslims in the business world. If it is not permissible for Muslims to open listed companies on account of this clause, will it be permissible for Muslims to invest in these listed companies as they all have the limited liability clause?

A: The concept of limited liability is based on the principle of a juristic person or legal entity. The basic understanding of a juristic person is that the company is the sole owner of its assets. Hence, if the company is liquidated and there are no more assets while money is still due to the creditors, then the creditors of such a company will have no recourse to claim the wealth owed to them by the company as the company itself is the owner of its resources. On the contrary, if any debtor of the company is unable to pay his debt to the company, the company has the right to sue him. In Islam, such a one-sided concept has no basis and is the cause of oppression and injustice.

Furthermore, this concept does not have any origin in the Quraan Majeed, Hadith, lives of the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum), verdicts of the four Imaams (rahmatullahi alaihim), etc. Instead, it is a new invention in the business sector. Upon close inspection, one will realize that this concept goes against the very core values of the Islamic system.

According to Shari’ah, the shareholders of the company are the owners of the company together with its resources in accordance to each shareholder’s proportionate share. Therefore, the profits of the company are reaped by the shareholders, and in the case of liquidation, the shareholders will be held liable for paying the debts of the creditors in accordance to each shareholder’s proportionate share. Just as each shareholder receives the profits of the company and has to pay his zakaat on the total zakaatable assets in proportion to his share (as the company is not a person and thus does not have to pay zakaat), similarly the purchases, the sales and the debts and liabilities of the company are all the responsibilities of the shareholders of the company. Even though the legal system does not hold the directors and shareholders of the company liable for the outstanding debts owed to the creditors if the company is liquidated, according to Shari’ah, they are fully liable and accountable.

As a believer, one needs to bear in mind that if something is declared haraam in Shari’ah but is legalised by the government, it will remain haraam and will not become halaal and permissible on account of the government legalising it. For example, if liquor, gambling, prostitution, etc. are regarded legal in any country, then despite its legal status, it will not be declared halaal in Shari’ah. Similarly, if something has been declared halaal in Shari’ah, but is declared illegal in the country, the thing will remain halaal and it will not become haraam on account of it being regarded illegal. Hence, even though limited liability is recognized by the government, since this goes against Shari’ah and is based on injustice, it will be impermissible. However, since one cannot do business without registering a company as a listed company, and limited liability is among the clauses that are part of the company, it will be permissible for one to register the company as long as this clause is not practiced upon.

And Allah Ta’ala (الله تعالى) knows best.

عن عامر قال سمعت النعمان بن بشير رضي الله عنه يقول سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول الحلال بين والحرام بين وبينهما مشبهات لا يعلمها كثير من الناس فمن اتقى المشبهات استبرأ لدينه وعرضه ومن وقع في الشبهات كراع يرعى حول الحمى يوشك أن يواقعه ألا وإن لكل ملك حمى ألا إن حمى الله في أرضه محارمه ألا وإن في الجسد مضغة إذا صلحت صلح الجسد كله وإذا فسدت فسد الجسد كله ألا وهي القلب (صحيح البخاري، الرقم: 52)

الشركة جائزة لأنه صلى الله عليه وسلم بعث والناس يتعاملون بها فقررهم عليه قال الشركة ضربان شركة أملاك وشركة عقود فشركة الأملاك العين يرثها رجلان أو يشتريانها فلا يجوز لأحدهما أن يتصرف في نصيب الآخر إلا بإذنه وكل واحد منهما في نصيب صاحبه كالأجنبي وهذه الشركة تتحقق في غير المذكور في الكتاب كما إذا اتهب رجلان عينا أو ملكاها بالاستيلاء أو اختلط مالهما من غير صنع أحدهما أو بخلطهما خلطا يمنع التمييز رأسا أو إلا بحرج ويجوز بيع أحدهما نصيبه من شريكه في جميع الصور ومن غير شريكه بغير إذنه إلا في صورة الخلط والاختلاط فإنه لا يجوز إلا بإذنه وقد بينا الفرق في كفاية المنتهى والضرب الثاني شركة العقود وركنها الإيجاب والقبول وهو أن يقول أحدهما شاركتك في كذا وكذا ويقول الآخر قبلت وشرطه أن يكون التصرف المعقود عليه عقد الشركة قابلا للوكالة ليكون ما يستفاد بالتصرف مشتركا بينهما فيتحقق حكمه المطلوب منه ثم هي أربعة أوجه مفاوضة وعنان وشركة الصنائع وشركة الوجوه (الهداية 2/624)

لا تجوز الاستدانة على الوقف إلا إذا احتيج إليها لمصلحة الوقف كتعمير وشراء بذر فيجوز بشرطين الأول إذن القاضي فلو ببعد منه يستدين بنفسه الثاني أن لا تتيسر إجارة العين والصرف من أجرتها والاستدانة القرض والشراء نسيئة (الدر المختار 4/439)

مطلب في الاستدانة على الوقف

(قوله لا تجوز الاستدانة على الوقف) أي إن لم تكن بأمر الواقف وهذا بخلاف الوصي فإن له أن يشتري لليتيم شيئا بنسيئة بلا ضرورة لأن الدين لا يثبت ابتداء إلا في الذمة واليتيم له ذمة صحيحة وهو معلوم فتتصور مطالبته أما الوقف فلا ذمة له والفقراء وإن كانت لهم ذمة لكن لكثرتهم لا تتصور مطالبتهم فلا يثبت إلا على القيم وما وجب عليه لا يملك قضاء من غلة للفقراء ذكره هلال وهذا هو القياس لكنه ترك عند الضرورة كما ذكره أبو الليث وهو المختار أنه إذا لم يكن من الاستدانة بد تجوز بأمر القاضي إن لم يكن بعيدا عنه لأن ولايته أعم في مصالح المسلمين وقيل تجوز مطلقا للعمارة والمعتمد في المذهب الأول أما ماله منه بد كالصرف على المستحقين فلا كما في القنية إلا الإمام والخطيب والمؤذن فيما يظهر لقوله في جامع الفصولين لضرورة مصالح المسجد اهـ وإلا للحصر والزيت بناء على القول بأنهما من المصالح وهو الراجح هذا خلاصة ما أطال به في البحر (قوله الأول إذن القاضي) فلو ادعى الإذن فالظاهر أنه لا يقبل إلا ببينة وإن كان المتولي مقبول القول لما أنه يريد الرجوع في الغلة وهو إنما يقبل قوله فيما في يده وعلى هذا فإذا كان الواقع أنه لم يستأذن يحرم عليه الأخذ من الغلة لأنه بلا إذن متبرع بحر (قوله الثاني أن لا تتيسر إجارة العين إلخ) أطلق الإجارة فشمل الطويلة منها ولو بعقود فلو وجد ذلك لا يستدين أفاده البيري وما سلف من أن المفتى به بطلان الإجارة الطويلة فذاك عند عدم الضرورة كما حررناه سابقا فافهم (قوله والاستدانة القرض والشراء نسيئة) صوابه الاستقراض اهـ ح وتفسير الاستدانة كما في الخانية أن لا يكون للواقف غلة فيحتاج إلى القرض والاستدانة أما إذا كان للوقف غلة فأنفق من مال نفسه لإصلاح الوقف كان له أن يرجع بذلك في غلة الوقف اهـ ومفاده أن المراد بالقرض الإقراض من ماله لا الاستقراض من مال غيره لدخوله في الاستدانة مطلب في إنفاق الناظر من ماله على العمارة في فتاوى الحانوتي الذي وقفت عليه في كلام أصحابنا أن الناظر إذا أنفق من مال نفسه على عمارة الوقف ليرجع في غلته له الرجوع ديانة لكن لو ادعى ذلك لا يقبل منه بل لا بد أن يشهد أنه أنفق ليرجع كما في الرابع والثلاثين من جامع الفصولين وهذا يقتضي أن ذلك ليس من الاستدانة على الوقف وإلا لما جاز إلا بإذن القاضي ولم يكلف الإشهاد اهـ قلت لكن ينبغي تقييد ذلك بما إذا كان للوقف غلة وإلا فلا بد من إذن القاضي كما أفاده ما ذكرناه عن الخانية ومثله قوله في الخانية أيضا لا يملك الاستدانة إلا بأمر القاضي وتفسير الاستدانة أن يشتري للوقف شيئا وليس في يده شيء من الغلة أما لو كان في يده شيء فاشترى للوقف من مال نفسه ينبغي أن يرجع ولو بلا أمر قاض اهـ وما ذكرناه في إنفاقه بنفسه يأتي مثله في إذنه للمستأجر أو غيره بالإنفاق فليس من الاستدانة مطلب في إذن الناظر للمستأجر بالعمارة وفي الخيرية سئل في علية جارية في وقف تهدمت فأذن الناظر لرجل بأن يعمرها من ماله فما الحكم فيما صرفه من ماله بإذنه أجاب اعلم أن عمارة الوقف بإذن متوليه ليرجع بما أنفق يوجب الرجوع باتفاق أصحابنا وإذا لم يشترط الرجوع ذكر في جامع الفصولين في عمارة الناظر بنفسه قولين وعمارة مأذونه كعمارته فيقع فيها الخلاف وقد جزم في القنية والحاوي بالرجوع وإن لم يشترط إذا كان يرجع معظم العمارة إلى الوقف اهـ (رد المحتار4/439-440)

الرابعة في الاستدانة لأجل العمارة حيث لم يكن غلة قال في الذخيرة قال هلال إذا احتاجت الصدقة إلى العمارة وليس في يد القيم ما يعمرها فليس له أن يستدين عليها لأن الدين لا يجب ابتداء إلا في الذمة وليس للوقف ذمة والفقراء وإن كانت لهم ذمة إلا أنهم لكثرتهم لا تتصور مطالبتهم فلا يثبت الدين باستدانة القيم إلا عليه ودين يجب عليه لا يملك قضاءه من غلة هي على الفقراء (البحر الرائق 5/ 227)

ولكن هذا الجواز يخضع لجميع شروط البيع. فلو كانت الشركة لم تبدأ نشاطها وكانت موجوداتها مقتصرة على نقود فإن أسهم تلك الشركة لا تمثل إلا نقودا فلو بيع السهم بنقد في هذه الحالة فإنه لا يجوز بيعها بأقل أو أكثر من قيمتها الاسمية لأن التفاضل يؤدي إلى الربا (فقه البيوع 1/381)

أما شركة العقود فأنواع ثلاثة شركة بالمال وشركة بالأعمال وكل ذلك على وجهين مفاوضة وعنان كذا في الذخيرة وركنها الإيجاب والقبول وهو أن يقول أحدهما شاركتك في كذا وكذا ويقول الآخر قبلت كذا في الكافي ويندب الإشهاد عليها كذا في النهر الفائق وشرط جواز هذه الشركات كون المعقود عليه عقد الشركة قابلا للوكالة كذا في المحيط وأن يكون الربح معلوم القدر فإن كان مجهولا تفسد الشركة وأن يكون الربح جزءا شائعا في الجملة لا معينا فإن عينا عشرة أو مائة أو نحو ذلك كانت الشركة فاسدة كذا في البدائع وحكم شركة العقد صيرورة المعقود عليه وما يستفاد به مشتركا بينهما كذا في محيط السرخسي (الفتاوى الهندية 2/301-302)

اشتراط الربح متفاوتا صحيح بخلاف اشتراط الخسران ويندب الإشهاد عليها وذكر محمد كيفية كتابتهم فقال هذا ما اشترك عليه فلان وفلان اشتركا على تقوى الله تعالى وأداء الأمانة ثم يبين قدر رأس مال كل منهما ويقول ذلك كله في أيهما يشتريان به ويبيعان جميعا وشتى ويعمل كل منهما برأيه ويبيع بالنقد والنسيئة وهذا وإن ملكه كل بمطلق عقد الشركة إلا أن بعض العلماء يقول لا يملكه إلا بالتصريح به ثم يقول فما كان من ربح فهو بينهما على قدر رءوس أموالهما وما كان من وضيعة أو تبعة فكذلك ولا خلاف أن اشتراط الوضيعة بخلاف قدر رأس المال باطل واشتراط الربح متفاوتا عندنا صحيح فيما سيذكر فإن اشترطا التفاوت فيه كتباه كذلك ويكتب التاريخ كي لا يدعي أحدهما لنفسه حقا فيما اشتراه الآخر قبل التاريخ فتح (رد المحتار 4/305)

ولو شرطا العمل عليهما جميعا صحت الشركة وإن قل رأس مال أحدهما وكثر رأس مال الآخر واشترطا الربح بينهما على السواء أو على التفاضل فإن الربح بينهما على الشرط والوضيعة أبدا على قدر رءوس أموالهما (الفتاوى الهندية 2/320)

(ولكل واحد من المتفاوضين وشريكي العنان أن يبضع المال) لأنه معتاد في عقد الشركة ولأن له أن يستأجر على العمل والتحصيل بغير عوض دونه فيملكه وكذا له أن يودعه لأنه معتاد ولا يجد التاجر منه بدا (ويدفعه مضاربة) لأنها دون الشركة فتتضمنها وعن أبي حنيفة أنه ليس له ذلك لأنه نوع شركة والأصح هو الأول وهو رواية الأصل لأن الشركة غير مقصودة وإنما المقصود تحصيل الربح كما إذا استأجره بأجر بل أولى لأنه تحصيل بدون ضمان في ذمته بخلاف الشركة حيث لا يملكها لأن الشيء لا يستتبع مثله (الهداية 2/632)

Answered by:

Mufti Zakaria Makada

Checked & Approved:

Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Isipingo Beach)



“New Yorkers are finally rebelling against the illicit Covid regime. About 12,000 New York City students are being prevented from attending in-person learning because parents failed to sign consent forms for weekly random testing”, Bloomberg reported last week. … Meanwhile, high school and middle school students that are part of NYC’s 1 million plus student body are all receiving remote instruction. “Tens of thousands” of elementary school parents have voluntarily opted out of random testing in favour of remote learning as well, Bloomberg concluded.”



“A British journalist has been targeted by an angry online mob after pointing out that only a relatively small amount of healthy people have died from Covid, and suggesting that the complete destruction of our way of life is not an adequate response.

Talkradio host, Julia Hartley-Brewer used the National Health Service’s own statistics to point out that “Just 377 healthy people under 60 have died of Covid.” “That’s not typo. There are no zeros missing,” Hartley noted urging that while it is sad, it shouldn’t justify the shutdown of the economy and the house arrest of the entire country.



Q. A musalli coughs in the Musjid. According to the imam, this is a sign of covid disease. The imam tells the musalli to remain at home and not to visit the Musjid for Salaat. Is the imam’s instruction to the musalli correct? Please comment.

A. The imaam’s instruction is haraam. Preventing the musalli from the Musjid simply on the basis of coughing is tantamount to kufr. It is kufr because the instruction is the effect of a kufr belief. The imaam believes that disease is contagious. This kufr belief of the mushrikeen, and now of the atheists, was refuted by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who said: “Laa adwaa…….” (Disease is not contagious). For a detailed exposition of this issue, refer to our website. At the minimum, the imaam’s instruction is a major sin. While in reality the imaam has committed kufr, he could be spared from the fatwa of kufr on the basis of him being a moron who has been misled by the molvi agents of Iblees.

Q. If someone has tested positive for the covid disease, should he remain at home, and not go to the Musjid for Salaat?

A. As long as he has the strength to go to the Musjid, it will remain Waajib for him to go to the Musjid. Jamaat Salaat is Waajib. The hallucination of contagion is a devilish idea. It is not permissible to entertain this belief of kufr.

Q. I accept that it is not permissible to perform Namaaz with a mask. But why will the Namaaz not be valid?

A. The Namaaz will not be valid because the donning of the mask comes with the kufr adwaa (contagion) belief. This kufr theory of the atheists effaces Imaan. Thus, Namaaz will not be valid. In fact, the one who wears the niqaab of Iblees believing in the kufr theory, should renew his Imaan.

Q. There is no social distancing in our Jamaat Khaanah. However, the imam wears a mask while leading the Salaat. What should I do?

A. If there is no other Musjid or venue where Salaat is performed correctly according to the Sunnah, then perform Salaat at home. Do not follow the jaahil imaam.

Q. Some ulama say that there are two valid views regarding the issue of disease being contagious. Therefore, all the covid protocols are permissible according to the ulama who believe in contagion. Is this correct?

A. It is not correct. There are no two views. There is not a single Authority of the Shariah since the era of the Sahaabah who had ever refuted Rasulullah’s explicit and emphatic refutation of the contagion kufr idea. How is it possible for any true Aalim to deny the validity of a belief stated explicitly by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The morons who are members of Hizbush Shaitaan (The Legion of Iblees), are not Ulama. They are juhala who are agents of shaitaan.

The difference of the Ulama on the contagion issue is of mere technical significance. It is of no practical importance. It has no practical effect. As far as the Shariah is concerned, all the satanic covid protocols which Hizbush Shaitaan struggles to halaalize by misinterpretation of the technical argument, are Haraam.

The opinion of Taqi Uthmaan is not a valid difference. Taqi Uthmaan is the chief of Hizbush Shaitaan. He has satanically opened the floodgates for many acts of fisq and fujoor, and now with the covid Satanism, the door of even kufr. All the hallucinated ‘precautions’ which brutal regimes are enforcing are the effects of shaitaaniyat.

16 Jamaadil Awwal 1442 – 31 December 2020

Celebrating New Years

Q: Is it permissible to wish one another “Happy New Year” when the new english year starts? Some people say that the New Year’s celebration has some kufr connotations. Is this correct?

A: The celebration of the new year is a “religious” celebration of the kuffaar which is associated with kufr and shirk beliefs. 

The World Book Encyclopaedia describes New Year in the following words:

“The Roman ruler, Julius Caesar, established January 1 as New Year’s Day in 46 B.C. The Romans dedicated this day to Janus, the god of gates, doors and beginnings. January was named after Janus, who had two faces – one looking forward and the other looking backward. The early Romans gave each other New Year’s gifts of branches from sacred trees. In later times, they gave coins, imprinted with pictures of Janus, or gold covered nuts.”

From the abovementioned definition, we understand that New Year’s Day is a celebration of the kuffaar which has religious connotations. Hence, it is not permissible for a believer to participate in this celebration nor have anything to do with it. Similarly, it is not permissible for him to wish the kuffaar well or say “Happy New Year” to them on this occasion.

Allah Ta’ala commands the believers in the Quraan Majeed:

وَلَا تَرۡکَنُوۡۤا اِلَی الَّذِیۡنَ ظَلَمُوۡا فَتَمَسَّکُمُ النَّارُ

“And do not incline towards those who have oppressed themselves (by means of committing shirk (idolatry)) or else you will be afflicted by the fire of Jahannum”. (Surah Hud v.113) 

This aayat clearly prohibits the believers from any type of “inclination towards the kuffaar”. The Ulamaa explain that “inclination towards the kuffaar” refers to one inclining towards their beliefs, customs, acts of worship, celebrations, dressing and culture. Therefore, participation in such a celebration, giving gifts or wishing people “Happy New Year” is certainly “inclination towards the kuffaar” and will thus be ruled as impermissible.

Apart from this, in gatherings on New Year’s Eve, music is played, alcohol is consumed, men and women are dressed indecently and intermingle freely. The environment is one of vice and sin and abounds with Haraam and shameless activities.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) has prohibited one from taking part in a gathering wherein people are involved in sin. Through one’s participation in such a gathering, one will be supporting the sin through adding to the numbers of the people in the gathering.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said:

من كثر سواد قوم فهو منهم ومن رضي عمل قوم كان شريكا في عملهم

“Whosoever adds to the numbers of a people, will be counted from among them (i.e. in the sight of Allah Ta’ala) and the one who is pleased with the wrong of a people will be a partner in their actions”.

Therefore, participating in such a celebration – whether actively or passively – is extremely detrimental to one’s Imaan. As believers, we should be loyal to Allah Ta’ala and safeguard our Imaan by entirely shunning all things that are associated with the kuffaar, their celebrations and customs. Hence, we should not even be spectators to their celebrations and fireworks, as this is also a form of passive participation.

The following are some of the ways in which people imitate the kuffaar in supporting the New Year kuffaar celebration:

a. Advertising a “New Year’s” sale. 

b. Giving “New Year’s” gifts or cards to customers, staff, etc.  

c. Remaining awake till midnight on 31 December “to see in the new year.”

d. Burning fireworks at midnight.

As believers, we believe that true respect, honour and dignity can only be attained by following the pristine, pure teachings of Islam and the Mubaarak Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam). If we seek honour and respect elsewhere, we will bring nothing but disgrace and humiliation to ourselves. Hazrat Umar (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) has emphasized:

إنا كنا أذل قوم فأعزنا الله بالإسلام فمهما نطلب العز بغير ما أعزنا الله به أذلنا الله

“We were the most disgraced of people. Allah Ta’ala then gave us honour through Islam. If we ever seek honour in something besides that through which Allah Ta’ala has honoured us (Islam), Allah Ta’ala will disgrace us.”

And Allah Ta’ala knows best.

وَلَا تَرۡکَنُوۡۤا اِلَی الَّذِیۡنَ ظَلَمُوۡا فَتَمَسَّکُمُ النَّارُ ۙ وَمَا لَکُمۡ مِّنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰهِ مِنۡ اَوۡلِیَآءَ ثُمَّ لَاتُنۡصَرُوۡنَ (هود: 113)

عن ابن عمر قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من تشبه بقوم فهو منهم (سنن أبي داود، الرقم: 4033)

من تشبه بقوم أي من شبه نفسه بالكفار مثلا في اللباس وغيره أو بالفساق أو الفجار أو بأهل التصوف والصلحاء الأبرار فهو منهم أي في الإثم والخير (مرقاة المفاتيح 4/431)

عن عمرو بن الحارث أن رجلا دعا عبد الله بن مسعود إلى وليمة فلما جاء ليدخل سمع لهوا فلم يدخل فقال ما لك رجعت قال إني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول من كثر سواد قوم فهو منهم ومن رضي عمل قوم كان شريكا في عملهم (إتحاف الخيرة المهرة، الرقم: 3297)

خرج عمر بن الخطاب إلى الشام ومعنا أبو عبيدة بن الجراح فأتوا على مخاضة وعمر على ناقة له فنزل عنها وخلع خفيه فوضعهما على عاتقه وأخذ بزمام ناقته فخاض بها المخاضة فقال أبو عبيدة يا أمير المؤمنين أنت تفعل هذا تخلع خفيك وتضعهما على عاتقك وتأخذ بزمام ناقتك وتخوض بها المخاضة ما يسرني أن أهل البلد استشرفوك فقال عمر أوه لم يقل ذا غيرك أبا عبيدة جعلته نكالا لأمة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم إنا كنا أذل قوم فأعزنا الله بالإسلام فمهما نطلب العزة بغير ما أعزنا الله به أذلنا الله (المستدرك على الصحيحين للحاكم، الرقم: 207)

( والإعطاء باسم النيروز والمهرجان لا يجوز ) أي الهدايا باسم هذين اليومين حرام ( وإن قصد تعظيمه ) كما يعظمه المشركون ( يكفر ) قال أبو حفص الكبير لو أن رجلا عبد الله خمسين سنة ثم أهدى لمشرك يوم النيروز بيضة يريد تعظيم اليوم فقد كفر وحبط عمله ا هـ (الدر المختار 6/754)

Answered by:

Mufti Zakaria Makada

Checked & Approved:

Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Isipingo Beach)



Horse-riding lessons are being offered to Muslim females by a Muslim woman who charges R150 for 45 minutes. Is this permissible? Is it permissible for Muslim women to ride horses? The lessons are advertised as ‘parda friendly’ Is the money earned in this manner halaal?


Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Allah curses women in the saddle (i.e. on horseback).”

Women who ride horses are mal-oonaat. Allah’s LA’NAT (CURSE) settles on such lewd, immoral women who ride horses. The one who teaches women to ride horses is a greater mal-oonah.

Women who ride horses are absolutely shameless. They are bereft of the slightest vestige of Haya (shame/modesty) about which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Haya is a branch of Imaan.”

When Haya is eliminated then the person is free to perpetrate the worst of immoralities flagrantly in public.

As for the ‘parda friendly’ deception, the mal-oonah organizing these shaitaani lessons does not have the haziest idea of the meaning of Purdah. An idea of genuine Shar’i Purdah can be gained from the dead body of a Muslim female. Despite being a corpse, she is draped in five shrouds. Then when the body is lowered into the Qabar, it is totally covered with a large sheet to prevent the gazes of males straying onto the mayyit wrapped in five shrouds.

If any woman has valid Imaan, she will be able to derive adequate lesson and directive from the Purdah which has to be accorded to even the corpse of a Muslim female. Women of Imaan should consult their Imaani conscience and not allow themselves to become ensnared by shaitaan into the haraam horse-riding.

Only women who are prostitutes at heart will defiantly – in defiance of Allah Ta’ala – select to come within the scope of Allah’s Curse by enlisting as shaitaani candidates for the accursed horse-riding lessons conducted by a mal-oonah jaahilah.

It is quite obvious that money acquired from this haraam activity is HARAAM.

15 Jamaadil Awwal 1442 – 30 December 2020


“Your response to my question on civil divorce and talaaq has generated much discussion and debate. However, some scholars still insist that the fatwa of the local Mufti is correct (that is, a court’s decree of divorce is a valid Talaaq according to the Shariah). They proffer the following arguments:

  1. As the husband is asking the court to issue him a divorce, his intention is inconsequential.
  2. Although the defenders of the fatwa cannot escape the reality that a non-Muslim judge has no wilaayat over a Muslim, for the purpose of fatwa, they argue, the judge has to be divested of his position and duties as a judge, and be treated as an ordinary person who is being appointed a wakeel by the petitioner. And since the wikaalat of a non-Muslim is acceptable, the divorce issued by him is also valid. A further piece of sophisticated incoherence they employ is to argue that a wakeel does not have to know that he has been appointed as wakeel while he may be acting as one.
    There seems to be much confusion among the scholars who agree that a civil divorce results in talaaq. In
    the US, the position adopted is that a talaaq raj’i comes into effect, whereas in the UK the ruling is for a talaaq baa-in.
    Reliance on this ruling is causing considerable heartache to Muslims in the UK. Women are walking away from their marriages using the fatwa as justification. Innocent men are accused of ‘living in sin’ simply
    because they have ended their legal marriage registration. I would appreciate further comments and advice on the matter. (The initial question was discussed in The Majlis, Vol.19 No.2)
    It is truly surprising that Ulama fail to grasp the simple reality of a secular court’s divorce decree not being a Shar’i Talaaq. The arguments they are proffering are like an attempt to squeeze blood from a stone.
    (1) The argument that “in divorce matters the spoken word or written word takes precedence over any interpretation the speaker or writer may attach to his words” has absolutely no relevance to the issue
    of a husband seeking annulment of the legal registration of his marriage. The argument
    presented here pertains to Talaaq, while the court application pertains to an entirely different matter. It does not relate to Talaaq. It pertains to cancellation of a secular registration by a secular court. Thus the
    argument is fallacious because what is being said applies to Talaaq while the application to court does not remotely relate to Talaaq.
    (2) The argument of Wikaalat (Agency) in this context is obnoxious and downright stupid. Neither does the husband appoint the judge to be his Wakeel nor does the judge accept that he is a Wakeel of the husband nor does he issue verdicts in the capacity of a wakeel of anyone,.
    (3) The judge cannot be treated as an ordinary person who has been appointed a wakeel.
    To imagine that the judge sitting in his court as a judicial official executing his judicial obligation is not a judge but an ordinary man who has been appointed the wakeel by a man who denies having appointed
    him the wakeel, is to defy reason, logic, brains and reality. If this type of corrupt and utterly baseless imagination could be regarded as valid for the extrapolation of Ahkaam (Shar’i laws), then one may employ such corrupt, stupid and baatil imagination to imagine that a prostitute is one’s wife and the
    relationship with her is lawful. There is no scope in the Shariah for the formulation of laws on the basis of imagination.
    (4) The petitioner denies appointing the judge as his wakeel. Reality totally precludes the operation of Wikaalat in the judicial procedure. And, if by some bizarre assumption it should be stupidly accepted that the judge is a wakeel, then too, the husband denies appointing him as his wakeel, and he denies the assignment of Talaaq to the judge who is imagined to be the wakeel. There must necessarily be some semblance of reality before one could ever entertain the idea of Wikaalat.
    (5) While the wikaalat of a non -Muslim is valid, the issue here is that a non-Muslim has not been appointed the wakeel. No one has been appointed the husband’s wakeel for issuing Talaaq on his behalf. Should we momentarily descend into the dregs of stupidity and assume that the judge is the husband’s wakeel, then too, it is binding on the wakeel to execute only the task which has been assigned to him by his Muakkil (principal). If a man appoints a wakeel to purchase for him a horse, the wakeel may not buy a donkey. If he
    does buy a donkey, it will be for himself, not for the muakkil. Now, if we should stupidly accept that the judge is the wakeel, then he has to act according to the instructions of the husband who has ordered
    him to cancel the secular registration of his marriage. If the wakeel who has not been appointed to administer Talaaq, issues talaaq to the man’s wife, such talaaq will not be valid. If a man appoints another person to strike his wife a few shots with a whip, and he (the wakeel) instead of giving her a beating issues Talaaq, such talaaq will not be valid for the simple reason that he did not act in accordance with the terms of his wikaalat.
    (6) The averment that a wakeel’s act will be valid even if he is unaware of his appointment as the wakeel, has no relevance here. The contention applies to an instance of ‘appointment’. But, in the matter under discussion there is no appointment. The husband flatly denies any appointment of a wakeel. This argument
    germane to our context is ludicrous. It is absurd.
    (7) The confusion among the scholars on this simple issue is the product of unprincipled reasoning. The matter is simple and conspicuous. There is no ambiguity. But because they have not applied their minds,
    they stumble in incongruities. The scenario is as simple as follows:
    A. The husband wants, for example, that after his death his estate should devolve to his heirs according to the Shariah. In a secular state he has to leave an Islamic Will to ensure conformity with the Shariah. However, in certain secular marital property regimes, an Islamic will is not valid. Or he requires cancellation of the secular registration for some other reason.
    B. To achieve this objective, he instructs an attorney to apply to the secular court for the cancellation of the
    registration. For accomplishing this, there is a secular legal procedure to follow. The attorney adopts this legal procedure, and makes the application to the court.
    C. The judge in his own right as the judge of the court decides and issues an order to cancel the registration.
    Now regardless of what the secular process is for achieving this objective, it is never Talaaq. The husband has not uttered Talaaq to his wife nor has he appointed the attorney or the judge to administer Talaaq
    to his wife. He only requires cancellation of the haraam registration.
    (8) Women who regard the kaafir court’s verdict as a Talaaq should understand that their Nikah remains valid. They cannot get Islamically married to any other man. Any subsequent mock ‘nikah’ with
    another man will be an adulterous relationship. It is therefore, imperative for the Muftis at your end to exercise caution and fear. They will be plunging people into the cauldron of zina with their highly erroneous fatwa.
    Furthermore, we do not understand how “women are walking away from their marriages, using the fatwa as justification”. Although the fatwa is highly erroneous and has no validity in the Shariah, as preposterous as it is, it nevertheless, has been issued for a case where the husband makes the application for cancellation of the registration. The fatwa does not bring within its scope a court’s decree of divorce applied for by a woman. If the wife makes the application, we are sure that the Muftis at your end, despite their inability to have comprehended the judge’s role and the husband’s petition, do not extend their
    idea to a case where the woman applies for ‘divorce’ regardless of whether the husband defends or does not defend the application. Thus, the issue of ‘women walking away from their marriages’ is incomprehensible to us.