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

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

Ahadith regarding certain evil qualities of Women

Is this Hadith reliable?

إن الفساق هم أهل النار قيل: يا رسول الله، ومن الفساق؟ قال: النساء قال: رجل يا رسول الله، أولسن أمهاتنا، وأخواتنا، وأزواجنا؟ قال: بلى، ولكنهم إذا أعطين لم يشكرن، وإذا ابتلين لم يصبرن


Imam Ahmad and Imam Tabarani (rahimahumallah) have recorded this Hadith on the authority of Sayyiduna ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Shibl (radiyallahu ‘anhu) with reliable chains. Imam Hakim (rahimahullah) has also declared the Hadith authentic and ‘Allamah Dhahabi (rahimahullah) concurs.

(Musnad Ahmad, vol. 3 pg. 428. Refer: Majma’uz Zawaid, vol. 10 pg. 394 and vol. 4 pg. 73, Mustadrak Hakim, vol. 4 pg. 604)


Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said:

“Certainly the ‘fussaq’ are the inhabitants of Jahannam. When Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was asked, ‘Who are the ‘fussaq’, He replied, ‘They are ‘Women’. A Sahabi then asked, ‘O Rasulullah, aren’t they our mothers, sisters and spouses’? Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) replied, ‘Certainly! However, when they are given something they do not appreciate and when they are put through a trial, they do not have patience.”

Another Hadith Regarding the Detrimental Characteristics of Women

Kindly provide the correct Arabic wording and authenticity of the following narration:

Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) has said: ‘The majority of those I saw therein [i.e. in the fire] were women who spread secrets when entrusted; when they are asked, they are stingy, and when they ask others, they do so in a demanding way.’

Husayn [ibn Muhammad, when narrating this Hadith] said [that Rasulullah – sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam – also added]: ‘And when they are given something, they are not appreciative.’


This is part of a lengthy narration which Imam Ahmad and others (rahimahumullah) have recorded on the authority of Sayyiduna Jabir (radiyallahu ‘anhu).

(Musnad Ahmad, vol. 3 pgs. 352-353; Also see: Majma’uz Zawaid, vol. 2 pgs. 87-88)

Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) has recorded this narration with the following wording:

وأكثر من رأيت فيها النساء اللاتي إن ائتمن أفشين وإن يسئلن بخلن وإن يسألن الحفن- قال حسين: وإن أعطين لم يشكرن

Imam Hakim (rahimahullah) has recorded and authenticated a very similar Hadith [with identical wording] on the authority of Sayyiduna Ubay ibn Ka’b (radiyallahu ‘anhu). Imam Dhahabi (rahimahullah) has also concurred.

(Mustadrak Hakim with the Talkhis of Imam Dhahabi, vol. 4 pg. 605)


Please mention the Hadith which states that despite the husband taking care of the wife to the best of his ability, she complains and is ungrateful.


You are probably referring to the following Hadith recorded in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:

Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (radiyallahu ‘anhuma) reports that Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “…I was shown Jahannam and most of its inhabitants were women who were practising kufr (disbelief/ingratitude).’ Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was asked, ‘Did they practise disbelief in Allah?’ He replied, ‘They were ungrateful to their husbands and ungrateful when any good was done for them. If you were always good to one of them and then she saw something [that she disliked], she would say, “I have never seen any good in you at all!”

(Sahih Bukhari, Hadith: 29-1052-5197 and Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 907)

Note: These Ahadith have highlighted some causes for women entering Jahannam in general.

This does not denote that all women are doomed for Jahannam. Just as there are several Hadiths that warn men of Jahannam.

In fact, this should be considered a favour of Nabi (sallallahu’alayhi wasallam) in having informed women of what bad qualities to stay free from in order to attain salvation from Jahannam.

Approved by: Moulana Muhammad Abasoomar

Checked by: Moulana Haroon Abasoomar


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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



On this topic, a Brother from the UK writes:

“I refer to recent Majlis article on Taqi Usmani’s condemnation of Khatme Bukhari programmes after he, himself, having been amongst its biggest proponents for many years.

I was reminded of a Malfooz of Taqi in which he laments in a similar manner regarding the mushrooming of girl’s madrasahs. Whilst lamenting, he is reminded by someone that his own institution had a girls madrasah, to which he responded, in justification, that this was the very first one!

The short-sightedness of this justification would have been comical if the consequences and repercussions of the mushrooming of these unnatural institutes, for which he himself is the flagship pioneer, weren’t so tragic.

There are similar laments of Taqi in respect to misuse of digital photography and “Islamic” banking.

He seems blissfully unaware of the fact that his own reckless and Haraam fatwas and actions have been amongst the biggest impetuses to opening for the masses the floodgates of satanism in all these areas which today he is lamenting.

Perhaps, after his recent stunt of conducting a lengthy television interview with a young female, face to face without purdah, he will one day begin lamenting on every other molvi embarking on similarly shameless shenanigans in open public.

And, of course, the laments in the eternal abode will be irredeemable and infinitely greater. May Allah Ta‘ala protect us.

The malfooz on girls madrasahs is below. I have bolded his admission of guilt.”

(End of the Brother’s letter)

Taqi Sahib’s lament

Lamenting on the mushrooming of girls madrasahs and the production of ‘jaahilahs’, Taqi Sahib, addressing an administrator of a girls madrassah, said:

‘The number of madrassa (traditional Islamic teaching institution) for girls is now exceeding that for boys (in Pakistan). I fail to understand the emphasis been given to this phenomenon.

Are there any precedents for this from our earlier pious predecessors, the Blessed Companions, the Ta’baeen, the one who came after them or even our elders of Deoband? I fear these institutions, especially those with residential hostels for possible inappropriate mishaps.”

The administrator mentioned that even Taqi Sahibs Darul Uloom in Karachi has a girls madrasah. In response, Taqi Sahib said:

Moreover, we try our best that all teaching is via female instructors.’ (This is a silly, flapdoodle response of Taqi Sahib, in a baseless endeavour to cover up for the error of the girls madrasah which he had initiated at his madrasah. – The Majlis)

Another scholar commented that the duration of the course for females has now been extended to 8 years. Taqi Sahib said:

‘It is 6 years for the expedited track. I agree with this. Previously the 4 years course was severely deficient. The graduates were deemed aalimah (scholars) whereas in fact they remained jaahilah (grossly ignorant). “

Office, Darul Uloom Karachi, 21 Ramadan 1437/ 27 June 2017 post Zuhar

(End of Taqi Sahib’s statement)

Our Comment

Taqi Sahib’s belated admission of the gross error of girls madrasahs and jalsahs such as Bukhaari Jalsah, comes at a time when the Imaan and Akhlaaq of a great segment of the Ummah have been ruined and laid to waste. His corrupt fatwas and extreme short-sightedness have caused irreparable damage to the Ummah. The wabaal (calamity) of his convoluted fatwas has settled on him as well. Due to lack of far-sightedness which is the attribute of fiqaahat which Taqi Sahib obviously lacks, he is responsible for misleading countless of thousands of the Ummah. Furthermore, his convoluted fatwas have provided ammunition to miserable paper molvis to denounce and reject the Haqq of the Shariah which the Ulama-e-Haqq have always proclaimed.

We have been highlighting the evil of these unnatural girls madrasahs for decades as well as the evil of jalsahs. Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) has also condemned these institutions and haraam activities. But all the naseehat fell on deaf ears.

“Allah casts rijs (filth) on the brains of those who have no aql (brains).”

10 Sha’baan 1442 – 24 March 2021

Prohibited times for sexual relations


“Please see below and advise if this is valid or not.

Prohibited times for sexual relations

“It is makrooh to indulge in sex during 3 nights of each Islamic month – the 1st, last & the 15th night because on these nights shaytaan is (more) on the prowl. Therefore Tuesday night (i.e. after sunset on Tuesday which will be Wednesday night Islamically) and the 2 Eids must also be avoided.

It is also makrooh to have sex in the early part of the night because this will result in the possibility of staying in a napaak (impure) state the entire night.

Sexual intercourse on a full stomach is harmful due to medical and health reasons for both the woman and the man. Furthermore, the resultant child conceived will be a dull and backward.

Preferable times for sexual relations are:

Sunday night- the child will (probably) become a Qari.

Monday night- the child will be a generous big hearted child.

Wednesday night- the child will be an uprighteous, Allah-fearing, sagacious child.

Thursday night- the child will be sincere.

Friday before Jumuah- the child will be born with good fortune.

Always remember to recite the Masnoon dua at the time of commencing cohabitation and at the time of ejaculation. The dua should be ‘recited’ in the mind only, not verbally. Both husband & wife should ‘recite’ the dua. It is reported that if a person does not recite these duas, shaitaan becomes a participant and derives pleasure from his wife.

Shah Abdul Haq Dehlawi (rahimahumullah) states in this regard: If a Dua like this is not made at time of coitus, and only the sexual urge is fulfilled like animals, the child that is born out of such a union will not be saved from the evil influence of shaytaan. This is one of the main reasons that the morals of the present generation are immoral” (Rifaatul Muslimeen)


The acts and advices in the question are obscure and generally unknown to the Ulama. However, we cannot discount these issues as false. There is the strong probability of the advice and admonition being valid. These kinds of issues are to be found in reliable Kutub (books) such as the works of Imaam Ghazaali, Sayyid Abdul Qaadir Jilaani, Abu Taalib Al-Makk,i Shah Abdul Haq (Rahmatullah alayhim) and others. These personalities were illustrious Ulama who at the same time were Auliya of outstanding calibre.

The narrations of these Authorities of the Shariah may not be dismissed as fabrications as is the attitude of ulama who are spiritually barren. There is strong reason to believe that these illustrious Ulama had acquired these issues from Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) – such Ahaadith which are not found in the popular Hadith Kutub. But this is not reason for discounting narrations. The popular Hadith kutub embrace an extremely small percentage of the Ahaadith which the Muhadditheen had compiled and from which they had selected for inclusion in their kutub such as Saheeh Bukhaari, Saheeh Muslim, Sunan Abu Daawood, Sunan Nasaa’, Muwatta Maalik, Ibn Maajah and numerous other reliable Hadith kutub.

Imaam Buhkaari (Rahmatullah alayh) said: “I have memorised one hundred thousand Saheeh Ahaadith and two hundred such Ahaadith which are not Saheeh.” From this treasure of 300,000 Ahaadith, Imaam Bukhaari included in his Saheeh Bukhaari only 7,275 narrations, and after deducting the repetitions, there are only approximately 4,000 Ahaadith.

Further, the 200,000 Ghair Saheeh (not Saheeh) narrations are not fabrications to be discarded. They are technically not Saheeh in terms of the criteria formulated by Imaam Bukhaari for his high standard of authenticity. Numerous Ahaadith which are not Saheeh according to Imaam Bukhaari, are Saheeh according to other illustrious Muhadditheen. Thus, Ghair Saheeh should not be misconstrued to mean unauthentic, fabrications, forgeries, etc.

The Muhaddith, Imaam Abu Zur’ah Ar-Raazi (Rahmatullah alayh) had memorized more than 600,000 Ahaadith. He said that from these 600,000 he had memorized 100,000 Ahaadith in the manner in which Surah Ikhlaas (Qulhuwallaah) is memorized.

From this vast treasure trove of Ahaadith, the combined total of the Sihaah Sittah is approximately 10,000 narrations. Thousands of other authentic Ahaadith are scattered in innumerable kutub, and many of these kutub are no longer extant. Numerous Ahaadith were transmitted by reliable narration from generation to generation – from one Shaikh to the other down his Silsilah. It is therefore, moronic to deny the validity of advices and admonition which appear in the kutub of illustrious Ulama and Auliya such as Imaam Ghazaali, etc.

Regarding the issues mentioned in the question, it will not be sinful if not observed and not practically implemented. Nevertheless, wisdom dictates caution. It is in one’s best interest to observe the advices. And Allah knows best.

18 Muharram 1436 – 12 November 2014


Malpractice in Modern Medicine

Dr Robert Mendelsohn received his Doctor of Medicine degree from the University of Chicago in 1951. For 12 years he was an instructor at Northwest University Medical College, and an additional 12 years served as Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Community Health and Preventive Medicine at the University of Illinois, College of Medicine.

He was also President of the National Health Federation, former National Director of Project Head Starts Medical Consultation Service, and Chairman of the Medical Licensing Committee of the State of Illinois.

He appeared on over 500 television and radio talk shows, and is the author of Confessions of a Medical Heretic, Male Practice: How Doctors Manipulate Women, and How To Raise a Healthy Child In Spite of Your Doctor


The following are excerpts from an article prepared by a concerned fiend some time ago in Australia on the topic of The Immorality of the Western medical practice.

For the last three years I have been writing my thoughts and observations regarding the futility and immorality of the ritual examinations of pregnant women and the tactics adopted by obstetricians.

The book, “Health Shock” devotes a chapter on the risk of all types of obstetrical interventions. But, that was not enough, I felt.

Finally my search for literature on this subject proved successful.

The book, “Male Practice-How the Doctors Manipulate Women”, answers all my questions.

Dr. Robert Mendelsohn gives enough details on the subject ranging from obstetrical deceptions to hazardous and erotic interventions.

Dr. Mendelsohn calls obstetricians idiots.

The present birth position adopted in hospitals, the learned doctor says originated with King Louis XIV. To satisfy his erotic desire of peeping from behind the curtain, he induced his nurses to adopt the current posture ( the supine position) for his laboring mistresses so that he could get an erotic view of it.

The birthing stool disappeared and the supine position was adopted. A risky and an erotic view sustained by royal patronage was elevated to a science. There are many dangers to the child and the mother by adopting this supine position.

Research has revealed that squatting alters the pelvic shape in a way that makes it advantageous for delivery. But by a royal edict the law of gravity was subverted. The lithotomy position was the result of an erotic craving of the aberrant French king, which position it is said creates the pathology that makes normal birth abnormal.

Eroticism is at the heart of many modern medical practices.

There are the erotic contact, erotic ogling, erotic handling, erotic prickling and in extreme cases erotic orgasm. On account of this type of perversion sociologists consider nude examination of pregnant women an act similar to rape. The recollection of this physical violence gives them recurrent nightmares.

Dr. Mendelsohn states in support of this:

“Clearly, sexist behavior is at the heart of the medical abuse that women suffer.”

Very often we read reports of the misbehavior of physicians towards female patients. They derive erotic pleasure by viewing the nude female body. The white-robed “priests” pose as saints to the unsuspecting victim.

The entire immoral ritual of female examinations like prickling, pinching, squeezing, rubbing and ogling has sexual connections but no basis in science.

Dr. Mendelsohn describes all routine examinations purposeless and ritualistic. In fact, the Doctor explodes:

“Doctors are latter-day Don Quixote, battling sometimes real but too often imaginary diseases. The disastrous difference is that doctors are not tilting at windmills.

Rather, it is people who are damaged by their insistent search for dubious diseases to conquer.”

Another tragedy which occurred in medical history, was the transition of the functions of the midwifes to the hands of male doctors. For thousands of years, midwives have been faithfully and efficiently executing their duty of assisting in delivering babies.

The natural births they attended to were a tremendous success without the complexities we see happening today in hospitals births because of technological and obstetrical intervention.

Dr. Mendelsohn recounts the story of how the male doctor arrogated to themselves the function of the dictates midwives thus:

“The obstetrical practice originated in Europe when the 18th century male barber-surgeons realized that they were losing countless opportunities to increase their income, and began plotting to take childbirth away from the midwives. It wasn’t easy to do because midwives were quite capable of assisting at childbirth and had been demonstrating this capability for thousands of years.

In order to get their hands on all those patients, the doctors had to convert childbirth into a disease. They did it by interfering with the natural process and creating medical interventions that only they could perform.

As insurance, they defamed the midwives, branding them as witches. The first “witch” hanged in the American colonies was a midwife whom the doctors accused”.

When barber-surgeons came to the scene, pandemonium resulted. Dr. Mendelsohn says:

“Maternal and infant death rates doubled when the barber-surgeons got into that act. Hospitalized mothers got childbed fever because doctors rushed from the sick beds to autopsies to deliveries without bothering washing their hands”, He further says: “ Almost every stage of obstetrical procedure in the hospital is part of the mechanism that enables the doctor to create his own pathology. Once he has created the pathology, he has the excuse to intervene.”

He cites results from a study of 2000 births conducted by Dr. Lewis E.Mahl of the University of Wisconsin Infant Development Centre. Of these nearly half were home-births. Home-births being safer were noticeable.

There were 30 birth injuries among the hospital born babies and none among those born at home. 52 of the babies born in the hospitals needed resuscitation against 14 born at home. Six hospital babies suffered neurological damage compared to only 1 of the born at home. None of the home-born babies died after birth although the national infant mortality rate is more than 22 per 1000.

“Dr. Albert D.Havercamp, head of the high-risk obstetrics section at Denver General Hospital says that the use of internal fetal monitors nearly doubled the number of Caesarean sections performed in American hospitals between 1971 and 1976”.

Dr. Mendelsohn has this to say:

“Women would find having babies a lot less painful, risky and demeaning if the obstetrical specialty was simply abolished. Except for a handful of doctors who encourage natural childbirth, obstetricians are guilty of perpetuating an unhealthy, unscientific, medical disgrace…

I have a low regard for Modern Medicine in general but obstetrics sets my teeth on edge.

It is the only medical specialty in which almost everything that the doctor does is medically indefensible and terribly wrong”

*We reproduce here a verbatim report by Dr. Mendelsohn of the shocking,

sickening and revolting methods employed by modern hospitals to induce


*Induced birth is evil. It is torture and brutal.

Damning the evil hospital delivery methods, Dr. Mendelsohn says:

“…….The mother’s pain will be increased, so drugs will be administrated that will retard and prolong her labor. Labor will be induced by invading theuterus and rupturing the membranes, increasing the risk of infection and fetal damage or death. The mother will be further confined by attachment of intravenous gadgetry to keep a vein open and to provide nourishment because she will not be allowed to eat or to drink.

A fetal monitor will be strapped to her abdomen or her uterus and screwed into the baby’s scalp, to monitor the fetal trauma that the obstetrician’s intervention may well induce. Ultimately, and usually for the convenience of the doctor, oxytocin will be administrated to expedite labor, resulting in tetanic (and titanic) contractions so strong that they may injure the fetus.

The mother’s pain, which escalates because of the way she is being treated, becomes so unbearable that pain-killing injections are given to paralyze the lower half of her body. The mother can no longer feel her contractions and must be told to push. Finally, the poor woman is moved to the delivery room, strapped into stirrups, and an episiotomy is performed. The mother is no longer able to do it, and more often than not he will use forceps because he is unwilling to wait for nature to take its course.

Thus concludes the mothers experience with “the miracle of birth”.

The doctor hurriedly cuts the cord before it has stopped pulsating, so the infant’s blood backs up in the mother. It is that mixing that produces erythroblastosis (Rh disease) in a subsequent child. He tugs on the cord to expedite delivery of the placenta, increasing the mother’s risk of hemorrhage and possibility leaving some pieces behind.

He must then invade the uterus to capture the fragments.

The mother’s risk of infections, already increased over the previous hours by multiple vaginal examinations, becomes greater. Next, he must repair the damage done to the perineum by the episiotomy he performed.

As I will explain later, this will cause sexual dysfunction, later on. Finally, in denial of everything that prompted the mother to go through this ordeal, the baby is whisked off to the newborn nursery, and the mother to the recovery room to sleep off the drugs.

*This is motherhood? This is medicine?

This factual report by a leading medic should be sufficient to jolt husband’s into some alertness to realize the suffering their wives are put to on the occasion of having to give birth in the unholy and unclean hospitals. They should make it their business to ascertain what exactly the doctor is doing to their wives and to vehemently protest when doctors decide to subject their wives to the type of torture with far reaching consequences, as explained by Dr. Mendelsohn.

“Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D., has been practicing for almost thirty years. He has been the national director of Project Head Start’s Medical Consultation Service, chairman of the Medical Licensing Committee for the State of Illinois, and associate professor of Preventive Medicine and Community of Health in the School of Medicine of the University of Illinois. Dr. Mendelsohn has received numerous awards for excellence in medicine and medical instructions.

Dr. Mendelsohn is one of America’s leading pediatricians. In his book, CONFESSIONS OF A MEDICAL HERETIC, he tells you how to guard yourself against the harmful impact upon your life of doctors, drugs and hospitals. After practicing for decades as a physi8cian, Dr. Mendelsohn is convinced that

Annual physical examinations are health risks,

Hospitals are dangerous places for the sick

Most operations do ;little good and many do harm

*Medical tasting laboratories are scandalously inaccurate

Many drugs cause more problems than they cure *

The X-ray machine is the most perverse and most dangerous tool in the doctor’s office.