SALAAT NOT PERMISSIBLE IN A MUSJID TRANSFORMED INTO A TEMPLE

Question:

Musallis are not permitted entry into Masjid Siraatul Jannah without a mask. Anyone who comes without a mask will be debarred from entering. The trustees of the Masjid have provided masks which they sell to musallis who come without masks. They claim that the money acquired for the masks is donation. Is this permissible? What is the difference now between a Masjid and a church?

Also the one imam who happens to be part of jusa (No Name Brand jamiat of Fordsburg) instructs everyone to observe social distancing in Jumuah Salaat. Is this permissible?

Answer

From beginning to end the entire set up is haraam and tantamount to kufr. The money is extravasated by means of usurpation. These trustees suck haraam blood from the musallis. It is not permissible to perform Salaat in this Musjid which has been converted into a weird temple.

Performing Salaat according to the system ordered by the kuffaar is haraam. The Salaat is not valid. These trustees are munaafiqeen, and so is the miserable imam of the NNB jamiat who is instructing social distancing. At the same time the musallis are not free from blame. Why do they inflict disgrace upon themselves by attending the temple?

16 Rabiul Awwal 1442 – 2 November 2020

Coronavirus and the Masajid

Islam Reigns

Assalamu’alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

We praise Allah Ta’ala and send salutations on Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam who perfected the Deen for us until the last day, leaving us with no qualms, indecision, doubt, or reference to others as to how to lead our lives and solve any issues, be they individual or collective.

Allah Ta’ala states: ‘Today I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed my blessing on you, and chosen Islam as Deen for you.’ (Surah Al-Maida, verse 3)

Hadhrat Abdullah bin Abbas Radiallahu Anhu and others explain that perfection of faith refers to the perfection of all limits, obligations, injunctions and refinements in personal and social behaviour as necessary for the true faith. Now there is no need to add to it, nor there remains any probability of a shortfall.

This document will address the following issues:

(1) Virtues of Masajid
(2) Voluntary and premature wide…

View original post 13,379 more words

covering the mouth and nose in salaat

The goal of Salah is to perform it in the manner of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam, i.e. ‘perform Salah as you see me performing Salah.’
(a) Hadhrat Abu Hurairah Radiallahu Anhu reports that Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam prohibited sadal (leaving clothing loosely hanging from body) in Salah and that a man covers his mouth (Abu Dawood).
(b) Hadhrat Abu Hurairah Radiallahu Anhu reports that Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam prohibited that a man covers his mouth in Salah (Ibn Majah).
(c) Imam Malik Rahmatullahi Alayh reports from Abdur Rahman bin Mujabbar that he used to see Hadhrat Saalim bin Abdillah, who, whenever he saw a man with his mouth covered whilst in Salah, he would yank the cloth from his mouth with a firm jerk, until he removed it from his mouth. (Muwatta Maalik).
(d) Imam Muhammad says: ‘Abu Hanifah reports from Hammaad who reports from Ebrahim, who said: ‘There is no harm if a man covers his head in Salah, i.e. with a sheet or cloth over his topi, as long as he does not cover his mouth. It is makrooh (haraam) to cover his mouth in Salah.’
Imam Muhammad further states: ‘From this we deduce that it is makrooh (haraam) also for a person to cover his nose. This is the view of Abu Hanifah Radiallahu Anhu.’ (Aathaar Muhammad bin Hasan)
(e) Thaqafi Narrates from Muhammad that he used to dislike (i.e. regard it as haraam) that a man covers his mouth whilst performing Salah (Musannaf ibn Abi Shaibah).
In addition to these narrations the fuqaha have explicitly prohibited covering the mouth in Salah with a cloth (mask) because this is emulation of the majoos (fire worshippers). The fear of potential infection does not constitute Shar’i necessity, particularly when the medical fraternity is divided as to the usefulness of masks in combating infection. On the one hand we have the divided conjecture of the scientists and on the other there is the absolute ruling of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam. How can we call ourselves Muslim when we opt for the conjecture of the disbelievers over the explicit command of Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam?

CONCENTRATION

Q. I am unable to concentrate in Salaat. My mind wanders to numerous worldly things. What should I do to gain concentration?

A. Abstain from sin and futility, and increase Thikrullaah.
Concentration in Salaat depends on one’s life style. A person who for example indulges in haraam internet, facebook, etc. or consumes doubtful and haraam food, or oppresses others, or does not pay his creditors, etc., etc. should not expect the ability to concentrate. Also, how can a man concentrate in Salaat when his eyes and mind are soiled with looking at females or if he uses his tongue for nonsense and haraam? A man addicted to chat-groups should not expect concentration in Islam. There are many factors which contaminate the mind and ruin concentration.

THE MAJLIS VOL 25 NO 09

SALAAT

Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
“He who did not perform Fajr Salaat, will have no barkat in his rizq. There will be no noor in the heart of a person who did not perform Zuhr Salaat. There will be no strength in the limbs of the one who did not perform Asr. The food of one who did not perform Maghrib Salaat is devoid of taste. The one who did not perform Ishaa’ is not a Mu’min neither in this world nor in the Aakhirah.”
“He who misses one Salaat is like one who is slaughtered without a knife. He who misses two Salaat is like one who is far from the Rahmat of Allah (he is mardood). He who misses three Salaat, is like one who causes distress to the heart of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He who misses four Salaat is like one who has rejected the entire Kitaab revealed by Allah. He who misses five Salaat, is addressed by a Allah Who proclaims wrathfully:

“Listen, O sinner! I am free of you, and you are free of Me. Get out from the heavens and the earth, and search for a being besides Me.” Thus, this person departs at the time of his death without Taubah.

BRAAI AND BRABBLE

“THE LIFE OF THIS WORLD IS BUT PLAY AND AMUSEMENT WHILE THE ABODE OF THE
AAKHIRAH IS BEST FOR THOSE WHO HAVE TAQWA. WHAT! DO YOU HAVE NO
INTELLIGENCE?” — Qur’aan

The culture of Islam is the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which
covers every aspect in every sphere and department of the Muslim’s life. The greater
part of this Culture of Islam has been displaced from the homes and lives of most
Muslims.
Our ways of life are permeated by western influences. Not only our style of
practical life and appearance have been satanically revolutionised by the alien
culture in whose substratum we live, our thinking too has been colonized. We
consequently cast our leisure and pleasure in the mould we have purchased from the
alien culture of the kuffaar.
While the vice of emulating western ways and pleasures is an incremental process
gripping the Ummah, the most alarming development in this sphere is the fall and
subservience of even Shaikhs of Tasawwuf to the influences of alien cultures.

BRAAIVLEIS
Among the spiritually harmful, sinful an evil practices of the western kuffaar in
which people of overt Tasawwuf are indulging is the custom of ‘braaivleis’—braai
and brabble parties which are organised after Isha. The very name ‘braai’, has evil
connotations. It is a non-Muslim merrymaking party of men and women where zina,
raucous behaviour, drunkenness, music, singing, dancing and gobbling raw meat
around a mini jahannum take place.
Although these Kabaair (major sins) have not yet been incorporated in the braai
and brabble version adopted by Muslims, it remains decidedly a satanic gathering of
merrymaking. It is a purely nafsaani outing even it is in the backyard.
ALIEN CUSTOM
This alien merrymaking custom has already gained widespread acceptance in the
Muslim community. The lamentable development currently is that Ulama and people
who are supposed to be concerned with and involved in the islaah (reformation) of
the nafs, even those who are supposed to be the spiritual guides, have become the
slaves of their nafs. They too now feel that it is also their right to engage in this
nafsaani pleasure.
Bearded Molvis and Shaikhs of Tasawwuf, flaunting topis and amaamahs, striding
in long flowing kurtahs, instead of being engaged in Thikrullaah during the night or in
some constructive Deeni activity or in the bounty of sleep for which the night has
been created, or rather enjoying themselves in the company of their lawful female
consorts, have finally cast aside the outer robe of piety and Tasawwuf to indulge in
braai and brabble parties.
They have undoubtedly managed to soothe their conscience with weird and
utterly baseless interpretations to justify their organisation of and participation in
braai and brabble parties after Isha Salaat. The shocking level of moral degeneration
of the ‘sufis’ of our time has reached such an ebb that braai and brabble parties are
regarded as acts of ibaadat conducive for Islaah (reformation) of the nafs.
VICTORY
In this era this is a great victory shaitaan has achieved over the jamaat of Ulama
and Sufiya. Although true Tasawwuf is dead, there are still those who claim to follow
the Tareeqah of the Aakaabir such as Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi and
Hadhrat Masihullah (rahmatullah alayhima). The complaint we register here in
particular, is against the Sufis of our own Maslak and Tareeqah.
What relationship does braai and brabble parties of which merrymaking to satisfy
the carnal nafs is the ONLY prompting, have with Tasawwuf, with Islaah of the Nafs
and with the Maslak and Tareeqah of the Auliya? The very name, ‘braaivleis’, reeks
of a zina stench. It is a practice with its roots in zina and liquor. Eating raw meat is
merely the front for all the nafsaani filth, sin and evil of the original braaivleis party
still in vogue among non-Muslims.
DESTRUCTION
The community in general is already destroyed and lost. Now even the Mashaaikh
are treading the path of spiritual and moral ruin.
What connection do the sufi hadhraat have with these nafsaani parties and
gatherings? Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “What relationship do I have
with this dunya? Verily, my analogy with the dunya is like a horseman (travelling in
the desert. After a long and arduous journey in the heat and sand) he arrives at a tree
and rests in its shade (only to soon continue the journey).”
The typical braai and brabble party of Molvis and Sufis begin after Asr Salaat. The
fires are stoked and the contraptions set up for preparation of half-cooked or raw
meat for presentation to the participants in the fete. We remind that this naseehat is
primarily for the Molvis and the Sufis.
Only the fires are operating by the time of Maghrib Athaan, but the ‘vleis’ has not
yet been ‘braaied’ (For our foreign readers: vleis = meat, and braaied = barbecued).
During Maghrib Salaat, the minds are polluted with the preponderance of ‘braai’
wasaawis. The entire Salaat is bereft of even the outward semblance of Khushu’ and
Khudhoo’ which the Molvi and Sufi endeavour to display normally. The Salaat is
discharged defectively and even abbreviated by discarding Awwaabeen which
perhaps the Molvi and Sufi perform daily. But today, the braai and brabble function
has greater importance, or at least the nafsaani magnetism is tonight too strong to
repulse. The Deeni men thus allow themselves to remain within the sphere of the
magnetic belt of the nafs.
SHAYAATEEN
After Maghrib the time is squandered in ‘braaing’ the ‘vleis’. It is a time when the
shayaateen are out in droves searching for their prey. Wallaah! On the braai and
brabble occasion, every Molvi and Sufi participant fall prostrate in Sajdah at the feet
of their respective shayaateen appointed by Iblees to oversee their alienation from
Allah’s Thikr on the specific occasion of braai and brabble.
The entire time of Maghrib, right until Isha, is engulfed with the shaitaani and
nafsaani braai and brabble operation. By Isha time, the ‘vleis’ is still too raw for the
members of the braai party. Isha’ Salaat is haphazardly performed. While the body is
in the Musjid, the mind is clogged with braai and brabble wasaawis, and the heart is
outside the Musjid dwelling in the braai arena.
The usual quota of Nafl Salaat and the bit of extra Thikr which some Sufis/Molvis
reserve for after Isha, are curtailed and a rush is made to the braai and brabble
arena. Now commences the ingestion of the raw meat in either drunken boere style
or in animal style. Allah Ta’ala has not ordained for the Mu’min Insaan to devour
burnt raw meat in the manner of drunk people.
HUMILITY
The Mu’mineen are required by Islam and its Sunnah culture to eat with humility,
like slaves—the slaves of Allah. The thought of Mun’im-e-Haqeeqi (The True
Benefactor) and Provider of the Ni’mat of Food, should be uppermost in the mind of
the Mu’min at the time of eating. But this attitude of humility and Thikrullah is
repelled by the very hay’t-e-kathaaiyyah (form and manner) of the braai and brabble
party of the kuffaar.
Irrelevant and futile conversation is a notorious feature of ‘Muslim’ braai and
brabble parties, while wine and women are the vital accompaniments of kuffaar
braaivleis functions.
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has prohibited the Ummah from indulgence
in unnecessary worldly conversation after Isha Salaat. The Ni’mat of the Night is for
rest, ibaadat and deriving comfort within the home sanctuary. It is haraam to
squander the Night in frivolity, in idle conversation with friends, in devouring burnt
raw meat around a fire in kuffaar style, and in any acts which are alien to the Sunnah
Culture of Islam.
Can the Molvi and the Sufi saahibaan cite a basis in the Qur’aan or Sunnah for
their adoption of this merrymaking and nafsaani party? Did the Shaikh appoint the
Sufi as his khalifah for conducting braai and brabble parties after Isha for mureedeen
and others? What answer will they give to Allah Ta’ala for this spiritual zulm they
perpetrate under Deeni guise by the presentation of the worst kind of baatil ta’weel
(baseless interpretation).
We remind the Sufi hadhrat and the Molvi sahibaan of the four essentials of
Tasawwuf:
(1) Qillat-e-Kalaam (Less speech)
(2) Qillat-e-Ta’aam (Less eating)
(3) Qillat-e-Manaam (Less sleeping)
(4) Qillat-e-Ikhtilaat ma al Anaam (Less mixing with people).
All four of these primary principles of Tasawwuf are cruelly violated and cast
overboard at braai and brabble parties. Besides the Fiqhi prohibition of kuffaar-style
parties with their accompaniment of factors of hurmat, this type of nafsani
merrymaking is absolutely intolerable in the Math-hab of the Sufiiya-e-Kiraam. It is a
fatal poison for the Rooh. It destroys roohaaniyat. It creates zulmat in the baatin, and
it invites the Wrath of Allah Azza Wa Jal.
There is absolutely no affinity between Tasawwuf and merrymaking. Parties and
functions are the antithesis of Islaah. When the Sahaabah had once allowed
themselves to indulge in some laughter, the following aayat was promptly revealed
to reprimand them:
“What has the time not arrived for the Believers that their hearts become humble
with the thikr of Allah?”
When this aayat was revealed, the Sahaabah abandoned all jocularism, laughter
and the like—anything associated with causing ghaflat (obliviousness). If the happy
go-lucky, albeit of a temporary nature, of the Sahaabah was intolerable to Allah
Ta’ala, what does the Imaani conscience dictate to the Sufis and the Miolvis in the
matter of braai and brabble parties with all their concomitant evils? If the Sufi Saheb
and the Molvi Saheb ruminate with sincerity and do some soul searching, they will
not fail to discern the spiritually noxious and evil cauldron of nafsaaniyat they have
become embroiled in with their braai and brabble parties.
EATING OF THE SLAVE
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that he was a slave, hence he ate with
total humility like a slave. The Ulama hadhraat are aware of the humble stance which
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) adopted while eating his Rizq. Was their any
type of frivolity, enjoyment, merrymaking, and happiness expressed at any of the
occasions of Rasulullah’s eating? Did the mureedeen and khulafa observe any of our
Akaabir Mashaaikh indulging in frivolity and merrymaking of this type—the braai and
brabble fussaaq type?
It is of utmost importance that those who believe themselves to be men of the
Deen, men of Islaah and even Muslihs who attend to the spiritual ills of mureedeen
and who deliver lectures of naseehat to the masses, should re-examine themselves.
The spiritual rust and corrosion has desensitised their conscience and dulled the
lustre of the baatin. It is for this reason that they have become so insensitive and
spiritually impervious that haraam frivolity of haraam braai and brabble parties
appear to them from behind the haze of nafsaaniyat as ‘deeni’ and islaahi functions.
May Allah Ta’ala save us all from the deceptions of shaitaan (Talbees-e-Iblees) and
from the evil lurking in our own nafs.

BRAAIVLEIS AND STUPIDITY
Patrick Hollard, the British expert on nutrition and mental health is the founder
of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition. He is also the director of the Brain BioCentre in London. Commenting on the South African custom of braaivleis, he
said:
“Too much meat, especially burnt meat, is bad for the brain. Bad fats make
the brain and you get thicker………Bad fats are found in burnt meat, deep
fried foods and hydrogenated vegetable oils….”

braai

My Jumuah at Masjid Hagia Sophia

The phrase ‘once in a lifetime’ is somewhat overused for events that fade into mediocrity. Yet standing at the gates of Hagia Sophia and waiting for the first prayer there in 85 years was truly an awe-inspiring event. The monument itself is a timeless wonder that has encapsulated the cultures of ancient Greece, medieval Byzantium, the Ottoman Empire, and modern Europe. Architects, mathematicians, geometers, engineers, and artists alike have all etched their influence into its splendid domes, mosaics, murals, and minarets. The result is a monument that has withstood 14 centuries of earthquakes, riots, invasions, and wars, standing gracefully on the horizon, evoking awe and wonder. Procopius, the principal Byzantine historian of the 6th century described Hagia Sophia as “a most glorious spectacle, extraordinary to those who behold it and altogether incredible to those who are told of it. In height it rises to the very heavens and overtops the neighbouring houses like a ship anchored among them, appearing above the city which it adorns.”[1]

The prayer itself was of course the Jumu’ah prayer – the best day of the week, nestled in the best days of the year. The chosen date of 24th July was hugely significant, as it was the 97th anniversary of the Treaty of Lausanne, signed in 1923, that officially ended hostilities between the Allies and the Ottoman Empire. This prayer was not only a ritual act of worship but a bold statement to the world of the resurgence of Turkey’s Islamic heritage. The streets of Istanbul were flooded with a sea of worshippers patiently waiting for the prayer, with some having camped out since the night before. The roofs of coffee houses and shacks became makeshift prayer spaces where youngsters scrambled for a spot to pray. Wave upon wave of takbīr resounded across the old city, reaching a crescendo when President Erdoğan began his recitation of the Qur’ān. The Imam was Dr Ali Erbaş, the Head of Diyanet, the Directorate of Religious Affairs. He delivered the sermon resting on a ceremonial sword from the Ottoman era. The sermon was confident and victorious in nature, citing the great ahādīth of the conquest of Constantinople and unapologetic in raising the cause of Masjid Al-Aqsa. This was a day of celebration. This was a day of healing for the Ummah.

The protests from orthodox Christendom were to be expected, but what is clear is that the undertone of these criticisms reveal a virulent strain of anti-Turkish paranoia and racism. Ultimately, Hagia Sophia remains open to people of all faiths to visit in much the same way that the Sultanahmet Mosque across the road fulfils its dual purpose as a functioning mosque and a world heritage site. Indeed, the removal of the entry fee to Hagia Sophia should be an added incentive for tourists and worshippers alike to experience its splendour. Orthodox Christians may well ponder on the fact that it was marauding Catholic crusaders who laid the city of Istanbul to waste by plundering, murdering, and raping their Christian brethren in 1204, causing a rapid decline in the fortunes of the great city that strides two continents. They may well reflect on the words of Evliya Çelebi, the Ottoman chronicler of the 17th century who describes Hagia Sopia at the peak of its splendour and spiritual aura:

“Every night in the month of Ramazan, the two thousand lamps lighted there and the lanterns containing wax tapers perfumed with camphor pour forth streams of light upon light; and in the centre of the dome a circle of lamps represents in letters as finely formed as those of Yakut Musta’sime, that text of the Kuran: “God is the light of the heavens and of the earth.” [2]

Waiting for the prayer to start, I felt this was truly a ‘once in a lifetime’ event. An event where the savagery of 85 years of Turkish secularism finally received a blow that it is unlikely to recover from. The congregation of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Malaysians, and Muslims from every other nation from this Ummah surrounding me was uplifting. Each person had their own story to tell of marginalisation, structural racism, and unfulfilled hopes and dreams. Each person took away their own inspiration from this day of healing. The call to prayer will no longer resound within the walls of Hagia Sophia alone. The call to prayer will resound in the hearts of every person who witnessed this great day.

Source: www.islam21c.com

Notes:

[1] Sumner-Boyd, H. and Freely, J., 1985. Strolling Through Istanbul, A Brief Guide To The City. [Istanbul]: Redhouse Press, p.35.

[2] Sumner-Boyd, H. and Freely, J., 1985. Strolling Through Istanbul, A Brief Guide To The City. [Istanbul]: Redhouse Press, p.55.

The Bid’ah of al-Takfeer – Men Placing the Hands on the Chest

THE FIFTH MADH-HAB

It is authentically related that Sa’eed ibn Jubayr (rahmatullahi alayh), the famous student of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum), while doing Tawaaf of the Ka’bah, saw a man praying with his hands on his chest. So abhorrent and unusual was the sight of this abnormal posture that it compelled Sa’eed ibn Jubayr to interrupt his Tawaaf, walk over to the man, smack him, and physically separate his hands, even while the man was in prayer.

The Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah narrates the incident with an authentic sanad (chain) as follows:

حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ عَبْيدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْعَيْزَارِ قَالَ: «كُنْتُ أَطُوفُ مَعَ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، فَرَأَى رَجُلًا يُصَلِّي وَاضِعًا إِحْدَى يَدَيْهِ عَلَى الْأُخْرَى، هَذِهِ عَلَى هَذِهِ، وَهَذِهِ عَلَى هَذِهِ، فَذَهَبَ فَفَرَّقَ بَيْنَهُمَا، ثُمَّ جَاءَ»

Yahya bin Sa’eed narrates from Ubaydullah ibn al-Ayzaar who said:

“I was performing Tawaaf with Sa’eed ibn Jubayr when he saw a man praying having placed his hand upon the other, this upon this, and this upon this (referring to the left hand upon the chest, and the right hand upon the left). So he went (to him) and separated them. Then he came (back).”

Dr. Bashar Awwaad, an expert in editing manuscripts, has clarified in his annotations of Ibn Abdul Barr’s Tamheed where this very same narration is cited, that “عبيد” (Ubayd) is the correct name of the individual narrating this incident. The name “عبد” (with the letter ‘ya’ missing) found in the manuscripts is a typographical error.

In the version of this incident narrated by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal to his student, Muhanna, the smacking is mentioned. Imam Ahmad also clarifies exactly why Sa’eed bin Jubayr took such stern measures:

قال مغلطاي في شرح سنن ابن ماجه (5/131):
وفي سؤالات مهنا: قلت لأحمد: ثنا خالد بن خداش، ثنا مهدي بن ميمون، عن عبيدالله بن العيزار، قال: (كنت أطوف مع سعيد بن جبير، وكان مهيبًا، فرأى رجلاً يصلي قد وضع إحدى يديه على الأخرى، فضرب يده)؟ فقال: (إنما رآه قد وضع إحدى يديه على الأخرى، وجعلهما عند صدره؛ لأن ذلك شبه التكفير).

Muhannā said: I asked Ahmad (about the narration)…: Ubaydullah ibn al-Ayzār said: “I was performing Tawaaf with Sa’eed bin Jubayr. He was awe-striking. He saw a man place one of his hands over the other (in prayer), so he (Sa’eed bin Jubayr) smacked his hand.”

So he (Imam Ahmad) said:

“(He did this because) he only saw that he had placed one hand over the other and placed them against his chest, since that resembles al-Takfeer.”

The above narration is recorded by Allamah Mughultai in his Sharh of Ibn Majah. Shaykh Dr. Abul Hasan has demonstrated in his treatise, “The Hanbali Position of Placing the Hands Below the Navel, that the chain of this narration is authentic.

Al-Takfeer, also known as al-Taqlees, was the practice of the Christians and Jews placing their hands directly on the chest during their prayers. Neither did Imam Ahmad, nor anyone from the Salaf-us-Saaliheen, ever understand the Hadith narrations mentioning the word “Sadr” (chest) to be referring to placing the hands directly on the breast which was precisely the practice of the Jews and Christians. ALL of the Imams of the Salaf understood the word “Sadr”, in this context, to be referring to below the breast and above the navel. This will be demonstrated conclusively on this page insha-Allah.

Let us establish first the fact that placing the hands directly on the chest (i.e. on the breast or above, as opposed to below the breast) was the religious practice of the Jews and Christians.

In Kitaab ul-Ain of al-Khaleel ibn Ahmad (d. 170H), the oldest Arabic dictionary to have reached us from the era of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen, there is explicit proof that the practice of placing both hands on the chest was associated with the Christians:

كتاب العين للخليل بن أحمد الفراهيدي المتوفي ١٧٠

ﻭاﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺲ: ﻭﺿﻊ اﻟﻴﺪﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺼﺪﺭ ﺧﻀﻮﻋﺎ ﻛﻔﻌﻞ اﻟﻨﺼﺮاﻧﻲ

At-Taqlees: Placing the two hands upon the chest in humility like the practice of the Christians.”

Abu Ubayd al-Qaasim ibn as-Salaam (d. 224H), possibly the greatest and most famous of the early linguists, also defines this Kuffaar practice of al-Takfeer as:

تهذيب اللغة ابو منصور الهروي المتوفي ٣٧٥

ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺑﻮﻋﺒﻴﺪ: اﻝﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ: ﺃﻥ ﻳﻀﻊ اﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻳﺪﻳﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﺪﺭﻩ

Al-Takfeer: That a man place his two hands upon his chest.”

The statement above is narrated in the early Arabic dictionaries such as Tahdheeb al-Lugah of Abū Mansoor al-Harawī (d. 375).

Ibn Qutaybah, another famous linguist and polymath from or close to the era of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen, also defines this act similarly, in his “al-Jaraatheem”:

الجراثيم لابن قتيبة المتوفي ٢٧٦:

اﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮﺋ: ﺃﻥ ﻳﻀﻊ ﻳﺪﻳﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﺪﺭﻩ

Al-Takfeer: That he places his two hands on his chest.

The later Arabic dictionaries simply reiterate the definitions cited above. For example, Ibn al-Jawzi, the famous Hanbali jurist, states in his Ghareeb al-Hadeeth:

غريب الحديث لابن الجوزي:

ﻭاﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺲ اﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻭﺿﻊ اﻟﻴﺪﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺼﺪﺭ ﺧﻀﻮﻋﺎ

Al-Taqlees is al-Takfeer – and this is placing the two hands upon the chest in humility.”

Both the words al-Taqlees and al-Takfeer carry many other meanings. However, the specific definitions cited above constitute a clear proof that the practice of placing one’s hands on the chest was known well enough to be a distinct practice of the Kuffaar such that specific words were coined for it, during or even prior to the era of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen.

The Salaf harboured the greatest degree of aversion for Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar (resemblance to the non-Muslims), in view of the numerous verses of the Qur’aan and authentic Hadiths condemning and prohibiting such resemblance. The prohibition of an act is of an even greater degree if it resembles the manner of worship of the Kuffaar.

It should also be borne in mind that while the Salaf were the most tolerant and broad-minded of people in regards to valid differences of opinions amongst themselves, they were also the most intolerant of people in regards to any differences which they deemed to be invalid and alien to Islam. Intolerance and “bigotry” towards Baatil (falsehood) was a salient feature of all the Salaf-us-Saaliheen. In contrast, tolerance of Baatil and intolerance of the Haqq are salient features of our current era, which is precisely why Allah Ta’ala has granted the very worst of people power over us, exactly as warned in the Hadiths.

Thus, it is of no surprise that a senior Tabi‘i such as Sa’eed ibn Jubayr felt compelled to interrupt his own ibaadah (worship) and interrupt the man’s salaah, and correct the abominable sight in the manner that he did. In all probability the poor man was a new convert to Islam who had carried over that particular habit from his previous religion.

In Imam Ahmad’s “Masaa-il” and collection of his Fatwas transmitted by his direct students is further confirmation of the reprehensibility of a man placing his hands on his chest during prayer.

Ibn ul-Qayyim, in his Badaaī’ al-Fawaaid cites al-Muzani, the student of Imam Ahmad, as follows:

ونقل المزني عنه…ويكره أن يجعلهما على الصدر، وذلك لما روي عن النبي -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم- أنه نهى عن التكفير، وهو وضع اليد على الصدر

بدائع الفوائد

Imam Ahmad said:

“It is reprehensible for him to place both of them (hands) upon the chest. And that is because of what is related from the Prophet ﷺ that he prohibited al-Takfeer – and that is placing the hand upon the chest.”

The sanad of the particular Hadith referred to above by Imam Ahmad has not reached us. However, it is sufficient for us that Imam Ahmad regarded it as authentic enough to adduce as evidence. The authentication of a Mujtahid such as Imam Ahmad is infinitely more reliable than that of any of the glut of paper “Mujtahids” who have mushroomed during these worst of eras, and whose word is taken almost as holy writ. The phrase “authenticated by al-Albani” is often issued by scholars, leave aside laymen, as an authoritative stamp on which confidence can be reposed, even though al-Albani was extremely unreliable and untrustworthy, as will become glaringly clear when we analyse the academic shenanigans he (and Zubayr Ali Zai) perpetrated while attempting to authenticate the Jewish practice of al-Takfeer.

As will be demonstrated when we discuss the Hadith of Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) in which he states that the Sunnah is to place the hands below the navel, which was the primary narrational Daleel (proof) used by the Hanbali and Hanafi Fuqaha (despite the weaknesses in its chain), there are numerous qaraa-in (indicators) which the Mujtahids such as Imam Ahmad would use in determining the authenticity of a Hadith. The sanad was only one factor out of many that were considered in such a process. Thus, in relation to the narration condemning al-Takfeer, Imam Ahmad’s word for it, or of any other Mujtahid from the Salaf, is sufficient authentication for us.

Imam Abu Dawud, the famous author of the Sunan (collection of Hadith) and student of Imam Ahmad, also narrates Imam Ahmad’s condemnation of al-Takfeer:

ﻭﺳﻤﻌﺘﻪ، ﻳﻘﻮﻝ: ” ﻳﻜﺮﻩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ، ﻳﻌﻨﻲ: ﻭﺿﻊ اﻟﻴﺪﻳﻦ ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﺼﺪﺭ «.

“I heard him say: ‘It is reprehensible (prohibitively disliked) to do that – meaning, placing the two hands on the chest.” (Masaa-il of Imam Ahmad)

Returning back to the narration of Sa’eed ibn Jubayr, Imam Ahmad’s explanation for this senior Tabi’i’s stern action also provides the perfect, and perhaps only viable, interpretation for the following two narrations from two other major authorities from the Tabi’een era, Hasan al-Basri and Mujahid – both recorded in the Musannaf of Ibn Abī Shaybah:

حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ، عَنْ يُوسُفَ بْنِ مَيْمُونٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «كَأَنِّي أَنْظُرُ إِلَى أَحْبَارِ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وَاضِعِي أيْمَانهُمْ عَلَى شَمَائِلِهِمْ فِي الصَّلَاةِ»

Hasan (al-Basri) narrates that Rasulullah ﷺ said: “It is as if I am seeing the Priests of Banī Isrāeel placing their right hands over their left hands in prayer.”

Regarding Yusuf ibn Maymoon, the narrator from Hasan al-Basri, al-Haythami summarized the criticism of him as follows:

ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﺑﻦ ﻣﻴﻤﻮﻥ اﻟﺼﺒﺎﻍ, ﺿﻌﻔﻪ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﻭﺛﻘﻪ اﺑﻦ ﺣﺒﺎﻥ ﻭﺃﺑﻮ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺪﻱ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ اﻟﺒﺰاﺭ: ﺻﺎﻟﺢ اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ

A whole group have regarded him as weak, although Ibn Hibbaan and Abū Ahmad ibn Adī considered him trustworthy. Al-Bazzaar said: ‘Acceptable in Hadith.’”

And the narration from Mujahid:

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا حَفْصٌ، عَنْ لَيْثٍ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ، أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَكْرَهُ أَنْ يَضَعَ الْيُمْنَى عَلَى الشِّمَالِ، يَقُولُ: «عَلَى كَفِّهِ، أَوْ عَلَى الرُّسْغِ»، وَيَقُولُ: «فَوْقَ ذَلِكَ» وَيَقُولُ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ: يَفْعَلُونَهُ

Mujahid regarded it reprehensible to place the right hand upon thd left. He said, “Upon its palm or upon the wrist.” And he said (or showed): “Above that”, saying, “The Ahl ul-Kitaab (Jews and Christians) do it.”

Al-Haythami said in assessment of Layth ibn Abi Sulaym, the narrator from Mujahid:

ﻟﻴﺚ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺳﻠﻴﻢ, ﻭﻗﺪ ﻭﺛﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺿﻌﻒ ﻓﻴﻪ

He has been considered trustworthy despite weakness in him.”

Despite the weaknesses in the chain of both narrations above, they are, nevertheless, suitable (according to the methodology of the Salaf) to use for the tremendous Fadhāil (virtue) of condemning the religious posture of the Jews which their brethren, agents and unwittingly witless puppets (e.g. Salafis and other modernists) have infiltrated into this Ummah during the past few centuries.

Hasan al-Basri and Mujahid were students of hundreds of Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) including those whose authentic narrations (e.g. Ibn Abbaas and Anas radhiyallahu anhuma) establish beyond any doubt the Sunnah status of placing the right hand over the left in prayer. It is therefore inconceivable that Hasan al-Basri and Mujahid would have dared to condemn as a practice of the Kuffaar, a practice that they would’ve witnessed from innumerable Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) and other Tabi’een, and one also adopted by the overwhelming majority of the Ummah. They could only have condemned the placement of hands at a particular place on the body, not the placement of hands per se.

As with the narration from Sa’eed ibn Jubayr, Imam Ahmad’s explanation is the only reasonable one. This is bolstered further by the fact that al-Takfeer is confirmed by the ancient dictionaries to be the only posture involving the placement of hands, one over the other, which was associated with the priests of the Ahl ul-Kitaab.

We will cite one more narration from a major Tabi’i to emphasize further the abhorrent nature of this practice, specifically in respect to men. Ibn Abi Shaybah narrates with an authentic chain from the great Tabi’i, ‘Atā’ ibn Abī Rabah, the following statement:

تجمع المرأة يديها فى القيام ما استطاعت

“A woman gathers her hands in the standing position as much as she is able to.”

It is only possible to gather one’s hands together “as much as one is able to” high up on the body, around the area of the chest. ‘Atā’ ibn Abī Rabah witnessed and learnt his Deen from a large number of Sahabah, numbering in their hundreds. The position he states above has been the position of a major portion of this Ummah, including the Hanafi school, right from the era of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen.

Thus, for a man to place his hands on the chest will entail, in addition to Tashabbuh bil Jews, the added aggravating element of Tashabbuh bin Nisaa’ (resemblance to women). This is similar to how other practices such as clapping one’s hands in prayer or shaving one’s beard would also entail both, at the same time, Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar and Tashabbuh bin Nisaa’.

Although the testimonies of Imam Ahmad and the definitions cited above from the dictionaries authored during or close to the era of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen are more than sufficient as proof that the practice of men placing the hands on the chest is an exclusive practice of the Kuffaar, we will add here, as a bonus supplement, one of many citations that can be found in the scriptures of Ahl ul-Kitaab (Jews and Christians).

In an article found on the orthodox Jewish website, torah.org, specifically on hand positions during prayer, the following is cited from their scriptures:

Before Shemoneh Esrei, Rava would put his hands on his chest, one resting on the other, like a slave in front of his master” (Shabbos 10a)…The Shulchan Aruch writes that one should place his right hand over his left.”

A brief search on Christian sources will also bear similar results.

WHEN DID THE “SAVED SECT” FIRST APPEAR?

Imam Ahmad’s condemnation of placing the hands on the chest is especially significant if we take into consideration the fact that he accepted all the various positions for placing one’s hands: below the navel, above the navel, or choosing freely between below and above the navel.

The other Imams also carefully avoided the “red zone” – the chest. These are the various positions authentically attributed to the Imams of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen:

1) Imam Abu Hanifah’s position, as reported by his student, Imam Muhammad ash-Shaybaani, in several of his books, was placing the hands below the navel.

2) Imam Ishaaq ibn Raahwayh also adopted the stance of placing the hands below the navel, as reported in his “Masaa-il” by his student.

3) Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri also adopted this stance as related by Imam al-Mundhiri and many other reliable authorities.

4) Imam Maalik held the stance that the hands should be placed above the navel and below the chest. His major students, Imam al-Mutarrif and Imam Ibn al-Maajishoon have transmitted this position in Kitaab ul-Waadiha. The other famous position of Imam Malik is leaving the hands to one’s sides as narrated by his student, Ibn al-Qaasim, in al-Mudawanna.

5) Imam Shafi’i’s direct student, al-Muzani, states “below the chest” in his al-Mukhtasar, which is the position attributed to Imam Shafi’i by all of the Shafi’i Fuqaha.

6) Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s stance is accurately portrayed by the citations above from Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim. While below the navel was his preferred position and the one held by the generality of the Hanbali Fuqaha, he also put into practice the placement of the hands above the navel and below the chest, whilst clearly condemning the placement of hands directly on the chest.

Note how all the Imams carefully avoided the position of a man placing his hands directly on the chest. Evidently then, Imam Ahmad and the rest of the Salaf were totally and blissfully unaware of even the remote existence of a so-called Firqat un-Naajiah (the saved sect) who were responsible for upholding or reviving such authentic “Sunnats” (of the Jews and Shiah Kuffaar) as placing the hands on the chest or a Bid’ah 8 raka’ts “Taraweeh”. (Refer to the article, “The Bid’ah of 8 Raka’ts ‘Taraweeh” for conclusive proof of the complete non-existence of this Bid’ah amongst the Salaf-us-Saaliheen.)

Let us now fast forward several centuries to the 7th and 8th century to try to determine whether or not this “Firqat un-Naajiah”, upholding the Sunnah of the Jews, had begun to rear its ugly head before that era.

Ibn taymiyyah, in his exposition of this issue in “Sharh ul-Umdah”, runs through the various positions in respect to the placement of hands in prayer. Observe how he accepts all the positions as valid except the Jewish practice of al-Takfeer:

كتاب صفة الصلاة من شرح العمدة لابن تيمية الحراني الحنبلي الدمشقي المتوفى: 728 هـ:

ويجعلهما تحت سرته, أو تحت صدره, من غير كراهةٍ لواحدٍ منهما, والأول أفضل في إحدى الروايات عنه…ولأن ذلك أبعد عن التكفير المكروه…وفي الأخرى: تحت الصدر أفضل…والرواية الثالثة: هما سواء…فأما وضعهما على الصدر، فيكره، نص عليه… وما روي من الآثار عن الوضع على الصدر فلعله محمول على مقاربته

And he places them below his navel, or below his chest, without any reprehensibility entailing in either one of them. The first is better according to one of the transmissions from him (Imam Ahmad)… and also because it is furthest from the detested al-Takfeer. In another (transmission), below the chest is better. And in the third (transmission), both are equal… And as for placing both (hands) on the chest, this is reprehensible. There is an explicit statement (from Imam Ahmad) on this…and what is transmitted of narrations on placing the hand on the chest is perhaps interpreted based on nearness to it.

Note also how Ibn Taymiyyah offers an explanation for the narrations which mention the word “chest”. He interprets the narrations in terms of the unanimous and mass-transmitted practice of the entire Ummah – not the other way round. Despite Ibn Taymiyyah’s unique propensity to go against Ijma’ (consensus), even he was not so audacious and stupid enough to assume that in such a simple and clearly visible matter of placement of hands in prayer, mass-transmitted from generation to generation from the time of Rasulullah ﷺ, the entire Ummah could have erred so drastically.

Ibn al-Qayyim, similarly, in Badaai al-Fawaa’id, accepts all the various positions transmitted from the Salaf as valid whilst at the same time condemning the practice of placing the hands on the chest:

بدائع الفوائد المؤلف: ابن قيم الجوزية المتوفى: 751هـ

ﻭاﺧﺘﻠﻒ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ اﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﻓﻌﻨﻪ ﻓﻮﻕ اﻟﺴﺮﺓ ﻭﻋﻨﻪ ﺗﺤﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﻋﻨﻪ ﺃﺑﻮ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ ﺳﺄﻟﺖ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺃﻳﻦ ﻳﻀﻊ ﻳﺪﻩ ﺇﺫا ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺼﻠﻲ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: “ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺴﺮﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻭاﺳﻊ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺇﻥ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻓﻮﻕ اﻟﺴﺮﺓ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺤﺘﻬﺎ…ﻗﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺭﻭاﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﺰﻧﻲ: “ﺃﺳﻔﻞ اﻟﺴﺮﺓ ﺑﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﻭﻳﻜﺮﻩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺠﻌﻠﻬﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺼﺪﺭ ” ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻤﺎ ﺭﻭﻯ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﺻﻠﻰ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻧﻬﻲ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻭﺿﻊ اﻟﻴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺼﺪﺭ.

He (Imam Ahmad) varied (in his stance) on the area of placement (of hands). Above the navel is narrated from him and below it is narrated from him. Abū Taalib narrated from him: ‘I asked Ahmad where should one place his hands when he prays?’ He said: ‘Upon the navel or below.’ All of these are permissible according to him if he places (his hands) above the navel or upon it or below it…He said in the transmission from al-Muzani: ‘Below the navel slightly. It is reprehensible for him to place them on the chest.’ That is because of what is narrated from the Prophet ﷺ that he forbade al-Takfeer, which is placing the hands upon the chest.”

From the above two citations, it is manifestly clear that the so-called saved sect responsible for upholding or reviving the Jewish Sunnah of Al-Takfeer, failed to make an appearance even during the 7th and 8th centuries.

Other than Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim, there are many more reliable Fuqaha we could have cited on this issue. We only cite these two scholars because most of those (Salafis and modernists) who are responsible for reviving this practice of the Jews and importing it into the Ummah, during the past few centuries, regard these two to be trustworthy and reliable authorities of Islam.

It appears that this Bid’ah started appearing in this Ummah some time during the 11th or 12th century (Hijri). The root-cause, as with all deviations that have cancerously infected the Ummah, was Ghair Muqallidism – the act of leaving one’s Madh-hab for a ruling which one deceives oneself to be “better”. One of the first proponents of unrestrained Ghair Muqallidism, along with the necessarily accompanying Bid’ah such as the Kuffaar practice of al-Takfeer, was an Aalim named Shaykh Hayaat Sindhi. He had begun to propagate the Jewish practice of placing one’s hands on the chest.

In response, another Aalim from Sindh, Allamah Hashim Sindhi penned a refutation of him. Several refutations and counter-refutations then ensued between the two. They have all been compiled into one book that can be downloaded here.

Allamah Hashim mentions at one place that one of the reasons given by the Hanafi Fuqaha (and some Hanbalis) for giving preference to placing the hands below the navel is that it is, “furthest from resemblance with the Ahl ul-Kitaab”. This is similar to Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement, already cited above, that:

ويجعلهما تحت سرته, أو تحت صدره, من غير كراهةٍ لواحدٍ منهما, والأول أفضل في إحدى الروايات عنه…ولأن ذلك أبعد عن التكفير المكروه

The first (i.e. below the navel) is better…because it is furthest from the detested al-Takfeer…” (Sharh ul-Umdah)

Allamah Hashim goes onto relate his experience in attempting to find real-life corroboration for this particular reason given for preferring the position of placing the hands below the navel:

This Faqeer (poor, lowly person – referring to himself) – may Allah Ta’ala rectify his condition – when he arrived at Bandar Adan…he found there a group from the Jews residing there. So he summoned them, asking about the place of placement of their hands in prayer. They said: “Upon the chest.” A group from them were in agreement on that, and (both) their leaders and the masses concurred on that.”

Orthodox Jews and Christians who still uphold this practice are extremely rare today. It is divine providence that Allah Ta’ala, in His infinite wisdom, has granted one of the most deviated of sects the “privilege” of bearing the torch of upholding this particular Sunnah of the Jews. In one of the most clearly visible aspects of one of the most fundamental pillars of the Deen, the Salafis have been made to stand apart from the Islamic luminaries of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen and resemble instead the Jews and Christians of that blessed era.

Allah Ta’ala has laid bare vividly for any sincere Muslim to appreciate the brazen fraud behind the claims of Salafis and other Ghair Muqallids of being true followers of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen. If they are able to miss the mark so widely on such basic Masaa-il (juristic matters of the Deen) as the placement of the hands in prayer, or the number of raka’ts in a prayer (Taraweeh) practiced by the Ummah, including the Salaf, for over 1400 years, then it can be firmly asserted, without any shadow of doubt, that such deviated groups will have inevitably missed the mark far more widely in more complex issues of the Deen. The sincere layman only needs to observe their deviation – so visibly discernible without much intellect required – and their satanic influence on innumerable Muslims who have adopted the Jewish or Shiah (8 rakats Bid’ah taraweeh) Sunnah, to appreciate how distant from the Salaf-us-Saaliheen they are in reality.

Much more to come insha-Allah…

TBC!

GAPPING – DARUL ULOOM BANNOORI TOWN’S FATWA

SATANIC GAPPING- DARUL ULOOM BANNOORI TOWN’S STUPID FATWA OF THE MORON MUFTIS
Question

Please comment on the fatwa of Darul Uloom Bannoori Town (Karachi). According to these muftis, ‘social distancing’ in Salaat, etc. are permissible because:
(1) The contagiousness of the covid disease is confirmed by medical opinion.

(2) The government’s law has to be obeyed.
Is their fatwa in conformity with the Shariah?
ANSWER

There are two shariats: The Shariah of Allah Ta’ala and the shariat of Iblees who is the ustaadh of the government, the medical juhala and these moron bootlicking muftis.
The first ground presented by these maajin (moron, stupid, scoundrel) muftis is kufr. Regarding the second stupidity, nothing supersedes Allah’s Law.

There is absolutely no need for stupid fatwas to bootlick and appease the atheist medical juhala who excrete plain Ibleesi drivel. The government does not compel any molvi to excrete rubbish in the name of the Shariat. The profession of these moron muftis is bootlicking for the acquisition of money, stupid name and fame. They are pursuing worldly carrion under Deeni guise.
This Darul Uloom as well as Darul Uloom Deoband and most other Darul Ulooms have diverted from Siraatul Mustaqeem. They are plodding the devil’s path to Jahannam. They all have become agents of shaitaan, hence they now excel in western liberalism.
The Darul Uloom has not presented a single Shar’i daleel for its Ibleesi excrement. Its stupid ‘fatwa’ is nothing other than a piece of moronic personal opinion disgorged to bamboozle the juhala and to bootlick the government. These Darul Ulooms can no longer be trusted. They trade the Deen for the jeefah (carrion) of the dunya. They are no longer representatives of the Shariah. On the contrary, they are agents of Iblees.
Just imagine! Abrogating the Shariah with a piece of rubbish personal opinion devoid of a shred of Shar’i substance. They all are signs of Qiyaamah. They are plodding the path of dhalaal (satanic deviation). They are mudhal (deviated) and mudhil (leading others astray).
As for the dalai-il debunking the rubbish which these moron muftis disgorge, we have published seven booklets and numerous articles, all available on our website. Suffice to say, that the Bannoori Town fatwa is satanic rubbish.
Their stupid fatwa zigs and zags between right and wrong, but finally settles for shaitaani rubbish. While these moron muftis acknowledge the imperative importance of proper Masnoon Saff formation, they ultimately prostrate to shaitaan and accept his ‘fatwa’ of kufr.

23 Zil Qa’dh 1441 – 15 July 2020

DRESS FOR SALAAT

When the Mu’min stands in Salaat, he should understand that he stands in Allah’s Presence. For the Divine Presence, the Shariah requires him to be dressed respectfully. It is haraam to be dressed in the lewd styles of the kuffaar when standing in the Divine Presence. Dress such as T-shirts and jeans; T-shirts or any other type of garment bearing logos and inscriptions; bermudas and the like are haraam. Wearing such kuffaar dress is prohibited at all times. Wearing such dress for Salaat magnifies the sin. Salaat performed with such kuffaar dress styles is Makrooh. If someone has performed Salaat with such dress, it is incumbent to repeat the Salaat within the time and with proper dress.
It is not permissible to enter a Musjid with Tshirts and other types of clothing on which appear slogans, logos and inscriptions even if the pictures are of inanimate objects.