Shi‘ism: A Persisting Enemy of Islam and Muslims

By Mufti Abdullah Moolla -October 14, 2022

By Muftī Radā-ul-Haq (hafizahullāh)

Translated by Mufti Abdullah Moolla

What follows is a translated transcription of a lecture delivered by Muftī Radā-ul-Haq (hafizahullāh) at Dār-ul-‘Ulūm Azaadville on the burning topic of Shi‘ism. Within this lecture, Muftī Radā-ul-Haq opened up the eyes of the audience and passionately conveyed his deep concern for the Ummah regarding the fitnah of this severely misguided sect.

In the name of Allāh, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

All praise is for Allāh, Rabb of the Universe. May peace and salutations be upon our leader and master, Sayyidunā Muhammad, his family, his companions, his spouses and all his followers.

To proceed:

Honorable ‘Ulama, friends and brothers,

I have been requested to advise the audience regarding the Rawāfid. I have been tasked to inform the audience about this fitnah.

During the time of Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, there were hypocrites, i.e., munāfiqīn. There were a few of them. There is a report of Sayyidunā Huzayfah (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) which states that there are no munāfiqīn after the time of Rasūlullāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam). Another report in Sahīh Al-Bukhārī from Sayyidunā Huzayfah (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) states that the hypocrites after the time of Rasūlullāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) will be worse than the hypocrites of the time of Rasūlullāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam).

One report mentions that there will be no presence of hypocrites, whereas another report states that the hypocrites that come later will be much worse and far more atrocious than the hypocrites of the time of Rasūlullāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam). The scholars have reconciled these two reports in various ways. It is best that we say during the time of Rasūlullāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) there were munāfiqīn present. Later on however, the munāfiqīn will exist under a different name, i.e., not under the name of ‘munāfiq.’ This is despite the fact that the munāfiqīn who would come later⁠—after the time of Rasūlullāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam)⁠—would be much worse. They would not be named as ‘munāfiqīn.’ They will name themselves differently. For example, they will use zindiq. They will refer to themselves as Rawāfid. They will call themselves Rawāfid, and these are the ones we refer to as Shi‘ah. However, they will not use the name ‘munāfiq.’

RELATED: The Types of Hypocrisy in Islam

It is stated in the books of the Shi‘ah⁠—and I have provided the relevant references in Badr-ul-Layālī Sharh Bad’-ul-Amālī and Al-Asīdah As-Samāwiyyah Sharh ‘Aqīdah At-Tahāwiyyah—where the Shi‘ah themselves have mentioned that:

The word ‘munāfiq’ refers to us (i.e., the Shi‘ah).

A munāfiq is someone who says one thing but has something else in their heart.

Taqiyyah is a special belief (and practice) of the Shi‘ah. Taqiyyah means to make something apparent, but the heart of the person conceals something else completely. I shall not explain their beliefs before you at this point. Most ‘Ulama are aware of them and the people have been taught about this too.

I want to explain how, in terms of politics and state matters, no other group has harmed Muslim Ummah as severely as the Rawāfid have. The non-Muslims will not be able to cause harm to the Muslims for as long as they are not accompanied by Muslims, i.e., those who claim to be Muslims. Once those who claim to be Muslims ally themselves with the non-Muslims, then they will cause harm to the Muslim Ummah.

RELATED: The Severity of Selling Out Dīn for Worldly Gain

The era of Rasūlullāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was followed by the eras of Sayyidunā Abū Bakr (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) and Sayyidunā ‘Umar (radiyallāhu ‘anhu). The time of Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) then arrived [after the Khilāfah of Sayyidunā ‘Uthmān (radiyallāhu ‘anhu)]. During this time, the very same munāfiqīn that had killed Sayyidunā ‘Uthmān (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) had now joined the army of Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu). They did this in order to inflict great harm to the Muslims from within. Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) was engaged in peace negotiations with Sayyidunā Mu’āwiyah (radiyallāhu ‘anhu). They came to a peace agreement and were successful in their attempt towards reconciliation.

The very same munāfiqīn who had killed Sayyidunā ‘Uthmān (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) had joined the army of Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu). And now, they were unable to digest the occurence of a peace agreement. They did not wish for peace to prevail. These very same people eventually became the killers of Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu). They martyred Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu).

With regard to ‘Abdur-Rahmān Ibn Muljim, it is clearly recorded that he pledged allegiance to Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu). However, he remained with Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) only until the time of the peace agreement, i.e., for as long as Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) stood in opposition to Sayyidunā Mu’āwiyah (radiyallāhu ‘anhu). Once they had made peace and united, he (‘Abdur-Rahmān Ibn Muljim) martyred Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu).

As recorded in the books of the Shi‘ah, Sakīnah, the daughter of Sayyidunā Husayn (radiyallāhu ‘anhu), said:

‘You have killed my grandfather, i.e., Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu).’

She was addressing the Rawāfid.

She continued:

‘You killed my father, Sayyidunā Husayn (radiyallāhu ‘anhu).’

This was because he was ready and prepared to make a peace agreement and armistice with the Khilāfah of the time. He was readying himself to go. It was the very same people who martyred him.

She also said:

‘You poisoned my paternal uncle, Sayyidunā Hasan radiyallāhu ‘anhu.’

This is recorded in Al-‘Iqd Al-Farīd, a Shi‘ah work.

RELATED: Is the Shi’a Hadith Literature Reliable?

She continued:

‘My husband, Mus’ab, you have martyred him.’

Hence, we learn that it was the Rawāfid who murdered and martyred the great and lofty personalities in Islām.

The Umayyad era was coming to an end. We do not say that this point of the Umayyad rule was the best, but the initial stage of the Umayyads was excellent. Loss, harm and problems did set in towards the end. At that time, the Rawāfid had selected Abū Muslim Khurāsānī (for their aims and objectives).

Abū Muslim Khurāsānī was in jail. When the Rawāfid heard his speech, they took a liking to him and felt that he was a very suitable candidate to be used by them. His speech made them feel as though he was brave and bold. They had him released, made him a leader and put him forward in order to establish the ‘Alawī Government. He started a significant movement against the Umayyads. As a result, the Umayyad rule was ended. Thereafter the ‘Alawīs oppressed the Umayyads to a great degree. It is reported that the Umayyads were put into a tent and that horses were made to gallop over them, trampling them all to death. In fact, the corpses of the Umayyads were removed from their graves and flung aside.

This was done to the Umayyads, despite them having ruled for over eighty years and after achieving so much. Spain and Portugal were conquered during their time. The areas of Sindh in Pakistan and Gujarat in India were conquered. Punjab and Multan were conquered during the time of Walīd Ibn ‘Abdil-Malik. The area of Turkistan, the place where Imām Bukhārī (rahimahullāh) was born, the entirety of this area [modern-day Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan] was conquered during the Umayyad era.

There are twelve Muslim provinces in China. The Muslims had gone there and conquered during the Umayyad time. It has been written about this era that the King of China was extremely awed by the Muslims. He came to know that the leader of the Muslims was Hajjāj Ibn Yūsuf, who was in Iraq. He said:

‘I am prepared to meet your governor because I have heard from the people in China that the people wearing white have come, and wherever those wearing white come, disbelief and falsehood are destroyed.’

RELATED: Is Jihad ONLY Defensive? Did Islam Spread by the Sword? (UNAPOLOGETIC Answer)

The King in China was prepared to meet them because he wanted to traverse the same path that the Muslims were upon. Hajjāj Ibn Yūsuf passed away and then came Sulaymān Ibn ‘Abdil-Malik.

Major leaders and conquerors were killed after this time too.

Anyway, it is recorded that Abū Muslim Khurāsānī was a Rāfidī. He caused great harm to the Muslims.

The ‘Abbāsid era then dawned. The last ruler of the ‘Abbāsids was Musta’sim Billāh. Sa’dī, the poet, wrote a qasīdah upon the end of the ‘Abbasid rule. I shall mention the last two lines:

‘The skies have the right to rain blood because the rule of Musta’sim Billāh has come to an end.’

In Al-Bidāyah wan Nihāyah, Ibn Kathīr (rahimahullāh) has written that eight hundred thousand people were killed in Baghdad at the time. One narration mentions that a million were killed. Another narration reports that one million and six hundred thousand were killed.

The condition of the libraries was such that all of the books had been taken out and thrown into the Tigris River. For a number of days the river ran black (due to the ink from the books). Musta’sim Billāh was granted safety but this was not for long. He was also killed. What was the reason? The very same Rawāfid.

One of the leading ministers in the government of Musta’sim Billāh was Muhaqqiq Tūsī. People study his books in philosophy. He was a staunch Rāfidī. Another minister was Ibn ‘Alqamī; also a Rāfidī.

Hulagu Khan, the grandson of Genghis Khan, was very fearful of the Muslims. He could not stand up and fight them. However, Ibn ‘Alqamī and Muhaqqiq Tūsī wrote to him and invited him. They said that with the arrival of the Tartars, the Muslim Empire shall be destroyed. They also promised their support to the Tartars. They also said that Muhammad (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) passed away, and nothing happened⁠—the world carried on. So what will happen if the ‘Abbāsid Empire comes to an end? Nothing.

The ‘Abbāsid Empire was destroyed with the evil plotting and conniving of Ibn Al-‘Alqamī and Muhaqqiq Tūsī.

Hence, in terms of politics and state matters, the Rawāfid have proven to be very harmful for the Muslims. The scholars have written that the Rawāfid have never supported the Muslims.

It is explained in the works of history that during the time of Walīd Ibn ‘Abdil-Malik, during the conquest of Europe, it was the Jews of the Maghrib that supported the Muslims. This is because they were tired of the King there. However, the Rawāfid have never aided or supported the Muslims. They are pure munāfiqīn. One must recognize them; stay away from their literature; oppose them; and make effort on the youth so that they can also recognize the Rawāfid and know of their beliefs. So that they are aware of how the Iranian Embassies which are situated in all the countries host a so-called ‘Hujjat-ullāh.’ This ‘Hujjat-ullāh’ has a great ‘Mujtahid’ position given to him which is slightly lower than the ‘Āyat-ullāh.’ He is the ‘Hujjat-ullāh’ and the Ambassador. He is a preacher of Shi‘ism as well as the Ambassador.

May Allāh Ta’ālā bless us with the ability to save ourselves and our youth from this fitnah. May peace and salutations be upon our leader and master, Sayyidunā Muhammad (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and his family and companions.

RELATED: An Orthodox Muslim’s Review of ‘The Lady of Heaven’: A Shia Propaganda Film

Follow Mufti Abdullah on Twitter: @MuftiAMoolla


Hijab Burnings in Iran and the Liberal Muslim’s Hatred for Islam

Guest Post from Usama Hazari.

On 16th September 2022, in the city of Tehran, 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, unfortunately passed away in police custody under suspicious circumstances. She was arrested on 13th September by the Iranian morality police (aka Guidance Patrol) for a dress code violation, where she had received a fatal injury in the process, as per eyewitnesses. Consequently, a series of protests erupted and spread across Iran.

However, the protests were surprisingly not directed against police brutality or medical negligence. Rather the liberal segment of Iranian society seized the tragedy as an opportunity to publicly exhibit their disdain for Islam and commit blasphemy en masse.

For one thing, police brutality is not uncommon across the world. In the United States of America, during the course of the Black Lives Matter protests that ensued after the death of George Floyd, we rarely observed demonstrators publicly desecrating the symbols of Christianity. Nonetheless, when it comes to incidents of oppression and tyranny in the Muslim world, Islam often becomes the primary target of censure and hostility from people.

RELATED: Yes, Islam Forces Muslim Women to Wear Hijab

In a similar vein, during the famed Aurat March (an annual feminist rally held in Pakistan), videos emerged of some women chanting slogans “Allah bhi sunle! AZADI!; Rasool bhi sunle! AZADI” (Allah too hear us, freedom!; Prophet too hear us, freedom!). It is as if they are implying that it is Allah and His Prophet ﷺ that are the source of their oppression—from whom they are seeking freedom.

The rallies that were supposed to highlight the serious matter of “domestic violence” and other similar issues in Pakistan have been hijacked by the liberal Muslim stratum and has subsequently devolved into a series of vitriolic and blasphemous diatribes against Islam.

A friend of mine recently expressed his shocked upon seeing Iranian Muslims burn the hijab as a protest and remarked that even the non-Muslims wouldn’t commit such an act of insulting someone’s faith. I responded to him that no one is more Islamophobic than a liberal Muslim. He loves his Muslim community in a tribalistic fashion, while blaming Islam for its backwardness and misery. For the liberal Muslim, the reason for “our backwardness” lies in the fact that we have not yet “assimilated ourselves” into the modern world.

The liberal Muslim lacks knowledge of history. He is unaware of the centuries of colonialism that has drained the Muslim societies of all its resources. His understanding of Islam is also flawed. The liberal Muslim perceives Islam the same way a polytheist perceives his religion or culture, namely, it can change according to the trends and status quo of different times. The liberal Muslim forgets that Islam is universal and has been sent for all times and all people.

RELATED: Denmark Is Moving to Ban the Hijab

Any misery and humiliation we suffer today is due to our own failure in following our duties as an Ummah. The liberal Muslim fails to understand that his colonised worldview is the biggest hurdle to the Ummah’s progress and attainment of the leadership of the world — as promised by Allah (swt) if we implement Islam in our individual and collective lives.

The primary prerequisite to experiencing a revival of Islam in our lives is that we give Dawah to the liberals in our midst. Perhaps it is easier to convert a non-Muslim to Islam than to convince an arrogant liberal to agree to Islam as a complete way of life.

Arrogance is indeed the greatest obstacle in the way of guidance. The liberal Muslim’s arrogance stems from their self-righteousness and saviour complex, which consequently deter him from following the way of God.

RELATED: The Inevitable Failure of Political Shi’ism: The Secularization of Iran


Muslim Shī’ah Relations

As Muslims, we need to:

  1. Understand that Shī’asm is kufr.
  2. Understand that Shī’ahs who know their religion cannot be considered
  3. Shun them completely & cut off all ties with them if such ties exist.
  4. Keep our families and dear ones far from them and their influence.
  5. Maintain hatred in our hearts for their beliefs and actions.
  6. Confine ourselves to the writings and lectures of reliable, upright and
    pious Ulamā instead of exposing ourselves to content online.
  7. Be wary and shun anyone who “sings the tunes” of Shī’asm, Sunnī-Shī’ī
    unity and similar issues. This does not require one to be trigger-happy in
    declaring people “Shī’ah” or “pro-Shī’ah”. It merely means that one
    should always be alert, vigilant and cautious, especially when dubious
    statements are made.


On the 1st December 2017, in Cape Town, a non-Muslim Shiah temple complex is set to open. Normally, there is no need for Muslims to comment on non-Muslim events whether of a religious or mundane nature, unless it directly affects Muslims. The same rule would have applied to the non-Muslim Shiah temple complex if it was not for the confusion which the deceptive and cunning Shiahs create by their employment of such terminology and designations which cause confusion in the ranks of the ignorant Muslim masses.

The non-Muslim Shiah event is advertised as a ‘Mosque Complex’ and the temple is named ‘Ahlul Bait Mosque’. The lengthy list of non-Muslim dignitaries who will be attending the opening ceremony of the Shiah temple complex, and the variety of haraam merrymaking activities palpably confirm that the Shiah temple complex is a non-Muslim venture which is being manipulated to confuse unwary and ignorant Muslims for entrapping them into the web of the Shiah religion which has no affinity and no relationship with Islam.

Although the Shiahs name their temple, ‘Ahlul Bait Mosque’, they are the very people who had killed Hadhrat Husain (Radhiyallahu anhu), the grandson of Rasulullah. The Shiahs had at Karbala massacred the entire Family of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), yet they have the naked and shameless audacity of professing ‘love’ for the Ahl-e-Bait (the Family of Rasulullah – Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

In fact, even among the Shiah clergy there are those who have recorded Hadhrat Husain’s curses on the Shiahs. In the Shiah book of theology, Al-Irshaad lil Mufeedah, the following appears on page 241:

“Imaam Husain (alayhis salaam) said in his curse on his Shiah (‘supporters’ who had lured him with his family to Iraq): ‘O Allah! If You condone them for a while, then split them into sects and schisms. Never ever let the rulers be pleased with them. Verily, they (the Shiahs of Iraq) had called us to help us, then they became our enemies and killed us.”

In the Shiah book, Al-Ihtijaaj, Vol.2, page 24, among the curses of Hadhrat Husain (Radhiyallahu anhu) on the Shiahs, is mentioned:

“You are among those who have abandoned us and killed us. Destruction for you! The La’nat (Curse) of Allah is on the zaalimeen.”

In the Shiah book, A’yaanus Shiah, page 34, is mentioned:

“These are the nusoos (explicit statements recorded in Shiah texts) which categorically reveal to us who the real killers of Husain are. Verily, they are his Shiah from the people of Kufa. i.e. our forefathers. So why do we load the issue of the killing of Husain (alayhis salaam) on to the Ahlus Sunnah?”

“For this very reason As-Sayyid Muhsinul Ameen: ‘From the people of Iraq, 20,000 pledged allegiance to Husain, then they betrayed him. They rebelled against him whilst their pledge was on their necks, and they killed him.”

In Al-Ihtijaaj, page 32 (this is a Shiah book), the following is narrated:

“Al-Imaam Zainul Aaabideen (the son of Hadhrat Husain –Radhiyallahu anhu – who had survived the Shiah massacre at Karbala) said: ‘Do you know that you had written to my father, and that you had deceived him, and that you had given to him your pledge of allegiance. Then you fought him and abandoned him? With which eyes will you be able to look at Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) whilst he will be saying: ‘You murdered my family, and you pillaged my honour. You are not from my Ummah.’? Verily, these people (the Shiahs) wail for us. Who other than them had killed us?”

Faatimah As-Sughra. The granddaughter of Hadrat Husain (Radhiyallahu anhu), addressing the Shiahs, the so-called lovers of Ahl-e-Bait, said:

“O you traitors, deceivers and frauds! We are the Ahl-Bait. Allah Ta’ala has cast us into a trial with you, and He has cast you into a trial with us. Then He made our trial beautiful. Then you rejected us and you falsified us. You regarded our being killed as permissible, and our wealth as booty just as you had yesterday killed our grandfather (Hadhrat Husain). Your swords are dripping with the blood of the Ahl-e-Bait. Destruction for you! Await the La’nat (Allah’s Curse) and the Athaab.”

These are a few random excerpts from the Shiah books which acknowledge that the murderers of Ahl-e-Bait were the Shiahs. But with naked audacity and shamelessness they call their temple, ‘Ahlul Bait Mosque’.

Whilst not a single Ulama body, not even the ulama-e-soo’, will attend the non-Muslim Shiah opening ceremony, some murtaddeen and zanaadiqah masquerading as Muslims will be participating in the Shiah event. The ‘loud thikr’ and other Islamically-sounding features of the Shiah ceremony are designed for confusing the unwary and the ignorant among the Muslim community. It is imperative for Muslims to beware of this sinister Shiah trap. Kufr is being presented as Islam. The traitors who had killed the Ahl-e-Bait are parading as ‘lovers’ of Ahl-e-Bait.

Those who profess to be Muslims but sympathize with the Shiahs are among the munaafiqeen. Among these munaafiqeen are the tabloids, Al-Qalam and Muslim News. Radio 786 is another hidden Shiah protagonist.

Sheikh Talib Ihsan, the president of Bogus ‘uucsa’ is also a hidden Shiah supporter belonging to the clique of munafiqeen, and so is Molvi Abdul Khalek Ali, the leader of the kufr interfaith movement in Western Cape. Beware of all these munaafiqs who are out to rob Muslims of their Imaan.

While the Reverend Abraham Bham of the NNB jamiat of Fordsburg is not advertised as a participant of the Shiah ceremony, he is nevertheless among the munaafiqqen. Beware of him. He participated in the kufr national prayer day together with the agents of Kufr. Him being a clandestine Shiah supporter should not be discounted.

All of these professed ‘muslims’ and also the silent Molvis should ask themselves: How shall we face Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) on the Day of Qiyaamah with our support for and silent condonation of the Shiahs – the Shiahs who have murdered and pillaged the Ahl-e-Bait – the Shiahs who slander Hadhrat Aishah (Radhiyallahu anha) accusing her of adultery – the Shiahs who revile in the vilest terms of abuse the Sahaabah – the Shiah who believe that the Qur’aan we have is a fabrication of the Sahaabah?

The enemies of Islam have united in sinister alliance to strangle Islam and the tiny group devoted to the Sunnah. The satanic interfaith movement, the Shiahs, the MJC, the NNB jamiat, Bogus ‘uucsa’, SANHA, outfits such as Radio Shaitaan, Radio Ansaarish Shaitaan, Radio 786, Muslim News, Al-Qalam. The Saudi regime, the Iranian regime, U.S.A. with its evil coalition, India, China and many other dark satanic forces are all in a Shaitaani Alliance tightening the noose around the Neck of Islam and its tiny band of Standard Bearers.

Whilst this vile Shaitaani Alliance plots and conspires, Allah Ta’ala too Plots. And, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“They plot and Allah too Plots. And Allah is the Best of Plotters.”


9 Rabiyul Awwal 1439 – 28 November 2017




A Haafiz recently eloped with a girl with whom he was conducting an illicit/zina relationship for about two years. They forged the haraam relationship at school. There is no gainsaying in the fact that they had indulged in zina multiple times.

They further regularly exchanged lurid, pornographic whatsapp messages of filth and zina. The wording used by the haafiz is absolutely appalling, disgusting and nauseous. This obscenity and zina continued for about two years. The parents of the boy and girl were fully aware of the zina relationship, but did nothing or could do nothing to terminate the relationship.

Ultimately, when the two were drowning in their cesspool of fornication and porn, they realized that the filth had to end, and the only way was for them to get married. However, the parents of the girl were dead against marriage. The zina relationship was tolerable, but not the Nikah solution.

When the girl’s parents resolutely refused to allow Nikah, the boy and girl eloped and had their Nikah performed privately by a Maulana. Was the Nikah valid without the consent of the father?

The girl’s father is now accusing the Maulana who had performed the Nikah of ruining the life of his daughter. The father and the family of the girl want the Nikah to be annulled. Are their valid grounds for annulling this Nikah? Did the Maulana act correctly by having performed the Nikah despite being aware of the opposition of the parents? Please comment on this issue in the light of the Shariah. There are many similar cases. Haraam zina relationships are struck up in schools and universities. Parents almost always turn a blind eye on these relationships. In the interests of secular education, parents quietly accept the zina relationship to continue. But when the couple seeks to terminate the Haraam relationship with Nikah, all hell breaks loose and the parents of the girl will be up in arms, leaving no stone unturned in the endeavor to prevent the Nikah.

What is the verdict of the Shariah for the participants in this type of saga?


The primary rascals and swines in these kinds of zina relationships are the parents. The actual fornicators are secondary in line of damnation. The parents had paved the way of Jahannam for their children by casting them into these ‘educational’ brothels. They should now not bite their fingers and lament when their children have sunk deep into Hell with their zina addiction.

These parents, if they still have any semblance of Imaan, should understand that every act of zina – the zina of the eyes, zina of the ears, zina of the tongue, zina of the hands, zina of the mind, zina of the heart, and the ultimate physical act of fornication – is loaded on to them. Since they had prepared the groundwork for zina for their children, and furthermore, aided and abetted them in the perpetration of innumerable acts of zina over an extended period of years by virtue of their condonation and abstention from instituting drastic measure to terminate the haraam relationship, they will be held fully liable in the Hereafter for the deluge of sin and immorality of their children.

These miserable unfortunate parents, born to be bad, had sent their children to be educated in the school brothel for years. The chimera of secular education dangling in front of them overwhelmed their brains which are denuded of Imaan, and had constrained them to set aside the demands of Imaan and the commands of the Shariah. Thus, they gave preference to secular-kufr education over the imperative requisite of guarding the Imaan and Akhlaaq of their children.

Since kufr education had a greater appeal for the parents than the objectives of Imaan and the Shariah, the two-year period of zina of their children was tolerable and acceptable. But when the boy and girl were sick and felt rotten on account of their zina diseases and desired to submit to the remedy and solution, that is perform Nikah, the satanic parents of the girl, dancing to the tune of Iblees and submitting to the dictates of the nafs, went overboard the cliff of Imaani destruction to prevent Nikah.

They cared not for the perpetuation of zina by their daughter. But they raised a hue and cry and even sought ‘Deeni’ protection in their inordinate, unintelligent and unreasonable attempt to block the performance of the Nikah which is the sacred bond which effaces the past sins if accompanied by Taubah.

Now suddenly they run to the Shariah claiming that their daughter married without parental consent. These swines should understand that they had long ago forfeited their Shar’i rights of which the Shariah had made them the repositories. But the sacred rights granted to the parents were eliminated by the fact of sending their daughter to the school of ZINA. What did they expect of their daughter whom they had cast among the wolves of zina? Did they hallucinate that their daughter will emerge from the portals of the zina hell as a waliah – a saintly lady? Indeed Iblees had urinated on the brains of these miserable parents who had converted their daughter into a vile slut.

Often the parents of the girl trapped in this type of zina situation seek to shift the blame 100% on the male culprit while both are equally culpable. The Qur’aan does not absolve any of the zina participants. In fact, the Qur’aan calls first for the punishment to be meted out to the girl, hence Allah Ta’ala says:

“The zaaniyah (the female fornicator) and the zaani (the male fornicator), flog them…”

In the case of theft, the Qur’aan Majeed says:

“The saariq (male thief) and the saariqah (female thief), cut off their hands…”

Note the difference in the Qur’aanic address and acquittal of the Divine Command. Since the female is the greater culprit due to wrecking her Imaani haya, the punishment for zina is announced firstly for her then for the male. On the other hand, in the scenario of theft, the punishment is announced first for the male then the female.

The girl’s parents should not lament and not seek to minimize the immorality and villainy of their daughter by shifting the entire blame on the boy. Both are equally liable for their zina.

All parents who find themselves in this type of situation which they had crafted with their own hands should understand the following masaa-il of the Shariah:

(1) Zina is tantamount to the destruction of Imaan while Nikah is Half of Imaan.

(2) In the scenario of zina which parents create for their children, the latter have every right to proceed with Nikah regardless of the denial of parental consent.

(3) By having dumped his daughter into the cauldron of zina, the father has LOST his Wilaayat over her. As such, she may proceed to have her Nikah performed even if he denies consent. His consent is no longer required. It is a mere imaginary figment which if forthcoming will be a mere ceremonial measure to save a vestige of the ruined respect and honour of the parents.

(4) The girl’s father in a saga of this type loses his right of Wilaayat. Since he is a faasiq and faajir, he is not an appropriate mahram for her. A man who has the Ibleesi guts of tolerating the prolonged and multiple acts of fornication of his daughter for the sake of kufr education is classified a khinzeer. That is why he can tolerate zina, but not Nikah.

The parents of this girl are now shedding wasteful tears. They are more concerned with their image in society. If they had any concern for their daughter, never would they have allowed her to take up ‘employment’ in a brothel. Secular schools are dens of vice and immorality.

The parents of the boy too are equally guilty for the development of the zina saga in which their son has become ensnared by Iblees. It is absolutely haraam to refer to this boy with the title ‘Haafiz’. It is an insult to the Qur’aan Majeed. Never is it possible for one who indulges in prolonged and multiple acts of zina to be a Haafiz of the Qur’aan Majeed. How is it possible for a true Haafiz to send below gutter-level vulgarities and porno words of disgust to a female? The Qur’aan curses such a person who indulges in vice and immorality despite having memorized the Qur’aan. In brief, the parents, the girl and the boy in this saga are khanaazeer. Nevertheless, sincere Taubah will efface their khinzeeriyat and shaitaaniyat.


It is firstly essential to understand that pursuing worldly/mundane education in schools and universities is absolutely HARAAM. There is no scope for permissibility.

If due to misfortune and nafsaaniyat a boy and girl attending these dens of vice and shaitaaniyat at the behest of their evil parents become entrapped in an illicit relationship, they should immediately terminate it. They should fear the Blazing Fire of Jahannam. They should understand that Allah Azza Wa Jal is looking at them and the Two Recording Angels are at their side 24 hours.

If, due to their khinzeeriyat they refuse to terminate the illicit zina relationship, they should then immediately enter into the fortress of Nikah to save themselves from the Wrath and Curse of Allah Azza Wa Jal and from the disastrous consequences of zina – consequences in this dunya and in the Aakhirah.

In such a scenario if the girl’s parents refuse consent, the boy and girl should proceed to extricate themselves from the filth by performing Nikah even without the consent of the girl’s parents. They should not arrange a clandestine Nikah. Remember that zina is a secret affair while Nikah is a public institution.

If they are unable to find a responsible person to perform the Nikah, they should perform their own Nikah.

The performance of Nikah is quite simple in Islam. The validity of Nikah requires only the following factors:

(1) The Ijaab (Proposal). The Ijaab may be by either the boy or girl. The girl should say: “I accept you as my husband in Nikah.”

(2) The Qubool (Acceptance). In response to the Proposal, the boy should say: “I have accepted you as my wife in Nikah.”

(3) Two Witnesses. It is imperative to have two Muslim male witnesses to witness the utterances of Ijaab and Qubool.

Both the Ijaab and Qubool MUST be sufficiently audible for both Witnesses to hear. Once the aforementioned three ingredients have been fulfilled, the Nikah is VALID.

The validity of the Nikah is not reliant on the Khutbah and Mahr. However, for observance of the Sunnah and for barakat, any one present may recite the Khutbah prior to the Ijaab and Qubool. The Mahr should preferably be arranged prior to the Nikah. Payment may be deferred for a future date.


The couple getting married should understand that the aforementioned method of Nikah is not a temporary stratagem for legalizing their zina conduct. It is a real Nikah contract which has permanent effect. It is not a temporary halaalization of zina as is the mu’tah practice of the Shiahs. If the intention is for the nikah to be a temporary measure, it will then be tantamount to Shi’i mu’tah which is haraam, and not valid.


A Mahram for a woman is a male with whom marriage is permanently not permissible and not valid, e.g. father, son, uncle. If a mahram is a faasiq-faajir, then he will not be a valid mahram for a woman on a journey nor should she be in privacy with him. Thus, a woman may not go alone on a journey with her father or uncle if they are faasiq-faajir. Fisq and Fujoor defeat the objective of mahramiyyat.

It is the obligation to the mahram to protect the haya and honour of the female whose guardian he happens to be. This objective is not achieved if the mahram is a faasq-faajir.


Q. Can this nikah be annulled?
A. There are no grounds for annulment. The Nikah is valid.

Q. The father says that the Maulana has ruined his daughter with the Nikah. Is he correct?
A. On the contrary, this miserable, faasiq, faajir father has ruined the life of his daughter by having paved the path of Jahannam for her. He condoned all her zina practices and shenanigans.

Q. Did the Moulana act correctly within the confines of the Shariah by performing the nikah without the consent of the father?
A. The Maulana acted 100% in conformity with the Shariah. He assisted the extrication of the couple from the trap of zina which the parents had created for them.

Q. What is the verdict of the Shariah?
A. The Nikah is valid. The parents must resort to Taubah and so should the girl and boy. The father has lost his Wilaayat over his daughter.

11 Zul Hujj 1443 – 11 July 2022