Ilm al-Ghayb and the Kufr of Barelwis

The extreme deviance of the Barelwis and the crooked lie of their deceptive claim of being authentic adherents to the Hanafi Madh-hab and the generality (Jumhoor) of the Fuqaha, are exposed thoroughly by their attribution of detailed (tafseeli) knowledge of “everything that was and everything that will be” to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

This belief is summed up, in very clear terms, as follows by their arch-idol, Ahmad Raza Khan:

“It is without a doubt that the Almighty has given His Noble Beloved (Allah bless him and grant him peace) the complete knowledge of everything from the first till the last. From the east to the west, from the Throne till the earth, everything was shown to him. He was made witness to the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth. From the very first day till the last day all of the knowledge of what was and what shall be (ma kana wa ma yakun) has been shown to him. From all of the above, not even an iota is outside the knowledge of the Prophet. Great knowledge has been encompassed by the Noble Beloved (Allah bless him and grant him peace). It is not just of a summary type but what is small and big, every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness of the earth are in their entirety known to him individually and in detail. Much praise to Allah. In fact, that which has been discussed is not, never, the complete knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace and send peace on his family and companions, all of them); but this is a small part of the Prophet’s knowledge.” (Inba al-Mustafa, p.486)

To illustrate better what is meant by the detailed knowledge of “every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness”, let us consider the example of a Nikah (wedding). According to this perverted Barelwi creed, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) possesses the knowledge of every single one of the billions of Nikah that had ever taken place in the past, is currently taking place, and the billions more that are due to take place in the future.

Furthermore, according to this twisted creed, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) possesses not only the knowledge of the general arrangements of each and every Nikah, but also every single paraphernalia attached to each Nikah, from the food items, the guests, the clothes worn by the guests, to every other minute detail connected to the Nikah, even the detailed knowledge of each and every leaf that falls in the vicinity of the Nikah and the detailed knowledge of each and every grain that is consumed during the Nikah.

The leafy and grainy detail of the knowledge attributed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is made clear in unambiguous terms:

“From all of the above (i.e. all that has occurred and all that will occur – including obviously every single Nikah) not even an iota is outside the knowledge of the Prophet….It is not just of a summary type but what is small and big, every leaf that falls and every grain in the darkness of the earth are in their entirety known to him individually and in detail.”

Similar statements affirming detailed (tafseeli) knowledge of everything to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), as opposed to a summary overview (ijmaali) of all significant events relevant to the creation, can be found in other books of Ahmad Raza Khan such as ad-Dawlat ul-Makkiyyah, Khaalis ul-I’tiqaad, al-Malfooz al-Shareef, and also in the books of other arch-idols of the Barelwis such Jaa al-Haq and Shane Habeebur Rahman of “Hakeem ul-Ummat” (The quack doctor of the Ummah), Ahmad Yaar Khan.

Now compare and contrast this belief, O Barelwi worshippers of Ahmad Raza Khan, against THE Fatwa of the Hanafi Madh-hab regarding a person who attributes to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the knowledge of a single and solitary Nikah for which there is no apparent means for him (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to gain the knowledge of.

The Hanafi Mujtahid from the 5th Century, As-Sadr ush-Shaheed Husam ud-Deen, who was the senior teacher of numerous other pillars of the Hanafi Madh-hab, including the famous authors of al-Hidaaya and Badaai us-Sanaai, narrates the following ruling from his pious predecessors:

من تزوج امرأة بشهادة الله و رسوله لا يجوز لأنه نكاح لم يحضره الشهود، وحكى عن أبو القاسم الصفار أن هذا كفر محض لأنه اعتقد أن رسول الله يعلم الغيب وهذا كفر

“Whoever marries a woman, taking Allah and his messenger (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as witnesses – it is not permissible because witnesses are not present for the Nikah. It is related from Abul Qaasim as-Saffaar that this is Kufr Mahd (pure, unadulterated disbelief that expels a person from Islam) because he believed that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows the unseen (ghayb) and this is Kufr.” [Al-Waaqi’aat, page 70 of the manuscript]

Imam Abul Qaasim as-Saffaar as-Soofee (d. 326H) was a Hanafi Mujtahid with only three links between himself and Imam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullahi alayh). This fatwa has been accepted and transmitted in every age by the Hanafi Fuqaha. The very same Fatwa or similar versions to it were accepted and quoted approvingly by the early Fatwa manuals which constituted the Hanafi Madh-hab such as al-Fataawa ul-Walwaalijiyyah (Vol. 5, pg. 422), Khulaasat ul-Fataawa (Vol. 4, pg. 385), al-Muheet ul-Burhaani (Vol. 7, pg. 407), al-Fataawa al-Bazzaaziyyah (Vol. 6, pg. 325), al-Fusool ul-Imaadiyyah, al-Multaqat (pg. 244), Fataawa Qaadhi Khaan (Vol. 2, pg. 517), and other authoritative texts.

Again, compare and contrast the statement, “this is pure Kufr because he believed that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows the unseen (ghayb)”, with the Barelwi Aqeedah as exemplified by another one of their arch-idols, Muhammad Umar Icharwi, who commits the greatest act of Kufr and Gustakhi (demeaning Allah and his Rasool sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by making Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) prophethood wholly dependent on an attribute exclusive only to Allah Ta’aala:

“For the Prophethood to be valid it is necessary that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows ALL OF THE UNSEEN.” (Miqyase Hanafiyyat, p. 385)

Let us now relate a few of the different versions of the same Fatwa related by all the authoritative Hanafi texts, in order to aid in acquiring a better understanding of the import of the Fatwa and the severity of the issue at hand.

The following version is found in the authoritative compendium of the Hanafi Madh-hab, Fataawa ul-Hindiyyah, which was the product of a collaborative effort involving hundreds of Ulama from around the Ummah who were commissioned by Hadhrat Alamghir Aurangzeb (rahmatullah alayh) to record those rulings upon which there is consensus or a general agreement amongst the Hanafi Fuqaha:

“A man marries a woman while witnesses are not present. He says: “I make Allah and His Rasul witness”, or he says, “I make Allah and His Angels witness”, he becomes Kaafir; but if he says: “I make the angel on the left shoulder and angel on the right shoulder witness”, he does not become a Kaafir.” [Vol. 2 pg. 288]

As in most of the other authoritative Fatwa manuals, no ikhtilaaf on this particular issue is cited, while in the very same chapters, multiple other beliefs or statements are often listed regarding whose Kufr there exists an Ikhtilaaf. For example, regarding the anthropomorphic statement, “Allah is looking from the throne“, Fataawa al-Hindiyyah states that this is Kufr (with no attention paid to the intention of the utterer) “according to the majority” i.e. a minority refrained from doing Takfeer for this crime.

The same version of the aforementioned Fatwa narrated by Fataawa al-Hindiyyah is found in earlier compilations such as Khulaasat ul-Fataawa, al-Fusool ul-Imdaadiyyah, Fataawa al-Bazzaaziyah and al-Muheet ul-Burhaani.

Explaining why the one who invokes the two writing angels (Kiraaman Kaatibeen) as witnesses does not become a Kaafir, as opposed to the one who attributes the knowledge of the very same Nikah to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the author of al-Muheet narrates from an earlier Fataawa compilation:

“He does not become Kaafir because those two (i.e. the writing angels in the right and left shoulders) do know that (i.e. the Nikah), since they are not absent from him (i.e. the man making the statement).” [Vol. 7, pg. 407]

This succinctly answers the moronic question posed by Bidatis and Mushriks today, “If it’s not Kufr to ascribe such knowledge to the two writing angels, how could it be Kufr to ascribe it to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)???”

The Hanafi authority of the 6th century, Qaadhi Khaan, while narrating this Fatwa, added:

“He (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) didn’t have knowledge of the unseen while alive, so how would he after his death?” [Vol. 2, pg. 517]

The terrible crime of the apostate which caused his instantaneous exit from Islam, is mentioned in absolutely unambiguous terms by Imam Abul Qaasim as-Saffaar, in one of numerous transmissions of his Fatwa:

“…since he believes that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) knows this Nikah…”

O Barelwi, if the authentic belief of Ahlus Sunnah is that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has detailed knowledge, leaf and grain, of EVERYTHING that was and that shall be (maa kaana wa maa yakoon), then on what grounds did all these Fuqaha attribute Kufr to the man who believes that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has knowledge of just the one Nikah?

Isn’t this one Nikah automatically and by default included in the “detailed knowledge of everything that was and everything that will be” which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) supposedly has according to your religion?

Were the Fuqaha all guilty of Haraam Ghuloo’ (extremism) and Gustakhi – demeaning Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) – by denying for him (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the knowledge of billions and billions of Nikah ceremonies?

Or is it not you, O Barelwis, who are guilty of the most abominable degree of Ghuloo’ and Gustakhi – of the degree of Kufr – by fabricating upon Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the multitude of categories of knowledge which can be termed “Ilmun Laa Yanfa’” (knowledge which serves no beneficial purpose) from which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would repeatedly and earnestly seek refuge?

Is it not you, O Barelwis, who are guilty of the most abominable level of Gustakhi by mutilating beyond recognition many of the supreme and sublime attributes of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), such as the noble quality of “Ummi” – defined as “unlettered” by the consensus of the Fuqaha whom you fraudulently claim to follow – which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) proudly proclaimed for himself and his (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) noble Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum)?

Is it not you who commit the dastardly Gustakhi crime of implying deficiency in Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by propounding the perverted idea that the consensus of the Fuqaha on the definition of Ummi (unlettered), and the consensus of the Fuqaha on negating for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the multitude of categories of knowledge that is Ilmun Laa Yanfa’ (such as billions of Nikah ceremonies) from which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself repeatedly sought refuge, results in a diminishing of the perfections of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Na’oozubillah!?

Did the Salafi arch-idol, Ibn Abdul Wahhab, perform a spectacular and unprecedented miracle (istidraaj) by time-travelling back to the third century and injecting “wahhabism” into the books of all the Hanafi Fuqaha whose books are replete with Fatwas such as the above – Fatwas which condemn unequivocally numerous beliefs and acts that have become the Sha-aair (salient identifying features) of the Barelwis today, such as attributing knowledge of the Hour to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and a chronic addiction to building and plastering over graves – which when cited faithfully by the Ulama-e-Haqq tend to elicit violently allergic reactions and irrational allegations of “wahhabi influence”?

We interject here to point out that while we accept the Hanafi ruling that this particular aspect of Barelwi creed is Kufr, we refrain from doing Takfeer on the Barelwis in general, just as we refrain from doing Takfeer of the Salafis despite the very same Hanafi texts cited above declaring as Kaafir the one who attributes a place or direction to Allah Ta’aala as the Salafis do. We shall dilate on this point in the complete article, to be published in future, which will contain, insha-Allah, a demolition of the Ghutha (trash) arguments employed by the Barelwi arch-idols to befool their followers.

For now, we release this much information, which we believe to be sufficient for most sincere seekers of truth, to warn the Barelwi masses of the potentially eternal doom that awaits them – the status of a Kaafir according to the Jumhoor Fuqaha of the Hanafi Madh-hab – should they persist in clinging onto their deviant religion.

THE ISLAMIC RULING REGARDING PLAGUES

THE ISLAMIC RULING REGARDING PLAGUES

BY MARHOOM MUFTI AFZAL HOOSEN ELIAS (Rahmatullah alayh)
The Islaamic Ruling Regarding Plagues

Question: There is a disease spreading in Surat, which the government classifies as a plague, which is contagious. Is this true in the light of the Shari’ah? Can diseases be contagious? What is the ruling concerning fleeing from a plague infested area? It is hoped that you would shed further light on this issue.

Answer: During the Period of Ignorance, people believed that people caught diseases (such as leprosy) from others, which are referred to today as contagious diseases. Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) negated this belief by stating that there is nothing like contagiousness. The Qur’aan attests to the fact that Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) does not speak of his own accord, but whatever he says is revelation from Allaah (Surah Najm, verses 3,4.)

Hadhrat Abu Hurayrah (radhiyallahu anhu) reports that Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, “There is nothing like contagiousness, omens by the flight of birds (people believed that if a bird flew to the left, it was a good sign and a bad sign if it flew to the left), the evil effects of owls and the evil of Safar (people believed that couples should not marry during the last days of Safar).” (Bukhaari Pg.850 and Mishkaatul Masaabeeh (Pg.391).)

Hadhrat Abu Hurayrah (radhiyallahu anhu) also reported that Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) once said, “There is nothing like contagiousness, the evil effects of owls and the evil of Safar.” A Bedouin then asked, “O Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)! But why is it that a camel can be as healthy as the deers in the wild, but as soon as it comes into contact with a camel that suffers from a rash, it also contracts the rash?” Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) remarked, “Then from where did the first (ill) camel get the disease from?” (They both got it by the will of Allaah) Bukhaari (Vol.1 Pg.859), Muslim (Vol.2 Pg.230) and Mishkaatul Masaabeeh (Pg.391).

The Ahadeeth above make it clear that Islaam does not hold the belief of contagiousness. Everything happens by the will of Allaah. It is therefore not permissible to think that one will be infected by another person’s disease or to think that one will die by staying in an area where a plague has broken out. Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) prohibited this. Hadhrat Usaama bin Zaid (radhiyallahu anhu) once told Hadhrat Sa’d bin Abi Waqqaas (radhiyallahu anhu) that he heard Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) say, “When you hear that a plague has broken out in an area, do not go there but if you happen to be there, do not flee.” Bukhaari (Vol.2 Pg.853) and Mishkaatul Masaabeeh (Pg.135).

It is therefore a grave sin to flee from an area of disease with the thought that one will be saved from it. This will also discourage those already afflicted and break their morale. We have been forbidden from going to an area of plague because should a person be affected by the command of Allaah, Shaytaan will always put the doubt in the heart that one would never have been affected had one not been there. This will corrupt a person’s Imaan. The Hadith has therefore forbidden both fleeing and entering the area for the express reason of safeguarding one’s beliefs. A Mu’min’s belief should be that just as staying will not bring on the disease, leaving will not save one either.

The following appears in Durrul Mukhtaar (Vol.5 Pg.661.): “There will be no harm done if one leaves or enters a plague infested area with the conviction that everything happens by the will of Allaah. It is however detestable (Makrooh) to hold the belief that leaving will save one and that entering will cause one to be affected. The Hadith has prohibited entering and fleeing only for the purpose of safeguarding one’s beliefs.”

Allaah says in the Qur’aan: “Have you seen those people who fled their homes in the thousands out of the fear of death (fearing that they will die in a plague). Allaah said to them, “Die!” (so they all died) and then brought them all back

to life.” (Surah Baqarah, verse 243.)

The above verse refers to some seventy thousand people of the Bani Israa’eel who fled a village where there was an outbreak of a plague, thinking that they will be saved. Allaah punished them by causing them all to die. It was only after their Nabi (alayhis salaam) made du’aa to Allaah that He restored them back to life, after which they were convinced that life and death came only from Allaah. (Tafseer Mazhari (Vol.1 Pg.343), Tafseer Ahmadi (Vol.1 Pg.169).)

Another reason for prohibiting entry into a plague infested area is that plague is a punishment from Allaah. For this reason, Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) hurried past the area where the Thamud nation was destroyed and prohibited the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) from entering the city.

Hadhrat Jaabir t reports that Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, “One who flees from a plague is like one deserting a battlefield and one who remains there patiently will have the reward of a martyr.” (Ahmad, as quoted in Mishkaatul Masaabeeh (Pg.139).)

In his commentary of Mishkaatul Masaabeeh, Shah Abdul Haqq Muhaddith Dehlawi (rahmatullah alayhi) writes, “This Hadith makes it clear that fleeing from a plague infested area is a major sin just as deserting a battlefield is. It is in fact kufr to believe that if one flees, he will certainly be saved and will definitely die if he remains behind.” (Ashi’atul Lama’aat (Vol.1 Pg.653).)

He also writes, “The rule is that one must not flee when in a plague infested area and neither go there when one is not there. However, there are some instances when it is permissible to flee, such as a place where an earthquake is pending or when sitting beneath a wall that is on the verge of collapse. However, since no Hadith is mentioned concerning incidents other than plagues, it is necessary to remain patiently in an area where a plague had broken out and it will not be permissible to flee from there. It is wrong to judge these other incidents by the plague because death from the plague is only a speculation while death from the other causes is nearly certain. Nevertheless, it will not be permissible to flee from such an area, while no Hadith mentions that a person will be sinful and guilty of a major sin by fleeing from any of the other areas. We ask Allaah for safety. (Ashi’atul Lama’aat (Vol.1 Pg.639).)

The following appears in Majaalisul Abraar (Pgs. 345,346.): “The Ulema differ with regard to the degree of prohibition. Qaadhi Taajud Deen Subki (rahmatullah alayhi) states that our stance is that of the majority who believe that it is Haraam to flee. Some Ulema however state that it is Makrooh Tanzihi although all agree that it is permissible to leave for a reason other than fleeing. This is because Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has stated at the end of the Hadith, ‘do not leave there with the intention of fleeing.’ The prohibition against fleeing is established from the Hadith of Hadhrat Aa’isha (radhiyallahu anha) in which Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, ‘One who flees from a plague, is like one deserting a battlefield.’ Another narration of Ibn Khuzaymah (radhiyallahu anhu) states that Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, ‘Fleeing from it is amongst the major sins and Allaah will punish a person for it if He does not forgive it’ … Abul Hasan Madaa’ini (rahmatullah alayhi) quotes his father as saying, ‘Few people who flee from a plague are saved from it.’ Allaama Taajud Deen Subki (rahmatullah alayhi) remarks, ‘What he says is based on experience. It is not at all impossible to believe that Allaah could make a person’s flight from a place of plague the cause for reducing his lifespan because the Qur’aan cites flight from a battlefield as a cause for this, when Allaah says: ‘Say, ‘Your fleeing will be of no avail to you when you flee from death or from being killed for then you will benefit from life only but a little longer.’ It is mentioned that his father may have deduced this from this verse.”

Hadhrat Mujaddid Alf Thaani (rahmatullah alayhi) has mentioned the same thing in his Maktoobaat. Refer to Vol.1 Pg.430 for the details. One must therefore trust in Allaah and remain where one is because fleeing will not help. One must repent from one’s sins and make du’aa to Allaah because only He can help one.

In the commentary of the above Hadith in Mirqaat (Vol.3 Pg.360.), it is stated, “Ibnul Malik (rahmatullah alayhi) says, “Fleeing will not repel Allaah’s punishment. The only thing that will do this is Taubah and Istighfaar.”

If everyone flees the place, who will be there to tend to the ill and bury the dead?

Furthermore, this will break the morale of the ill and cause them to develop ill feelings towards those leaving them. The best is therefore to remain behind, trusting in Allaah and hoping for rewards from Him.

Hadhrat Aa’isha (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that when she asked Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) about plagues, he said, “It used to be a punishment that Allaah would send to people but which he has made a mercy for the Mu’mineen. When a person stays patiently in a place where a plague has struck, knowing that only that which Allaah has decreed will happen, he will receive the rewards of a martyr.” (Bukhaari (Vol.2 Pg.853) and Mishkaatul Masaabeeh (Pg.135).)

Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) reports that Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, “A plague is martyrdom for every Muslim.” (Bukhaari (Vol.2 Pg.853) and Mishkaatul Masaabeeh (Pg.135).)

Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) also said, “Martyrs are five; the one who dies in a plague, one who dies of a stomach ailment, one who drowns, one who is crushed and one who dies in the path of Allaah.” (Bukhaari and Muslim, as quoted in Mishkaatul Masaabeeh (Pg.135).)

Another Hadith quotes that Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, “A plague is martyrdom for my Ummah and a mercy to them, while it is punishment for the Kuffaar.” (Kanzul Ummaal (Vol.5 Pg.186).)

Allaama Shaami (rahmatullah alayhi) states, “The person who remains patiently behind in a town overcome with a plague will gain the rewards of a martyr even if he dies of another cause. According to a narration of Bukhaari and Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayhi), he will also not be questioned in the grave.” (Raddul Mukhtaar (Vol.1 Pg.852).)

Imaam Rabbaani (rahmatullah alayhi) states, “In his book Badhlul Ma’oon, Sheikhul Islaam Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayhi) states about the virtues of a plague that the person who dies in a plague will not be questioned in the grave because he is like one killed in a battle. Similarly, one who remains in a plague infested area with the conviction that only that will happen to him what Allaah decrees, such a person will not be punished because he is like a Muraabit (one guarding the borders of a Muslim country). Sheikh Suyuti (rahmatullah alayhi) has mentioned this in his book Sharhus Sudoor… Those who remain safe after fleeing have only not died because their lifespan had not ended and those who remained behind and died, only died because their lifespan was over. It must therefore be borne in mind that neither will fleeing save one nor will staying kill one.” (Maktoobaat Imaam Rabbaani (Vol.1 Pg.687).)

It is usually people who engage in acts of flagrant immodesty who are afflicted with plague and disease their forefathers have never heard of. This is established by a Hadith of Ibn Maajah (pg.300). A Hadith of Hadhrat Abdullaah bin Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) in Ibn Maajah and Tabraani states that Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, “When fornication becomes rife in a nation, death becomes the order of the day.” (Majaalisul Abraar (Pg.346).)

A verse of the Qur’aan states, “so We sent a punishment (a plague) from the heavens upon the oppressors because of their disobedience.” (Surah Baqarah, verse 59.) This verse refers to a plague that struck the Bani Israa’eel because of their disobedience to Allaahs’ commands. Tafseer Baydaawi (Vol.1 Pg.50) states that this plague killed twenty four thousand people in a few moments.

Although the above verses of the Qur’aan and Ahadeeth tell us that a plague comes because of people’s sins, Allaah makes it a source of mercy for the Mu’mineen and punishment for the Kuffaar, as established by the Hadith of Bukhaari and Kanzul Ummaal.

The gist of it all is that we must never have the belief that diseases are contagious.

However, it may appear to one that this belief is contradicted by Ahadeeth such as

“Run from a leper as you run from a lion” and “Do not take a healthy camel near a sick camel”. The answer to this is that Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) made these statements only because of his compassion for the Ummah and to safeguard their beliefs from corruption. While leprosy is itself not contagious, the fear is that when someone contracts it after interacting with a leper, he may just start to believe that diseases are contagious. If this was not the intention of the above two Ahadeeth, then why did Rasulullaah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) say, “There is nothing like contagiousness” and “Then from where did the first (ill) camel get the disease from?”? The Ahadeeth never contradict each other.

The most important factor to remember is that everything happens by the will of Allaah and nothing can happen without it. Look at this way, the entire family of a leper are not lepers and everyone in a plague infested area are not affected. I have myself been through three plagues but am healthy by the grace of Allaah. My grandmother passed away in a plague in the year 1325 A.H. At that time, my grandfather, my uncle, my two aunts and my parents were living with her in the same house and nursing her, but none of them were affected. Not only did they survive the plague then, but they also passed through two other plagues afterwards and, by the grace of Allaah, they all remained safe and healthy. If diseases were contagious, why were they all not affected? We should therefore correct our beliefs and trust in the decrees of Allaah. And Allaah knows best what is most correct.

28 Rajab 1441 – 23 March 2020

FLAGS, T-SHIRTS AND PICTURES

FLAGS, T-SHIRTS AND PICTURES
QUESTION

Please comment on the following Fatwa:
After issuing their relevant fatwa they quote a few Ibaarats (texts) which state that the Asl is ibaahah.

QUESTIONS

Selling T-Shirts with country flags; Advertising products with videos of people
Question

1. I want to sell T shirts with different country flags on them for the upcoming Soccer World Cup. Some of these countries are not majority Muslim countries (e.g. Portugal, Spain, France etc.). Will it be permissible to sell these t shirts?
2. What is the ruling on advertising products with videos of people using them? Sometimes products need a video demonstration, or a photo to show how to properly use them. What is a permissible way to do this?
The answers to your queries are as follows:
1. It is permissible to sell t-shirts with flags of the various countries imprinted on them, irrespective of the religious predominance in the respective country. However, one should avoid t-shirts with flags that have animate objects, religious depictions- like the Saudi flags, etc.

2. There are academic differences of opinions amongst contemporary ‘Ulamaa and Muftis regarding digital photography. The Darul Iftaa advises to adopt taqwaa and avoid all forms of digital pictures and videos. You may revert to us with details of the product(s) you wish to advertise and we will try to assist you with suitable alternatives.

Is this fatwa correct according to the Shariah?

ANSWER
The fatwa is seriously flawed with incongruities. It is not valid in terms of the Shariah.

The Mufti did not apply his mind. It is clear that the Muftis of this age are egregiously ignorant of the fact that the objective of Ifta is to bring people closer to Allah Ta’ala. On the contrary, these muftis are entrenching the fisq and fujoor of people by resorting to technicalities. The Aakhirat is the furthest from their minds. Hence, whatever technical loophole they can dig out from the kutub, they will utilize to issue such lamentable fatwas which only give further impetus to the fisq and fujoor of people, thus further stunting their Imaan and increasing the chasm between Allah Ta’ala and His servants.

FLAGS AND T-SHIRTS
The flags of kuffaar countries are generally symbols of kufr. It is not permissible for Muslims to sell such flags and T-shirts with such flags even if the flags are without animate objects. Furthermore, such T-shirts are Tashabbuh bil kuffaar. It is haraam for Muslims to wear such garb.

The chap who asked the question clearly mentioned that he desires to sell such T-shirts “for the upcoming Soccer World Cup.” It beggars Imaani credulity that a mufti fails to understand the colossal fisq and fujoor accompanying these haraam kuffaar games. A host of major sins are attached to these shaitaani games. To sell T-shirts associated in any way with these haraam activities is to aid and abet in sin and transgression. It is I’aanat alal ma’siyat. It is haraam by the explicit Nass of the Qur’aan Majeed.

By what stretch of aql did the mufti cite the principle of Al-Asl fil Ashyaa’ Al-Ibaahat (the principle regulating things is permissibility), defies understanding. This principle has absolutely no relevance to the issue of selling flags and T-shirts.

FLAGS, T-SHIRTS AND PICTURES_booklet

HARAAM PIG FATWA

THE HARAAM PIG FATWA

Please comment on the following fatwa issued by

Darul Fiqh muftis:
Question: Is it permissible for university students to dissect a baby pig?

Answer: Dissecting a baby pig is permissible for research purposes so long as one uses gloves when touching the pig.”

(End of the stupid, shaitaani pig fatwa)
COMMENT

About pigs, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“He who imparts knowledge (i.e. higher Islamic Knowledge) to an unfit person is like one who garlands khanaazeer (pigs) with diamonds, pearls and gold.”

These maajin, jaahil ‘muftis’ who have issued this pig fatwa come within the purview of the aforementioned Hadith. Their brains have become soggy and incapable of discerning right from wrong. Just imagine this devilish fatwa which halaalizes handling of pigs.

Allah Ta’ala has not ordained the medicine of this Ummah in haraam substances, haraam animals, least of all in pigs. Firstly, it is haraam for Muslims to study in these haraam brothel universities which impart such kufr, atheism and immorality which are the very antithesis of Islam and for what Islam propagates.

A pig is najisul ain. Every millimetre of the pig is rijs (filth and impure). When shaitaan always accompanies dogs, and when the Malaaikah do not visit a home wherein there is a dog, then by what stretch of Ilm and Imaani logic can cutting a pig and researching with it ever be permissible? When one of the primary obligations of Nabi Isaa (Alayhis salaam) will be to kill pigs, how can it ever be permissible to engage in research with pigs and to satanize one’s hands and brains with pigs? But these jaahil muftis, suck stupid rijs fatwas from their nafs. The world today abounds with these juhala ‘muftis’ who specialize in defalcations of the Shariah. Whatever rubbish is commanded by their nafs is presented in the guise of a ‘fatwa’.

They must be having some affinity with pigs, hence their pig ‘fatwa’. The consumption of carrion chickens and meat creates in a person an inclination for consuming even pork. Since these muftis are unable to distinguish between halaal and haraam, every filth is transformed into halaal by their satanic fatwas.

The pig fatwa is the inspiration of shaitaan.

3 Jamadul Ukhra 1441 – 29 January 2020

VAPING – A LESSON FOR THE MORON ‘MUFTIS’

Vaping or e-cigarette smoking or more appro-priately, the devil’s smok-ing, is perhaps worse than tobacco smoking. While some moron ‘muftis’, slaves of lust, have been swift with corrupt per-missibility fatwas to assuage Iblees, the follow-ing information furnished by the experts in the field should prove salubrious and depurate the minds of these ‘muftis’ from the urine of Iblees which convolutes the brain, hence the quick and base-less ‘fatwas’ redolent of shaitaaniyat and nafsaaniyat.

VAPING LIKE GAS ATTACK –EXPERTS

BY HENRY BODKIN

Vaping damages the lungs in the same way as a poison gas attack, tests have revealed. Experts in the US have warned of a looming pub-lic health crisis after ex-amination of tissue sam-ples found vapers had suffered direct injuries from noxious chemicals. For the first time, scien-tists reviewed lung biop-sies from a group of pa-tients who had fallen ill after smoking e-cigarettes, two of whom had died.

The team at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizo-na, had been expecting to find lung damage as a re-sult of fatty deposits from the vaping liquids. Instead, they found more serious acute injuries of the type commonly seen in victims of gas attacks. The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, was pub-lished as concern about the safety of e-cigarettes grows.

Of the 17 patients from whom samples were tak-en in the study, only eight had smoked cigarettes. All had foamy accumula-tions indicating acute fi-brinous pneumonitis, a type of scarring.

The study’s senior author, Dr Brandon Larsen, said: “It seems to be some kind of direct chemical injury, similar to what one might see with exposures to toxic chemical fumes, poisonous gases and toxic agents.”

Of the patients in the study, 12 had vaped with dagga or cannabis oil. This could be significant because the vaping lobby and some scientists argue the recent spate of illness-es related to vaping are a result of THC, the princi-pal psychoactive com-pound in dagga, or canna-bidiol (CBD). – The Tele-graph (The Herald 4/10/19)

The Aql of a Mu’min, if uncontaminated with shaitaaniyat and nafsaaniyat, will readily understand the evil and harmful effects of the sa-tanic practice of smoking and vaping. The need for academic knowledge and expertise is obviated by the clarity of the evil. But the juhala ‘muftis’ of this era have assumed upon themselves the kufr of ex-punging from the Shari-ah’s Book of Principles Dharar (Harm) which is a fundamental Sabab (Cause/ground) for Hur-mat (Prohibition). Glass and sand are haraam for consumption, not because these are impure, but be-cause of their Dharar.

The moron cardboard ‘muftis’ are fond of spin-ning their nafsaani narra-tives around the view of Makrooh ventured by some senior Ulama. Whenever and wherever these ‘muftis’ are able to clutch a passing straw, they do so without hesita-tion and without the least understanding of the damage they inflict on the health and morality of the awaamun naas (the general laiety).

The Ulama who had opined karaahat were in total darkness regarding the terrible and harmful consequences of smok-ing, hence they main-tained the view of Karaa-hat, NOT permissibility, with conspicuous velleity, and also with a degree of bias for a certain senior Aalim of Haqq who had unfortunately developed the habit of smoking hookah. But such slips and errors of seniors are never Daleel in the Sha-riah. Those who utilize and manipulate the errors and slips of senior Ulama for the extravasation of permissibility to assuage the dictates of the nafs and to please ignoramus-es are guilty of showing blithe disregard for the Shariah and the physical, moral and spiritual well-being of the Ummah. Is there any Sahaabi or any of the Akaabir of the Salafus Saaliheen who had the habit of smoking?

Vaping and smoking are Satanist acts which are glaringly haraam. No Muslim whose mind is untouched by shaitaaniyat will fail to un-derstand the villainy of these evil practices.

Women attending the masjid

TITLE

Women attending the masjid

QUESTION

Salaam

Can you explain to me what is the meaning of this hadith below and why are muslims and specially scholars not implementing this hadith.

It was proven in saheeh ahaadeeth that the women of the Sahaabah used to attend Fajr prayer in congregation, covering their faces, so that no one would recognize them. It was proven that ‘Amrah bint ‘Abd al-Rahmaan said: I heard ‘Aa’ishah, the wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), say: “If the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had seen the way the women are behaving, he would have forbidden them to go to the mosque as the women of the Children of Israel were forbidden.” It was said to ‘Amrah: Were the women of the Children of Israel forbidden to go to the mosque? She said: Yes. Narrated by Muslim in his Saheeh.

 

ANSWER

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.

You refer to two hadiths in the question. You state the scholars do not implement “this” hadith. Which hadith are you referring to? The one permitting women in the masjid or the one prohibiting women from the masjid?

Hereunder are the two hadiths:

أن عائشة أخبرته قالت: كنا نساء المؤمنات يشهدن مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم صلاة الفجر متلفعات بمروطهن ثم ينقلبن إلى بيوتهن حين يقضين الصلاة لا يعرفهن أحد من الغلس (صحيح البخاري: 553) 

On the Authority of A’isha Radiallahu Anha: The believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr salah with Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, and after finishing the salah they would return to their home and nobody could recognise them because of the darkness. (Sahih Al-Bukhari:553) 

أنها سمعت عائشة زوج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم تقول: «لو أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم رأى ما أحدث النساء لمنعهن المسجد كما منعت نساء بني إسرائيل» قال: فقلت لعمرة: أنساء بني إسرائيل منعن المسجد؟ قالت: نعم. (صحيح مسلم: 445)

Amrah bint Abd Ar-Rahman says I heard A’isha Radiallahu Anha say: If Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam had seen what new things the women have introduced (in their way of life) he would have definitely prevented them from going to the masjid, as the women of Bani Isra’il were prevented. It was said to Amrah: Were the women of Bani Isra’il forbidden to go to the masjid? She replied: Yes.

To understand the issue in reference, it is important to understand the issue of women attending the congregational prayer.

In the era of Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wa sallam, the sahabiyat radiallahu anhunna used to attend the congregational prayers as mentioned in the hadith in reference.

Allah has put innate inclination and attraction between men and women and one easily succumbs to these carnal desires if he does not have the spiritual capacity and strength to restrain himself.[i]

Despite the sahabah radiallahu anhum possessing a high level of spirituality and firmness on practising on the injunctions of the shariah, Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wa sallam took extreme precaution and set guidelines for the sahabiyat radiallahu anhunna if they are to attend the masjid in order to prevent any possibility of fitnah. This is understood from various hadiths. Some of these guidelines are:

  • They would come in full hijab.[ii] It is narrated on the authority of Aishah radiallahu anhā that the women would come to the masjid for salah, and they would not recognise each other.
  • They would come in the darkness of the night.[iii]
  • They would leave straight after the completion of the fardh salah, before the men start to leave, in order to prevent contact and intermingling.[iv] The prophet and the men would remain seated and wait after saying salam, to allow the women to leave.
  • They would walk on one side of the road and not the middle whilst going and coming to the mosque, as instructed by the prophet, to avoid intermingling.[v]
  • They would not perfume themselves,[vi] or wear fancy clothes. Rasulullah prohibited this.[vii]
  • They would not lift their heads from sajdah before the men stood up. This is so their gaze does not fall on the sahabah radiallahu anhum whilst they are prostrating.[viii]

This was the manner the sahābiyāt Radiallahu anhunna attended the masjid. The manner they adopted under the guidance of Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wa sallam ensured that no laws of Allah Ta’ala were violated and there was no possibility of fitnah.

After the demise of Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wa sallam, as Islam grew and more foreign nations entered the fold of Islam, the level of piety and spirituality of the general muslim masses, men and women alike, was not on the level of the sahabah radiallahu anhum in the era of Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wa sallam.[ix] The manner the sahabiyat radiallahu anuhnna and sahabah radialluhu anhum adhered to when attending the masjid was no longer being implemented.[x] The attendance of women was now starting to become a means of fitnah (a means of sin) for the general muslim public.

However, the fitnah was not to the extent that the women now had to be stopped from attending the masjid. The sahabah radiallahu anhum went as far as discouraging their wives and womenfolk from attending the masjid.[xi]

After the era of the sahabah radiallahu anhum, fitnah was more prevalent than before, due to which[xii] the mujtahidin and scholars at that time issued the ruling that it is makrooh for women to attend the masjid. [xiii]

In the light of the immoralities prevalent today, the scholars in our time also issue the same ruling.

At the outset this ruling may seem to be contrary to the hadith in reference.

However, after analysing and researching into all the hadiths related to the issue, it is understood that the hadith in reference is not as general as it seems at face value, rather the hadith is pre-set with conditions. The condition was that the sahabiyat radiallahu anhunna could come to the masjid so long the injunctions of shariah were not violated and there was no fitnah. If the injunctions of shariah are violated and there is fitnah, it will not be permissible for them to attend.[xiv]

Here it is important to note that a scholar or mujtahid does not issues a ruling based on just one hadith, rather he considers all the hadiths pertaining the issue and puts all the hadiths in their respective places. He will judge whether the hadith contains a general ruling or if the hadith contains a conditional ruling, as is the case in the hadith in reference. It is erroneous to take one hadith and base a ruling on that hadith alone.

Another aspect the scholars consider is that, women attending the masjid is a mubah act.[xv] A mubah act is such an act that is not sunnah or fardh and nor is it haram. This means if a person does a mubah act he does not get reward or sin for it.

It is not permissible to engage in mubah acts at the expense of committing haram.[xvi]

Numerous hadiths mention that the best place for a woman to pray is in the most inner part of her house.[xvii]

When a sahabiyah radiallahu anha expressed her desire to pray behind Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wa sallam, Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wa sallam replied that it is best for her  to pray in the most inner part of her house than to pray behind the blessed Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wa sallam in his blessed masjid.[xviii] Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wa sallam said regarding praying in his masjid: One salah performed in my masjid is better than 1000 salahs (in reward) prayed elsewhere, excluding Masjid Al-Haram.[xix]

Considering the immoralities prevalent in today’s society and considering that it is more rewardable for a woman to pray at home, it is better for women to pray their salah in their homes.[xx]

There is no contradiction between the two hadiths in reference and the ruling that women should not attend the masjid. Every hadith is practiced within its context.

And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best

Muhammed Shafi

Student – Darul Iftaa

London, U.K.

Checked and Approved by,

Mufti Ebrahim Desai.

 

20-01-1441| 19-09-2019

RUM IS HARAAM LIQUOR

RUM IS HARAAM LIQUOR

BAATIL FATWAS TO HALAALIZE LIQUOR ARE SIGNS OF QIYAAMAH

Please comment on the following fatwa issued by Mufti Ebrahim Desai. The following question was posed to him:

Question

Asslamoalaikum,

On your website, you state that vanilla extract (minimum of 35% alcohol) is permissible for use in flavoring in ice cream or cakes since it’s alcohol is not Khamr (derived from grapes or dates). Vanilla extract can cause intoxication if someone drinks it directly.

My question is, if an ice cream or cake lists rum as ingredient for flavoring would be permissible? Rum is usually 40% alcohol and derived from sugar cane. The amount of rum in such an ice cream or cake is not large enough to cause intoxication.

If this is not permissible, could you please explain how rum as an alcoholic flavoring agent would be different from vanilla extract?

Jazak Allah khair, wasslam

The Mufti gave the following fatwa:

Answer

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.

You refer to our position on vanilla extract. You then enquire about rum as an ingredient in ice cream and cakes based on the analogy of our ruling on vanilla extract. Your analogy is correct.

In principle, alcohol derived from dates and grapes is prohibited. Therefore, any product containing alcohol derived from any source besides dates and grapes is permissible on condition.

1. It does not intoxicate.

2. It is not generally used by people who drink intoxicants.

Rum, in drink form, is generally used by people who drink intoxicants, hence not permissible.

However, ice cream, cakes, chocolates and similar off the shelf products which contain very low amounts of rum are not consumed only by such people. They are used by one and all and are also not regarded as a main feature of the gatherings of sinful people (Faasiqs) as is the case with intoxicants. Such products are similar to soft drinks which are permissible.

The above answer is based on principle. If one abstains from such products, that is Taqwa. (End of the Mufti’s fatwa)
OUR COMMENT

This is one of the typical zig-zig ‘fatwas’ which have become characteristic of Mufti Ebrahim Desai. The resort to technicalities and the portrayal of stark ignorance of the prevailing circumstances are appalling for a Mufti. When a fatwa is issued, it is for public consumption. A Mufti who is unable to understand the evil and harmful implications of his fatwas, should abandon the post. He is not fit to issue fatwas because his fatwas magnify the evil chasm already existing between Muslims and Allah Ta’ala. Instead of giving Muslims the lesson of Taqwa with fatwa, this Mufti enhances the current state of fisq and fujoor in which Muslims are wallowing.

Every Muslim, even a faasiq who consumes khamr understands that all forms of liquor are haraam, not only grape and date liquor. Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu alahu) described all forms of liquor to be ‘khamr’ regardless of the source from which it is derived. Hadhrat Umar’s Fatwa ignores the technicality of the khamr argument, and emphasizes the prohibition of all forms of alcohol, not of only grape alcohol. The technical arguments and factors are meant for burial in the kutub, and Hadhrat Umar’s Fatwa is meant for practical application.

There is no need to delve into the technical arguments which this Mufti has proffered for justifying rum and the other 99% of liquors available on the market. With his fatwa he has opened the doors wide, extremely wide, for desensitizing Muslim inhibition to liquor and for the eventual consumption of liquor by dubbing it with fanciful names as predicted by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He follows in the footsteps of the SANHA devil who has desensitized, in fact obliterated, Muslim inhibition to carrion. While SANHA and the other shayaateen outfits halaalize carrion, Mufti Ebrahim Desai leans backwards to halaalize liquor.

The simple and straight forward Fatwa for Muslims is that all forms of alcohol / liquor are HARAAM, and may not be used as ingredients in cakes, icecream or any edible products. All edible products containing rum or any other liquor ingredient are HARAAM. This is the Fatwa of all FOUR Math-habs. The Fatwa of the Hanafi Math-hab is the Fatwa of Imaam Muhammad (Rahmatullah alayh), and this has been the Hanafi stance since the era of Khairul Quroon. But, the zig zag muftis of today are labouring satanically to cancel the official stance of the Math-hab with their stupid zig zag fatwas. They are driven by the nafs and they are out to court the pleasure of the juhala.

The technicality of Imaam Abu Hanifah’s view may not be presented to upset and abolish the 13 century Fatwa of the Hanafi Math-hab which conforms to the Fatwa of the other three Math-habs. Mufti Ebrahim Desai is not a mujtahid. He is increasingly leaning towards liberalism and modernism. Many of his fatwas are corrupt. Instead of guiding Muslims towards Allah Ta’ala, he misleads them with his zig zag fatwas.

The presentation of copious Arabic texts from the kutub is stupid and its objective is to awe and impress the juhala awaam who do not understand head or tail of the Arabic references. It is a stupid attempt to flaunt ‘knowledge’. But knowledge is being flaunted and presented in a manner which ruins the Imaan of the masses. These are the types of molvis and sheikhs about whom Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Verily, I fear for my Ummat the aimmah mudhilleen.”

They are the molvis and sheikhs who mislead the Ummah with their zig zag corrupt fatwas. In these times of molvi-sheikh fitnah, people should resort to the advice of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who said:

‘SEEK A FATWA FROM YOUR HEART.”

26 Zil Hijjah 1440 – 28 August 2019

SALAFIS SEEK AID FROM MUFTIS

COPROCREEP SALAFIS SEEK AID FROM MUQALLID MUFTIS

WOMEN LECTURING TO MEN?

Question

Is it permissible in our time for females to give lectures to men if the woman lecturer is screened from the males by a barrier?
In response to this question, Salafis in the U.K. have based their fatwa of permissibility on a fatwa of Mufti Kifaayatullah (Rahmatullah alayh). In his Fatwa, Mufti Kifaayatullah states:

“The holy Shariah of Islam does not prohibit women from any Islamic service of which they are capable. Along with guarding Purdah, a woman may give a lecture to a gathering of men.”
Please comment on this Fatwa which the Salafis are using to create confusion.
Answer

Salafis are COPROCREEPS. In addition they exhibit Shiah tendencies, especially taqiyah (holy hypocrisy). The juhala Salafis, while portraying themselves as ‘mujtahids’ higher in calibre than even the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen of the Salafus Saaliheen era, are academically bankrupt and spiritually barren.

They descend into the dregs of ludicrousness by vacillating between extremes. While they claim to deduct the ahkaam of the Shariah directly from the Qur’aan and Ahaadith since Taqleed of the Aimmah Mujtahideen is a capital sin according to these coprocreeps, their academic bankruptcy compels them to resort to Muqallid Muftis of this era which is far, very far from the age of even their Imaam Ibn Taimiyyaah, and even further from the noble era of the Salafus Saaliheen.

The attempt to seek daleel for their coprocreep view from the Muqallid Mufti Kifaayatullah (Rahmatullah alayh) for an issue which has no resemblance to the original mas’alah, is a vivid commentary of their jahaalat. It is indeed ludicrous and laughable when a Salafi seeks daleel from a Muqallid Mufti whose fatwa is out-dated by half a century, and which no longer holds Shar’i substance due to the satanism with which the issue under discussion is bedevilled today.

There is no contention regarding the validity of the Deeni service of a capable female. There is similarly no contention regarding the validity of the Deeni service of a male. Impermissibility has not been predicated to such services whether executed by males or females. However, only a moron Salafi coprocreep and the modernist zindeeqs will cling to the original unadulterated mas’alah even when satanism has become attached to the mubah (permissible) act.

Women performing Salaat in the Musjid was permitted by even Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). However, when satanasim became associated with this original permissible act, the Sahaabah unanimously banned women from the Musaajid. Similarly, on account of the accretion of satanism, all the Fuqaha of Islam of all Math-habs have declared that it is no longer permissible for women to attend even Walimahs or bayaans to listen to lectures delivered by Ulama. Attending any kind of function is no longer permissible for women.

Mufti Kifaayatullah’s view is not a Shar’i daleel. For daleel, we have to resort to the Fuqaha, especially the Fuqaha of the Salafus Saaliheen era. All of those illustrious Souls have issued the Fatwa of Prohibition. Thus, it is imperative to set aside Mufti Kifaayatullah’s view.

Furthermore, the situation during Mufti Kifaayatullah’s time was not as rotten and stinking as it is today. In our time, faasiqaat and faajiraat are generally the ones who deliver copro-lectures to males who attend to cast lustful stares at the faasiqaat/faajiraat, and to derive nafsaani gratification from their voices. There is an incremental preponderance of faasiqaat/faajiraat in the public domain. This vile and rotten phenomenon has also been given great impetus by the wayward Tabligh Jamaat with its women’s wing.

It is HARAAM in this age for women to give lectures in gatherings of males. The dalaa-il for this prohibition in a nutshell are:

The Ijmaa-ee ban on women attending the Musjid issued by the Sahaabah.
The Fatwa of the Fuqaha of Islam.
The evil shenanigans of women and men in our present era.
22 Zul Qa’dh 1440 – 25 July 2019

THE ‘DIVORCE’ OF A SECULAR COURT

Q. The following are some questions on marriage and divorce posed by a brother in the U.K. to a South African Mufti. The Mufti’s fatwa is also provided herewith. What is the status of this fatwa?

Q: I want to ask you a few questions before I make a decision about marrying a second wife.
I am not satisfied with my marriage with my first wife. This is due to a lack of affection and neglect from my first wife. I have had this problem for 5 to 6 years now and I have tried to talk to my wife to resolve how I feel but nothing seems to better my situation, and I have now given up. I still care about my first wife and I still want to provide for her and our 3 children. I want to marry a second wife but I don’t want to commit a sin. The UK law does not recognise a second wife. It is actually illegal in the UK to have a second wife, although it is fine to have a mistress. As I am aware that there is an Islamic ruling that I should abide by the law of the country that I reside in.
1. My question is, if I get permission from my first wife, and provided I fulfil both wives rights, will I be committing a sin to have a second wife in the UK?
2. Does a divorce through the UK civil court break the Islamic nikah? (From my own research I have found that it does not break the Islamic nikah)
3. I have met a person from Morroco who has accepted to be my second wife, but to bring her to UK I have to first divorce my first wife through the UK civil court. Can I do this in order to bring my second wife into the UK? I do not want to break the nikah to my first wife.
A: 1. Whether it is UK or US, the laws remain the same. The laws do not change. However, we advise that you do something that is free of problems and worries.
2. If the husband consents or instructs the court to divorce then the divorce is valid.
3. The divorce that is issued is recognised and valid in the shariah.
And Allah Ta’ala knows best. (End of fatwa)
Please comment. Is this fatwa correct? To even a layman it does not seem right.
OUR ANSWER:
The Mufti has acquitted himself most stupidly. He is a liberal, hence he issued a bunkum ‘fatwa’. The Muslim does not and cannot ‘instruct’ the court. He can only petition and ask the court.
When a man asks a kaafir court to annul his civil ‘marriage’, which is not a Nikah in Shar’i terms, he is asking for the cancellation of the secular contract, not for the issuance of Talaaq.
Secondly, he ‘asks’ the court for a ‘divorce decree’. The meaning of ‘divorce’ in the context is cancellation of the civil contract. Only a maajin mufti with fossilized brains (jumood) will ignore the context and the circumstances, and baselessly cling to the ostensible meaning if the term is translated into Arabic or Urdu for the context in which it is used. The court issues such a decree at its will and discretion. It is not obliged to comply with the request of the Applicant.
Thirdly, the applicant does not empower the kaafir court to issue Talaaq. Fourthly, the applicant does not employ the kaafir judge to be his wakeel to issue Talaaq to his wife.
It is crystal clear that the Mufti has acted stupidly, labouring in the state of intoxication due to substance abuse. The ‘substance’ in this context is western liberalism which has been adopted for fulfilment of the demands of Hubb-e-Jah.
Just ignore the drivel disgorgement. It is an insult to the Deen and an insult to the mufti’s brains to have vomited such a blatant stupidity.
Furthermore, while it is only proper to inform the first wife, it is not a condition for the validity of the second marriage, nor is her consent necessary for the validity of a second, third or fourth marriage.
The ‘divorce’ decree issued by a secular court whether the judge is a kaafir or posing as a Muslim as all so-called Muslim judges of secular courts even in Muslim lands do, the decree is NOT a Talaaq.

SALAAM FOR A FAASIQ

SALAAM FOR A FAASIQ –

RESPONSE TO THE BAATIL FATWA

A Brother from Bangladesh writes:

BismillahirRahmanirRahim

I have come across an article in Majlis Vol 25 No.02 where it is mentioned that Greeting a Faasiq is Haraam. But, in our country, some Ulama have ruled that for Tablighi purpose, Salaam may be given. If Salaam is given to bring a Faasiq close to Deen, then it will not be Makruh.

I had received a mail on 16th December 2015 from Darul Iftaa Mahmudiyya un which Mufti Ebrahim Desai also passed the verdict of permissibility (refer to the trailing mail).So What should we practice ?

The following is the fatwa of Darul Ifta Mahmudiyyah:

Initiate Salaam with a Faasiq?

Question:
1) Is it permissible to initiate salaam with a faasiq (like a clean shaven and/or izaar below ankles)?

2) Is it permissible to smile at them?

3) As fisq and fujoor is widespread, how should we uphold the Sunnah of Smiling in public?
Answer:
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
As-salāmu ‘alaykumwa-rahmatullāhiwa-barakātuh.
You enquire how should one deal with a fasiq especially in this era where fisq is common and whether one can make Salaam to a fasiq and smile at them. Your question is relevant to our times.
A fasiq is he who commits a major sin and invokes the wrath and anger of Allah on him . This is a serious issue. If we show complacency to a fasiq and don’t care of the sin he commits, it is an expression of disregard to Allah. Such an attitude also makes one deserving of the wrath and anger of Allah. It is for this reason that praising and honouring a fasiq is prohibited.
Rasulullah صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ has said in a hadith,
عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: ” إِنَّ اللهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ يَغْضَبُ إِذَا مُدِحَ الْفَاسِقُ فِي الْأَرْضِ

It is reported from Anas (Radiallahu Anhu) he says, that Rasulullah صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ said, verily Allah ‘Azza wajal is angered when a Fasiq is praised on earth.
It should also be noted that we have the responsibility to correct and reform people around us. Allah says,
كُنتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَوْ آمَنَ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَّهُم مِّنْهُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَأَكْثَرُهُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient. (Surah Aali-Imran, V 110)
If we do not stop evil and wrong, evil and immorality will become widespread and eventually good people will also get caught up in the evil. However correcting and reforming people is a huge challenge. This can only be possible with the help of Allah.

Shariah does not permit us to simply know and stay away from wrong; it is also our responsibility to correct the wrong. The focus of Shariah is the end result, change and reformation. For that, one has to apply his mind carefully and analyse what is the best approach in achieving the change and reformation. This is referred to as Hikmah (wisdom). Allah says,
ادع إلى سبيل ربك بالحكمة والموعظة الحسنة وجادلهم بالتي هي أحسن إن ربك هو أعلم بمن ضل عن سبيله وهو أعلم بالمهتدين
Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the better way. Lo! Thy Lord is Best Aware of him who strayeth from His way, and He is Best Aware of those who go aright. (Surah al-Nahl, verse 125)
Reverting to your query, on whether one should make salaam to a fasiq and smile at him; this depends on what attitude will be most effective on such a person. At times, adopting a harsh attitude may be effective in jolting the sinful person as is the case of a very close family relationship. At other times, it may be better to be loving and diplomatic to such a person as in the case of a distant relationship.
To illustrate the difference between the two, Zaid is the father of Amr. Amr is indulged in some inappropriate conduct. In this situation, if the father adopts a negative attitude to Amr and he knows Amr will be deeply affected with such attitude and jolt him to change, then such an attitude will be appropriate and regarded as Hikmah.
If Zaid and Zahid just know each other, they are not family or close relatives. Zahid is indulged in some inappropriate conduct. It is not appropriate for Zaid to adopt a negative attitude to Zahid and ignore him as that will suit Zahid fine. In this case, he would be left free to do as he wishes. It is more wise and suitable for Zaid to be in touch with Zahid to distract him from the sin and use the opportunity to advise him.
While we should not honour a fasiq and we should not be complacent to sin, we have a responsibility to change the situation around with wisdom.
If it will be more effective in not making salaam and smiling, adopt that attitude. If making salaam and smiling will be more effective, adopt that attitude with the intention for changing and reformation.
In brief, which attitude will be most effective depends on the persons insight an careful analysis of the situation. And Allah knows best,

Bilal Ishaq (Issak) Student DarulIftaa

Leicester, England, UK Checked and Approved by Mufti Ebrahim Desai.

(End of Mufti Ebrahim’s fatwa)

OUR RESPONSE

While the Ulama in Bangladesh and Mufti Ebrahim Desai in South Africa have ruled that it is permissible to offer Salaam to a faasiq, Allah and His Rasool ruled otherwise. The Fuqaha of Islam have also submitted to this ruling. They did not adopt the line of reasoning of the ulama who seek to override the Shariah with their opinion which they term ‘hikmat’. This type of corrupt ‘hikmat’ is baatil.

In our article we had even presented the ruling of Hadhrat Masihullah (Rahmatullah alayh) who is well-known for his tenderness and caution.

It is not permissible to make a haraam act halaal for the sake of tabligh. Wine, interest, gambling, zina, etc. are haraam. For the sake of tabligh to bring people close to the Deen it is never permissible to legalize these prohibitions. But the problem with the ulama of this era is that they lack baseerat. Making Salaam to a faasiq is haraam just as are the other abovementioned sinful acts. These sinful acts may not be ruled to be halaal for tabligh purposes.

The obligation of the Muslim is to obey Allah Ta’ala, not to undermine the Law of Islam. It is not permissible to utilize personal logic to cancel the prohibitions of the Shariah regardless of how noble the end and purpose may be. When the two Persian delegates came to meet Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), he turned his Mubaarak face away from them in disgust because they were clean-shaven. Despite them being kuffaar not bound by the laws of Islam, and despite it being the occasion for da’wat and tabligh, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) adopted a harsh attitude and displayed his disgust. But today’s molvis promote fisq and fujoor with their corrupt fatwas and baatil views.

Hidaayat is Allah’s prerogative. Only He guides people. We are not able to guide people with our tabligh. We are only required to deliver the Message of the Deen and leave the hidaayat issue to Allah Ta’ala. In the Qur’aan Majeed, Allah Ta’ala informs our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam):

“Verily, you (O Muhammad!) cannot guide those whom you love. But Allah guides whomever He wills, and He knows best who are to be guided.”
People cannot be brought close to the Deen with haraam. Assuming that they can be brought close to the Deen with haraam activities, then too it is sinful for us to adopt such measures which are sinful and which invite the la’nat of Allah Ta’ala. If Allah Ta’ala has ordained Imaan and Taqwa for a person, that person will acquire it. There is no need to adopt haraam measures for this purpose just as it is not permissible to adopt haraam methods for the acquisition of our Rizq.

Our Rizq has been ordained and is fixed. Haraam ways may not be adopted to acquire this predetermined Rizq.

These molvis are in fact implying that to acquire one’s halaal Rizq, haraam measures may be adopted. But they fail to understand that the purpose regardless of its nobility is not the objective if it is to be procured in conflict with Allah’s Law and Pleasure.

Mufti Ebrahim’s fatwa is a zigzag opinion. It is a fence-sitting attitude. He tries to meander his way to placate opposites. He says: “If making salaam and smiling will be more effective, adopt that attitude with the intention for changing and reformation.”
This is absolutely baatil. By the same token it could be argued: If committing zina with a prostitute will be more effective, adopt that attitude (and commit the zina) with the intention for changing and reformation.
Change, reformation and hidaayat are possible only by following the Laws of Allah Ta’ala, not by acting in conflict as demanded by opinion and corrupt ‘hikmat’. Rasulullah’s mission was nothing other than Tabligh. There cannever be a greater Muballigh than Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Once Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) adopted a perfectly permissible method for Tabligh to bring the chiefs of the Quraish close to the Deen. The reasoning of our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was that if the chiefs accept Islam, then all the tribes will follow suit and enter into Islam.

The chiefs being people of pride did not prefer people of low social rank to be with them in the same gathering. They had agreed to listen to the da’wat of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and they attended the session. Whilst Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was engaging in Tabligh to the chiefs, an old, blind Sahaabi came to ask something. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ignored him. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was engaging with the chiefs and he did not want to miss this opportunity of gaining their allegiance for Islam. His only logical reason was to bring the chiefs close to Islam.

But Allah Ta’ala disapproved of this attitude and sternly reprimanded our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The first 16 Aayaat of Surah Abasa record the reprimand of Allah Ta’ala. Now when our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was so sternly reprimanded for a lawful attempt to bring important personalities close to the Deen with his Tabligh, what conclusion should we draw of the explicit haraam which the muftis are halaalizing for what they claim to be Tabligh? Haraam may not be adopted for Tabligh regardless of the perceived benefits, even if the person will be brought close to the Deen with the haraam, and even if the prostitute will accept Islam after the Muslim commits zina with her. It is absolutely satanic to argue that adoption of haraam is permissible for the purpose of Tabligh.

The fatwa of Mufti Ebrahim Desai is zig zag and designed to suffocate the Haqq. The person who asked the questions did not even do so in the context of Tabligh. He was asking in general. Thus the questioner asked:

“As fisq and fujoor is widespread, how should we uphold the Sunnah of Smiling in public?”

Although haraam may not be legalized for even Tabligh, the Mufti ministering to the evil designs of the elite wealthy class who are prominent and notorious for fisq and fujoor, issued his zig zag, corrupt fatwa which borders on kufr. Regardless of the widespread prevalence of fisq and fujoor, the ahkaam of the Deen may not be altered and abolished. Such tampering with the Shariah cannot be justified with the hallucination presented by the Mufti in his zig zag fatwa.

The Mufti has not presented a single Shar’i daleel to bolster his corrupt opinion. He has disgorged purely baseless personal opinion unsubstantiated by any Shar’i Nass. He is required to present a precedent from the Sunnah to justify his opinion. The end in view is not a valid daleel. If the end objective is to feed the poor and destitute, it does not justify gambling for this purpose.

We can say without fear of being contradicted by the Mufti that he will not say that for Tabligh purposes zina, wine and interest are permissible. Maybe in future some murtad mufti will halaalize even these major sins. But today, the Mufti will not issue a fatwa to halaalize zina, etc. for Tabligh purposes. The reason why these molvis are so brazen to halaalize the haraam act of honouring and respecting a faasiq is that the villainy of this sin has departed from their hearts. Their fraternization and socialization with the wealthy fussaaq and fujjaar have desensitized their Imaan, hence they have no inhibitions regarding the naked fisq and fujoor of the elite class. This desensitization has induced them to abandon Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahyi Anil Munkar. Thus they have opened the Doors for Allah’s Athaab.

7 Ramadhaan 1440 – 13 May 2019