I have read three fatwas on the issue of vaccination. The one was issued by Jamiatul Ulama (JUSA), the other one by Mauritanian Ulama, and the third one issued by Dar al-Salam Islamic Research Centre –Pretoria, which is a comment on the two fatwas. There is no clear directive regarding vaccination in all three fatwas. What is the correct view of the Shariah?


The so-called ‘fatwa’ of bogus ‘jusa’, that is the NNB (No Name Brand jamiat of Fordsburg) is bunkum. The statement issued by this bogus entity is devoid of Shar’i substance. It is essentially a bootlicking propaganda stunt to appease the atheists, the Munaafiqeen doctors, and the government. The ghutha (stupid drivel) which the NNB jmaiat has excreted in its statement has been answered in detail by us in many publications which are available on our website.

The Fatwa by the Mauritanian Ulama proclaims the Haq although they have erred on the issue of vaccination. It appears that the Mauritanian Ulama have not understood what exactly vaccination is. In their Fatwa the Mauritanian Ulama state:

“It is not proper to support any vaccine until its safety has been completely verified…” They also advise that the state should “make the vaccines optional without mandating them on the people for travel nor tying certain services to vaccination.”

These statements are in total cognitive dissonance with the Haq stated very candidly by the Mauritanian Ulama. They have quite correctly criticized and condemned the satanic covid vaccination. However, they have mellowed their stance of Haq with the aforementioned statements. Despite acknowledging and condemning the harms of the covid vaccines, they have erred in their advice to the government.

There is no safety in vaccines. These are satanic potions designed by the atheists to further their Dajjaali conspiracies. These potions of the atheist witches and sorcerers consist of filth and poison. Vaccination is the introduction of disease into the human body. There is absolutely no scope for its permissibility in the Shariah. On this score the Mauritanian Ulama have erred.

As for the views proffered by the Dar al-Islam Centre, it is not a fatwa which can guide Muslims. It is a flaccid statement taking up issue with the NNB jamiat without condemning the deception and utter incongruity of these molvis who have bartered away their Imaan for the jeefah (carrion) of this dunya. Their statement merely compares the NNB’s view with the Fatwa of the Mauritanian Ulama. It is not a fatwa for the guidance of Muslims.

9 Rabiul Awwal 1443 – 16 October 2021




A liberal/modernist council of imams of Canada states in its statement in support of the satanic covid call of the atheists:

“Due to the strong compulsion and compelling urgency to save lives and stop the spread of the disease, vaccines are strongly recommended.”

This misleading and deceptive claim is utterly baseless, lacking in entirety in Shar’i daleel. This kuffaar bootlicking cartel of Canadian imams has not presented any evidence from the Shariah for their “strong compulsion and compelling urgency to save lives and stop the spread of the disease”. Their entire case is the product of meekly submitting to whatever has been disgorged by the atheists and munaafiqeen who are primarily these doctors who masquerade as Muslims whilst their hearts are saturated with kufr and nifaaq. Thus, their conclusion is based on what they say are “consultations with medical advisors and at the request of many Muslim medical practitioners, healthcare providers and concerned Muslims.” This entire cartel is person’a non grata in Shar’i terms.

Every person understands that the ‘consultations’ were with only such entities who are subservient to the instructions of the Bill Gates atheist cartel. The consultations were with handpicked morons who peddle the kufr theories of the atheists. Informed persons of intelligence, in fact, even these miserable imams are well aware of the diametrically opposite view held by and propounded by thousands of medical doctors, experts and scientists of the highest class in terms of their own kuffaar criteria. Yet, these unfortunate imams grovelling at the boots of the atheists, in their bid to appease the government, have not even hinted at the opposite view which fully corroborates the Laa adwaa (Disease is not contagious) concept stated explicitly and emphatically by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Why would professed Muslims, especially ‘imams’  sweep under the carpet and conceal  views which support  the Islamic concept stated by our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and descend into the  inequity of  vigorously  supporting  and promoting the view of atheists, which  negates  the latter? That is because they suffer from the disease of Nifaaq(Hypocrisy). They leave no stone unturned to appease those kuffaar who they have appointed to be their leaders, and this villainy is dictated by worldly and nafsaani agendas.


Download this book




“Imam Ahmad said, “I like for the one who believes in the efficacy of trust and pursues this path to abandon medical treatment such as drinking medicine and other things.” For this reason, Qadi ‘Iyad conveyed unanimous consensus on the non-obligation to medicate.”

There is no doubt that the refusal of medical treatment, placing one’s reliance upon Allah (i.e. Tawakkul) and acceptance of what He decrees, (i.e. Tafweez) is among matters endorsed by the revealed law. This is supported by what Al-Bukhari reports from ‘Ata b. Abi Rabah from Ibn ‘Abbas that a woman came to the Prophet—upon him Allah’s blessing and peace—and said, “I suffer from seizures to the point that my body becomes exposed. So, pray to Allah for me.” He said, “If you would like, you can endure it and be rewarded with Paradise. And if you would like, I can ask Allah to cure you.” She responded, “I will endure it.” She, then, said, “I become exposed. So, pray to Allah for me not to become exposed.” So, he prayed for her. Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani said in Fath al-Bari while commenting on this hadith,

The hadith indicates the merit of the one who suffers seizures, that the reward for enduring the tribulations of the world is Paradise, and that embracing the more difficult is superior to taking dispensations for those who know what they can withstand and are not too weak to cling to adversity. It also contains evidence of the permissibility to refuse medical treatment, that treatment of all ailments with supplication and taking refuge to Allah is more beneficial than treatment with prophylaxis (aqaqir), and that the effect of that and the body’s reaction to it is greater than the effect of medicine on the body.

The Maliki Ibn ‘Abd Al-Barr said in Al-Tamhid, And there were among the best of this nation, its predecessors, and scholars, people who endured ailments until Allah removed them despite having access to physicians. They, however, were not condemned for refusing treatment. And if treatment had been one of the required norms (al-sunan al-wajibah), then those who refused to utter incantations and take medication would have been deemed blameworthy. And this is something of which we know no one who says.

And Al-Nawwawi said in Al-Majmu’, “And it is recommended that the sick not be forced to medicate and to consume other things like food.” And if it is not permissible to force the sick who is suffering from extreme illness to medicate, then how is it permissible to force the healthy who has not been afflicted with any sign of illness? And how can trust and surrender to the divine decree be something desirable for the sick who suffers from an actual illness and that not be desirable for a healthy person who is fearful of an expected illness?……………..

Experts have expressed that the vaccines prevent neither illness nor infection from pathogens.

Allah, Glorified and Exalted, has given to sane adults the freedom of choice and burdened them with the responsibility of themselves. Allah, the Exalted, says, “Whoever follows guidance, follows guidance for his soul. And whoever strays, only strays against it.” Therefore, the Shariah forbids forced conversion to the religion. Allah, the Exalted, says, “There is no compulsion in religion.” And if forced conversion to the religion is forbidden, how could it be lawful to force one to adhere to health measures? And what freedom of action remains for a person once his compulsion to take health measures is completed? If it is permitted for a government to force a person to vaccinate on the basis of public interest, then this means that it is permitted for it to force a man to marry three or four wives on the basis of public interest! It is also permitted for it to force a woman to marry a man she does not desire, to travel outside [the country] to study on the basis of public interest or to perform military service on the basis of public interest. It would also be permitted for it to force the farmer to become a carpenter, a carpenter to become a tailor, and a physician who has memorized the Qur’an to teach in a religious school (mahzarah). And all of that is on the basis of public interest. Such things are not affirmed by either sacred or secular law, while the examples [following this flawed logic] are many. …………

It is not proper to support any vaccine until its safety has been completely verified. However, the safety of these vaccines is uncertain. The manufacturing companies are indemnified. The authorization for them was only for emergency use. And the side effects of these vaccines that the manufacturing companies have announced are many and serious, and most of them have appeared.3 Also, the effects of these vaccines on pregnant women and those with chronic illness is unknown. And they are vaccines the least of which can be said of them is that they incite dispute. In France and other European countries protests have persisted since October of 2020 until they reached their fortieth week with the attendance of tens of thousands among whom are the leaders of political parties, members of parliament, military officers, professors of medicine, and organizations of civil community. ……

The World Health Organization has been exposed to blackmail by pharmaceutical companies. This is in addition to statements made by Bill Gates going back to 2011 wherein he said that the reduction of the population will be completed via forced vaccination.

Signed by

  • Shaykh Muhammad al-Sufi b. Mukhtass, Imam of the Hayya Central Mosque
  • Shaykh Muhammad ‘Abd Al-Qadir b. al-Dad, Shaykh of Mahdarah al-Malikiyyah in

Arafat and author of Al-Mawrid Al-Shahi fi al-Fiqh al-Maliki

  • Shaykh Muhammad al-Amin wald Aqah, Imam of a central mosque in Barimir
  • Shaykh Khalid Wald Aslamu, Imam Masjid al-Hidayah in Riyadh
  • Shaykh Muhammad Mahmud Wald Muhammadi
  • Shaykh Babah Wald al-Lahamud
  • Shaykh Ahmad Mahmud Wald Haddu, Imam of Masjid Baskujim
  • Shaykh Adumu Wald al-Jili, Imam of Jami’ al-Da’wah wa al-Tabligh in Dar al-Na’im
  • Shaykh ‘Isa Wald Muhammad Wald Hamati
  • Shaykh Abu Bakr b. Ahmad b. Yarim, Imam of Masjid Maryam in Dar al-Barakah, Rusu
  • Shaykh Ya’qub b. Sa’id, Imam of Masjid Damal Dak
  • Shaykh Ahmadu b. Muhammad Sultan, Imam of Jami’ Hamzah
  • Shaykh ‘Ali Jalu, Imam of Jami’ al-Ihsan
  • Shaykh Muhammad Mahmud b. Sayyid ‘Ali, Imam of Jami’ al-Bayt al-Ma’mur
  • Shaykh Muhammad al-Mashri Wald Muhammad al-Hajj, Imam of Masjid al-Sabkhah
  • Shaykh Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali al-Shinqiti
  • Shaykh Ahmad Ba’bu al-Naji, College professor and Imam of Jami’ Abu Bakr al- Siddique in Tafarrugh Zinah
  • Shaykh ‘Abd Allah Wald Arbayyah
  • Shaykh Muhammad Yasliim Wald ‘Abd Allah, Imam of Jami’ al-Mihsab

23 Muharram 1443 – 1 September 2021


Q. You gave a fatwa that the vaccine is haraam, I travel a lot in my business. Please advise what do I do? Because without taking the vaccine I will not be allowed to travel.
A. Our obligation is to state the law of the Shariah whether people are able to act accordingly or not. If all people are addicted to liquor for example , we still have to proclaim liquor haraam regardless of the addiction. Almost all Muslims are involved in insurance and in haraam pictography. Despite this we have the obligation of proclaiming the truth of the Deen even if people refuse to accept or even if they are genuinely unable to submit. The same applies to vaccination. Vaccination is haraam. It is now left to the individual to decide what he has to do. People will react and act in terms of their different levels of Imaan and Taqwa. We cannot advise you what exactly to do. It is left for you to decide. If circumstances compel you to submit to vaccination , remember two grave harms: (1) The sin of committing haraam. (2) The damage and disease to your body. As far as No.1 is concerned, Allah Ta’ala forgives when Taubah is made and He understands whether the compelling circumstances are valid or not. As far as No.2 is concerned , you may suffer life-long disease, especially cancer. For this there is no cure.



The Curse on Those who Give Fatwa Without Proper Knowledge

Nowadays, we can witness many persons, without proper knowledge and training, giving legal verdicts (Fatwas) on numerous issues. It is one of the gravest sins and attracts the curse of the angels.

‘Ali (radyallahu ‘anhu) reported that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “Whoever gives Fatwa without knowledge, the angels of the sky and those on earth curse him.” [Ibn ‘Asaakir, Tarikh Dimashq 20/52]

The place of such an imposter is Hellfire.

It was reported that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “The most audacious from among you at giving verdicts will be the most hasty from among you to enter the Hellfire.” [Ad-Daarimi 1/69]

The person issuing legal verdicts without knowledge bears the sin of those following him.

Abu Hurayra (radyallahu ‘anhu) reported that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “Whoever is given a Fatwa that is not based on knowledge, his sin is borne by the one who gave the Fatwa.” [Abu Dawud 3657]

Beware of those who give Fatwas on all issues without proper knowledge. In fact our pious predecessors called such a person mad.

‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (radyallahu ‘anhu) said, “Whoever gives Fatwa on all the questions people asked him is a mad man.” [Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Jaami’ Bayaan al-‘Ilm 2/154]

There is no light and easy issue in Islam. All the Masaail are important and must be given due attention.

Imam Maalik (rahimahullah) was once asked a question, to which he replied, “I do not know.” It was then said to him, ‘But the issue is a light and easy one.’ At this he became angry, then said, “There is nothing about knowledge that is light. Haven’t you heard Allah’s saying, “We will soon cast upon you a weighty word.” [Qur’an 73:6] Knowledge, all of it is weighty; especially what one will be questioned about on the Day of Judgement.” [‘Iyad, Tarteeb al-Madaarik 1/147]

The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) warned us about this situation. We are witnessing the demise of the great scholars around the world.

‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr (radyallahu ‘anhu) reported that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “Verily, Allah does not withhold knowledge by snatching it away from his servants, but rather he withholds knowledge by taking the souls of scholars, until no scholar remains and people follow ignorant leaders. They are asked and they issue Fatwas without knowledge. Thus, they are astray and lead others astray.” [Al-Bukhari 100 and Muslim 2673]

‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (radyallahu ‘anhu), one of the greatest jurist among the Sahaba, made a somewhat similar prediction.

Ibn Mas’ud (radyallahu ‘anhu) said to the Tabi’un among his students, “You are in a time in which its scholars (Ulama) are many and its speakers are few. But after you will come a time in which its scholars are few and its speakers many.” [At-Tabarani, al-Kabeer 8066]

We end this brief article with the example of Imam Maalik (rahimahullah) showing clearly the state of a true Mufti at the time when he is being asked a question.

Imam Maalik (rahimahullah) said, “Whoever is asked about a religious matter, before responding he should imagine both Heaven and Hell before him and consider his outcome in the Hereafter. Only then should he respond.” [‘Iyad, Tarteeb al-Madaarik 1/144]

May Allah protect this Ummah from the imposters who are issuing Fatwas without proper credentials and knowledge.

[Shaykh] Ifran Nauyock
Al-Kawthari Academy

Many Ulama are vague when responding to questions, due to this laymen find much scope for committing sins – your comment?

Q. I find most Ulama are vague when responding to questions. The answers do not clarify the issues. Due to such vagueness, laymen find much scope for committing sins. Also, the teachings of the Deen are watered down by the vagueness of the responses. Is this proper? Please comment.

A. The ‘vagueness’ of the answers of the molvis/muftis is due to their forked-tongues which they employ to promote their nafsaaniyat and baatil. Some are complete supporters of baatil while others are fencesitters who do not want to annoy donors. But all are promoters of baatil and concealers of the Haqq. That is why they speak dubiously. In the words of the Qur’aan Majeed: “They are neither here nor there. They vacillate between this (with doubt and uncertainty between truth and falsehood).” In fact the vagueness is understood to mean “perfect permissibility” and that there is nothing wrong with indulgence in the act.

With dubious statements of this nature, the molvis create the evil condition of Istikhfaaf in the minds of laymen. The ahkaam, are viewed with insignificance and regarded unimportant because of the dubious ‘hikmah’ (misplaced and stupid ‘wisdom’). The forked-tongue answers of most muftis of this era are nafsaani motivation. Since they themselves indulge in such practices or they do not want to annoy donors, they issue dubious and vague fatwas.

is permissible to wear a tie in a place where both Muslims and nonMuslims are wearing it

Q. A Mufti says that it is permissible to wear a tie in a place where both Muslims and nonMuslims are wearing it, and that it will not be permissible in a place where only the kuffaar wear it. Is this right? Please comment in detail. The fatwa seems very confusing.

A. It is very confusing because it is a forked tongue fatwa of a fencesitting mufti. Zina, liquor and riba will be haraam in all places whether in a place only kuffaar indulge in these acts of abomination or whether both Muslims and nonMuslims perpetrate these acts of immorality. The mufti has grievously erred.

Instead of bringing Muslims closer to Allah Ta’ala by emphasizing the incumbency of Sunnah attire, and the abomination of kuffaar dress style, the mufti renders the Ummah and Islam the great disservice of widening the gulf between Muslims and their Creator. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that the one who emulates a people is one of them. One enters the fold of the kuffaar by emulating their useless and superfluous styles. On the other hand, one becomes Allah’s beloved by emulating the Sulaha/Auliya even if one is not among them. A Buzrug said: “I love the Sulaha although I am not one of them. Perhaps by virtue of this love, Allah will reform me.”

The function of a mufti is not to indulge in mental gymnastics and create unnecessary and futile latitude in the ahkaam thereby weakening further the extremely deficient bond which Muslims of this era have with the Deen and with Allah Ta’ala. The obligation of the mufti is to draw Muslims closer to Allah Ta’ala and to cultivate in them a realization of Maut, the Qabr and Qiyaamah. These goals cannever be achieved by encouraging Muslims to adopt the ways, styles and customs of the kuffaar.

It should be understood that kuffaar attitudes accompany kuffaar styles and customs. The one who will wear a tie, will think and behave like a kaafir. There is takabbur and riya in the kuffaar tie whilst there is tawaadhu (humility) in the simple dress style of the Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam), adoption of which is Waajib for Muslims. The mufti should confine technicalities to his Madrasah students during academic discussion, and emphasize to his pupils that the objective of technicalities which appear to provide leeway is never to water down the ahkaam and to eliminate Taqwa. Cultivation of Taqwa is a Qur’aanic and a Sunnah imperative. Minus Taqwa a Muslim is a vagabond, and this is the category into which the molvis and muftis of this era have cast the Ummah with their flapdoodle and flotsam fallacious arguments which are nugatory of the Maqaasid of the Deen.

Adoption of haraam by Muslims does not equate to halaal. Thus, if the crucifix loses its religious significance and both non-Muslims and Muslims wear chains with crosses around their necks, this practice of shirk is not transformed into permissibility. It will forever remain haraam for Muslims to wear crosses around their necks or keep it even concealed in their pockets.

This is the status of the kuffaar tie. It is the symbol of the cross – of the Christian deity hanging on the cross. This was the origin of the tie regardless of the religious significance being divested. E. Quraishi Sabri commenting on the origin of the necktie, said: “Towards the end of the 19th Century, the Europeans omitted from dictionaries and Encyclopaedias the introductory phrase about the necktie being a symbol of the cross … A glance of Encyclopaedias printed before 1898 will confirm this point.” In another report, it is said that the practice of the necktie started on the insistence of the Pope in the year 1790 and that by 1850 all Christian nations had accepted and implemented this order of the Pope.

Regardless of the tie no longer having religious significance, and regardless of the assumption that it never symbolized the cross, the fundamental fact is that it is a superfluous item of kuffaar dress exhibiting stupidity, ujub (self-esteem), takabbur (pride) and riya (show). There is absolutely no goodness and no worldly benefit in wearing this moronic dress atrocity of the kuffaar. It is a glaring example of Tashabbuh Bil Kuffaar (emulating the kuffaar) which is haraam, and which even has the effect of kufr. Preferring any specific custom/practice of the kuffaar is also kufr.

Tashabbuh bin nisaa’ (emulating females) is haraam for men. Men who imitate women in any manner are maloon (on whom settle the curse of Allah) according to the Hadith. Even if a man emulates the dress style of a Muslim woman, he will be mal-oon. Will the mufti condone Muslim men wearing abayas/ burqahs? What if in a place most Muslim men begin wearing abayas because it has developed into a kuffaar fashion? And, this is not farfetched. Men are nowadays even walking in public with female panties. Will it then be permissible for Muslim males to wear burqahs? Allah’s la’nat is on such men who perpetrate Tashabbuh bin nisaa. To a greater degree will the la’nat settle on Muslim men committing Tashabbuh bil kuffaar. After all, Muslim women have Imaan whilst the kuffaar are bereft of Imaan.

The attitude of halaalizing kuffaar dress styles and other superfluous and stupid practices on the basis of the dress style having gained popular acceptance by both nonMuslims and Muslims is absolutely putrid and satanic. With the passage of time the entire Sunnah becomes eroded and even displaced for the adoption of kuffaar culture which brings along with it all the attitudes, thinking and concepts of the kuffaar. It is this creeping disease which has made praying in churches and standing in the ranks with kuffaar priests and pundits acceptable. That is why there are characters of the ilk of reverend Bham and MJC carrion halaalizing sheikhs who accept and participate in kuffaar acts of worship.

Will a Muslim with his kurtah on wear a tie? There is consensus of all and sundry, including the mufti who halaalizes the tie, that no Muslim wearing a kurtah will put on a tie while dressed in a kurtah. But if he is dressed in western attire or a suit, then without hesitation he will don the kuffaar tie? Why this difference? Why will he wear a tie with a western shirt, but not with a kurtah? There is no need to even answer this question. Western dress comes with its effects and attitudes of kibr, ujub and riya. It is an acceptable dress for a man who wants to visit a casino, a brothel, a gambling den and any evil haunt. On the contrary, Islamic dress prevents a Muslim from frequenting these dens of Iblees. Wearing the kuffaar tie of shirk is haraam. The mufti has grievously erred in providing leeway for its adoption.

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.