THE NIQAAB OF IBLEES AND THE ‘FATWA’ OF A MUDHIL MUFTI

Question

Mufti Ebrahim Desai, in a fatwa, says that it is permissible to wear a covid mask. He says that the prohibition in the Hadith falls away when the mask is worn because of a need. The need is the danger of being infected with the covid disease. He quoted from several kitaabs of the Hanafi Fuqaha. One such quotation is:

“Covering one’s mouth in Salah is prohibited due to the Hadith of Abu Dawud and others. It will only be permissible to cover at the time of need.” (Emphasis not mine)

The mufti basis the permissibility on the need “to save oneself from being infected”. Is this fatwa valid?

Answer

This is one more of the zigzag fatwas for which the wayward mufti has a penchant. There is no valid Shar’i substance in his zigzag fatwa which is designed for bootlicking the atheists and the government. This miserable mufti is a sell-out. He has become a traitor to the Deen. He mis-manipulates the texts of the Shariah for sinister agendas. The current shaitaani objective is to accord Shar’i acceptability to the baatil covid shaitaaniyat dinned into his ears by anti-Islam forces.

The Hadith and the texts of the Fuqaha are abundantly clear. With clarity the prohibition is stated. The exception is an exigency of Dhuroorat (real need), not a hallucinated need, and not a need according to the kufr theories of the atheists.

No one denies the principle of Dhuroorat. But every imaginary ‘need’ does not come within the Shariah’s concept of Dhuroorat. If there is genuine Dhuroorat, Salaat may be performed wearing only a female’s panties or even stark naked. When there is legitimate Dhuroorat in the meaning of the Shariah’s concept, then liquor and pork may also be consumed, and for such consumption there is no need for the rubbish ‘halaal’ certificates of the Carrion & Pork cartel.

The conjectured or imagined ‘need’ on which the zigzagger basis his corrupt fatwa is underlined by the kufr contagion belief which is in blatant denial of the explicit La Adwaa proclamation of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This miserable miscreant mufti shamelessly peddles the idea of the atheist in stark denial of the Law stated by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

In view of the Shariah’s explicit negation of the kufr idea of contagion, there is absolutely no need to don the niqaab of Iblees in Salaat. Thus, the original Mas’alah remains in its place. The exception proffered by the miscreant has no basis. It is spurious and baatil, hence donning the niqaab of Iblees in Salaat is Haraam. The fear of infection is unfounded and kufr.

Furthermore, wearing the niqaab of Iblees in the current context of the circumstances is not only Makrooh, it is kufr, and it invalidates Salaat. Donning the Ibleesi niqaab is accompanied by the kufr belief of contagion. It is the kufr idea of the atheists which this miserable mufti is promoting.

The function of a true Mufti is to strengthen the bond with Allah Ta’ala, not to widen the existing chasm between the bandah and Allah Ta’ala. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Seek a fatwa from your heart.” The sincere searcher of the Truth should, with an unbiased mind, scrutinize the fatwa of this wayward mufti.

Who and what is this mufti promoting with his zigzag fatwa? The fatwa of the heart will adequately reply this question. Everyone can understand that the fatwa of permissibility for donning the niqaab of Iblees is designed to promote the theory of the atheists and to curry favour with the government. There is no Deeni objective for this confounded baatil fatwa.

He completely side steps the original purport of Rasulullah’s prohibition, and clings on to the straw of the exception on the fallacious basis of imaginary dhuroorat to peddle the wares of Bill Gates and his ilk.

The fatwa of Deoband is just as putrid as the fatwa of mufti Ebrahim Desai. Deoband is no longer a reliable institution. We scrutinize the fatwas emanating from today’s Darul Ifta if Deoband. The Janaazah of Ilm has long ago departed from Darul Uloom Deoband. Now there remains only a skeleton. Their fatwa also emphasizes on the exception instead of the prohibition stated with clarity by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Both fatwas are bunkum. It is haraam to don the niqaab of Iblees. Salaat with the evil niqaab on, due to the kufr belief underlying it, is not valid.

22 Jamaadil Awwal 1442 – 6 January 2021

Mufti Ebrahim Desai is gradually becoming a deviate.

Q. Mufti Ebrahim Desai’s fatwas are very accommodating for the covid-19 protocols. He sees permissibility in all the measures introduced for musallis at a Musjid. He cites even the fatwa of Darul Uloom Deoband. Please comment.


A. Mufti Ebrahim Desai is gradually becoming a deviate.
We have answered the stupid fatwa from Deoband and others
in several articles available on our website. This mufti is a liberal plodding the path of deviation. He has left the fold of the Ulama-e-Haq. He has no perception of the closeness of Maut and the Accountability to Allah Ta’ala, hence his ‘fatwas’ are zig zag stupidities.

FROM THE MAJLIS VOL 25 NO 09

“mufti”

“mufti”

EBRAHIM DESAI JOINS THE CAMP OF THE ULAMA-E-SOO’ BOOTLICKERS

 

This molvi’s leanings towards liberalism have been disturbing for some time. We had regarded him to be from among the Ulama-e-Haqq, hence in response to many queries, we had always advised that he was a man of the Haqq. However, his true colours have been coming to light incrementally in his baatil and kongfu fatwas. We now retract our recommendation.

In the current shaitaani crisis, he has exposed himself to be a supporter of the baatil of the cartel of munaafiqeen comprising of ghutha and hufaalah

such as Bogus uucsa, MJC, Bhum, Yusuf Patel, Menk, Suliman Moolla, Amal, the silly chamber of ‘muslim’ commerce, and others of similar ilk.

These munaafiqeen and pro-munaafiqeen such as the maajin mufti Ebrahim Desai, are traitors to Islam. They are back-stabbing the Muslim community. But they have no word of condemnation for those who are suppressing the Deen and oppressing Muslims. They are pure unadulterated shayaateen in human form.

Place no reliance on the fatwas churned out by his darul iftah.

 

BEWARE OF THE BAATIL AND DUBIOUS FATWAS OF THIS LATEST BOOTLICKER.

3 Ramadhaan 1441 – 27 April 2020

ANOTHER MISERABLE MAAJIN ‘MUFTI’

ANOTHER MISERABLE MAAJIN ‘MUFTI’ CLAMOURING ON THE BOOTLICKER WAGON

Question

Please comment on mufti Ebrahim Desai quoting Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) in support of the lockdown measures. In this regard, he cites the following advice of Hadhrat Thanvi:

“Maulana Thaanvi RA advised, avoid disrespect to 3 people:

1) People in Authority, 2) Landlord, 3) Son-in-Law.”

We see the wisdom in this advice during the lockdown. Don’t put yourself in an embarrassing situation. Avoid
embarrassment to Islam and Muslims.”   (End of Ebrahim Desai’s statement).

Does his statement hold Islamic validity?

ANSWER and COMMENT

His statement is bunkum advice, the effect of bootlicking.

 

Maajin Mufti Ebrahim Desai has become a bootlicker. By degrees he has drifted from Siraatul Mustaqeem.
He is incrementally following in the footsteps of the munaafiqeen. Currently he is decidedly a fence sitter.
If he continues along the path of dhalaal, he will end up in the camp of the munaafiqeen.

 

Hadhrat Thanvi’s quote has no relationship with the current bogus corona saga.

 

Besides the three persons mentioned by Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh), all people, Muslims and non-Muslims, to the exclusion of the munaafiqeen and zanaadaqah, are to be respected within the confines of the Shariah. Respect precludes bootlicking, stupid flattery and concealment of the Haqq.

 

No intelligent Muslim advocates disrespect for the government, for the landlord, for the son-in-law or for anyone else. What is advocated, condoned and propagated is to abstain from respecting and honouring the people of bid’ah and the munaafiqeen, and such maajin muftis who open the pathway to Jahannam for the masses.  Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Whoever honours a man of bid’ah, verily he has aided in the demolition of Islam.” When a faasiq is honoured, the Arsh of Allah shudders.

 

There are many similar Nusoos which proscribe respecting and honouring such juhala, fussaaq, fujjaar and zanaadaqah who constitute a danger to the Imaan of the masses. In our time, there is a glut of molvis, muftis and sheikhs whose bootlicking constitutes a danger for the Imaan of the masses.

 

The policy of shaitaani silence propagated by the likes of these maajin muftis comes within the purview of the Qur’aanic Aayat:

“Why do their ahbaar and ruhbaan not prevent the people from sinful statements and consumption of haraam?”

 

These bootlickers are among the worst of scoundrels who dig the foundations of the Deen. The moron mufti has abortively attempted to extravasate haraam capital from Hadhrat Thanvi’s statement which does not have the remotest relationship with the current shaitaani conspiracy.

 

For the edification of Mr. Ebrahim Desai, we say: Avoid embarrassment to Islam and Muslims by refraining from bootlicking, from having two tongues, from fence-sitting, from leaning towards the munaafiqeen.”

And, in the words of the Qur’aan Majeed, we say to him and his miserable ilk:

 aayatQuran.jpg

“Scram! (and perish) therein (in Jahannam), and do not speak to ME (Allah).”

(Al-Mu’minoon, Aayat 108)

In emulation and in adoption of this Qur’aanic tone stemming from the address of Allah Ta’ala to the Jahannamis, we say to this wayward maajin mufti:

Scram! Voetsek! Get Lost! Drown in the cesspool of inequity which you and your like are preparing for the community. Beware of Allah’s Athaab. You will suffer and not escape Allah’s Apprehension.

3 Ramadhaan 1441 – 27 April 2020

A ‘HALAAL’ LICENSE FOR RUM AND BRANDY

A ‘HALAAL’ LICENSE FOR RUM AND BRANDY

ALL LIQUOR IS KHAMR

“When the Prohibition of khamr was revealed, it (khamr) was from five sources: grapes, dates, wheat, barley and honey. Khamr is whatever convolutes the brain.

Restricting it (the prohibition) to grape (liquor) is meaningless. The element in prohibition (tahreem) is the convolution of the brain. Its little leads to much, hence the view of prohibition is Waajib.

It is not permissible today for anyone to opine the permissibility of the (liquor) acquired from sources other than grapes and to use less than the intoxicating limit.

Yes, there were some among the Sahaabah and Taabieen to whom the Hadith did not initially reach, hence they are excused. However, when the Hadith became well known and the matter clear, and the Hadith: “People from my Ummah will certainly consume liquor giving it some other name”, was authenticated, then there remained no excuse (for claiming liquor to be permissible). May Allah Ta’ala protect us and the Muslimeen from it (liquor).”
(Hujjatullaahil Baalighah – Shah Waliyullah Dehlawi)

THE CONVOLUTED FATWA
RUM IS ‘HALAAL’ 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 absolutely corrupt 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: (Absolutely baatil – baseless, false and stupid. Rasulullah – sallallahu alayhi wasallam – said that anything which intoxicates in big quantity, its small quantity too is haraam. – Mujlisul Ulama.)
1. It does not intoxicate.

2. It is not generally used by people who drink intoxicants. (In fact, 90% of all liquor is made from non-grape alcohol. It is this type of alcohol that is mostly used. The Mufti’s claim is baatil. –Mujlisul Ulama)
Rum, in drink form, is generally used by people who drink intoxicants, hence not permissible. (He is in contradiction of his condition No.2 – Mujlisul Ulama)

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. (Our refutation of this ghutha/rubbish claim will appear later in the ensuing pages, Insha-Allah. – Mujlisul Ulama).

The above answer is based on principle. If one abstains from such products, that is Taqwa. (End of the Mufti’s fatwa) – The answer is not based on any sound Shar’i principle. It is an answer sucked out from the nafs to appease the masses who indulge in devouring haraam. – Mujlisul Ulama)
OUR COMMENT

A ‘Halaal’ License For Rum And Brandy_booklet

 

 

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