Now that the severe and tremendous evil of Suwar (images/pictures) of animate objects has been clarified through the words of Hadhratayn, both of whom also uphold the Ijma’ (consensus) that whatever new means or technology are employed to produce Suwar of animate objects, they will still carry the very same ruling, let us demonstrate that the “Daleel” on which the two Muftiyayn have based the preposterous contention that digital Suwar are fake Suwar, is a non-existent Daleel that collapses and vanishes into thin air, under a scrutiny that does not last more than few paragraphs.

The primary “Daleel” of the venerable Muftiyayn, both of them, is the fact that digital Tasweer do not have the quality of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability).

Mufti Taqi Saheb states in this regard, in his manifestly ridiculous assertion that digital Suwar resemble a shadow more than they resemble non-digital Suwar (images/pictures):

“As for pictures which do not have durability [thabat] and stability [istiqraar] and are not drawn on something with lasting quality, they resemble more a shadow than they do pictures.”

And, Mufti Rafi Saheb states in his Fatwa:

“As for it not being a picture; because a picture in its true meaning, comes into existence when it is carved, drawn, or formed onto something with the quality of istiqraar (stability) and thabat (durability) in its existence…It therefore is apparent from this description that the images and scenes that appear on the screens do not have istiqraar or thabat, rather they appear and disappear in a second 60 times. This is the reason the digital image cannot be regarded as a ‘picture’ ‘surah’ in actuality.”

Take note of the distinctly conspicuous absence of even the slightest semblance of a Shari’ Daleel to substantiate the wholly arbitrary and fanciful claim that the level of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability) determines the Suwar-status of a Suwar (images/pictures). This fact, in itself, renders the Fatwa completely null and void. Any Fatwa that attempts to make an exception out of a particular form of Tasweer, or a particular form of music, or a particular form of alcohol, or a particular form of any other abominable evil, without proper Shari’ Daleel, renders the followers of such a Fatwa as those who “take gods besides Allah.”

In any case, let us play along with this Daleel-less claim of the venerable Muftiyayn and demonstrate that even their fanciful theory linking the level of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability) with the definition of a picture, falls apart completely and evaporates away into non-existence, when placed under the slightest scrutiny.

We ask the venerable Muftiyayn regarding a newly-invented machine that paints the picture of an animate object on a slate, and then wipes the slate clean after 10 minutes. Would such a picture fall under the category of Tasweer, despite the level of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability) only being 10 minutes?

According to the position of the venerable Muftiyayn as borne out by their Fatwas, they are bound to categorically declare as Haraam all such pictures (images) produced by this contraption.

Now we ask the ruling if we were to lower the level of “istiqraar” and “thabat” to a measly one minute. Would the images produced under the new setting carry the same ruling as those produced in the first scenario?

Again, the venerable Muftiyayn are bound to issue the same ruling of Hurmat (prohibition).

Now, let us further reduce the level of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability) of the paintings produced by this machine to the exact same level as what Mufti Rafi Saheb claims is the reason why digital Suwar (images/pictures) cease to become Suwar (images/pictures) here:

“It therefore is apparent from this description that the images and scenes that appear on the screens do not have stability nor durability, rather they appear and disappear in a second 60 times. This is the reason the digital image cannot be regarded as a ‘picture’ ‘soorah’ in actuality.”

Thus, let us adjust the setting of our newly-invented contraption to paint a life-like picture and wipe the slate clean every 1/60th of a second. That is, 60 paintings are painted and displayed in one second, by our unique, man-made contraption.

We ask the venerable Muftiyayn, what is the ruling of each one of the 60 paintings that are painted and wiped away?

If the venerable Muftiyayn are hesitant in answering, or issues a Halaal Fatwa for all those 60 life-like paintings that are clearly visible to the passer-by, we then ask: Why the hesitancy? Or, to what level do we need to raise the level of “istiqraar” and “thabat” back again, so that the hesitancy or Fatwa of Halaal dissolves away, and the previous Fatwa of Hurmat can be affirmed again as vehemently as in the first two scenarios? Perhaps if we were to raise the level of “istiqraar” and “thabat” back to, let’s say, 1 painting per minute, or 2 paintings per minutes, or 3 paintings per hour, etc. the hesitancy or Fatwa of Halaal will suddenly transform back to Haraam. The Muftiyayn will not be able to offer a clear and definitive answer to this question, nor will they be able to produce any Shari’ Daleel for any specific amount of “istiqraar” (stability) and “thabat” (durability) which would instantly transform a fake Soorah (image/picture) into a real Soorah.

We ask the venerable Muftiyayn regarding a special paint that only lasts for a limited time, before fading away. Again, what level of “istiqraar” or “thabat” does the painted picture need to have to be classed as real painted picture? And, what level of “istiqraar” or “thabat” causes the painted to cease to be a painted picture? And, what is the Shari’ basis for averring that painted pictures cease to be painted pictures in an issue which has been declared amongst the greatest of evils by the Shariah? Again, the venerable Muftiyayn will have no proper and consistent answers for any of the questions above.

The baselessness of the fanciful and wholly arbitrary theory of the venerable Muftiyayn is thus manifest. In reality, the venerable Muftiyayn have absolutely no Shari’ Daleel for their contention that it is the level of “istiqraar” (stability) or “thabat” (durability) that determines the Suwar-status of Suwar. They have no Shari’ Daleel for deriving a specific number of hours, minutes, or seconds of “istiqraar” or “thabat” which renders a picture, whatever the means of its creation, into a fake, fraudulent, and imposter picture.

Rather, it is manifestly clear that the “Daleel” of the venerable Muftiyayn is a fake, fraudulent and hallucinatory Daleel, unlike the Suwar-status of digital Suwar (images/pictures) of animate objects which is the most real, life-like, potent, and damaging form of Suwar ever to have been invented by man.

Falsehood spawns more falsehood. One absurdity leads to multiple absurdities. Hence, Mufti Rafi Saheb, in his Fatwa, is constrained to make the following absurd and false claim:

“Looking at the above mentioned difference between the actual picture and the figure that appears on the screen, the experts of this field have specified the difference in terminology also; where they have termed the figure captured by the photography camera as “Soorah” and the visible figure on a screen as an “Aks”.

The Arabic word in the original Fatwa of Mufti Rafi Saheb is “Aks” which has been erroneously translated by the translator as “image”. “Aks” means “reflection”. No expert in the world, not even a so-called one, ever calls the Suwar (images/pictures) on television screens, computer screens, phone screens, etc. “reflections”. Rather, BOTH the words “pictures” and “images” are employed interchangeably and liberally as borne out by even a perfunctory reading of the writings of experts on digital pictography. Something is truly amiss with a Fatwa that makes such ridiculously false averments as the ones above, and something is even more amiss with the droves of Muftis and Maulanas who simply regurgitate such absurdities as if they are the gospel truth, simply because such Fatwas conform to their base desires.

Regarding such Daleel-less Fatwas of misguidance whose absurdity, incongruity, and falsity is manifest, and which are identical in status to Daleel-less Fatwas today that claim that music produced electronically is no longer the music prohibited in the Ahadith, or that alcohol produced chemically is no longer alcohol, or that perceived “benefits” or widespread prevalence of an abominable evil can transform it into Halaal, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Whosoever has issued a Fatwa which was not substantiated correctly, then the burden of sin will be upon the one who issued the Fatwa.”

Prior to these worst of eras in which the Halaalizers of Haraam started abounding aplenty, the sanctity of the prohibition of pictures of all animate objects was deeply entrenched and a strongly embedded belief in the hearts of the Muslim masses in general.

For the grave evil of Halaalizing what Allah has made Haraam, and for the hundreds of millions of Muslims for whom this deeply embedded sanctity of prohibition would have been a normally insurmountable stumbling block for Shaytaan to lure them eventually into addiction to pornography, into addiction to social media Zina, into addiction to films and television, into addiction to video games, into addiction to Kuffaar sports idolatry, and into addiction to countless other evils which are EXCLUSIVELY available through the means of digital form of Suwar (images/pictures) only, a terrible and unimaginably weighty burden of sins will have to be borne by ALL those who have contributed, whether actively or in silent condonation, towards the propagation and implementation of such Baatil, Daleel-less Fatwas that Halaalize the abominable evil of Tasweer in its most potent form.

“And upon us is only to convey (the Haqq)” (Qur’an)

11 Sha’baan 1444 – 4 March 2023




Irked by the stupidity of the argument of Mufti Taqi in his futile attempt to bolster his flaccid and flapdoodle fatwa of the permissibility of digital pictures, a Sister from Pakistan posed the following question to him:


Muhtaram Janaab Taqi Sahib!     Assalamu Alaikum

With your fatwa you have made pictures lawful (jaaiz). According to your fatwa, the digital picture is a reflection, hence permissible. According to my understanding, a reflection relates to the object. As long as the person or object is present, the reflection will remain in the medium in which it is reflected. The reflection will disappear immediately with the removal of the object/person, for example, the reflection in a mirror. The reflected image immediately disappears with the removal of the object.

Now what type of reflection is this digital ‘reflection’ which is retained (even after disappearance of the person/object), and could be reproduced at will and fancy, e.g. U-tube, Facebook and other Dajjaali social media which present all these ‘reflections’ as pictures?

The bayaans (i.e. with the pictures) of the Ulama, Muftis and Buzrugs are all preserved. Night and day these are being viewed. Kindly answer my question.


Our fatwa is not that the digital picture is a reflection. Our fatwa is that prior to the printing of the digital picture on paper, etc., it resembles a reflection on the screen, etc. where it does not have permanency. Therefore there is no incumbency for the definition of reflection or for all the features of a reflection to apply to this (i.e. the image on the screen).

It should be clear that according to the respected seniors of Darul Uloom Karachi and many Ulama and respected Muftis of other countries, the haqeeqat (reality/nature) of the digital picture is that it is neither Bi-aynihi (per se) a true picture nor Bi-aynihi a true reflection because a true picture is engraved on a surface and it is preserved with permanency on that surface.

Also, it is not a reflection Bi-aynihi because the reflection is subservient to the reflected object. Now when the digital picture is not subservient to the reflected object, but could be reproduced without the reflected object, it will not be a reflection Bi-aynihi (per se). However, it has a greater resemblance with a reflection than with a picture. That is why we say that it has a greater resemblance with a reflection.

Shah Muhammad Tafaddhul Ali

Affirmed by the Mufti of Daarul Ifta Jaami’ Daarul Uloom Karachi

(Mufti Taqi Usmani)

(End of Mufti Taqi’s fatwa)


Indeed this weird fatwa is bizarre in the sphere of skulduggery and humbug. The ludicrous idea that the image appearing on a television screen or any similar media screen is neither a picture nor a reflection is a shaitaani view urinated into the brains of these miscreant, wayward Karongi Muftis to provide them with a straw for presenting as a ‘daleel’ to further hoodwink and bamboozle the ignorant masses and the ulama-e-soo’ who have latched onto Mufti Taqi’s baatil haraam halaalization of haraam pictography.

Labelling the haraam television/video pictures as ‘digital’, Mufti Taqi has shamelessly, blatantly and most insincerely halaalized a shaitaani act, namely Tasweer Saazi (pictography) which the Shariah has made haraam on the basis of explicit Nusoos of absolute certitude (Qat’iyyat).

It is indeed satanic to fabricate the irrational and stupid, hybrid ‘reflection-picture’ phenomenon simply to provide ‘daleel’ for Mufti Taqi’s view of permissibility which has thrown open the floodgates of pornography and immorality. It is indeed an insult to intelligence and a mockery of their own brains to forge and fraud this stupid, illogic and totally untenable proposition of the hybrid phenomenon. No man of Aql-e-Saleem will ever accept this ludicrous and stupid phenomenon which has existence in only the hallucination of these Muftis. Due to the absolute moronity of this concept, we are constrained to ask these Karongi Muftis, including Mufti Taqi: Kiya dimaagh kharaab ho gaya? What are your brains vermiculated?

Their argument is pure nonsense and absolutely coprophilic. They stupidly and satanically claim that prior to the printing of the digital image on a surface, e.g. paper, it resembles a reflection. Thus, they are constrained to concede that this hallucinated reflection is transformed into a haraam picture once it is given permanency on a surface of any medium, enabling the reproduction of the image.

Note well that in her Istiftaa’ (question) the Sister asks firstly about the reproduced picture, that is the picture created by the digital process. It is not the process or method of production which is in question. The issue is the picture. Hence, regardless of the method by which the picture is created it remains haraam tasweer. Now, whether the image is made by pen, brush, sculping, photography, the digital process or any other means yet to be invented, it will be a haraam picture if it is of an animate object.

In another Istiftaa’ which shall, Insha-Allah, form the subject for another article, the Sister asked these miscreant Muftis whether it is at all permissible for females to look at the snouts of the molvis and muftis appearing on youtube and facebook regardless of the image on the screen being a picture or a reflection. In that Istiftaa’ too, she truncated the Muftis and drove them into a corner of confusion from which extrication is impossible.

Even the kuffaar who are the manufacturers of this process of digital pictures will mock at the stupidity of the hybrid reflection-picture concept of these silly muftis who have are making a laughing stock of themselves with their weird, irrational and stupid concept. How can a picture be part reflection and part picture at one and the same time? The image in a mirror or in water is never a picture in the meaning of the term given by the Shariah. Yes, even the reflection in the mirror is haraam to view if haraam factors are present, e.g. the image of a ghair mahram female/male or the depiction of nudity and the like.

Thus, if we too should momentarily descend into the pits of jahaalat to accept that even the reproduced image on the internet screen is NOT a picture, then too, it is not possible for the most stupid, moron, maajin mufti to claim that looking at pornography on the video/internet screens is permissible. Just as viewing obscenity and pornography in a mirror is haraam, so too, in fact to a higher degree, will it be haraam on these Ibleesi and Dajjaali social media platforms.

It  should be well understood, and for which understanding, much brainpower is not a requisite, that all digital images on computer/video screens are haraam pictures in the meaning of the Shariah regardless of whether these screen images are produced digitally or by the phenomenon of reflection, and whether the show on the screen is live or ‘dead’. The hurmat is the same.

Let it also be understood that the image on the screen is NEVER a reflection even in a live show. While in the mirror one views a true reflection of the object, on the screen which may be thousands of miles from the screened object/person, it is not the reflection of the latter. It is a true picture produced after the image of the object is preserved in whatever contraption and method devised for this purpose.

The moron molvi is not standing infront of the screen for his image to be reflected thereon. His image is secured thousands of miles away in a device, then reproduced to form the picture which is transmitted with extreme speed to be reproduced at the receiving end for depiction on the screen. So these muftis of Karongi should go to the zoo and try to convince some baboons of their hybrid reflection-picture theory which places the seal on the khataabiyyat (vermiculation) of their dimaagh (brains).

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had predicted that in the era in close proximity to Qiyaamah, Muslims will halaalize liquor with fancy names. This prediction may be extended to other haraam acts and practices halaalized by the zigzag muftis who are experts in the Ibleesi art of issuing zigzag fatwas to bamboozle the ignorant and the unwary.

Insha-Allah, the other Istiftaa’ of the Sister and baatil fatwa of Mufti Taqi shall be discussed in another article.

6 Sha’baan 1444 – 27 February 2023


Posted on 




Mufti Taqi’s adept with words, such that he retains plausibility in the eyes of the gullible masses. The Molvis that follow him are worse. They are blinded by loyalty as opposed to gullibility. Their studying of Deen for 7 years did not imbue them with the requisite Taqwa to see through the loopholes of his words.

For example, when Mufti Taqi says it is “inappropriate how much the Ulema are using digital cameras for taking photos.” This is not condemnation. It is implied permission by using the phraseology of “how much?” So he mixes some haq with batil & feeds the public a poisonous concoction, & he has a history of it from home finance to Covid.

If I sat & read his so-called “fatawa” on a number of pressing issues, I could spot multiple examples of the dilly dallying & zigzagging such as the one above.

Let’s take another example to reiterate the point. How can he say on the one hand that the Masajid should be protected from photography (implied prohibition) & also state that it is separate maslah whether photography is included in the ruling of Tasweer (tenuously implying potential permission). So the photography is not good in the Masjid, but it’s ok outside the Masjid? If it was not a serious issue, it would make great comedy.

I would have “credited” him with being  but he is so poor at deception that he hasn’t acquired “mastery” in that field.

His followers are not anymore adept than he is. They resort to saying Mufti Taqi saw Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam in a dream as if this is regarded as Shar’i proof of his authenticity. We live in times where the masses swallow anything they are told. (After all, most of them injected themselves with najasat at the behest of their najis masters, so it shouldn’t really be a surprise).

Back in the day Mufti Taqi was at the forefront of legitimising interest by using fancy Arabic terminology. The Ulama lauded his fatawa as “academia.” Conveniently, this is a phrase that it is used in matters of dunya too, in order to shut up the masses from questioning the legitimacy of “professional views.”

Anyone who took out the home finance or similar packages was left bewildered as to how in practice the transaction was a mirror image of an interest-based one. In fact the payments were higher in some cases than an interest-based transaction. The Hadith mentions that alcohol will be consumed under a different name. Presumably this Hadith can be extrapolated for other sins, including interest. Change interest to Ijara & there you have it. A house that is valued at £140000 suddenly became twice that over a fixed period with fluctuating payments.

Abu Huraira Radiallahu Anhu reported: Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “A time will come upon people in which they will consume usury.” It was said, “All of the people?” He Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “Whoever does not consume it will be affected by its dust.”

Mufti Taqi was the enabler to this.

We are approaching Qiyamah quickly where the Hadith comes to mind: “The worst of the people under the canopy of the sky will be their ulama. From them will gush fitnah & (the fitnah) will rebound on them.”

As a lay person I always advise others to adopt caution when seeking guidance from Ulama nowadays. Reputation amongst the masses or even amongst the “Ulama” is not proof of authenticity, as gauged by the above Hadith. One could have studied at Deoband, but nowadays it seemingly makes no difference. We’re not in the era of Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah Alayh) or other such luminaries where blind following would almost certainly lead you down the right path. Caution is required.

Nowadays we have quacks telling us if you put the face mask on the right ear first & then the left, you’ll get thawaab. The next retrograde step is to tell us to consume alcohol with the right hand as it’s Sunnah. People study Bukhari by such individuals. So what else can one expect of their students? And yet in true zombi fashion, the masses flock to such “Shaykul Hadiths” & “Muftis.” A zombie will do what a zombie does, no matter what explanation is given.

Nowadays, anyone with a semblance of Imaani fervour should adopt the Hadith which to the nearest effect states that sin is that which irks your conscience. A “Mufti” may give jawaz for something, but nowadays they give “jawaz” for anything hiding behind fancy terminology like dharoorah and umum balwa. I have seen fatawas about non-compulsory insurance using such terminology. Isn’t interesting that they never fully expand on these concept and when they are applicable?

Over the years I have grown wise to these shenanigans and I’m extremely careful who I take Deeni Ilm from.

May Allah Ta’ala protect and grant us maut with Imaan.

3 Sha’baan 1444 – 24 February 2023


Posted on 



Himself overwhelmed now by the deluge of evil – pornography, video vice, internet vice, fisq and fujoor in the wake of his halaalization of pictography on the extremely stupid, fallacious and satanic basis  that digital pictures are not prohibited pictures – prohibited by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Mufti Taqi Sahib lamented:

“I received your letter in my office today. Your concern and your worry are the sign of your deeni upbringing. May Allah Ta’ala increase it, and may He grant us a similar concern and worry, Aameen. (This is his response to someone who had questioned him regarding digital pictography and its evils –The Majlis).

The reality of the matter is that I cannot count how many times I have mentioned on how many different forums that it is completely inappropriate how much the Ulema are using digital cameras for taking photos.

(The glut of ulama-e-soo’ are deaf to the ‘many times’ you now speak about. They only remember that you are their IMAAM in this sphere – in the sphere of initiating their haraam so-called ‘islamic television stations and haraam video depictions, and their portrayal of their ugly snouts on social media –The Majlis).

It is separate maslah whether this itself is included in the ruling of Tasweer (drawing) or not. (Mufti Sahib! You LIE. This is NOT a separate mas’alah. You may befuddle and befool morons. You cannot dupe intelligent persons – both Muslims and kuffaar – with your absolutely putrid stupid ‘daleel’ that digital picture-making is not Tasweer. Only those driven to shaitaani insanity and enslaved to their carnal nafs accept that PICTURES are not pictures. Your argument is similar to the argument of Christians who claim that three gods equal one god and vice versa. There is absolutely no logic, no rational argument in your flapdoodle, flaccid daleel which even baboons scoff at. –The Majlis)

However, it’s excessive usage and especially for the wrong purposes is something I too, am concerned about.

(Your concern is hollow and insincere. You are the forerunner in the avalanche of evil you have created for this Ummah with your shaitaani halaalization of digital pictography. Were you so short-sighted and so dim in the mind to fail to understand that by halaalization of digital tasweer-saazi you would be opening the floodgates of haraam, fisq and fujoor, especially for the ulama-e-soo’? Assuming that your Aql genuinely dictated to you that digital pictography is not Tasweer-saazi, then too, as a senior Mufti were you not aware of the Usool of the Shariah designed to close the avenue of fitnah and sin? Are you not aware of the principle of Sadd-e-Baab lil Fitnah? What did you learn at Madrasah? You have authored so many kitaabs on different branches of Shar’i Uloom, yet you have miserably failed to comprehend the disasters and dangers of opening the Baab of Fitnah, fisq and fujoor with your halaalization of Tasweer. –The Majlis)

I was the one who brought up this maslah at the last Wifaq ul Madaaris gathering and I told the people that they should protect the Masaajid and Madaaris from photography. Thus, this message was conveyed to all Madaaris and Masaajid from Wifaq with my name.

(Now that you are on the threshold of the Qabr, you bring up this topic, when this evil was practiced by the Ulama in most places since many decades when you had issued the haraam license pertaining to photography, video and digital Satanism. Your lament rings hollow. Fear Allah Ta’ala! Rectify your wrongs before it is too late for regret – before Malakul Maut stares you in the face! Did you not understand that your halaalization of Tasweer, be it in your ‘halaal’ form, will pollute the Musaajid and the Madaaris? You wake up only now after many decades of zulm on the Deen, zulm on the Ummah and betrayal of Allah Azza Wa Jal and His Rasool (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). –The Majlis)

And, Alhamdulillah, this had an effect to a certain extent and now the Masaajid and Madaaris follow the guidelines of Wifaq and they have left photography.

(While it is never too late to repent and beg Allah Ta’ala for forgiveness, what you are saying here is no feather in your cap. To which Musaajid and Madaaris are you referring? You can only speak of Musaajid and Madaaris connected to Wifaaq in Pakistan. What about the thousands of other Musaajid and Madaaris all over the world who have all along cited you as their IMAAM regarding the halaalization of digital Taswee-saazi on the basis of which they have introduced even television and video  right into the Musaajid and Madaaris. The damage and harm you have caused the Ummah with your haraam legalization of digital pictography is irreparable. It cannot be rectified. There is no longer hope. Your colossal villainy is like that of Qaabil. Assuming that Qaabil resorts to Taubah, it will not save him from the consequences and the punishment of millions of murderers until the Day of Qiyaamah. Your halaalization of digital tasweer-saazi will be a legacy. It will be inherited by the ulama-e-soo’ and the jaahil masses until the Day of Qiyaamah.

 Whilst this is the fearful state of the bizarre consequences you have created, there is still hope for you because Allah Ta’ala is Raheem, Ghafoor and Kareem.

Repent publicly. Retract unconditionally your error and daily engage in Istighfaar before Maut claims you. –The Majlis)

Moulana Hanif Sahib would appear in photos a lot, now he too, has brought an end to it and lessened it.

(What incongruity is this? Has Maulana Hanif Sahib abandoned Tasweer? Has he retracted? What is meant by him having “brought photography to an end”, and by him “having lessened it”? Did he abandon the evil haraam practice of pictures or did he only decrease the commission of the sin? If it is the latter, then you are speaking drivel. He will still be in his haraam rut. – The Majlis)

And whichever gathering I am in, and in it photography takes place, I inform the people to stop it. I do not know how many upon how many forums I’ve made this clear.

(It is too little and too late for this little. You have to climb on to the hill tops to proclaim your grievous error and to retract and to repent. Your villainous misdeed of having halaalized Tasweer-saazi is not a private sin of which people are not aware. You are their IMAAM in this haraam. The Kaffaarah must be commensurate with the crimes you have committed. No matter how much you will endeavour to proclaim the Haqq even from the hill tops, never will you be able to undo the massive damage you have caused to the Ummah. Nevertheless, nothing short of hill-top proclamation is expected from you. –The Majlis)

Not only have we banned mobile devices that can take cameras in our Darul Uloom, recently some students who were caught with such mobile phones have been expelled. We denied them admission for this year for this reason even though they were final year students.

(While this is all so good for your Darul Uloom, the core issue remains. Your students are still labouring under the shaitaani misconception of the hillat of digital tasweer-saazi. It was your stupid, absurd and haraam fatwa that had encouraged them to bring the shaitaani devices into the Madaaris and Musaajid.

Now, your own students will not attach much importance to the action you have taken, that is, expelling them. In fact, they will have an aversion for you. They will interpret your action as being inconsistent and incongruous. – The Majlis)

The reason for this is that firstly this maslah is one in which the ulema have a difference of opinion, and it is best for a person to practice upon that which is more cautious in such masaail.

(This is your momentous LIE to cover up your most grievous and disastrous error of having halaalized a practice for which there exists not the slightest scope of permissibility. Who are the Ulama-e-Haqq who have halaalized this confirmed HARAAM practice? A difference which seeks to make inroads into an Absolute Haraam – made haraam by Qat’i Dalaa-il, is not a valid difference of opinion. There are today shaitaani molvis and sheikhs who have halaalized riba and carrion. We have a devil in our midst, namely one reverend Abraham Bham, who follows you. For him worshipping under crosses in a church is halaal. Besides this, many other clear-cut haraam acts are permissible for him and his cronies. Such satanic differences disgorged and excreted by these agents of Iblees do not become valid Ikhtilaaf in the Deen simply because these rubbishes happen to be molvis and sheikhs. –The Majlis)

Secondly, the sanctity of Masaajid and Madaaris demands that usage of camera and photography in such places is very bad.

(Did you not understand this fact when you had embarked on the process of halaalizing tasweer-saazi? Could your Aql not understand that as far as the masses are concerned that they would fall into massive cauldrons of vice via pictures, video and television even if we should momentarily and stupidly assume that digital pictures are not pictures? Could you as a senior Mufti who jets about the world, not understand that whether pornography is by means of haraam pictures or your ‘halaal’ digital pictures, it will have the same shaitaani and disastrous effects on the Akhlaaq and Imaan of Muslims? What had constrained you to refrain from applying your Aql to the floodgates of evil and vice which would be opened by your halaalization of digital pictures even assuming that such haraam pictures are halaal as you have so much laboured to prove? –The Majlis)

I have said these things multiple times, and I’ve also expressed it in writing form in multiple places, in multiple Fataawa I have made it clear. As for people using it for the wrong reasons, which has become very common, this is a sorrowful reality.

(Yes, it is a sorrowful reality which you have illegitimately given birth to. What business did you have in the very first place to forge and fraud dalaa-il to halaalize digital pictures. Even if you had sincerely believed that such pictures are halaal as a result of shaitaani influence, then too could you not understand the fitnah which will flood when you open the gates for it with your haraam fatwa of digital pictures being halaal? The clarity you now speak of is simply hot air and meaningless. No one takes notice now of what you are saying in this regard. They only took notice of your halaalization of digital pictures and extravated maximum haraam carnal lustful capital on the basis of your fatwa. –The Majlis)

And those who use it in such a manner do not do so on the basis of any fatwa, rather they do so based on their souls desires.

(Yes, this is quite true. People in reality are the muqallideen of their nafs. But in the context of pictography, the ulama-e-soo’ required some flimsy basis for fulfilling their carnal desires. Since they themselves are generally too stupid to formulate even deceptive arguments to substantiate their carnal lusts, they grabbed hold of your fatwa. It was a golden opportunity for them to initiate their so-called ‘islamic’ televisions and to make use of all the haraam shaitaani internet media. You had opened the avenue for all the fitnah. – The Majlis)

Therefore, the only solution to this is that the fear of Allah Ta’ala be instilled in the hearts of people, and an effort be made to instil within people the reality of being held accountable before Allah Ta’ala in the Aakhirah. We are currently doing this to our ability, and Insha-Allah we will do this in the future as well. May Allah Ta’ala reward you well for this notification. Was Salaam.

From: Mufti Taqi Uthmani.

(You have to firstly apply this advice to yourself. Make some Muraaqab-e-Maut and take a Hisaab of your misdeeds of a lifetime. It is not confined to only digital pictures. There are the riba banks, the violation of Purdah, your participation in the fisq and fujoor independenceday practices of Pakistan, your association with fussaaq and kuffaar governments, etc. All these infractions are public matters. Come clean, Mufti Taqi Sahib! There is still a chance. We shall soon publish a fatwa of Mufti Taqi – a fatwa which clearly indicates that the claims and advices proffered by him in this article ring hollow. His fatwa testifies to the fact that he has still not understood the colossal harm to the Ummah caused by his haraam halaalization of digital pictography. May Allah Ta’ala protect us all against the evils of our nafs and the snares of Iblees. – The Majlis)

======================= ———————– =======================


The muftis of this era, including the so-called senior ones, are of the kind known as maajin. They have ulterior designs. They look this way and that way, but not Allah’s way. They seek the pleasure of people and this is motivated by Hubbud Dunya (Love for this World) which is the determining factor for their zigzag fatwas. They are enslaved to the nafs. That is why they are so extremely short-sighted.

Even a very senior Mufti such as Mufti Taqi hopelessly misreads the situations which require fatwas. His vision is clouded with intellectual myopism, hence he miserably fails to foresee the disastrous consequences of the reckless zigzag fatwas he issues. Consider this very fatwa pertaining to digital pictures. It is indeed mind boggling from the Shar’i perspective, that such a senior Mufti has failed to understand that even if the production of pictures by the digital process is not Tasweer-saazi in the meaning of the Hadith, then too whatever are the effects of pictures prohibited by Allah Ta’ala will most assuredly also be the consequences of digital pictures. In fact, the consequences as are seen today by all and sundry and conceded by even Mufti Taqi, are worse.

For the masses the concern is the picture. They want pornography and picture-filth. This satanic craving is fulfilled to a greater degree by digital pictures than still, motionless pictures or pictures produced by other means. Why did Mufti Taqi not foresee that he would be opening a huge floodgate for picture-filth and immorality by giving scope and latitude with his stupid and baseless technical argument given to digital pictures?

It is not permissible for a Mufti to proffer such technicalities to the masses which will later open up the avenue for fitnah. More than half a century ago, in about 1970, Hadhrat Masihullah (Rahmatullah alayh), our Ustaadh and Shaikh, had visited South Africa. The question of television was raised. Today’s computer/internet media had not existed. It was still a time when all Muslims, the masses and even the ulama-e-soo’, believed that television was haraam. Even those Muslims who were secretly viewing television, hiding it in their homes, understood that the Eye of Dajjaal was haraam.

Technically, the wooden box itself is not haraam. It could be utilized for beneficial purposes without displaying haraam pictures. Thus, technically, television is classed Hurmat Lighayrih, i.e. haraam due to other factors. Technically, it is not Hurmat Liainih, i.e. haraam per se. In his talk on this subject, Hadhrat Masihullah told the Ulama not to touch on the lighairih and liainih technical aspects. They should simply proclaim that television is Naa-Jaaiz (not permissible). Hadhrat’s advice was due to his foresight. His finger was on the pulse of the Ummah.

The masses who are generally worshippers of their nafs, although not as evil as the ulama-e-soo’, will not understand the technical differences. Their nafs will constrain them to understand that television is permissible. The Lighayrih dimension will be furthest from their minds.

When they are informed that an act is Makrooh, they force themselves to satanically resort to Istikhfaaf of the hukm. Despite the consequences of both Haraam and Makrooh Tahrimi being the Fire of Jahannam, the jaahil molvis have diluted the meaning of Makrooh to such an extent that the masses now believe that it is ‘okay’ to commit a Makrooh, but better to abstain.

The worst disaster for the Ummah is the villainy and destruction to Akhlaaq and Imaan created by the molvis and muftis of this era.

2 Sha’baan 1444 – 23 February 2023


Is it permissible for women to look at the picture of any Aalim, Shaikh or Buzrug whose gives talks on YouTube, television and other social media platforms? All of these buzrugs are na-mahaarem for the women?
If there is no fear of fitnah or lust then it is permissible for women to look at a video-talk of a reliable Aalim/Shaikh. But, since fitnah cannot be initially assessed, it is therefore precautionary for women not to look at the pictures when listening to the lecturer.
(End of the corrupt fatwa)

The aforementioned ‘fatwa’ to the question posed by a Pakistani lady, was issued by the darul ifta of Mufti Taqi. Every Muslim with healthy Imaan regardless of him/her lacking in Islamic Knowledge can understand the stupidity and invalidity of this corrupt fatwa.
Mufti Taqi is a halaalizer of haraam pictography, hence he and his darul ifta are in tight spots when such questions are posed. In seeking to wriggle out of the tight corner, these muftis adopt stupid fence-sitting stances which highlight the silliness and butlaan (invalidity) of the ‘fatwas’ which they disgorge by way of sucking their thumbs.
Firstly, the Qur’aan Majeed prohibits men and women looking at one another. “Say to the Mu’minaat to lower their gaze and to guard their chastity……” (An-Nur, Aayat 31). The first step towards zina (fornication/adultery) is the look, hence the Qur’aan prohibits looking without restrictive conditions. That is: it is haraam to look regardless of the assumption that the look is without lust. That the look is without lust is a shaitaani hallucination of the nafs. The Qur’aanic command is not abrogated on the basis of the hallucination of the look not being accompanied by lust.
The Qur’aan commands: “Do not come near to zina.” The look takes one near, very near to zina. In all cases, at least zina of the mind and heart is the first effect of the look. Even the moron mufti acknowledges in his fatwa that the Ihtiyaat (safety/precaution) necessitates abstention from looking.
Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that the zina of the eyes is in looking… and the heart desires (zina).” But this wayward mufti says that it is permissible. Furthermore, he compounds his haraam, baatil fatwa with the kufr of pictures. Thus, the sin is a compounded double one: The sin of looking, and the kufr sin of believing that the haraam picture is halaal, and deceitfully encouraging women to stare at the ugly snouts of the so-called ‘buzrugs’ who advertise themselves on the worst kind of haraam media such as youtube, facebook and the like.
As far as the prohibition of looking is concerned, the Fuqaha have ruled that if one is aroused by looking even at one’s mahram female, e.g. niece, aunt, etc., then looking at her is forbidden. In one Hadith it is mentioned: “Every eye is adulterous.”
Despite the mas’alah being so palpably clear, the mufti befogs it with his stupid nafsaani answer because he is in a quandary stemming from his halaalizing of pictures.
The correct fatwa is simple and straightforward: Pictures are haraam. It is haraam for women to look at the ugly faces of the stupid molvis, shaikhs and crank buzrugs who appear on the satanic media screens. The sin is of an aggravated kind.


“Difaaul Ulama International” STUPIDITY OF A STUPID BUNCH


“Difaaul Ulama International”


In a purportedly ‘open letter’ addressed to Maulana Abdul Hamid Saheb, Principal of Darul Uloom Azaadville, an anonymous NNB jamiat clique of a couple of cowards dubbing themselves Difaaul Ulama International, proffer an array of stupid and spurious claims in their tirade of baseless criticism againt Maulana Abdul Hamid in particular, and against the Ulama-e-Haq in general.

While this miserable, unknown group of miscreant molvis dub themselves with a high-sounding epithet, they portray manifest cowardice by not providing even an e-mail. What type of ‘international’ ulama entity can this group of epistasis and infosoria wallowing in their decadent infusions of fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr be the cowards, while presenting grandiose stupidities, display their abject fear the Haq by seeking refuge in a fortress of total anonymity, failing to provide even an e-mail. The morons state in their stupid article:

“We, the members of Difaaul Ulama International…….” If you morons are an ‘international gang of ulama’, who are they? You cowards have made an assault against Maulana Abdul Hamid. You mention his name and you proffer spurious and stupid arguments to assail his Shar’i stances, yet you conceal your names and your fear for the clobbering rebuffs of the Haqq which has constrained you to slink in the darkness of an anonymity of a cowardly kind. An ‘international conglomerate of ulama’, but not even an e-mail!!! This by itself is indicative of your baatil and jahaalat.

Let us now commence the demolition of the spurious and stupid arguments of this miserable gang of miscreants.

Mufti Taqi is their primary patron and leader in fisq, fujoor and haraam. The first point in the stupid litany of the stupid miscreants is their defense of Mufti Taqi.

We say with emphasis that Mufti Taqi has deviated from Siraatul Mustaqeem in a variety of ways. Most certainly he is in a head-on-clash with his noble father, Hadhrat Mufti Muhammad Shafi (Rahmatullah alayh). Taqi Sahib’s halaalization of pictography is a total rejection of Mufti Shafi by Taqi Sahib. The technical arguments of the difference in the methods of producing pictures is spurious and stupid. It is a satanic inspiration urinated into Taqi Sahib’s brains by Iblees. Even a child laughs and mocks at the stupid arguments proffered in condonation of the method of digital production of pictures.

This article is not for presenting the arguments of the Haq against the stupidities of Taqi Sahib and his cronies. Several booklets and articles have been published in which every moronic technicality and spurious ‘daleel’ of Taqi has been thoroughly demolished. These booklets are available. In brief, his claim that a digital picture is not a haraam picture is a stupid, shaitaani idolum whispered into his mind by shaitaan.

Taqi Sahib, in addition to his kufr of halaalizing haraam pictures, is guilty of fisq and fujoor. His embrace of and subservience to the kuffaar riba capitalist bankers have completely deranged his brains. He thus comes within the purview of the Qur’aanic Aayat which states that those who deal in riba “stand like one who has been driven to madness by the touch of shaitaan (Takhabbutush Shaitaan)”.

Taqi Sahib has brought disgrace to himself and to the Deen by bootlicking the riba capitalists for the dollars. He is one of the prime scholars for dollars. The lucre and boodle are the primary concerns of all scholars for dollars whose primary job is to churn out fatwas of jawaaz (permissibility) for the haraam products of the capitalist riba-guzzling bankers. His embrace of the capitalist bankers whose products he legalizes in lieu of the tens of thousands of dollars on the basis of a garble of spurious interpretations of the masaa-il, in particular of the Maaliki Math-hab, designed as cover for his haraam legalizations, added to his halaalization of pictography, nails him securely to the gibbet of takfeer. Ulama-e-Haqq readily understand the gibberish and rubbish of his spurious “dalaa-il”.

His brazen and blatant participation in the fisq and kufr Independence Day celebrations of Napakistan and his flagrant violation of hijaab by conversing with a kaafirah journalist are some of the facets which confirm his fisq and fujoor.

His emulous imitation of the West is more than adequately displayed at his madrasah where he has abolished the Sunnah style of eating and the Sunnah style of teaching the Kutub of the Deen in the manner we have inherited from the Salafus Saaliheen. His daarul hadith class has been converted into a stupid and laughable circus. It is a circus because despite his emulous attempts to cloak the madrasah with the nonsense he has observed in Oxford or Cambridge, he has miserably failed to accord dignity to his daarul hadith. It should be understood that while ‘nonsense’ is befitting for Oxford and Cambridge, and while nonsense does bestow a mundane dignity to these kuffaar institutions, it brings nothing but disgrace and stupidity to Muslims who bootlick and follow the Yahood and Nasaara right into “the lizard’s hole”.

Whatever Maulana Abdul Hamid said regarding the prohibition of digital picture-making and his comments on Taqi Sahib are 100% correct. Most certainly there is no view of permissibility. Those who claim permissibility for haraam pictography which includes the digital form, are not of the Ulama-e-Haq. They are of the ulama-e-soo’, hence their spurious, nafsaani views are of absolutely no Shar’i purport. Most certainly they are guilty of a major crime akin to kufr. Yes, they all are fussaaq. Yes, it is correct that they should resort to Taubah and publicly issue retractions of their corrupt, haraam, baatil views.

In their nonsensical article, the morons of this stupid ‘international’ body of phantoms ask: “Those Ulama and ministers of Islamic Governments (e.g. the leaders of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) that appear on YouTube and other channels to defend Islam and Muslims – are we to say that, according to Molana’s Bayaan, they all are perpetrators of Haraam and are Faasiq and Faajir?”

There is absolutely no conundrum on this score. Most certainly they all are FUSSAAQ and FUJJAAR. Furthermore, the morons of this phantom entity have no idea of the meaning of an Islamic Government. Today there is not a single Islamic government on earth. All governments of all Muslim countries with the single exception of the Taliban, are not only faasiq and faajir. They are KUFFAAR. They have abolished the Shariah. How can they be ‘Islamic Governments’ as claimed by the clique of moron NNB scoundrels parading under the fiction of difaaul ulama international.

While the Taliban have as yet not entered into the domain of kufr by abolishing the Shariah, it is also among the bootlickers of the kuffaar. The Taliban too are confirmed fussaaq and kuffaar. Their bootlicking the kuffaar has driven them into the camp of the fussaaq and fujjaar. They have betrayed Islam and the Ummah. They have betrayed Allah Ta’ala and Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). There is no gainsaying in this incontrovertible fact and reality which stares us all in the face. Only those who opt for deliberate blindness in their pursuit of worldly objectives will deny this reality.

The difference which the Ulama-e-Haq have with the likes of Taqi Saheb are not of the category known as Ijtihaadi. The views of Taqi Sahib and his likes on this issue are tantamount to kufr. Their view is the product of deliberate convolution of the brains, which has dumped them into a cesspool of iniquity comprising of fisq, fujoor and kufr. The degree of desensitization of their Imaan has made their glaring facets of fisq and fujoor impalpable for them. They brains are clogged and blocked, hence they fail to see the glaring kufr of their kufr view. All their spurious arguments are bereft of Shar’i substance. Bootlickers always philander with Iblees. This is the effect of the circumfluence of the filth of western liberalism whose every facet of life is being incorporated into Muslim society on the basis of the baseless arguments presented by the bootlicking ulama-e-soo’ with its incremental membership of reverends of the munaafiq category.

The miserable ‘international’ conglomerate of morons mentions ‘Islamic Governments’ and gives as an example Afghanistan. Should we momentarily assume that the government in Afghanistan is Islamic (although this is not the factual reality), which other Muslim land has an Islamic government? The morons have claimed that there are such governments. Who are they? Where are they? Which Muslim country today has a government which governs by the Shariah? It is a monstrous and a satanic LIE to utter the notoriety of the existence of an Islamic Government in any Muslim country today. Every government in every Muslim country is the arch enemy of Islam. The entire Shariah has been abolished. All of them are confirmed kuffaar and murtaddeen.

Yes, most certainly, the Aayat of the Qur’aan Majeed: “Do not confuse the Haq with baatil”, does apply to Taqi Sahib and to all other modernist members of the ulama-e-soo’ clique. The reverends in this group are adept in the satanic art known as Talbeesul Iblees.

The morons wish Muslims to believe that Taqi Sahib and others of his liberal ilk are ‘mujtahids’. This is indeed a laughable stupidity of extreme absurdity.

The age of the Mujtahideen has terminated many many centuries ago. Informing us of the ending of the age of the Mujtahideen, our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Verily, the noblest of you are my Sahaabah; then those after them (the Taabieen); then those after them (the Tabe-e-Taabieen). Thereafter KIZB (falsehood/lies) will become prevalent.”

Thus, the cut-off date for Ijtihaad and the repositories of Ijtihaad, i.e. the Ammah Mujtahideen, has coincided with the termination of the era of Khairul Quroon. Moron, maajin muftis and so-called ‘grand muftis’ of this age do not measure up to the toes of the Aimmah Mujtahideen. They feature nowhere within the scope of the first six classes of Ulama delineated by Allaamah Shaami (Rahmatullah alayh). Yes, they fit snugly in the category called Haatibul Lail, i.e. they gather firewood during an intensely dark night in a dense and dark forest. They do not know whether their hands fall on snakes or excreta. Many of their fatwas portray putrid socialism and stark superficiality.

The morons have mentioned the name of Mufti Saeed Palanpuri (Rahmatullah alayh) in a stupid bid to eke out support for their disgorgement of tripe and trash. One year prior to his demise, Mufti Palanpuri was in Port Elizabeth. Commenting disdainfully about the state of Daarul Ifta of Deoband where he was a senior Mufti, he personally said to this writer that he has to contend with eight Muftis before he issues a fatwa. He added: “Aap to azaad he” (You are free.) Expressing agreement with our views and stances, Mufti Palanpuri (Rahmatullah alayh) implied that he was not entirely free to issue fatwa as he desired.

Furthermore, this writer heard personally from Hadhrat Masihullah (Rahmatullah alayh) about 45 years ago during his (this writer’s) student days that maudoodi’ism had crept into some Ustaadhs of Darul Uloom Deoband. Thus we do not suffer from the malady of deglutition of the fatwas churned out by the darul iftas of this era. Every fatwa prior to acceptance is subjected to scrutiny and examination for determining its Shar’i worth.

Now remains the age of moron molvis in pursuit of pecuniary gain. The corrupt view of Taqi Sahib and of others of the same liberal breed is the effect of corrupt objectives. Their views of liberalism are devoid of Shar’i substance.

The attempt to differentiate between a picture produced by the camera and a video picture, and on this hallucinated basis to issue the fatwa of permissibility for the latter, speaks volumes for the shaitaaniyat and nafsaaniyat of these miscreant muftis who have deviated very far from Siraatul Mustaqeem. They are scoundrels who have opened numerous avenues of fitnah and fasaad with their haraam narratives and their excretion of haraam fatwas. They are the scoundrel muftis who have embedded cellphone fisq, fujoor and pornography in the masses. They have opened colossal avenues of immorality with their haraam digital pictography fatwa.

Any mufti and any daarul ifta of any Madrasah, including Daarul Uloom Deoband, who condones the haraam pictures produced by the digital method, are followers of Iblees. They need to depurate their brains from the evil effects of satanic sanatization. Iblees ‘sanatizes’ human brains with his urine. According to the Hadith, Iblees is capable of urinating in the ears of people. Allaamah Abdul Wahhaab Sha’raani (Rahmatullah alayh) claimed that he had once observed the urine of Iblees physically dripping from the ears of a mureed who had overslept and missed Fajr Salaat. Thus, Iblees deranges the brains of these liberal molvis with his urine. That is why, they are so stupid and fail to realize the manifest stupidity of their arguments presented in their abortive bid to make halaal what Allah Ta’ala has decreed to be haraam.

The entity of ‘international’ morons asks: “Have any of the senior Muftis from our Madaaris and Darul Ifta’s around the world (who regard digital photography as Haraam) – issued a Fatwa against those that regard digital photography as permissible – that they are committing an act of clear Haraam and are becoming Faasiq and Faajir?”

Let us divest the vermiculated brains of these moron chaps. Maulana Abdul Hamid and the Ulama-e-Haq in general are NOT the muqallideen of the Madaaris and Daarul Iftas of this era. What these Madaaris and Daarul Iftas churn out nowadays is suspect. Our proclamation of the Haqq is not at all reliant on the humbug of these Madaaris and Daarul Iftas. We are not their followers. In fact, the vast majority of them are astray, having deviated from the Sunnah and Siraatul Mustaqeem. Therefore, this question of the moron enity is spurious, stupid and rejected with contempt.

Digital picture-making is HARAAM just as HARAAM as any other method of producing pictures. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that pictures of animate objects are haraam. He mentioned ‘pictures’ not the method of producing pictures. Regardless of the method of production, the end product is a haraam picture. So whether a picture is drawn by hand, by a brush, made by a camera, by television, by video, by the digital method, by donkey’s tail or any other new method which science will still invent, it remains a haraam picture which may not be halaalized on the basis that the method of production did not exist during the era of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Whoever halaalizes digital pictures of animate objects is guilty of kufr, not only fisq.

Yes, it is correct that Salaat behind these fussaaq imaams is Makrooh Tahrimi. Yes, it is correct, that the testimony of such fussaaq is not admissible. The ‘international clique of morons’ proffers a list of molvis and madrasahs who indulge in videos and digital pictures, then asks if Salaat behind this array of molvis is Makrooh Tahrimi, and if yes, should Muslims stop performing Salaat behind them and the Imaams of the Haramain Shareefain?

Without doubt, Salaat behind these deviates is Makrooh Tahrimi. However, the morons should endeavour to equip themselves with better knowledge of the masaa-il. According to the Ahlus Sunnah, Salaat behind every Birr and Faajir is valid notwithstanding his fisq and fujoor. Hence although the Salaat of Fussaaq such as the Imaams in the Haramain as well as Taqi & Co., is Makrooh Tahrimi, those who have no control over the appointment of Musjid Imaams will not be perpetrating a Makrooh Tahrimi act when they perform Salaat behind the Fussaaq Imaams. Circumstances compel them to follow these Fussaaq in Salaat.

Those who appoint these Fusaaq and the Fussaaq Imaams themselves will bear the burden of their fisq. It is not permissible to abandon Jamaat Salaat on account of the fisq of the Imaam.

The Ulama-e-Haq will continue, Insha-Allah, to scream the Haqq from the rooftops regardless of the antics and tantrums of people of baatil. The moron muftis of the liberal daarul iftas of the world are all members of Dajjaal’s league. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had expressed greater fear for these miscreant molvis and sheikhs than for even Dajjaal.

Reverend Gadero (Reverend Abraham Bham) and Reverend Waandro (Reverend Solomon Rawat) of the NNB junk jamiat of Fordsburg who cherish hasad and bughd for Wifaaqul Ulama will not succeed to derail the Wifaaq with their shaitaani shenanigans.

Haqq has come and baatil has vanished, for baatil by its very nature must perish. (Qur’aan)

They should disembowel themselves of the flapdoodle idea that the view of the array of Ulama whose names they have cited has Shar’i validity. A majority does not constitute daleel in the Shariah. Their inability to present solid Shar’i dalaa-il for their repugnant views of kufr testifies to their total lack of perspicacity in the sphere of Shar’i proofs and evidences. No one is awed by the galaxy of molvis the humbug entity has cited in an abortive attempt to browbeat ignoramuses into acceptance of their stance of baatil designed to further the kufr liberalism of the deviated ‘muftis’.

23 Muharram 1444 – 22 August 2022

The Influence of Television

The Influence of Television

This article should be regarded as advice specifically for the Munaafiq, Faajir, Faasiq RIJS (FILTH) molvis who are blatantly, brazenly and most flagrantly committing KUFR by selling their souls to Iblees who has urinated into their brains to become television actors. Furthermore, the arch mudhil, Taqi Usmaani is the prime Agent of Iblees in this Jahannami saga. Purely on the instruction and influence of Iblees did Mr.Taqi open up the door for this television fitnah with His stupid, haraam halaalizing of pictography.

by Hazrat Maulana Yunus Patel Saheb (rahmatullah alayh)

One of the many sunnats of the Ambiyaa (‘alaihimus Salaam) is that of Hayaa (shame and modesty), a quality which is sorely missing in the lives of the majority of Muslims today and which should otherwise be an outstanding characteristic and feature of all Muslims, whether married or un-married.

Television is such an evil that if our society only understood its reality, then they would find no excuse to watch. Its spiritual harm is that it takes away the hayaa and shame of our men, women and children.

The content of most television programmes is nothing but immodesty and indecency, which invites nothing but immodesty and indecency – into our homes, into our lives and the lives of our children.

However, this truth and reality seems to just pass over the understanding of even those Muslims who have some link with Deen.

Many are regular with Salaah, they are seen in the Musjid, they are wearing the garb of the pious and yet they will be the ones to present flimsy and feeble excuses to view television programmes.

Let us consider this situation of sin from the following view – which Alhamdulillah, has been a means of many getting rid of the television.

If a person has to knock on your door and tell you : ‘I would like to use your lounge to commit adultery.’

Or a group of some friends have to request you : ‘We would like to use your home to gamble and enjoy our liquor.’ Or a group of youngsters have to tell you : ‘We have chosen your home as a venue for our partying, dancing, drug-taking and fornicating.’ Or a Christian family has to request you : ‘We would like to use your home as a venue for our church ceremony : The marriage of our daughter as well as the baptism of our grandchild.

We have already obtained the consent of one of our priests.’ Or some idol-worshippers have to suggest : ‘We would like to carry out some of our religious rites in your home. We would like to bring our idols also. You are more than welcome to observe or participate in our rites. ’

Many Muslims, on hearing such requests, will get very angry; will express disgust – if not swear and curse such suggestions.

However, these very same Muslims who will even resort to swearing and cursing such proposals, invite into their homes all of the above by the switch of the television, by hiring English and Hindi films and DVDs and downloading porn and other films from the Internet. There is so much of adultery, partying and other filth that we seem to just welcome into our homes – least realizing the consequences.

Just to give you one example and this is but the tip of the iceberg – and it is said with the intention of removing the blindfold that most parents wear :

A father of four children mentioned to me that he had got rid of his television and he thereafter explained why.

He said that late one night he heard strange noises from his children’s room. On opening the door of their room, he found their television switched on.

This is our concept of modesty , parents must have their own television, to view all kinds of filthy programmes in their privacy, and children must have their own television to view all kinds of indecency in their privacy (Na-uzu Billah).

The father mentioned that there were dirty and obscene scenes of naked people on the television screen. He mentioned that it was filthy and that it shocked him; but what had him even more shaken was that his children were all undressed, engaging in the same kind of indecent acts.

They were imitating the pornography they were viewing. He said himself, that until then he had not considered the harm of television. It took this kind of incident to wake him up. This is just one example of so many. Do we wish to face something similar ?

Do we care to even know what our sons and daughters are doing in the secrecy of their rooms ? The fact that many demand that no one ‘invade’ their space and privacy to the extent of having ‘No Entry’ signs on their doors, should have parents a little more than worried especially if they are viewing television and are surfing the net or have free access with cell phones.

Many have written, that after watching certain films or programmes, the desire came strongly into their hearts to take drugs, drink liquor, murder their parents, indulge in homosexuality, engage in adulterous relationships, commit suicide, rape, and so much else – and many of them do so.

Moreover, with sins like television and evil, lustful glancing, Allah Ta’ala removes the love between husband and wife and even ones children become disobedient.

There are many husbands who entertain thoughts of and fantasize of other women when with their wives. And they will when they are watching different actresses and television presenters.

Many wives are guilty of the same infidelity having seen or socialized with ghair-mahareem. Many women are so infatuated and obsessed with some soccer player or cricket player that they become dissatisfied with their husbands, and spend their time fantasizing.

Had the person not viewed all those ghair-mahareem (impermissible women) on the television screen and computer screen, and had lowered his gaze in real life situations, then he would not have desired that which he cannot have, and there would not have been dissatisfaction with his (or her) spouse.

Moreover we complain that there is no barkat in our homes; there is no barkat in our wealth; there is no barkat in our time. Our children are rebellious. The husband is having an extra-marital relationship. The daughter has accepted Christianity. The son is on drugs and the list of complaints does not end.

Then who is to blame except the one who brought all of this Haraam into the home by purchasing the television and exposing the family to so much of sin.

Great ‘Ulama became Bay’at upon the hands of Maulana Hakeem Fakhrudeen (Rahmatullah ‘alaih). He mentioned that there was a time, that with the rising and setting of the sun, he saw nothing but noor in Surat.

The atmosphere was one of noor. The day commenced with Salaah, Tilawat, Zikrullah.

After the cinemas and television and videos flooded Surat, there was nothing but ‘zulmat’ (darkness).

With the distraction of such entertainment, Ibaadah becomes a forgotten duty.

One Wali of Allah Ta’ala, on visiting a home, mentioned that he perceived the sin of Zina (adultery) from the walls of that home. He was able to recognize this due to the purity of his heart. The residents of that home were not indulging in adultery but they were watching the sin on television.

When fire burns against a white wall, it blackens the wall. The Ahle-Dil (pious people), with their purified hearts, see the fire of sins which has burnt and blackened the white hearts of the Muslims.

Would that we take lesson and take measures to protect ourselves and our children.

22 Zul Qa’dh 1443 – 23 June 2022


Our classes have ended. Was visiting a friend and another Moulana was present. He was discussing a paper he had written while studying Takhasusfil Hadith in Binnori Town.
He had written it on the basis of a question he was asked by a friend of his regarding the raawis of Ahaadith. The person asked him as to why the Sahabah were not put under the light of scrutiny because they also committed sins.
He had asked another senior scholar but before the senior scholar could answer the Moulana mentioned his own response that when it comes to sins there are 2 types: 

  1. Sins that happen due to the nafs, lust and desire.
  2. Sins that would be to sabotage the Deen or attributing a lie towards Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
    The first type was possible by them, but the second type is something that is unexpected of them (the Sahaabah).
    The senior scholar told him this is correct.
    After the paper was submitted our Jalalayin teacher and also the Nazim for the Iftaa Department) rejected the Moulana’s paper and said we will attach another reason towards their actions. This was all in 2015. I told the brother that we had been by our teacher. Allah Ta’ala had caused these things to be committed by the Sahaabah. These were things that were against the Shaan of Nabuwwat, hence and for teaching purposes, Allah Ta’ala induced the Sahaabah to commit such acts.
    So the Moulana said yes my class mate gave a similar response but our Aqeedah is that Allah Ta’ala doesn’t force anyone to do anything so they had done it of their own free will. I told him I shall ask my teacher with regards to this because I honestly don’t know. I am still satisfied with the answers the other teachers have given, but want to know if what the Moulana said is correct. Please comment.

“Why the Sahaabah were not put under the light of scrutiny”: After more than fourteen centuries and after thousands of great, illustrious Fuqaha, Muhadditheen and Mufassireen have flourished and written thousands of volumes on every branch of Islamic knowledge, some non-entity in this belated era in close proximity to Qiyaamah comes up with the question;
“Why the Sahaabah were not put under the light of scrutiny”.

Wallaah! This is a pure shaitaani waswasah. This question never occurred to any of the great Souls of the past nor did Iblees have the courage to present this ishkaal to any of the illustrious Muhadditheen and Fuqaha. A total non-entity of our age deemed it appropriate to fabricate this question. It is the first step in shaitaan’s ploy to attack the Imaan of the person concerned. Shaitaan has designed this snare for the elimination of his Imaan. Furthermore, the attempt to answer this question by categorizing sin into two kinds is nonsensical. It does not answer the shaitaani question. All sins are the products of the nafs, lust and desire. Sins to sabotage the Deen are most certainly sins of the nafs. There is no other fountain for sins other than the nafs. Thus, this answer has no validity. The simple answer to the shaitaani question is
that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbid the Ummah from making his Sahaabah targets of criticism. He said:
“Honour my Sahaabah, for verily they are the noblest….”
There is Ijma’ (Con-sensus of the Ummah) on the Adaalat of the Sahaabah. Even the Qur’aan Majeed testifies for the Adaalat of the Sahaabah. It is mentioned in MirqaatulMafaateeh: “ The Sahaabah, all of them, are Udool on the basis of the Kitaab (Qur’aan), Sunnah and Ijmaa’”
There are many Ahaadith to this effect. Putting the Sahaabah under scrutiny will be to put Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself under scrutiny. The Hadith to this effect is recited almost every week in the second Jumuah khutbah.
Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had vouched for the uprighteousness, honesty and integrity of his Sahaabah. Therefore, whoever subjects the integrity of the Sahaabah to scrutiny in fact places Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) under the glare of the satanic scrutiny.
If such ‘scrutiny’ had to be accommodated, then the same effects applicable to Ahaadith would have applied to Qur’aanic Aayaat. The same Hadith principles of Saheeh, Dhaeef, etc. would have been applied to the Qur’aan Majeed since it were only Sahaabah who narrated and authenticated the Qur’aanic Aayaat. Some Qur’aanic Aayaat would then be classified ‘dhaeef’ and even ‘maudhoo’.
Only Shiahs are the experts in the satanic science of putting the Sahaabah under the scope of kufr scrutiny. That is precisely their basis for rejecting the authenticity of the Qur’aan Shareef.
The simple answer for the question is that it is a shaitaani waswasah for which Ta’awwuz and Wala houla should be recited to eradicate the thought from the mind.