LISTENING TO THE TALKS OF YASMIN MOGAHEAD

BY MUFTI MOHAMMED DESAI DB

Question:-
I would like to find out if we are allowed to listen to talks by Yasmin Mogahed or read her books?
Answer:-
We don’t have much information pertaining to Yasmin Mogahed of Almaghrib Institute. However, it is quite clear from her profile that she is a modernist female who doesn’t don the Purdah, appears on You-Tube channels, and travels around the world to deliver ‘motivational lectures’ at various venues. We understand that both males are females are her audience and listen to her lectures. The above profile is sufficient to prove that she doesn’t adhere to the Shariah and, in fact, openly violates the laws of Allah and His messenger Salallahu Alaihi Wasallam. Sinning causes the heart to be blackened, and consequently the flowery and motivational words of the speaker will bear no effect whatsoever. Yes, the simple-minded audience will outwardly praise her lectures, but its effect will drive them away from Deen, instead of it bringing them closer to their Creator. She is continuously under the curse of Allah Ta’ala due to openly displaying herself in public, and over the internet.
Imaam Raaghib Isfahaani Rahimahullah has written in Mufradatul Quraan that, the curse of Allah actually means that one is distant from the mercy of Allah Ta’ala. When a person is distant from the mercy of Allah Ta’ala, they cannot be saved from the evil of the Nafs. It is only the one who is enjoying the mercy of Allah Ta’ala that will be protected from the evil of the Nafs.
When Yasmin Mogahed is deprived of the mercy of Allah Ta’ala and is spirituality dead, then how will she guide others towards Allah Ta’ala. She is, in actual fact, treading the path of misguidance and taking others in the same direction. She is just another agent of Shaytaan who is attracting the masses towards herself with her flowery words, which are actually, thorns.
When Shaytaan planned to drive Adam Alaihis Salaam out of Jannah, he attained his objective and goal by influencing Hadrat Hawa Alaihas Salaam. Similarly, on another occasion, Shaytaan passed by Ayub Alaihis Salaam (when he was inflicted with his lengthy illness) in the form of a physician. The wife of Ayub Alaihis Salaam requested him to treat her husband, to which Shaytaan replied, “I shall treat him without charging you for the treatment and medicines. However, when he is cured, I want you to say that I cured him.” She agreed to do so. When she mentioned this to Ayub Alaihis Salaam, he became angry because, accepting the condition of treatment entailed uttering words of Shirk since Allah Ta’ala is the only One Who can cure. Again, Shaytaan influenced the woman. The great Abid of the Bani Israeel whose Duas would be readily accepted in the court of Allah Ta’ala, Bal’am Bin Ba’oora, was also influenced by his wife to accept the gifts or rather bribes presented to him by the Amaaliqah people and in turn, curse Moosa Alaihis Salaam and his army. He fell prey to their request on the insistence of his wife and made Dua against the Nabi of Allah. Consequently, he was also misguided and lost all the treasures of Deen which he was blessed with, which included the ‘Ism-Aa’zam.’
Therefore, we shouldn’t be deceived by this agent of Shaytaan. The Hadith Sharif warns us, “Fear Dunya and fear (the Fitnah of) women, for verily the first Fitna of the Bani Israeel was of women.” [Muslim]
In conclusion, her programmes should not be attended, nor should she be entertained by any institute or organization, nor should one read any of her books. There is ample, authentic literature available, which have been written by our righteous and pious Ulama, which can be studied to reform our lives.
ALLAH TA’ALA KNOWS BEST!
ANSWERED BY:
Mufti Mohammed Desai
Date: 15 Muharram 1444 / 14 August 2022

*RESPONDING TO SANHAS LATEST STATEMENT*

BY ASK GORA MOTA-ENDORSED BY QALAMUL HAQ
SANHA, after realizing that the public have smelt a rat, have attempted to save some face by releasing a statement which attempts to answer the objections made.
The points made by SANHA in a nutshell are
*SANHA is not money orientated as they defended Cadbury even though they had no contract with them in the past
*Claimed that the basis of the dramatic statement was only due to the wine connotations and they didn’t state it as Haraam all they said was exercise caution.
*Didn’t wish to breach Amaana and feared legal implications therefore kept vital information away from the public
OUR RESPONSE
The claim of SANHA of being altruistic and being unconcerned regarding monetary gain is laughable, they might as well carry out their duties as a charity work, they would ofcourse give us stories of how nothing in life is free and everything has costs which cannot be covered when being done in this sense,however we are all certain that the cash benefits are well over and above cost.
Defending Cadbury without a contract doesn’t necessitate selfless service, defending an entity could be done with the hope of luring them to become clients. We can only imagine the despair when a fellow halaal body shatters one’s dreams.
We are not understanding the stance of SANHA in the light of Shariah, the Shariah allows the usage of vinegar that is made from wine despite it being derived from a wine source, are SANHA becoming more pious then the Shariah itself?What exactly is there view regarding tabdeel E maahiyat ie metemorphisis in this context?
This breach of Amaana story is laughable, is the” Amaanat”of a non Muslim company more important then the Amaanah of the entire Muslim community of South Africa?
The Shariah concept of Amaanah is being misapplied, to expose a matter of concern to the public is not contrary to Amaanah.
The legal excuse is baseless, one has a moral obligation to bring these matters out in the public sphere, this was done before by SANHA. There are no legal repercussions for doing such. It is surprising that SANHAs legal concerns had been abated the moment NIHT became the halaal authority that certifies Cadbury.
In essence it would be better if SANHA remains silent, we dont like taking out time to expose fallacies, but when a statement with such hogwash is released we feel constrained to respond.