Allah – The Raaziq

[Majlisul Ulama]

“There  is  no  living  creature  on  earth,  but  its  Rizq  (sustenance)  is  the  responsibility  of  Allah.”   [Qur’aan]

“Numerous  are  the  animals  which  do  not  carry  their  rizq  on  their  backs.  Allah  feeds  them  and  you.”   [Qur’aan]

Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said: Rizq  is  sealed,  and  the  harees  (greedy  one)  is  deprived.” (That  is,  no  matter what  he  does,  he  will  not  gain  more  than  his  pre-determined amount  of  wealth.)

It  is  a  belief  which  is  an  integral  constituent  of  the  validity  of  Imaan  that  Allah  Ta’ala  is  the  Sole  Raaziq  (Provider  of  all  man’s  needs).  While  this  is  a  fardh  (compulsory)  belief  of  every  Muslim,  or  it  should  be  so,  this  Aqeedah  (Belief)  is  confined  to  lip  service.  Verbally  Muslims  say  that  Allah  Ta’ala  is  The  Raaziq,  but  their  practical  life  betrays  the  kufr  inside  their  heart.  While  the  belief  of  Allah’s  Razzaaqiyat  (Providence)  is  on  the  tongue,  it  finds  no  place  in  the  hearts  of  most  Muslims.

Bereft  of  life  and  spirit,  our  belief  in  Allah’s  Razzaaqiyat  is the  same  as  the  belief  of  non-Muslims.  This  becomes  manifest  whenever  there  is  a  clash  between  the  demands  of  the  Shariah  and  the  dictates  of  the  lowly  nafs.  The  haraam  avenues  for  the acquisition  of  rizq  appear  easy,  tempting  and  lucrative.  On  the  contrary,  the  halaal  route  seems  arduous  and  unpromising.  At the  juncture  of  this  conflict  does  it  become  apparent  that  the  doctrine  of  Allah’s  Razzaaqiyat  is  not  in  the  heart.  There  is  no yaqeen  in  the  belief  which  is  verbally  professed  by  Muslims.

In  view  of  this  belief  not  existing  in  the  hearts,  Muslims  resort  to  a  plethora  of  baseless  interpretations  to  justify  the  haraam  avenue  and  means  which  they  adopt  for  the  acquisition  of their  Rizq.  If  there  is  life  and  spirit  in  our  Aqeedah,  we  shall  know  exactly  what  course  to  take  in  the  event  of  conflict.  When  a  Muslim  truly  believes  in  the  Aqeedah  pertaining  to Rizq  as  stated  in  the  Qur’aan  and  Hadith,  he  will  not  be  lost  in  a  quandary  when  a  conflict  between  the  opposite  forces  develop.  He  will  know  exactly  which  course  of  action  to adopt.

When  there  are  two  conflicting  avenues  for  the  acquisition  of Rizq,  the  one  easy,  but  haraam,  while  the  other  one  is  difficult but  halaal,  the  Muslim  will  select  the  correct  option  only  if there  is  yaqeen  in his  belief  in  Allah’s  Razzaaqiyat.

The  Hadith, “Rizq  is  sealed.”,   has  a  literal  meaning.  Rizq  is  quantitively  sealed.  There  is  no  scope  for  increase  nor decrease.  The  quantitive  amount  decreed  by  Allah  Ta’ala  for  every  soul  long  before  its  appearance  on  earth  remains  static.  Neither  sin  and  transgression  will  reduce  the  quantitive  amount,  nor  will  obedience  and  virtue  increase  it.  The  quantitive  amount  of  wealth  is  not  dependent  on  intelligence,  business  acumen,  ability,  inability,  piety,  impiety,  etc.  The  ‘increase’  and  ‘decrease’  pertaining  to  Rizq  relate  to  barkat  (blessing),  not  to  the  static  quantitive  amount.
If  for  example,  Allah  Ta’ala  has  ordained  that  Zaid  will  earn  10  million  in  his  lifetime,  nothing  will  increase  or  decrease it.  Zaid  is  notified  by  the  Shariah  of  his  sealed  Rizq  which  he  has  to  acquire.  He  is  informed  of  two  ways  of  acquiring  his  Rizq  –  a  halaal  way  and  a  haraam  way.  He  is  told  that  if  he  adopts  the  halaal  way,  there  will  be  barkat,  thawaab  and  Allah’s  Pleasure.  His  rand/dollar  will  procure  more  and  last  longer.  On  the  other  hand,  if  he  employs  the  haraam  method,  his  10  million  will  be  deprived  of  barkat.  He  invites  Allah’s  Wrath,  and  instead  of  thawaab,  there  will  be  athaab.  His rand/dollar/rupee  will  be  deprived  of  blessings.

Allah  Ta’ala  has  created  this  world  as  the  arena  for  the  conflict  between  Haqq  and  Baatil,  vice  and  virtue.  He  has  created  Shaitaan  and  an  inherently  evil  nafs  within  us.  These  evil  forces  have  a  role  to  play  in  the  Divine  Scheme  of  creation.  Allah  Ta’ala  created  us  in  this  world  of  sin  and  misery,  and  placed  in  our  hands  a  Lamp  of  Guidance,  the  Deen,  with  which  we  have  to  pilot  our  way  through  the  innumerable  obstacles  and  dangers  along  our  sojourn  back  Home  to  Jannat  from  whence  the  journey  initiated  with  our  noble  Ancestors,  Hadhrat  Aadam  (alayhis  salaam)  and  Hadhrat  Hawwaa  (alayhas  salaam). 

Instead  of  constantly  polishing  this  Lamp  and  utilizing  it  correctly  to  manoeuvre  our  way  across  this  earthly  wilderness  of  danger,  we  extinguish  it  with  sin,  transgression,  and  worse  –  with  baseless  interpretation  to  justify  our  sin  and  evil.  When  there  develops  a  conflict  between  the  opposite  forces,  for  example,  in  the  sphere  of  Rizq  acquisition,  Muslims  invariably  extinguish  the  Lamp  and  adopt  the  haraam  way  with  the  licences  of  permissibility  offered  by  the  ulama-e-soo’.  Thus,  we  find,  riba  being  halaalized  and  licences  of  permissibility  granted  to  the  myriad  of  riba  banking  institutions  which  are  painted  with  Islamic  hues  to  mislead  and  con  ignorant  and  unwary  Muslims.  Even  such  Muslims  who  are  fully  aware  of  the  wrong  and  corruption  of  these  avenues  of  Rizq  acquisition  adopt  the  way  of  the  masses  of  Bani  Israael  who  accepted  the  haraam  methods  and  ways  of  acquisition  despite  their  hearts  testifying  to  the  evil  and  hurmat  of  such  ways  and  means.  Hence,  Allah  Ta’ala,  severely  reprimanding  such  people  says  in  the  Qur’aan Majeed: “They  take  their  Ulama  and  their  Mashaaikh  as  gods  besides  Allah…”   Their  holy  and  learned  men  would  fabricate  for  them  permissibilities  by  way  of  baseless  interpretation.  They  would  halaalize  riba,  carrion,  zina,  liquor,  and  haraam ways  of  Rizq  acquisition.  This  is  the  exact  malady  in  which the  Ulama,  Mashaaikh  and Awaamun  Naas  (general  public)  of  this  Ummah  are  entrapped  in  today.

It  is  vital  for  success  in  both  worlds  to  understand  that  all  halaal  institutions,  ways  and  means  will  incumbently  be  beset  with  difficulties  and  hardships.  Conscious  pursuit  of  only  Halaal  for  the  Sake  of  Allah  Ta’ala  is  logically  unpalatable  to  the  nafs.  It  is  all  part  of  the  worldly  test  for  which  we  have  been  despatched  to  earth  and  commanded  to  submit  to.  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:  “The  Fire  (of Jahannum)  is  adorned  with  delights  while  Jannat  is  veiled with  difficulties  and  hardships.” He  also  said: “This  dunya  is  a prison  for  the  Mu’min  and  a  paradise  for  the  kaafir.”  

Thus,  difficulties,  hardships  –  trials  and  tribulations  –  are  necessary  corollaries  in  the  process  of  Halaal  acquisition  of  Rizq.  The  Mu’min  is  therefore  required  to  simply  shrug  off  and  reject  any  act,  method  or  institution  which  is  in  conflict with  the  Shariah.  It  does  not  behove  the  Mu’min  whose  focus  is  on  the  Aakhirah  to  seek  an  interpretation  to  water  down  or  to  circumscribe  or  to  overcome  an  ordinance  of  the  Shariah.  It  is  imperative  that  he  understands  that  regardless  of  what  he  does,  he  will  not  be  able  to  increase  his  Rizq  even  one  cent,  and  regardless  of  what  he  does  not  do,  his  Rizq  will  not  decrease  by  one  cent.  Rizq  is  pre-determined,  pre-destined  and  sealed.

The  fluctuations  in  Rizq  will  be  in  the  sphere  of  barkat (blessing)  and  thawaab  which  will  increase  and  decrease  depending  on  a  variety  of  factors  related  to  our  lives,  and  not  only  to  the  way  of  Rizq  acquisition.  A  man’s  way  of  Rizq  acquisition  may  be  perfectly  lawful.  But  he  may  be  disobedient  to  his  parents  or  he  may  have  severed  a  family  tie  with  a  relative,  or  he  may  be  involved  in  some  other  act  of  transgression,  or  he  may  not  be  fulfilling  the  rights  (huqooq)  of  the  wealth,  or  perhaps  he  commits  bid’ah  or  his  tongue  may  be  abusive,  etc.,  etc.  All  these  factors  have  a  role  in  the  acquisition  of  barkat  or  in  being  deprived  thereof.

The  Deeni  life  of  a  Muslim  is  not  compartmentalized.  All  parts  of  the  Deen  are  cogs  in  a  Machine.  If  one  cog/part  malfunctions,  the  effect  permeates  the  entire  Machine.  For  gaining  maximum  barakat  in  Rizq,  it  is  necessary  to  implement  the  whole  of  the  Shariah  and  the  Sunnah

When  a  Muslim  adopts  a  haraam  way  of  Rizq  acquisition  he  betrays  his  lack  of  belief  in  the  Razzaaqiyat  of  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal.  It  is  because  of  his  disbelief  in  the  assurance  given  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  the  Qur’aan regarding  Rizq  that  he  feels  that  he  would  be  deprived  of  wealth  if  he  refrains  from  adopting  the  prevailing  haraam  ways  and  means  of  pursuing  money.  This  disbelief  prompts  him  to  deal  in  riba,  stolen  goods,  to  commit  fraud,  deception  and  generally  accept  all  the  baatil  systems  and  institutions  of  the  kuffaar  for  earning  wealth.  But,  due  to  his  disbelief,  he  fails  to  understand  that  despite  all  the  haraam  ways  and  means  he  will  not  obtain  what  Allah  Ta’ala  has  not  decreed for  him.

Dispossession  in  different  ways  of  already  possessed  wealth  is  evidence  for  the  reality  of  pre-ordained  quantitive  wealth. Calamities  such  as  robberies,  major  illness  costing  huge  sums,  heavy  losses,  fines  by  the  authorities,  taxes,  accidents  and  numerous  other  ways  of  financial  losses  which  dispossess  a  man  of  the  wealth  in  his  possession  indicate  that  such  wealth  was  not  decreed  in  his  Taqdeer  to  remain  with  him  for  his  benefit  in  this  world  and  the  Hereafter.  For  some  reason  Allah  Ta’ala  gave  him  temporary  possession.  For  example,  he  chose  a  haraam  way  of  earning  which  brought  him  substantial  wealth.  The  man  deceived  by  shaitaan  believes  that  he  has  earned  all  the  wealth  because  he  had  hated  the  haraam  method.

Meanwhile,  Allah  Ta’ala  allowed  him  temporary  possession  so  that  the  love  for  the  haraam  money  settles  in  his  heart. Allah  Ta’ala  then  afflicts  him  with  a  calamity  which dispossesses  him  of  the  ill-gotten  gain.  The  deprived  man  now  suffers  mental  agony  and  depression  in  consequence  of  the  loss  of  the  object  of  his  love  –  the  haraam  wealth.  This  agony  is  part  of  the  punishment  in  store  for  him.  Thus,  haraam  wealth  is  a  temporary  gain  of  which  he  will  be  soon  deprived  without  the  opportunity  of  benefiting  from  it.  Only  the  amount  ordained  in  his  Taqdeer  will  remain  with  him.

Muslims  should  understand  and  believe  in  the  Razzaaqiyat  of  Allah  Ta’ala.  Only  the  ordained  amount  will  remain  with  them  for  their  benefit.  When  the  understanding  dawns  that  Rizq  is  sealed,  the  Muslim  will  then  not  bat  an  eyelid  to  reject  any  Rizq  acquisition  proposal  which  conflicts  with  the  Shariah.


by Hakimul Islam Hadhrat Maulana Qari Mohammed Tayyib (rahimahullah)

EVEN a more signal measure for the divine safeguarding of the Qur’an and the Traditions is the fact that God Himself has forewarned us clearly regarding various types of such saboteurs, the devious ways in which they shall operate, laying a network of deceits and lies to waylay the believers, and their pernicious intentions so that lovers of truth in the Ummah should remain wide-awake to the designs of these people and the clever stratagems of such people should not lead the Ummah astray by their one-sided activities.

THE TWO classes we have discussed so far (in other articles) are those which have raised dissension within the Ummah by openly negating the authority of the Hadith or by distorting its text. But we have been apprised of another kind also which, while acknowledging the text of the Hadith, distorted its meaning. We have been told about these subtle distorters of the Hadith also. Ostensibly admitting both the Qur’an and the Hadith, such people, nonetheless, regard themselves free to interpret them considering their reason to be the sole arbiter in determining signification and thus, exercising their own reason and personal endeavour to tamper with the meaning of the Qur’an and the traditions in such a way as to develop a schismatic spirit in the Immah.

The Holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) therefore said:

The Jews underwent divisions into seventy-one sects and the Christians into seventy-two. And so shall my Ummah fission off into seventy-three sects; all of them but one shall be marked for Hell.

This splitting up into different sects has occurred not because of the denial of the Qur’an and the Hadith but under the cover of affirmation, giving rise to seventy-two sects on doctrinal basis. This is exactly the specious type of interpretation characteristic of the Jews and the Christians which led to seventy-two false sects among them and because of which the real tenets of the Pentateuch and the New Testament gradually got lost.

They change words from the context and forget a part of that. (Qur’an, 5:13).

Just as God has told mankind how He would protect the Qur’an and the Hadith by saying He would keep sending different kinds of people who would salvage the religion in times of critical juncture such as the mujaddids,  just rulers and those divinely succoured, similarly He has informed of various kinds of men who disingenuously tamper with, misappropriate or ruthlessly assail God’s guardianship, some being imposters, others liars, and yet others hankerers after loaves and fishes and satiates; some will deny the wording of Qur’anic exposition (Hadith) and some its  meanings and implications.

Others will question its validity, throw ironic remarks and innuendos on its historicity and yet others will hold the Qur’an itself to be a spurious and fabricated document and try to draw people away from Islam. Thus, some will deny the Qur’an and some, its exposition. And actually these imposters and miscreants waylay the Qur’an and the Hadith in every possible way as regards to words and meanings, canons and principles.

As I have already said, the exposition is an essential adjunct of the Qur’an without which the Book of God cannot be sustained at all. These evil-minded persons denied the exposition of the Qur’an in a number of ways in order to sabotage it in furtherance of their nefarious designs. But thanks to the indefatigable endeavours of the scholars and the muhaddithin who discharged the duty of preserving the Qur’an by preserving the Ahadith, by devising scientific methods and techniques, and by making use of these very methods and modus operandi utterly smashed their machinations in respect of the denial of the Traditions, setting at naught all their insidious stratagems with cogent arguments and sound logic.

One cannot but marvel at the elaborate arrangements made by the Divine Being that while it created these sacred means and agents (memorizers and muhaddithin) who preserved the Qur’an and the Hadith, it informed beforehand of the enemies of Hadith, and their stratagems and various ways of denying the Tradition so that the savants of the Qur’an and Hadith should remain aware of their designs and craftiness, and should not get entangled in the meshes of their cunning and deception, falsehood and chicanery. In other words, this too was a part of divine guardianship of the Qur’an and Hadith that the friends of the two primary bases of religion should be alerted beforehand of these clever enemies thereof.

The upshot was that anyone who tried to strike at the twin foundations of the true faith, the Qur’an and the Hadith, fell into the pit which he had dug and suffered ignominious defeat. Those classes which negated the Qur’an and the Hadith arose for a limited period and then fell in such a way that no trace of their existence was left at all. But the Qur’an and the Hadith are still as resplendent as ever. The same fate which befell the distorters and fabricators of the Hadith shall befall its negators also who expose it to ridicule.


By Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi (rahimahullah)

I am constrained to refer to the fact — a fact, both regrettable and unpalatable — that none of our eastern countries including India and Pakistan and even those Arab countries which have yet to achieve complete freedom from foreign domination, has as yet realised what it really means to be independent and free. They have not yet enjoyed the fruits of real freedom. From the day they became free they have yielded themselves to be bound by fetters of intellectual, cultural and economic bondage.

They have become so dependent on the West that the liberation of these countries has meant only a change in the personnel administering these countries without any change in the springhead supplying the vital impulse to run their administration. Liberation of these countries has not meant a whit more than this superficial changeover. We have been drawing upon the West not only in education but also imitating their system of education; we are following the West in our manners and modes of living; and what is more, we often depend for our moral and religious precepts too on the researches made by the Western scholars.

Even the Islamic sciences are judged from the standpoint evolved by the western educational institutions. Orientalists are held in high esteem not only in West but in the East also and it has been accepted on all hands that whatever they say is the last word requiring no further quest and scrutiny. This is the present state of affairs in every Islamic country with the result that none of them has had an opportunity to enjoy the benefits conferred by their political freedom. All of them are so overburdened with the western ideals and view of life that they are seething with discontent beneath the insufferable weight of alien crazy concepts.

Some of these countries are, fortunately, wholly populated by the Muslims but they have failed to pattern their policy on the demand of its faith and conscience. They are, in consequence, caught in the cobweb of mental discon­tent and vexation of spirit which is bound to result into a crisis of confidence and disintegrating conflict.  An unrelenting struggle in these countries is caused by those who wield the reins of Government in these countries, those who have pinned their faith in the western ideals and con­cepts. They are Muslims, no doubt, and they also come from respectable Muslim families. Nor have they forsaken Islam, but in their mental make up and intellectual outlook they have been cast in the mould of western way of looking at things.

It is their misfortune that the nations committed to their care are Muslims out and out; they have faith in God and His Apostle; they believe in the life after death where there is a heaven and hell and where they shall have to render account for whatever they do in this world; they acknowledge the fact that the, life of the world and its pleasures and sorrows are transitory; they are convinced that the ultimate end they have in view is preferable to the purely material objectives; they know that the aim of life is not to eat, drink and be merry and to have the fat of the land but it consists in being more humane, inculcating the awe of God, betaking the path of virtue and avoiding the ways of sin, leading a life pure and virtuous in the footsteps of the last Prophet of God, acting on the injunctions and precepts of the Law revealed by the Lord, serving the humanity and disseminating the message of peace and virtuous living to the wayward humanity in order to help it to chart its course out of the predicament of doom and despair it is finding itself enwrapped at present.

But those who have gained a hold over administration in these Countries have an entirely different view of life and the world. They harbour doubts about many a truth enunciated by Islam. They are skeptical if there is any Power behind what their senses reveal to them, a Power unseen and imperceptible behind the manifest, palpable beings and objects — or that there is a life after death. They find it hard to believe that man can derive satisfaction and happiness from any thing other than material assets and holdings. An unprecedented but unfruitful unrest has thus cropped up in our eastern countries which is wasting their energy for nothing. Only yesterday I told some of my Arab friends that if our eastern countries could get a leadership which was aware of the inherent qualities and strength, the indomitable courage and enthusiasm the spirit of zeal and sacrifice, the mood and temper and the glorious past and present potentialities of our people, it could again brace up their strength which no power on earth would be able to subdue.

Whatever vigour and energy the East possesses, it lies in the power of its Faith. It is the faith that moves mountains. For the people in the East, the faith still has the power to awaken the spirit to sacrifice their lives, their pleasures, their hearts and homes for it. Fighting for the honour of God, for Islam, for the Prophet and for the faith still stimulates that frenzied fervour in them which can neither be enkindled by a call for any other cause nor be subdued by anyone. But it is simply tragic that our people passing out of the portals of western universities have all their wits about them except that they remain completely oblivious’ of the latent strength and vigour of their own people.

If you do not mind my plain speaking, I would say that perhaps the Poet of the East had addressed  these every persons in this couplet:

Get within thy self and discover the life’s secret;

If thou does not want to be mine, true to thyself be at least.

All those who go back from the universities here know all about history and geography, individual and mass psychology, but if they remain blind to anything, it is the temperament and disposition of their own people — the people amongst whom they have to go back and live and work, the people who are their own limbs and hands. They do not know them, nor the reservoir of strength concealed in them which had once shaken up the world.

It is the power that can never be defeated even by the combined strength of all the nations of the world. And, our people in the East have that power of faith even today but either our leaders know not what it is or they are strangers to the parlance of faith. They perhaps only know the language which reaches the ears of their people but fails to touch their hearts. They cannot speak in the tongue that can enrapture and enravish their hearts — a language that touches the cords of one’s heart and casts a magic spell on the listener. This is the language of the faith and the Qur’an; the language spoken by the companions of the Prophet which made men die in the last ditch. How can a man speak to others unless he knows their language? How can I convey my thoughts to the people of this land unless I can speak in English?

This will lead to nothing but to the confusion of tongues. These leaders speak to their own people in the same parlance in which they converse with the West. They should have at least been alive to the fact that the people whom they seek to address are the followers of the Prophet of Islam, the language which they understand, which touches their heart and stirs their blood is the language of faith— the language that they speak in their homes and lanes, mosques and marts. It is the language of those transcendental realities which they have cherished for fourteen hundred years. Therefore, if you want to tug their heartstring you shall have to speak to them in that very language.

“Vande Mataram” and the Muslims

[By A. Faizur Rahman]

It becomes imperative to analyse the objections raised by the Muslim community against the recital of the Vande Mataram.

The controversy over the singing of Vande Mataram has once again threatened to divide the country on communal lines. The refusal of the Muslims to sing this song seems to have angered the Hindutva ideologues, who, without giving them an opportunity to explain their position, have accused them of being anti-national. Hence, it becomes imperative to analyse the objections raised by the Muslim community against the recital of the Vande Mataram.

Islam, being a monotheist religion, forbids the apotheosis of any deity, animate or inanimate, except God, the Supreme Creator. In fact, ascribing divinity or any attribute of divinity to even Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) is considered an act of blasphemy negating the very purpose of Islam, that is, to promote the concept of unity of mankind through the worship of a common Creator. 

In this context, those opposed to the Muslim point of view should know that, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s Vande Mataram contains verses which are in direct conflict with the beliefs of Islam. For instance, the fourth stanza of the song addresses motherland India as, “Thou art Durga, Lady and Queen, with her hands that strike and her swords of sheen, Thou art Lakshmi lotus-throned……..”

When a Muslim sings these words he is forced to equate his country with the Hindu goddesses Durga and Lakshmi, thereby deifying the physical land of India and beseeching it to “arise and save.” This militates against the concept of Tawheed (oneness of God) according to which a Muslim cannot supplicate to anyone except God. Therefore, just as one cannot force non-Muslims to recite the Qur’an in their gatherings, it would be most unfair to force the Muslims to violate their Scriptural injunctions by questioning their patriotism.

The religious predicament of the Muslims was understood in the right spirit decades ago by Jawaharlal Nehru. In October 1937, when the Congress Working Committee met in Calcutta under the Presidentship of Nehru, it adopted a resolution which said, “The Committee recognizes the validity of the objection raised by Muslim friends to certain parts of the song. While the Committee has taken note of such objection insofar as it has intrinsic value, the Committee wishes to point out that the modern evolution of the use of the song as part of National life is of infinitely greater importance than its setting in a historical novel before the national movement had taken shape. Taking all things into consideration, therefore, the Committee recommend that, wherever Bande Mataram is sung at national gatherings, only the first two stanzas should be sung, with perfect freedom to the organisers to sing any other song of an unobjectionable character, in addition to, or in the place of, the Bande Mataram song.” [Quoted by A.G. Noorani in the Frontline, Jan 2-15, 1999)].

Based on the above resolution, the Hindutva brigade wants the Muslims to sing the first two stanzas arguing that there is nothing wrong in bowing to the motherland. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead the minority community, because, many Hindus elevate “Bharat Mata” or Mother India, to the status of a goddess as clearly seen in the traditional depiction of India as a lady dressed in a saree holding a red flag. In fact, in 1936, a Bharat Mata temple was built in Benaras by Shiv Prashad Gupt and was inaugurated by none less than Mahatma Gandhi. Then in May 1983, Swami Satyamitranand Giri founded a Bharat Mata temple in Haridwar which has a statue of Bharat Mata holding a milk urn in one hand and sheaves of grains in the other. According to the temple guide book, “the temple serves to promote the devotional attitude towards Bharat Mata, something that historians and mythological story-teller may have missed.” (Mc Kean, Lise. “Bharat Mata: Mother India and Her Militant Matriots”, in Devi : Goddesses of India, edited by John S.Hawley and Donna M.Wulff, Motilal Banarasidass Publishers, Delhi, 1998). 

Moreover, not many know that Bharat Mata poojas are regularly performed all over India. The Hindu, on Jan 3, 2005 reported one such pooja by the BJP activists in a temple in Mahabubnagar, Andhra Pradesh, during which there was a clash between the BJP and CPI (M) workers. The Chandigarh Tribune reported on April 13, 2002 that the employees of the Govt. Medical College and Hospital in Chandigarh performed the pooja of Bharat Mata “as per the Indian culture.” Also, the largest Hindu website dedicated to the freedom movement,, has posted an ancient Sanskrit Hindu verse glorifying Mother India as a goddess. It reads, “Ratnakaradhautapadam Himalyakirtitinim (I) Brahmara-jarsiratnamdhyam vande Bharatamataram (II)”. When translated it means, “I pay my obeisance to mother Bharata, whose feet are being washed by the ocean, who wears the mighty Himalaya as her crown, and who is exuberantly adorned with the gems of traditions set by Brahmarsis and Rajarsis.”

The aforementioned facts prove deification of India by the Hindus, which means that the Muslims, by singing the first two stanzas of the Vande Mataram, would be violating the basic tenet of Islam, that is Tawheed. It cannot be argued that saluting the motherland is harmless because the fourth stanza clearly identifies the land of India mentioned in the first stanza with goddess Durga and Lakshmi, and therefore, any salutation to motherland tantamounts to bowing before Hindu goddesses – an act unthinkable for a Muslim. The Muslims respect the right of the Hindus to worship any deity, but they cannot be forced to commit un-Islamic acts.

Another reason for the Muslims’ reluctance to sing the Vande Mataram is the fact that the novel Anandamath by Bankimchandra Chatterjee, in which it was first published, glorified the ethnic cleansing of the Muslims. As an example the following passage may be quoted. “The rural people ran out to kill the Muslims while coming across them. In the night, some were organised in groups and going to the Muslim locality, they torched their houses and looted their everything. Many Muslims were killed; many of them shaved their beards, smeared their bodies with soil and started singing the name of Hari. When asked, they said, we were Hindus. The frightened Muslims rushed towards the town in group after group. (pages 161-162 of Abbey of Delight, the English translation of Anandamath, by Arabinda Das).

In any case, the Vande Mataram is a national song and not the national anthem of India, hence refusal to sing it cannot be construed as showing disrespect to the country. Given the fact that the Muslims have been singing the Jana Gana Mana ever since India attained independence, and the fact that they have laid down their lives for the country during and after the freedom struggle, their spirit cannot be doubted even for a minute. It must be understood that India being a secular democracy, every community has the right to profess and practice its faith so long as it does not challenge the unity and integrity of the nation, and therefore, the coercive imposition of the beliefs of one religion over another would only result in communal disharmony.

(The writer is a Peace Activist & Executive Committee Member, Harmony India) 

Courtesy: IslamicVoice



In any other era, if we were to see an adult aimlessly and mindlessly spinning a silly, colourful, childish toy between his fingers, we would perhaps start to doubt the fact that his mental capacities were still functioning according to the Divinely set and apportioned harmonious equilibrium normally found in adults. Or, in simpler terms, we would consider calling the psychiatrist. But not in the era we are living in. This techno-tronic era we find ourselves in is an exaggerated form of The Brave New World of Aldous Huxley, and the 1984 of George Orwell, satirical works written many decades ago about a futuristic world devoid of, well, everything even remotely humane. An era in which Dajjal calls the shots (at least according to his deficient and limited mental scope), and we, the Ummah, obediently follow in utter subservience, choosing to ignore and lay to waste the great gift of intelligence given to us by Allah Ta’ala, and the ability to think for ourselves.

Fidget spinners, as these new toys are called, have been quite aptly named. It is claimed that they help bring about concentration and calmness, and remove fidgeting. Outwardly it may seem so, but in reality this toy has been cleverly designed to do just quite the opposite – it is nothing but a time-wasting distraction which causes excessive and dangerous fidgeting of the spiritual heart, and the fidgeting it is actually supposed to remove is quite different from anything we may imagine. The saddest and most distressful part is the fact that Muslims have been rushing to buy, and even sell the toy, despite knowing well that Allah has categorically and clearly stated in the Quran, “Beware! It is only and only through the remembrance of Allah that the hearts can attain peace, contentment, tranquillity, happiness.”  

Concentration and calmness cannot be achieved through fidget spinners when a person is involved in the disobedience of Allah, because to disobey Allah is to forget Him. Peace can only be achieved through staying away from sin, and involving oneself in salaah, dhikr, recitation of the Quran, pondering over the power and beauty of Allah, sitting in the gatherings of the Awliyaa, among numerous other praiseworthy deeds.

Whoever has seen a fidget spinner will know that they come in various colourful designs and shapes. When spun, the rotation of the designs creates a mesmerising, hypnotic effect similar to what is used in actual hypnosis sessions. Similarly, the spinner comes with an option of LED lights, for spinning in the dark. The effect created by these fast spinning, colourful LED lights is almost the same as the effect of flashing, pulsating, rotating disco lights. Disco lights aren’t how they are without any reason, the lights have been specifically designed to achieve sinister objectives. Disco lights were created to blanket the human mind into a mildly hypnotic stupor, and this is what happens with the LED lights on the fidget spinner. Not everyone goes to the disco, so they simply brought the disco lights home in the form of a seemingly harmless toy. From this we get to know that the spinning of the colourful designs and/or the LED lights exercises a tranquilising, hypnotising effect on the brain, relaxing its natural guards and alarms, so that the mind becomes more willing to accept subliminal messages and suggestions, and becomes more vulnerable and susceptible to subconscious programing.

In layman’s terms, fidget spinners have been designed to make our minds more willing to blindly accept, consciously or subconsciously, whatever Dajjal and his cronies want us to believe, without even knowing what we are actually doing. It thus effectively removes the ‘fidgeting’ of the mind, otherwise more commonly known as critical thinking. Not co-incidentally, television works according to the same principle of flashes of colourful lights moving with high speed, to achieve a similar objective.

Fidget spinners are extremely dangerous and harmful toys for adults as well as children, which can destroy our dunya as well as Aakhirat. Let us not become gullible, blind slaves to the fads and crazes being propelled by the West. Let us learn to think for ourselves, and look deeply into matters with the noor of the heart, to be able to see the reality that is not apparent at first glance. May Allah save all of us from the traps of Dajjal.

Explaining the Hadith Of the Sun’s Prostration Beneath the Throne

How do we understand the Hadith of the sun’s prostration beneath the Throne?

One of the things that is controversial is this case is as follows:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said to Abu Dhar (رضي الله عنه) when the sun set: “Do you know where it goes?” I said: Allah (ﷻ) and His Messenger (ﷺ) know best. He said: “It goes and prostrates beneath the Throne, then it asks for permission (to rise) and permission is given to it. Soon it will prostrate, but it will not be accepted from it, and it will ask for permission (to rise) but permission will not be given to it; it will be said to it: “Go back to where you came from.’ So it will rise from its place of setting, and that is what Allah (ﷻ), may He be glorified, refers to in the verse (interpretation of the meaning): [And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed). That is the Decree of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing] [Q.36:38]. [Sahih al-Bukhari (3199), and Sahih al-Muslim (250)]

The opponents claim that this saying of the Prophet (ﷺ) proves that the sun is what moves and sets, then it hides from the whole earth, and that the sun prostrates beneath the Throne, and waits for permission to come back again to rise which means that it stops moving at a point when it goes beneath the Throne which contradicts what has been proven by modern science that the sun is still and rotates on its own self.

If you follow the writings of the opponents, you will find that they jump with joy on this; a lot of them mention it and don’t get bored by repeating it continuously, and they find it as one of the strongest statements against Islam.

Before clarifying this case, we first have to know that this has been a controversial topic among Muslim scholars before the scientific era. [see: A’lam al-Hadith fi sharh sahih al-Bukhari, al-Khattabi (1893/3), al-bidaya wal-nihaya, Ibn Kathir (33/1) and ‘umda tul Qari, al-‘Aini (119/15), and fath al-bari, Ibn Hajr (299/6)]

Many scholars have spoken of it and tried to explain it and clarify its meanings to address the doubts surrounding it. They were not blind to this Hadith and it was a very interesting topic for them.

To make it clear, we would separate the objection and divide it into four main points:

The Hadith mentions that the sun sets while facts are contrary to it; the sun neither sets nor moves to any place and the earth’s rotation causes the sunset.

This contradiction is not correct since the Hadith only mentions the sunset without mentioning the cause; it is the same as the verses mentioned earlier which speak of what the people see. The Hadith mentions that the sun prostrates beneath the Throne which implies that the sun stops moving and this contradicts modern science. Before commenting on this matter, we have to clarify that the mentioned prostrating is a special prostrating and is not the absolute physical movement to Allah (ﷻ); thus the Hadith states a special prostration related only to the sun. Moreover, saying that the prostration implies a stop is inaccurate. Since the base of the claim is faulty, that the sun prostrates like humans do, the argument itself is faulty as well. The fact is that the sun’s prostration and asking for permission is unknown to us. We do not know about it nor how it happens. Read a specially dedicated piece on this argument here.

The same is true for the prostration of the trees and stones and their glorification of Allah (ﷻ); if they are close to us and around us yet we do not know the manner in which they prostrate, then how can we understand the sun’s prostration?

Allah (ﷻ) says about their prostration: [The seven heavens and the earth and whatever is in them exalt Him. And there is not a thing except that it exalts [Allah] by His praise, but you do not understand their [way of] exalting. Indeed, He is ever Forbearing and Forgiving]   [Qur’an 17:44].

If the manner of the sun’s prostration is unknown to us, we cannot claim that it contradicts science as applied science does not recognize unknowns and only deals with what is applicable to the experiment. If science hasn’t experimented on a case, we cannot negate that case by saying that since science does not know yet, it does not exist and if it does not exist now, it has never existed. Such logic would be rejected by science and to do the same with Islam would be incorrect.

It is clear that the opponents of the sun’s prostration claiming it to be against science don’t have clear evidence to prove it a contradiction, and they have said it themselves that if it is unknown to science, it does not exist.

Moreover, prostration of the sun does not contradict the human mind because proving the opposite of something is invalid except if we know it for a fact and understand its nature. The sun’s prostration is unknown to us and we don’t know its manner, then how can we judge it and say that it contradicts our mind?!

We do not deny that what the Hadith states is unfamiliar to the human mind; however, there is a big difference between what the mind does not understand and what the mind cannot comprehend. Sometimes what the prophets inform people are topics which the mind does not understand but they do not tell the people about that which is impossible and that which the mind cannot comprehend. The opponents confuse between these two matters; sometimes they say that if it is unknown to the mind, it is impossible after which, for them, Islam contradicts science and mind.

Therefore, if the sun’s prostration is an unknown thing, it is not correct to contradict it and say that it implies that sun stops because it is not correct to state something’s specifications except if we already know its facts.

Many scholars have discussed this subject. Al-Khattabi says:

And it’s prostrating every night is not contradictory to its movement in its orbit. [A’lam al-Hadith fi sharh sahih al-Bukhari, al-Khattabi (1893/3)]

Al-Bayhaqi says:

There’s nothing contradictory in its prostration beneath the Throne and its orbiting and purpose for what it has been created for. [Al-Asma’ wal-Sifaat (275/2)]

There are authentic Hadiths about the sun and its condition being unknown to the people such as this Hadith from Saheeh Muslim:

And it returns and emerges out from its rising place and it glides (in such a normal way) that the people do not discern anything.

This means that nobody understands its prostration or seeking permission. Thus they do not discern anything.

Somebody may argue that the Hadith says that the sun is still until it is said to it: Rise up and return to the place whence you came. They may argue that this implies that the sun has to stop moving. We answer that it is not like that; it means that it is still under prostration until permission from Allah (ﷻ) to rise again is received, thus the permission is related to the prostration and not the motion. We have already said that the prostration does not imply motion except if it was a familiar prostration to the humans; however, this is about the sun and we don’t know how its prostration looks like.

The Hadith mentions that the sun goes under the Throne and prostrates there but the fact is that the sun does not change its path or its orbit, then how can it go and come back?!

This alleged contradiction is inaccurate for two reasons:

The sun’s going is not known; thus it is the same as the prostration discussed above. The prostration of the sun, the manner of which we don’t know, is the same as its movement here and there. Al-Khattabi states:

It is unknown. We won’t deny it and we don’t ask or say how it is; moreover, our mind and science cannot understand or know anything about it. [A’lam al-Hadith fi sharh sahih al-Bukhari, al-Khattabi (1893/3); also see sharh al-mishkaat for al-Tibi (3450/11)]

The word for going in the Arabic language does not only mean the transformation from some place to another but may also mean the alignment; thus it would mean that the sun just aligns with/under the Throne, and what makes it more clear is that the Throne is much bigger than the sun and the skies and the whole earth. The Prophet (ﷺ) said:

‘The seven heavens in relation to the Kursi are like a ring thrown into a waterless desert. And the superiority of the ‘Arsh over the Kursi is like the superiority of the desert over that ring.’ [Sahih ibn Hibban (361), Ibn Abi Shayba in Kitab al-Arsh (58), al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma’ wal-Sifaat (862); silsilah al-saheeha for al-Albani (109)]

Ibn Kathir says about the Hadith:

This does not mean that it goes to the skies, but that it just sets out of our eyes even though it is still in its orbit. [Al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya (33/1)]

Al-Khattabi comments on this Hadith as follows:

The sun prostrating beneath the Throne is not a denial of the fact that it aligns with the Throne while it orbits. [A’lam al-Hadith fi sharh sahih al-Bukhari, al-Khattabi (1894/3)]

This style is known in the Arabic language; we say, for the one who went to pray, that he went to meet his God but the meaning here is not that he went above the heavens to meet Allah (ﷻ) there.

Similarly, here’s a verse about Ibrahim (عليه السلام) where Allah (ﷻ) says: [I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!]  (Qur’an 37:99). This does not mean that he was going to meet Allah (ﷻ) above the seven heavens but that he was going to the place on earth where Allah (ﷻ) was being worshiped. [Tafsir ibn Jarir al-Tabari (71/21), and Tafsir al-Baghawi (46/7)]

It is correct to say: the man has gone to the desert to meet the moon and to lie down below it; the meaning is not that he is going to the moon in its orbit to meet it there.

The Hadith has specified the time of prostration, which is at the sunset, and mentioned that it does not prostrate at the time of sunrise; it is known that the sunrise and sunset are rational matters, since the sun is already rising and setting at the same time in different places, then it would be impossible to think that the sun prostrates and not prostrates all the time and having a single sunset at some moment on the whole earth contradicts applied science.

This matter is not right for two reasons:

The sun’s prostration is unknown as we have already mentioned and we cannot specify the criteria of/for unknown things. Thus, saying that it is mandatory that the sun prostrates all the time is based on our wrong understanding of the prostration, which is unknown to us.

For this, we find a similar matter elsewhere in Islamic texts and that is coming down of Allah (ﷻ) every night to the first sky in the last third of the night. Some have criticized this coming down claiming that there is always a last third at some point of the earth and hence this would mean that Allah (ﷻ) would be coming down all the time, every time.

This alleged contradiction is based on an incorrect idea that Allah (ﷻ)’s coming down is the same as the humans which is totally false. The same thing is with the sun, we do not know how the prostration looks like and hence, we cannot relate it to our understanding of the human prostration.

It might be correct that the sun has some point in its orbit where it will be typically adjacent to the Throne and this point is at the time of the sunset on the Arabian Peninsula where the Prophet (ﷺ) spoke the Hadith.

This would mean that the Hadith does not state that the sun, at the time of sunset, prostrates beneath the Throne, neither does it say that the sun prostrates every time the sun sets. Accordingly, the Hadith does not mention that the prostration takes place only at the time of sunset. The Prophet (ﷺ) did not say that (the sun was setting beneath the Throne) but he was speaking to those present at that time and at that time, the sun had set and prostrated and asked for permission from Allah (ﷻ). Therefore, this would mean that the Hadith is related to that point and that specific time.

Many scholars have spoken along similar lines. Al-Khattabi says:

This is not denying that it is adjacent to the Throne while it orbits [A’lam al-Hadith fi sharh sahih al-Bukhari, al-Khattabi (1894/3)].

Ibn Hajar says:

Actually his saying “beneath the Throne” means adjacent to it, and this does not contradict Allah (ﷻ)’s statement: [when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it [as if] setting in a spring of dark mud]; thus, the meaning is that it pertains to those who look at it, but the prostration is after the sunset. [Fath al-Bari (542/8)]

These opinions imply that the scholars did not understand that the sun prostrates when it has some sort of partial setting; thus, it does not prostrate all the time but just once when it is adjacent the Throne and that is when it sets from the Arabian Peninsula.

According to this, many of the opponents are now in trouble because they did not understand the actual meaning of the sayings and built a faulty understanding and wrong consequences and mixed up between the unknown and the impossible matters.


Liquor — The Process of Halaalization

By Majlisul Ulama

“From  my  Ummah  will  be  people  who  will  Halaalize  liquor.” [Hadith]

According  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam),  in times  in  close  proximity  to  the  Impending  Hour  of  Qiyaamah,  Muslims  will  halaalize  liquor  with  the  gimmick  of  fanciful  names. The  halaalizers  will  be  Muslims.  Thus,  whilst  this  process  of  liquor  halaalization  initiated  by  the  muftis  of  this  era  is  lamentable,  it  is  not  surprising  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Rasulullah’s  (sallallahu   alayhi  wasallam)  predictions  have  to incumbently  materialize  into  reality.

It  is  quite  obvious  that  the  halaalization  process  of  any  haraam  act,  food  or  substance,  is  not  a  sudden  occurrence.  It  is  an  evolutionary  process  which  gradually  by  imperceptible  gnaws  into  the  Imaan  of  Muslims  degrees.  In  this  haraam  evolutionary  process,  the  first  satanic  step  is  the  halaalization  of  ‘minute’  quantities  of  alcohol  of  the  non-khamr  category.  This  is  shaitaan’s  first  snare  in  the process  of  halaalizing  whisky, gin,  vodka,  sherry  and  the plethora  of  others  dehumanizing  haraam  liquors.

Shaitaan  is  dangling  the  chimera  of  the  ‘permissibility  of  the   second  category  alcohol’  before  the  masses  and  the  shortsighted  muftis  of  this  era.  This  has  become  the  hallucinatory  basis for  the  halaalization  of  ‘ethanol’  which  is  an  intoxicating  alcohol  which  is  present  in  99%  of all the  popular  liquors.

The  second  step  in  the  satanic  evolutionary  process  of  halaalization,  is  that  small  quantities  of  the  ‘second  category’  alcohol  which  does  not  intoxicate  is  permissible.  Thus,  Coke  and  the  myriad  of   other  health-destroying  soft  drinks  are  declared  not  only  permissible,  but  ‘halaal  tayyib’  by  the  conglomerate  of  maajin muftis.

The  third  step  in  the  shaitaani  evolutionally-process  of  halaalization  will  be  the  silencing  of  the  plastic  muftis  by  the  modernist  copro-intellegentsia  with  rational  arguments  such  as  the permissibility  of  consuming  a  glass  of  whisky,  etc.  or  a  quantity  which  does  not  intoxicate.  Their  argument  will  be  quite  logical  in  view  of  the  fact  that  soft  drinks  and  whisky  both  have  the  common  ethnol  incredient  drinks  with  ethanol  are  halaal,  then  there  is  no  logical  reason  for  saying  that  a  glass  of  vodka  or  less  or  more  which  does  not  intoxicate  is  haraam.  What  will  render  it  haraam?  Both  contain  the  confounded  ‘second  category  alcohol’,  and  both  are  taken  in  quantities  which  do  not  intoxicate.

The  fourth  step  in  the  satanic  process  will  be  the  production  of  a  nation  of  drunkards.  The satanic  conspiracy  is  to  transform  the  Ummah  into  a  nation  of  drunkards  as  are  the  kuffaar.

The  puerile  ‘daleels’  put  forward  in  labyrinthal  form  by  short-sighted  muftis  are  lamentably ludicrous  and  an  insult  to Ilm. Another  absurd  argument  they  tender  is  the  principle  of Umoom  Balwa  (intensive  and  extensive  prevalence  which  makes  indulgence  unavoidable). This  has  of recent  become  the  primary  basis  for  halaalization  of the  ‘second  category’  haraam alcohol.  Consumption  of  alcohol  containing  soft  drinks,  puddings,  jellies  and  custard masses  on  a  widespread  scale  is  declared  permissible  on  the  fallacious  basis  of by  the Umoom  Balwa.

Clogged  and  fossilized  brains  fail  to  understand  that  this  principle  does  not  legalize  what is  haraam.  The  principle  of  Umoom  Balwa  operates  in  the  sphere  of  Tahaarat  in  which  purities  and  impurities  are  the  subjects.  It  does  not  halaalize  pork  and  carrion  simply  because  their  consumption  has   become  widespread.  It  does  not  halaalize  riba  because  almost  every  Muslim  in  this  age  is  embroiled  in  this  haraam  Fitnah.  It  does  not  halaalize  abandonment  of  hijaab  and   intermingling  of  sexes  simply   because  99%  of  the  Ummah   are  trapped  in  a  cesspool  of  inequity  and  immorality  in  which  Hijaab  is  mocked  and  rejected  by  Muslims.  It  does  not  halaalize  shaving  the  beard  on  the  basis  of  99%  of  the  Ummah  is  involved  in  this  shaitaani  act.  Umoom  Balawa has  no  license  to  operate  in  the  sphere  of  prohibitions – things  which  Allah  Ta’ala  has  made  haraam.

In  certain  scenarios,  haraam  substances  become  temporarily  permissible  on  the  basis  of  recognized  Shar’i  principles,  but not  on  the  basis of  Umoom Balwa.  Such  principles  which  are  invoked  in  times  of  desperation  and  emergency  are

Tadaawi  bil  haraam  (Medical  treatment  with  haraam  substances)

Adhururaat  tubeehul  mahzuraat  (Necessities  legalize prohibition)

Ahwanul  baliyatain (The  lesser  of  the  two  evils  Etc.

Umoom  Balwa  is  excluded.  Its  operation  is  in  a very  restricted sphere – the  avenue  of  Tahaarat
According  to  the  Shariah,  all   kinds  of  alcohol  are  haraam,  whether  in  large  or  small quantities  without  any  exception.  It  is  not  permissible  to  upset  or  abrogate  this  Ijma’   of  all  Four  Math-habs  with  the  isolated,  overshadowed  and  inapplicable  view  of  Shaikhain  (rahmatullah  alayhima).  That  view  is  non-existent  for  practical  purposes.  Its  best  abode  is  to  remain  buried  in  the  kutub  of  Fiqh  for academic  dilation.  It  is  of  mere  academic  value.  It  may  not  be  presented  for  practical  application.

The  Mufta  Bihi  version  of  prohibition  of  all  kinds  of  alcohol  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab  is  in  line  with  the  Fatwa  of  the  other  three  Math-habs.  Thus,  the  isolated  view  lying  in  its  grave  may  not  be  resurrected  for  opening  the  gateway  for  haraam  and  for  the  halaalization  of  liquor. 

As  for  alcohol-containing  medicine  and  other  substances  utilized  externally,  their permissibility  hinges  on  principles  other  than  Umoom  Balwa.  Furthermore,  there  is  no  argument  regarding  the   permissibility  of  medicine.  It  is  therefore  moronic  to  introduce  this  dimension  into  this   discussion  in  the  attempt  to  halaalize  the  initial  steps  in  the   haraam  evolutionary  process  of   the  halaalization  of  liquor.  Carrion  chickens  and  carrion  meat  are  already  accepted  as   ‘halaal’  by  this  degenerated  Ummah.  The  shaitaani  snare  in   the  carrion-halaalizing  process  was  the  displacement  of  the  Shari’ah’s  sacred  system of  Thabah.  The  argument  of  the  satanic  molvi  halaalizers  of carrion  was  that  as  long  as Tasmiyah  is  recited,  the  chickens  are  halaal.  Today,  neither  is  Tasmiyah  recited  nor  are  the  requisite  neck  vessels  severed.  When  the  whole  Thabah  system  has  been  permanently  abrogated,  how  is  it  possible  to  ever  have  halaal  chickens?  The  whole  system  is  satanically  corrupt  and  rotten  from  A  to Z.  The  same  shaitaaniyat  is  now  being perpetrated  by  the  maajin  muftis  in  the  devilish  process  of  halaalizing  liquor. 

Regarding  the  mis-manipulation  of  the  principle  of  Umoom  Balwa,  Hadhrat  Maulana  Ashraf  Ali  Thanvi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  said: 

“Nowadays,  among  the  detestable  things,  two   things  have  become  common:  Pictures  and  the  consumption  of  spirits  and  alcohol  (spirits  and  alcohol  are  used  synonymously.  It  does not  refer  to  methylated  spirits.)  This  humble  writer  asks:  Can  the  rule  of  Umoom  Balwa  be  invoked  on  account  of  these  acts  having  become  widespread?  The  issue  of   Umoom  Balwa  cannot  be  considered  in  matters  of  halaal  and  haraam.  It  operates  in  matters  on  impurities  and  purities.”

The  muftis  of  today  are  using  this  principle  loosely  and  incorrectly  to  halaalize  haraam substances  thereby  opening  a  wide  gateway  for  Fitnah  and  corruption  –  the  Fitnah  and corruption  which  had  constrained  the  Ahnaaf  Fuqaha  to  have  adopted  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad  to  be  the  official  law  of  the  Shariah  in  terms  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab.  In  fact,  this  view  of  the  prohibition  of  all  types  of  alcohol  is  the  unanimous  ruling  of  the  Four  Math-habs.

Predicting  the  process  of  halaalization  of  liquor,  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said: “There  will  be  people  of  my  Ummah  who  will  halaalize  liquor  by  changing  its  name.”  

“When  liquor  is  halaalized  with  nabeez  (calling  it  date  juice);    riba  (is  halaalized)  with  trade  (i.e.  calling  it  trade);  bribery  is  halaalized  with  hadyah  (calling  it  a  gift),  and   people  trade  with  Zakaat  (instead  of  giving  to  the  poor),  then  at  that  time  will  be  their  destruction.” 

In  our  times,  all  of  these  vile  acts  mentioned  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  have materialized.  Riba  is  termed  ‘profit’  and  ‘dividend’,  etc.  Bribery  has  become  gifts,  and  the  wealthy,  instead  of  paying their  Zakaat  immediately  to  the  poor,  dole  it  out  in  drabs  whilst  the  bulk  of  it  remains  in  their  business. They  dribs  and  devise  ways  of  investing  Zakaat  in  trade  by  deceiving  themselves  that  the  poor  will  benefit  from  the  income.  Add  to  this  pictures  of  animate  objects  which  are  halaalized  by  labeling  the  haraam  pictures  with  names  such  as  photos,  digital  photos,  etc.

As  far  as  liquor  is  concerned,  the  maajin  muftis  have already opened  the  gateway  for  the   full-scale  halaalization  of  liquor.

The  legalizers  of  non-khamr  alcohol  claim:

(1)  “The  second  type  of  alcohol  is  that  which  is  derived  from   something  other  than  grapes and  dates,  e.g.  potato,  honey.  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  regarding  the  purity  and  impermissibility.  According  to  Imam  Abu  Hanifa  and  Abu  Yusuf,  this  type  of  alcohol  is  pure  and  it  is  permissible  to  consume  such  an  amount  of  this  alcohol  which  cannot  intoxicate  a  person  on  condition  that  it  is  not  drunk  for  the  purpose  of  amusement  and  enjoyment.  According  to  Imam  Muhammad,  this  alcohol  falls  under  the  category  of  minor  impurity  (najaasat  khafifah),  and  it  is  not  permissible  to  even  consume  a  small  amount  of  this  alcohol. Even  though  the  fatwa  is  generally  given  on  the  view  of  Imam  Muhammad,  there  is  scope  in  consuming  medicine   which  includes  this  second  type  of  alcohol  and  following  the  view  of  Imam  Abu  Hanifa  and  Abu  Yusuf  since  this  is  such  an  issue  in  which  there  is  Umoom  Balwa  affecting  everyone.  This  is  despite  the  fact  that  Taqwa  and  precaution  demand  that  one  should    follow  the  view  of  Imam  Muhammad.”  

There  are  several  flaws  in  this  argument.

(a)  The  issue  of  difference  between  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah  (rahmatullah  alayh)  and  Imaam  Abu  Yusuf  (rahmatullah  alayh)  on  the  one  side,  and  Imaam  Muhammad  (rahmatullah  alayh) on  the  other  side,  is  not  a  matter  for  public  consumption.  It  is  short-sighted  to  dilate  on  this  difference  in  the  arena  of  the  general  laity  (awaamun  naas).  Nowadays,  every  second  Tom,  Dick  and  Harry  has  opened  an  office  of  ‘ijtihaad’  for  himself  despite  him  lacking  expertise  in  Istinja  and  the  masaa’il  of  Tahaarat  and  Salaat.

An  issue  of  academic  significance  should  not  be  thrashed  out  in  the  domain  of  the  awaamun  naas.  The  Muftis  who  play  in  the  public  arena  with  the  masaa’il  of  the  Deen  have  unintentionally  contributed  to  the  attitude  of Istikhfaaf  which  has  become    universally  a  rampant  disease  affecting  laymen  who  consider  themselves  qualified  to  interpret  Shar’i  issues  and  to  determine  which  view  of  the  Fuqaha  is  applicable  to  them  (i.e.  to  the  public)  for  practical  implementation.

A  Mufti  should  issue  his  fatwa  arguments  for  public  consumption  without  presenting  divisive  arguments.

(b)  The  difference  between  the  two  groups  of  the  Ahnaaf  Fuqaha  is  of  major  significance and  may  not  be  minimized  for  the  sake  of  invalid  ease  as  the  alcohol-legalizing  Muftis  are perpetrating.  It  is  not  a  simple  matter  of  selecting  a  view  at  whim  and  fancy,  which  is precisely  the  attitude  regulating  the  adoption  of  the  permissibility  view.

For  all  practical  purposes,  the  permissibility  view  of  Shaikhain  (Imaam  Abu  Hanifah  and  Imaam  Abu  Yusuf)  has  no  existence.  It  is  a  view  which  the  Fuqaha  of  the  Math-hab  have  relegated  into  oblivion   since  the  past  twelve  centuries  or  more.  It  is  therefore  irresponsible  of  Muftis  of  our  age  to  dig  out  the  permissibility  view  which  has  been  hibernating  in  oblivion  for  more  than  12  centuries.  It  shall  be  shown  further  on,  Insha’Allah,  that  there  exists  no  pressing  need  to  constrain  extraction  from  oblivion  of    the  overshadowed  view  which  all  Four  Math-habs  have  discarded,  and  which  is  in  apparent  conflict  with  the  Ahaadith  and  the  rationale  underlying  the  prohibition  of  all  intoxicants.

(c)  Even  in  terms  of  the  permissibility  view  of  Shaikhain  (rahmatullah  alayhima),  the  permissibility  is  predicated  with  absence  of  “amusement  and  enjoyment”,  i.e.  the  substance  contaminated  with  the  second  type  of  alcohol  assumed  to  be  permissible,  may  not  be consumed  for  pleasure,  amusement  and  enjoyment.  This  permissibility  view  excludes  drinking  for  the  purpose  of  enjoyment,  deriving  pleasure,  amusement  and  the  like.

Can  the  legalizers  explain  the  purpose  for  consuming  health- destroying  drinks  such  as  Coke,  Pepsi  and  soft  drinks  in  general?  There  exists  consensus  of  the  experts  on  the  absolute  harmful  and  detrimental  effects  of  these  drinks.  So,  for  what  purpose  do  people  drink  Coke,  etc.?  The  one  and  only  purpose  is  talahhi  (enjoyment/pleasure) which  is  the  element  which  renders  this  second-category   alcohol  impermissible  even  according  to  Shaikhain.  No  one  consumes  Coke  for  building  up  muscles,  bones  and  health  in  general  for  the  simple  reason  that  these  drinks  achieve  the  very  opposite  effect.  The  consequences  of  these  alcohol  containing  drinks  are  disastrous  for  human  health.

Furthermore,  even  if  the  poisonous  effects  of  these  drinks  are  irrationally  ignored,  the  fact  remains  that  these  drinks  are  consumed  for  talahhi,  hence  there  is  consensus  of  the  Fuqaha  on  the  impermissibility  of  drinks  containing  even  the  second  category  alcohol.

(d)  The  statement, “Even  though  the  fatwa  is  generally  given  on  the  view  of  Imam Muhammad…….”, is  injudicious  to  say  the  least.  It  is  of  eristic  tendency  and  a  mild  spinning  of  reality  to  suit  the  permissibility  narrative.  The  statement  grossly  minimizes  the fundamental  importance  and  impact  of    the  Fatwa  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab  a  Fatwa   which  is  corroborated  unanimously  by  the  other  three  Math-habs  as  well.

Nothing  has  changed  to  warrant  abrogation  of  the  impermissibility  Fatwa  which  has  been  extant  since  the  earliest  age  of  Islam.  The  statement  is  in  fact  erroneous.  It  is  improper  to  aver  that  the  fatwa  is  given  generally  on  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad  (rahmatullah alayh).  The  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab  has  been only  on  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad,  not  on  the  view  of  Shaikhain.  The  Fatwa  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab  has  not  vacillated  between  permissibility  and  impermissibility  regarding  the  prohibition  of  all  types  and  categories  of alcohol.  Thus  the  introduction  of  the  ‘difference’  dimension  is  inappropriate  and  has  to  be  rejected  as  baseless  and  inapplicable  to  the  current  scenario  just  as  it  had  been  inapplicable  over  the  centuries.

Without  hesitation  it  is  contended  that  the  permissibility  view  extracted  from  oblivion  by  most  of  the  contemporary  Muftis  is  simply  dictated  by  the  attitude  of  pandering  to  the  whims of  the  ignorant  masses  who  have  become  addicted  to  the  consumption  of  these  extremely  harmful  drinks  and  unnecessary  processed  foods  without  which  life  and  health  will  be  vastly  healthier.

The  fatwa  is  not  generally  given  on  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad.  The  Fatwa  on  his  view  has  always  been  static  and  permanent  on  this  impermissibility  view.

(e)  The  argument  that  “there  is  some  scope  for  consuming    medicine  which  includes  this second  type  of  alcohol”, is  an  illogical  superfluity  when  viewing  it  in  the  light  of  the  alcohol  of  the  first  category,  viz., khamr.  The  legalizers    quite  unambiguously  acknowledge  that  even  khamr  may  be  utilized  for  medicinal  purposes.  Since  this  is  the  unanimous  position  of  the  Fuqaha,  it  is  superfluous  and  meaningless  to  say  that  “there  is  scope  for  consuming  medicine”  which  contains  the  second  category  alcohol.

Regardless  of  the  category, there  is  scope  for consuming   haraam  medicine  when  the  need  develops.  Thus,  there  is  no  merit  in  this  superfluous  argument.  For  the  permissibility  of  consuming    such  medicine,  the  view  of    Shaikhain  is  not  required  for  the  permissibility  fatwa.  The  difference  between  the  two  groups  of  Hanafi  Fuqaha  on  this  issue  does  not  play  a  decisive  role  for  determining  the  permissibility  fatwaTadaawi  bil  haraam,  Dhuroorat, etc.  are  some  independent  principles  which  are  invoked  for  occasional  permissibility  of prohibitions.

(f)    The  Umoom Balwa  principle  invoked  by  the  legalizers  is  absolutely  corrupt  and  baseless.  Wide-scale  prevalence  is  not  a   legalizer  in  all  instances.  Interest,  gambling,  zina,  abandonment  of  Hijaab,  free  intermingling  of  the  sexes,  music,  pictography,  etc.,  etc.,   are  rampant  in  Muslim  society.  Literally  speaking  the  element  of  Umoom  Balwa exists.  But,  these  vices  may  not  be  legalized  in  terms  of   the  Umoom  Balwa  principle.

Basically,  this  principle  is  availed  of  in  issues  of  Tahaarat, But,  not  in  matters  of  Hurmat.   Other  principles  regulate  temporary  legalization  of  Hurmat (Prohibition),  not  umoom  balwa.  If  all  the  water  reaching  into  the  homes  is  contaminated  and  no  pure  water  is  available  easily,  such  water  will  become  permissible  on  the  basis  of  the  principle  of  Umoom  Balwa. 

Drugs  are  today  a  menace  whose  prevalence  is  extremely  wide-scale  –  extensive  and intensive.  In  the  literal  meaning  of  the  term, umoom  balwa  is  applicable  to  it.  What  is  the  fatwa  of  the  Coke  legalizing  Muftis  on  the  issue  of  drugs?  Genuine  ‘umoom  balwa’  grips  nations,  world  wide,  in  this  regard.  Do  drugs  become  permissible  on  the  Umoom  Balwa?  For  a  certainty  the  Muftis  have   as  yet  not  invoked  basis  of  Umoom  Balwa legalization  of  drugs.  On  the  contrary,  despite  the  applicability  of  umoom  balwa  in  the  literal  meaning  of  the  term,  authorities  invoke  even  the  death  penalty  for  drugs.  This  prohibition  is  not  legalized  in  consequence  of  wide-scale  and  intensity  of  prevalence.

If  a  pork-consuming  community  enters  into  the  fold  of  Islam,  pork  shall  not  be  declared halaal  on  the  basis  of  Umoom  Balwa.  The  people  will  have  no  option  but  to  abandon  their pork-addiction.  Similarly,  carrion  chickens  and  carrion  meat  cannot  be  halaalized  on  the  basis  of  Umoom  Balwa.  In  fact,  the  halaalizers  of  carrion  are  not  basing  their  rotten  case  on  the  basis  of  Umoom  Balwa.  They  are  simply  denying  the  charges  which  render  the chickens  carrion.  But  they  do  concede  that  the  chickens  would  be  carrion  if  Tasmiyah  is  not  recited.  They  too  will  not  halaalize  on  the  basis  of  Umoom  Balwa  such  chickens  which  they  believe  to  be  carrion  despite  the  entire  community  being  recklessly  addicted  to  carrion consumption.

There  is  absolutely  no  merit  in  the  Umoom  Balwa  argument.  This  principle  has  simply  been  made  the  scapegoat  or  better,  baselessly  and  deceptively  cited  to  halaalize    harmful  and  poisonous  ‘foods’  to  satisfy  the  whims  and  fancies  of  the  masses.

(g) “This  is  despite  the  fact  that  Taqwa  and  precaution  demand  that  one  should  follow  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad.”  
This  averment  of  the  legalizers  is  incorrect  and  improper  advice. The  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab  is  on  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad  (rahmatullah  alayh),  and  this  is  also  the  Fatwa  of the  other  three  Math-habs.  It  is  not  a  fatwa  of  Taqwa.  Furthermore,  cultivation  of  Taqwa  is  incumbent.  Over  two  hundred  Qur’aanic  Aayat  and  innumerable  Ahaadith  command  the  cultivation  of  Taqwa.  In  this  regard,  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)    said:

“A  Mu’min  will  not  attain  the  status  of  the  Muttaqeen  as  long  as  he  does  not  abstain  from  permissibilities  for  the  fear  of  indulging  in  impermissibilities.”  

It  is  the  obligation  of  the  Mufti  to  strengthen  the  Mu’min’s  bond  with  Allah  Ta’ala.  His  function  is  not  to  weaken  the  relationship  with  Allah  Ta’ala  by  legalizing    substances  which  are  haraam  and  destructive  for  both  the  physical  and  spiritual  health  of  man.  Where  there  is  no  need  for  ‘scope’,  he  should  not    seek  scope  and  dig  out  principles  to  unnecessarily  legalize  prohibitions.  The  incongruous  manipulation  of    the  Principles  of  Fiqah  by  contemporary Muftis  is  indeed  despicable.

Abstention  from  all  types  of  alcohol  is  the  Fatwa.  It  is  not  a  discretionary  issue  which people  are  allowed  to  accept  and  reject  at  whim  and  fancy.

(2)  The  legalizers  of  prohibited  alcohol  state:

“If  a  person  does  not  know  what  type  of  alcohol  it  is,  then  the  ruling  cannot  be  passed  declaring  this  alcohol  to  be  impure  and  impermissible  solely  based  on  doubt……Therefore,  there  is  scope  in  consuming  medicine  which  contains  alcohol  but  it  is  not  known  what  type  of  alcohol  it  is….”  

This  argument  is  putridly  baseless.  If  the  Mufti  knows  that  one  of  the  two  glasses  of  water  contains  a  lethal  poison,  but  it  is  not  known  in  which  glass  is  the  poison,  will  his  fatwa  be  that  it  is  permissible  to  drink  any  glass  of  water,  which  may  result  in  the  death  of  the  consumer?  In  view  of  the  Fatwa  of  Hurmat,  the  product  containing  any  type  of  alcohol  is  impermissible.  As  far  as  medicine  is  concerned,  the  ruling  has  already  been  explained  above.

(3)  The  legalizers  state: “If  a  person  doesn’t  know  what  type  of  alcohol  is  used,  then  there  is  some  scope  in  using  alcohol  for  medical  purposes.”  

The  monotonous  use  of  the terms  “there  is  some  scope  in  using  alcohol  for  medical purposes”, is  quite  amusing.  There  is  no  difference  of  opinion  among  the  Ulama  on  this  issue,  so  why  labour  the  point  unnecessarily?  It  appears  that  the  legalizers  are  confused, hence  they  acquit  themselves  as  if  they  are  dealing  with  a  difference  on  this  issue.  When  there  is  concurrence  on  the  use  of  even  alcohol  of  the  first  category  in  medicine  when  such  a  need  develops,  what  is  the  argument  about  using  alcohol  of  the  second  category  in  medicine?

(4)  “In  today’s  times,  the  alcohol  which  is  used  in  western  medicine  is  generally  not  real  alcohol.  It  is  alcohol  made  from  potato,  wheat,  etc.”  
This  statement  is  grossly  incorrect.  What  is  the  meaning  of  “real’  and  “unreal”  alcohol?  An  intoxicating  liquid  is  alcohol.  Regardless  of  it  being  of  the  first  category  or  the  second  category,  it  will  equally  intoxicate  and  dehumanize  Insaan.  The  Fiqhi  technicalities  may  not  be  utilized  for  opening  the  gateway  of  moral  corruption.  Whisky,  Gin,  Sherry,  Vodka  and  the  numerous  other  kinds  of  liquor  all  contain  alcohol  of  the  second  category  (i.e.  the  supposedly  ‘unreal’  alcohol).  If  ‘modern’  alcohol  is  not  real  as  the  Mufti  Sahib  contends,  then  in  which  category  shall  we  assign  this  ‘unreal’  alcohol?  The  venerable  Mufti  Sahib  has  overlooked  the  fact  that  whether  alcohol  is  ‘real’  or  ‘unreal’,  it  is  an  intoxicant  which  is  thus  haraam.

All  of  these  liquors  (whisky,  etc.)  are  impure  and  haraam  regardless  of  the  supposedly  ‘pure’  ethanol  (non grape/dates)  which  they  contain  or  even  the  ‘unreal’  alcohol.  Potato  and  wheat  liquor  intoxicates  and  dehumanizes  in  the  same  way  as  grape  and  date  wine. 

Again  it  should  be  repeated  that  the  argument  is  not  medicine  which  becomes  permissible  regardless  of  the  category  of  alcohol  when  there  is  a  need  for  such  medicine.  The  argument  centres  around  non-essentials  and  harmful  products  on  which  survival  is  not  pivoted.

(5)  Another  Mufti  Sahib  avers:  “In  the  beginning  stages,  alcohol  was  made  from  fermented  drinks  themselves  or  the  residue  of  fermented  drinks.  Therefore  scholars  of  Fiqh  applied  the  ruling  of  alcohol  to  it  and  they declared  it  to  be  impure.  They  also  considered  it  impermissible  to  consume  and  to  use  in medicines.  However,  now  alcohol  is  made  using  scientific  technology  and  it  no  longer remains  alcohol.  Instead  it  is  in  the  category  of  vinegar.  For  this  reason  alcohol  will  not  be  considered  impure  and  impermissible  to  use…………..However,  Taqwa  (god  consciousness)  is  something  else  as  well  as  the  dictates  of  precaution.  This  is  different  from  the  fatwa  itself.”  

The  flaws  of  this  view  are  as  follows:

(a)    Alcohol  is  haraam  regardless  of  the  methods  of  production.  Whether  the  substance  produced  by  the  primitive  method  or  by  the  technology  of  this  era,  it  is  an  intoxicant  which  inebriates  and  dehumanizes  Insaan. The  end  product  of  fermentation,  i.e.  liquor,  is  haraam  because  it  is  intoxicating.  Despite  no  impurity  being  added  in  the  production  process,  once  it  has  been  transformed  into  an  intoxicant  it  is  proclaimed  najis  and  haraam.  The  method  of production  has  absolutely  no  bearing  on  the  Hukm  which  is hurmat.

(b)  This  ‘scientific  technology’  argument  is  ludicrous.  It  is  identical  to  the  argument  of  the  liberals  who  claim  that  pictures  are  permissible  if    produced  by  ‘scientific  technology’.  They  predicate  the  prohibition  to  only  pictures  drawn  with  the  hand  in  the  primitive  way.  There  is  no  difference  between  the  two  issues.  Pictures  produced  by  modern  technology  are  haraam  just  as  pictures  drawn  with  the  hand  are  haraam.  In  the  same  way  alcohol  is  haraam  whether  produced  in  the  primitive  way  or  the  modern  technological  method.  The  method  of  production  is  irrelevant  for  determining  the  hukm  of  the  Shariah.

(c)  The  contention  that  alcohol  produced  by  technology  is  like  vinegar  is  absurd.  Vinegar  is not  an  intoxicant.  Alcohol  is.  Thus  the  analogy  with  vinegar is  fallacious.

(d)    Since  it  is  claimed  that  modern  alcohol  is  pure  and  permissible,  the  Taqwa  dimension  is  superfluous.  It  simply  does  not  apply.  When  it  is  contended  that  modern  technology  produces  ‘pure’  and  ‘permissible’  alcohol,  the  introduction  of  the  Taqwa  factor  is  weird.

(e)    The  view  of  alcohol  manufactured  ‘scientifically’  by  ‘technology’  not  being  alcohol  in  addition  to  being  absurd,  is  pure  personal  opinion.  It  is  not  a  Shar’i  daleel,  hence  it  holds  no  weight  whatsoever  in  the  formulation  of  a  Shar’i  fatwa.

(6)    Even  a  liberal  such  as  Mufti  Taqi  Uthmaani  says:  “In  this  case,  there  exists  leeway  in  taking  the  view  of  Imam  Abu  Hanifa  at  the  time  of  necessity.” (Our  emphasis)

Despite  peddling  the  view  of  ‘purity’  and  ‘permissibility’,  the  honourable  Mufti  Sahib predicates  it  with  “at  the  time  of  necessity”.  This  confirms  that  there  is  no  unrestricted permissibility  to  use  and  consume  alcohol  of  the  second  category.  But  there  is  no  need  to  refute  this  stance  of  the  legalizing  Muftis.  There  is  consensus  on  the  use  of  even  alcohol  of  the  first  category  in  medicines  at  the  time  of  necessity.

(7)  The  respected  Mufti  Rashid  Ahmad  (rahmatullah  alayh)  presents  the  following  untenable view:  “The  explanation  regarding  these  drinks  is  as  follows:  Allamah  Shibli  (Shalbi)  writes: ‘The  author  says  when  a  person  uses  it  with  the  intention  of  strengthening  himself  (then  it  is  permissible).  The  meaning  of  this  is  that  he  wishes  to  strengthen  himself  in  order  to  worship  Allah  or  in  order  to  facilitate  the  digestion  of  food  or  for  medical  purposes.”

Is  any  intelligent  person  today  prepared  to  vouch  that  Coke  and  similar  soft  drinks  are consumed  to  strengthen  one  for  ibaadat– to  spend  the  night  in  Salaat,  etc.? Or  does  anyone  consume  these  drinks  to  facilitate  digestion  of  food  or  for  medical  purposes?  Coke,  etc.  have  the  very  opposite  effect.  It  destroys  the  health.  It  weakens  the  body.  It  causes indigestion,  and  it  is  never  ever  used  for  medical  purposes. It  boggles  the  mind  that  a  senior  Mufti  would  utilize  the  statement  of  Allaamah  Shalbi  to  legalize  drinks  which  are  absolutely  ruinous  to  the  health.  Even  if  these  drinks  had  to  be  free  of  alcohol,  then  too,  the  fatwa  of  prohibition  will  apply  on  the  basis  of  the  element  of  dharar. The  presence  of  alcohol  emphasizes  the  fatwa  of  hurmat.  Does  Coke  strengthen  one  for  ibaadat?  Does  it    create  enthusiasm  for  ibaadat?  Allaamah  Shalbi’s  view  is  related  to  ibaadat,  not  to  consumption  for  talahhi  (pleasure).  Furthermore, consuming  alcohol  of  the second  degree  is  not  permissible  even  without  talahhi,  in  view  of  the  categorical  ruling  of  prohibition  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab.

On  the  issue  of  Umoom  Balwa,  Mufti  Rashid  Ahmad  said  in  his  Fataawa: “Zaid’s  deduction  on  the  basis  of  (the  principle)  of  Ibtilaa-e-Amm  (Umoom  Balwa)  is  incorrect.  Something haraam  does  not  become  halaal  on  the  basis  of  Ibtilaa-e-aam”

(8)  Without  applying  their  minds,  the  legalizers  of  soft  drinks  and  the  like  cite  Raddul Muhtaar:  “It  is  not  permissible  to  consume  it  (alcohol  of  the  second  category)  for  the purposes  of  amusement  or  play  in  the  way  of  transgressors.  It  will  be  impermissible  to  consume  (even)  water  and  other  permissible  substances  in  this  way.”

Allaamah  Ibn  Aabideen  brings  even  water,  milk,  honey,  etc.  within  the  purview  of  prohibition  if  consumed  in  the  style  of  the  fussaaq.  What  he  says  is  that  it  is  not  permissible  to  consume  products  which  contain  alcohol  of  the  second  degree  (in  terms  of  the  ruling  of  Shaikhain)  if  taken  for  amusement to  derive  joy  and  pleasure.  This  is  the  precise  purpose for  consuming    Coke,  etc.  There  is  no  other  reason  why  soft  drinks  are    consumed.  Even  in  terms  of  the  view  of  Shaikhain,  these  drinks  are  not  permissible  if  taken  for  pleasure  and  joy.

(9)  The  legalizers  of  alcohol  say: “It  is  not  unconditionally  prohibited  for  a  person  to  eat or  drink  for  amusement  and  fun.  The  impermissible  factor  lies  in  doing  so  in  the  way  of transgressors.”  

The  unconditional  prohibition  pertaining  to  amusement  does  not  apply  to  food  and  drinks in  general.  Food  may  be    consumed  for  pleasure  and  enjoyment.  The  prohibition  applies  to  such  drinks  which  contain  alcohol  of  the  second  category.  With  regard  to  alcohol  of  the  second  category,  it  is  unconditionally  prohibited  if  taken  for  the  purpose  of  talahhi  (joy/pleasure)  regardless  of  whether  it  is  consumed  in  the  manner  of  the  fussaaq  or  not.  The factor  of  talahhi  is  not  restricted  with  the  way  of  the  fussaaq.  This  factor  relates  to  even  pure  permissibilities  such  as  water  and   milk  which  will  become  prohibited  if  consumed  in  the  style  of  the  fussaaq.  Those  who  restrict  the  factor  of  talahhi  with  fisq,  are  in  error.  They  have  merely  proffered  their  personal  opinion.  Furthermore,  talahhi  or  no  talahhi,  the  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab  is  prohibition  of  all  types  of  alcohol.

Personal  opinion  proves  nothing,  be  it  the  opinion  of  a  senior  Mufti  of  lofty  status.  An opinion  bereft  of  Shar’i  daleel,  holds  no  Shar’i  status.  It  may  not  be  imposed  on  anyone  as  if  it  carries  the  weight  and  authority  of  the  Shariah.

(10)  “According  to  the  principles  of  Fatwa,  the  view  of  Imam  Abu  Hanifa  and  Imam  Abu Yusuf  takes  preference  over  the  view  of  Imam  Muhammad  unless  there  is  an  outside  factor.  Despite  the  fact  that  the  scholars  of  Fiqh  have  declared  the  view  of  Imam  Muhammad  as  the  view  upon  which  fatwa  is  given  because  of  the  widespread  corruption  found  in  later  times, the  fatwa  will  now  be  given  on  the  original  view  of  Imam  Abu  Hanifa  that  it  is  permissible  to consume  this  alcohol  due  to  Umoom  Balwa  and  the  need  for  medical  treatment.”  

This  view  stated  in Ahsanul  Fataawa  is  flawed  as  follows:

(a)    The  principles  of  Fatwa  referred  to  here  have  not  been  explained  or  stated.  There  is  no  principle  for  according  preference  to  the  view  of  Shaikhain  for  abrogating  the  official  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab  which  has  been  extant  for  more  than  twelve  centuries.  The  statement  made  is  an  arbitrary  view  unbacked  by  Shar’i  evidence.  It  is  pure  personal  opinion.  There  has  to  be  exceptionally  strong  and  valid  grounds  for  diverging  from  or  abrogating  the    official  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab,  and  for  adopting  the  Marjooh view. 

The  venerable  Mufti  Sahib  has  shown  no  valid  and  pressing  grounds  for  the  extreme  measure  of  cancelling  the  official  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab.  He  has  not  furnished  a  single  valid  Shar’i  argument  for  according  preference  to  the  Marjooh  view  and  for  abrogating  the  official  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab  which  is  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad,  which  is  also  bolstered  by  the    official  Fatwas  of  the  other three  Math-habs.

(b)  The  honourable  Mufti  Sahib  has,  nevertheless,  covered  himself  by  stipulating  “unless  there  is  an  outside  factor”  for  not  giving  preference  to  the  view  of  Shaikhain.  It  is  indeed  peculiar  that  the  Mufti  Sahib    was  unaware  of  the  many “outside  factors”  which  preclude  assignment  of  preference  to  the  view  of  Shaikhain.  The  venerable  Mufti  Sahib  had  not applied  his  mind  fully  when  he  issued  his  fatwa  based  on  personal  opinion,  hence  he remained  unaware  of  the  “outside  factors”  which  disallow  rescission  of  the  official  Fatwa  of the  Math-hab.

The  “outside  factors”  which  demand  sustainment  of  the  official  Fatwa  which  is  the  view of  Imaam  Muhammad,  are:

(i)   Sadd-e-Tharaa’i  (Closing  the  ways  and  the  gate  for  corruption).  Regardless  of  the  type  of  alcohol,  all  alcohols  are  intoxicants.  The  ultimate    consequence  of  consumption  of  a  little  is  alcohol-addiction. The  constant  consumption  of  a  little  cultimates  in  consumption  of  much.

(ii)  Almost  all  types  of  liquor  contain  alcohol  of  the  second  category.  Thus,  condonation  of  permissibility  will  undoubtedly  lead  to  the  Ummah  becoming    nations  of  liquor  guzzlers. Whisky,  gin,  vodka,  sherry,  etc.  (all  alcohols  of  the  second  degree)  will  become  acceptable and  ‘halaal’.  Stopping  dead  at  the  point  which  induces  inebriation  will  not  be  sustained.  Thus,  the  fatwa  of  permissibility  is  the  forerunner  for  halaalization  of  liquor  which  comes  within  the  purview  of  the  Hadith  in  which  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  the  Ummah  said  that in  times  in  proximity  with  Qiyaamah  will  halaalize  liquor  by  giving  it  fanciful  names.  This  process  has  already  been  initiated  by  the  fatwas  of jawaaz,  and  by  the  technical arguments  of  ‘first’  and  ‘second’  categories  of  alcohol.

(iii)  The  alcohol  containing  products  being  consumed  are  not  required  for  sustaining  life  or  health.  On  the  contrary,  these  products  have  been  conclusively  proven  by  experts  to  be  extremely  harmful  for  the  health  of  man.  The  motive  of  consumption  is  pure  pleasure,  and  this  is  the  primary  purpose  for  consuming  soft  drinks.  It  is  weird,  absurd  and  false  to  say  that  soft  drinks,  puddings,  custards  and  the  like  are  consumed  for  health  and  digestion.  These products  in  fact,  corrupt  the  health,  and  cause  indigestion.

(iv)  The  factor  of  corruption  which  had  confirmed  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad  for practical  adoption,  has  neither  receded  nor  decreased.  In  fact,  the  corruption  prevalent  today can  be  multiplied,  and  will  be  found  to  be  more  than  the  corruption  which  had  existed  12  centuries  ago  in  the  Ummah.

(c)    The  adoption  of  Imaam  Muhammad’s  view  by  the  Fuqaha  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab,  reinforces  the  contention  that  according  to  the  principles  of  Fatwa,  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad  be  given  preference.  Hence,  the  preference  which  all  the  Fuqaha  of  the  Ahnaaf  accorded  to  Imaam  Muhammad’s  view  over  the  many  centuries,  remains  valid  to  this  day,  and  so  will  it  remain  until  the  end  of  worldly  time.  Corruption  is  set  to  increase,  not  decrease.  It  is  baseless  to  aver  that  the  “widespread  corruption”  prevalent  12  centuries  ago, which  constrained  the  adoption  of  the  Fatwa  on  Imaam  Muhammad’s  view,  does  not  exist today.

(d)  Describing  the  view  of  Shaikhain  as  the  “original”  view  is  erroneous.  The  original  view which  is  the  original  Fatwa  of  the  Math-hab,  is  the  view  of  Imaam  Muhammad,  not  the  view  of  Shaikhain.  The  Fatwa  was  never  issued  on  the  view  of  Shaikhain.  Thus,  the  claim  of  the  latter  view  being  the  original  one  is  baseless,  and  an  arbitrary  claim  of  opinion  unsubstantiated  by  Shar’i  daleel.

(e)   The  argument  of  Umoom  Balwa  stated  in  the  view,  mentioned  above,  is  fallacious.  The  principle  of  Umoom  Balwa  cannot  be  applied  to  transform  haraam  and  najaasat  into  halaal  on  the  basis  of  the  widespread  consumption  of  junk  and  harmful  substances.  This  principle  may  be  invoked  only  in  relation  to  genuine  necessities. 

As  mentioned  earlier,  medicine  is  excluded  from  this  discussion.  There  is  no  difference  of  opinion  regarding  permissibility  of  alcohol  containing  medicine  whether  the  alcohol  is  of  the  first  or  second  category.  The  permissibility  is,  however,  conditioned  with  the  non-availability  of  halaal  medicine.  There  is  no  need  to  invoke  the  principle  of  Umoom  Balwa  for  issuing  the  fatwa  of  permissibility  of  medicines  containing  alcohol.  Generally,  the  Muftis  of  today  are  mis-manipulating  the  principle  of  Umoom  Balwa.  This  mis-manipulation  and  rash  application  simply  halaalize  prohibitions  without  valid  Shar’i  basis.

(11)  Quoting  from  Hadhrat  Maulana  Ashraf  Ali  Thanvi’s Imdaadul  Fataawa,  the  halaalizers  present  the  following  fatwa  of  Hadhrat  Thanvi  (rahmatullah  alayh): “It  is  not  permissible  for  a  person  to  consume  such  bread  or  biscuits  (whose  dough  was made  using  alcohol).  However,  it  will  be  permissible  to  consume  them  if  it  cannot  be  avoided  because  of  the  presence  of  certain  narrations.” 

There  is  no  license  for  halaalizing  alcohol  of  the  second  category  in  this  Fatwa  which  state  with  clarity  its  impermissibility.  The  permissibility  is  conditioned    with  exceptional  situations, “if  it  cannot  be  avoided”.  Soft  drinks,  puddings  and  custards,  which  are  all  easily  avoidable,    do  not  come  within  the  scope  of  permissibility.  The  halaalizers  have  cited  this  fatwa  without  applying  their  minds.  There  is  no  difference  of  opinion  in  an  unavoidable  situation  or  when    the  need  is  pressing.

Shah  Waliyullah  (rahmatullah  alayh)  on  non-khamr  alcohol

Refuting  the  categorization  of  alcohol  into  two  categories,  Hadhrat  Shah  Waliyullah (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  in  his Hujjatullaahil  Baalighah:

“Innumerable  Ahaadith  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  have  been  narrated  from  a  variety  of  sources.  Thus  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:

“Khamr  is  from  these  two  trees:  dates  and  grape.

*  When  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  was  asked  about  bat’,  mizr and  (others)  besides  these  two,  (i.e.  about  non-grape  alcohol),  he  replied:  “Every  drink  which  intoxicates is  haraam.”  

*  “Every  intoxicating  (drink)  is  khamr,  and  every  intoxicant  is  haraam.  Whatever  of  a  big  quantity  intoxicates,  a  small  quantity  of  it  is  (also)  haraam.”.  
Continuing  his  explanation,  Hadhrat  Shah  Waliyyullah  (rahmatullah  alayh)  said:

“Predicating  the  prohibition  with  (only)  grapes  is  meaningless..  The  determinant  in  Tahreem  (i.e. prohibition)  is  derangement  of  the  intelligence.  Its  little  (i.e.  liquor’s  little)  leads  to  its  abundance,  hence  the  decree  with  it  is  Waajib  (i.e.  it  is  incumbent  to  decree  that  all  types  of  liquor  whether  in  small  amounts,  are  haraam).  Today  it  is  not  permissible  for  anyone  to  halaalize  such  (liquor)  which  is  made  from   things  other  than  grapes,  and  use  in  quantities  less  than  intoxication.

In  view  of  people’s  insane  desire  for  liquor  and  their  ploys  for  (consuming)  it,  the objective  (of  prohibition)  cannot  be  achieved  except  by    totally  prohibiting  it  in  every  aspect  so  that  there  does  not  remain  neither  any  loophole  nor  stratagem  for  anyone  (to  halaalize  liquor).”

Hadhrat  Maulana  Ashraf  Ali  Thanvi  and  the  view  of  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah
“The  view  of  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah  in  the  kutub  of  the  Hanafiyyah  has  been  set  aside.”

It  is  therefore,  not  permissible  to  halaalize  any  type  of  alcohol  regardless  of  minute quantities.  The  view  of  Shaikhain  may  not  be  resurrected  and  presented  as  a  basis  for  such  halaalization.

(1)  For  the  application  of  the  Shari’ah’s  ruling  of  prohibition  regarding  consumables,  there  is  only  one  kind  of  alcohol.  Alcohol,  regardless  of  the  category  assigned  to  it  in  Fiqh,  is  haraam.

(2)  The  Fatwa  of  the  Shari’ah  has  always  been  prohibition  of  all  kinds  of  alcohol.  The  view of  Shaikhain  has  been  set  aside  by  the  Fuqaha  of  Islam.

(3)  The  principle  of  Umoom  Balwa  does  not  operate  to  justify  and  halaalize  a  haraam  substance.  It  relates  to  the  sphere  of  Tahaarat.

(4)  All  products  such  as  soft  drinks,  etc.  which  contain  even  minute  traces  of  alcohol  are  not  permissible.

(5)  If  no  halaal  medicine  is  available,  it  will  then  be  permissible  to  consume  medicine  with  an  alcohol  content,  whether  it  be  alcohol  of  the  first  or  second  category.

Providing Information about Various aspects of Islam