The Lockdown of the Banu Hashim and Banu Muttalib Tribes

By Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng

The whole world is in state of lockdown….

Children are at home and all mothers must be tired as it’s hard to keep them engage especially when the screen time is very limited ..

But I was thinking and questioning myself are we really in a lockdown???

The otherday reminded me of the boycott of Shaib abi Talib and behold that thought numbed my entire body…

We, with all the luxuries of our homes…

We, with our pantries stocked with food items…

We, with number of gadgets and activities for children…

We, with proper heating and cooling system are calling our stay at home (that is also for our safety) a lockdown???

How ungrateful we are and how forgetful we are of our history…

Remember the time when the whole Banu Hashim and Banu Mutalib were confined in Shaib Abi Talib.. without food supplies, without trade. They were forced to drink rain water and had to eat the shrubs just because spreading the message of truth and supporting Prophet محمدﷺ

It was not for 21 days, it was for almost three years…

So next time when you and I feel down and stressed, reflect on our history. Or even if we think that they were our pious predecessors and we can’t compare ourselves with them, then think of our Syrian, kashmiri brother and sisters. What price they are paying ?

My dear brothers and sisters, a momin is always in a win win situation. Whenever adversity hits him, he endures with patience and whenever good reaches him, he shows gratitude. 💕

No evil comes except with the will of Allah and remember Allah will not test us beyond our limits..

Stay safe and connect with Allah and your family🌷

On Meaning of the Hadith “There is no Contagious Disease”

By Waqar Akbar Cheema

According to a famous hadith in Sahih Bukhari, Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) said:

لا عدوى ولا طيرة، ولا هامة ولا صفر

There is no infection, no evil omen, no hama, and no serpent in a hungry belly (safar).

Problematizing the apparent meanings

The above translation done by an orientalist James Robson is actually how many people tend to understand this hadith as a negation of infection or communication of disease. The history of experiences of regular infectious diseases and epidemics, on the other hand, leave no doubt even to a person without knowledge of biology or microbiology that certain diseases do have contagious nature. The current pandemic of coronavirus (COVID-19) is just a case in point.

The hadith is indeed authentic having been related by a number of companions including Abu Huraira,[1] ‘Abdullah b. Mas‘ud,[2] Ibn Abbas,[3] Sa‘d b. Abi Waqqas,[4] Jabir b. Abdullah,[5] ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar,[6] and Anas b. Malik.[7] There is no reason to question its veracity.

Other narrations/versions of the hadith

So, did the Prophet (ﷺ) plainly deny an observable fact? When we study the hadith more carefully taking into account other narrations of it, we arrive at a conclusion different from the superficial understanding. According to another relatively detailed narration of the hadith;

أبا هريرة، يقول: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «لا عدوى ولا طيرة، ولا هامة ولا صفر، وفر من المجذوم كما تفر من الأسد»

Related Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, ‘There is no contagion, nor is there any bad omen (tiyara), nor is there any vermin calling for revenge (hamah), nor is there a serpent in the belly (safar), yet flee from a leper as you would flee from a lion.”[8]

Here the final part of the hadith “yet flee from a leper as you would flee from a lion” clearly contradicts the apparent meanings of the first phrase “there is no contagion” asking for further deliberation.

Another similar hadith goes as:

عن أبي هربرة، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: لا عدوى، ولا هام، ولا صفر، ولا يحل الممرض على المصح، وليحلل المصح حيث شاء، قال: ولما ذلك، يا رسول الله؟ قال: إنه أذى

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “There is no contagion (‘adwa), nor is there any vermin calling for revenge (hamah), nor is there a serpent in the belly (safar). The owner of sick livestock, however, must not stop at the same place as the owner of healthy livestock, but the owner of healthy livestock may stop wherever he wishes.” They said, “Messenger of Allah, Why is that?” The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “(Because) it is harmful.”[9]

Here the Prophet (ﷺ) clearly mentioned that healthy cattle should not be brought to a place where cattle suffer from some contagious disease elaborating that doing so was indeed harmful.

These reports, therefore, make it clear that in denying “‘adwa” the Prophet (ﷺ) did not mean to deny the observable phenomenon of contagious nature of certain diseases. He was actually hitting at something else. The flow of the hadith tells us that it was about denouncing certain pre-Islamic beliefs of superstitious nature. The denounced “‘adwa”, therefore, did not refer to simple plain fact of spread of an infectious disease it rather was the belief that certain diseases spread by themselves which ignored Almighty Allah as the ultimate originator of everything. The underlying message, therefore, was that the affecting agency was not a disease itself rather it was subjected to divine will in its spread or otherwise from one body to another.

We now turn to another narration of the hadith which reports a Bedouin’s query on the same lines as the apparent reading alongwith the Prophet’s (ﷺ) response which provides evidence to make sense of the seemingly contradicting parts of the hadith.

أن أبا هريرة رضي الله عنه، قال: إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: لا عدوى ولا صفر ولا هامة» فقال أعرابي: يا رسول الله، فما بال إبلي، تكون في الرمل كأنها الظباء، فيأتي البعير الأجرب فيدخل بينها فيجربها؟ فقال: «فمن أعدى الأول؟

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “There is no contagion (‘adwa), nor is there a serpent in the belly (safar), nor is there any vermin calling for revenge (hamah). A bedouin stood up and said, “Then what about my camels? They are like deer on the sand, but when a mangy camel comes and mixes with them, they all get infected with mangy.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Then who conveyed the (mange) disease to the first one?”[10]

Yet another narration of the hadith actually provides the fuller context and relates to us the complete saying of the Prophet (ﷺ) in this context.

عن أبي هريرة، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ” لا يعدي شيء شيئا، لا يعدي شيء شيئا “، ثلاثا، قال: فقام أعرابي، فقال: يا رسول الله، إن النقبة تكون بمشفر البعير، أو بعجبه، فتشتمل الإبل جربا، قال: فسكت ساعة، ثم قال: ” ما أعدى الأول، لا عدوى، ولا صفر، ولا هامة، خلق الله كل نفس، فكتب حياتها وموتها ومصيباتها ورزقها “

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “One thing does not infect another by its own agency,” repeating it three times. So a Bedouin said: “Messenger of Allah!  When mange effects a camel it spreads to all the camels around.” The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) paused for a moment and said: “Who caused the first one to be diseased? There is no contagion (‘adwa), nor is there a serpent in the belly (safar), nor is there any vermin calling for revenge (hamah). Allah created every soul, determining its span of life, (time and cause of) its death, its afflictions, and its provisions.”[11]

This narration being the most complete provides the actual context and thus clarifies the real meanings of the hadith. The Prophet (ﷺ) basically refuted the idea that anything could be effective on its own and when a Bedouin asked a question related to spread of diseases based on his experience with camels the Prophet (ﷺ) made a rhetorical rejoinder on cause of infection in the first camel. Thereafter while rejecting different superstitions common amongst pre-Islamic Arab pagans he said “there is no contagion” and reiterated the basic beliefs of Islam that Allah not only created souls He also decreed the details of their life and death.[12] Accordingly, “there is no contagion” has to be understood in the light of initial thrice repeated saying, “One thing does not infect another by its own agency.”[13]

Breakup of what the Prophet said

We thus learn that the Prophet (ﷺ) did the following together;

(a) Denied a conception on contagious diseases

(b) Ordained keeping oneself away from someone affected by a contagious disease mentioning that it indeed meant harm

(c) Highlighted that someone actually controlled and affected disease in the first place

(d) Reiterated that it was Allah who decreed life, death, and all the afflictions one suffers in life

Whereas, the above points are not deduced or inferred from the sayings of the Prophet (ﷺ) rather these are plainly stated in his very own words tells us that far from denying the fact of certain diseases spreading from one person or animal to another, the Prophet (ﷺ) meant to highlight that the diseases did not spread on their own, rather it was Allah, the Almighty, who decreed their spread or otherwise.

Further elaboration

What confirms this is the fact that other things denounced alongwith “spread of a disease by its own agency” (‘adwa) were beliefs of similar nature about experienced facts. Safar referred to a superstition about hunger being caused by bite of a serpent in the belly[14] and hama to a superstition about the a vermin that the pagan Arabs believed came out of head of the murdered calling for his revenge. While both hunger and the impulse for revenge were experienced facts there was no basis of a serpent in the belly causing hunger pain or a vermin emerging from the corpse of the murdered. Likewise, while certain diseases did spread from one human or animal to another it was not their own agency but rather Allah’s decree that caused its spread, whatever the observable source or means.

Even at causal level, upon entry of infectious microbe into a body its possible effects are governed by efficiency and response of host body’s innate immune system. The response of the immune system itself is contingent upon scores of complicated and interdependent variables such as genetics, environmental factors, previous disease history, microbe exposure and evolution pathways, nature and timing of exposure, what else is happening in a body at that time. All this makes it rather easier for anyone to realize and be reminded of the fact that the ultimate causation of everything rests with Allah alone.[15]

Accordingly, the Prophet (ﷺ) concluded the talk by mentioning that it was Allah who decreed life, death, and any troubles and provisions that one finds in his lifetime. He, therefore, highlighted that all that befalls one in this life was only from Allah and one should never be oblivious of this fact.

Besides a condemnation of the pre-Islamic superstitions the hadith also serves as a corrective in the modern world imbued with secular outlook which is akin to paganism in attributing independent agency to mortals; human, objects, or microbes. The attribution even if not theorized and dogmatized is there at least by the way of exclusive focus making people oblivious to the Creator and Lord of the universe and His commands.

Other relevant hadith reports

Getting back to the original query; ‘if the Prophet (ﷺ) denied the fact of some diseases being contagious?’ let us quickly refer to a few more hadith reports that affirm our conclusion that the Prophet (ﷺ) did not preach any kind of fatalism by denying the fact of contagion.

عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال: «إذا سمعتم بالطاعون بأرض فلا تدخلوها، وإذا وقع بأرض وأنتم بها فلا تخرجوا منها»

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “If you hear of an outbreak of plague in a land, do not enter it; but if the plague breaks out in a place while you are in it, do not leave that place.”[16]

Likewise when a leper came to pledge allegiance to the Prophet (ﷺ) which was typically done by putting hand in hand, “the Prophet (ﷺ) sent a message to him: ‘We have accepted your allegiance, so you may go.’”[17]


Far from denying the universally known fact of certain diseases being contagious, the hadith was actually a refutation of the pre-Islamic pagan Arab beliefs and superstitions. The Prophet (ﷺ) in fact preached and ordained isolation and quarantining to check the spread of infectious diseases.

References & Notes:

[1] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, (Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers, 2007) Hadith 5707, 5717 et al.

[2] al-Tirmidhi, Abu ‘Isa, al-Jami’, (Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers, 2007) Hadith 2143;

[3] Ibn Majah, al-Sunan, (Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers, 2007) Hadith 3539; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 2425

[4] Al-Sajistani, Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, (Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers, 2008)  Hadith 3921; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, (Beirut: al-Resalah Publishers, 2001) Hadith 1502

[5] Muslim b. Hajjaj, al-Sahih, (Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers, 2007)  Hadith 2222 (107-109)

[6] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 5753

[7] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 5756

[8] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 5707

[9] Malik b. Anas, al-Muwatta  bi-rwayat Abu Mus‘ab al-Zuhri, (Beirut: al-Resalah Publishers, 1412 AH) Hadith 1989; unlike other recensions (riwayat) of Muwatta that of Abu Mus‘ab mentions that this hadith comes from Abu Huraira; al-Baihaqi too has it from Abu Huraira through two independent connected isnad. See, al-Baihaqi, Abu Bakr, Sunan al-Kubra, (Beirut: DKI, 2003) Hadith 14239-14240

[10] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 5717

[11] Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 8343; the hadith as it appears in Musnad of Ahmad b. Hanbal is narrated from Abu Huraira by Abu Zur‘a ‘Abdul Rahman b. ‘Amr b. Jarir; see also, al-Tirmidhi, Abu ‘Isa, al-Jami’, Hadith 2143 where the same Abu Zur ‘a relates on the authority of an unnamed person from Ibn Mas‘ud from the Prophet (ﷺ). With al-Tahawi, however, the report comes from Abu Zur‘a from Ibn Mas‘ud through “a man from the companions of the Prophet (ﷺ).” Except if it is a mistake on the part of some sub-narrator, it helps us identify the unnamed teacher of Abu Zur‘a in the version with al-Tirmidhi as Abu Huraira. See, al-Tahawi, Abu Ja‘far, Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar, (Beirut: ‘Alam al-Kitab, 1994) Hadith 7057; for more on Abu Huraira relating from Ibn Mas‘ud, see ‘Abdullah b. Ahmad, al-Sunnah, (Dammam: Dar Ibn Qayyim, 1986) Hadith 1192 and al-Ghumari, Abu al-Faid, al-Mudawi li-‘Ilal al-Jami‘ al-Saghir wa Sharhaiy al-Munawi, (Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Makkiyya, 1996) Vol.2, 481; see also, al-Bazzar, Abu Bakr, al-Musnad, (Madina: Maktaba Ulum wa al-Hikam, 1993) Vol.4, 269 Hadith 1438; al-Baihaqi, Abu Bakr, al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat, Edited by Zahid al-Kawthari (Cairo: Maktaba al-Azhariyya li al-Turath,n.d.) 126; also, al-Mizzi, Jamal al-Din, Tahdhib al-Kamal, Edited by Bashar Awwad Ma‘ruf (Beirut: Al-Resalah Publishers, 1980) Vol.16, 126

[12] What further confirms this meaning is that while at first Abu Huraira narrated both the hadith “there is no contagion (‘adwa)” and the hadith forbidding the owner with sick livestock from stopping over at the place of the healthy livestock, overtime he stopped narrating the “no contagion” hadith while continuing to narrate the hadith about mixing of healthy and sick livestock. He became so adamant in refusing to narrate the “no contagion” hadith that it made his student Abu Salama b. ‘Abdul Rahman (d. 94) wonder if Abu Huraira had forgotten it or if he thought it had been abrogated. (Muslim b. Hajjaj, al-Sahih, Hadith 2221 (104)) While the question of abrogation does not arise in such cases, the suggestion of forgetfulness too seems farfetched. It rather appears that overtime Abu Huraira thought that the “no contagion” hadith was no more relevant after the Islam had fully prevailed. In a bid, therefore, to keep the laity from falling into impression of contradiction across the sayings of the Prophet (ﷺ) he stopped narrating it. See, Al-Qurtubi, Abu al-Abbas, al-Mufhim lima Ashkala min Talkhis Kitab Muslim, (Damascus: Dar Ibn Kathir, 1996) Vol.5, 626

[13] Translation of the “لا يعدي شيء شيئا” phrase in the hadith as, “One thing does not infect another by its own agency,” follows Edward William Lane’s rendering of it. See, Lane, E. W., Arabic-English Lexicon, (Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1968) Book I, 1978 cf. Al-Jawhari, Abu Nasr, Taj al-Lugha wa Sihah al-Arabiya, (Beirut: Dar al-‘Ilm al-Malayin, 1987) Vol.6, 2421

[14] There are variant explanations of Safar in this context. Whereas, some like Malik b. Anas thought it referred to changing the sequence of the month of Safar in view of the restrictions attached to it, (Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, Hadith 3914) others held that Safar here referred to a serpent that pagans of Arabia used to believe caused hunger by biting in the belly. This latter interpretation of Safar has been reported from a companion Jabir b. Abdullah as well and since he has also related this hadith of the Prophet (ﷺ), his explanation has been adopted here. See, Muslim b. Hajjaj, al-Sahih, Hadith 2222 (109). Al-Bukhari too preferred this explanation.

[15] This paragraph is actually an only slightly emended reproduction from a post of Sh. Salman ibn Nasir, here.

[16] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 5728

[17] Muslim b. Hajjaj, al-Sahih, Hadith 2231 (126)




Markaz Nizamuddin is the international headquarters of Tabilghi Jamaat for close to 100 years.

Visitors/guests/devotees/worshippers from across the globe throng the place for pre-scheduled programs lasting for no more than 3-5 days. All the programs are decided a year in advance in order to facilitate visitors from far-off places to plan their participation.

When Hon’ble Prime Minister announced the “Janta Curfew”, for 22nd March 2020, the ongoing program in Markaz Nizamuddin was discontinued immediately, however due to sudden cancelation of rail services across the country on 21st March 2020, a large group of visitors who had to depart by way of railways got stuck in the Markaz premises.

On 22nd March 2020, “Janta Curfew” was observed and accordingly visitors were advised not to venture out until 9 PM as desired by the Hon’ble Prime Minister, therefore the plans to move back to their native places by way of means other than railways also did not materialize. Before the Janta Curfew could be lifted at 9PM, the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Delhi announced lockdown of Delhi beginning at 6AM on 23rd March 2020 till 31st March 2020, thereby further diminishing any chances of these visitors availing road transport for their journey back home. Despite this challenging situation, with the help of Markaz administration, around fifteen hundred visitors left Markaz Nizamuddin by availing whatever meager transport was available.

Suddenly on the evening of 23rd March, a further nationwide lockdown was announced by the Hon’ble Prime Minister with clear message for people to stay-put wherever they are. Under such compelling circumstances there was no option for Markaz Nizamuddin but to accommodate the stranded visitors with prescribed medical precautions till such time that situation becomes conducive for their movement or arrangements are made by the authorities.

On 24th March 2020, suddenly a notice was issued by SHO, P.S. Hazrat Nizamuddin, seeking closure of Markaz premises. The same was responded on 24th March 2020, stating that the compliance of the directions regarding closure of Markaz is already underway and around 1500 people had departed the previous day, thus leaving around 1000 visitors belonging to different states and nationalities in Markaz. It was also informed that the Ld. SDM concerned had been requested to issue vehicle passes so that the remaining people could be sent back to their native places outside of Delhi. It is relevant to indicate here that lists of 17 vehicles with registration numbers along with the names of the drivers plus their license details were submitted to the Ld. SDM so that the stranded visitors/guests could be ferried towards their destination. The requisite permission is still awaited.

On 25th March 2020, the Tehsildaar along with medical team visited the Markaz, full cooperation was provided for their inspection as well as in preparation of list of visitors, many of whom were examined by them.
On 26th March 2020, the Ld. SDM visited Markaz Nizamuddin and called us for a further meeting with the Ld. DM. We met the Ld. DM, apprised him of the stranded visitors and once again sought permission for the vehicles arranged by us.

The next day, i.e. 27th March 2020, six persons were taken for medical check-up.

On 28th March 2020, the Ld. SDM and WHO team visited the Markaz and 33 persons were taken for medical checkup to Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital. Surprisingly on the same day another notice was issued, this time by the Office of ACP, Lajpat Nagar, reiterating the prohibitory orders and warning of legal action, this being totally oblivious of the above deliberations and steps that had already been taken by Markaz Nizamuddin in consultation with the authorities. However, the same was replied in detail vide letter dated 29th March 2020.

Yesterday, 30th March 2020, a rumour started gaining ground across social media that allegedly people affected with COVID-19 are present in Markaz. It is also being circulated that certain deaths have occurred due to the same.

Unexpectedly, as reported by ANI, the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Delhi went on to say that he has directed authorities to take legal action against the administration of Markaz. It is humbly stated that if the above fact-check could have been done by the Office of Hon’ble Chief Minister, the authorities would have apprised him about their visits, deliberations and cooperation extended by the Markaz in order to disperse the remaining visitors. During this entire episode, Markaz Nizamuddin never violated any provision of law, and always tried to act with compassion and reason towards the visitors who came to Delhi from different states. It did not let them violate the medical guidelines by thronging ISBTs or roaming on streets.

Markaz Nizamuddin would like to humbly offer the entire premises as a quarantine facility to help the authorities tide-over the challenge of current pandemic. Throughout its 100-year existence, Markaz Nizamuddin has an unblemished history of cooperating with administration/ authorities and always upholding the rule of law in letter and spirit. In the present challenge of COVID-19, Markaz stands with the law enforcement authorities and shall remain forthcoming in complying with all the guidelines issued by them.



Is the following view of Mufti Taqi correct:

According to him if the Muslim ruler in a Muslim country suspends Jumuah prayers because of some strong reason such as a medical reason or something like it, then the ruling of the Sultan applies. He says that it is written in Fataawa books such as Alamghiri that if the Muslim ruler suspends Jumuah prayer, then you have to pray Zuhr at home. Only those people are allowed to pray Jumuah at home who are living in non-Muslim countries where Jumuah is suspended at Masjids.” Is this view correct?

ANSWER (By Mujlisul Ulama):

Mufti Taqi has taken up residence in the domain of dhalaal (deviation) hence he has become adept in issuing one cent bunkum fatwas which he substantiates with Fiqhi and Hadith texts by misinterpretation to suit the whims of kuffaar rulers with whom he associates and whom he bootlicks.

The texts in Alamghiri and other Kutub are not applicable to the kufr scenarios prevailing today in the context of the virus plot of the kuffaar.

Pakistan has a decidedly kuffaar government. This kaafir government is not like a Sultan who governs by the Shariah. Furthermore, never in Islam’s history has any Sultan abolished Jumuah Salaat. No Sultan has suspended Jumuah as Mr.Taqi seeks to convey by deception to the ignorant masses.

Mr.Taqi is satanically mis-applying the text of Alamghiri to provide kufr cover for the kufr shenanigans of the Pakistan government regarding the current virus panic. While according to the Shariah the kufr decree of the government has no validity, people will automatically abstain from Jumuah, not because of obedience to the kuffaar government, but on account of fear for the brutal persecution and oppression which will follow in the wake of defying the evil rulers whom Mr.Taqi is supporting at the cost of ruining his Imaan.

There is no need for a fatwa to convince people to abstain from Jumuah in Napakistan or in any other country where Jumua has been banned, Fardh Salaat has been banned and the Musaajid closed down. A fatwa to abstain from Jumuah is superfluous and stupid. People of their own accord will not go to the Musaajid for fear of the brutality of the oppressive rulers and tyrants.

The motive of these munaafiq molvis and stupid  once cent ‘muftis’ for issuing fatwas to justify abstention from Jumuah and Fardh Salaat in the Musjid is only to curry favour with rulers and governments. They most disgracefully lick the boots of the kuffaar for the attainment of despicable nafsaani objectives.

The ‘medical’ reason posited by Mr.Taqi is satanically spurious. There is absolutely no Shar’i validity for this bunkum reason urinated into the brains by the devil.

The suggestion to perform Zuhr is another stupidity. Every Muslim, even the fussaaq and fujjaar, with the exclusion of the zindeeqs and munaafiqeen, is aware that when he is compelled by governmental oppression to forego Jumuah, he has to perform Zuhr since there is no other alternative.

The stupid, kufr averment that “only those people are allowed to pray jumuah at home who are living in non-Muslim countries where jumuah is suspended at Masjids” clearly displays the malfunctioning of Mr.Taqi’s brains.

In Pakistan/Napakistan where Jumuah has been banned by the kuffaar government on account of the virus bogey, the kuffaar rulers have done so in submission to their kuffaar, conspiratorial masters. So far, the haraam kufr order is the closure of the Musjids. The law has not banned performance of Salaat – any Salaat – at home.  It is therefore satanically stupid for Mr.Taqi to claim that Jumuah Salaat while valid in homes in non-Muslim countries will not be valid in Pakistan. He displays egregious stupidity in this satanic ‘fatwa’.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Verily, I fear for my Ummah, the aimmah mudhilleen.”

In another narration, our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) expressed greater fear for these deviate muftis and molvis – greater than fear for even Dajjaal.

The Cancellation of Salaah and the Baseless Excuse of a Munaafiq

Whenever Allaah Ta`aalaa sends down any test upon the Muslims, there are those who pass this test with flying colours and there are those who fail this test miserably, being flung on account of it into the pit of Jahannam. Throughout the history of Islaam and right until the time when Allaah Ta`aalaa takes the very last Muslim away from this Dunyaa, there will be tests. These Tests separate the wheat from the chaff; they separate the sincere Muslims (`Ibaadallaahil Mukhlaseen) from the munaafiqeen; they separate those who truly believe in Allaah Ta`aalaa from those who are only “Muslim” in name.

One of the most recent tests is that of the coronavirus (COVID-19), and this test from Allaah Ta`aalaa has truly exposed the munaafiqeen most thoroughly. It has exposed the fact that most of the so-called “Ulama” do not – and have never – truly believed in Allaah Ta`aalaa. Their Imaan is as flimsy as a cobweb. Their tawakkul is in America.

They may outwardly deny this, but in reality, in the back of their minds they know this to be true: they laugh at the belief that it is Allaah Ta`aalaa Who controls both sickness and cure. They hypocritically claim to believe this, but they know as well as we do that they do not truly believe that. They consider this belief to be stupid, backwards, regressive, old-fashioned, dangerous and something which “puts Muslims in a bad light in the eyes of the non-Muslims”.

That is a major disease in the hearts of these “Mozlems”: they are forever worried about “what the non-Muslims will think about us”. They care more about the “judgement” of the so-called “non-Muslims” than the Judgement of Allaah Ta`aalaa. They are always “apologising” to the so-called “non-Muslims” on behalf of Allaah Ta`aalaa, wal-`Iyaadhu Billaah. They feel that they need to apologise to the “non-Muslims” for Allaah Ta`aalaa having revealed this “oppressive, fundamentalist, backward, old-fashioned, terrorist religion” known as Islaam.

This “coronavirus (COVID-19)” has brought every last munaafiq “scholar” in the world out of the woodwork, and Shaytaan would be proud of them. The Arab Kaafir regimes were in the forefront to close down the Masaajid and ban the Salaah, and their grovelling, bootlicking munaafiq “scholars” were quick to defend it.

Never in the past has Iblees had it as easy as he has it today. He can comfortably retire. The Ulamaa-e-Soo are striving to outdo both him and Dajjaal in spreading kufr and munkar throughout the world. With one “coronavirus”, they have gotten rid of Islaam in entirety. Long ago already the munaafiqeen had “interpreted” away Jihaad as either: a) being some “ancient” part of Islaam that was abrogated centuries ago and which must be apologised for, or b) that Jihaad actually means “to strive hard in politics, to have a democratically elected president,” or “to strive hard in advocating human rights”, which to them refers to feminism and gay rights, thus in their minds a “mujaahid” is someone who joins the “gay pride” marches, protesting and “striving hard in advocating LGBTQ+ values and freedom of expression”.

Munaafiq Menk would happily be at the forefront, raising high the “gay pride” flag and marching. These Munaafiq “scholars” will soon march with the cross as well.

صورته اليوم هو في أول الطابور, يحمل الصليب الضخم الكبير ويسير…

Thus, long ago already had they done away with Jihaad, and now with the coronavirus they have done away with Salaah, Hajj, `Umrah and the Sunnah in one go. Already they are having discussions about cancelling Sawm (fasting) as well, because they believe that it will lower the person’s immune system and put them at greater risk of “contracting the coronavirus and dying”, thus, according to their fabricated principles, “it is your duty to not fast”. They have never been giving Zakaat so that does not even factor, thus in one go there is no longer Salaah, Zakaah, Sawm (fasting), Hajj, `Umrah, Jihaad or the Sunnah, because acting on the Sunnah results in people contracting and spreading the coronavirus, according to them.

All of the munaafiqeen organisations have thus come out to cancel Islaam: the “Jamiats”, the MJC (Murtadd Juhalaa Council), etc., as well as the Munaafiqeen-In-Chief like Munaafiq Menk, Taha Karaan, Yasir (Yes-Sir) Qadhi, etc. The kuffaar governments had not even brought in any laws yet when the munaafiqeen rats, the “Tujjaar-ud-Deen”, the “Dajjaalian Scholars” had begun squawking like parrots in the trees, ever eager to please their masters (America and its allies), ever eager to grovel, ever eager to bootlick, to kowtow, to snivel, ever yearning for “acceptance” from the kuffaar.

None of the munaafiqeen have presented any scrap of true daleel to justify the widespread shutting down of the Masaajid, the cancellation of Jumu`ah, Jamaa`ah, Taraaweeh and possibly Eid as well if their masters have not yet given them the “green light” to go ahead with it by that time.

Recently, “Yes-Sir” Qadhi (groveler-in-chief) presented a so-called “daleel” for closing down the Masaajid. Now, Yes-Sir Qadhi is not someone whose words hold any weight for true Muslims. His words are only meant to be printed on toilet roll and used by someone who has had a bad case of diarrhoea. Nevertheless, because some Muslims asked us about this so-called “daleel” of his, we shall briefly respond to it, إن شاء الله.

Yes-Sir Qadhi quotes the following passage from al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah of Imaam ibn Katheer رحمة الله عليه:

فلمّا مات استخلف على الناس عمرو بن العاص فقام فيهم خطيباً فقال:

أيّها الناس، إنّ هذا الوجع إذا وقع فإنّما يشتعل اشتعال النار، فتحصّنوا منه في الجبال. فقال أبو وائل الهذلي: كذبت والله لقد صحبت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأنت شرّ من حماري هذا. فقال: والله ما أردّ عليكم ما تقول، وايم الله لا نقيم عليه. قال: ثم خرج وخرج الناس فتفرّقوا ودفعه الله عنهم.

قال: فبلغ ذلك عمر بن الخطاب من رأى عمرو بن العاص فوالله ما كرهه

This passage is on the chapter of the Plague of `Amwaas wherein 25,000 people died, according to Imaam al-Waaqidi رحمة الله عليه, or 30,000 people according to others. Many great Sahaabah died in this plague, including:

  1. Hadhrat Abu `Ubaydah ibn al-Jarraah رضي الله عنه
  2. Hadhrat Abu Maalik al-Ash`ari رضي الله عنه
  3. Hadhrat Mu`aadh ibn Jabal رضي الله عنه
  4. Hadhrat Yazeed ibn Abi Sufyaan رضي الله عنه
  5. 5. Hadhrat Haarith ibn Hishaam رضي الله عنه

In fact, both Hadhrat Abu `Ubaydah رضي الله عنه and Hadhrat Mu`aadh ibn Jabal رضي الله عنه died from the plague after asking Allaah Ta`aalaa to give them that sickness so that they would die from it.

Nevertheless, the above passage from al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah states that after Hadhrat Mu`aadh ibn Jabal رضي الله عنه passed away and Hadhrat `Amr ibn al-`Aas رضي الله عنه was placed in charge, he told them that this plague spreads like fire, thus they must “seek shelter” in the mountains, and the narration then states that they تفرّقوا (dispersed) and Allaah Ta`aalaa removed the plague. When the news of this was taken to Hadhrat `Umar رضي الله عنه, he did not dislike it.

“Yes-Sir” Qadhi then makes the following baseless statement:

“It is reasonable to assume that the prayers were suspended.”

This is the apex of his “daleel”: “it is reasonable to assume.”

“To assume.”

Since when has there been an addition to Usool-ul-Fiqh? Has anyone heard about this? We certainly have not. We know that the Ahkaam of Sharee`ah are derived from four sources: two of them being primary and two being non-primary. The two Primary Sources are Qur’aan and Sunnah. The two non-primary sources are ijmaa` and qiyaas, that being qiyaas done by a Faqeeh, and there are no Fuqahaa today.

Where do “assumptions” fit in?

Perhaps we need to rewrite the Kutub of Usool-ul-Fiqh to make this very important change: Qur’aan, Sunnah, Ijmaa`, Qiyaas and the Assumptions of Yasir Qadhi. There are now five sources of istidlaal.

فإلى الله المشتكى وهو المستعان…

A few points to briefly debunk his ridiculous “assumption”:

1) As stated above, we have established sources of istidlaal. History books are not one of those sources. Daleel is Qur’aan and Sunnah, and for those who are not Mujtahideen, they refer to the Kutub of Fiqh. The Kutub of taareekh as not used for daleel for a very simple reason: tahqeeq has not been done for most of the Kutub of taareekh. Hence, you can find baseless or weak narrations in many Kutub of taareekh. Shias commonly go through the books of taareekh to dig out baseless narrations which they feel are in support of Shi’ism and which “paint a bad picture of the Muslims”.

However, the narrations they present are mawdhoo`aat, baseless lies. Hence, we state emphatically: Ahkaam of Deen are not derived from history books.

In fact, according to the Hanafi Madh-hab, if an Aayah of the Qur’aan gives a particular ruling, then a person cannot add onto that ruling with even a Hadeeth if that Hadeeth is from the Aahaad (solitary narrations), as stated by Fakhrul Islaam al-Bazdawi رحمة الله عليه and others.

Let alone naskh (abrogation), even ziyaadah `alan-nass is not permissible unless the Hadeeth is mutawaatir, or mash-hoor as stated by Imaam ibn Ameer Haajرحمة الله عليه in at-Taqreer wat-Tahbeer.

Now, the Jumu`ah Salaah is Fardh-e-`Ayn according to the Hanafi Madh-hab, and the one who denies it is a Kaafir, as stated in Radd-ul-Muhtaar `alad-Durril Mukhtaar, and the daleel for this is the Aayah:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا نُودِيَ لِلصَّلاةِ مِنْ يَّوْمِ الْجُمُعَةِ فَاسْعَوْا إِلَى ذِكْرِ اللهِ وَذَرُوا البَيْعَ

{“O you who have Imaan! When the nidaa (call) for Salaah is made on the Day of Jumu`ah, then hasten to the Dhikr of Allaah (the Khutbah and Jumu`ah Salaah) and leave off trade…“}

[Soorah Al-Jumu`ah, 62:9]

These munaafiqeen want to cancel something that is Fardh-e-`Ayn, established as qat`iyy (definitively proven and undeniable) by the Qur’aan Kareem, on the basis of an “assumption” made by a “Yes-Sir Qadhi” because of something he dug out of a history book? Because they are munaafiqeen, they take the Deen of Allaah Ta`aalaa as a joke, but the true Muslims happily give their lives for this Deen. In fact, a true Muslim happily gives his life for the protection of a single Sunnah from the Sunan of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم.

2) Even if this narration is accepted as Saheeh, nowhere does it state that Salaah was “suspended” as the munaafiq claims. The munaafiq also claims that the Sahaabah spent months in this condition, but this too is not mentioned. It is another “assumption” from his own side. This is a person who has based his entire religion upon “assumptions”.

Another person can “assume” that تفرّقوا means this: those who were healthy separated from those who were sick, and those who were healthy performed Jumu`ah together, and those who were sick performed Jumu`ah together. Why is that assumption not “reasonable” as well?

Istidlaal is not done using a history book, especially not when the incident cited has multiple ihtimaalaat (possibilities).

Anyone who has studied taareekh (history) and knows the ways of the mu’arrikheen knows that the method of the old mu’arrikheen was to compile all narrations concerning a particular incident, and they would present these incidents in their kutub, because they focused primarily on jam` (collecting) and not on tahqeeq.

A well-known example of this is the case of Imaam al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi رحمة الله عليه with Imaam Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه: a person who reads through the books of Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi will find so many narrations insulting Imaam Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه that he would think that there must have been some enormous enmity on the part of Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi towards Imaam Abu Haneefah and the Hanafi Madh-hab. Yet, if he reads those very same kitaabs, he will also find many narrations praising Imaam Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه very highly.

Hence, the `Ulamaa have explained that Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi simply gathered everything he had heard regarding Imaam Abu Haneefah and presented these in his Kitaab, regardless of whether those narrations were authentic or not. These mu’arrikheen expected those who came after to do tahqeeq of those kutub of taareekh, sorting out what is authentic from what is not authentic.

Now, if a person were to adopt the methodology of Yes-Sir Qadhi and the other Ulama-e-Soo who try to look for daleel for their baatil views in the books of taareekh, then this person will come across these kitaabs of Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi and arrive at the conclusion that Imaam Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه was not even a Muslim – والعياذ بالله – and that the Ahnaaf are “like Christians”, thus he uses this as “proof” that the other three Madhaahib are on Haqq and the Hanafi Madh-hab is on Baatil, when in reality those narrations are nothing more than baseless lies.

Thus, matters of `Aqaa’id and Ahkaam are only taken from rigorously authenticated sources.

3) If the Fuqahaa and `Ulamaa of Islaam were in the habit of closing down the Masaajid and cancelling Salaah each and every time there was a plague or pandemic, it would be well-known. There would be no need to hunt through the kutub of taareekh to pull out an incident which 1) he cannot prove as being saheeh, qat`iyy-uth-thuboot and 2) which has multiple possibilities. The very fact that he had to labour to scratch out this incident shows that this “cancellation of Salaah” is not something well-known among the `Ulamaa for 1,441 years. There have been many plagues over the years; this is not the first.

4) If the people had completely cut off from each other, like he claims, not even performing Salaah together, then what happened to those Muslims who died? Did each person simply die by himself and lay where he was, rotting away, not being buried? There was no janaazah Salaah and no burial?

If he says that there was burial and Janaazah Salaah, that means they had to come together. If they could congregate for Janaazah Salaah – which they would have to be doing very frequently, because people were dying every day – why could they not congregate for Jumu`ah Salaah which is only once a week? Does that make sense to any person with `aql (intellect)?

5) Why restrict this cancellation of Salaah to only the coronavirus (COVID-19)? Why not also cancel Salaah for the flu, TB, AIDS and the many other “contagious” illnesses?

Currently, approximately 15,496 people have died from this COVID-19 according to, but WHO puts the number of deaths from the common flu each year at somewhere between 290,000 to 650,000. That is significantly higher than COVID-19, to say the least.

Hence, we pose this question to them: “If the Masaajid must be closed down and Salaah cancelled because of COVID-19, why must the same thing not be done in the case of the common flu? More people have died from the flu than from COVID-19. According to, approximately 100,657 people have recovered from COVID-19. The very kuffaar that you people worship claim that most of those who die from COVID-19 are old people who were already suffering from other illnesses.

If the Masaajid must be closed due to the risk of contracting the coronavirus, why must they not be closed due to the risk of contracting the flu, or TB? You could be performing Salaah in the Masjid next to someone who has TB, and he is coughing next to you the entire time, and thus you contract TB. Why, then, must the Masaajid not also be closed to prevent the risk of getting TB?”

Every single argument they present in favour of closing the Masaajid and cancelling Salaah due to COVID-19 applies in the case of the flu.

They believe that we must reject the command of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم to “stand shoulder to shoulder” and instead stand two meters apart, due to the risk of contracting COVID-19. Why must a person not do the same due to the risk of catching the flu from the next person?

In fact, there is always some risk or the other involved in performing Salaah next to people in the Masjid, as you do not know what illness the next person has, so why not permanently shut down all Masaajid and cancel Jamaa`ah Salaah, Jumu`ah, Taraaweeh, `Eed, etc., indefinitely? Why “take the risk”? Is the “principle of saving lives” not more important than Jamaa`ah Salaah?

Why run the risk of getting the flu or TB on account of performing Salaah in Jamaa`ah, instead of performing it individually at home? Why is it okay for a person to run the risk of getting the flu and dying, or getting TB and dying? Why, in the case of the other “contagious” illnesses, is it okay to run the risk of contracting them due to performing Salaah next to other people, using towels in the Masjid that other people have used, shaking hands with people, eating out of the same plate with people (as is the Sunnah), etc.?

We want them to answer these questions.

6) As stated earlier, the Kuffaar claim that 15,496 people so far have died from COVID-19. Compare this to the plagues of the past:

  • The Black Plague, known also as the Great Plague, the Great Bubonic Plague, Pestilence, the Great Mortality and the “Black Death”, killed 200 million people worldwide. It wiped out 60% of Europe’s population. It took Europe over 200 years to recover from the Black Plague. Some places, like Florence, only recovered in the 19th century despite the Black Plague having broken out in the 14th century.
  • The Cocoliztli epidemic, in the 1500s, killed 15 million people.
  • The Spanish flu, which broke out in 1918, killed 50 million people.
  • The Asian flu, which broke out in 1957, killed 1.1 million people.
  • The Swine Flu, which broke out just a few years ago in 2009, infected 1.4 billion people around the world and killed up to 575,400 people, according to the CDC, and, unlike COVID-19, it killed mainly those younger than 65.

These are just a handful of plagues. There have been many more in the past.

Take just the Black Plague, for example, which killed 200 million people: why did the `Ulamaa at that time, in the 14th century, not call for the Masaajid to be closed down and Salaah to be cancelled? Why did Salaah continue like normal? 200 million people versus 15,496: that is a massive difference. Did the `Ulamaa back then not understand Islaam? Did they not know about the “Maqaasid-ush-Sharee`ah” and the “principle of saving lives”? Did they not know the Aayah:

ولا تلقوا بأيديكم إلى التهلكة

{“Do not throw yourselves, by your own hands, into destruction…“}

(This Aayah, as a matter of fact, refers to abandoning Jihaad. The Qur’aan says that those who abandon Jihaad are throwing themselves into destruction by their own hands.)

Did they not know about this incident from al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah which Yes-Sir Qadhi has quoted? The difference is simply that the so-called Ulama of today are severely lacking in Imaan and Tawakkul. They do not believe in the Power of Allaah Ta`aalaa. They believe only in the so-called “power” of the West.

Yes, the Fuqahaa of the past stated that those who are sick are exempted from coming to the Masjid, but never did they call for the closure of the Masaajid and the suspension of even Hajj itself.

7) Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

من ترك ثلاث جمع تهاوناً بها طبع الله على قلبه

“Whosoever abandons three Jumu`ahs due to taking it (the matter of Jumu`ah) lightly, Allaah will place a seal on his heart.”

[Narrated in Sunan Abi DaawudSunan at-Tirmidhiand Sunan an-Nasaa’i.]

Explaining this Hadeeth, Imaam al-Munaawi رحمة الله عليه states in Faydh-ul-Qadeer that “placing a seal on his heart” means:

يصير قلبه قلب منافق

“His heart will become the heart of a munaafiq.”

Obviously, the governments will impose restrictions: that is entirely expected. The governments are not Muslims, thus they do not rule according to the Laws of Islaam. Hence, they will act according to what they believe is most suitable for the welfare of the people. It is expected for them to impose restrictions, but it is not befitting for the so-called “Ulamaa” to have out of their own decided to shut down the Masaajid, cancelled the Hajj, cancelled Salaah, imposed the haraam, Baatil “two meter distance” in the Masaajid, etc. That they did from their own side – they were not compelled to do so. Hence, they will have to answer for that on the Day of Qiyaamah.

Finally, to those who believe in throwing out the Sunnah simply on the basis of flimsy excuses: know that when people abandon a Sunnah, Allaah Ta`aalaa takes away from them the Tawfeeq to act upon it thereafter, even if they want to. They will have to bleed in order to act upon it once again.


يا مثبّت القلوب ثبّت قلوبنا على دينك

ربّنا لا تزغ قلوبنا بعد إذ هديتنا وهب لنا من لدنك رحمة إنّك أنت الوهّاب

والله تعالى أعلم وعلمه أتمّ وأحكم

– Muhammad Huzaifah ibn Adam Aal-Ebrahim




The following is a brief account of a devastating plague which hit and devastated Muslim lands in the year 449 Hijri. It is an account by Sibt Ibn Al-Jawzi (Rahmatullah alayh):

“In Jumāda ‘l-Ākhirah [of the year 449] a letter arrived from Bukhārā from Transoxiana that an unprecedented and unheard of pandemic occurred there such that 18,000 caskets (Janaazahs) came out of this region in a single day! Those that died were counted and they were 1,650,000, up to the writing of this letter.

Those who survived passed through these lands and saw nothing but empty stores and locked doors. The pandemic spread to Azerbaijan and then to Ahwāz, Baṣrah and Wāsiṭ, and other regions.  Large pits were dug and 35 people would be dumped in them. The copy of a letter written from Samarkand to Balkh arrived at Baghdād stating that each day 5,000, 6,000 or more righteous Muslims are being buried, and the stores are shut, and the people are engaged night and day in burying their dead, and bathing them and shrouding them.

Every house in which death entered, it would overtake them all. From the houses of the heads and elite, more than 2000 houses of the city were shut, neither old nor young, nor free nor slave, nor heir remained.

All the people repented and gave in charity most of their wealth. They  spilled wine and smashed musical instruments, and remained attached to the Masjids and reciting Qur’ān, and the women in the homes were doing likewise.

Every house in which was wine, its inhabitants died in one night. Whoever had an unlawful woman with him, both died together. The administrator of a Masjid who died had 50,000 dirhams and none accepted it. They were kept for nine days as they were in the Masjid, and then four people came and took them and died with them. Everyone who bequeathed to another, the one bequeathed to died before the testator. Each pair of Muslims between whom was distance (i.e. had become enemies), but did not reconcile died. 700 jurists were with Faqīh ‘Abdul Jabbār ibn Aḥmad and ‘Abd al-Jabbār and other jurists died.

We came upon a sick person whose death throes extended for seven days and he pointed with his finger to a room of the house which we entered and searched and found wine in a container so we turned it upside down and Allāh saved him from death.

It has been said from the start of Shawwāl to the end of Dhu ‘l-Qa‘dah, the caskets (janaazahs) that came out of the doors of Samarkand were counted, and they came to 236,000. (This is besides the mass burials). This pandemic originated in Turkistan, a land of disbelievers, and then came from there to lands of Sāghūn, Kāsghar, Shāsh, Farghānah and those regions and reached Samarkand on the 27th of Ramaḍān of this year.

(Mir’āt al-Zamān, 19:12-14)

(Translation, not by The Majlis)

COMMENT (By Mujlisul Ulama):

“Verily, the Athaab (Punishment) of your Rabb is dreadfully severe.” (Qur’aan)

In the entire history of Islam, from its very inception, to a few weeks ago, NEVER were any Musaajid closed by Muslims, neither by Muslim governments nor by the mutawallis nor by the communities. In our era in close proximity to Qiyaamah, the villainy of the closure of the Musaajid and the cancellation of Salaat are the satanic handiwork of the Munaafiqeen in our midst. Allah Ta’ala has made manifest the Munaafiqeen. They are the rubbish molvis, sheikhs and zindeeq doctors masquerading as Muslims.  There nifaaq has been advertised by Allah Ta’ala for all and sundry to see and to recognize the traitors lurking within the community.

Whenever Musjids closed in any epidemic, it was not a closure by Muslims or the authorities, it was due to the total or near total decimation of the populace.  Bodies were being dumped unceremoniously in mass graves. There was no choice – no option other than to act as they did. No one locked the Musaajid. There were just no Muslims remaining to attend the Musaajid. On the contrary, where there were communities, still alive, they flocked to the Musaajid, supplicating and pleading to Allah Ta’ala. But it was too late. The decree had already gone forth. There was no turning back. The Athaab had to take its course.

Where it was possible, all Muslims flocked to the Musaajid, those affected and those unaffected by the disease. They flocked into the Musaajid, crying and repenting. But once the decree of Athaab has been issued, it followed its trajectory. No dua and no repentance can then avert it. The time for averting the   Greater Athaab which brings obliteration in its wake, is when Allah Ta’ala gives us a mild taste of His lesser punishment in order to jolt us into realization. In this regard, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“Most certainly We shall give them to taste of the lesser Punishment, not the greater punishment, for perhaps they may return (to the Path of Rectitude).”

When the Athaabil Adna (Lesser Punishment) is ignored, then the Divine Ordinance stated in the following Qur’aanic Aayat becomes applicable:

“When We intend to destroy (the people of) a settlement (village, town, city, etc.), then We command its affluent people (i.e.  give them unbridled freedom to  wallow in their  filth of sin and immorality). Thus, they (recklessly) and flagrantly indulge in fisq. Then We utterly destroy them.”

Today, all over the world, Muslims are ignoring the Athaabil Adna, and on the contrary are justifying their fisq, fujoor and kufr. This is the scariest part of the prevailing saga. It is the indication for Athaab of a horrendous and shocking kind which is overshadowing us.

ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﮐﺎ ﺣﮑﻢ

 ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﮐﺎ ﺣﮑﻢ 

ﺟﯿﺴﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺳﺐ ﺟﺎﻧﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﮐﺮﻭﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﺋﺮﺱ ﻭﺑﺎ ﻧﮯ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﻣﻤﺎﻟﮏ ﮐﻮ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﻟﭙﯿﭧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻟﮯ ﺭﮐﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﺱ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﺧﺎﺗﻤﮯ ﮐﮯ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺑﮩﺖ ﺳﮯ ﻟﻮﮒ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺗﺮﻏﯿﺐ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺩﮮ ﺭﮨﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺟﺲ ﮐﯽ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺭﺍﺕ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮔﮭﺮﻭﮞ ﮐﯽ ﭼﮭﺘﻮﮞ ﭘﺮ ﭼﮍﮪ ﮐﺮ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ ﻃﻮﺭ ﭘﺮ ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯼ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ، ﺍﺳﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻣﺴﺎﺟﺪ ﮐﮯ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ ﺍﺳﭙﯿﮑﺮ ﺳﮯ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﺫﺍﻧﯿﮟ ﺩﯼ ﺟﺎﺋﯿﮟ، ﺟﺲ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻣﯿﺪ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﯾﮧ ﻭﺑﺎ ﺧﺘﻢ ﮨﻮﺟﺎﺋﮯ۔ ﺍﺳﯽ ﺗﻨﺎﻇﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺣﻀﺮﺍﺕ ﻭﺑﺎ ﺧﺘﻢ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﺗﮏ ﮨﺮ ﺭﻭﺯ ﺍﻥ ﺍﺫﺍﻧﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﮧ ﺟﺎﺭﯼ ﺭﮐﮭﻨﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺗﺮﻏﯿﺐ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺩﮮ ﺭﮨﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ۔ ﺫﯾﻞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﻋﻤﻞ ﮐﺎ ﺗﻔﺼﯿﻠﯽ ﺟﺎﺋﺰﮦ ﻟﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺗﺎﮐﮧ ﺍﺱ ﮐﺎ ﺷﺮﻋﯽ ﺣﮑﻢ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﮨﻮﺳﮑﮯ۔

:ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﮐﺎ ﺣﮑﻢ

ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺭﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﯾﺎ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﺎ  ﺷﺮﻋﯽ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺳﮯ ﺳﻨﺖ ﯾﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﺐ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ، ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﮨﻞِ ﻋﻠﻢ ﮐﮯ ﻧﺰﺩﯾﮏ ﯾﮧ ﺟﺎﺋﺰ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ، ﺍﺱ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺍﺱ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺟﺘﻨﺎﺏ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﭼﺎﮨﯿﮯ، ﺟﺲ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺟﻮﮨﺎﺕ ﺩﺭﺝ ﺫﯾﻞ ﮨﯿﮟ

ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﻭﺳﻨﺖ، ﺣﻀﺮﺍﺕ ﺻﺤﺎﺑﮧ ﮐﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﯿﻦ ﻋﻈﺎﻡ ﺳﮯ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﭘﺮ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﮐﺎ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺛﺒﻮﺕ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ۔

ﺍﺳﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺣﻀﺮﺍﺕ ﻓﻘﮩﺎﺀ ﮐﺮﺍﻡ ﻧﮯ ﻧﻤﺎﺯ ﮐﮯ ﻋﻼﻭﮦ ﺟﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﮐﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﺐ ﯾﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﺰ ﮨﻮﻧﺎ ﺫﮐﺮ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﯾﺎ ﺍﺱ ﺟﯿﺴﮯ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻭﺑﺎﮐﮯ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﮐﺎ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺫﮐﺮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ۔

ﺣﻀﺮﺍﺕ ﺻﺤﺎﺑﮧ ﮐﺮﺍﻡ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻭﺭ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻧﮩﺎﯾﺖ ﮨﯽ ﺷﺪﯾﺪ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﺁﯾﺎ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﺍﺱ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﭘﺮ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﻥ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻧﻔﺮﺍﺩﯼ ﯾﺎ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ ﻃﻮﺭ ﭘﺮ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﯾﺎ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺗﺮﻏﯿﺐ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﮐﺎ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺛﺒﻮﺕ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ۔

ﺍﻥ ﺗﯿﻦ ﺑﺎﺗﻮﮞ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺻﻮﻟﯽ ﻃﻮﺭ ﭘﺮ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﻃﮯ ﮨﻮﺟﺎﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﯾﺎ ﺍﺱ ﺟﯿﺴﮯ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﭘﺮ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﺎ ﺳﻨﺖ، ﻣﺴﺘﺤﺐ ﯾﺎ ﺩﯾﻦ ﮐﺎ ﺣﺼﮧ ﮨﺮﮔﺰ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﺱ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺍﺱ ﮐﻮ ﺳﻨﺖ ﯾﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﺐ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﻨﺎ ﮨﺮ ﮔﺰ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ، ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺪﻋﺖ ﮐﮯ ﺯﻣﺮﮮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺁﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﮧ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﭘﺮﺍﻧﻔﺮﺍﺩﯼ ﯾﺎ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﮐﺎ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺳﻨﺖ ﯾﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﺐ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﺗﻮ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﻭﺳﻨﺖ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺣﻀﺮﺍﺕ ﺻﺤﺎﺑﮧ ﮐﺮﺍﻡ ﺳﮯ ﺿﺮﻭﺭ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ۔ ﯾﮧ ﺍﺻﻮﻟﯽ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮨﮯ ﺟﺲ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻣﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﮨﻮﺟﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ۔

:ﺍﯾﮏ ﺍﮨﻢ ﻭﺿﺎﺣت

ﺑﻌﺾ ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼٰ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﭘﺮ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﺎ ﻋﻼﺝ ﮐﮯ ﻃﻮﺭ ﭘﺮ ﻣﺒﺎﺡ ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺟﺎﺋﺰ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﻟﺒﺘﮧ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺑﺎﺗﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﺭﻋﺎﯾﺖ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﯼ ﮨﮯ :

ﺍﺱ ﮐﻮ ﺳﻨﺖ، ﻣﺴﺘﺤﺐ ﯾﺎ ﺷﺮﻋﯽ ﺣﮑﻢ ﻧﮧ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ
ﯾﮧ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﻧﻤﺎﺯ ﮐﯽ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺁﻭﺍﺯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻧﮧ ﮐﮩﯽ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺗﺎﮐﮧ ﺩﻭﻧﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻣﺘﯿﺎﺯ ﮨﻮﺳﮑﮯ۔

ﺍﺱ ﮐﻮ ﻻﺯﻡ ﻧﮧ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻧﮧ ﮨﯽ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺷﺮﻋﯽ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﮐﯽ ﺧﻼﻑ ﻭﺭﺯﯼ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ۔

ﺍﻥ ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼٰ ﮐﯽ ﺭﻭ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺬﮐﻮﺭﮦ ﺷﺮﺍﺋﻂ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﺑﻄﻮﺭِ ﻋﻼﺝ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﭘﺮ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺍﺟﺎﺯﺕ ﺩﯼ ﮔﺌﯽ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﺱ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺍﮔﺮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺍﻧﻔﺮﺍﺩﯼ ﻃﻮﺭ ﭘﺮ ﺷﺮﻋﯽ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺷﺮﺍﺋﻂ ﮐﯽ ﺭﻋﺎﯾﺖ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﮮ ﺗﻮ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﮔﻨﺠﺎﺋﺶ ﮨﮯ، ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﯾﮧ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﯾﮏ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺣﻘﯿﻘﺖ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﮦ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﺤﺎﻝ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻥ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻭﺷﺮﺍﺋﻂ ﮐﯽ ﺭﻋﺎﯾﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎﺗﯽ، ﻋﻮﺍﻡ ﺍﺱ ﭘﺮ ﻋﻤﻞ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﺍﻥ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻭﺷﺮﺍﺋﻂ ﮐﯽ ﺭﻋﺎﯾﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﺮﭘﺎﺗﮯ، ﺟﯿﺴﺎ ﮐﮧ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﮦ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﺤﺎﻝ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﺸﺎﮨﺪﮦ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺑﮩﺖ ﺳﮯ ﻟﻮﮒ ﺍﺱ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﮐﻮ ﺩﯾﻦ ﮨﯽ ﮐﺎ ﺣﺼﮧ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺍﺣﺎﺩﯾﺚ ﺳﮯ ﺩﻻﺋﻞ ﺑﮭﯽ ﭘﯿﺶ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺭﺍﺕ ﮐﺎ ﻣﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻣﻘﺮﺭ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﻮﺍ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﺱ ﮐﺎ ﺣﺪ ﺳﮯ ﺯﯾﺎﺩﮦ ﺍﮨﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﻟﮕﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺑﺎﻗﺎﻋﺪﮦ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ ﺗﺸﮩﯿﺮ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺗﺮﻏﯿﺐ ﺩﯼ ﺟﺎﺭﮨﯽ ﮨﮯ، ﯾﮧ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ ﻃﻮﺭ ﭘﺮ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺗﺮﻏﯿﺐ ﺩﯼ ﺟﺎﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ، ﻧﻤﺎﺯ ﮐﯽ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﯾﮧ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯼ ﺟﺎﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ، ﻣﺴﺎﺟﺪ ﺳﮯ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ ﺍﺳﭙﯿﮑﺮ ﮐﮯ ﺫﺭﯾﻌﮯ ﺑﯿﮏ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﺫﺍﻧﯿﮟ ﺩﯼ ﺟﺎﺭﮨﯽ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﻋﻼﻭﮦ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﺧﺮﺍﺑﯿﺎﮞ ﭘﺎﺋﯽ ﺟﺎﺭﮨﯽ ﮨﯿﮟ۔ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺳﯽ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﯾﮧ ﭘﮩﻠﻮ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺗﻮﺟﮧ ﮐﮯ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼٰ ﮐﯽ ﺭﻭ ﺳﮯ ﯾﮧ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺯﯾﺎﺩﮦ ﺳﮯ ﺯﯾﺎﺩﮦ ﻣﺒﺎﺡ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﺒﺎﺡ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﺐ ﺷﺮﻋﯽ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﮐﯽ ﺭﻋﺎﯾﺖ ﻧﮧ ﺭﮐﮭﯽ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺗﻮ ﺍﺱ ﮐﻮ ﺗﺮﮎ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﺟﺐ ﮨﻮﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﺟﯿﺴﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺣﻀﺮﺍﺕ ﻓﻘﮩﺎﺀ ﮐﺮﺍﻡ ﻧﮯ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺖ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺋﯽ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﺱ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺍﯾﮏ ﻣﺒﺎﺡ ﻋﻤﻞ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺱ ﻗﺪﺭ ﺍﮨﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺳﮯ ﻗﺎﺑﻞِ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﻣﻮﺭ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺿﺎﻓﮧ ﺑﺬﺍﺕِ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﺱ ﻋﻤﻞ ﮐﻮ ﻣﻤﻨﻮﻉ ﺑﻨﺎﺩﯾﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﺱ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺍﺣﺘﯿﺎﻁ ﮐﺎ ﺗﻘﺎﺿﺎ ﯾﮩﯽ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﭘﺮ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺟﺘﻨﺎﺏ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺟﯿﺴﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺁﮔﮯ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﮧ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﮐﺮﺍﭼﯽ ﮐﮯ ﻓﺘﻮﮮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﮐﺎ ﺫﮐﺮ ﺁﺭﮨﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺟﮕﮧ ﺍُﻥ ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﮐﺎ ﺳﮩﺎﺭﺍ ﻟﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺟﻮ ﮐﮧ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﻭﺳﻨﺖ ﺳﮯ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﮨﯿﮟ۔ ﺷﯿﺦ ﺍﻻﺳﻼﻡ ﻋﻼﻣﮧ ﻇﻔﺮ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﻋﺜﻤﺎﻧﯽ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺭﺣﻤﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﺳﯽ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻋﻮﺍﻡ ﮐﯽ ﺍﺳﯽ ﺑﮯ ﺍﺣﺘﯿﺎﻃﯽ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﯾﻮﮞ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﮦ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ

ﻻ ﯾﻘﺎﻝ : ﺇﻥ ﻟﻢ ﯾﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺳﻨﯿۃ ﮬﺬﺍ ﺍﻻٔﺫﺍﻥ ﻣﺴﺘﺪﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺪﯾﺚ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﮐﻮﺭ؛ ﻟﮑﻮﻧﮧ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﻻ ﻋﻠﯽ ﻇﮭﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺠﻦ ﺑﻞ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺳﻨﯿۃ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﯿۃ ﯾﻨﺒﻐﯽ ﺍٔﻥ ﯾﺠﻮﺯ، ﻗﻠﻨﺎ : ﺍٔﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻡ ﺗﻌﺘﻘﺪﮦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻٔﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻋﯿۃ ﺍﻟﺪﯾﻨﯿۃ ﮐﻤﺎ ﮬﻮ ﺷﺎﮬﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍٔﺣﻮﺍﻟﮭﻢ، ﻭﻣﻦ ﻟﻢ ﯾﻌﺮﻑ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍٔﮬﻞ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﮧ ﻓﮭﻮ ﺟﺎﮬﻞ ﻓﺎﻓﮭﻢ۔ ‏( ﺍﻣﺪﺍﺩ ﺍﻻﺣﮑﺎﻡ : 1/420 ‏)

:ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼٰ ﺟﺎﺕ

 :ﺫﯾﻞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮯ ﺳﮯ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼٰ ﺫﮐﺮ ﮐﯿﮯ ﺟﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ

ﻓﻘﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﺍﻗﺪﺱ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ ﺭﺷﯿﺪ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﮔﻨﮕﻮﮨﯽ ﺭﺣﻤﮧ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ، ﻭﺑﺎ ﻭﻏﯿﺮﮦ ﺍﻣﺮﺍﺽ ﮐﮯ ﺷﯿﻮﻉ ﮐﮯ ﻭﻗﺖ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻧﻤﺎﺯ ﺍﺣﺎﺩﯾﺚ ﺳﮯ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ، ﻧﮧ ﺍﺱ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﺫﺍﻧﯿﮟ ﮐﮩﻨﺎ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﮨﻮﺍ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﺱ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﯾﺎ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﺖ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻥ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺛﻮﺍﺏ ﯾﺎ ﻣﺴﻨﻮﻥ ﯾﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﺐ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﻨﺎ ﺧﻼﻑِ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﮨﮯ۔ ‏( ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼٰ ﺭﺷﯿﺪﯾﮧ، ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ‏)

ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺍﻻﻣﺖ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ ﺍﺷﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺗﮭﺎﻧﻮﯼ ﺭﺣﻤﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﺤﺮﯾﺮ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ

ﺑﻌﺾ ﮐﻮ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﺘﮯ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﺩﯾﮑﮭﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺍﺻﻞ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ۔ ‏( ﺍﻏﻼﻁ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻡ ﺻﻔﺤﮧ ۳۴ ‏)
ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺍﻻﻣﺖ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ ﺍﺷﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺗﮭﺎﻧﻮﯼ ﺭﺣﻤﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺳﻮﺍﻝ ﮐﮯ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﺤﺮﯾﺮ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ

* ﺳﻮﺍﻝ *: ﺑﯿﻤﺎﺭﯼ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﺳﻢ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﻮ ﺍﺫﺍﻧﯿﮟ ﮐﮩﯽ ﺟﺎﺗﯽ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺣﮑﻢ ﮨﮯ؟

* ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ *: ﺑﺪﻋﺖ ﮨﮯ، ﺟﻮ ﻟﻮﮒ ﯾﮧ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﻭﺑﺎ ﺟِﻨّﺎﺕ ﮐﮯ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺳﮯ ﮨﻮﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺳﮯ ﺟﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺑﮭﺎﮔﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﺍﺱ ﻭﺍﺳﻄﮯ ﺍﺱ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺣﺮﺝ ﮨﮯ؟ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺷﺨﺺ ﮐﻮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻧﮯ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺩﯾﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺷﯿﻄﺎﻥ ﮐﮯ ﺑﮭﮕﺎﻧﮯ ﮐﮯ ﻟﯿﮯ ﮨﮯ، ﻣﮕﺮ ﮐﯿﺎ ﻭﮦ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﻟﯿﮯ ﮐﺎﻓﯽ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺟﻮ ﻧﻤﺎﺯ ﮐﮯ ﻟﯿﮯ ﮐﮩﯽ ﺟﺎﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ؟ ﺍﮔﺮ ﮐﮩﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﮦ ﺻﺮﻑ ﭘﺎﻧﭻ ﺩﻓﻌﮧ ﮨﻮﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ، ﺗﻮ ﺍﺱ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺷﯿﺎﻃﯿﻦ ﮨﭧ ﺟﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﻣﮕﺮ ﭘﮭﺮﺍٓﺟﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﺗﻮ ﯾﮧ ﺗﻮ ﺍﺱ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺟﺘﻨﯽ ﺩﯾﺮ ﺗﮏ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﮩﯽ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺍﺗﻨﯽ ﺩﯾﺮ ﮨﭧ ﺟﺎﺋﯿﮟ ﮔﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﭘﮭﺮ ﺍٓﺟﺎﺋﯿﮟ ﮔﮯ، ﺍﻭﺭ ﻧﻤﺎﺯ ﮐﯽ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺳﮯ ﺗﻮ ﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﭘﺎﻧﭻ ﺩﻓﻌﮧ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺑﮭﺎﮔﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﯾﮧ ﺗﻮ ﺻﺮﻑ ﺍﯾﮏ ﮨﯽ ﺩﻓﻌﮧ ﮨﻮﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ، ﺫﺭﺍ ﺍﻭﭘﺮ ﺑﮭﺎﮒ ﺟﺎﺋﯿﮟ ﮔﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺭﮨﯿﮟ ﮔﮯ، ﺗﻮ ﺷﯿﺎﻃﯿﻦ ﮐﮯ ﺑﮭﺎﮔﻨﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺗﺮﮐﯿﺐ ﺻﺮﻑ ﯾﮧ ﮨﻮﺳﮑﺘﯽ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﮨﺮ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﺭﮨﻮ، ﭘﮭﺮ ﺻﺮﻑ ﺍﯾﮏ ﻭﻗﺖ ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﻮ؟؟ ﺍٓﺝ ﮐﻞ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﮐﻮ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺪﻋﺖ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺷﺒﮧ ﭘﮍﮔﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﺣﺎﻻﮞ ﮐﮧ ﯾﮧ ﯾﻘﯿﻨًﺎ ﺑﺪﻋﺖ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﮐﭽﮫ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﺻﻠﯿﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ، ﯾﮧ ﺻﺮﻑ ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻉ ﮨﮯ۔ ‏( ﺍﺷﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﯿﺎﺕ ‏)

ﺣﮑﯿﻢ ﺍﻻﻣﺖ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ ﺍﺷﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺗﮭﺎﻧﻮﯼ ﺭﺣﻤﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺳﻮﺍﻝ ﮐﮯ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﺤﺮﯾﺮ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ :

* ﺳﻮﺍﻝ *: ﺩﻓﻊِ ﻭﺑﺎ ‏( ﻣﺜﻠًﺎ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ‏) ﮐﮯ ﻭﺍﺳﻄﮯ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﺰ ﮨﮯ ﯾﺎ ﻧﺎﺟﺎﺋﺰ؟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﻮ ﻟﻮﮒ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻣﯿﮟ ‘‘ ﺣﺼﻦِ ﺣﺼﯿﻦ ’’ ﮐﯽ ﯾﮧ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﭘﯿﺶ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ : ﺇِﺫَﺍ ﺗَﻐَﯿَّﻠَﺖِ ﺍﻟْﻐَﯿْﻠَﺎﻥُ ﻧَﺎﺩَﯼ ﺑِﺎﻻٔﺫَﺍﻥِ۔ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﯾﮧ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﮨﮯ ﯾﺎ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ؟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﺎ ﮐﯿﺎ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﮨﮯ؟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﯾﺴﮯ ﮨﯽ ﯾﮧ ﺟﻮ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍٓﯾﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺷﯿﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﻗﺪﺭ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺑﮭﺎﮔﺘﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺟﯿﺴﮯ ﻣﺪﯾﻨﮧ ﮐﮯ ﻓﺎﺻﻠﮧ ﭘﺮ ﺍﯾﮏ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﮐﺎ ﻧﺎﻡ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﻭﺭ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﺍﺛﺮِ ﺷﯿﻄﺎﻥ ﺳﮯ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﺱ ﮐﺎ ﮐﯿﺎ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﮨﮯ؟

* ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺍﺏ *: ﺍﺱ ﺑﺎﺏ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺩﻭ ﺣﺪﯾﺜﯿﮟ ﻣﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﺍﯾﮏ ‘‘ ﺣﺼﻦ ﺣﺼﯿﻦ ’’ ﮐﯽ ﻣﺮﻓﻮﻉ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ : ﺇِﺫَﺍ ﺗَﻐَﯿَّﻠَﺖِ ﺍﻟْﻐَﯿْﻠَﺎﻥُ ﻧَﺎﺩَﯼ ﺑِﺎﻻٔﺫَﺍﻥِ۔ ﺩﻭﺳﺮﯼ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﺻﺤﯿﺢ ﻣﺴﻠﻢ ﮐﯽ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﺳﮩﻞ ﺭﺿﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻨﮧ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺮﻓﻮﻋًﺎ ﻣﺮﻭﯼ ﮨﮯ : ﺇِﺫَﺍ ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖَ ﺻَﻮْﺗًﺎ ﻓَﻨَﺎﺩِ ﺑِﺎﻟﺼَّﻠَﺎۃِ؛ ﻓَﺈِﻧِّﻲْ ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖُ ﺭَﺳُﻮْﻝَ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧِ ﷺ : ﺇِﺫَﺍ ﻧُﻮْﺩِﻱَ ﻟِﻠﺼَّﻠَﺎۃِ ﻭَﻟَّﯽ ﺍﻟﺸَّﯿْﻄَﺎﻥُ ﻭَﻟَﮧ ﺣُﺼَﺎﺹٌ۔ﺍﻭﺭ ﺣﺼﻦِ ﺣﺼﯿﻦ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﺴﻠﻢ ﮐﺎ ﺟﻮ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮧ ﺩﯾﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ﻭﮦ ﯾﮩﯽ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮨﮯ۔ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺩﻭﻧﻮﮞ ﺣﺪﯾﺜﯿﮟ ﻣﻘﯿﺪ ﮨﯿﮟ : ‘‘ ﺇِﺫَﺍ ﺗَﻐَﯿَّﻠَﺖْ ’’ ‘‘ ﻭَﺇِﺫَﺍ ﺳَﻤِﻌْﺖَ ﺻَﻮْﺗًﺎ ’’ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ، ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﻮ ﺣﮑﻢ ﻣﻘﯿﺪ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﺴﯽ ﻗﯿﺪ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻗﯿﺪ ﻧﮧ ﭘﺎﺋﮯ ﺟﺎﻧﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻭﮦ ﺣﮑﻢ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﮐﺎ ﻣﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ۔ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻇﺎﮨﺮ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺩﻭﻧﻮﮞ ﻗﯿﺪﯾﮟ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﭘﺎﺋﯽ ﺟﺎﺗﯿﮟ، ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﮧ ﻧﮧ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺷﯿﻄﺎﻥ ﮐﺎ ﺗﺸﮑﻞ ﻭﺗﻤﺜﻞ ‏( ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﯿﮟ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ﮨﻮﺗﯽ ﮨﯿﮟ ‏) ﺍﻭﺭ ﻧﮧ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺍٓﻭﺍﺯ ﺳﻨﺎﺋﯽ ﺩﯾﺘﯽ ﮨﮯ، ﺻﺮﻑ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺑﺎﻃﻨﯽ ﺍﺛﺮ ﮨﮯ ‏( ﺟﺲ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﺳﮯ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ‏) ۔ ﭘﺲ ﺟﺐ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺩﻭﻧﻮﮞ ﻗﯿﺪﯾﮟ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﭘﺎﺋﯽ ﮔﺌﯿﮟ ﺗﻮ ﻣﺬﮐﻮﺭﮦ ﺩﻭﻧﻮﮞ ﺣﺪﯾﺜﻮﮞ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﺣﮑﻢ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﻧﮧ ﮨﻮﮔﺎ۔ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺩﻭﺳﺮﯼ ﺷﺮﻋﯽ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﮐﯽ ﺣﺎﺟﺖ ﮨﻮﮔﯽ ‏( ﺍﻭﺭ ﺩﻭﺳﺮﯼ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺍﯾﺴﯽ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﮨﮯ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺟﺲ ﺳﮯ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﯾﺎ ﺍﺱ ﺟﯿﺴﯽ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﭘﮑﺎﺭﯼ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ‏) ۔ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻗﯿﺎﺱ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﺮﺳﮑﺘﮯ، ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺣﯽّ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻮٰۃ ﻭﺣﯽ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺡ ﭘﺮ ﻣﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﺱ ﻟﯿﮯ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺻﻠﻮٰۃ ﮐﮯ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﮩﻨﺎ ﻏﯿﺮِ ﻗﯿﺎﺳﯽ ﺣﮑﻢ ﮨﮯ۔ ﻗﯿﺎﺱ ﺳﮯ ﺍﯾﺴﮯ ﺣﮑﻢ ﮐﺎ ﺗﻌﺪﯾﮧ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ، ﺍﺱ ﻟﯿﮯ ﻭﮦ ﺩﻟﯿﻞِ ﺷﺮﻋﯽ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﻧﺺّ ﮨﻮﻧﺎ ﭼﺎﮨﯿﮯ، ﻣﺤﺾ ﻗﯿﺎﺱ ﮐﺎﻓﯽ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﻧﺺ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ۔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺽ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻻﻣﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﯾﮧ ﺣﮑﻢ ﻏﯿﺮِ ﻗﯿﺎﺳﯽ ﮨﮯ، ﭘﺲ ﺍﺱ ﻗﯿﺎﺱ ﺳﮯ ﺯﻟﺰﻟﮯ ﻭﻏﯿﺮﮦ ﮐﮯ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﮔﻨﺠﺎﯾﺶ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﻮﺳﮑﺘﯽ۔ ‏( ﺧﻼﺻﮧ ﮐﻼﻡ ﯾﮧ ﮐﮧ ‏) ﺍﺱ ﺑﺎﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺣﺪﯾﺚِ ﺗﻐﯿّﻞ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ، ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﮧ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ‏( ﺟﻮ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﯾﺎ ﺯﻟﺰﻟﮧ ﮐﮯ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺩﯼ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ‏) ﺍِﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﻓﯽ ﺍﻟﺪﯾﻦ ‏( ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺑﺪﻋﺖ ‏) ﮨﮯ۔ ﯾﮩﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥِ ﻋﻤﻮ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ‏( ﺟﻮ ﺻﺤﺎﺑﮧ ؓ ﮐﮯ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮨﻮﺍ ‏) ﺷﺪﺕِ ﺍﺣﺘﯿﺎﻁ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺎﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺻﺤﺎﺑﯽ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻨﻘﻮﻝ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﮐﮯ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﺣﮑﻢ ﺩﯾﺎ ﮨﻮ ﯾﺎ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻋﻤﻞ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﻮ۔ ‏( ﺍﺷﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﯿﺎﺕ ‏)

ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﺍﻗﺪﺱ ﻣﻔﺘﯽ ﻋﺰﯾﺰ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤٰﻦ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺭﺣﻤﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺳﻮﺍﻝ ﮐﮯ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﺤﺮﯾﺮ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ :

* ﺳﻮﺍﻝ ﻧﻤﺒﺮ *:93 ﺯﻣﺎﻧﮧ ﻗﺤﻂ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻭﺑﺎ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ ﺣﻮﺍﺩﺛﺎﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺩﻓﻦِ ﻣﯿﺖ ﮐﮯ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺫﻥ ﮐﮩﻨﺎ ﮐﯿﺴﺎ ﮨﮯ؟

* ﺟﻮﺍﺏ *: ﺍﻥ ﺣﻮﺍﺩﺛﺎﺕ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺷﺎﺭﻉ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﻭﺍﻓﻌﺎﻝِ ﺳﻠﻒ ﺻﺎﻟﺤﯿﻦ ﺳﮯ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ، ﻟﮩٰﺬﺍ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺪﻋﺖ ﮨﮯ۔ ‏( ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺩﯾﻮﺑﻨﺪ /2 : 67 ، ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻻﺫﺍﻥ ‏)

ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﺍﻗﺪﺱ ﻣﻔﺘﯽ ﻋﺰﯾﺰ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤٰﻦ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺭﺣﻤﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺳﻮﺍﻝ ﮐﮯ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﺤﺮﯾﺮ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ :

* ﺳﻮﺍﻝ ﻧﻤﺒﺮ *:111 ﻭﺑﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻗﺤﻂ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺧﺸﮏ ﺳﺎﻟﯽ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﻭﻏﯿﺮﮦ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻧﻤﺎﺯ ﮐﮩﻨﺎ ﺷﺮﻋًﺎ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﮨﮯ ﯾﺎ ﻧﮧ، ﺍﮔﺮ ﺟﺎﺋﺰ ﮨﮯ ﺗﻮ ﺷﺮﻋﯽ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ؟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻣﻤﻨﻮﻉ ﮨﮯ ﺗﻮ ﮨﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺟﻮ ﺳﻨﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﺑﺎ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻏﻮﻝِ ﺑﯿﺎﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﻨﺎﺕ ﮐﯽ ﮐﺜﺮﺕ ﮨﻮﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﻨﺎﺕ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻓﻊ ﮐﮯ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺟﻮ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ : ﺇِﺫَﺍ ﺗَﻐَﯿَّﻠَﺖِ ﺍﻟْﻐَﯿْﻠَﺎﻥُ ﻧَﺎﺩَﯼ ﺑِﺎﻻٔﺫَﺍﻥِ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﻭﺇِﺫﺍ ﺭﺍٔﯼ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﯾﻖ ﻓﻠﯿﻄﻔﺌﮧ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﮑﺒﯿﺮ ﺳﮯ ﺳﻨﺪِ ﺟﻮﺍﺯ ﭘﮑﮍﻧﺎ ﺻﺤﯿﺢ ﮨﮯ ﯾﺎ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ؟

* ﺟﻮﺍﺏ *: ﻭﺑﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻗﺤﻂ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﮩﻨﺎ ﻣﻨﻘﻮﻝ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺗﻐﻮﻝ ِﻏﯿﻼﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺟﻮ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﺐ ﮨﮯ ﺍﺱ ﮐﺎ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻇﺎﮨﺮ ﻃﻮﺭ ﺳﮯ ﻏﯿﻼﻥِ ﺟِﻦّ ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺱ ﮨﻮ ﻣﺜﻠًﺎ ﺟﻨﮕﻞ ﻭﻏﯿﺮﮦ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﺴﯽ ﮐﻮ ﺟِﻨّﺎﺕ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﮨﻮ ﺍﺱ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﮩﻨﮯ ﮐﺎ ﺣﮑﻢ ﮨﮯ۔ ﺍﻣﺮﺍﺽِ ﻭﺑﺎﺋﯿﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﯾﮧ ﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ، ﻧﮧ ﺍﺱ ﮐﻮ ﺍﺱ ﭘﺮ ﻗﯿﺎﺱ ﮐﺮ ﺳﮑﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﻗﯿﺎﺱ ِﺍﻭﻝ ﺗﻮ ﻣﺠﺘﮩﺪ ﮐﺎ ﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﮨﮯ، ﻧﮧ ﮨﻢ ﻟﻮﮔﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ، ﺍﻭﺭ ﻋﻼﻭﮦ ﺑﺮﯾﮟ ﻗﯿﺎﺱ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﻣﺮﺍﺽِ ﻭﺑﺎﺋﯿﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﻐﻮﻝِ ﻏﯿﻼﻥ ﮐﻮ ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺱ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ۔

‏( ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺩﯾﻮﺑﻨﺪ /2: 73 ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻻﺫﺍﻥ ‏)

ﺷﯿﺦ ﺍﻻﺳﻼﻡ ﻋﻼﻣﮧ ﻇﻔﺮ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﻋﺜﻤﺎﻧﯽ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺭﺣﻤﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺳﻮﺍﻝ ﮐﮯ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ

* ﺳﻮﺍﻝ *: ﻣﺮﺽ ِﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﻮ ﺍﮐﺜﺮ ﺍٓﺩﻣﯽ ﻣﺴﺠﺪﻭﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺫﺍﻧﯿﮟ ﺩﯾﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﯾﮧ ﺷﺮﻉ ﮐﮯ ﺧﻼﻑ ﮨﮯ ﯾﺎ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﮨﮯ؟ ﺍﯾﮏ ﻣﻮﻟﻮﯼ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ ﺭﺷﯿﺪ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﮔﻨﮕﻮﮨﯽ ﺭﺣﻤﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺎﺑﺖ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﺗﻮ ﻓﺘﻮﯼٰ ﮨﮯ ﺍﺫﺍﻧﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ، ﮐﯿﺎﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺻﺤﯿﺢ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﻓﺘﻮﯼٰ ﮨﮯ؟ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺩﯾﮟ۔

* ﺍﻟﺠﻮﺍﺏ *: ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻣﯽ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺎﺷﯿۃ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﻟﻠﺨﯿﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﻠﯽ : ﺭﺍٔﯾﺖ ﻓﯽ ﮐﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻓﻌﯿۃ ﺍٔﻧﮧ ﻗﺪ ﯾﺴﻦ ﺍﻻٔﺫﺍﻥ ﻟﻐﯿﺮﺍﻟﺼﻠﻮٰۃ ﮐﻤﺎ ﻓﯽ ﺍٔﺫﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﮭﻤﻮﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺼﺮﻭﻉ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻀﺒﺎﻥ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺳﺎﺀ ﺧﻠﻘﮧ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍٔﻭ ﺑﮭﯿﻤۃ ﻭﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺰﺩﺣﻢ ﺍﻟﺠﯿﺶ ﻭﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﯾﻖ ﻭﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﻐﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻐﯿﻼﻥ ﺍٔﯼ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﻤﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺠﻦ؛ ﻟﺨﺒﺮ ﺻﺤﯿﺢ ﻓﯿﮧ . ﺍٔﻗﻮﻝ : ﻭﻻ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻓﯿﮧ ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﺍﮪ ﺍٔﯼ ﻻٔﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺻﺢ ﻓﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺨﺒﺮ ﺑﻼ ﻣﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻓﮭﻮ ﻣﺬﮬﺐ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﮭﺪ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻟﻢ ﯾﻨﺺ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﮪ ) ﺹ ۳۹۹ ‏)

ﺑﻌﺾ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﻧﮯ ﺗﻐﻮﻝِ ﻏﯿﻼﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﺳﮯ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﮐﮯ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﮐﮩﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﻣﮕﺮ ﮨﻢ ﮐﻮ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﻼﻡ ﮨﮯ، ﮨﻤﺎﺭﮮ ﻧﺰﺩﯾﮏ ﺗﻐﻮﻝِ ﻏﯿﻼﻥ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺮﺍﺩ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺍﯾﺴﯽ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺲ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟِﻨّﺎﺕ ﮐﺎ ﺳﺎﻣﻨﮯ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﮨﻮﻧﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻏﻠﺒﮧ ﻭﺗﻤﺮّﺩ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺱ ﮨﻮ، ﺟﯿﺴﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺭﺍﺕ ﮐﻮ ﺳﻔﺮﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺩﻓﻌﮧ ﺟﻨﮕﻠﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟِﻨﺎﺕ ﮐﯽ ﺍٓﻭﺍﺯﯾﮟ ﯾﺎ ﮈﺭﺍﻭٔﻧﯽ ﺷﮑﻠﯿﮟ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍٓﯾﺎ ﮐﺮﺗﯽ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﺍﺱ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﺎ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﻭﺭ ﻃﺎﻋﻮﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﻨﺎﺕ ﮐﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻏﻠﺒﮧ ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺱ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ، ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﻣﺤﺾ ﺳﻤﻌًﺎ ﻭﻧﻘﻼً ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﮨﻮﺍ ﮨﮯ، ﻭﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﻋﻠﻢ، ﻗﻠﺖ

ﻭﯾﻮﯾﺪ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﯿﺦ ﻓﯽ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻭﻣﺠﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻠﻮﻥ ﺑﺼﻮﺭ ﺷﺘﯽ، ﻭﺍٔﯾﻀﺎ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻓﯽ ﺍﻻٔﺫﺍﻥ ﻓﯽ ﮬﺬﮦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟۃ ﺗﺸﻮﯾﺸًﺎ ﻭﺗﻐﻠﯿﻄًﺎ، ﻭﺍٔﯾﻀًﺎ ﻓﯿﮧ ﺗﮭﻮﯾﻞ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺱ ﻓﺈﻧﮭﻢ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺳﻤﻌﻮﺍ ﺍﻻٔﺫﺍﻧﺎﺕ ﺑﮑﺜﺮۃ ﯾﻔﺰﻋﻮﻥ ﻭﯾﺘﻮﮬﻤﻮﻥ ﺍٔﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺑﺎﺀ ﺷﺪﯾﺪۃ ﻓﯽ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪ ﺣﺘﯽٰ ﺳﻘﻂ ﺣﻤﻞ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺑﺬﻟﮏ، ﻗﺎﻟﮧ ﺍﻟﺸﯿﺦ، ﻻ ﯾﻘﺎﻝ : ﺇﻥ ﻟﻢ ﯾﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺳﻨﯿۃ ﮬﺬﺍ ﺍﻻٔﺫﺍﻥ ﻣﺴﺘﺪﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺪﯾﺚ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﮐﻮﺭ؛ ﻟﮑﻮﻧﮧ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﻻ ﻋﻠﯽ ﻇﮭﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺠﻦ ﺑﻞ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺳﻨﯿۃ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﯿۃ ﯾﻨﺒﻐﯽ ﺍٔﻥ ﯾﺠﻮﺯ، ﻗﻠﻨﺎ : ﺍٔﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻡ ﺗﻌﺘﻘﺪﮦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻٔﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻋﯿۃ ﺍﻟﺪﯾﻨﯿۃ ﮐﻤﺎ ﮬﻮ ﺷﺎﮬﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍٔﺣﻮﺍﻟﮭﻢ، ﻭﻣﻦ ﻟﻢ ﯾﻌﺮﻑ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍٔﮬﻞ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﮧ ﻓﮭﻮ ﺟﺎﮬﻞ ﻓﺎﻓﮭﻢ، ﺣﺮﺭﮦ ﺍﻻٔﺣﻘﺮ ﻇﻔﺮ ﺍٔﺣﻤﺪ ﻋﻔﺎ ﻋﻨﮧ ۲۱ ﺷﻮﺍﻝ ۴۴ﮪ، ﻧﻌﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﯿﻖ ﺑﻘﺒﻮﻝ ﺣﻘﯿﻖ، ﮐﺘﺒﮧ ﺍﺷﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﯽ، ۲۳ ﺷﻮﺍﻝ ۴۴ﮪ ۔ ‏( ﺍﻣﺪﺍﺩ ﺍﻻﺣﮑﺎﻡ : 1/420 ‏)

ﺟﺎﻣﻌﮧ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﮐﺮﺍﭼﯽ ﮐﺎ ﻓﺘﻮﯼٰ :

ﻗﺪﺭﺗﯽ ﺁﻓﺎﺕ ﻣﺜﻠًﺎ ﺷﺪﯾﺪ ﺑﺎﺭﺵ ﯾﺎ ﺯﻟﺰﻟﮧ ﻭﻏﯿﺮﮦ ﮐﮯ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﺎ ﻧﺒﯽ ﮐﺮﯾﻢ ﺻﻠﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ، ﺻﺤﺎﺑﮧ ﮐﺮﺍﻡ ﺭﺿﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻨﮩﻢ ﺳﮯ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ، ﻧﯿﺰ ﻓﻘﮩﺎﺋﮯ ﮐﺮﺍﻡ ﺭﺣﻤﮩﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ‏[ ﻧﮯ ﻧﻤﺎﺯ ﮐﮯ ﻋﻼﻭﮦ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﮐﮯ ﺟﻮ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺫﮐﺮ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺋﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ‏]

ﺍﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻣﺬﮐﻮﺭﮦ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﮐﺎ ﺫﮐﺮ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ، ﻟﮩٰﺬﺍ ﺳﻨﺖ ﯾﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﺐ ﺳﻤﺠﮫ ﮐﺮ ﻣﺬﮐﻮﺭﮦ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﺎ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ، ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺩﻓﻊِ ﻣﺼﯿﺒﺖ ﮐﮯ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺑﻄﻮﺭِ ﻋﻼﺝ ﻣﺬﮐﻮﺭﮦ، ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯼ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺗﻮ ﻓﯽ ﻧﻔﺴﮧ ﺍﮔﺮﭼﮧ ﻣﺒﺎﺡ ﮨﮯ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﭼﻮﮞ ﮐﮧ ﻋﻮﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻭﻗﯿﻮﺩ ﮐﺎ ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺭﮐﮭﺘﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺳﮯ ﺷﺮﯾﻌﺖ ﮐﺎ ﺣﮑﻢ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﻭﺟﮧ ﺳﮯ ﻓﻘﮩﺎﺋﮯ ﮐﺮﺍﻡ ﺭﺣﻤﮩﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻧﮯ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻨﻊ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ ﮨﮯ۔ ‏( ﻣﺆﺭﺧﮧ : 5/6/1422 ﮪ ‏)

 ﻣﺮﻭّﺟﮧ ﺍﺫﺍﻧﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﻟﯿﮯ ﭘﯿﺶ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎﻧﮯ ﻭﺍﻟﯽ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺎﺕ ﮐﯽ


ﺑﮩﺖ ﺳﮯ ﺣﻀﺮﺍﺕ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﭘﺮ ﺩﯼ ﺟﺎﻧﮯ ﻭﺍﻟﯽ ﻣﺮﻭﺟﮧ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﺛﺒﻮﺕ ﮐﮯﻟﯿﮯ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺎﺕ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ،ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺭﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻥ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺎﺕ ﮐﯽ ﺣﻘﯿﻘﺖ ﯾﮧ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ :
ﯾﺎ ﺗﻮ ﻭﮦ ﻧﮩﺎﯾﺖ ﮨﯽ ﮐﻤﺰﻭﺭ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻥ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺳﮑﺘﺎ۔

ﯾﺎ ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﺗﻌﻠﻖ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﮨﮯ ﮨﯽ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ، ﺍﺱ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺍﻥ ﺳﮯ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﭘﺮ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺳﮑﺘﺎ، ﺟﯿﺴﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﯾﺴﯽ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺎﺕ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﻣﺎﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﻔﺼﯿﻞ ﺑﯿﺎﻥ ﮨﻮﭼﮑﯽ۔

ﺟﮩﺎﮞ ﺗﮏ ﺍﺱ ﺣﺪﯾﺚ ﮐﺎ ﺗﻌﻠﻖ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ : ﺟﺐ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺑﺴﺘﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯼ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﻋﺬﺍﺏ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﺣﻔﺎﻇﺖ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﺗﻮ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﺱ ﮐﻮ ﻗﺎﺑﻞِ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﺗﺴﻠﯿﻢ ﮐﺮ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻟﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺗﺐ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻧﮧ ﺗﻮ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﺎ ﺫﮐﺮ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻧﮧ ﮨﯽ ﻣﺮﻭﺟﮧ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ ﺍﺫﺍﻧﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ ﺫﮐﺮ ﮨﮯ، ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﺍﺱ ﺳﮯ ﻧﻤﺎﺯﻭﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻋﺎﻡ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﻣﺮﺍﺩ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﯾﮧ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻓﻀﯿﻠﺖ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ ﻋﺬﺍﺏ ﺳﮯ ﺣﻔﺎﻇﺖ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ۔ ﺍﺱ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺍﺱ ﭘﻨﺞ ﻭﻗﺘﮧ ﻧﻤﺎﺯﻭﮞ ﮐﯽ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﻣﺮﺍﺩ ﮨﮯ۔

ﯾﮩﺎﮞ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﮨﻢ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﭘﺮ ﻣﺮﻭﺟﮧ ﺍﺫﺍﻧﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﺗﺮﻏﯿﺐ ﺩﯾﺘﮯ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﺟﺲ ﻗﺪﺭ ﺍﺿﺎﻓﯽ ﺑﺎﺗﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﺗﺮﻏﯿﺐ ﺩﯼ ﺟﺎﺭﮨﯽ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﯾﻮﮞ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯼ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﻮﮞ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﻭﻏﯿﺮﮦ ﯾﺎ ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﺍﮨﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺭﮨﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﺗﻮ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺫﮐﺮ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ۔ ﺍﺱ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺟﻮ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺎﺕ ﺍﺱ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﺟﻮﺍﺯ ﮐﮯ ﻟﯿﮯ ﭘﯿﺶ ﮐﯽ ﺟﺎﺭﮨﯽ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻥ ﺳﮯ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﻥ ﻣﺮﻭّﺟﮧ ﺍﺫﺍﻧﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﺗﺎﺋﯿﺪ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﻮﺭﮨﯽ، ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﯾﻮﮞ ﮐﮩﯿﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻥ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺎﺕ ﮐﺎ ﻣﺮﻭﺟﮧ ﺍﺫﺍﻧﻮﮞ ﺳﮯ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺗﻌﻠﻖ ﮨﯽ ﻇﺎﮨﺮ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ۔


ﻣﺎﻗﺒﻞ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻔﺼﯿﻞ ﺳﮯ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺑﺨﻮﺑﯽ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﮨﻮﺟﺎﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﭘﺮ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﺎ ﺳﻨﺖ ﯾﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﺐ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻧﮧ ﮨﯽ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺷﺮﻋﯽ ﺣﮑﻢ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﺱ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺍﺱ ﮐﻮ ﺳﻨﺖ ﯾﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﺐ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﻨﺎ ﮨﺮﮔﺰ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ، ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﺑﺪﻋﺖ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﻟﺒﺘﮧ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼٰ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺷﺮﻋﯽ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺭﮨﺘﮯ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﮐﭽﮫ ﺷﺮﺍﺋﻂ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﺑﻄﻮﺭِ ﻋﻼﺝ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﮐﻮ ﻣﺒﺎﺡ ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺟﺎﺋﺰ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﯾﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﭼﻮﮞ ﮐﮧ ﻋﻮﺍﻡ ﺍﻥ ﺷﺮﻋﯽ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺷﺮﺍﺋﻂ ﮐﯽ ﺭﻋﺎﯾﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﺍﺱ ﻟﯿﮯ ﺍﺣﺘﯿﺎﻁ ﺍﺳﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻭﺑﺎ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﭘﺮ ﺍﺫﺍﻥ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺟﺘﻨﺎﺏ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ۔ ﺑﺎﻗﯽ ﺗﻔﺼﯿﻞ ﻣﺎﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﯿﺎﻥ ﮨﻮﭼﮑﯽ۔

۔۔۔ ﻣﻔﺘﯽ ﻣﺒﯿﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤٰﻦ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﻣﺪﻇﻠﮧ
ﻓﺎﺿﻞ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﮧ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﮐﺮﺍﭼﯽﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿں

Providing Information about Various aspects of Islam