The Shiite accusations against Hadhrat Amr ibn Al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), and the issue of Tahkeem (Arbitration)

The incident of Tahkeem (Arbitration) is one that is well-known amongst scholars. Unfortunately, the details of this incident have been mixed with many filthy and poisonous lies, and propagated with such strength, that for many it has become a fact-beyond-question. In the version that the Persian/Jewish-satanists ensured gets propagated, one finds a blatant attack being made upon the honour and noble character of Hadhrat ‘Amr ibn Al-‘Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), an illustrious companion of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), a Sahabi who had the honour, after accepting Islam, of being invited by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  to all major consultations, and only after hearing his opinion would Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) make a decision.

Unfortunately, due to the effort made behind the propaganda regarding him, many good Muslims and even certain scholars have become doubtful of his sincerity. Certain individuals have even gone to the extent of labeling him as a traitor, a liar, a deceiver and a cunning fox. (Naudhubillah)

Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to first shed some light on the issue of Tahkeem, an arbitration that was carried out by Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat ‘Amr ibn Al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), the conqueror of Egypt, to solve the dispute which had occurred between Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and thus bring an end to years of in-fighting which had (according to what has been narrated) already claim the lives of over seven thousand believers, a figure which even the wars against the mighty Persian and Roman empires had not managed to produce.

When the battle of Siffin (A huge battle, in which Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and the people of Iraq fought against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and the people of Shaam, due to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) not being prepared to pledge allegiance to Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), as long as the killers of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) were not brought to trail and punished) was brought to an abrupt halt, each party was asked to send an arbitator to to discuss the situation and find some solution to end the bloody conflict that had begun with the death of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu). Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) sent Hadhrat Abu Musa Ashari (radhiyallahu anhu)  and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) sent Hadhrat Amr ibn Al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu).

The details generally given for what occurred during the arbitration process, are as follows:

(Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Amr ibn Al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) met, discussed  the matyer in great detailand finally decided to remove both Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma) from their posts and leave the Ummah to then choose someone else for the Caliphate.

When the time came to make this announcement , Hadhrat Amr ibn al Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) requeated Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) to address the crowd first. Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu), after praising Almighty Allah and sending salutations upon Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) announced that he had decided to remove both Hadhrat Ali  and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma) and leave the Ummahfree to elect a new leader.

After stepping back, Hadhrat Amr ibn ai Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) came forward and contrary to what had previously been decided, announced that he agrees with Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) as far as removing Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) from his post is concerned. As for Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) it is his decision to keep him in his post.

When Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) heard this he became furious and a heated argument broke out between the two. The two parties returned to their leaders, informing Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) of his removal from the seat of Caliphate, and giving Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) the glad tidings of  becoming Amirul-Mu’mineen.

When the party of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) were informed of a decision, a huge number of them broke away from his party and put up a tent at a place known as Harura. This group came to be known as the Khawarij. Dissatisfied by the decision made by the arbitrators, the branded Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) kafir (disbeliever) and began making terrible attacks on his followers, going to the extent of cutting the bellies of Muslim women, when still alive. Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) made great attempts to bring them back under his authority, but when all efforts failed, he launched a severe attack on them, which resulted in their almost total annihilation)

These are the details which are generally in the minds of those who have a little knowledge about Islamic History, due to man’s quick preusal through the books of history, without any concern for what is authentic and what is not, what is acceptable and what is not, what cpuld be considered as probable and what could not.

Again, with just a little pondering over the above, keeping in mind the principles laid down for the acceptance of historical narrations, with the honour and integrity of the Sahabah (ridhwanallahu anhum) being at the prime, one shall quickly realize that much of the details of the above account are nothing but lies propagated by the satan-worshiping Persians, posing as soldiers in the armies of both parties.

A few of the events mentioned above, which obviously cannot be correct shall be listed below, intended merely as a guide, knowing full well that a thorough investigation of the incident shall surely result in more and more lies coming to the fore.

First Lie regarding the Tahkeem: 
The Khawarij were angered by the deceit of Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu)

It has generally been understood that the Khawarij broke away from Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) due to their dissatisfaction with the ruling of Hadhrat Amr bin al Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), whereas the reality is that they had expressed their anger and dissatisfaction with Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) from the very beginning, i.e. from the time they were informed that both parties had agreed to arbitration. Thus, their anger was never with the decision made by the arbitrators, rather it was with the fact that the Muslim Ummah had brought an end to the in-fighting, which had already resulted in the death of thousands.

These filthy people were never going to accept any decision made by the arbitrators, since disunity within theUmmah was their prime objective. The basis of their mission was to divide the entire Ummah and they were will aware that arbitration would burst their balloon. Criticizing the decision made by Hadhrat Amr bin al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), and portraying him as deceitful, cunning politician, was done merely to formulate a better excuse for their breaking away from Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu).

The proof of this is what has been narrated in Al-Bidayah that when the decision was made to allow Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash’ari abd Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhuma) to arbitrate in the matter of the Ummah. Ash’ath ibn Qais was sent to inform all of this decision. When he came to the tribe of Banu Tamim and read the message to them, Urwah ibn Uzainah stood up angrily and shouted out, ‘How dare you allow man to decide in the matters of religion! Only Almighty Allah is the one who decides!’ Urwah then swiped his swprd towards Ash’ath, but missed, with the blade landing on the behind of the horse of Ash’ath.

The division in the army of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) began at the event, with thousands seperating themselves and camping themselves in the area known as Harura. The evil perpetrated by this band finally compelled Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) to raise his sword against them, whereas just a few months ago, they formed a major part of his army.

In reality, it was this very group which was behind the assassination of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) and the wars of Jamal and Siffin. Until that moment they had been operating in the guise of pious men, constantly in prayer and recitation of the Qur’an. At this point in history their guise were thrown off, and their identity exposed. Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had warned the Ummah of this hidden threat, he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had mentioned that the first time the identity of these hypocrites shall get exposed is when they shall rebel against Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu).

Exactly as predicted by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), these filthy group of hypocrites surfaced, and as predicted, were halted in their tracks and brought to their heels by Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and his faithful Companions, but only after having wrecked great damage upon theUmmah. After the war, when remarked that the hypocrites have now been eradicated, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) corrected him by saying that this group shall continue re-surfacing till the end of time, with the sole mission being to halt the progress of Islam and the Muslim  Ummah.  [refer to Tarikh al Baghdad]

Anyway, the actual purpose of mentioning the above is to show that irrespective of what decision the arbitrators would make months later, this group of hypocrites were never going to accept it, since their sole desire was to keep the Ummah divided, fighting amongst themselves.

During the incident of Tahkeem (arbitration) neither did Hadhrat Abu Musa Ash’ari (radhiyallahu anhu) make a cowardly decision , nor did Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) deceive. Rather their gathering brought a halt to years of infighting which had already claimed the lives of close to one hundred thousand. The only group angered by their decision was that of the hypocrites, and it was these very people who would later disfigure the entire issue of Tahkeem and have historians record it with fabricated versions.

Second Lie regarding the Tahkeem
Hadhrat Abu Musa and Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhuma) had discussed the matter in privacy, but Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu), later, in front of all, spoke lies regarding the decision they had reached.

Narrations show that many Sahaba and prominent men were present at the meeting between Abu Musa Ash’ari and Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), and each detail of the meeting was recorded on paper. How then it could ever be possible that Hadrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) to lie in front of the entire crowd, gathered to hear a decision, without a single person from those present standing up at that moment, or even after, and explaining to both parties that his announcement was not true.

The purpose of arbitration was to unite both parties, with both parties accepting the decision taken by the man they had elected on their behalf, if Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas had lied, why then did Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (radhiyallahu anhu) not just say so? The words of Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) could never demand the obedience of the army of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). Rather, that which Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) would decide for them, only that would they regard as binding and necessary to accept.

In arbitration matters, no one man can deceive, since each party shall only listen to his own member!

Third Lie regarding the Tahkeem
Both parties had initially agreed on removing both Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma) from their posts, and to leave the Ummah free to choose their Caliph.

Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) had until now, never made the claim of being the Caliph. He himself had repeatedly said that when the killers of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) would be brought to trail, he would be the first to pledge allegiance to Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). When Hadhrat Mu’awiyah never laid the claim for the Caliphate, what then would be the need for Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas and Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (radhiyallahu anhu) to decide to remove both and let the Ummah choose a new leader!.

He who was never in a post, how does one remove him from that post??!

It would not even be correct to say that perhaps what is meant is that he be removed from his position as governor over Sham, because the words attributed to Hadhrat Abu Musa and Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhuma) clearly state that they wanted to remove both, so that the ummah could again decide who should rule over them. In an Islamic State it is only the Caliph that rules over all. As for the governors, they shall remain governors  only as long as the Caliph allows, thus they have no rule of their own. To remove a governor would have no significance, since his post depends upon the Caliph. If the new Caliph would choose to keep him, he would remain. If the new Caliph would dismiss him, he would be dismissed.

A different scenario of the Tahkeem (arbitration) has been narrated in the Musannaf of Abdur Razzaq as well as in the Tarikh of Tabari, with amuch stronger chain of narrators (sanad). In this narration clear mention is made that after agreeing upon choosing a new Caliph, Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) presented the name of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) as a suitable candidate, but Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) did not agree. Thereafter, Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) presented the name of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) as a suitable candidate for the Caliphate, but Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) did not agree. Both parties then separated, since they could not agree upon a new Caliph. Had there been any truth to the normally-famous version that they had initially agreed to remove both Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhum) from their posts, what then would be the reason for Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) presenting the name of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah to Hadhrat Abu Musa as a suitable candidate for the Caliphate? After agreeing to fire one, would one ever present the same person’s name as a candidate for the position one had just fired him from??

The sanad of this narration is indeed much stronger than all the other narrations describing the Tahkeem (arbitration), thus to ignore it would truly be a great injustice to the field of proper research. The narration, as recorded by Abdul Razzaq, narrating from Abdullah ibn Ahmad, narratimg from his father Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, narrating from Sulayman ibn Yunus, narrating from Zuhri is as follows:

In this narration a completely different picture has been painted, quite contrary to what is normally mentioned with regards to a great Sahabi lying and deceiving, an act which even the pagan Arabs would not do!

The above-mentioned text forms only a small portion of a lengthy narration, the crux of which is that when the time appointed for ‘The Arbitration’ drew near, the parties representing Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma) arrived at the selected spot, known as Daumatul-Jundal. A special invitation was sent to Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), who had kept himself aloof from the conflict, and Hadhrat Abdullah bin Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) to attend and help the Ummah reunite. The invitation was accepted, and these two luminaries, accompanied by many of their friends and students, also presented themselves at the meeting. Nothing was discussed in privacy, The discussions that took place between Hadhrat Abu Musa and Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhuma) were witnessed by many. In fact, Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) ensured that all important points and issues on which consensus had been reached, be written down in paper.

The first Major decision upon which the consensus was reached was  that the present Caliph steps down from his post, affording the Ummah to the opportunity to unanimously choose a leader. The problem however arose when it came to choosing a new Caliph. Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (radhiyallahu anhu) proposed the name of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), which Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) was not prepared to accept. Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) then proposed the name of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), which Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) was not prepared to accept. Thus the two parties separated without the arbitration proving unsuccessful.

(In this narration there is no mention of Hadhrat Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) deceiving or lying. Had the issue of preference been solely the strength of this narration  over all the other narrarions regarding the ‘Tahkeem’, that would have indeed been sufficient for it alone to be considered and all conflicting narrations be left aside. However that is not the case. Besides the fact that this narration is backed up with a much stronger chain of narrators, there are many other factors also which demand it be given preference and placed above all the other conflicting narrations. Among those factors are the following:

a) This narration refutes the accusation laid against Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) that he won the arbitration through deceit and blatant lies. Arguments and harsh words on many occasions occurred between the Sahaba (ridhwanallahu anhum), since they were the children of the same household, i.e they were all from the illustrious faternity of the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum) and were not bound to those laws of respect which we have been commanded to observe for the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum). Prince’s, in the court of the King, may criticize, argue, and even fight against each other, but dare any man to from out of the royal family attempt to slap a prince or merely look at him with contempt! The Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum), due to the fervour each one had for establishing the truth, would many a time issue harsh word  against his fellow Sahabi brother, bit never would he dare lie or deceive.

The hearts of the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum), as mentioned in the Qur’aan, have already passed the test of Imaan. The purity of their hearts had received  certificates from the highest of quarters, i.e. Almighty Allah himself. Only that mind which has not as yet understood the strength of Almighty Allah’s declaration of purity  could ever conceive such heart to still be filthy, hypocritical traits such as deceit, lies, etc.

Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) occupied a most prominent place amongst the Sahaba. After his accepting Islam, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) included him amongst his selected confidants,  with whom he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) use would consult all the matter of importance. During the era’s of Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhuma), he played a leading role as a leader in the conquests of prominent areas like Egypt, al-Aqsa etc.

Could any sane mind can ever imagine a Sahabi (radhiyallahu anhu) of this calibre concluding his chapter in the glorious history of Islamic heroes with an act of deception, and that too, not just deceiving a few individuals or friends bit rather the entire Muslim Ummah, the illustrious Sahaba around him, and all those who until that time had viewed him as a true leader and a hero of Islam?!

Could any sane mind can ever imagine a Sahabi (radhiyallahu anhu) of this calibre concluding his chapter in the glorious history of Islamic heroes causing untold harm to the cause of Islam, that Islam for which he had on so many occasions thrown himself at the tip of poisonous swords without a concern for his life? Na’audhubillah! The Sahaba (ridhwanallahu anhum) were men of true purity and piety and Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) was from amongst the elite of this illustrious fraternity.

b) Logically also, deception from the side of Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) cannot be conceived possible. The reason being that he only played the role of one member from the panel of two, chosen to artbitrate between two major forces. Even if he lied as to what had been agreed betweem him and Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (radhiyallahu anhu), his lie would hold no effect, since the party of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) would obviously only accept as true what Hadhrat Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu) would report.

c) History itself shows that the arbitration never led to the appointment of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) as Caliph. Rather, after assassination of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Hasan ibn Ali was chosen as Caliph, and it was he who handed over the Caliphate to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), what then was the purpose of Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas deceiving and lieing to Hadhrat Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (radhiyallahu anhu), and what did it achieve? The only logical answer would be that there was no deception and no lie. Both the parties attempted choosing a new Caliph, but they were unable to reach any consensus. The two parties thus returned to their lands, without agreeing upon a new leader.

Despite no agreement being reached, fighting between the two parties however came to an halt, due to a pact made soon thereafter between Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma), with each promising not to launch any attack on the land of other. Iraq  will be the land of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and Sham will be the Land of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu).

HUSBAND & THE RIGHT OF DIVORCE [Indian Government Interferes in Muslim Personal Law]





         (Translation of the Foreword)

The Constitution of India that was designed after the Independence of India declared India a Secular State. This implies that India does not have a state religion. Rather, the Constitution respects every religion and grants its followers complete Freedom of Religion, it has been clearly stated that the Government shall not pass any law which eliminates or decreases basic Fundamental Rights. If such a law is passed, it will be unconstitutional.

It is within the scope of such fundamental rights that every citizen is guaranteed to preserve his culture and the adherents of all religions in India have complete Freedom of Religion. The Government cannot interfere in such rights and cannot create any law that will affect this Basic Constitutional right.

Despite the guarantee of Freedom of Religion being an entrenched Constitutional Right, there is repeated discussion of changing and Reforming Muslim Personal Law through a Civil Code. Hence, a few days ago the Government filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court requesting that there should be restrictions on the Laws of three Talaaqs, halala and polygamy. Presently, there are intense discussions and the media (which is meticulously used to brainwash against Muslim Personal Law) has published some articles, one of which is, “Why a man has the right of talaq?”. These articles are presented in such a way that  creates doubts in the minds of many Muslims.

Moulana Atiq Ahmad Bastawi (Lecturer at Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow) has critically analysed and answered the related issues in this treatise in such a way that  it will easily dispel doubts instigated by the misleading campaign of the media and others. Seeing the relevance and the imminent threat to vulnerable Muslims, I deemed it necessary to have this treatise translated into English. To undertakes this important task, I requested the honorable and respected Moulana Mufti Ebrahim Desai (Senior lecturer of Hadith at Masrasah Nu’maniyyah, Durban, and a world renowned Scholar) who immediately fulfilled my request. May Allah bless him in knowledge and practice.

This treatise is therefore being presented to the Muslims in general and specifically for those who have been trapped in the net of doubts to dispel rheir doubts and increase their faith and conviction.

May Allah grant us all strength and consideration for Imaan. Aameen.

(Mufti) Ahmad Khanpuri
17th Muharram, 1438 A.H.
19th October, 2016

                   Translators Note

I have been advised to by my most revered and spiritual guide, Hadhrat Mufti Ahmad Khanpuri Sahib to translate the book  “عائلی تنازعات کا شرعی حل اور شوہر کو حق طلاق کیوں” as a matter of urgency. It is indeed very challenging to translate such intricate academic topics.

We have endevoured to maintain the message of the subject matter rather than a strict literal translation.

We humbly request you to overlook any shortcomings in the translation. Bear in mind, this book has been translated in one way due to the urgency of the matter. We hope to revise the translation in future Insha’ Allah.

                      _[Mufti] Ebrahim Desai

In Islam, Nikah is not a temporary enjoyment. Rather, it is a bond of love between two people which has to be revered and preserved till death. It is due to this that Islam has emphasised to both spouses to go out of their way in fulfilling every right of the other and overlooking each others faults.

Islam has decreed that women be obedient to their husbands  in all permissible acts. In doing so, she has been fiven glad tidings of Paradise. There are many Ahadith of Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam in this regard:

Hadhrat Umme Salamah (RadhiyAllahu Anha) narrates that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “If a woman dies in a state wherein her husband was pleased with her, she shall enter Jannah.” (Sunan Tirmidhi Pg 457, Vol 2. Hadith 1161 Daral Gharbi Islamiy, Beirut 1998 edition).

It is narrated on the authority of Hadhrat Anas (RadhiyAllahu Anhu) that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “A woman shall have the honour of entering Jannah from whichever door of Jannah she pleases if she performs her five times prayers, fasts during the month of Ramadhan, safeguards her chastity and is obedient to her husband.” (Hilyatul Awliya Pg. 308. Vol.6. Darul Fikr. Beirut. fourth impression)

Hadhrat Abu Usama (RadhiyAllahu Anhu) narrates from the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam),

“After attaining conciousness of Almighty Allah, the next best thing a person can get is a pious wife with the following characteristics;

she accedes to his directives, she makes him happy when he sees her, if her husband takes an oath keeping her trust in mind, she fulfils the oath and in the absence of the husband she safeguards her chastity and his wealth.” (Sunan ibn Majah Pg. 62. Vol. 3. Daral Risalatal Alamiyyah, first impression 2009).

However, to facilitate harmony in domestic life, Islam’s guidance is not one sided. There is much emphasis on the husband to be extremely kind and considerate to the wife that even if he does not like his wife, he is advised to display good conduct towards her.

The Qur’aan explicitely outlines this in the following verses:

And show good conduct (because) if you dislike them (wives), it is possible that you only dislike something and Allah might have placed a lot of good in it. (Chapter of Women: Verse 19)

Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (RadhiyAllahu Anhu) mentions that the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) mentioned,

“If a man dislikes a woman, then possibly is just because of one habit wherein she may posses many other qualities.” (Sahih Muslim Pg. 1092 Vol. 2, Dar Ihya Turath Al-Arabiy, first impreasion)

Islam has made a man’s conduct with his spouse a yardstick to define his character.

Hadhrat Aisha (RadhiyAllahu Anha) reports that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) mentioned, “The best amongst you is the one who has the best conduct with his wife and I am the best amongst you in terms of good conduct with my family.” (Sunan Tirmidhi Pg. 709 Vol 5 Hadith 1161 Daral Gharbil Islamiy, Beirut 1998 edition)

To make the personal life harmonious and successful is the duty of both, the husband and the wife. However, the husband being the head of the house has a greater responsibility. Whenever there is discord between the spouses, since the husband is in charge in terms of management, he should abandon his firmness and take the first step in resolving the matter.

If the discord is due to his behaviour, then he should correct himself and try to win her over, and if it is because of the incorrect attitude of the wife, then the husband should deal with her with utmost patience, love, care and wisdom. Instead of being harsh and emotional, one should involve in dialogue and try to resolve the problem amicably.

The Qur’aan provides various instructions as remedies to family dissention. If these steps are taken, then the husband and wife will easily resolve their problem.

Men have charge over women (as their overseers, guardians, protectors) because of the virtue (distinction) Allah has (in His infinite wisdom) bestowed some of you over others and because of what men spend (on women) from their wealth. So the righteous women are obedient and in the absence (of their husbands), are protective of their chastity and property of their husband, because of that (those rights of women) which Allah has protected. As for those whose disobedience you fear, advice them; separate your bed from theirs and tap them (gently). If they obey you, then do not look for a way against them (to wrongfully accuse them). Verily, Allah is Most High, the Greatest. And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people, if they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is Ever-Knowing and acquainted (with all things) (chapter of Women: Verses 34,35)
In the above verses of Surah Nisah (Chapter of Women), four stages have been outlined to bring about reconciliation

The beginning of verse 34 says that a man is the leader of the family. The simple logic behind this is that no organisation can function without a leader. And generally men are more capable of carrying out this duty. A man is more capable in bringing about discipline and channel the energies of his household in the right avenues.

This does not necessarily imply that a man possess unrestrained and unlimited mandate. Rather it is his duty to oversee the  smooth running of the house. He is responsible of taking charge and control of the family members. He has to arrange for their well-being and education.

In the above quoted verses, man has been appointed the care-taker and the head of the house-hold due to two reasons:

1. Allah Taala has given man a degree of virtue over women.
This is understood from the following verse:

Women have rights similar to what they owe in recognised manner, though for men there is a step above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise. (Surah Baqarah: Verse: 228)

2. The responsibility of the maintainance and the expenses of the wife and children is on the husband.

For this reason, our jurists explicitly mention that though the wife may be rich and wealthy, her expenditure, maintainance and arrangements for living accomodations are still the responsibility of the husband even if he may be poor. A woman supports herself financially and does not load the responsibility of her maintainance on her husband, rather she bears the finances of the house through her own wealth, this will not affect the status of the husband veing the caretaker.

The appointment of the man as the caretaker is due to man being given a degree of virtue over woman because generally men have been more blessed with those certain capabilities which assist in the heading and taking care of the household. However, women have less of a role of than men in the structure and running of the household. The internal issues of the household and supervision is solely the responsibility of women. Men and women both play a central role in the family system. The only way the household can be successful is through their mutual trust and co-operation.

Two qualities of a righteous women are described in the verse 34 of Surah Nisaa:

1. Righteous women obey her husbands.

2. In the absence of their husbands, they protect his wealth and reputation.

The qualities of righteous wives mentioned in this verse are clarified further in the upcoming Ahadith.

Hafidhatul Ghayb can also mean that righteous wives are the confidants of the husband’s secrets. In a martial relationship, secrecy and concealment (of the wives, i.e. for her to not gossip regarding her husband and vice-versa) is a very important and crucial quality. This vital quality is very eloquently expressed in the Qur’an:

They are apparel for you, and you are apparel for them  (Surah Baqarah- 187)

If any woman is unable to maintain the husband’s secrets, and she divulges those secrets, and she is unable to maintain the reputation and dignity of her husband, and in the absence of her husband, she allows strangers to enter the home, then this woman is a source of destruction to her husband’s morale. Rather than being a source of happiness in the personal family life of the husband, she is a source of bitterness and distaste.

This verse, after mentioning the virtuous qualities of a wife, provides a solution to bring the wife back to the correct path. If the wife does not inculcate these virtuous qualities in her, and she does not fulfil her martial duties, she does obey her husband in lawful matters, she does not maintain and protect the wealth and reputation of her husband, she is ill-natured and mischievous, then a process with three stages and initiatives  is presented to husbands to bring these types of women back to the correct path.


The concept of advice and counsel is that the husband repeatedly explains with utmost concern and care, leniency and gentleness. He should try to instil the fear of Allah, explain the consequences awaiting in the hereafter. If the wife veers from the correct path, and the husbands counsels her and tries to make her understand with a passion to steer her back on the straight path and rectify her while understanding her nature, then by the will of Allah, he will be successful in his attempt.

Counsel does not mean to admonish her and get angry at her. To admonish her and get angry at her without taking into consideration her emotions and feelings will more often than not lead to her becoming withdrawn and unresponsive. Rather than rectifying her, hostility and animosity is created within her.


If the disobedience of the woman is not resolved through advice and counsel, then the husband should display inattention and construct an invisible barrier. Some commentators of the Qur’aan explain separation in the bed as abstaining from sleeping with the wife. Others explain it as abstaining from conversing, and others explain it as turning away from the wife in the bed. The sum of the various explanations is that the husband should develop a change in the way he deals with his wife and display his disapproval to her. This stage is very effective in resolving the issue in most women.


If the issue is not resolved with the first two initiatives, then Shariah has allowed to administer a slight rap on her by hitting her lightly if he is confident that such an attitude will jolt and rectify her. However, the following conditions should be borne in mind:

1. Hitting her should not be the outcome of revenge or one’s anger towards her. Rather the sole intention must be to rectify her. If it is done for revenge then the adverse effects will be that the relationship will become even more bitter.

2. If the wife displays open disobedience, the husband can implement the reformation process presented in the Qur’aan. If the first two initiatives fails to produce any results and the husband is confident that slightly hitting her will not resolve the issue, then it will be incorrect to hit her merely to finish the reformation process.

3. In any given situation, the husband is not allowed and does not have the right to beat and assault her severely. Hitting the wife to such an extent that it leaves a mark, breaks a bone or injures her in any way has been prohibited by numerous Ahadith. It is also prohibited to hit her, slightly or harshly, in the sensitive areas of her body.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) mentioned in the plains of Arafat during the farewell Hajj: “Fear Allah concerning women! Verily you have taken them on the security of Allah, and intercourse with them has been made lawful unto you by the words of Allah. You too have right over them, and that they should mot allow anyone to sit on your bed whom you do not like. But if they do that, you can chastise them but not severely. Their rights upon you are that you should provide them with food and clothing in a fitting manner.” (Sahih Muslim V-2/ Pg 891 Dar Ihya Turath Al-Arabi)

4. It is not necessary and not advisable to slightly hit women after the first two initiatives fail to reform her. It is merely allowed in the case of extreme necessity. Islam does not condone the hitting of wives, rather Islam discourages hitting women. Islamic law concedes slight chastisement of women in certain scenarios with certain conditions since maintaining and improving the household can only be achieved through it in certain societies. But to the contrary, Islam encourages such practices through which utmost consideration is given to maintaining the respect of women. Hitting is a distant notion, in fact, wives should not even be spoken to harshly!.

There were some incidents during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) When the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu Anhu) brought complaints against their wives in regards to their sharp tongues with the hope of securing concession to hit them. Rather than conceding to hitting  the wives, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) advised that they should terminate the martial relationship instead.

The famous Tabi’ee, Hadhrat ‘Ata (Rahimahullah) mentions:
“If a wife refuses or opposes the command of her husband, then too the husband will not hit her rather he will be upset.” Qadi Ibnul Arabi (Rahimahullah) has mentioned this statement of Hadhrat ‘Ata (Rahimahullah) to be the culmination of his great intellect, insight and understanding. (Ahkam ul Qur’an li Ibnul Arabi – V 1/ Pg. 536)

The method of hitting wives in Shari’ah is further elucidated in the following Ahadith:

Hadhrat Iyas ibn ‘Abdullah reported that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: “Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens (wives). After this advice, Hadhrat Umar (RadhiyAllahu Anhu) came to the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) and said: “Women have become emboldened towards their husbands”. He (the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) gave permission to hit the wives. After this, many women came to the wives of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) complaining against their husbands. So the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: “Many women have come to my wives complaining about their husbands hitting them. Those husbands who hit their wives are not good people” [Sunan Abi Dawud Pg. 479, Vol 3 – Dar Ar- Risalah al-Alamiyyah]

From the above narration, it is clearly understood that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) disliked the practice of hitting the wives. However, considering the fact that in various communities/societies there exists some disobedient and transgressive women (as explained by Hadhrat Umar (RadhiyAllahu anhu), the ruling of hitting has not been absolutely prohibited.

If the matter has reached such a stage where the husband and wife cannot mutually resolve their differences, then this conflict and tension will not only affect the couples but shall have a negative impact on both families and the society hence, the matter shall no longer remain their confidential issue but will become a community/public issue. In this regard, the Qur’an has addressed and explained the Muslim welfare societies or judges (who are in charge of the Muslim welfare societies) how to resolve issues between two spouses.

In Surah Nisaa, Aayat 35, Allah Ta’ala says:

“And if you fear dissension between the two send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people of they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is Ever-Knowing and acquainted (with all things)” [Surah Nisa’: Verse 35]

The summary of the discussion is if the relationship has reached such a crucial stage where there is no hope of mutual conciliation, then the Qadhi (Muslim judge) or Muslim judicial committee should appoint two members/parties and conduct an arbitration/adjudication. One member from the husband’s family and other member forms from the wife’s side. The two members should be pious, sincere and knowledgable about the case. They will be responsible to hear the statements and arguments of both, the husband and wife and will try their best to reconcile the two. It is the promise of Almighty Allah that, if both the parties have firm intention of goodness and reconciliation to resolve the matter, Allah Ta’ala will bring harmony between the two. When arbitrators would report to Hadhrat ‘Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) that inspite of their efforts, they failed to reconcile the couple, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) would alert them by saying, “You people did not try to your best to resolve your matter. Try again!”

It is the promise of Almighty Allah that if the arbitrators try to sincerely resolve the dispute, Allah will definitely bring harnony and will reconcile the two.

Eventually, if the arbitrators fail to resolve the issue, and according to them   the only way to overcome/ avoid the controversies/ conflicts between the spouses is to annul the Nikah, then in that case, if the husband is ready/ wants to terminate the Nikah, it is simple. But if the husband is not willing to terminate the relationship, do the arbitrators have the right to terminate this relarionship?

The Muslim jurists are of two view on this issue: According to Imam Malik (Rahmatullah Alaih), if the arbitrators confirm that annulment of the Nikah shall be the only solution to this case, then they (the arbitrators) will have the right to terminate the Nikah even if the husband objects. But most of the Muslim jurists are of the view that it will not be permissible for the arbitrators to do so.

In order to remove conflicts between husband and wife, and to create a harmonious martial relationship, Allah Ta’ala has prescribed four measures in Surah Nisaa. If one practices upon these measures, then all domestic issues will be resolved. Then there won’t be the need for Talaq or separation.


Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) has expressed great dislike towards divorce in various narrations:

Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) narrated, the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, of all the lawful acts, the most detestable to Allah is divorce. [Sunan Abu Dawud: Pg. 305, Vol. 3, Dar Ar-Risalah al-Alamiyyah]

Just as it is undesirable for a husband to initiate/issue talaq without any valid cause, similarly it is disliked by Almighty and His beloved Rasul (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) for the wife to demand talaq without any valid reason.

Shaytan gets happy when a couple gets separated, this can be  understood from the following narration:

Hadhrat Thawban (Radhiyallahu Anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “Any women who asks her husband for a divorce when it is not absolutely necessary, the fragrance of Paradise will be forbidden to her” [Ibn Maajah: 2055]

Hadhrat Jabir (Radhiyallahu Anhu) narrated that the Prophet of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “Iblis places his throne on the water and he dispatches his army (to cause mischief). The closest Shaytans to Iblis in rank are those who are most notorious in causing mischief. One of the Shaytan comes to Iblis and reports: ‘I did so and so’ Iblis says: ‘You have done nothing’. Then one amongst them comes and says: “I did not spare so and so until I sowed the seed of discord between the husband and a wife.” Iblis goes near him and says: “You have done well.” A’mash said: “He then embraces him” [Sahih Muslim, pg. 2167, vol. 4, Dar Ihya al-Turath Al-Arabi]

From the above narrations, we understand that shaytan gets immensely happy upon the separation of the spouses and he congratulates those shaytans who bring about separation between the spouses. The happiness of the Shaytan is due to a home being destroyed, consolidating the enmity between the two families and giving Iblis the opportunity to spread unlimited mischief and deviation.


Despite the fact that ending a marriage or giving a divorce (talaq) may be an extremely abhorrent act, one cannot deny the reality that at times, this act become an unavoidable necessity. At times, natural harmony is not found between a husband and wife; even though both are pious and noble, they are incompatible to one another due to immense differences between them in their temperments, attitudes and eventual habits.

In such a case, if all attempts to amend the situation by creating harmony lead to a total failure, there is no benefit for any of the parties (the husband, wife or the society) in binding the two spouses to the institution of marriage through legislative force.

The flag of marriage can only be at full mast if the wind of mutual afftection, love, trust and co-operation is blowing. The purpose of a marriage cannot be fulfilled if the environment of evil presumptions, mistrust, hatred and enmity.

It is for this reason that Islam has shown us the method of dissolving a marriage if such a situation were to occur, and despite the notion of divorce being detestable, Islam has not completely prohibited it.

The unavoidable necessities of life cannot be deferred. Thus, a system should be put in place to accommodate these necessities. In even the most affluent and fashionable areas of the cities, sewage pipes are found beneath the ground. If a muncipality were to announce that they no longer require these dirty pipes and decide to close them. What would happen to the city? All the roads and pathways would be impossible to cross due to the filthy water and slime, as well as its horrid stench and smell.


Despite the fact that fifty years ago, the Islamic system was criticised for the plethora of disapprobation for its validation of divorce (Talaq), the world now sees that the notion that was once considered a fault in Islam is a same notion that is now considered a merit of Islam. In every political and religious dispensation, the vision of Islam with regards to divorce (talaq) has been adopted in some form.

In the Hindu religion, as mentioned by the representatives of the religion from the latter centuries, divorce (talaq) was not considered permissible. Eventually, however, the Hindu members of the Indian Parliment formed a Hindu Code Bill in which permission for divorce (talaq) was granted.

Even still, the conditions and restrictions added to the Code Bill with regards to the permission for divorce (talaq) are such that it does not fulfill the requirements of the Hindu society with regards to divorce (talaq). For this reason, at times, a Hindu husband has to go to the extreme of converting to a different faith in order to free himself from a disliked wife.

The Christians also did not allow divorce (talaq). However, after constant demand and pressure, all the Christian countries gradually brought in laws to facilitate the right of divorce (talaq). Demand for the right of divorce (talaq) did not only come from men, in fact, women’s rights groups were also persistent and ardent in their demand.

Despite the fact that in the western countries, the right of giving permission for divorce lies in the hands of a court, the incidents of divorce are perpetually on the rise. The institution of marriage and the notion of divorce (talaq) have become sport and play. The tranquility of family life has been destroyed.


We have agreed that in some instances, divorce (talaq) becomes an unavoidable necessity for a human being. We have also agreed that to keep a husband and wife tied to the institution of marriage even when it has completely broken down is manifest oppression upon the two spouses as well as upon the society. However, the question arises: to whom should the autonomy of divorce (talaq) should be given in order to facilitate minimial aggravation and the deliverance of justice in the entire procedure of divorce (talaq)?

There are four possibilities:

1) The autonomy of divorce (talaq) should be jointly given to both husband and wife; just as the institution of marriage was formed through their consent, it should not be revoked except through a joint consultation and decision by both parties. This  possibility is compatible with the Shari’ah of Islam.

If a man and a woman mutually agree to end their marriage, they have the right to do so. In Islamic jurisprudence, this is referred to as Khula’. The Qur’an itself and the Prophetic teachings mention the permissibility of Khula’.

However, this is not the obly method of ending a marriage in the Islamic Shari’ah. In fact, there are other methods which we shall elaborate upon soon.

2) The autonomy of divorce (talaq) is given to the husband alone.

This option is also compatible with the Shari’ah of Islam. From an outside perspective, this may come across as a strange view that the institution of marriage which only came into existence through the consent of both the man and the woman, may be ended through the decision of one party.

However, due to the various profound reasons supported by wisdom (which shall be elaborated upon soon), Allah The Most High has given the autonomy of divorce (talaq) to the husband alone. Along with this, the husband has been advised not to use his autonomy of divorce (talaq) frivolously. In fact, he has been guided by the Qur’an and Prophetic teachings towards the proper manner of giving a divorce (talaq).

3) The autonomy of divorce is given to wife alone. This option is not compatible with the shari’ah of Islam. In Islamic law, woman alone has not been given the autonomy of divorce (talaq). This ruling is one which serves to the benefit of woman. We shall shed light upon the reasons as to why a woman has not been given the autonomy of divorce in the coming chapters.

Although Islam has not given the sole autonomy of divorce (talaq) to a woman, Islam has emphasised that a women must not be oppressed or hurt in anyway whatsoever. For this reason, if a husband does not fulfill the rights of his wife or oppresses her, the woman shall have the right to presenting her case to a judge with the hope of having her marriage anulled.

4) The autonomy of divorce (talaq) is not given to a husband, nor is it given to the wife. Rather, the issuing of a divorce or autonomy of divorce is left to the discretion of a judge. Whosoever from the husband or wife wishes to end the marriage is required to go to a court, file for a divorce (talaq), and establish the claims and reasons behind such a decision.

The judge shall then summon the other party, and avail him or her the opportunity to respond to the claims. Finally, if the judge feels that the claim for divorce (talaq) is reasonable and understandable, he shall anull the marriage. Otherwise, he shall discard the claim. In the current times, the family laws administered by a country generally grant the autonomy of divorce (talaq) to a court supporting the claim that by taking away the autonomy of divorce (talaq) from the husbands and giving it to the courts, it shall reduce the rate of divorce, bring oppression upon women to a halt and shall also protect their family rights. Islam does not concur with this argument.

We shall soon elaborate that the reports of those countries that have adopted the practic of granting the autonomy of divorce (talaq) to the courts show that instead of decreasing the rate of divorce, this practice has actually increased the rate of divorce and has not decreased the oppression upon women in a significant manner. Through this law, there is less benefit and more harm for women and the society in general.


It is first and foremost important to discuss why Islam has not given the right of divorce at all to the courts, although this appears to be most logical since a husband and wife are two separate persons in this matter. Each one may demand/threaten divorce some time or the other by being overridden with emotions at times.

On the other hand, the judge is an understanding and a neutral personality. He is the only one who can determine whether the demand of divorce is due to an abrupt disapproval of an act or due to interim emotions or the feud between them escalated to such a state that there is no scope of the relationship remaining.

In order to understand this point better, it is vital and necessary to have a clear insight on the correct nature and spirit of the relationship of Nikah.

Nikah is not based on absurd laws. The entire success of Nikah is wholly based on love and affection between husband and wife and having trust on each other. Without love and affection, unity and trust, the relationship of Nikah  cannot be kept by mere absurd laws. Even if this lifeless Nikah is somehow kept, instead of it being a priceless bounty and happiness, both will perceive restraint and unhappiness.

This reality should also be borne in mind that the relationship and bond of marriage is very sensitive and delicate. There are so many means/causes for the husbands’ heart to be wearied from the wife and for the emotions of hatred to be entrenched in his heart, that they cannot be brought to the justice of the court and sometimes the grounds of divorce are of such a nature that there is no benefit to the woman in bringing such cases to the court. In fact, keeping such issues a secret is better for them.

Understand these brief points through few examples:

1. Assume that a Nikah took place between Khalid and Zainab whom are both pious and devout, however, there is world of difference between their habit and nature. Because of their being no compatibility in their nature, there is resentment on petty issues. This daily resentment and disputes have developed into hatred. Now Khalid has no place left in his heart for Zainab. In this situation, Khalid is willing to end his Nikah with Zainab.

Now if he goes to the court and gives true reasoning for a divorce, the court does not give him permission to do so, because according to the court, Zainab has not done such an  act that warrants a dicorce. Now Khalid has only two ways; either he wrongfully accuses her (of fornication, etc) and brings forth false witnesses and releases himself from her.

In this case there will be no doubt that Khalid will be a sinner. Apart from that, Zainab will have her public image tainted and this will make it extremely difficult for her  to get another match.

The second scenario is that after having exhausted all means and instead of him being able to relieve himself from Zainab, he is forced by the rule of law to  keep Zainab in his marriage. It is obvious that when Khalid’s heart is broken/hardened from Zainab and his heart has been entrenched with emotions of hatred, so how then will he fulfil Zainab’s due martial rights? It is possible that perhaps due to having the fear of Allah or fearing the rule of law, he may keep giving Zainab maintenence, however, it is far-fetched that Zainab will be receiving that love, affection and harmony which hold greater importance than maintenence.

2. The husband is extremely possessive over his wife. Let’s assume that he has complaints in regards to his wife being immoral. After having cautioned and reprimanded her several times, he sees no changes in her and she is still involved in those immoral habits. The husband is coerced to terminate this relationship with her. Now if the husband was given the sole right of divorcing his wife, he will do so silently without anyone knowing.

Through this, the husband would be relieved and the shameful act of the wife would also remain concealed. It is possible that she would repent from this evil and get married to another person.

On the other hand, by handing the court the right of divorce, the husband and wife’s paths are blocked. If the husband has to go to the court and give a true account of a event and seek divorce, the wife would be infamous and notorious in the eyes of the community even before the jugde has issued a decree. Her standing and status in society is highly tarnished/stained. (Even if the court clears her of the accusations). She cannot show her face to anyone. Allah Forbid, if this case has to come to the knowledge of journalists!.

It is apparent that if fictious stories are not made and false witnesses are not brought forth, then it is a tough task to prove lewd acts. That’s why, if the husband has only sufficed on truthfulness, then he will not be able to prove his claim and thus he will not be given the right of divorcing his wife by the courts.

In this situation, how will he then be able to bear and fulfil the demands and requisites of a Martial life, even though, according to law and paper, they will be in the bond of Nikah, however, practically they will be living as though they are not married, in fact even worse than that. The wife specially will be placed in uphill calamity.

In these types of situations, many persons of nobility and dignity do not take the matter to the courts due to fear of defaming their families and as such continue living with swallowing their blood (extremely difficult). Instead of the bond of marriage being a bounty and mercy, it turns into psychological, mental and financial burden.


By giving the right of divorce to the courts, the increase and decrease in such cases will be confined to how loose/broad or how constricting the reasoning’s of divorce has been kept. In those countries where the reasoning’s/causes of divorce have been kept broad, especially more in favour and respect of the wife, then in such cases by giving the right of divorce to the courts, the cases of divorces escalate to alarming rates.

The wife becomes extremely unhappy with the husband due to a certain matter, by being overriden with extreme emotional interim moods, she decides that she cannot bear living with her husband, she then applies for the annulment of marriage to the courts

According to the courts, she qualifies to apply for annulment on this basis that the wife is not prepared to live with her husband, the judge then annuls the marriage.  Because in view of the court, the insistence of the wife in annuling the marriage may be due to her suffering grossly at the hands of her husband, even though the wife cannot prove/ justify her claim.

The current concept of her being deemed as a victim of oppression in all situations is a result of the legalising and action of the courts. As a result, many a times, the legitimate/valid interests and welfare of the husband and children are negatively affected. In specific, the husband suffers huge monetary and family loss.

Very often the wife becomes remorseful on her actions, after her anger having cooled off and her coming into her senses after making a rash decision. However, the husband does not risk bringing her back to his Nikah because of his bitter past experience with her.

Due to opening the doors of divorce wide open, marriage and divorce have become a play in western countries. Marriage relations have become unstable. The rates of divorce are increasing at an amazing pace.

The daily marriage and divorce is causing great harm to those boys and girls who came into existence due to the short period enjoyment of their parents. After becoming deprieved of the love and upbringing of the parents, they become a target of different types of sicknesses, bad habits, psychological and mental disorder, even though the government might provide them with medication, upbringing and high level of education standards.

The daily increase of children who are getting deprived of the love of the parents and upbringing of the family culture are becoming a dangerous fear to the community. These children easily get caught by the evil spreading groups. They get involved in bad habits. Instead of using their talents in the development and upbringing of the country. Their talents are used in destroying and bringing the country to a downfall.

After handing over the power of giving divorce in control of the judge, if the limits and conditions of giving divorce are kept strict, then the bad situations are created on the other hand.

If the government gives the power of divorce to the husband only when he can prove the fornication or evil act of his wife through witnesses, then even if the wife did these types of evils and the husband witnessed them and has the knowledge of those evil practices, how is he going to present witnesses for all these evil practices? Most of such evils are done in privacy.

To give lawyers and judges a chance to conduct a deep investigation is not in the interest of a woman. The poor lady won’t be able show her face in the society irrespective of the decision of the court. And if the wife didn’t get involved in fornication or any other evil through which the government gives the right to the husband to divorce his wife, but the husband hates his wife because of her bad habits and not having same temperments, the husband hates his wife with complete soul and mind and the husband’s heart is not inclined towards his wife in any way, then they are only two ways if he decides that he does not want to lie and present a false accusation. It is either he wont go to the court and if he does go to the court he will be unsuccessful.

In this situation, the marriage will remain based on the government rule, but instead of the marriage becoming a means of happiness, comfort and joy, the marriage will become a distressful painful one. The daily inner fights will frustrate the family more.

A husband in whose heart is filled with the hatred might pay expenses of the wife due to government fear, but it won’t be possible for him to give his wife love and comfort. In this situation keeping the marriage is not beneficial, especially when both are young, there is great fear. It is either they will keep fighting or they will look for non-permissible ways to fulfil their passion and end up losing their honour, chastity and dignity. And if the husband decides to get rid of his wife at any cost, then the situation will get worse than before.

Through the advice of the lawyer, the husband ends up putting false accusations on his wife such as fornication and other evils and claims for a divorce through false proofs and documents.

In this era, when religious teachings and good character and conduct are a scarcity and wealth has attained the status of been worshipped and the intelligent lawyers and government workers who are talented are involved in making the truth into lies and lies into truth, to present false proofs and accusations in the court through expert lawyers is not difficult for the husband.

Whatever will be the decision of the court will spoil the future of the wife and she will become suspected in the eyes of the family. What can be a greater harm for a woman than this?

If the husband does not succeed in getting rid of his wife through false accusations, then he will look for other criminal ways of getting rid of his wife.

Only Allah knows how many woman are being killed and burnt in different countries because their husbands hate them and could not divorce them due to government rules. Our media is filled with information about woman being burnt and killed by their husbands.

Is divorcing of hundred women are great concern or killing of fifty women? It is something to ponder upon.


Few years ago, the Supreme Court made a big uproar based on the claim of four hindu women whose husbands accepted Islam and remarried. According to the judge, these four men accepted Islam because they wanted to get rid of their wives. If the findings of the judges were true, then a shocking reality is in front of us. The Hindu Code Bill needs to be adjusted as it cannot facilitate the causes of divorce in the Hindu custom. Hence, there is a need to change and expand the Hindu Code Bill.

In our Indian Community, changing religions is not an easy task. After changing religions, one gets cuts-off from his family and community and is faced with many difficulties, especially if he has left Hinduism and become a Muslim. Therefore, a person who has the courage to leave Hinduism and become a Muslim will do so in one of the two situations:

1. His beliefs have actually changed due to research and pondering. He has such firm belief in the truthfulness of Islam that he would rather cut away from his community and face difficulties as he cannot bear to stay on in his old religion which he believes to be false and baseless.

2. His beliefs have not changed, in terms of beliefs, he is still a Hindu. However, he has accepted Islam due to a severe difficulty or torment that he is facing which he cannot be saved from except by changing his religion.

For example, he has formed severe hatred and enmity towards his wife and is not willing to stay with her under any condition. However, according to the Hindu Code, he does not have the right to divorce which is why he would rather change his religion in order to separate from his wife, inspite of knowing the challenges that he will have to face upon changing his religion. However, in comparison to the difficulty of keeping his Hindu wife, he considers the difficulties and dangers of changing his religion to be easier and bearable.


It is clear from the above analysis that the reasons for a divorce in the Hindu Code Bill are very narrow as they do not fulfil the need of divorce within the Hindu community. This is why many educated and wealthy Hindu males even take the step of accepting Islam in order to leave their wives.

The solution for this difficult situation is that some changes be made to the Hindu Code Bill so that the reasons for issuing divorce are expanded or the husband is given the right to divorce. Imposing the Civil Code is not the solution to this difficulty. The negative consequences of imposing the Civil Code is that the husbands who are frustrated with their wives will no longer be able to change their religion in order to gain freedom from their wives.

How will this solve the problems facing married women? A husband who is frustrated with his wife to such an extent that he resents her, does not want to see her face and in order to get freedom from her, does not even mind going to the extremes of changing his religion, shall not be able to stay in the same house as his wife.

This attitude, we fear, will increase the oppression on Hindu women and no court will be able to prevent such oppression.

Recently, some shameful news was published that a Hindu Husband made his brother and nephew rape his wife so that he may be able to leave his wife due to the person not having the right to divorce his wife without her being immoral according to the Civil Code.

It is clear from the above analysis that to hand over the complete right of divorce to the Court is not in the interests of husband and wife, and not in the interest of the community. It does not decrease the rate of divorce and neither does it fulfil the needs of divorce. The only outcome is the personal spousal secrets becomes exposed in the courts and becomes a public talk. This leads to humiliation for both husband and wife.  A better alternative is to quietly and amicably terminate the marriage so that both do not get disgraced and their secrets are not exposed.


In the previous lines, we have highlighted the argument that granting the autonomy of divorce solely to the court is not beneficial for the husband, wife or the society in general. The actual objectives of a divorce are not even fulfilled through this method.

Now, we wish to discuss the issue of granting the autonomy of divorce jointly to both the husband and wife i.e. if a legislation were to be made that a divorce cannot be given without  mutual agreement and consensus between the two parties and neither of the two parties would have the sole autonomy of ending a marriage, how would this work out? It cannot be disputed that if the husband and wife were to mutually agree upon ending the marriage, they should have the right to do this. Islam has given the husband and wife this right, it is known as Khula’.

However, to limit the methods of divorce to this one method is not an appropriate measure at all. Many incidents are found in which either one partner, the husband or the wife wishes to end the marriage in all instances whilst the other is not at all prepared in the marriage to end. Hence, in the many hundreds and thousand of situations where this occurs, divorce would not take place even though one of the two partners either the husband or a wife, becomes vexatious and frustrated to such an extent that emotional hatred has reached its summit in his or her heart for the other partner.

The institution marriage can only be successful and prosperous if the hearts of the two partners connect with one another, the hearts of the two partners have love and respect for one another and the two companions have complete trust over one another. Therefore, it is not appropriate in any way whatsoever to create the restriction that a marriage can only be dissolved through mutual agreement between the husband and wife. The result of this shall be that in order to escape from the other partner, the vexed partner shall commit a deeply unlawful and destructive act.


Shariah grants the unilateral right of divorce only to the husband. If the husband does not fulfil his responsibilities or he is oppressing his wife, the wife could request a judge for the annulment of her marriage. However, she does not have the right of divorce. What is the reason for granting this right only to the husband and what is the rationale behind it? What has shariah considered and the wisdom behind it? This can be understood from the following points.

To answer this question lies in the nature of roles that a husband and wife assume in a married life. In an Islamic society, the husband bears all the financial burden which results from a marriage contract. It is he who has to pay dower to his wife. It is he who has bear the expenses incurred during the wedding in terms of walimah etc. It is he who has to support his family financially and provide a home for his wife and children.

The wife on the other hand, does not have to provide even a small share of the family expenses, although she could take some responsibilities upon herself to save a percentage of her husband’s income.

On the flip side, the wife receives gifts and dowry which boosts her finances tremendously. The husband have to bear the burnt of all expenses after marriage and even after divorce. If the husband has not discharged the dowry due to the wife, then would be asked to settle it immediately. During the iddah period, the husband has to continue to bear financial expenses incurred by the wife. The husband also has to maintain his sons who have not yet attain maturity and he has to maintain his daughters as well. In fact the divorced wife will be remunerated for the time she looks after their sons who have not yet attained puberty.

Moreover, when a man has divorced his wife and he wishes to marry another woman, he has to pay similar expenses which makes the whole idea of divorce a very costly affair. Thus if one acts according to the teachings of Islam through divorce, a woman does not suffer any financial loss and in addition she sometimes acquires added financial benefits. There are so many duties and responsibilities on the husband after marriage and even after divorce that any man would think twice before going through the process of marriage and divorce because he realises that it constitutes a great financial burden on him. Thus, in view of this expected financial loss, a husband thinks very carefully before he decides to terminate his marriage.

A question may arise that why should the husband bear the responsibility of the expenses after marriage and after divorce and why the wife don’t bear some expenses also?

To understand the answer one should first unravel the inherent natures of every male and woman. To fathom this point, a detailed discussion is necessary.

One of the main reasons, for the man holding the right of divorce is he is more capable of controlling his emotions especially in disputed with his wife, whereas women are more emotional and hasty.

If the wife had been given the right of divorce, there is a possibility of abuse whereby the wife could divorce the husband on minor issues due to her being unable to control her emotions, thus leaving the husband  with a substantial financial burden. According to Sheikh Abu Zuhra, those women who secured an undertaking from her potential husband to transfer the autonomy of divorce to her, the rate of giving divorce is higher. We can blow our trumpets to prove the equality between men and women, the reality is that we can never delete the different temperments of both genders.

We cannot deny the fact that some women can control their emotions and temper better than man, however rules are designed according to the general situation and not according to rare situations. Even though the right of divorce is held by the husband, Shariah has also taken into  consideration that the wife is not oppressed and she could ask for the annulment of her marriage through a judge when the husband oppresses her or does not fulfil his duties.


There are many options available for a woman to dissolve her marriage, for example:

1. Absent husband: absconding or missing.

2. Failure to provide maintenence: inability or refusal

3. Husband is insane

4. Husband is impotent

5. Severe Abuse: Physical or other

6. Serious health condition or disease: leprosy or any such disease which can endanger the wife.

According to Imam Malik (Rahimahullah), when a judge presides over a martial dispute and the disputing spouses present their witnesses and it has not become clear who is the transgressing party due to the wife not presenting her claim of annulment clearly, the judge can grant the application of the woman if he feels the discord between the spouses is too deep and there is fear of more harm in maintaining the marriage.

Furthermore, if there is insistence on handing over the sword of divorce to the delicate hand of the wife, then there is a leeway for that as well. If at the time of the Nikah or after the Nikah, the husband hands over the anatomy to the wife or a third party, then the wife or third party may exercise that right which cannot be revoked by the husband.


While Islam has given the husband the right to issue divorce, it has also set certain guidlines. If those guidelines are considered, then the use of the right of divorce will be exercised in extreme desperation and as a last resort after all the avenues of resolving the disputes and attempting a reconciliation have failed.

Furthermore, if one considers the procedure of divorce in Islam, the door of a dignified reconciliation remains open. Some of the important and fundamental advices from the Quran and Sunnah pertaining to divorce are;

1) If someone wishes to divorce a woman with whom he was intimate, he should issue one talaq raj’ee (revocable divorce) after her menstrual cycle has ended without engaging in conjugal relations. He should not issue a divorce during her menstrual cycle or in a clean cycle in which they were intimate.

The wisdom behind this is that during her mentrual cycle, the husband may feel disinclined towards her as she is not clean and there are restrictions  to being intimate with her. Similarly, the husband may feel disinclined towards his wife after being intimate with her in a clean cycle. On the contrary, his divorce in a clean cycle where his emotions are still strong indicating his complete detachment from his wife and divorce being his final recourse.

2) Secondly, the husband is advised to suffice on one talaq raj’ee. This is the best form of divorce because if the husband regrets his decision, he still has the opportunity to revoke  his divorce within the ‘iddah period. Revoking the divorce will not necessitate a renewal of the Nikah or dowry and the initial Nikah will remain intact.

If he does not revoke his divorce within the ‘iddah period, the divorce will be finalized with the completion of the ‘Iddah period and their Nikah will terminate. However, if they wish to remarry, they shall have the option to do so.

3) If the husband is adamant on giving three talaqs, Shariah advises him to give one talaq raj’ee in a clean cycle in which he did not have intercourse with his wife. Thereafter, he should give the second talaq raj’ee approximately a month later; after her second menstrual cycle finishes. He should give the third talaq after her third menstrual cycle.

The husband still has the option to revoke the first and second talaq within the ‘iddah period if he wishes to restore the marriage. If he chooses not to give the third talaq and allows her ‘iddah period to finish without revoking the talaq, they can still consensually remarry.

After the third talaq, the husband cannot revoke his talaq nor can the husband and wife remarry regardless of their desires.

4) Shariah advises these methods of divorce so that the husband and wife are availed an opportunity to ponder and reflect over the situation, understand and restore their relationship,  and rectify their flaws.

5) Islam has bestowed a great favor to women by limiting the number of talaqs to three and has prevented the martial life after becoming a mere child’s play. In the pre-Islamic era, the Arabs would not have any limited number of talaqs. After every talaq, the husband had the right of taking back his wife. In this manner, many husbands would revoke these divorces before the completion of the ‘iddah. This system of talaq and revoking continued for many years. Thus, the wife was never able to get deliverance from her oppressive husband nor was she able to conduct herself as a typical wife should.

Islam then abolished this practice and uplifted this oppression; which gave the husband the right to issue unlimited number of talaqs and revoke the talaq thereafter. Islam also put such mechanisms in place which restricts the husband from reconciling with his wife and remarrying her during her ‘Iddah after issuing three talaqs. Consequently, the respect and awe for Nikah was restored.

6) Violations of the Islamic teachings of talaq is a grave sin. For example, to give talaq during  menses, giving three talaqs at once and giving more than one talaq in the state of tuhr (purity). Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) would punish husbands who would give three talaqs at once.

Currently, due to the lack of understanding of Deen and lack of conciousness of the fear of Allah, there has been a rise in the violation of the laws of talaq taught by Islam.

Many arrogant men think that talaq is not even valid unless you give three talaqs, this is why three talaqs are given. Some given talaqs during periods, some give talaq on trivial arguments. In relation to this, two things are very important.

1. In order for this ignorance to be removed, the understanding of the laws of Nikah and talaq should be given importance. It should be advised that to give talaq without any necessity or to give talaq against the teachings of Islam is a grave sin. There will be great accountability for this in the court of Allah.

2. A communal effort should be made to explain to people not to take the matters of Nikah and talaq lightly. The awareness of giving talaq without necessity and to give it in the wrong manner should be made. A penalty should be imposed for those who violate the laws of talaq and if there is a need then a social boycott should be implemented.

The prevention of wrong-doings is not only stopped by the laws. At times, the social boycott is very effective. Many reputable Darul Iftaas  have agreed that an appropriate penalty should be imposed for those who violate the laws of talaq or a social boycott should be implemented.

In relation to this, a question which was posed to Mufti Rasheed Sahib (May Allah have mercy on him) is presented.


Question: In this day and age, the most detestable of lawful actions to Allah (i.e. talaq) has become quite common, due to which trespassing the laws of Allah, corruption of the mind and rebellion are common in the society. Nevertheless, it is undeniably the right of the man to issue talaq in any given circumstance. In most cases of talaq, the man himself is the oppressor and hastens in issuing talaq. Is issuing talaq a punishable offence in this case? The punishment applicable in this situation is would be that his fellow faternity display animosity towards his actions and disassociate themselves from him until his mockery of the commands of Allah come to an end. Is this penalty in the form of disassociation and social boycott permissible or not?

Answer: Nowadays, there are many sins committed in the way divorce is issued. The correct method for issuing talaq is foe the husband to issue one revocable talaq (talaq raj’ee) while the wife is in a state of purity in which conjugal relations did not take place. This should only be done once a sincere effort was made to reconcile and advice was sought from upright and honest people. Hereunder are some of the mistakes committed while giving talaq:

1. Talaq is given without any thought or consideration and without hesitation.

2. A sincere effort to reconcile is not carried out.

3. Upright and honest family-members were not consulted before issuing divorce

4. Istikhara was not made

5. Talaq is given suring the menstrual cycle

6. One thinks that it is necessary to give two or three talaqs at once

7. Many adopt the detested practice of halalah since that is the only method of reconciliation available after issuing three talaqs. Some even avoid halalah and choose insted to involve themselves in Zina for the remainder of their lives.

Based on the above-mentioned points, it is necessary that the government enforces a severe penalty. In the case the government turns a blind eye to these situations, then the penalty of social boycott and disassociation should be enforced. [Ahsanul Fatawa, Pg 194-5, vol. 5]


Question: Every human being by nature  has an instinct to dispute. This instinct becomes more manifest between the husband and wife, thus leading to martial disputes. How can this instinct be controlled?

Answer: Consider the following ten points to control the instinct of dispute and maintain a happy marriage.

1. Fear Allah: It was the noble practice of Nabi Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam to conscentise the spouses about the fear for Allah before performing a Nikah (Nisa v14, Ahzab v69, Aali Imraan v101) from the Quraan. All the verses are common in the message of Taqwa (fear of Allah). The spouses will be first committed to Allah before being committed to their partner. There can be no doubt in the success of a marriage that is governed by the fear of Allah.

2. Never be angry at the same time: Anger is the root cause for all martial disputes. One Sahabi came to Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam and sought some advice. Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam replied “Control your anger”. The same advice was rendered three times. [Mishkaat pg. 433]

3. If one has to win an argument, let it be the other: Nabi sallallahu alaihi wasallam said: “Whoever discards an argument despite being correct shall earn a palace in the center of Jannah” [Ibid pg. 412]

4. Never shout at each other unless the house is on fire: Luqman (Alaihissalaam) while offering advice to his son said: ” and lower your voice for verily the most disliked voice is that of a donkey” [Surah Luqman v19]

5. If you have to criticize, do it lovingly: Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam said, “A Mu’min is a mirror for a Mu’min” (Abu Dawud vol. 2, pg. 325; Imdadiyah). Advise with dignity and silently.

6. Never bring up mistakes of the past: Nabi sallallahu alaihi wasallam said: “Whoever conceals the faults of others, Allah shall conceal his fault on the day of Qiyamah” [Mishkaat pg. 429]

7. Neglect the whole world rather than your marriage partner: Nabi sallallahu alaihi wasallam confirmed the advice of Salman to Abu Darda’ (Radhiyallahu Anhum) for neglecting his wife: “Verily there is a right of your wife over you”. [Nasai Hadith 2391]

8. Never sleep with an argument unsettled: Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu anhu) resolved his dispute with his wife over-feeding the guests before going to bed. [Bukhari Hadith 602]

9. At least, once everyday, express your gratitude to your partner: Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “whoever does not show gratitude to the people has not shown gratitude to Allah” [Abu Dawud pg. 662]

10. When you have done something wrong, be ready to admit it and ask for forgiveness: Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “All the sons of Aadam commit error, and the best of those who err are those who seek forgiveness”. [Tirmidhi Hadith 2499]

The Reality of Halloween – Worshipping Satan the Accursed


Ancient  Celtic  Pagans

For many  centuries  before  Christianity,  the  pagan  Celts in  ancient  Britain  and  Ireland celebrated  the  eve  and  day  of  their  New  Year,  called the Samhain,  on  October  31st.  In the  Celtic  language,  Samhain  (or  Samain)  meant  “End  of  Summer”.  

During  Samhain  Eve,  it  was believed  that  the  world  of  the  gods  became  visible  to mankind,  and  that  they  played  many  tricks on  their  mortal  worshipers;  it  was a  time loaded  with  danger,  fear,  and  supernatural  episodes.  The  Celts made human sacrifices and offerings to  ward  off  the  perils of  the  season  and  the  anger  of  the  deities.

Samhain  was  also  the  Day  of  the  Dead.  During  it,  it  was  believed  that  the  souls of those  who  had  died  during  the  year  were  allowed  access into  the  “land  of  the  dead”.

Furthermore,  the  ancient Celts believed  that  on  that  evening  the  Lord  of  the  Dead called forth  hosts  of  evil  spirits,  and  the  souls of  the  dead  were  believed  to  revisit  their homes.  Thus,  Samhain  acquired sinister significance,  with  spirits,  ghosts,  witches, hobgoblins,  black  cats,  fairies,  and  demons said  to  be  roaming  about.  Huge  bonfires were set  on  hilltops to  frighten  away evil  spirits.

In  addition,  being  the  last  evening  of  the  year,  Samhain  Eve  was  regarded  as a  most favorable  time  for  examining  the  portents  of  the  future.  Divinations were  performed concerning  marriage,  luck,  health,  and  death;  and  the  devil’s help  was  invoked  for such purposes.

Romans  and Early  Christians

After the  Romans  conquered  Britain,  they added to  Samhain  features  of  the  Roman harvest  festival,  held  on  November  1st  in  honor  of  Pomona,  goddess of  tree  fruits.

The  pagan  practices influenced  the  Christian  festival  of  Halloween  (Hallow-Eve), celebrated  on  the  same  date  (October  31st),  and  elements of  the  Samhain  festival  were incorporated into  it.  Hallow-Eve  (or  All  Hallows’  Eve)  is the  Christian festival  of  the night  preceding  All  Saints’  (Hallows’)  Day,  celebrated  on  November 1st  in  the Western  churches.  

In  some  parts of  Europe,  the  people  continued to  believe that  on  this night  the  dead walked  among  them,  and  that  witches  and  warlocks flew in  their  midst.  Thus,  bonfires were lit  to  ward  off  those  malevolent spirits.

Therefore,  most  historians  consider  Samhain  the  predecessor  of  Halloween,  which  has preserved many of the practices and beliefs of its precursor: Samhain.

Contemporary  Europe and  America

By  the  19th  century,  witches’  pranks were  replaced  by  children’s tricks.  Immigrants to the  U.S.,  particularly  the  Irish,  introduced  Halloween  customs that  became  popular  in the  late  19th  century.  Boys and  young  men  performed mischievous acts on  this occasion,  often causing  severe  damage to  properties.

Halloween  thus  gradually  became  a  secular  observance,  and  additional  customs and practices  developed,  many  of  which turning  to  games  played  by  children and  young adults.  In  recent  years,  the  occasion  has come  to  be  observed  mainly  by  small children; they  go  from  house to  house,  often  in  costume,  demanding  “trick-or-treat”. The  treat,  often candy,  is generally  given,  and  the  trick  is rarely  played.

Many  traditional  beliefs and  customs associated with  Samhain,  however, continue  to be  practiced  on  the  31st  of  October.  Most  notably,  the  practice  of  leaving  offerings of food  and  drink  (now  candy)  to  masked and  costumed  revelers,  and  the  lighting  of bonfires.  A  common  symbol  of  Halloween  is the  jack-o-lantern,  which is  a  hollowed-out  pumpkin  carved  in  the  appearance  of  a  demonic  face  and  with  a  lighted candle fixed inside.

Satan Worship

Since  Halloween  was  largely  based  on  rituals  involving  dead spirits  and  demon  worship,  it  now  represents,  among  other  things,  a  most  sacred  day  for  the  devil worshippers.

Because  of  this sinister  nature,  many  devout  Christians condemn  the  Halloween festival.  They  realize  that  the  spiritual  forces  that  some  people  experience  during  this festival  are  indeed  real,  but  are  manifestations of  Satan. Thus,  they  reject  the  customs associated  with  Halloween,  including  all  symbols  of  the  dead  (ghosts,  vampires,  and human skeletons), the devil, and other malevolent and evil creatures.


Islam  Is the  Perfect  Deen 

By  Allah’s  blessing  and  grace,  Islam  contains the  complete  and  perfect  guidance  for humanity:  

“This day  I have  perfected your religion for you, have  completed  My  favor upon you,  and  have  chosen for you Islam as your  religion.”  [Al-Ma’idah  5:3]  

Islam  does not  neglect  any  information  that  the  people  need to  achieve happiness and avoid  harm,  in  all  aspects of  their  lives.  It  directs them  to  all  that  would  save  them from  the  Fire and  admit  them  into  the  gardens of  Paradise.  

This  was  the  mission  of  all  of  the  prophets,  including  the  Final  Messenger  (sallallahu alayhi  wassalam)  who  said:  

“There is  nothing  that  would  bring  you  closer  to  Jannah and  farther  from  the  Fire  but  it has  been  clarified [by  me]  to  you”.
[Musnad Ahmad]  

Because  of  this,  it  is a  major  atrocity  to  seek  guidance  (whether  partially  or  totally)  in any  religion  other than  Islâm.  Allah says (what  means):  

“He who  seeks  a  religion  other than Islam,  it  will  not  be  accepted  from  him;  and  he is among  the losers in  the Hereafter.”  [Surah Aal ‘Imran 3:85]

The Islamic  Concept  of  Festivities

Part  of  the  perfection  of  Islam  is the  Islamic  festivals.  The  Muslims have  only  two annual  festivals:  al-Fitr  and  al-Adha.  They  are  both  Allah’s  choice  for  this  Ummah. Anas (radhiyallahu anhu)  reported that  once  the  Prophet  (sallallahu alayhi wassalam)  said:

“When  I came  to  al-Madinah,  its people  had  two  days that  they  celebrated  from  the times  of  Jahiliyyah;  indeed,  Allah  has  substituted them  for  you  with  two  better days: the  day  of  Sacrifice  and  the  day  of  Fitr.” 
[Musnad Ahmad, Abu Dawud]  

This indicates  that  festivals are  religious  occasions that  Allah  granted for  the  Muslims. Furthermore,  Allah  alone  has  the  right  to  prescribe  festivals and  set  their  dates and  the manner  of  celebrating  them.  Thus,  festivals and  their  celebration  in  Islam  carry  a special  meaning  and  spirit.  They  are  totally  different  from  the  celebrations of  other nations and  cultures.  

Differing  from  the  Non-Muslims  

A true  Muslim  associates  with  the  believers  and  adheres  to  their  ways.  He  strives to  be distinctive  and  different  from  the  non-believers. The  Messenger  (sallallahu  alayhi wassalam)  said:  

Differ from  the  Jews  and  the  Christians.  [Al-Bukhari and  Muslim]

“Differ from  the  disbelievers”
 [Al-Bukhari and  Muslim]

“Whoever imitates  a  people  is one  of  them.” [Ahmad  and  Abû  Dâwûd ]  

The  Muslims are  blessed with  the  best  guidance.  The  disbelievers  are misguided,  and their  ways  are  based  on  wrong  views.  Their  actions frequently  reflect  their  deviant views.  Why,  then,  would  one  wish  to  imitate  them?  Yet,  sadly,  some  Muslims imitate them,  even  in  meaningless acts!  

The  Messenger  (sallallahu  alayhi  wassalam)  said:  

“You  will  follow  the  ways of  the  nations  who  preceded  you  so  closely  that  even  if they entered  a  lizard’s  hole  you  would  enter  it.” [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]

Indeed,  outwardly  resemblance leads to  harmony  of  the  hearts.  Resembling  the disbelievers is Satan’s  first  step in leading  the  Muslims to  behave  and  believe  like them.  The  worst  form  of  imitation  of  the  non-Muslims is in  practices  that  involve shirk or are based on their deviant religious beliefs.

Differing  from  the  Non-Muslims in  Celebrations  

A true  Muslim  holds a  correct  Islamic  understanding  regarding  celebrations.  He  only celebrates  the  festivals  that  have  been  legislated by  Allah.  Festivals  are  religious occasions characteristic  of  every  nation’s religion  or  beliefs.  Thus,  it  is  compulsory  on the  Muslims to  avoid  imitating  the  disbelievers in  their  festivals or  join  in  any  of  the practices that  are  associated with  them.  This  includes  answering  their  invitations, congratulating  them,  giving  them  presents,  displaying  their  symbols,  or  doing  any other  act,  regardless  of  how small  it  might  appear,  that  indicates  approval  of  their festivals.  Allah  says (what  means):  

“And  those  (the servants  of  Allâh)  who  do  not  witness  falsehood,  and  when they pass  by  vain  practices,  they  pass with dignity.” [Surah Al-Furqan 25:72]

Many  of  the  companions and  scholars of  the  salaf  explain  that the term “falsehood”  in  the above  ayah  refers to  the  holidays  of  the  disbelievers.  A  Muslim  should  never  join  the non-Muslims in  their  celebrations,  particularly  those  that  involve  clear  shirk  and  kufr. Knowingly  doing  this subjects one  to  Allah’s  anger and  punishment. ‘Abdullah Bin ‘Umar (radhiyallahu  anhu)  said:  

“One  who  settles  in  the  lands  of  the  non-Muslims,  celebrates  their  festivals,  and behaves like  them  until  he dies, will  be raised  among  them  on  the  Day  of Resurrection.”

Celebrating  Halloween Is  a  Major  Sin

Since  Halloween  carries  a  strong  pagan  symbolism,  observing  it  is an  endorsement of its historical  diabolical  origin.  Furthermore,  the  Halloween’s seemingly  innocent practices still  carry  a  good  deal  of  its pagan  roots.

Therefore,  taking  any  part  in  celebrating  it  is greatly  prohibited in  Islam.  It  is worse than joining  with  sinners in  their  sins or  congratulating  them  for  drinking  wine, fornication  and  so  on.  Celebrating  Halloween  is similar to  celebrating  Christmas  or Easter, or  congratulating  the  Christians  for  their  prostration  to  the  crucifix.  The Muslim  parents should  caution  their  children  and  prevent  them  from  participating  in any  of  its practices.  Despite  its clear  prohibition,  it  is sad to  see  some  Muslims participate  in  Halloween, purchase  and  wear  silly  Halloween  costumes,  and  send  their kids “trick-or-treating”.  They  try  to  justify  this by  that  they  want  to  make their children  happy.  But  what  is the  duty  of  the  Muslim  parents?  Is it  to  follow  the  wishes of  their  children  without  question  or  to  mould  them  within  the  correct  Islamic framework  as outlined  in  the  Qur’an  and  Sunnah?  Is it  not  the  responsibility  of  the Muslim  parents to  impart  correct  Islamic  training  and  instruction  to  their  children? How can  this  duty  be  performed if,  instead  of  instructing  the  children in  Islam,  their parents allow  and  encourage  them  to  follow  the  ways  of  the  unbelievers?  

If  the  children  are  taught  to  be  proud  of  their  Islamic  heritage,  they  themselves will abstain  from  Halloween and  other  non-Muslim  celebrations,  such  as  birthdays, anniversaries,  Christmas,  Valentine’s  Day,  etc.  Islam  is a  pure religion  with  no  need for  accommodating  any  custom,  practice  or  celebration  that  is not  a  part  of  it.  The question  arises as to  what  to  do  on  Halloween  night.  The  Muslim  parents must  not send  their  kids “trick-or-treating”.  Our  children must  be told  why  we  do  not  celebrate Halloween.  Simplifying  the  above  material  may be  very  suitable  for  this purpose. Most  children  are  very  receptive  when  taught  with  sincerity.

It  must  also  be  noted  that,  even  the  Muslims who stay  home  and  give  out  treats to those  who  come  to  their  door  are  thereby  participating  in  this festival.  In  order to avoid  this,  they should  leave their  front  lights off  and  should  not  open  their  door. Furthermore,  they  should  educate  their  neighbors about  the  Islamic  teachings and inform  them  in  advance  that  the  Muslims do  not  participate  in  Halloween.  

Finally,  we  must  remember that  we  are fully  accountable  to  Allah  for  all  of  our  deeds. If  we insist  on  rejecting  the  Truth  and  joining  Halloween  or  other  non-Islamic practices,  we  would  be  liable  to  Allah’s anger,  as  He  warned  in  the  Quran:  

“Let  those  who  reject  his  (the Messenger’s)  command  beware  lest  a tribulation or  a severe  punishment  be  inflicted upon them!” [Surah An-Nur 24:63]

May Allah  guide  us,  help  us to  stay  on  the  right  path,  and  save  us from  all  deviations and  innovations that  would  lead  us into  the  fires  of  Hell.  

A Response to: “Akhi! If Allah is Everywhere, then is He also in Filthy Places??”

By Majlisul Ulama

Presenting another argument to bolster the Taimiyyite belief of makaan  for Allah Azza Wa Jal, the coprocreep says: 

“The same Molvi was asked about Allah being in  filthy places  after having implied that Allah is everywhere…..The Salaf have clearly used the argument of filthy places to negate that Allah is everywhere coupled with the many evidences to prove that Allah is Above everything….” 
The coprocreep is mired in confusion as an effect of his stupidity. The argument of ‘filthy places’ was utilized by the Salaf-e-Saaliheen to negate the Jahmiyyah/Taimiyyah belief of makaan  for Allah Azza Wa Jal. It was not used to negate ‘everywhere’ in the meaning in which the masses understand it, viz. there is no makaan  to confine Allah Azza Wa Jal. The coprocreep’s difficulty stems  from his kufr belief of Allah Ta’ala being physically confined to the Arsh.  In the Qur’aan Majeed Allah Ta’ala states with clarity and emphasis that His  Wajh (Face)  is ‘everywhere’  –  wherever you turn your face, there is the Divine Face. Since ‘Face’,  ‘Hand’, etc. do not have physical meanings in the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah as expounded by Imaam Maturidi, these being among His  Sifaat, the  question of ‘filthy places’ does not apply to the concept of ‘everywhere bila makaan–bila kayf’.  Yes, undoubtedly, it applies to those who confine Allah Ta’ala to physical space like the Jahmis and Taimiyyis.  The coprocreep should answer: Is Allah Ta’ala aware of what goes on in filthy places? Does Allah Ta’ala see into filthy places? Does Allah Ta’ala  hear what takes place in filthy places? Does Allah’s power extend into filthy places, etc., etc. ad infinitum  in relation to His  Sifaat? Whatever the coprocreep’s answer is to these questions will be our answer to the question in relation to ‘Presence’.  

Just as Allah’s Sifaat of  Basr, Sam’a, Kalaam, Hayaat, Ilm, Qudrat, Takhleeq, Tarzeeq, etc.  are not the effects of physical appendages, so too is His  Sifat of Wajh (Face).  His  Presence  is His  Sifat  which has absolutely no physical connotation, hence the stupid question of ‘filthy places’ does not apply. It dwells only in the filthy minds of coprocreeps who assign Allah Azza Wa Jal into a confined created space, thereby stripping Allah Azza Wa Jal of His  Sifaat.  It is utterly baseless to direct the ‘filthy places’ argument to those who do not believe in  makaan for Allah Ta’ala. 

The coprocreep’s contention that there are many evidences to prove that Allah is above everything  is  baatil.  It should be understood that when the coprocreep uses ‘above’ in relation to Allah Azza Wa Jal, he means physical aboveness. He assigns makaan  to Allah Ta’ala, and he confines Allah Azza Wa Jal to the restricted space of the created Arsh. There is no ‘evidence’ of the Salaf-e-Saaliheen for such a corrupt and blasphemous belief. None of the Salaf believed in this copro-doctrine of kufr which is the disease of the Taimiyyites.  

The belief of the Ahlus Sunnah regarding Allah’s Presence is the concept of  Nufoothul Ilaahiyyah (Permeation of Divinity), and this is precisely what the masses understand when it is said Allah Ta’ala is ‘everywhere’. The masses with their uncorrupted minds do not believe in a physical being and the confinement of Allah Azza Wa Jal to physical  makaan  as the Taimiyyites do. Thus, if the ‘filthy places’ argument is directed to the  Sifat of Wajh,  it should likewise be directed to all the other Divine Sifaat,  for verily, they are all in the same category  –  azli, abadi, and NOT physical.  The coprocreep’s confusion is the product of his physical concept fabricated for Allah Azza Wa Jal.

Presenting another stupid argument for ascribing physical space and dimension to Allah Azza Wa Jal, the coprocreep says:

I  confronted him with the text of Sharh Aqaa’id  “and Allah is not set in ANY place”. His reply (while smiling): ‘I need to check it up.’”

The Molvi’s inability to understand or his lack of knowledge of the finer points of Aqeedah is not an adverse reflection on the Ulama of Deoband or on Imaam Maturidi. The text of Sharah Aqaa’id is 100% correct. Allah Ta’ala is not confined to any  makaan.  This is our Aqeedah. It is the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah while the belief of the Taimiyyites is that Allah Ta’ala is confined to the created space of the created Arsh. Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) stated unequivocally that the belief of confining Allah Ta’ala to makaan is kufr

The coprocreep’s criticism of Allaamah Kauthari is grounded in his (the coprocreep’s) jahaalat. At no stage did Allaamah Kauthari deny the greatness, highness, glory, grandeur and majesty of Allah Azza Wa Jal. It devolves on this moron to produce the precise statement/s of Allaamah Kauthari to back up his slander.  Like the rest of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, Allaamah Kauthari denied the physical ‘highness’  –  the confines of the physical space of the Arsh  –  the Taimiyyite belief of kufr. There is no person even among all the baatil sects subscribing to a multitude of kufr beliefs who ever had the kufr audacity to deny the ‘highness’ of Allah Ta’ala in the abstract meaning of the term. The denial relates to the rejection of the Jahmi/Taiymi belief of the physical ‘highness’ (presence) which the coprocreeps ascribe to Allah Azza Wa Jal.

Little does the coprocreep realize that the blasphemous belief of physical ‘aboveness’ spawns for Allah Azza Wa Jal the defective attributes of derogation and imperfection, since it makes Allah Ta’ala subservient to His makhlooq (created space – makaan) –Nauthubillaah! Continuing with his spurious arguments, the coprocreep  says:

“A former colleague studying Saheeh Muslim in a Darul Uloom asked the Sheikh for some guidance about how to counter the Salafis on this particular Hadith. The teacher hesitated, then referred them to Nawawi’s Sharh. But no answer.”

The inability  of the student and the Ustaadh to provide a satisfactory answer cannot by any stretch of imagination or logic be interpreted as being a conflict in the  Minhaaj  of the Ulama of Deoband. It is ridiculous to expect every student and every Ustaadh to be experts  in the polemical science of  Aqeedah. Great Ulama too are unacquainted with many issues due to lack of research in particular fields of knowledge. Sometimes there is no need to waste time on research for which there is no need. Not everyone is inclined to  a subject. Not everyone has the intellectual ability to grasp the hair-splitting arguments which are encountered in philosophy and Kalaam within the parameters of which the polemics of Aqeedah are discussed. It is therefore no blot whatsoever on the Ustaadh who was unable to answer the student on the specific question pertaining to a specific Hadith. In short, this issue of the Ustaadh and the student is an insipid stupid copro-filled, silly argument which is devoid of any substance.

Presenting another  nonsensical argument, the coprocreep says:

“Another guy responded to me: And Allah is with you wherever you are (al-Hadeed). A trait of the People of Whims and Innovation is that they do not look at the whole picture; they concentrate on perverted interpretations of some theological provisions and use them to create doubts within the minds of their masses.” 

In fact, the Taimiyyites do not look at the ‘whole picture’, hence they apply their corrupt principle of  ta’weel  selectively. When it suits their whims and fancies, they adopt ta’weel  to innovate blasphemous beliefs such as their corrupt interpretation of the  Istiwa’ aayat to innovate the blasphemy of a physical Allah confined by physical space on a physical throne, all of which are His creations. Taimiyyites look at issues with oblique vision. They fail to understand the consequences of a corrupt belief. Specifying physical dimension and direction for Allah Azza Wa Jal, spawns a physical deity – Nauthubillah

They are the ones guilty of not looking at the whole picture. They are the ones who corrupt the minds of the ignorant masses by propagating a kufr belief which was originated by the Jahmiyyah centuries prior to the appearance of Ibn Taimiyyah. His idea of physical ‘aboveness’ or physical ‘highness’ for Allah Azza Wa Jal is his heritage from the Jahmiyyah.

As for the aayat in question, the Qur’aan Majeed states in Surah Al-Hadeed:

“It is He Who has created the heavens and the earth in six days, then He established (His Qudrat) on the Arsh. He knows what enters into the earth and what  emerges  from it. He is with you wherever you are. And, Allah sees whatever you are doing.” [Al-Hadeed, aayat 4]

The coprocreep interprets part of the aayat literally, and part of it figuratively. While ascribing a literal meaning to the Istiwa’ part, to convey the notion that Allah Ta’ala sits on the Arsh, he ascribes an abstract meaning to the presence in the heavens and the earth. Thus, he says that Allah Ta’ala is in reality on the Arsh, but not in reality in  the heavens and in/on the earth. What is his  daleel  for creating this difference? While we are not averse to the interpretation applicable to the statement:  ‘in the heavens and in the earth’, the coprocreep should explain why it is not possible for ascribing a similar or identical meaning to  fissamaawati wa fil ardh –  the meaning ascribed to  istiwa  alal arsh?  Both issues could be depicted as being  bila kayf.  The Qur’aan affirms both conditions for Allah Azza Wa Jal.

Refuting the idea of Allah Ta’ala sitting on the Arsh, Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) states in his  Kitaabul Wasiyyah: “If He (Allah) was dependent on sitting and resting, then before the creation of the Throne where was Allah? Thus He is free from this. High and great (is He).”

Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) further states in his Kitaabul Wasiyyah: “We acknowledge that Allah has made ‘istiwa’ on the Arsh without Him having any need for it (the Arsh) nor any need for resting thereon. He is the Protector of the Arsh and (everything) besides the Arsh.”   

It is best to refrain from presenting a translation/interpretation for the word  ‘istiwa’ due to the corrupt notions which stem from translations and interpretations. The notorious idea which the Taimiyyite conception of  ‘istiwa’  spawns is that Allah Ta’ala sits on the Throne like a human king. In this regard Mullah Ali Qaari states in the annotations of  Sharah Fiqhil Akbar:

“Imaam Abu Hanifah said that whoever says that Allah is in the heavens or on earth is a kaafir because the (logical) conclusion of this statement is that he has fixed a place for Allah Ta’ala. He who entertains this notion (of makaan) for Allah Ta’ala is a Mushabbihah (a deviant sect).”

The dogmatic and bigoted averment that Allah Ta’ala is stationed on the  Arsh is tantamount to fixing makaan  for Allah Ta’ala since the Arsh is a created finite structure. With regard to the Arsh being Allah’s creation as  was explicitly and emphatically confirmed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the later reviver of the Hashwi anthropomorpic cult, Ibn Taimiya propounded the kufr that the Arsh in its species was not created by Allah Azza Wa Jal, but is co-eternal with Allah Ta’ala, having had no temporal origin. This kufr  has been demolished in this treatise: The Kufr and Shirkiyyah Philosophy of Ibn Taymiyyah

In Anwaarul Baari, Hadhrat Allaamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri (rahmatullah alayh) enumerates several of Ibn Taimiyya’s beliefs. One of his beliefs, is: “Allah sits and rests on the Arsh. Eight rams  are bearing aloft the Divine Arsh. ……In Fathul Baari, Vol.13, page 314, Haafiz states that the math-hab of the Jismiyyah sect who interprets  istiwa’ to mean istiqraar (to rest), is baatil. On page 316, Vol.13, Haafiz narrated that Imaam Muhammad said the  Sifaat  of Allah Ta’ala should be accepted without analogy and interpretation. Whoever resorts to interpretation like Jahm (the founder of the Jahmi sect),  is far from the path of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah, and beyond the fold of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah.”

“Inside Allah Ta’ala is such mass (weight) which is heavier than the mass of the entire world, hence there is so much pressure on the Arsh (as a consequence of this weight)……Allah is in a direction, viz., above, hence people  inhabiting mountain peaks and top floors of buildings are closer to Allah…….On the Day of Qiyaamah, Allah Ta’ala will seat Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) alongside Him on the Arsh. …. The Arsh along with Allah Ta’ala is eternal.”

There are many other absolutely baatil beliefs of Ibn Taimiyyah. These corrupt beliefs of Ibn Taimiyyah scuttle the coprocreep’s lament, viz.: 

“They (i.e. the Deobandis) constantly put words in the mouth of the Sunni Hanaabilah like: ‘If Allah is on the throne, this would  mean He has a body and is restricted and is subject to direction and has a literal/physical presence’ and all that nonsense.” 

All of that ‘nonsense’ has in fact been propounded by Ibn Taimiyyah, and all of that ‘nonsense’ is the logical and rational conclusion of confining Allah Azza Wa Jal to a specific  makaan (space).  The Ulama of Deoband are not putting any words in the mouths of the Taimiyyites. The Taimiyyites themselves are  gorging  out these words of nonsense.


Presenting another spurious argument, the coprocreep says:

“I asked  a Molvi about this, and he replied with the verse: ‘And Allah is in the skies and the earth’, implying that Allah is everywhere. But this is wrong. In Arabic, the structure of this verse is similar to one saying:

Abu Bakr is the Khalifah in the East and  the West. So does this mean that Abu Bakr is everywhere? In the light of this, the correct translation of the verse in al-An’aam is: And He is the Allah in the skies and the earth, i.e. the one who is worthy of worship in the skies and the earth…”
It is  most significant that the coprocreep has resorted to ta’weel  (interpretation) to explain this aayat. In terms of his crooked ‘manhaaj’ta’weel  is not valid. Just as the Taimiyyites posit a literal translation for the ayaat pertaining to  Istiwa alal Arsh,  so too does it behove them to accept the literal meaning of this aayat which he has subjected to  ta’weel  to avoid conflict with the Taimiyyite belief pertaining to  Istiwa.  In terms of logic, there is no valid reason to negate  ta’weel  for the  Istiwa’  aayat, and to affirm it for aayat 3 of Surah An’aam (the above verse). There is no Shar’i basis for this selective adoption of  ta’weel, especially by a sect which ostensibly and deceptively negates Ta’weel.   

While there are several versions in the tafseer  of this aayat, there is consensus of the authorities of the Shariah in rejection of the Jahmiyyah belief of the existence of Allah Azza Wa Jal in every  makaan.  This consensus is likewise extended to the Taimiyyite belief of the attribution of  makaan  for  Allah Azza Wa Jal. They assign a confined  makaan,  viz. the Arsh, for Allah Ta’ala with their literal  ta’weel  of the  Istiwa’  aayat while they have no rational reason for negating the literal meaning of aayat 3 of Surah An’aam. In addition to seeking refuge  in  ta’weel  of this aayat, the coprocreep deletes the term  ‘fi’ (in)  from  ardh (the earth).  He has no right to discard the  ‘fi’  on the basis of  ta’weel which the Taimiyyites deny when it comes to the  Istiwa’  aayat. He has committed downright chicanery by deleting the term ‘fi’.  

The coprocreep has no basis for decrying  someone who resorts to  ta’weel  for  istiwa’  in view of the Salafi  ta’weel  of ma-akum (together with you).  The coprocreep who inhabits a glasshouse should beware of casting stones at others.

The Molvi merely said what Allah Ta’ala Himself says: “And, He is Allah Who is  in  the heavens, and  in  the earth.” While the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah are entitled to resort to ta’weel  of this aayat to refute confinement of Allah Azza Wa Jal to  created makaan,  Taimiyyites have no such entitlement in view of their corrupt belief of confinement of Allah Ta’ala to  the created makaan of the created Arsh. They are logically bound to literally translate and literally understand this aayat just as they do with the Istiwa’ verse. 

The ‘everywhere’ explanation is the way to convey to the masses the negation of  makaan  for Allah Azza Wa Jal. In other words, Allah Ta’ala is not contained in any specific space/place. So where and how does He exist? This He Alone knows. We believe in His Existence and Presence  bila kayf.  All the philosophical contentions regarding the manner of Allah’s Existence are futile and dangerous for the layman.

Television is Immoral and Haraam

By Darul Uloom Zakariyyah

Respected  Ulama  al-Kiraam  and  to  whom  it  may  concern!

Assalamu  ‘Alaykum  Wa  Rahmatullahi  wa  Barakaatuhu…

The  following  has  not  been  written  with  the  intent  to  criticise but  rather  because  it  is  incumbent  upon  every  Muslim, especially  those  who  are  affiliated  with  the  pristine  Deen  of Allah  Ta’ala  to  encourage  the  truth  (Tawaasi  Bil  Haqq)  and  to differentiate  between  righteousness  and  falsehood.  Hence,  we have  penned  the  following  at  your  service:

It  is  an  accepted  fact  that  the  TV  is  and  has  been  amongst  the most  lethal  Dajjali  weapons  and  tools  of  misguidance.  Its harms  are  limitless  and  it  relentlessly  indoctrinates  immodesty into  society.  Simply  put,  if  alcohol  is  ‘The  mother  of  all  evil’, then  the  TV  is  the  ‘The  mother  of  immodesty’.  And  it  is  a  well known  fact  that  the  enemies  of  Islam  have  been  using  it  to destroy  our  pristine  Deen  and  the  Ummah.  Therefore,  you  will notice  in  their  past  and  present  scheme  of  wars  that  they  will first  launch  a  full  scale  moral  war  by  degrading  the  Islamic values  and  lifestyles  of  those  targeted  and  then  only  will  they invade  their  land  and  homes.

Not  only  is  the  TV  an  evil  in  itself,  it  openly  promotes  evil  in  all its  forms.  The  following  are  some  of  the  evils  that  the  TV promote  indiscriminately  that  can  be  observed  by  any unbiased,  sensible  and  honest  person.

•  Nudity

•  Promiscuous  intermingling  of  the  genders

•  Alcohol  and  drug  consumption

•  Violence  and  crime

•  Music

•  Photography

All  of  the  above  are  indisputably  impermissible,  and  these  are just  a  few  examples.  Hence,  the  TV  and  all  that  is  affiliated  to promoting  its  usage  is  impermissible.

To  cite  an  example;  the  initial  prohibition  pertains  to  alcohol and  usury  but  our  Beloved  Nabi  (Sallallaahu  Alayhi  Wasallam)  has  condemned  all  those  factors  which  promotes  the consumption  of  alcohol  and  usury.  Therefore,  the  respected Jurists  of  Islam  have  established  that  any  factor  which  can potentially  be  impermissible  will  also  be  deemed  as impermissible.  Nevertheless,  if  the  possibility  is  only  an assumption  it  will  not  be  taken  into  consideration.

At  this  point  we  need  to  analyse  the  implications  of  whether the  TV  is  a  potential  threat  that  promotes  the  impermissible  or is  this  merely  an  assumption  based  on  conjecture?  Well,  the obvious  answer  is  that  all  those  with  sound  knowledge  and understanding  have  concurred  that  it  is  surely  and  definitely  a tool  promoting  misguidance  which  has  limited  benefit.  At  this point  we  need  to  have  a  look  at  the  following  well  known maxim  of  the  Fuqaha  pertaining  to  understanding  the objectives  of  the  Shariah:

“Preventing  harm  takes  precedence  over  acquiring  benefit.”  This  maxim  means  that  if  an  individual  is  in  the  process  of doing  something  beneficial,  but  that  act  is  accompanied  by harm  then  he/she  should  leave  that  action  so  as  to  not  be affected  by  the  harm.  So  whenever  there  is  a  clash  between harms  and  benefits  the  prevention  of  harm  takes  precedence even  if  it  leads  to  the  loss  of  beneficial  things.  The  Hadith  of Rasulullah  (Sallallaahu  Alayhi  Wasallam)  states,  “Stay  away from  that  which  I  have  prohibited  for  you  and  do  what  I  have commanded  you  to  as  much  as  you  can.”  [Sharh  al-Qawaid  al-Fiqhiyyah  Pg.  205    Shaykh  Ahmad  Bin  Shaykh  Muhammad al-Zarqa]

❖  The  general  Muslim  public  will  consider  that  the  TV  is permissible  due  to  the  Ulama  al-Kiraam’s  participation  and involvement  in  TV  programmes.  Hence,  they  will  introduce  the TV  in  their  homes  on  the  pretext  of  necessity  and  eventually  it will  destroy  the  Muslim  homes  by  becoming  its  adornment. And  certainly,  the  wrath  and  consequences  will  be  borne  by those  who  deemed  it  permissible.

❖ The  apprehension  related  to  its  detriments  will  come  to  an end.  Hence,  its  negative  impacts  will  become  widespread,  thus outgrowing  the  consideration  for  abstaining  from  evils  and immodesty.  Alhamdulillah,  at  least  there  exists  some  sort  of consideration  regarding  its  evilness,  that  upon  the  visit  of  an Aalim  of  Deen  or  upon  the  dawn  of  the  Mubarak  month  of Ramadaan,  the  TV  is  switched  off.  If  the  Ulama  are  involved  in TV  programs,  it  is  certain  that  the  Muslim  Ummah  will  lose  that very  little  bit  of  regard  for  Deen  which  is  currently  holding  by  a thread.

❖  As  for  those  countries  which  had  issued  the  verdicts  of permissibility,  please  have  a  look  at  the  evils  that  have engulfed  them.  Its  negative  impacts  and  detriments  has corroded  these  societies  to  such  an  extent  that  there  are reports  of  individuals  who  have  succumbed  to  the  snares  of  TV and  perpetrated  the  most  shameless  of  sins  such  as  incest.

❖  It  is  not  sufficient  to  say  that  if  we  do  not  seize  this opportunity  then  the  enemies  of  Islam  will  spread  corruption and  evil.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that  their  efforts  have  been ongoing  for  ages  and  our  benefit  in  using  such  avenues  is much  less  in  comparison  to  its  harms  and  detriments.

❖ It  is  compulsory  to  abstain  from  that  which  is  recommended when  it  has  the  potential  of  opening  the  doors  of  evil  and corruption  and  it  is  not  permissible  to  object  at  such  aversions.

❖ It  will  create  dissension  amongst  the  Ulama  thus  presenting an  opportunity  to  those  who  want  to  spread  corruption  and mischief.  

❖  To  use  the  statement  of  the  great  Jurist  of  Islam,  Hadhrat Imam  Abu  Hanifah  (Rahmatullah Alayh), ” One  should  greet  those  who  are engaged  in  frivolities  so  that  at  least  for  a  few  moments  they become  engaged  in  good  and  righteousness”,  is  incorrect. Because  issuing  the  verdict  of  permissibility  for  its  usage  will create  more  opportunities  for  people  to  individually  and collectively  become  engaged  in  unnecessary  and  harmful frivolities.

❖  It  is  totally  incorrect  to  say  that  ‘We  need  to  change  in conformity  to  modern  times’,  but  instead  we  should  endeavour to  ensure  that  all  our  affairs  related  to  the  propagation  of  Deen is  free  from  factors  that  are  reprehensible  in  the  Shariah.

❖  Please  take  the  statement  of  Hadhrat  Gangohi  (Rahmatullah Alayh)  into consideration  when  there  was  a  request  that  an  individual  who did  not  conform  to  the  Shariah  to  be  appointed  as  a  trustee  of Darul  Uloom  Deoband.  Hadhrat  said,  “To  appoint  such  an individual  as  a  trustee  is  a  sin  and  shows  total  disregard  of  the Shariah  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  run  the  Darul  Uloom  in  such a  situation.”  Nonetheless,  if  those  who  are  seeking  the  verdict of  permissibility  see  certain  benefits  in  this  matter,  they  must take  heed  of  the  fact  that  ‘Its  harms  are  greater  than  its  good’

❖  Certainly,  ‘Necessity  removes  restriction’  is  an  important and  established  juridical  rule  from  the  Qur’an  and  the  Sunnah. During  the  times  of  necessity  to  use  the  impermissible  is established  from  this  very  principle.  But,  it  is  also  incumbent upon  us  that  we  analyse  the  extremes  which  makes  the impermissible,  temporarily  permissible.

This  Deen  belongs  to  Allah  and  He  has  taken  the  responsibility of  preserving  His  Deen.  We  are  only  required  to  use  those avenues  which  are  permissible,  to  promote  and  propagate  the Deen  of  Allah  Ta’ala.

❖ Currently,  the  most  fruitful  effort  pertaining  to  the  promotion and  propagation  of  the  Deen  has  been  undertaken  by  the Tableeghi  Jamaat.  Did  they  use  the  TV?

❖ It  is  certain  that  evil  and  corruption  will  spread  through  the TV,  yes,  someone  may  or  may  not  acquire  some  beneficial information  from  it  from  time  to  time,  but  that  also  at  the detriment:  of  losing  the  light  of  one’s  Imaan.

❖ We need to  question  ourselves  as  to  whether  we  have  used the  established  avenues  of  the  Shariah  for  the  propagation  of Deen,  to  its  fullest  or  not?

❖ Rationally  and  from  a  Shari  perspective,  the  most  stringent rules  pertaining  to  the  prohibition  of  TV  is  not  enough.

❖ Those  claiming  permissibility,  the  most  they  have  been  able to  establish  is  a  very  narrow  margin  of  convenience.  Is  that sufficient  to  create  dissension  amongst  the  Ummah?

❖  Certain  Ulama  viewing  video  clips  on  their  phones  is  their personal  doings  and  hence  cannot  be  established  as  the dictates  of  the  Shariah.

❖ The  change  of  times  is  telling  us  that  soon  every  home  will be  invaded  by  the  evils  of  TV.  Doesn’t  this  warrant  us  to  be precautious  and  to  abstain  from  such  filth?
❖  Finally,  as  long  as  the  TV  industry  is  not  free  from  those factors  which  are  impermissible  and  reprehensible  within  the Shariah,  to  seek  the  verdict  of  permissibility  and  to  become involved  in  TV  programs  is  a  very  slippery  slope  and tantamount  to  inviting  the  curse  and  wrath  of  Allah  Ta’ala.

One  should  not  appear  on  TV  programs  but  should  rather follow  the  guidelines  of  the  effort  of  Tableegh  and  establish Deeni  programs  at  various  Masaajid  and  venues.  To  impress the  general  public  by  appearing  on  TV  is  possible  but  to actually  benefit  the  Ummah  through  Islaah  (spiritual reformation)  is  practically  impossible.  Nowadays,  the  youth  are spending  lengthy  hours  on  similar  avenues  such  as  the internet,  tablets  etc.  Sadly,  instead  of  improvement  this  has resulted  in  their  destruction,  depravity  and  has  driven  them away  from  their  duties  and  obligations.


Bid’at leads to Shirk

By Mufti Afzal Hoosen Ilyas

“Shirk”  means  to  associate  anyone  or  anything  in  the  worship  or  in the  special  and  exclusive  attributes  of  Allah  Taala.  The  highest  and worst  form  of  shirk  is  to  include  another  being  or  object  within  the “Person”  of  Allah  Taala  or  to  raise  or  regard  anything  besides  Him  as worthy  of  worship,  e.g.  the  belief  in  trinity,  the  belief  in  idols, Association or Shirk in the Attributes of Allah are, for example: 

Shirk  fil  Qudrat  –  the  attribution  of  Allah’s  Quality  of  Qudrat,  (or power)  to  anything  else.  For  example,  to  believe  that  any  being besides  Allah  Taala  also  has  the  power  to  create,  give  life,  cause  rain, etc.  

Shirk  fil  Ilm  –  is  the  attribution  of  Allah’s  All-embracing  and  allencompassing  Knowledge  to  anyone  or  anything  else.  For  example,  to believe  that  a  Nabi  or  a  Wali  has  knowledge  of  the  unseen  like  Allah Taala has.

Shirk  fil  Hukm  –  or  to  attribute  Allah’s  Attribute  of  Decree  or Command  to  another.  For  example,  to  render  obedience  to  a  saint  or any  other  being  like  one  would  do  for  Allah  Taala.  These  are  some forms  of  Shirk.  There  is  no  greater  crime  than  the  commission  of shirk.  


SHIRK  means  to  associate  any  person  or  object  in  the  worship  or qualities  of  Allah  Taala.  There  are  several  forms  of  shirk  which  are described  here  briefly.  

(1)  Shirk  fil  Qudrat.  To  attribute  Allah’s  quality  of  power  to anybody  else,  for  example,  to  believe  that  a  certain  prophet  or Wali  or  martyr  can  bring  about  rains  or  cause  the  births  of babies  or  fulfill  desires  or  give  food.  Or  to  kill  or  bring anything  into  life  or  to  bring  benefit  or  damage  is  in  their power.  All  these  things  are  Shirk.

(2)  Shirk  fil  Ilm.  To  attribute  Allah’s  power  of  knowledge  to others,  for  example,  to  say  that  a  prophet  or  a  pious  man  has the  knowledge  of  unseen,  or  like  Allah  knows  about everything,  or  they  are  aware  of  all  of  our  affairs  or  they  can tell  what  is  happening  far  and  near.  All  this  is  Shirk  fil  Ilm.

(3) Shirk  fil  Sama’a  and  Basr.  To  attribute  Allah’s  power  of seeing  and  hearing  to  others,  for  example,  to  believe  that  a certain  prophet  or  a  pious  person  could  hear  things  far  and near  or  could  see  all  of  our  own  acts. 

(4)  Shirk  fil  Ibaadah  is  to  accept  any  other  person  as  worthy  of worship  like  Allah,  for  example,  to  do  sajda  on  or  bow  before a  grave  or  a  pious  person,  or  doing  ruku  likewise  or  to  keep fast  in  the  name  of  a  prophet,  Wali  or  Imam,  or  to  give  away Nazar  or  to  promise  an  offering  like  that  etc.,  or  to  go  round  a house  like  one  goes  round  Ka’bah  (Tawaaf)  all  these  are  Shirk fil  Ibaadah.  

Are  there  any  more  acts  of  Shirk?  Yes,  there  are  many  acts  of  Shirk which  must  be  avoided.  These  acts  are:  to  ask  about  heavenly  secrets from  astrologers,  or  to  show  hands  to  a  palmist  to  know  about  future, to  ask  others  for  Faal,  which  is  another  way  of  trying  to  know  future from  omens,  to  treat  diseases  like  smallpox  etc.,  as  contagious  and infectious  which  can  be  contracted  without  Allah’s  permission  to make  Tazias  and  Alams.  To  offer  as  sacrifice,  sweets  flowers  etc.,  on graves,  to  swear  in  the  name  of  someone  other  than  Allah,  to  put pictures  and  pay  respects  to  them,  call  any  pious  person  one’s  rescuer or  saviour,  or  to  grow  hair  in  the  name  of  a  Wali,  to  turn  Fakir  in Muharram in the name of an Imam. 


The  people  who  resort  to  grave-worshipping  make  sajda  (prostrate)  to the  graves.  They  justify  this  practice  of  shirk  by  claiming  that  they  are not  worshipping  the  grave,  but  that  they  merely  rendering  the prostration  as  a  mark  of  respect  to  the  buried  saint.  But,  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  has  rebutted  and  prohibited  such  prostrations  even  if  the intention  underlying  such  sajda  is  respect.  Hadhrat  Qais  ibn  Sa’d (radhiyallahu anhu)  said:  

“I  reached  Heerah  (a  town)  where  I  saw  people  making  sajda  for  their chiefs.  I  thought  then  that  the  most  worthy  person  to  whom  one should  prostrate  is  Rasulullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  I  went  to  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  said:  I  went  to  Heerah  and  saw  people  prostrating  to their  chiefs.  But,  you  are  the  worthiest  who  deserve  to  be  prostrated to.  Rasulullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  then  said  to  me:

‘Will  you  make  sajda  to  my  grave  when  you  would  pass  by  it?’

I  (Qais)  said,  ‘No’.  

Rasulullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  then  said:   ‘If  I  had  to  order  anyone  to  make  sajda  (for  any  created  being),  I would  have  ordered  wives  (to  make  sajda  for  husbands)  because  of those  rights  which  Allah  has  granted  them.”  

Practices associated with Shirk:

The  above  are  but  a  few  of  the  countless  Bid’ats  practiced  by  ignorant Muslims.  There  are  other  practices  which  can  be  closely  associated with  Shirk,  such  as:

(1)  The  offering  of  Tazias.
(2)  The  kissing  of  graves  and  bowing  down  before  them.
(3)  The  act  of  prostrating  before  saints  out  of  reverence. (4)  The  offering  of  food  as  sacrifice  on  graves.
(5)  The  hanging  of  pictures  of  saints  in  homes  and  showering undue  respect  to  them  by  way  of  garlanding,  kissing  and  even prostrating before them.

Islamic Code of life and Uniform Civil Code


[By Maulana Syed Hasan Ali Nadwi (rahumahullah)]

(We are presenting herewith  relevant  excerpts  from  the  Presidential  Address  delivered  by  Maulana  Syed AbuI  Hasan  Ali  Nadwi  at  the  10th  Annual Session  of  All  India  Muslim  Personal  Law Board  held  at  New  Delhi  on  23rd  and  24th November,  1991).


We  are  meeting  at  a  time  when  the  country  is passing  through  constitutional,  economic,  moral  and political  crises  and  the  future  appears  bleak  and  preservation  of  life  and  liberty  of  conscience  doubtful;  when Delhi  itself is  facing  many  grave  problems  though  it  is  the seat  of  the  Government.  It  appears  ill-timed  to  meet  and analyse  these  apprehensions  and  invite  the  attention  of the  powers-that-be,  but  I  will  say,  without  apologies, that  it  is  in-time  and  in  the  interest  of  the  country.  I wish  that  all  the  truth-loving  and  conscientious  persons and  all  those  who  have  the  good  of  the  country  at  heart should  take  notice  of  this  Convention  as  without  such analysis  and  deliberations  democratic  values  cannot endure  for  long.

It  is  necessary  for  the  progress  and  development  of the  country  that  the  climate  of  fear,  distrust  and  confusion  should  be  brought  to  an  end  as  no  country  can march  forward  when  the  different  sections  of  its  population  may  harbour  doubts about  the irreligious tenets, laws, rites  and  rituals  without  which  it  would  be  difficult  for them  to  live  as  true  followers  of  their  religion.  There can  be  nothing  worse  than  that  the  energies  which  ought to  be  utilised  in  strengthening  and  advancement  of  the country  should  be  spent  in  dispelling  doubts  and suspicions.  I  will  go  further  and  say  that  we  have  an apprehension  that  if  our  future  generations  do  not  hold the  beliefs  which  are  dearer  to  us  than  our  lives,  then there  will  be  uncertainty  and  confusion  among  the Muslims  which  will  not  only  be  harmful  to  them  but  to the  country  also.

Secondly,  the  wide  scope  of  Islam  should  also  be kept  in  mind.  The  difference  in  religions  is  not  confined to  minor  rites  and  rituals but  in  the  fundamental  principles of  religions  themselves.  There  are  religions  which  were founded  on  revelations  and  prophethood,  but  their followers  confined  them  to  acts  of  worship  alone. There  is  no  such  thing  in  Islam.  It  encompasses  the whole  of  a  life  of  Muslim.  It  is  a  basic  reality  which  cannot  be  appreciated  without  realising  the  relations  between the  Creator  and  the  created.  Every  Muslim  Is  an  obedient  servant  of  God  and  his  relationship  with  Him  is eternal  and  all-embracing:

“O  Ye  who  believe!  Come,  all  of  you,  into  submission  (unto  Him);  and  follow  not  the  footsteps  of the  devil.  Lo!  he  is  an  open  enemy  for  you.” [Surah  Baqarah:208]

It  should  be  clearly  understood  that  the  religion  of Islam  owes  its  origin  to  revelation  and  the  last  Prophet Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  himself  has  been  directed to  follow  it. The glorious  Qur’an  lays  down:

“And  now  have  We  set  thee  (O Muhammad)  on  a clear  road  of  (Our)  commandmant;  so  follow  it,  and follow  not  rhe  whims  of  those  who  know  not.” [Surah  Jathiya: 18]

When  the  innocent  and  beloved  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  is  being  directed  to  follow  it,  how then  can  it  be demanded  from  his  followers  to  change  or  accept  any change  in  it?

These  are  the  two  basic  realities  which  when  understood  in  their  correct  perspective,  there  would  be no  such  demands  from  the  Muslims.  They  would  be saved  of  an  avoidable  embarrassment  and  their  faculties and  energies  would  not  be  spent  in  refuting  such unnecessary  demands  and  the  government  would  save time  to  spend  on  useful  pursuits.

We  are  told  that  for  the  sake  of  unity  and  integrity of  the  country  we  may  accept  uniform  Civil  Code.  I  ask a  question  which  a  school-going  child  can  answer. The  First  World  War  was  fought,  at  the  beginning, between  Britain  and  Germany.  The  Britons  and  Germans are  not  only  Christians  but  Protestants  and  their  Personal Law  is  also  the  same.  Why  then  they  fought?  If  uniform Civil  Code  could  stop  fighting  it  should  have  stopped them.  The  Second  World  War  is  another  example.  They were  both  Christian  and  Protestants  and  their  Personal Law  is  the  same.  But  they  fought  as  blood-thirsty enemies  bent  on  annihilating  each  other.  If  we  go  to law  courts  we  find  there  are  law  suits  between Muslims  and  Muslims,  Hindus  and  Hindus.  The  complainant  wants  to  seal  the  doom  of  the  respondent  and vice  versa.  Their  Personal  Law  is the  same  and  at  times, they  belong  to  the  same  caste  and  family-in  some  cases they  are  blood-relations.  In  fact,  the  cause  of  enmity  is selfishness,  greed  and  materialism.  It  is  on  account  of the  wrong  system  and  curriculum  which  has  neglected moral  teachings.  I  can  say,  indeed  challenge,  that  there would  be  no  change  in  morality  even  after  introduction of  a  uniform  Civil  Code.  Why  then  uniform  Civil  Code  is mentioned  time  and  again  that  there  be  unity  by  it.

What  an  eminent  British  legist  E.  Bodenheimer, while  discussing  the  system  of  law  and  its  social importance,  has  written  is  enough  for  us  to  realise  the futility  of  such  a  move:

“If  the  feelings  of  fairness  of  a  large  part  of  the population  are  outraged  by  a  system  of  law  purporting  to  establish  ‘orderly’  condition  of  life,  it  will  be extremely  difficult  for  the  public  authorties  to maintain  such  a  legal  system  against 
attempts  at evasion  or  subversion.  Men  will  not  stand  long  for an  order  they  feel  to  be  totally  unreasonable  and unbearable,  and  a  government  bent  on  perpetrating such  an  order  will  run  into  serious  difficulties  of enforcement.  Thus  an  order  which  does  not  have  a substantial  anchorage  in  justice  will  rest  on  an  unsafe and  precarious  basis.  As  John  Dickson  points  out: we  came  upon  the  need  for  not  merely  a  system  of fixed  general  rules.  but  of  rules  based  on  justice,  or in  other  words,  on  a  regard  for  a  certain  demands and  capacities  of  human  nature.  Otherwise  the system  would  not  be  workable;  offending  ingrained proclivities  and  standards  of  judgment,  it  will  be continually  violated  and  so  fail  to  yield  the  certainty which  is  the  excuse  for  its  existence.” [E.  Bodenheimer,  Jurisprudence,  Harvard, 1967,  p.  213]

We  should  also  keep  in  mind  that  if  any  law  clashes with  the  fundamental  beliefs of  any  section  of population, sect  or  religion  then  it  would  not  create  unity,  cooperation,  sincerity  and  peace  of  mind  but  create  confusion, lack  of  interest  and  a  sense  of  compulsion  and  serfdom which  is  dangerous  for  the  unity  of  the  nation  and  the country.


The  religion  which  has  reached  us  and  of  which  we  are the  trustees,  has  not  reached  us  through  social  workers, reformers  or  empire-builders.  They  are  worthy  of  our respect.  But  there  is  a  line  of  damarcation  in  between religion,  culture  and  school  of  thought  which  differentiates  one  from  the  other.  This  demarcation  cannot  in any  circumstances  be  ignored.  II  is  that  the  revealed   relgions  have  reached  us  through  specially  selected persons  who  were  consecrated  with  prophethood  and who  used  to  receive  revelations.  The  ignorance  of  this delicate,  yet  very  important  point  creates  confusion  and most  of  those people  expect  or  make  such  demands  from us  (the  Muslims)  for  which  there  is  absolutely  no  scope or  sanction.  Some  people  show  their  broad-mindedness and  assume  the  responsibility  of  interpreting  religion  in a  way  as  if  it  were  a  philosophy,  or  cultural  or  social system  or  an  economic  theory.

So  far  as  the  Muslims  are  concerned  it  is  part  of their  faith  and  belief  that  their  Personal  Law  is  Divine and  ordained  by  the  same  God Who  revealed  the  glorious Qur’an  and  fundamental  beliefs  and  the  system  of worship  and  without  which  one  cannot  remain  a  Muslim. It means  that  the  law  has  been  decreed  by  All Knowing  God  Who  has  created  man  and  Who  knows  his natural  wants  and  weaknesses.

“Will  not  He  Who  has  created  know?  He  is  the Subtile,  the  Aware.” [Surah  Mulk: 14]


The  Muslims  of  India  gave  such  proof  of  their adherence  to  ‘Shariat‘  and  attachment  to  their  religion after  Shah  Sano  case  the  parallel  of  which  is  not  found in  any  religious  movement  in  the  long  and  past  history of  the  ‘Millat’.  There  were  big  meetings  from  Kashmir to  Kanya  Kumari  and  in  all  such  meetings  members  of  the Muslim  Personal  Law  Board  and  other  Muslim  Scholars were  present.  The  gathering  of  a  lakh  of  people  even  in small  towns  was not  uncommon.  It  is  estimated  that about  half-a-million  people gathered  at  a  public  meeting at  the  historic  Shahid  Minar  Park,  Calcutta  on  7th  April, 1985  on the  occasion  of  Annual  Session  of  All  India Muslim  Personal  Law  Board.  Over  and  above,  these meetings  thousands  of  telegrams  and  resolutions  passed at  such  meetings  were  sent  to  the  Prime  Minister Shri  Rajiv  Gandhi.

Besides,  these  country-wide  meetings  (in  which discipline  and  dignity  were  strictly  observed)  the  office-bearers  of  the  Board  met  the  Prime  Minister,  Shri  Rajiv Gandhi  and  at  his  behest  they  met  the  Law  Minister, Shri  Ashok  Sen  and  others.  The  members  met  the Prime  Minister  twice  or  thrice  in  an  informal  atmosphere and  had  a  free  and  frank  discussion  with  him  and  impressed  on  him  the  seriousness  of  the  problem  and  placed the  religious  point-of-view  and  tha  fcolings of  the Muslim  Community  on  their  Personal  Law  wilh  sincerity. He  heard  our  views  with  attention  (he  must  have received  reports  of  unrest  amongst  Muslims  and  the  big public  meetings  in  this  connection).  He  was  convinced that  it  is  a  purely  religious  problem  of  the  Muslims  and it can  be  interpreted  by  such  scholars  who  have deep  and  wide  study  of  Islam  and  they  are  the  true exponents  of  glorious  Our an,  religion.  and  “Shariat“. The  Muslims  do  not  want  to  gain  political  mileage out  of  it. He spoke  more  than  once  that  he  has exchanged  views  with  eminent  Muslim  Scholars and  he  is  convinced  that  Islam  protects  the  rights  of women  including  divorcees  in  a  better  way  than  the present  laws  in  force.  He  presented  the  Protection of  Rights  of  Muslim  Women  Bill,  1986,  in  the  Parliament with  grent  moral  courage  and  sense  of  responsibity  and issued  a  whip  to  the  members  of  his  party.  The  said Bill  was  passed  with  thumping  majority  on  6th  May, 1986,  and  tho  Muslim  Community,  which  has  not  been deprived  of  the  capacity  to  differentiate  between  right and  wrong,  sincerity,  and  politicking  offered  thanks  with an  open  heart  and  expressed  their  satisfaction  over  this bold  step.

It  is  now  necessary  that  the  law  courts be  instructed either  through  the  Supreme  Court  or  Law  Ministry  that  the Protection  of  Rights  of  Muslim  Women  Act.  1986 is  the  current  Act  and  it  should  be  applied  and implemented  in  all  cases  of  Muslim  divorcees.  lt  is, however,  found  that  the  law  courts  are  ignoring  the  said Act  and  still  deciding  such  cases  by  reference  to  section 125  of  Cr.  P.  C.  The  recent  judgemnts  by  Gujarat  and Kerala  High  Courts  are  the  examples  of  turning  a  blind eye  to  this  new  Act.  It  is  also  found  that  the  lawyers are  either  ignorant  of  the  new  Act  and  they  do  not plead  that  this  Act  should  be  applied  in  all  cases  of divorce.  It  is  also  necessary  that  the  legal  profession should  be  educated  in  this  regard  else  ignorance  and laxity  in  this  respect  will  continue  and  the  said  Act  will adorn  the  archives  of  the  law  courts.  A  representative delegation  of  the  Board  met  Shri  V.  P.  Singh  during  his tenure  of  Prime  Ministership  and  invited  his  attention  to the  responsibility  of  the  Government  in  this  aspect. He  promised  to  look  into  it. It  is,  however,  necessary  to continue  our  efforts  in  this  direction.


I  would  like  to  say  a  few  words  to  our  countrymen, intellectuals  and  journalists  who  reacted  with  vehemence over  the  feelings  of  the  Muslims  in  the  Shah  Bano Case  as  also  over  the  Protection  of  Rights  of  Muslim women  Bill.  1986  when  it  was  presented  in  the  Parliament  and  decried  it  as  unjust  to  Muslim  women.

It  should  be  kept  in  mind that there  is  a  difference  in social  system,  family  life  and  enviroment  in  Muslim  and non-Muslim  societies  as  regards  religious  law  and conventions.  That  a  girl  after  marriage  in  Muslim society  is  not  cut-off  from  her  family  during  married life  and  after,  unfortunate  divorce,  she  remains  a  member of  the  family  and  continues  to  have  a  share  in  tha  family property  according  to  ‘Shariat
‘  which  has  been described  in  detail  in  the  glorious  Qur’an.  It  has  also emphasised  the  need  to  pay  her  share.  She  can  also claim  it  as  a  right  and  the  law  courts  are  bound  to  decide in  her  favour.  Whoever  goes  against  it,  he  is  considered a  sinner  since  it  is  regarded  as  defiance  of  Divine “Shariat

As  against  this,  I  may  say  with  apologies.  that  in the  Hindu  society  a  girl  after  marriage  is  almost  cut-off from  her  parents  and  the  family.  The  liability  for her  maintenance  becomes  the  sole  responsibility  of  her husband.  The  Hindu  widow  becomes  all  alone  and  so to  say  an  orphan.  The  responsibility  of  her  guardianship, maintenance  and  protection  does  not  devolve  on  her family  and  it  becomes  difficult  for  her  to  live  a respectable  life.  This  practice  is  prevalent  for  a  long time  and  it  has  probably  forced  the  Hindu  widows to  commit ”Sati”
which  was  the  only  way  to  avoid  a forlorn  life  in  destitution.  It  has  become  a  matter  of pride  in  respectable  families.  The  Muslim  Rulers  did  not stop  it  as  it  might  be  construed  as  Interference  in religion.  Dr.  Bernier  has  mentioned  in  his  travelogue that  the  ladies  from  the  ruling  and  respectable  Muslim families  used  to  dissuade  the  Hindu  widows  from committing  “Sati”
.  Thus  British  Government  prohibited  it. But  it  is  still  practised  in  some  places  specially  in Rajasthan.

Besides  pointing  this  difference  in  Muslim  and non-Muslim  societies,  which  was  resorted  to  out  of compulsion,  it  must be  clearly  understood  that  a  Muslim divorcee  does  not  become  a  destitute  and  forced  to begging  or  end  her  life.  She  can  live  with  respect  with her  relations.

I  would,  with  due  respect,  invite  the  attention of  our  critics  and  fault-finders  to  pay  more  attantion  to  the  curse  of  bride-burning  and  dowry-deaths  which occur almost every  day  in  our country.

We should  look  at  our  problems  in  their  correct  perspective and  should  not  try  to  make  a  mountain  of  a  mole  hill. It  is  against  common  sense.