Hadhrat Nabi Isa Dead or Alive?: A Response to Qadiani Claims

[Majlisul Ulama]

OUR RESPONSE TO THE MULHID FOLLOWERS OF THE IMPOSTER: MIRZA GULAM OF QADIAN FOUNDER OF THE QADIANI/AHMADI CULT

No one on this earth—  be he Muslim or non-Muslim—disputes the fact that Islam in its final form was the Message delivered to mankind by Nabi Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) more than 1425 years ago. There is consensus of all people that Islam is not the product of this age or of a few decades ago or of a couple of centuries ago. When it is said that Muhammad Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) delivered to mankind the Islam which Allah Ta’ala had revealed to him, it is understood thereby that he handed to the world a set of beliefs and practices  – the Aqaaid and A’maal  of Islam. He did not leave Islam as an ambiguous concept subject  to the understanding and interpretations of the multitudes of people.

It is only logical and a simple fact to understand that the beliefs and practices of the Sahaabah and the early Muslims of the Khairul Quroon  (the Three noblest Ages of Islam) constitute Islam, and that only their Beliefs and Practices are authentic and valid. Any belief or practice which conflicts with the  Aqaaid and A’maal  of the Sahaabah will not be part of Islam. Thus, if someone today has to claim that there are only three Fardh Salaat instead of the five that we know of and adhere to, then the first question such a proponent will have to answer is: When did this belief or teaching of three Salaat develop in Islam? If he cannot prove that it originated with the Sahaabah, then obviously it will be expunged as kufr and branded a figment of the shaitaan’s evil whispering into the heart of the one who contended the belief or act of kufr

If a belief or practice cannot be reliably and authoritatively traced to the Sahaabah, it shall be thrown out into the garbage can of kufr. The very first obstacle any propounder of kufr has to surmount is to prove that the doctrine he is propagating has always been the belief of the People of Islam from the inception of Islam. No man can impose his personal idea as Islamic doctrine and claim that this is what the Qur’aan says, if his personal doctrine has not been the official belief or practice of the Ummah from the time of the Sahaabah.

Islam is not an interpretation of the Qur’aan which modernists or deviates of this age present. Irrespective of how much the interpretation may appeal to and appease the western mind and the western intellectual masters of the modernists, it will never be part of Islam if it cannot be substantiated on the basis of the Ijma’ of the Ummah. Such consensus has its roots in the Beliefs and Practices of the Sahaabah. Hence, the proponent of a belief which is at variance with the Beliefs of the Ummah or in conflict with the  Ijma’ which has been transmitted down the centuries from the age of the Sahaabah is under obligation to furnish his Shar’i evidence for his theory/idea. Evidence is not personal opinion nor is evidence of the Shariah a man’s interpretation of the Qur’aan. Evidence of the Shariah is what the official position of the belief or practice was during the age of the Sahaabah and the Khairul Quroon,  and whether the belief advocated by the deviate was the belief or practice of the Ummah from the inception of Islam.   

It is on the basis of this criterion of authenticity that the beliefs pertaining to Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) as well as all other beliefs and alleged beliefs are to be examined. Any belief, practice or teaching which does not satisfy this criterion stands rejected and will be branded as kufr which expels the proponent from the fold of Islam. Explicity and emphatically stating this conception of Ijma and this criterion of authenticity  which is the belief and practice of the Ummah from the time of the Sahaabah, the Qur’aan Shareef says:    

“And among the people are those who say: “We believe in Allah and the Last Day, while (in reality) they are not Mu’mineen (Believers). They (try to) deceive Allah and those who have Imaan. However, they deceive none but themselves whilst they lack understanding.”    (Surah Baqarah, aayats 8 and 9)

“And when it is said to them: “Believe in the manner in which the people (i.e.the Mu’mineen) believe, they say: ‘What shall we believe as the ignoramuses believe?’   Heed well! Verily, they are the ignoramuses, but they do not know.” (Surah Baqarah, aayat 13) 

It is quite evident from these verses of the Qur’aan Majeed, that Imaan is not the personal idea or conception of any person. A man’s contention of belief in Allah and the Aakhirah is of no significance and validity if it is in conflict with the Belief of “The People”, i.e. the People of Islam who inherited their Beliefs and Practices from the Sahaabah. The Sahaabah are in the highest category of “The People” whom the Qur’aan commands to follow. Elsewhere in the Qur’aan Majeed, Allah Ta’ala commands the selfsame obedience and following to “The People” of Imaan. Thus He says:

“And, follow the Path of those who turn (and lead) towards Us.”  

These as well as other Qur’aanic aayaat categorically command the Mu’mineen to follow the Path of  “The People”, not the path of personal opinion.  Hence, the Consensus of the  “The People” is the criterion of authenticity for the beliefs and practices of Is lam. Any concept which is at variance with or in conflict with the conception of Imaan of “The People” of Imaan and Islam is kufr which extinguishes Imaan and assigns the proponent into irtidaad (making him a renegade) for which the punishment in a truly Islamic nation is Qatl (execution).

THE MULHID’S BELIEF OF KUFR

One  mulhid  who has sprouted up from somewhere, seeking some cheap publicity, stating his ideas about Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam), wrote to the non-Muslim press that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) is dead. He is not alive in Heaven as the Ummah of Islam believes and has believed from the age of the Sahaabah. He presents as his ‘proofs’ the following arguments: 

(1)   The Sunni Muslims derive their support from their ‘priests’ whose basis is the traditions (Ahadith). These Ahadith are derived from Israeli sources.  

(2)   These sources were from Jews and Christians who embraced Islam, and who had introduced their ‘apocryphal’ literature in the Ahadith and the commentaries of the Qur’aan. 

(3)   The Qur’aan declares “Messengers had passed away before Him (Muhammad).” (Q3:144)

(4)   “Further: God will cause you (Jesus) to die (or take  You away) and exalt, honour and raise You in My  Presence.” (Q3:55) 

(5)  “God caused Jesus to die or took Him up”. (Q5:120) 

(6)  “That Jesus is dead is confirmed by the Qur’an and some Ahadith (traditions), jurists and modern scholars.”

If these are called ‘proofs’ (daleel), then we must say that they are an insult to the term as well  as an insult to intelligence. Although these stupidities do not warrant  an intelligent response, nevertheless, such a response becomes necessary in view of the large scale ignorance prevailing among the Muslim masses on the issue of Aqaa-id  (Beliefs). Unwary persons and simple-minded folk are quickly misled by the most absurd specimens of kufr offered by just any  jaahil  who reads a few lines of  Yusuf Ali’s commentary. 

The proponent of the kufr belief has made claims without presenting any substantiation whatsoever. He makes allegations about the Qur’aan and “some Ahadith” confirming the death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) without tendering the relevant Qur’aanic verses and “some Ahadith” which he claims support his idea of kufr

The very first attack against the belief of Hadhrat Isaa’s death is that it miserably fails the Criterion of Authenticity explained earlier. The death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) never was a doctrine  of Muslims at any time in the history of Islam. If the deviate claims that it was, then it devolves on him to produce his evidence, not his opinion. At what stage in Islam’s history did the belief in Nabi Isaa’s death develop among Muslims? Did the Sahaabah believe in the death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam)? Was this the belief of  “The People”  whose obedience the Qur’aan commands? If it was, the zindeeq should produce his proof. 

He should not endeavour to conceal himself in ambiguity and say that according to “some Ahadith” Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) has died. He should produce these “some Ahadith” and the academic discussion pertaining to such traditions. If this mulhid is reborn and he devotes his entire new life to the search for proof to prove that  “The People”  of Islam had ever held this belief of kufr, then too he will miserably fail to do so other than making baseless claims which cannot be substantiated on the basis of Shar’i evidence.

The Mulhid’s First  and Second arguments

In this stupid ‘proof’ he claims that Islam’s belief of Hadhrat Isaa’s death is based on ‘apocryphal’ traditions which Jews and Christians had introduced into Islam when they had embraced this religion. The absurdity of this ludicrous claim is not hidden from  any person who has made even a superficial study of the Science of Hadith compilation. Even a man who lacks expert Islamic Knowledge, but has read some English books on the subject of Hadith compilation, will laugh at the stupid claim which this mulhid has ventured so audaciously. It is said that fools  rush in where angels fear to tread. This is the similitude of the proponent of Nabi Isaa’s death. Can any sane Muslim who does not have kufr concealed in his heart  –who is not a munaafiq  –ever accept  that the wonderful and authentic Hadith compilations of the illustrious Muhadditheen who devoted their entire lives to the science of Hadith authentication are ‘apocryphal’ as the zindeeq alleges? (Apocryphal refers to traditions which are baseless, untrue, legendary, and fabricated). 

The mulhid has made his claim that the belief the People of Islam regarding Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) being alive in Heaven is based on ‘apocryphal’ traditions which Jews and Christians  had interpolated into the Hadith Compilations which the  People of Islam  regard to be correct and authentic. It devolves on him to now produce these ‘apocryphal’ traditions which he claims constitute the basis of the Belief of  “The People”  whom the Qur’aan commands us to submit to. Any Tom, Dick, Harry and atheist can present their personal ideas of whim and fancy, and tender just any stupid and absurd argument. But they cannot present evidence to back up the kufr they gorge up. We want to know about these ‘apocryphal’ traditions which the Jew and Christian converts had introduced into Islam.
It might benefit the mulhid to hear what Allah Ta’ala Himself says about the Christians who had converted to Islam. The Qur’aan Majeed says in this regard:    

“And, most certainly, you will find the closest (to you, O Muslims!)in love, are those who say: ‘Verily, we are Nasaaraa’. That is so because among them are men of justice and Ulama who are  not proud. And, when they hear what has been revealed to the Rasool, you will see their eyes flowing with tears because they have recognized the Haqq.”    (Qur’aan, Surah Maaidah, aayats 82 and 83) 
The reference here is to the early  Nasaaraa who had embraced Islam. There  were highly qualified Ulama and experts of the Taurah and Injeel among them. It is an insult to the Qur’aan  to claim that these noble, pious and knowledgeable members of  Ahl-e-Kitaab  had introduced ‘apocryphal’ traditions into Islam. It is an even greater insult to claim that ‘apocryphal’ traditions of the Jews and Christians were used by the illustrious authorities of Islam to formulate  Aqeedah  when it is a fact as clear as daylight that Beliefs are based on only Ahaadith which are of the  Qatiyuth Thuboot category. The ignorance of the mulhid is stark and quite evident. He simply does not know what he is trumpeting. 

This deviate who in all probability lacks knowledge in the very elementary teachings of Islam  is too stupid to understand or to even know that the Fuqaha (Jurists of Islam) never employed Dhaeef  (Weak, technically speaking) Ahaadith which are au thentic, as basis for  Fardh and Waajib Ahkaam, leave alone Aqaa-id. His sweeping statement simply displays his crass  jahaalat. His argument is absolutely devoid of substance. 

His claim that “Sunni Muslims”  believe in Isaa (alayhis salaam) being alive on the basis of “support from their priests and jurists” is designed to ridicule. This type of stupid childish stratagems of ridicule is a salient feature of the mulhideen who are bereft of rational and Islamic arguments for their concepts and theories of kufr.  If the beliefs of the Sunni Muslims are supported by their “priests” and jurists, it lends more strength to the authenticity of the beliefs of the masses. It is evidence for the correctness of the beliefs of the masses. It shows that the beliefs of the masses are based on scholarly, rational and factual basis, and are not the product of wild speculation of the vacillating nafs (whim and fancy –self-opinion) of men of ignorance. It is  simply logical and acceptable that the masses accept the beliefs as explained to them by their “priests” and jurists. These “priests” and jurists are members of the class of men whom the Qur’aan designates  “The People”,  and whose obedience the Qur’aan commands. The Qur’aan commands that Muslims should believe as “The People” believe, not as the nafs dictates. 

An intelligent mind will present evidence to substantiate the claim that the “priests” and the jurists have erred and that they had in  turn based their belief on the ‘apocryphal’ traditions of the Jews and Christians. What proof does the zindeeq have for his contention in this regard? If he has even a vestige of evidence, let him produce it. The zindeeq is guilty of a blasphemous slander for his contention that the Jurists of Islam had based the beliefs pertaining to Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) on the apocryphal traditions of the Jews and Christians.

It is incumbent for him to define exactly what he means by ‘apocryphal traditions’ and  on which such traditions of the Jews and Christians did  “The People”  of the Qur’aan base their belief.  Since he has manipulated the term ‘apocryphal’ to serve his kufr idea, he has to explain his criteria for labeling a Jewish or a Christian tradition as ‘apocryphal’. Or perhaps he is a  muqallid (blind follower) of the Jewish and Christian theologians and priests who have categorized their own respective traditions. Just look at this zindeeq! He becomes a blind  muqallid  of the Jewish and Christian theologians and priests who have studied and classified their traditions, but he refuses to accept the highly authentic Ahaadith classified by the illustrious Muhadditheen such as Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Muslim and others of high rank. He must say who had classified the relevant Jewish and Christian traditions to be apocryphal, and  on what basis does he (the zindeeq) accept such classification. Then he should provide his  dalaa-il  for his biggest calumny, viz., the Fuqaha of Islam had based the beliefs regarding Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) on such ‘apocryphal’ traditions of the Jews and Christians.

Another stupidity of the ‘apocryphal’ argument is that as far as the Jews are concerned, they do not even accept Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis  salaam) to be a Nabi. His ascension into Heaven, his second advent and him being alive or dead do not concern them. They have no apocryphal literature on Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). 

The Christians on the otherhand believe that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) had first died a physical death, then after resurrection he ascended into the heaven. But the Qur’aan rejects  the notion of his death. He was not crucified nor killed in any manner whatsoever. This is the official and authoritative belief of “The People” whom the Qur’aan commands us to follow.  Since the Christians do believe in Nabi Isaa’s ascension , his existence in the heavens and his second advent, their narrations are not apocryphal for them on this particular issue.  Those narrations and traditions which are in conflict with their beliefs are rejected by the Christians and termed ‘apocryphal’, e.g. the Gospel of Barnabas which predicts the advent of our Nabi Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Thus, the argument that the People of Islam based their beliefs regarding Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) on the ‘apocryphal’ traditions of the Jews and Christians is utterly stupid and fallacious. 

Furthermore, if Muslims had based their beliefs on any such traditions, the belief of Isaa’s death would have also been incorporated into Islamic  Aqeedah  in terms of the logic of the zindeeq because he claims that Islamic Belief is the consequence of Christian and Jewish ‘apocryphal’ (but non-existent) traditions. The absurdity of the mulhid’s arguments should thus be conspicuous. 

In  Tafseer  Durr-e-Manthur  appears the following narration: “Ishaaq Bin Bishr and Ibn Asaakir narrating from  Jauhar  who narrates from Dhuhhak who narrates from Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) (the tafseer) of the Allah’s statement: “Verily, I shall cause you to die and raise you up to Me”—i.e. “Shall raise you, then cause you to die in the last of ages (aakhiruz zamaan).”   (Page 36, Vol. 2) 

Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) was not a Jew or a Christian who had embraced Islam. He does not present the  tafseer  of this aayat No.55 of Surah Aal-e-Imraan on the basis of  any narration or tradition of Bani Israaeel. He states the meaning as he had acquired it from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) is known as Raeesul Mufassireen (The Chief of the Mufassireen).

We shall discuss this tafseer further in the ensuing pages, Insha’Allah. Suffice here to say that the Sahaabah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), not only the noble Ulama of the Yahood and Nasaaraa who had embraced Islam, taught the belief that Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) did not die but was physically raised into the Heavens. This belief which the Sahaabah propagated was not based on any apocryphal tradition of the Jews and Christians. The mulhid should present his proof for his fallacious contention of kufr

For ignoramuses it is quite easy to tender sweeping and ridiculous contentions. But to substantiate such claims is entirely a different matter. When proof for their  nafsaani  speculation is demanded, they are adept in  the art of seeking refuge in impregnable fortresses of silence and in childish stratagems of ridicule. It behoves this mulhid to produce his Qur’aanic and historical evidence for his absurd contention that the Beliefs of Islam pertaining to Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) are based on apocryphal traditions of the Jews and Christians. He supposedly regards himself as a member of the ‘enlightened intellegentsia’. If so, he has to necessarily provide his rational and historical evidence  for his claim. Just when  – at which period in the history of Islam- did the belief of Isaa’s death on the basis of Jewish and Christian  traditions develop in Islam? Let the miserable zindeeq answer. 

The Mulhid’s Third argument

In this argument the mulhid avers: “The Qur’aan declares: ‘Messengers had passed away before Him (Muhammad)”. Q3:144” 

The ignorance of the mulhid is manifest from his citation of this aayat which does not have the remotest relevance to Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). Even the  general purport of the aayat cannot be adduced  to substantiate the kufr belief of the zindeeq.

He is unable to even present a correct translation of the verse he cites as his ‘proof’  for  the imagined death of Nabi Isaa  (alayhis salaam). Since the mulhid has merely lapped up what Yusuf Ali says in his translation, he presents the erroneous translation of Yusuf Ali as well. The translation of the aayat is:  “Verily, numerous Messengers passed before you.”  By saying “passed away”, the meaning of ‘died’ is proffered. Although it is understood that the numerous Ambiya who appeared before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had passed away (died), the word in this aayat does not mean “passed away” or ‘died’. 

Even if  the meaning of “have died” or have passed away is taken, it does not in any way whatsoever support the contention that Hadhrat  Isaa (alayhis salaam) too had died. The aayat does not say that each and every  Messenger before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) without any exception had died. The tenor of the aayat does not preclude exceptions. It is a general statement simply mentioning that just as the Messengers before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had died so too will he also die.  The exception  of Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam)  is based on other dalaa-il.  

The contention  is not that  Nabi Isaa  (alayhis salaam) will never die. The belief of Islam is that  he has not yet died and that after his  Nuzool  (Descent) from the Heavens, he will die a normal physical death. The mulhid believes that he is an intellectual and a member of the ‘intellegentsia’. However, his stupidity boggles the mind. He is totally ignorant of the fact that  Aqeedah (Belief) is not the product of interpretation and opinion, least  of all the absurd opinions of  juhala and mulhideen.  Beliefs are based on Qur’aanic aayaat or Ahaadith-e-Mutawattirah  which are Ahaadith of absolute certitude, which do not brook the slightest vestige of doubt, ambiguity or uncertainty. The number of the raka’ts, for example, are established on the basis of such Proofs. 

Instead of presenting any  daleel  of absolute certitude, the mulhid presents a verse which has no relevance whatsoever with Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). He employs and misinterprets this aayat in blind imitation of the Qadiani mulhideen who went before him, and  on the basis of such fallacious interpretation, he offers the belief of Hadhrat Isaa’s death.  And, in his presentation of this kufr belief he perpetrates the chicanery of endeavouring to convey the impression of originality, namely, that his own ‘ingenuity’ has unraveled the mystery surrounding Hadhrat Isaa  (alayhis salaam)  –the mystery  which the Christians had failed to unravel. He fails to acknowledge his ‘imaam’, Yusuf Ali and others of his ilk who had peddled these baseless, legless and stupid arguments. 

The Qur’aanic averment that Messengers had  “passed away” before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) does not negate the fact and belief that Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam)  had not died and that he was raised bodily into the Heavens whilst alive and awake. These beliefs are structured on  independent  Dalaail  of the Shariah. This specific aayat does not negate the longevity of the lifespan of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). The demise of innumerable Messengers, in fact all except Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam), before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) does not rationally or logically or Islamically preclude any being born before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) outliving him. What is the rational argument to prove that a person who was a Nabi and born before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), could not have lived beyond the lifespan of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? Only mulhids who deny the infinite Power of Allah Ta’ala, covertly refute the Qur’aanic proclamation: “Verily, Allah has power over all things.”  

What is the Islamic proof for claiming that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) was not alive  when Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was born and that he  did not remain alive after the demise of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and that he will not remain alive until  the great signs of Qiyaamah materialize?  Independent proof of the category of absolute certitude (Qatiuyuth Thuboot)  is imperative for claiming a belief which conflicts with the 14 century belief of  The People  –the Sahaabah, Taabieen, Tab-e-Taabieen  –all the Aimmah Mujtahideen, Fuqaha, and the entire Ummah down the long corridor of Islam’s history. 

It devolves on the mulhid to prove with Shar’i facts the stages of origin of the two diametrically opposite beliefs—the belief that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) is alive and the kufr belief of his death. While  we can conclusively claim that  the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah  –the belief of  The People of the Qur’aan  –  has its origin in the Qur’aan and Ahaadith, the zindeeq fails hopelessly to produce even one valid argument to substantiate his belief of kufr

It is thus illogic and in conflict with Islam to claim the death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam)  on the basis of the aayat which merely states that numerous Messengers had passed away before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The Mulhid’s fourth argument

In this argument, the mulhid offers the aayat No.55 of Aal-eImraan. Thus he says: “Further:  God ‘will cause You (Jesus) to die (or take You away) and exalt, honour and raise You in My Presence.”

Firstly, he has ventured a corrupt translation. The correct translation of the aayat is: “(Remember) when Allah said: ‘O Isaa! Verily, I shall cause you to die and I shall raise you towards Me, and I shall exonerate you from the disbelievers………”  

He translates the word  ‘raafiuka’ to mean ‘exalt, honour and raise you in My Presence”.   But  this word in the context of the aayat does not mean ‘exalt and honour’. When the term  ‘rafa’  is used with the word  ‘ilaa’, it does not mean exalting the rank of a person. It clearly refers to physical raising or lifting . Furthermore, this meaning has been determined by the explanations of the Sahaabah. It has thus to be translated in the context of the meaning and belief of  The People  whom we are commanded by the Qur’aan to follow. Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) already had an exalted rank by Allah Ta’ala. He was among the great Ambiya.  The  figuritive meaning ascribed to the term in the context of this aayat is  palpably erroneous. In other verses where the term  rafa’  is used for elevation of rank, the term  ilaa  is not used.  Hence, the Qur’aan says: “He has elevated   some  over  others by ranks.” “Allah exalts the Believers among you….”  

In these verses and many others, the word  rafa’  to mean elevation of ranks is used without ‘ilaa’. It should thus be clear that the term  ilaa  when used in conjunction  with the word,  rafa’ produces the meaning of physical lifting or raising upwards physically. There is also  no need for us to substantiate the belief of  Isaa (alayhis salaam) on the basis of this interpretation of the word  rafa’.  The belief is based on the  Ijma’ of the Ummah— “The People” whom the Qur’aan says we have to obey and follow. 

The physical transportation of Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) into the Heavens is further confirmed with emphasis in the following aayat of Surah Nisaa, which  rejects the notion that Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) was killed:

“They most certainly did  not kill him. But, on the contrary, Allah lifted him (Isaa) to Him (Allah Ta’ala).”  The word  rafa’  (lifted) is brought here in this aayat to negate and refute the claim of the Yahud that they had physically killed Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). Refuting their contention, the Qur’aan Majeed declares with emphasis that they did not kill him. On the contrary, Allah Ta’ala saved Isaa (alayhis salaam) by lifting him up to the Heavens. The meaning  of ‘exalting’ or ‘honouring’ will be improper in the context of the refutation stated in this aayat.

“CAUSE TO DIE”

The translation which even the Mulhid presents, is:“cause you to die” . The aayat does not say that Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) had died. Allah Ta’ala does not say: “Isaa is dead or has died.” In this verse, Allah  directly addressing Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam), says:  o “O Isaa! Verily, I shall cause you to die, and I shall lift you up to Me”. Isaa (alayhis salaam) at the time  of the Divine Address was being pursued by the Yahood  who wanted to have him killed. Allah Ta’ala in this aayat assures him of  the failure of the plot of the Yahood. Hence, the Qur’aan states immediately  before this aayat:  “They (the Yahood) plotted, and Allah plotted, and Allah is the best of plotters.”  

The aayat assures Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) that the Yahood will not succeed in killing him. He will die at some time in the future. Meanwhile he will be raised up into the Heaven. It is absurd to infer from an event which has not yet transpired that it has already happened. The absurdity is obvious. By what warped and stupid logic does the mulhid argue? He claims that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) has died. But in support he presents an aayat which says that Allah Ta’ala will cause Isaa (alayhis salaam) to die in the future. 

Islam does not negate the future death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). “The People”  do not contend that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) will never die. The belief is only that he has not yet died, but will die after his descent from Heaven. The fallacy of this argument of the mulhid should also be conspicuous.

The Mulhid’s fifth argument

In this argument he says: “God caused Jesus to die or took him up. Q5:120”  

Firstly, aayat No.120 of Surah Maaidah does not remotely refer to Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). The translation of aayat 120 is: “Unto Allah belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and whatever is therein. And, He is All-Powerful over everything.”  

However, the mulhid, Yusuf Ali, in his erroneous numbering of the verses has numbered the relevant aayat No.120 when in fact it is No.117. Pick up any copy of the Qur’aan and it will be seen that the number of the aayat to which the mulhid and Yusuf Ali refer is No.117. The translation of the relevant portion of the aayat to which the mulhid has referred is:

“I was a witness over them while I was among them. Then, when you took me away (i.e.caused me to die), then You were the Guard over them.”  (Aayat 117, Surah Maaidah) 

The entire discussion of  the aayat (the above is only a portion of the aayat) is an event which will transpire in Qiyaamah  – in the future. It is not a discussion which Allah Ta’ala already had with Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). It is a discussion which will yet take place after resurrection in Qiyaamah. Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) says (in this aayat): “You caused me to die”. It should be obvious that he is speaking here after his death, not prior to his death. To claim that this discussion took place on earth prior to Nabi Isaa’s death is absurd. He himself says :When  You (O Allah!) caused me to die”.  Hence the discussion logically will take place after resurrection in Qiyaamah. And this is confirmed by the authentic Ahaadith. 

Since this is a discussion which will yet take place in the Hereafter, it is fallacious to present it in substantiation of the kufr belief. The manner in which the Mulhid quotes the portion of the aayat out of its context, is designed to convey the deceptive idea that Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’aan that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) has already died., hence the zindeeq says:  “God caused Jesus to die” It is not refuted that Allah Ta’ala will cause Nabi Isaa to die. But his death will be caused after his Nuzool to earth. It is therefore baseless to present this aayat as proof for the contention that Isaa (alayhis salaam) is dead.

The Mulhid’s sixth argument

In this ‘argument’, the Mulhid merely makes a claim without providing any evidence. He simply says: “That Jesus is dead is confirmed by the Qur’an,and some Ahadith (traditions), jurists and modern scholars.”  

In his letter there is not a single Qur’aanic verse to confirm his claim. We have refuted and demolished the arguments which he had based on certain   Qur’aanic verses which do not even remotely suggest that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) had died. 

He speaks of “some Ahadith” which allegedly confirm the kufr belief. Firstly, he should not cite Ahaadith because in terms of his own claim, Ahadith are the products of the apocryphal traditions of the Jews and Christians. Secondly, he should present these Ahaadith for examination.  There are no Ahaadith which confirm the belief of the death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). 

Then he speaks about confirmation by the ‘jurists’. The Mulhid is the last man who should speak about the jurists. According to his claim the Jurists had formulated the belief of Hadhrat Isaa’s death on the basis of the apocryphal traditions of the Jews and Christians. He should now not seek to extract capital from the Jurists for his kufr belief. It is, furthermore, a blatant falsehood to claim that the Fuqaha or some of them believe in the death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). He should provide his proof for this claim of confirmation by the Fuqaha. 

As far as “modern scholars” are concerned, their ranks  preponderate with mulhids and zindeeqs. Anyone whose beliefs conflict with the  Ijmaaee  Belief of  The People  of Islam is not a scholar of Islam. Such a modernist is a deviated ignoramus. He is unacceptable to Islam. The views of some of these  modern day “scholars” are repugnant and of no concern. Their views cannot be cited as proof of the Shariah. It is truly amazing that a man who regards himself as an “investigative” scholar and researcher  –a deviate who is prepared to denounce and reject a Belief which the Ummah has believed in for the past 1438 years— citing “modern scolars:”  as his proof. How rapidly does he become a  muqallid  of just anyone whom he thinks is worthy of eking out support. Thus, while he rejects and criticizes the Fuqaha, he is quick to cite “some” of them when he thinks that there is some support for his doomed cause of kufr. No one is interested in the “modern scholars” of deviation (dhalaal),  false hood  (baatil) and kufr.  The views of such “scholars” do not occupy the category of any class of Shar’i proof, leave alone the highest class of evidence on the basis of which Aqeedah is structured. 

Alhamdulillaah! We have adequately refuted and demolished the fallacious arguments of the Mulhid. We now present the Proofs of  those People whose system of Imaan, according to the Qur’aan, is the only valid conception of Belief (Imaan), and whom we have been commanded to follow.

IJMA’ (CONSENSUS OF THE UMMAH)

The strongest  daleel  (proof/evidence) for any belief, practice or teaching of Islam is  Ijma.  This  Daleel  is the command of Allah Ta’ala stated in several aayaat of the Qur’aan Majeed.

“Whoever opposes the Rasool after the Hidaayah (Guidance of the Deen) has become manifest, and he follows a path other than  the Path of the Mu’mineen,  We divert him to that (path of deviation) which he follows. And, We shall cast him into Jahannum. Indeed, it is an evil abode.”    (Qur’aan, Aayat 115, Surah Nisaa’)   

“And follow the Path of him who turns to Me.”  

The basis of the validity of Imaan is to believe as the Ummah believes, i.e. to subscribe to all the beliefs  which the Ummah has acquired from  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) via the agency of the Sahaabah.  The Qur’aan says in this regard:      

“Among mankind are those who say: ‘We believe in Allah and the Last Day”, while (in reality) they are not Mu’mineen (Believers)”. (Surah Baqarah, aayat 8)      

“And, when it is said to them: ‘Believe just as the people (believe)’, they say: ‘What! Shall we believe like the ignoramuses believe?’ Behold! Verily, they  are the ignoramuses, but they know not.”   (Surah Baqarah, aayat 13) 

The Qur’aan Majeed does not instruct Muslims to follow their personal opinions and understanding of the Qur’aan. It commands us to follow  The People, The Mu’mineen.  Those who diverge from the Path of the Mu’mineen, the Qur’aan declares unequivocally:

“We shall cast them into Jahannum”. It is abundantly clear from the Qur’aanic aayaat that in order to be among the  Mu’mineen, the essential requisite is to  “Believe as the People believe.” Thus, any belief, interpretation, idea or view which  conflicts with the Beliefs of the Sahaabah who were the very first Wrung in the Ladder of  The People  to whom the Qur’aan commands obedience, is kufr.

Ijma’  is the Path of the Mu’mineen from which divergence according to the aforementioned aayat leads to Jahannum.  Ijma’  is in the category of the Qur’aan  Majeed since the Qur’aan commands Muslims to follow the Path of the Mu’mineen. There is no difference of opinion among the Fuqaha and Authorities of Islam  on the issue of  Ijma being a  Hujjat  (Proof and Authority) in the category of the Qur’aan. Denial of any belief or teaching evidenced by  Ijma’  is kufr. This is the unanimous ruling of  all Authorities of Islam.

Ijma  of the Ummah  –of  The People  to whom obedience is commanded in the Qur’aan, has been recognized as  Hujjat  for the Ahkaam of the Shariah from the very inception  of Islam since it is a command of the Qur’aan itself. There is no need to delve further on this subject in this concise booklet. Only a moron will deny that the Ummah’s  beliefs pertaining to Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) are  structured on the basis of  Ijma .Inspite of the Mulhid’s denial of the validity and truth of these beliefs, he does concede that Isaa (alayhis salaam) being alive is the Belief of this Ummah. Hence, he had no alternative but to concede: “The belief that Jesus is still alive in heaven is held by both Christians and Sunni Muslims.” Whoever now denies this Belief denies the validity of  Ijma’  and in consequence he has to be prepared to be cast into Jahannum by Allah Ta’ala Who has warned in the Qur’aan Shareef that those who diverge from the Path of the  Mu’mineen will be the inmates of Hell-Fire.

THE QUR’AAN

Ijma’ on the Beliefs centering around Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) are structured on the basis of the Qur’aan and Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatirah  – the highest category of authentic and reliable Ahaadith. Refuting the belief of Hadhrat Isaa having died, the Qur’aan Majeed declares with the greatest emphasis and unambiguity:

“And (the punishment they received) was because of their claim: ‘Verily, we have killed the Maseeh, Isaa, the  son of Maryam who was the Rasool of Allah’. (However), they neither killed him nor crucified him, but they (the Yahood) were thrown into confusion (regarding Hadhrat Isaa)………..And most certainly they did not kill him. On the contrary, Allah lifted him up to Him. And, Allah is Mighty, The Wise.”  (Surah Nisaa, aayat 157).   

The Qur’aan in this aayat categorically rejects the claim of the death of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). The Yahood had claimed that they had killed Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). Vehemently refuting this claim the Qur’aan affirms the ascension of Nabi Isaa into the Heavens. There is absolutely no difference of opinion among the Authorities of Islam on this belief. It is an  Ijmaaee Belief that this aayat confirms the physical ascension into the Heavens of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). This is the belief of the Mu’mineen  – the unanimous belief from the earliest time of Islam. Any Mulhid who in his stupidity is so audacious as to deny the fact that these beliefs are based on  Ijma’  of the Ummah, should produce his proof in refutation of this claim we are making. 

Aayat No.159 of Surah Nisaa’ states: 

“And there will be none of the Ahl-e-Kitaab, but he will believe in him (Isaa) before his Maut (death).”  

In the tafseer of this aayat, Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“Nabi (alayhis salaam) said: ‘Most assuredly, the Son of Maryam will descend (to earth) as a just ruler. Then he will most certainly slay Dajjaal, kill pigs and destroy crosses. And, (at that time) Sajdah (Ibaadat) will be exclusively for Allah Rabbul Aalameen.’ Then Abu Hurairah said: If you wish recite (aayat No.159)’ He added: ‘Before the Maut of Isaa. He repeated this thrice.”    (Ma-aariful Qur’aan) 

All members of the Ahl-e-Kitaab will ultimately accept Imaan at the hands of Nabi  Isaa (alayhis salaam) before his death. This too testifies to the belief of him still being alive. Millions and millions of Ahl-e-Kitaab have not yet believed in Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) in the way Islam requires belief. This will happen after his   Nuzool from the Heavens. 

The  Nuzool  of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) is further confirmed by aayat 61 of Surah Zukhruf:   “Verily he (Nabi Isaa) is certainly a sign for the Hour. Therefore, never ever doubt in it (i.e. the Hour of Qiyaamah) and obey me.”  
The Mufassireen commenting on this aayat say that Isaa (alayhis salaam) will be a sign of Qiyaamah. This aayat conveys the information of his descent  from Heaven in close proximity to Qiyaamah.. Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas, the eminent Sahaabi who is known as Raeesul Mufassireen, narrated regarding this statement of Allah Ta’ala:  “(It means) the emergence of Isaa (alayhis salaam) before the Day of Qiyaamah.” 

The Nuzool  of Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) presupposes him being alive in the Heaven.The unanimous Belief of the Mu’mineen is that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) was raised bodily into heaven while he was alive; that he is alive in Heaven; that he will return to earth before Qiyaamah. There is complete unanimity of the People of Islam on these beliefs. Only munaafiqeen and mulhideen deny these unanimous beliefs of the Mu’mineen. 

Also declaring that Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) was not killed and that he was raised up bodily into the Heaven, the Qur’aan states:

“O Isaa! I shall cause you to die, and I shall raise you to Me, and I shall exonerate you from the unbelievers…”    (Surah Aale-Imraan, aayat 55) 

There is complete unanimity of the Mufassireen and Authorities of Islam regarding the meaning of this aayat. They all state without any difference that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) was lifted alive and physically into the Heaven. The Authorities of Islam unanimously aver that  Allah “will cause Hadhrat Isaa to die” before Qiyaamah after his descent to earth. It is only mulhideen who have taken up the cause of the Qadiani impostor, Mirza Gulam Ahmad. After thirteen centuries of complete unanimity in the beliefs pertaining to Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam), Mirza, the impostor  presented his kufr misinterpretation and opinion of Isaa’s death, etc. The mulhideen in our day are all the muqallideen of the dajjaal, Mirza of Qadian.

THE SUNNAH 

The proofs of the Sunnah are overwhelming. Only a total  kaafir –  one who  has been destined for Jahannum from the moment he was conceived  – denies the Sunnah with its vast volume of authentic Ahaadith which the Qur’aan Majeed imposes on Muslims to accept and obey as an integral part of Imaan, without which, Imaan is not valid. In many Qur’aanic aayaat, Allah Ta’ala commands:

“Obey Allah and obey the Rasool….. 

This is an oft-repeated aayat and theme of the Qur’aan. In another aayat, the Qur’aan states:   “Whatever the Rasool brings to you, hold on firmly to it, and whatever he forbids you of, abstain from it.” 

Obedience to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with the axiomatic consequence of accepting and submitting to the  Saheeh  Ahaadith is denied only by those who have no share in Imaan. Refutation of the Ahaadith is precisely denial of the Qur’aan which commands obedience to the Rasool. The teachings, instructions, commands, prohibitions and beliefs delivered and explained by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are all encapsulated in the  Saheeh  Ahaadith. Denial of these Ahaadith is denial of  Allah Ta’ala and Islam because it is Allah Ta’ala Who in the Qur’aan Majeed commands acceptance and obedience to the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). That the  Saheeh  Ahaadith are part of  Wahi  revealed by Allah Ta’ala, is confirmed by the aayat:   “He (Muhammad) does not speak of desire (whim, fancy and personal opinion). It (his speech) is nothing but Wahi which is revealed to him (from Allah Ta’ala).”  

If one stupid Mulhid today refutes without being able to furnish the slightest vestige of Shar’i evidence the beliefs pertaining to Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam), then on the basis of the stupid ‘logic’ of Mulhid No.1, tomorrow Mulhid  No.2 can contend that the daily five Salaat are not Fardh because this perculiar institution of Salaat is the product of the apocryphal traditions of the Jews and Christians. The Qur’aan is silent on the number of times, viz.5,  that Salaat has to be performed daily. It is even more silent on the number of raka’ts and the multitude of  masaa-il  related to Salaat.  By the same shaitaani token, Mulhid No.3 can claim that the one fortieth annual Zakaat tax which the Jurists have fixed is based on apocryphal traditions of the Jews and Christians because the Qur’aan is silent on this issue. In fact, the Qur’aan does not even say that Zakaat means payment of money annually. The literal meaning of Zakaat is NOT payment of annual tax. In this way, the multitude of mulhidsmunaafiqs and zindeeqs who lay  hidden among the ranks of the Mu’mineen can torpedo and extinguish the whole of Islam. In fact, this is precisely the conspiracy of the West which is in progress at this moment. The satanic  plot is being spread like mines  and being planted, to bring about total change in the Immutable Shariah by means of “internal initiatives”. This plot is being  applied in different dimensions of Islam. Every mulhid is a cog in this plot.

ALL the Ahaadith on which are based the Islamic doctrines related to Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) are of the highest category of authenticity on par in force and strength with Qur’aanic aayaat in the Shariah’s law-formulation process. Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatirah produc ing the effect of  Qatiyuth Thuboot  (Authenticity of such a lofty degree which does not admit the slightest vestige of uncertainty) constitute the basis for these  Aqaaid. There is not a single authentic Hadith of a lesser class, leave alone Israeli fabrications and apocryphal traditions, which forms the basis for the beliefs pertaining to Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). Only morons, ignoramuses and doomed men with stercoraceous minds will claim that these highly authentic Ahaadith which have the force of Qur’aanic aayat, are the products of the  apocryphal traditions of the Jews and Christians. 

Shayaateen of this ilk imply by their ludicrous opinions that from its very  inception Islam was smothered and it did not attain its pinnacle of perfection to which the Qur’aan attests.
In fact, this noxious opinion of these  juhhaal  leads to the inevitable conclusion that the whole of Islam, in fact the Qur’aan itself, is a fabrication based on Jewish and Christian legend and mythology because it is an irrefutable fact which no sane Muslim or non-Muslim will deny that the authenticity of the Qur’aan is based on Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatirah. Without Hadith there is NO Qur’aan. 

The Qur’aan Kareem makes a brief reference to the physical lifting of Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) just as it makes a brief reference to Zakaat in its verses, and just as it makes brief references to Salaat in the verses commanding Salaat. The elaboration of these concepts and institutions has been assigned to the Ahaadith. Thus, the Qur’aan Majeed commands:  “Verily whoever has obeyed the Rasool has obeyed Allah.”  

In exactly the same concise style  the Qur’aan refers to the descent of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam), leaving the explanation to the Ahaadith. These Ahaadith as mentioned earlier are of the  Tawaatur  category, denial of which is kufr of the highest degree. Haafiz Bin Hajar states this fact explicitly in Fathul Baari, Sharh (commentary) of Bukhaari Shareef. The illustrious Mufassir, Haafiz Ibn Katheer confirms these Ahaadith and their category in his famous Tafseer. In  Tal-kheesul Habeer, Haafiz Ibn Hajar states:

“All the authorities of Hadith and Tafseer have concurred  that the ascension of Isaa (alayhis salaam) was a physical ascension.” 

Haafiz Ibn Katheer has compiled in his Tafseer ten big pages full with these Ahaadith which state and describe Hadhrat Isaa’s bodily ascension while he was alive, his presence in the Heaven in his physical state, i.e. with his physical body, and his appearance on earth in close proximity to Qiyaamah. It has been explicitly mentioned that these issues are  Ijmaaee, Qat’i and Ittifaaqi  in which there exists absolutely no difference of opinion. 

The entire life of Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) was a  Mu’jizah (Divine Miracle). His mother, Hadhrat Maryam (alayhas salaam) was a Virgin. He was born  without the agency of a father. He spoke when he was an infant of a day old proclaiming his Nubuwwat and the Ahkaam of Salaat and Zakaat. He left this world alive in the miraculous state of ascension into the Heavens. He lives there to this day, alive in the way all human beings are alive. His descent to earth will be miraculous. His task of slaying Dajjaal will be miraculous. Are all these irrefutable facts of Imaan the products of the apocryphal traditions of the Jews and Christians? Only men whose kufr was stamped on their hearts when they were still in the wombs of their mothers can have the audacity of denying these  Aqaaid  of incontrovertible truth. 

We supplicate to Allah Ta’ala to preserve our Imaan and to eliminate the kufr from the hearts of the mulhideen in our midst. After all, Allah Ta’ala has the power to eliminate kufr from even the sealed and stamped hearts of zindeeqs. “Verily, Allah has power over all things.”

NUZUL (Decension) of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam)

By Hazrat Maulana Muhammed Badre-Alam

Common Muslim belief

Muslims believe that Nabi Isaa (Alayhis Salaam) will suffer a natural death after Nuzul  (decension).  They differ with other people only about his previous death.     

According to common Muslim  belief Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) has been taken up to the heavens bodily alive and that he will return to this world and die a natural death.  There are no sectarian differences among Muslims on these points from the early days of Islam.  Not to speak of many other incidents of his life which strongly disprove the Divinity of Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam), the belief about future death stands out almost as final repudiation of  such  divinity. Consequently, once you believe in his physical birth and death there remains absolutely no risk of conceding even a shadow of divinity though you also believe that  he had ascended safely to the heavens.      

Here we may refer to the interpretation of  “I shall receive you” as “I will cause  you to die”  which has been given by Hazrat Ibne Abbas and so it is no way inconsistent with beliefs entertained by Muslims.  The suggested interpretation can neither be correctly to the great commentator of  Qur’aan nor has it been countenanced by any Muslim authority of repute.  In fact there are several other traditions on the authority of Hazrat Ibne Abbas which unequivocally affirm the common Muslim belief that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) will descend into this world and thereafter die a natural death.        

“KITAABUT  TAFSEER” AND “CONSTRUCTION OF WORDS” IN “KITABUL TAFSEER” BY IMAM BUKHARI THE CHAPTER RELATION TO “CONSTRUCTION OF WORDS” HAS NOT BEEN WRITTEN BY HIM BUT WAS COMPILED BY IMAM UBAIDA IBNE HAZM.    

People of deficient knowledge have fallen victim to serious mis understanding in that the single version of Hazrat Ibne-Abass referred to, occurs in the compilation of Imam Bukhari which fact leads to an inference that the latter also agreed with it. Besides the foregoing comments, it may not be overlooked that in this very compilation elsewhere specific traditions relating to “Nuzul” are included.  How then can it be argued that death of  Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam) mentioned in the version in dispute signifies a foregoing one.  Since in the other traditions the views of Hazrat Ibne Abass are clearly brought out,  why not infer that Imam Bukhari held the same belief, knowing as we do that Bukhari itself records numerous traditions to that effect and the Imam must be supposed to have taken full responsibility for the authenticity of these traditions.     

Another authority who is often quoted in  support of the view of previous death is Ibne Hazm.  The uncorroborated opinion of a single authority of medium rank can hardly have any weight against the unanimous pronouncements of leading Ulama. And Ibne Hazm is already notorious in holding arbitrary views on different subjects.  He too in certain places has clearly opined that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) is destined to descend to the earth towards  the end.  In his well- known book,  Al Muhalla, page 391, he has described the doctrine of “Nuzul” as one of the basic beliefs of  the majority of Muslims.  The same opinion has been expressed by him in  Kitaabul-Fasl,  see pages 23, 55, 73, 77 and 87.  One such extract from the book runs as follows:     

“The reliable narrators who  have conveyed to us the doctrines of prophethood of our Holy Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) proclaimed that no new Prophet will appear after him except Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam).  The prediction of his “Nuzul” is embodied in authentic traditions.  It is the same apostle of Allah who had been sent unto Bani Israel and whom the Jews claimed to have killed by crucifixion.  Hence it is incumbent upon us to believe in these things. And it is proved from reliable sources that no new Nubuwwat will exist after the passing away of our Holy Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

THE FUQAHA AND TODAYS SO-CALLED ‘MUJTAHIDS’

THE IMPERATIVE NEED TO REFER TO ONLY THE FUQAHA

“One Faqeeh is sterner on shaitaan than a thousand Aabids.” (Hadith)

(Aabid is a man of adequate knowledge who devotes the greater part of his life to only ibaadat. However, he lacks in the divinely bestowed attribute of faqaahat — a Noor of Understanding which Allah Ta’ala infuses into the heart of the Mu’min.)

The Chain of the Fuqaha commences with the Sahaabah who were the Students of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). While all the Sahaabah were not Fuqaha, a great many were Fuqaha (Jurists of Islam) of the highest class. These Fuqaha among the Sahaabah spread out into the distant lands of the Islamic Empire after the demise of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They imparted and disseminated the Ilm of the Qur’aan to those who became the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and Fuqaha of the first and highest class in the era of the Taabieen.

The Taabieen duplicated the function and the activities of their Sahaabah-Ustaadhs. In this way, from one generation to the next, came into existence great and illustrious Fuqaha who raised the Edifice of the Divine Immutable Shariah on the Foundations of the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

THE MUJTAHID IMAMS

The vital and indispensable links  in the Chain of the Shariah  leading up to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are  the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen such  as Imaam Abu Hanifah  (Rahmatullah alayh), Imaam Maalik (Rahmatullah alayh) and many other Mujtahid Imaams of  the Salafus Saaliheen era of the  first and second centuries of Islam.

The Aimmah Mujtahideen had structured the edifice of the  Shariah on the basis of the  Qur’aan and Ahaadith which  reached them authentically from  the Sahaabah. Numerous of the  Taabieen Ulama were among the Aimmah Mujtahideen. Minus the  Aimmah Mujtahideen, there is no  Islam. These Mujtahid Imaams are  a special group of the greatest Ulama created by Allah Ta’ala for the specific task of formulating  and codifying the Shariah. Hence, (Sallallahu  Rasulullah alayhi wasallam) ordered his Sahaabah to deliver to posterity every Hadith. He added that some of those to whom the Ahaadith would be delivered will understand it more than those who had delivered it. This was a reference to the Aimmah Mujtahideen. Numerous of them were the direct Students of the  Sahaabah. Nothing of Islam can be separated from the Aimmah  Mujtahideen.

This was that Jamaat of Men whom Allah Ta’ala had chosen to guard and defend the Deen of Islam. There is no comparison with them. They were unique in every aspect. They were Fuqaha, Muhadditheen, Mufassireen, etc. of the highest category. None of the later Muhadditheen such as Imaam Bukhaari (rahmatullah alayh) attained the rank of Ilm which was occupied by the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen.

No one, neither Muhaddith nor Mufassir of any age, was independent of the Fuqaha. Every authority in Islam on any subject had to incumbently refer to and bow their heads in subservience to the Fuqaha. For the safety of Imaan the need to accept without scrutinization and with complete submission the rulings of the Fuqaha, is imperative. Whoever has attempted to set himself up as an adversary to the Fuqaha has miserably failed and ended up in the dregs of deception and deviation —far, very far from Siraatul Mustaqeem. Hakimul Ummat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayh) explains the imperative nature of submission to the Fuqaha in the following answer to a question posed to him.

QUESTION

Whenever the Ahnaaf Ulama issue a fatwa on any mas’alah, they always refer to Durr-e-Mukhtaar, Raddul Muhtaar, Shaami, Aalamghiri, etc. They do not say: ‘Allah said so or Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said so…’ Why have they adopted this practice when Qur’aanic and Hadith references are more convincing to a Mu’min?

ANSWER by Hakimul Ummat

“In fact, you have not even seen the kutub of the Ahnaaf Ulama.  You will find for example Hidaaya replete with Aayaat and Ahaadith references. The same will be found in Badaai’ and Mabsoot. The same applies for Durr-e-Mukhtaar and Raddul Muhtaar. Why do present-day Muftis refrain from citing the Qur’aan and Hadith? Its answer is that today all Ulama are Muqallideen. They do not possess the ability to deduct ahkaam directly from the Qur’aan and Hadith. It is for this reason they cite the reference of such Ulama-e-Mujtahideen who had made use of ijtihad and had compiled the kutub.

If they do not do so, and of their own accord deduct masaail from the Qur’aan and Hadith, even the questioner will have no confidence. Furthermore, such a Mufti is the victim of thousands of errors. When he is not on the pedestal of Ijtihaad, how can he employ ijtihaad to formulate masaail from the Qur’aan and Hadith? Besides reading the superficial translation and deceiving people, he does nothing else. In the present age, there is a group of people who are trapped in the disease of self-deception imagining themselves to be among the Mujtahideen.

If their ‘ijtihaad’ is examined, the state of their error will be understood. In view of the condition of today’s claimants of ijtihaad, it is the Ruling of the Ulama that taqleed of the illustrious Predecessors (the Salf) is Waajib.  Hence, they issue Fataawa by reference to these kutub in which are compiled the Ahkaam which have been formulated on the basis of the Qur’aan and Hadith (by the Aimmah-e-Mujtahiddeen)”

(Imdaadul Ahkaam, Vol.1, page 228)

IJTIHAAD AND ITS CLAIMANTS

In this age of liberalism, the disease of pride has impelled many half-baked students of Deeni knowledge to lay claims to Ijtihaad and to imagine that they are Mujtahiddeen, Muhadditheen and Mufassireen. They consider themselves competent to deduct Shar’i ahkaam directly from the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and feel themselves independent of the Fuqaha.

In this regard, Shaikh Yusuf Bin Ismaaeel An-Nibhaani writes in his treatise, Hujjatullaahi Alal Aalameen:

     “Today it is only a man who is mentally deranged and whose Deen is corrupt, who will lay claim to Ijtihaad. This has been said by Shaikhul Akbar Muhayyuddin. Imaam Al-Munaawi said in his Sharhul Kabir alal Jaami’is Saghir that Allaamah Shihaab Ibn Hajar Al-Haitami said:

“When Al-Jalaal As-Suyuti claimed Ijtihaad (for himself), his contemporaries (among the Ulama) stood up and unanimously criticized him. They forwarded to him a questionnaire consisting of a number of questions (each one having) two views. They said that if he possessed the ability of the lowest category of Ijtihaad, namely, Ijtihaadul Fatwa, then he should comment on the Raajih (Preferred view) from the views presented, and he should expound the daleel for each view in terms of the principles of the Mujtahideen. Allaamah Suyuti returned the questionnaire without answering the questions and presented the excuse of the volume of work which prevents him from studying the questions.”

Ibn Hajar then adds: Now ponder the colossal difficulty of this category, namely Ijtihaadul Fatwa, which is the lowest category of Ijtihaad. It will then become manifest to you that the one who lays claim to even this lowest category of ijtihaad, leave alone Ijtihaad-e-Mutlaq, is trapped in bewildering confusion in his affairs and he languishes in mental corruption. He is among those who wander aimlessly in blindness”

Imaam Nawawi says in Ar-Raudhah:“Istimbaat (Deducting masaail) directly from the Kitaab (Qur’aan) and Sunnah is not permissible except for one who has attained the pedestal of Ijtihaad. This has been explicitly said (by the Fuqaha).”

Grievous errors are nowadays perpetrated by mediocre molvis who ludicrously seek to elevate themselves to the pedestal occupied by the illustrious Mujtahideen of the  early eras of Islam. The miscreant molvis, due to half-baked or quarter baked knowledge, awed by the methodology of the deviate Salafis of our time, commit the fatal blunder of digging in the Kutub of Ahaadith. They extract a Hadith, subject it to their opinion to formulate masaa-il to appease the Salafi Manhaaj (ideology).

We refute and oppose Salafis day & night for negating the rulings & usuls based by Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and their clinging onto the isolated views of the seventh century Aalim, Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) & his student Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahullah), but it has now become a norm that our very own Muqallid Molvis are making flawed-ijtihad to support their views, while they pick and choose from personal views of different scholars to suit their agenda resulting in negating the ruling made by Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen.

For example, some molvis cite the personal view of 8th century scholar Imam al-Suyuti (rahimahullah) to subtantiate Mawlid while negating the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen who didn’t formulate a day for Mawlid nor they heeded the Salaf who never celebrated Mawlid.

If such personal opinions of scholars are made a daleel in the Shariah, then we would have never criticized the salafis for their deviance!. Therefore, personal opinions of the later day scholars which opposes the Ijmaa’i view of the Imam’s of  Math-hab’s cannot be identified as hujjah in the Shariah.

Then on the other hand, the modern-day Molvis are making flawed ‘ijtihad’ and labelling Riba (Interest) as ‘Profit’ and legalizing it while negating the unanimous view of Riba being haraam as per the rulings of the Imams from the Khairul-Khuroon epoch.

Nowadays, the modern scholars are legalizing Digital pictures, this too results in total rejection of the unanimous view of the 4 Madh-habs rulings on this issue who declared pictures as haraam irrespective of any modern-day techniques to produce it.

We have mentioned a few examples above, while there are many such instances where the modern-day scholars make their own personal opinions while rejecting the rulings of Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen.

The Consequences of such rulings based on personal ‘Ijtihaad’ is that the lay-person are deprived of the original rulings of Aimmah Mujtahideen and they fall into deviancy as similar to that of Salafis & Bidatis.

Formulating masaa-il on the  basis of the Hadith and Qur’aan  was the function of only the  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen. That  methodology has ended during the era of Khairul Quroon. The  corrupt methodology of the  Salafis is haraam, and may not be  emulated. Masaa-il decided and  finalized by the Aimmah Mujtahideen are not open for interpretation/re-interpretation  and mutilation. Islam was finalized and perfected during  the very time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as    the Qur’aan confirms. Re-interpretation is explicit KUFR.

There is no need to comment further on those who have embarked on deviation on the basis of their misconceived ability of ‘ijtihaad’.

DOORS OF IJTIHAAD ARE CLOSED

Question: What is meant by the doors of Ijtihaad are closed? If  Ijthaad is no longer permissible,  how will the status of the many  new developing issues be  decided? Innumerable things did  not exist during the age of the  Sahaabah, Taabieen and Tab-e-Taabieen. Please explain.

Answer: The Doors of Ijtihaad being closed applies to the Usool  (Principles) and Furoo’ detailed  masaa-il) formulated by the  Aimmah Mujtahideen. The issues which the Aimmah Mujtahideen  had settled and finalized may not be subjected to ijtihaad. For  example, the Aimmah  Mujtahideen of all Math-habs have unanimously ruled that  three Talaaqs uttered in one  breath are three, not one as the  deviant Salafis opine on the  basis of their understanding of  certain Hadith narrations.

The Doors of Ijtihaad having  closed is not applicable to new  development e.g. preforming Salaat on the moon or using  scientific instruments/ calculations to determine the  Islamic months or to decide the  permissibility or impermissibility  of performing Salaat in the air or  for deciding the impermissibility  of digital picture, etc., etc.

The rulings for all new developments will be based on  the Principles evolved by the  Aimmah Muhtahideen and also  on similar particular mas’alahs  already existing in the Shariah. Re-interpreting existing Principles and Particulars is  haraam.

The Deviant Beliefs of ‘Sir’ Sayyid Ahmad Khan

image
'Sir' Sayyid Ahmad Khan

[By Maulana Mufti Muhammad Na‛im Sahib and translated by Maulana Mahomedy]

Naturalism: the belief that all religious truth is based not on revelation but rather on the study of natural causes and processes.

(Collins English Dictionary)

Background

After the end of Muslim rule in India and the arrival of the British there, the naturalist sect was the first deviated sect to come into existence. [Aqa’id Islam, vol.1, p. 179].

Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan was a Ghayr Muqallid in the beginning. He then became a mujtahid. When he went to England, he became a mulhid. Subsequently, he openly commenced propagating his naturalist sect. [Imdad al-Fatawa, vol. 6, p.167]

The British formed this sect with the sole purpose of dividing the Muslims so that they [British] could rule over India without interference or hindrance. They put Sir Sayyid to proper use for this purpose. The following is noted by an insightful Englishman:

Every person belonging to our government in India – whether he is involved in foreign affairs, the courts or the administration of the army – must always bear in mind the principle of divide and rule.

In order to realize their objective, the British first utilized Sir Sayyid. The above statement of the Englishman is more or less conveyed by Sir Sayyid in the following way:

The disruption and disorder which we experienced is solely as a consequence of the ingratitude of the Indians. You did not show gratitude to God and have always been ungrateful. God imposed this situation on you Indians because of your ingratitude, and allowed you to experience again a sample of the government of former times, after he suspended English rule for a short time.

Sir Sayyid was the one who referred to the 1857 war for independence as a rebellion and a mutiny [Sarkashi Dila‛ Bijnaur, p. 47]. On the other hand, Muslims considered it to be a battle for independence.

Sir Sayyid himself writes that there is none from among the Muslim Nawabs and Hindu noblemen in Bijnaur district who has the ability to rule so that the masses could live in an atmosphere of justice and peace.
[Ibid. pp.75-76].

This is why Sir Sayyid constantly received titles from the British government. Queen Victoria referred to him as CSI.

Furthermore, in order to please the British government, Sir Sayyid audaciously changed Islamic teachings in a manner which is not possible for a Muslim. [Angrez Ke Baghi Musalman, p. 408]

It was Sir Sayyid’s view that Muslims should adopt British culture and ways so that they can acquire honour in the eyes of the British. This is why he opened ‛Ali Garh College. He and his ilk made the intellect the basis for  everything and rejected anything  which could not be fathomed  through the intellect.

This sect came into existence  around the year 1855. A group of  people accepted his beliefs. The  more well-known among them  were the following: Nawab Muhsin al-Mulk, Deputy Nadhir Ahmad Khan Dehlawi, Shams al-‛Ulama’ Maulwi Dhaka’ullah Dehlawi, Altaf Husayn Hali,  Maulwi Mushtaq Husayn, Nawab Intisar Jang, Maulwi Chiragh ‛Ali Khan, Mahdi ‛Ali Khan, Nawab A‛zam Mahir Jang, Shibli Nu‛mani A‛zamgarhi and others.

A Short Biography of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan

He was born on 17 October 1817  in Delhi. His early studies were  undertaken at home. His father  passed away when he was quite  young. This is why he had to find  employment. He commenced by  working as a permanent  government employee.

He was then employed by the  East India Company and then  made into an associate in the  court. He continued progressing  in this way. During the war for independence, he was a sub-judge in Bijnaur. He progressed  further and became the District Magistrate. He was then  transferred to Muradabad. While  in Muradabad, he wrote Asbab  Baghawat-e-Hind and other  books.

He was transferred to  Ghazipur in 1862 where he established the Scientific Society  whose aim was to translate  English scientific literature into  Urdu. He also opened a school  here.

When he was transferred to ‛Ali  Garh in 1864, he moved the  offices of the Scientific Society  from Ghazipur to ‛Ali Garh. From  here he published a periodical under the auspices of ‛Ali Garh Institute. Its publication continued until his death.

His beliefs: Sir Sayyid was initially a Ghayr Muqallid. He then started making his own ijtihad. He proceeded to England in 1869 with his sons. The path to atheism opened from there and he began propagating his beliefs.

He wrote several books, some of which are:

(1) A’in Akbari.
(2) Tarikh Firoz Shahi (with corrections and footnotes).
(3) Athar as-Sanadid.
(4) Tahdhib al-Akhlaq.
(5) Asbab Baghawat-e-Hind. He passed away on 27 March 1898 in ‛Ali Garh and was buried near the College.

Beliefs And Doctrines

1. There is no such a thing as angels. [Tahdhib al-Akhlaq, vol. 3, p. 31; Tafsir al-Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 46].

2. There is no such a thing as Shaytan. [Tahdhib al-Akhlaq, vol. 3, p. 31]

3. Hadrat Adam ‛alayhis salam did not eat of the forbidden tree. [Tahdhib al-Akhlaq, vol. 3, p. 31]

4. There is no punishment in the grave. [Tahdhib al-Akhlaq, vol. 3, p. 65]

5. He rejects Paradise and Hell. [Tahdhib al-Akhlaq, vol. 3, p. 110; Tafsir al-Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 39]

6. There will be no bodily resurrection. [Tahdhib al-Akhlaq, vol. 3, p. 110; Tafsir al-Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 39]

7. There is no such a thing as doe-eyed damsels of Paradise. [Tahdhib al-Akhlaq, vol. 3, p. 110; Tafsir al-Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 39]

8. He rejects pre-destination. [Tahdhib al-Akhlaq, vol. 3, p. 9]

9. He rejects miracles. [Tahdhib al-Akhlaq, vol. 3, p. 31]

10. The heavens do not exist. [Nur al-Afaq, vol. 2, p. 52]

11. Ijma‛ is not a valid proof. [Nur al-Afaq, vol. 2, p. 52]

12. No abrogation took place in the Qur’an. [Nur al-Afaq, vol. 4, p. 16]

13. Pictures of animate things are permissible. [Nur al-Afaq, vol. 14, p. 115]

14. Most Ahadith are not authentic. [Nur al-Afaq, vol. 14, p. 187]

15. There is no such a thing as jinn. [Nur al-Afaq, vol. 5, p. 7]

16. He rejects the miracles of Hadrat Musa ‛alayhis salam. [Nur al-Afaq, vol. 5, p. 54]

17. Hadrat ‛Isa ‛alayhis salam passed away and he was not raised to the heavens. [Nur al-Afaq, vol. 22, p. 6]

18. Hadrat ‛Isa ‛alayhis salam had a father. [Nur al-Afaq, vol. 1, p. 3]

19. He rejects the miracle of the splitting of the moon. [Nur al-Afaq, vol. 9, p. 1]

20. He rejects the opening of the chest of Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam. Anyone who rejects this is not a kafir according to him. [Nur al-Afaq, vol. 1, p. 1]

21. He rejects the Mi‛raj. [Ibid]

22. He rejects Imam Mahdi. He will not come before the day of Resurrection. [Nur al-Afaq, vol. 3, p. 96]

23. An ordinary person can be equal to a Prophet. [Nur al-Afaq, vol. 3, p. 57]

24. No Prophet perfected the teaching of tauhid. (Allah forbid) all their teachings on tauhid were defective. [Nur al-Afaq, vol. 3, p. 63]

25. There is no such a thing as conveying rewards to the deceased (Isal-e-thawab). [Nur al-Afaq, (Jumada al-Ula/Ramadan 96)]

Answers From The Qur’an And Hadith to Naturalist Beliefs And Doctrines

1st Belief: Angels Do Not Exist.

Answer

This belief is against the Qur’an and Hadith. There are countless verses in the Qur’an which make reference to angels. For example:

Thereupon the angels prostrated all of them together. Except for Iblis. [Surah al-Hijr, 15: 30-31]

Angels are mentioned in several places in the Qur’an. Some of them are:

Surah al-Baqarah – 10 verses Surah Al ‛Imran – 8 verses
Surah an-Nisa’ – 4 verses
Surah al-A‛raf – 5 verses
Surah al-Anfal – 3 verses
Surah Hud – 2 verses
Surah Yusuf – 1 verse
Surah ar-Ra‛d – 2 verses
Surah al-Hijr – 4 verses
Surah an-Nahl – 5 verses
Surah al-Isra’ – 4 verses
Surah al-Kahf – 1 verse
Surah Ta Ha – 1 verse
Surah al-Ambiya’ – 1 verse
Surah al-Hajj – 1 verse
Surah al-Mu’minun – 1 verse
Surah al-Furqan – 4 verses
Surah as-Sajdah – 1 verse
Surah al-Ahzab – 2 verses
Surah as-Saba’ – 1 verse
Surah Fatir – 1 verse
Surah as-Saffat – 1 verse
Surah Sad – 2 verses
Surah az-Zumar – 1 verse
Surah al-Muddath-thir – 1 verse Surah an-Naba’ – 1 verse

When your Sustainer said to the angels: I am going to make a vicegerent in the earth. [Surah al-Baqarah, 2: 30]

When We ordered the angels: “Prostrate to Adam”, they all fell into prostration except Iblis. [Surah al-Baqarah, 2: 34]

The Ahadith mention the angels in many places. For example:

Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam said: When it is Laylatul Qadr, Jibril descends with a troop of angels. [Mishkat, vol.1, p.183]

The person who reads Surah ad-Dukhan at night shall wake up the next morning with 70,000 angels seeking forgiveness for him. [Mishkat, vol. 1, p.187]

Allah ta‛ala read Surahs Ta Ha and Ya Sin 1,000 years before He created the heavens and the earth. When the angels heard the Qur’an being recited, they said: Glad tidings to the nation on which this will be revealed. Glad tidings to the hearts which will memorize this. Glad tidings to the tongues which will read this. [Mishkat, vol.1, p.187]

The books of aqa’id state that belief in the angels is from among the essentials of Din and that rejecting the angels is undoubtedly kufr. [Aqaa’id Islam]

2nd Belief: Rejection of Shaytan

Answer

Rejecting the existence of Shaytan entails rejecting the Qur’an and Hadith because he is mentioned in countless places. For example:

Except Iblis. He did not obey and displayed arrogance. And he was from the unbelievers. [Surah al-Baqarah, 2: 34]

Then Satan caused them to slip from that place and removed them from that honour and comfort in which they were.   [Surah al-Baqarah, 2:36]

Those who devour usury (interest) will not rise on the day of Resurrection except as the rising of a person whose senses Satan has squandered by clinging (to him).  [Surah al-Baqarah, 2: 275]

Shaytan is mentioned profusely in the Ahadith as well. For example:

Hadrat Abu Hurayrah radiyallahu ‛anhu said: Shaytan comes to one of you and asks: Who created this, who created that? [Mishkat, vol.1, p.18]

Shaytan flows in man just as blood flows in him. [Bukhari and Muslim]

Every infant that is born is most certainly touched by Shaytan at the time of his birth. [Bukhari and Muslim]

3rd Belief: Hadrat Adam Did Not Eat The Forbidden Fruit

Answer

This is also against the Qur’an and Hadith. For example:

Do not approach this tree or else you will become of the transgressors. [Surah al-Baqarah, 2:35]

Your Sustainer did not forbid you from this tree except for the reason that you might become angels or that you live forever.  [Surah al-A‛raf, 7:20]

Did I not prohibit you from that tree and did I not tell you that Satan is your open enemy?   [Surah al-A‛raf, 7: 22]

4th Belief: Rejection of Punishment of The Grave

Answer

This belief is also against the Qur’an and Hadith. For example:

It is the fire which is displayed before them in the morning and evening. [Surah al-Mu’min, 40:46]

Behind them is a veil till a day when they shall be raised. [Surah al-Mu’minun, 23:100]

Now today you will be recompensed with a humiliating punishment. [Surah al-Ahqaf, 46: 20]

The ‛ulama’ state that there are countless Ahadith which affirm the punishment of the grave. The Muhaddithun classify them as mutawatir Ahadith which cannot be rejected. For example:

Hadrat ‛A’ishah radiyallahu ‛anha narrates that a Jewish woman came to her and was talking about punishment of the grave. The woman said to her: “May Allah protect you from the punishment of the grave.” ‛A’ishah radiyallahu ‛anha then asked Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam about punishment of the grave and he said: “Yes, the punishment of the grave is certain.” ‛A’ishah radiyallahu ‛anha relates: Subsequently whenever Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wa sallam performed a salah, he sought refuge in Allah ta‛ala from the punishment of the grave.” [Bukhari and Muslim]

Hadrat Abu Sa‛id Khudri radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates that Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wa sallam said: Ninety nine serpents are let loose on an unbeliever in his grave. They continue biting and stinging him until the day of Resurrection. If just one of those serpents were to spit on earth, it will not produce any greenery. [Darimi and Tirmidhi]

Hadrat Asma’ bint Abi Bakr radiyallahu ‛anha narrates: Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wa sallam stood up to deliver a sermon and he spoke about the tribulation of the grave which would put a person to test. When he related this, the Muslims began screaming and crying. [Bukhari]

5th Belief: Rejection of Paradise And Hell

Answer

The Qur’an and Hadith mention Paradise and Hell profusely. For example:

Those who continued fearing their Sustainer will be driven towards Paradise in groups. Till when they reach it and its gates are opened, its keepers will say to them: “Peace be upon you. You are pure people. So enter it, abiding therein forever. [Surah az-Zumar, 39:73]

Enter it with peace. This is the day of eternity. [Surah Qaf, 50: 34]

As for those who are fortunate, they shall be in Paradise. Abiding therein as long as the heavens and the earth endure. [Surah Hud, 11:108]

Those who were unbelievers shall be driven towards Hell in groups.   [Surah az-Zumar, 39: 71]

Similarly, Paradise and Hell are mentioned profusely in the Ahadith. For example:

I will be the first to knock on the door of Paradise.  [Muslim]

I will go to the door of Paradise on the day of Resurrection and ask for it to be opened. The guard will ask: “Who are you?” I will reply: “Muhammad.” He will say: “I was ordered not to open it for anyone before you.” [Muslim]

Hell is mentioned abundantly in the Qur’an and Hadith. For example:

For them is a bed of Hell [from below].  [Surah al-A‛raf, 7:41]

However, those who are sinners, they shall remain in the punishment of Hell forever.   [Surah az-Zukhruf, 43: 74]

The following is stated in the books of aqa’id: 

Paradise and Hell have already been created. [Sharh Aqa’id Nasafi]

They will remain forever; they will never perish. There is unanimity of the ummat in this regard.

‛Allamah Shihab ad-Din Khifaji rahimahullah writes:

We classify as a kafir the one who rejects Paradise and Hell themselves or the places in them. [Naseem ul Riyadh]

6th Belief: Rejection of Physical Resurrection

Answer

This belief is against the Qur’an, Hadith and consensus of the ummat. We learn from several Qur’anic verses that after dying, people will be raised with their physical bodies on the day of Resurrection. For example:

The trumpet will be blown. They will then rush forth from their graves towards their Sustainer. [Surah Ya Sin, 36:51]

He puts forth for Us a simile and forgets his [own] creation. He says: “Who will give life to the bones when they have crumbled to dust?” Say: “He will give life to them who had created them the first time. And He knows every creation.” [Surah Ya Sin, 36:78-79]

Similarly, it is learnt from countless Ahadith that people will be assembled on the field of Resurrection. For example:

People will be assembled on a single plain on the day of Resurrection. [Mishkat, 487]

People will be assembled on the day of Resurrection on a white field which will be level like a flat loaf of bread with no sign on it. [Mishkat, 482]

‛A’ishah radiyallahu ‛anha narrates: I asked Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam about the verse: “The day when the earth and heavens will be replaced by another earth”, where will people be on that day? He replied: They will be on the Sirat (the bridge over Hell). [Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 482]

The books of aqa’id state that the concept of life after death is as clear as the day. This is unanimously accepted by the ummat and there is no room whatsoever for any rationalization. [Aqa’id al-Islam, vol. 1, p. 83]

People who reject this are out of the fold of Islam. The ‛ulama’ of every era classified such people as kafirs. [Ibid. vol. 2, p. 92]

7th Belief: Rejection of Doe-Eyed Damsels of Paradise 

Answer

This belief is against the Qur’an and Hadith. The Qur’an makes several references to the doe-eyed damsels of Paradise. For example:

There are maidens confined to tents. [Surah ar-Rahman, 55:72]

Therein are women of modest gaze, whom neither man nor jinn will have touched before.   [Surah ar-Rahman, 55:56]

We created those maidens in a wonderful way. We then made them virgins. Loving companions of the same age. [Surah al-Waqi‛ah, 56: 35-37]

The Ahadith also mention the doe-eyed damsels profusely. For example:ََََّْْ

When a person stands up for salah, Paradise is opened for him, the veils between himself and His Allah are removed, and he faces the doe-eyed damsel as long as he does not spit nor blows his nose. [Tabarani]

The number of doe-eyed damsels is much more than you. They pray for their partners thus: O Allah! Assist him on Your Din, turn his heart to Your obedience, O the most Merciful of those who show mercy! Convey him to us with Your special proximity. [Al-Targheeb Wa’l Tarheeb]

If a person suppresses his anger while having the ability to give vent to it, Allah ta‛ala shall call him before the entire creation on the day of Resurrection and give him the choice to choose whichever doe-eyed damsel he likes.

8th Belief: Rejection of Predestination

Answer

The Ahl as-Sunnah’s belief is that Allah ta‛ala has knowledge of everything before the occurrence of incidents and events. Allah ta‛ala recorded all this in the Preserved Tablet. The issue of predestination is proven from countless Qur’anic verses and Ahadīth. For example:

That if Allah wills, He could have brought all the people to the path. [Surah ar-Ra‛d, 13: 31]

But you cannot will it unless Allah, the master of all the worlds, wills. [Surah at-Takwir, 71: 29]

Allah leads astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills.   [Surah al-Muddath-thir, 74:31]

Belief in predestination is also explained profusely in the Ahadith. For example:

Hadrat ‛Abdullah ibn ‛Amr radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates that Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam said: Allah ta‛ala recorded the destinies of the creations 50,000 years before He created the heavens and earth. His Throne was on water at that time. [Muslim]

Hadrat ‛Abdullah ibn ‛Umar radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates that Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam said: Everything is predetermined – even incapability and intelligence. [Muslim]

Hadrat Sahl ibn Sa‛d radiyallāhu ‛anhu narrates that Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam said: A person continues doing the actions of the people of the Hell-fire but he becomes of the people of Paradise. A person continues doing the actions of the people of Paradise but he becomes of the people of the Hell-fire. [Bukhari]

9th Belief: Rejection of Miracles

Answer

A definition of a miracle:

The majority of theologians define a miracle as a matter which is different from the norm accompanied with tahaddi, i.e. a claim to messenger-ship, while it cannot be opposed.

Miracles are given to Prophets by Allah ta‛ala so that they can serve as proofs of their messenger-ship and prophet-hood. This is clarified in many places in the Qur’an. For example:

So these are two evidences from your Sustainer. [Surah al-Qasas, 28:32]

This is because there used to come to them their Messengers with clear signs. But they rejected [them]. So Allah seized them. Surely He is powerful, severe in punishment. [Surah al-Mu’min, 40:22]

We gave to Musa nine clear signs   [Surah Bani Isra’il,17:101]

We have come to you with a sign from your Sustainer. [Surah Ta Ha, 20:47]

The Ahadith also describe the miracles of the Prophets ‛alayhimus salam. For example:

Hadrat Jabir radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates: The people got thirsty at Hudaybiyah. Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam had a pitcher of water from which he performed wudu’. The people went towards him. He asked them: “What is it?” They replied: “We do not have any water for wudu’ or to drink except the water which you have in front of you.” Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam placed his hand in the pitcher and water began gushing forth like fountains. We drank and performed wudu’. The narrator asked Jabir: “How many people were you?” He replied: “If we were 100,000 it would have sufficed us. We were 1,500.” [Bukhari & Muslim]

Hadrat Barra’ ibn ‛Azib radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates: We were about 1,400 with Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam at Hudaybiyah. There was a well whose water we used up, not leaving a single drop. When Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam came to know of this, he came to the well, sat on its edge, and asked for a utensil of water. He performed wudu’, then gargled his mouth and threw that water into the well. He said: “Leave the well for a little while.” Thereafter, all who were present satiated their thirst from it, and gave to their animals also. They continued utilizing water from the well until they departed. [Bukhari]

Hadrat ‛Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates: I was with Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam in Makkah when we went to one of its outlying areas. As we were walking, every rock and tree which came before him [on the path] greeted him by saying: “Peace be to you, O Rasulullah!” [Tirmidhi, Daarimi]

10th Belief: Rejection of Ijma‛

Answer

Ijma‛ refers to the unanimity of the jurists and mujtahids on an injunction of the Shari‛ah in any era after the era of Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam.

It becomes necessary to practise on it as it is to practise on the Qur’an and Hadith. Ijma‛ is proven from the Qur’an and Hadith.

Hold fast to the rope of Allah altogether and do not sow dissension [Surah Al ‛Imran, 3:103]

O believers! Continually fear Allah and remain with the truthful.   [Surah at-Taubah, 9: 119]

Whoever opposes the Messenger after the straight path has become manifest to him and treads the path against all the Muslims, We shall hand him over to that which he himself has chosen and We shall cast him into Hell. He has reached a very evil place. [Surah an-Nisa’, 4:115 ]

There are many Ahadith on the subject of ijma‛ which are classified as mutawatir. A mutawatir Hadith refers to a Hadith which has been related by such a large number of people in every era that it is impossible for so many of them to concur on fabricating a lie or committing a mistake.

My ummah or the ummah of Muhammad (sallallahu ‛alayhi wa sallam) will never concur on deviation. Allah’s hand is on the group. The one who separates himself [from the main body] shall be separated in the Hell-fire. [Tirmidhi]

The condition of this ummah will remain straight and upright until the Final Hour. [Bukhari]

Anas ibn Malik radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates: I heard Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam saying: My ummah will never concur on deviation. If you see any disunity, hold on firmly to the main body of Muslims. [Ibn Majah]

Whose Ijma‛ will be a proof

There are several opinions in this regard:

1. Imam Malik rahimahullah is of the view that the ijma‛ of the people of Madinah will be considered. (Al-Taqrir Sharh al-Tahrir)

2. Some are of the view that only the ijma‛ of the Sahabah radiyallahu ‛anhum will be considered.  (Tahseel al-Wusool)

3. The most balanced view is that it is sufficient for the jurists and mujtahids of any era to concur on a ruling of the Shari‛ah. Thereafter, the opposition of the Ahl-e-Bid‛at, flagrant sinners and masses will not be considered.

The third view is the most preferred by the majority of scholars. (Al-Taqrir Sharh al-Tahrir)

11th Belief: No Abrogation Took Place in The Qur’an  

Answer

Abrogation means cancelling a certain ruling. In other words, to replace one ruling by another. The exegists are of the view that abrogation is of three types:

Words are abrogated but the ruling remains. For example, the verse related to stoning to death. Its words have been abrogated but the ruling is still valid.

2. The words are present but the ruling is abrogated. For example, bequests for relatives: “A bequest for parents and relatives with equity.” [Surah al-Baqarah, 2:180]

3. The words and ruling are both abrogated. For example, a Hadith states that Surah al-Ahzab was equal to Surah al-Baqarah, but its recitation and ruling are both abrogated.

Based on the importance of abrogation, the exegists hold it in very high regard. Abrogation is from among the essential sciences required by exegists.

The ummat is unanimous about abrogation in the Qur’an. No one from the past – except a few Mu‛tazilah – rejected it. The exegists severely refute the Mu‛tazilah on this subject. [Tafsir Ibn Kathir]

Imam Qurtubi rahimahullah writes:

Knowledge of this science [abrogation] is essential and its benefit is immense. The scholars cannot do without knowledge of this science and none but the foolish ignoramuses can deny it. [Tafsir Qurtubi]

The following is stated in Ruh al-Ma‛ani:

Only Abu Muslim Asfahani rejected abrogation. He says that abrogation of divine injunctions is possible but it did not occur. [Ruh al-Ma‛ani]

To sum up, none of the past and latter day scholars rejected abrogation outright. Yes, there are differences as to the number of abrogated verses, but not outright rejection of the occurrence of abrogation. [Ma‛arif al-Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 286]

It should be clear that abrogation did not take place in the Qur’an because Allah ta‛ala did not have pre-knowledge, later He realized, and therefore He abrogated the previous ruling. Rather, Allāh ta‛ala had knowledge before issuing a ruling, He also knew that conditions will change, and that a different ruling will have to be issued. This is similar to a specialist physician who knows that a certain medication has to be given to a patient bearing in mind his current condition. He also knows that the patient’s condition will change after a few days and that he will have to give him another type of medication. This is why he prescribes one medicine in the beginning and changes it after a few days.

The specialist physician could have also prescribed all the medicines on the first day and instructed his patient by saying: Take this medicine for two days, and then you must take this other medicine. However, this would have been weighty on the patient and also the danger of his taking the wrong medicine and causing damage to his health. [Ma‛arif al-Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 283]

It is also incorrect to hold the belief that pictures of animate objects are permissible. It is the belief of the Ahl as-Sunnah that every picture of an animate object – whether of humans or animals – is haraam. This is proven from many Ahadith. For example:

A man came to Hadrat ‛Abdullah ibn ‛Abbas radiyallahu ‛anhu and said: “I make these images, I would like you to give me a verdict in this regard.” He said: “Come near me.” The man came close. He said: “Come closer.” The man came closer. ‛Abdullah ibn ‛Abbas radiyallahu ‛anhu then placed his hand on the man’s head and said: I will tell you something which I heard from Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wa sallam. He said: “Every image-maker shall be in the Hell-fire. A physical body will be created for every image which he produced which will then punish him in the Hell-fire.” If you really have to produce any images, make of those which have no soul, like a tree.

A man came to Hadrat ‛Abdullah ibn ‛Abbas radiyallahu ‛anhu and said: “I make these images, I would like you to give me a verdict in this regard.” He said: “Come near me.” The man came close. He said: “Come closer.” The man came closer. ‛Abdullah ibn ‛Abbas radiyallahu ‛anhu then placed his hand on the man’s head and said: I will tell you something which I heard from Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wa sallam. He said: “Every image-maker shall be in the Hell-fire. A physical body will be created for every image which he produced which will then punish him in the Hell-fire.” If you really have to produce any images, make of those which have no soul, like a tree. [Muslim]

Hadrat Qatadah radiyallahu ‛anhu relates: I was sitting with Hadrat ‛Abdullah ibn ‛Abbas radiyallahu ‛anhu…he replied to a question which he was asked: I heard Muhammad sallallahu ‛alayhi wa sallam saying: Whoever produces an image In this world will be compelled to blow life into it on the day of Resurrection and he will not be able to do it. [Bukhari]

Hadrat ‛Abdullah ibn ‛Umar radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates that Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wa sallam said: Those who produce these images will be punished on the day of Resurrection. They will be ordered: “Give life to your creations.” [Bukhari]

It is the ijma‛ of the entire ummat and the fatwa of all four Imams that it is forbidden to make images of animate objects.

Allamah Nawawi rahimahullah writes:

Our elders and other ‛ulama’ said that producing images of animate objects is severely prohibited. It is from among the major sins because very severe warnings against it have been issued in the Ahadith. This is irrespective of whether the image is of something which is disrespected or not. Producing such an image is forbidden under all conditions because it entails imitating Allah’s attribute of creating…

12th Belief: Most Ahadith Are Not Authentic

Answer

This belief is also against the Qur’an and Hadith. For example:

Whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it. Whatever he forbids you, abstain from it.   [Surah al-Hashr, 59: 7]

It is not for a believing man nor a believing woman, that when Allâh and His Messenger have decided a matter, to have a choice in their matter. [Surah al-Ahzab, 33:36]

It is He who raised among the unlettered people a Messenger from among themselves, reciting to them His verses, purifying them, and teaching them the Book and wisdom. And before this they were lying in manifest error. [Surah al-Jumu‛ah, 62:2]

The scholars and exegists concur that the word “wisdom” in the above verse refers to the blessed Ahadith of Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam. It is clearly known that many verses of the Qur’an cannot be understood without resorting to the blessed Ahadith. For example:

Establish salah and pay zakah. [Surah al-Baqarah, 2:43]

The questions which arise are: When must the salah be performed? How many salahs? At what time must they be performed? What must be read in the salah? How must it be performed? What is the sequence as regards the bowing, prostrating, sitting, standing postures? Many other points about salah have to be learnt but they are not to be found in the Qur’an. All these are found in the Ahadith. The Qur’an itself states that in addition to the Qur’an, Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam receives revelation (which is known as Ahadith). There are several verses of the Qur’an which make reference to this. For example:

Whatever date-palms you chopped off or left standing on their roots, it is by the order of Allah. [Surah al-Hashr, 59:5]

A brief background to this verse is that during the expedition to Khaybar, the Jews locked themselves in their forts. Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam instructed the Sahabah radiyallahu ‛anhum to chop down their orchards so that they come out of their forts. Some of the trees were to be left untouched so that when the Muslims gain victory, they could be of benefit to them. The Jews spread the story that Muslims cause destruction. A reply to the allegations of the Jews was given in the above verse. That is, whatever happens does so by the order of Allah ta‛ala. However, this order is not found in the Qur’an. It was Jibra’il ‛alayhis salam who came and conveyed it to Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam. This is known as Hadith. The exegists refer to it as wahy ghayr matluw (un-recited revelation).

This is why Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah said:

Had it not been for the Sunnah, none of us would have understood the Qur’an. The following are few Ahadith on this subject.

Hadrat Miqdad ibn Ma‛dikariba radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates that Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam said: Listen! I have been given the Qur’an and the like of it with it. Listen! A person with a full stomach resting on his couch may well say: “This Qur’an is enough for you. Consider to be lawful whatever it makes lawful, and consider to be unlawful what it makes unlawful.” Whereas the things which Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam says to be unlawful are as if Allah ta‛ala made them unlawful. [Abu Dawud]

Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam said: I have left you two things, you will never be misguided as long as you hold on to them. They are the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.

13th Belief: Rejection of Jinn

Answer

Jinn is a creation which Allah ta‛ala created from fire. They have the ability to take whatever form they like. The Qur’an and Ahadith are filled with discussions on jinn. There is no room for their rejection. A quick overview of jinn in the Qur’an:

Surah al-An‛am – 4 verses
Surah al-A‛raf – 2 verses
Surah Hud – 1 verse
Surah al-Isra’ – 1 verse
Surah al-Kahf – 1 verse
Surah an-Naml – 2 verses
Surah as-Sajdah – 1 verse
Surah as-Saba’ – 3 verses
Surah as-Saffat – 1 verse
Surah adh-Dhariyat – 2 verses Surah ar-Rahman – 5 verses
Surah al-Jinn – 6 verses
Surah an-Nas – 6 verses
Surah Fussilat – 1 verse
Surah ash-Shura – 1 verse
Syrah az-Zukhruf – 3 verses
Surah Muhammad – 3 verses Surah an-Najm – 2 verses
Surah at-Tahrim – 1 verse
Surah at-Tariq – 1 verse
Surah al-Ma‛arij – 1 verse
Surah al-Fajr – 1 verse 
Surah al-Qadr – 1 verse

A few Qur’anic verses

[Remember] the time when We sent a group of jinn to you, listening to the Qur’ān. Then when they attended [its recitation], they said: “Remain silent.”   [Surah al-Ahqaf, 46:29]

Say: It has been revealed to me that a group of jinn listened [to the Qur’an] and they then said: “We have heard a wonderful recitation. [Surah al-Jinn, 72:1]

Of jinn, there were many who laboured before him by the command of his Sustainer.   [Surah Saba’, 34:12]

Ahadith

Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam was asked about fortune tellers. He said: They cannot be relied upon.” The Sahabah said: “O Rasūlullāh! Sometimes they relates things which are true.” He said: “The jinn sometimes hear things from the angels and convey them into the ears of their friends [fortune tellers] who then mix it with more than a hundred lies. Allah ta‛ala then prevented the devils from overhearing the conversations of the angels by striking them [with shooting stars]… [Bukhari, 857]

It is not right to reject jinn solely because we cannot see them. There are countless things which humans cannot see but they believe in them and accept them. For example, the soul, man’s intellect, angels and so on. This is why the scholars say that rejection of jinn entails rejection of the Qur’an and Hadith, and is therefore kufr. [Aqa’id Islam, vol. 2, p.62]

14th Belief: Rejection of The Miracles of Hadrat Musa  

Answer

This is also kufr because it entails rejection of the Qur’an and Hadith. The affirmation of miracles in favour of the Prophets ‛alayhimus salam is proven through Qur’anic verses and mutawatir Ahadith. Miracles are essentially given to the Prophets ‛alayhimus salam in support of their claim to prophet-hood so that these miracles could become proofs of the authenticity of their claim to prophet-hood. The miracles of Hadrat Musa ‛alayhis salam are mentioned in the Qur’an. For example:

We gave to Musa nine clear signs. [Surah Bani Isra’il,17:101]

When Musa asked for water for his people, We said: “Strike your staff on the rock.” Then there gushed forth from it twelve springs. [Surah al-Baqarah, 2:60]

Press your hand to your side, it will come forth white without any blemish – another sign. [Surah Ta Ha, 20:22]

We have come to you with a sign from your Sustainer. [Surah Ta Ha, 20:47]

Hadrat Maulana Idris Kandhlawi rahimahullah writes with reference to miracles:

Miracles are signs of the truthfulness of the Prophets ‛alayhimus salam. It is similar to when the kings of this world select certain people as their close associates. The latter are given certain signs to demonstrate their honour and distinction. These are beyond the wishes of ordinary people. In the same way, when Allah ta‛ala confers prophet-hood to a person, He gives him special signs which distinguish him from the rest of the world. [Aqa’id Islam, vol. 2, p. 68]

15th Belief: Hadrat ‛Isa is Dead

Answer

This belief is also in conflict with the texts of the Qur’an and Hadith.

And for their saying: “We killed the Messiah, ‛Isa, the son of Maryam, who was a Messenger of Allah.” They neither killed him nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear like that before them. Those who hold conflicting views about it are in doubt thereof. They have no knowledge whatsoever thereof. They are merely following conjecture. They certainly did not kill him. Rather, Allah raised him towards Himself. And Allah is powerful, wise.   [Surah an-Nisa’, 4:157-158]

Ruh al-Ma‛ani states: “He is alive in the heavens.” All the exegists concur on this.

All the groups of the people of the Book will have conviction in ‛Isa prior to their death. And on the day of Resurrection he shall be a witness against them.   [Surah an-Nisa’, 4:159.]

He is a sign of the Resurrection. Therefore do not be in doubt thereof, and obey Me. This is a straight path.  [Surah az-Zukhruf, 43:61]

It is learnt from many Ahadith which could be classified as mutawatir that Hadrat ‛Isa ‛alayhis salam was taken up to the heavens and will descend before the day of Resurrection. There was no difference of opinion in this regard in the era of the Sahabah radiyallahu ‛anhum and the succeeding generations.

Hadrat ‛Abdullah ibn ‛Abbas radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates that Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wa sallam said: My brother, ‛Isa ibn Maryam, will descend from the heavens. [Bukhari]

Hadrat Abu Hurayrah radiyallāhu ‛anhu narrates that Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam said: One of the astonishing things to take place is when [‛Isa] ibn Maryam will descend from the heavens to you and he will rule by the Qur’an [and not by the Injil]. [Wafa’ al Wafa’]

Hadrat ‛Abdullah ibn ‛Umar radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates that Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wa sallam said: ‛Isa ibn Maryam will come down to earth, he will marry, children will be born to him, he will remain on earth for 45 years and die. He will be buried with me in my grave. ‛Isa ibn Maryam and I will then get up from one grave, and Abu Bakr and ‛Umar will be between us.

Muslims unanimously concur that Hadrat ‛Isa ‛alayhis salam was raised to the heavens and will return close to the day of Resurrection. This is also stated by the four Imams.

Shaykh ‛Abd al-Wahhab Sha‛rani rahimahullah writes:

The descent of Hadrat ‛Isa ‛alayhis salam is established from the Qur’an and Sunnah. The Christians claim that Nasutah was crucified and Lahutah was raised. The fact of the matter is that Hadrat ‛Isa ‛alayhis salam was raised physically to the heavens. Belief in this is mandatory. Allah ta‛ala says: Rather Allah raised him towards Himself.

16th Belief: Rejecting The Splitting of The Moon  

Answer

The incident concerning the splitting of the moon is established from the Qur’an and authentic Ahadith. The gist of this incident is that Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam was in Mina when the idolaters of Makkah asked him for a sign of his prophet-hood. Allah ta‛ala displayed the miracle of splitting the moon in two. After the people saw this happening, Allah ta‛ala rejoined the moon.

People who arrived from other regions also acknowledged witnessing this incident. ‛Allamah Tahawi rahimahullah and others are of the view that the narration which makes reference to the splitting of the moon is mutawatir. Under no situation is it permissible to reject it. The following are some of the narrations in this regard:

Hadrat ‛Abdullah ibn Mas‛ud radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates that the moon split into two in the time of Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam. When the people saw it clearly, he said: “Testify.” [Bukhari wa Muslim]

Hadrat Anas ibn Malik radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates that the people of Makkah asked Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam to show them a sign. So Allah ta‛ala showed them the moon in two pieces to the extent that they could see Mt. Hira’ between them.
[Bukhari Wa Muslim]

Hadrat ‛Abdullah ibn Mas‛ud radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates that the moon split in two while they were in Makkah. The Quraysh unbelievers – the people of Makkah – said: “This is magic with which Ibn Abi Kabshah [Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wa sallam] bewitched you. Wait for travellers to come from outside. If they also saw the moon in two pieces, he [Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam] is speaking the truth. But if the outside travellers did not see it, he has certainly performed magic with which he bewitched you.” When the travellers from all regions arrived and they inquired from them, they all attested to seeing the moon in two pieces. [Abu Dawud]

It is stated in Aqa’id Islam that it is obligatory to believe in the miracle of the splitting of the moon, and that its rejection is kufr. Trying to rationalize it is misguidance and there is a fear of kufr because this miracle is established from explicit texts in which there is no room for rationalization. [Aqa’id Islam, vol. 2, p.72]

17th Belief: Rejection of The  Opening of The Chest of Rasulullah

Answer

Erudite ‛ulama’ are of the opinion  that the opening of his chest was experienced by Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi  wasallam on  four occasions:

1.  When he was four years old.

2.  When he was ten years old.

3.  When he was 40 years old just  before receiving prophet-hood.

4.  Just before going on Mi‛raj.

The opening of the chest of Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wa  sallam used to take place as  follows: Jibril ‛alayhis salam and  Mika’il ‛alayhis salam would come  to him, open his chest, remove  his heart, wash it with Zam Zam,  and return it to its place as it had been. These four instances are  established from authentic narrations and reliable Ahādīth.  The ‛ulama’ explain many  underlying reasons and wisdoms  behind the opening of  Rasulullah’s chest (but this is not  the place to mention them). It is incorrect to reject this merely by  claiming that it is difficult and impossible. ‛Allamah Qastalani rahimahullah and ‛Allamah Zurqani rahimahullah state:

Whatever is narrated with regard to opening of the chest, removal of the heart and other extraordinary incidents have to be accepted as they have been reported without trying to change it from its reality. [Sharh Muwahib]

Imam Qurtubi, Tibi, Taurbishti, Hafiz Ibn Hajar ‛Asqalani, Suyuti and other erudite scholars state that the opening of the chest is accepted in its reality. It is also supported by authentic Hadith that the Sahabah radiyallahu ‛anhum used to see traces of stitches on Rasulullah’s blessed chest. ‛Allamah Suyuti rahimahullah says some ignoramuses of our times reject the opening of the chest and consider it to be a metaphysical event. This is clear ignorance and a vile error which stems from Allah’s forsaking such people, and because of their occupation with philosophical sciences, and their distance from the sciences of the Sunnah. May Allah ta‛ala safeguard us against sin.

18th Belief: Rejection of Mi‛raj

Answer

Mi‛raj refers to Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam being taken at night from earth to the heavens where he was shown Paradise and Hell. It is a well-known incident during which the five salahs were made compulsory on the ummat of Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam. The ‛ulama’ refer to the journey from al-Musjid al-Haram to al-Musjid al-Aqsa as Isra’, and the journey from al-Musjid al-Aqsa to the seven heavens as Mi‛raj. Sometimes, the entire incident is referred to as the Mi‛raj. This incident is established from the Qur’an and Hadīth. It is therefore not possible for a believer to reject it. The Qur’an states:

Exalted is He who took His servant by night from the Sacred Musjid to the Aqsa Musjid – the precincts of which We have blessed – so that We may show him some signs of Our power. He alone is the hearer, the seer.   [Surah Bani Isra’il, 17:1]

There are many Ahadith which make reference to this even. For example:

Hadrat Ibn ‛Abbas radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates that whatever Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam saw on the night of mi‛raj were seen with his eyes. [Bukhari]

Hadrat Abu Bakr radiyallahu ‛anhu said to Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wa sallam on the night he experienced the mi‛raj: “O Rasulullah! I searched for you in your house last night but did not find you.” Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam said that Jibril had taken him to al-Musjid al-Aqsa. [Al-Shifa]

Mulla ‛Ali Qari rahimahullah writes in Sharh Fiqh Akbar with reference to those who reject the Mi‛raj:

Whoever rejects the Mi‛raj we will have to check: If he rejects the night journey from Makkah to Bayt al-Maqdis, he is a kafir. If he rejects the journey from Bayt al-Maqdis (to the heavens) he will not be classified a kafir. This is because the night journey from Makkah to Bayt al-Maqdis is established from a Qur’anic verse which is an explicit proof. As for the Mi‛raj from Bayt al-Maqdis to the heavens it is proven from the Sunnah which is a tacit proof. [Sharh Fiqhul Akbar]

It is stated in Aqa’id Islam that it is compulsory to believe in the miracle of the Mi‛raj, rejecting it is kufr and rationalizing it is misguidance. [Aqa’id Islam, vol. 2, p. 72]

Note: A full investigation of the Mi‛raj can be seen in Kitab Dau’ as-Siraj fi Tahqiq al-Mi‛raj of Maulana Muhammad Sarfaraz Khan Safdar.

19th Belief: Rejection of Hadrat Mahdi

Answer

According to the Ahl as-Sunnah, the coming of Hadrat Mahdi close to the day of Resurrection is established from mutawatir Ahadith. For example:

Hadrat Umm Salamah radiyallahu ‛anha narrates: I heard Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam saying: Mahdi will be from my progeny, from the progeny of Fatimah. [Abu Dawud]

Hadrat ‛Ali radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates that Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam said: There will come a person from the progeny of [my son Hasan] a person who will have the name of your Prophet, his character will be similar to him, and he will the earth with justice. [Abu Dawud]

Hadrat ‛Abdullah ibn Mas‛ud radiyallahu ‛anhu narrates that Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wa sallam said: A person from my family will rule over the Arabs. His name will be the same as mine, and his father’s name will be the same as my father’s name. [Tirmidhi]

The ‛ulama’ state that under no condition is it permissible to reject Hadrat Mahdi. There is unanimity of the ummat as regards his arrival.

20th Belief: An Ordinary Person Can be Equal to a Prophet  

According to this belief, an ordinary person can be equal to a Prophet and he can acquire this rank by striving for it.

Answer

This belief is against the Qur’an and Hadith. The ummat of Muhammad sallallahu ‛alayhi wa sallam unanimously states that prophet-hood is an Allah-conferred rank which Allah ta‛ala confers to whomever He wills. It has nothing to do with spiritual exercises and striving or any meditation. Allah ta‛ala says:

He alone is of high ranks, master of the throne. He sends down the secret [spirit] by His command upon whomever He wills of His servants so that He may warn of the day of meeting. [Surah al-Mu’min, 40:14]

He sends the angels after giving them the secret by His command to whomever He wills of His servants: “Warn that there is no worship for anyone but Me, so fear Me.” [Surah an-Nahl, 16:2]

Those who are unbelievers from among the people of the Book and the polytheists do not wish that any good be sent down to you from your Sustainer. But Allah singles out through His mercy whom He wills. Allah is possessor of great bounty. [Surah al-Baqarah, 2:105]

Imam Ghazzali rahimahullah says that just as the humaneness of the human race and becoming an angel cannot be earned through striving and exercises, in the same way the prophet-hood and messenger-ship of the Prophets and Messengers cannot be earned. [Ma‛arij al-Quddus]

The entire ummat is unanimous in this regard. Furthermore, it is against the Qur’an, Hadith and Ijma‛ to claim that (Allah forbid) none of the Prophet’s teaching of tauhid was perfect and that all were defective. A person who holds such a belief is unanimously classified as a kafir.

21st Belief: A Deceased Person Does Not Receive Rewards

Answer

This belief is against that of the Ahl as-Sunnah. It is established from the Qur’an and Hadith that a person can convey the rewards of his good deeds to the deceased. The Ahl as-Sunnah is unanimous in this regard. Several narrations contain the incident of a Sahabi who dug a well for the sake of conveying rewards to his mother after consulting Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam in this regard. [Mishkat]

Similarly, Rasulullah sallallahu ‛alayhi wasallam permitted a woman to perform hajj for her father.  [Mishkat]

The Qur’an states:

O Sustainer! Show mercy to them as they reared me when I was little.  [Surah Bani Isra’il,17:24]

Those who are carrying the throne and those who are around it – they glorify the praises of their Sustainer, they believe in Him, and they seek forgiveness for the believers. [Surah al-Mu’min, 40:7]

‛Allamah Ibn Humam rahimahullah writes in this regard:

These narrations and those which were quoted before them, and other similar narrations in the Sunnah which have been related by many persons which we left  out for the sake of brevity – the  common point which is  concluded from them all is that  through the conveying of rewards  for the deceased, Allah ta‛ala confers benefits on the  deceased. This point has reached  the level of tawatur. In the same  way, the Qur’an which instructs  us to pray for parents: “O Sustainer! Show mercy to them  as they reared me when I was  little”, and where the Qur’an  makes reference to angels  praying for the forgiveness of believers: “Those who are  carrying the throne and those  who are around it – they  glorify  the praises of their Sustainer,  they believe in Him, and they  seek forgiveness for the  believers” provide absolute proof that the deeds of one benefit others. [Fathul Qadeer]

Fatawa With Reference to The  Naturalist Sect

When the naturalist sect was on  the ascendancy, Maulana ‘Ali Bakhsh Khan went to Makkah Mukarramah and obtained fatawa  from the muftis of the four  juridical schools against the  religious beliefs of Sir Sayyid. The  muftis of all four schools concurred that:

This person is deviated and is  leading others astray. In fact, he  is the deputy of the accursed Shaytan. He aims to deceive Muslims. His tribulation is worse  than that of the Christians and  Jews. It is obligatory on those of  authority to take him to task, and  to discipline him by beating him  and imprisoning him.

Maulana ‛Ali Bakhsh Khan then  obtained a fatwa from the chief  mufti of Madinah Munawwarah  who wrote:

The essence of whatever is learnt from the marginal notes of ad-Durr al-Mukhtar is that this person is either a mulhid, has inclined towards kufr from the very beginning, or is a zindiq without any religion. It is gauged from the explanations of Hanafi scholars that the repentance of such people after they are apprehended is not accepted. If this person repents before he is apprehended, retracts from his blasphemous beliefs, and the signs of repentance are apparent on him, he will not be killed. If not, it is obligatory to kill him. [Layl wa Nahar, 19 April 1970]

It is stated in Tajanub Ahl as-Sunnah that anyone who comes to know of any one of the absolute and certain kufr beliefs of Sir Sayyid and still doubts the latter being a kafir and murtad, or abstains from labelling him a kafir and murtad, then he too is – according to the pure Shari‛ah – most certainly a kafir and murtad. If such a person passes away without repenting, he will be eligible for eternal punishment. [Tajanub Ahl as-Sunnah, p. 86]

The famous scholar of the Barelwi sect, Hashmat ‛Ali, also issued a fatwa of kufr against Sir Sayyid. [Layl wa Nahar, 19 April 1970]

Hadrat Maulana ‛Ashraf ‛Ali Thanwi rahimahullah also issued fatawa of kufr with reference to some of his beliefs and classified some of his other beliefs as deviated. [Imdad al-Fatawa contains a detailed discussion about this sect. Volume 6, pp. 166-185].

Shared from the Book Deviated Sects.

Also Read: “Sir” Syed Ahmed Khan – The “Reformer” of Western Dajjalic History Textbooks was In reality a Modernist-British Agent

Shoes Cluttering Musjid Entrances

[Majlisul Ulama]

Question: Many people coming to  the Musjid have the bad habit of  leaving their shoes scattered at  the entrance although shoe racks/ Shoe-Counters are provided. This inconveniences other musallis who have to sometimes tramp on the shoes when entering. Please comment.

Answer (Majlisul Ulama)

Whilst this bad and Makrooh  habit may appear insignificant, it  in reality displays the anarchy  within the hearts of Muslims. They have no care for others. It is  haraam to unnecessarily cause  inconvenience to others. Kicking  off their shoes and scattering it  at the entrance, reveal that they  were not taught Islamic morals at  home by their parents. Thus, they are just too lazy and inconsiderate of others.

It is NOT permissible to kick off  one’s shoes at the entrance of the  Musjid, especially when shoe  racks/counters are available. If  the careless person who kicks off his shoes at the entrance is wearing expensive shoes, he will  not act so carelessly and callously. He will place his shoes  in the racks (or hand it over to the counters). The love of money constrains him to show consideration to his shoes. The  shoes which are kicked off are  cheap ones, cheap sandals, tongs  and the like which no one will steal.  

They also show scant or no  appreciation for the ni’mat of  shoes provided by Allah Ta’ala.

No matter how cheap the item  may be, it is a ni’mat provided by  Allah Ta’ala and has to be  appreciated and treated with  respect. These people have the  same evil habit of scattering their  clothes at home thereby pleasing  shaitaan. Shaitaan loves dirty and lazy people. They are his fertile ground for his wasaawis  and snares. A Muslim is required  to be alert, tidy and clean at all times. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Verily, Allah is clean, and He  loves cleanliness. Therefore, keep  clean (even) that section outside your home (despite it not being  your property).”

TABLIGH JAMAAT AND THE FITNAH OF SA’D AND HIS GANG

[Majlisul Ulama]

Regarding the ongoing strife and fitnah which has torn the Tabligh Jamaat apart on all levels, Mufti A.K.Hoosen, has issued the following statement: 

“The only problem in Nizaamudeen today is maal (wealth/money). There is a person there, who is self-appointed, who wants to be the Ameer. And if you do not accept his leadership then they (Sa’d’s goondas -thugs) want to assault you. They threaten and intimidate you. Therefore the aalam-e-shura (the world Shura Body of the Tabligh Jamaat) – the world shuraa  has decided that the status quo cannot prevail like this.

The Jamaat’s work must continue everywhere but they must bypass Nizaamuddeen as long as things stay like this. (i.e. as long as the Goonda Sa’d remains in the premises which he has usurped by violence with the aid of his thugs, and from where he has  proclaimed himself to be the ameer of the Tabligh Jamaat of the world). So remember there is no problem with the markaz. The problem is with the self-appointed ameer. And remember he is causing havoc there for his own agenda. So we make dua to Almighty Allah that Almighty Allah removes him or he comes to his senses, because he is doing a great, great disservice to the Ummah for his own hidden agenda and ulterior motives.

Let me make it clear! Maulana Sa’d who is self-appointed is not fit to be ameer. Remember that. That is our fatwa and the fatwa of a thousand ulama. He is not fit to be ameer of the Tabligh Jamaat. So we need to understand. There is no sense playing games and those type of things here.

In Islam you can’t be a self-appointed ameer. An ameer must have profound ‘Ilm, taqwa, and wisdom. One cannot be the ameer because he belongs to a certain family. He lacks in these attributes.

The nonsense he spoke about these types of things and about Nabi Musa alayhis salaam and other issues, disqualifies him from being the ameer.”   End of Mufti A.K. Hoosen’s statement.

COMMENT

This Sa’d character lacks in every attribute necessary for an Ameer of such a huge movement as the Tabligh Jamaat. He has descended into the dregs of villainy by employing gutter-level tactics of goondagerry (thuggery), using his Mewati ignoramuses to employ violence, smashing property and assaulting those whom he perceived are aligned against him. He has brazenly claimed that those who do not accept his leadership are Jahannamis (inmates of Hell).

In South Africa, the agent of Sa’d’s fitnah is one Rashid Norath who is spreading false propaganda in support of Sa’d. More information about these fattaan shall be published, Insha-Allah. The workers on the ground are all caught up in this web of shaitaani fitnah. They are disputing among themselves to the eternal detriment of the tabligh work.

THEIR DESECRATION OF THE MAYYIT AND THEIR FALLACIOUS VINDICATION

[Majlisul Ulama]

THE HORRENDOUS DESECRATION OF THE MAYYIT AND THE FALSE AND SATANIC REACTION TO THE HAQQ OF THE SHARIAH

The  irrefutable  truth  is  that  horrendous  desecration  of  the body  of  Hadhrat  Maulana  Abdul  Hafiz  Makki (Rahmatullah  alayh)  was  perpetrated  by  ignorant followers/family  members  in  total  disregard  of  the  Shariah. The  desecration  was  particularly  vile  in  that  it  consisted  of a  compound  of  haraam  piled  on  haraam.  There  was absolutely  no Shar’i  grounds  and  no  moral  justification  for having  perpetrated  the  horrendous  sacrilege  and desecration of the Mayyit.

Now,  after  the  facts  and  the  truth  of  the  Shariah  have  been harshly  and  conspicuously  presented  to  them  (Transportation of the Mayyit – A Satanic Desecration ) and  to  the Muslim  community,  the  perpetrators  of  the  villainous desecration  –  the  khuddaam  –  are  at  haraam  pains  to defend  their  haraam  desecration  of  the  Mayyit.  Flagrantly disregarding  the  Shariah,  oblivious  of  the  accountability  on Qiyaamah  in  the  Divine  Court  of  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal, uncaring  of  the  pain  caused  to  the  Mayyit,  indifferent  to the  heinous  humiliation  inflicted  on  the  body  of  the  Mayyit and  in  total  negation  of  the  command  and  spirit  of  the Ahaadith  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam),  the criminal  elements  responsible  for  the  desecration  are clutching  at  straws  to  justify  the  haraam  violations  which they  had  committed  to  gratify  their  nafsaani  promptings.

In  so  doing,  it  is  therefore  pertinent  to  ask  them:  Whose Sunnah  are  you  following  in  your  reaction  to  the  Haqq? The  Sunnah  of  your  Father,  Hadhrat  Aadam  (Alayhis salaam)  or  the  sunnah  of  your  enemy,  Iblees?  When Hadhrat  Aadam  (Alayhis  salaam)  had  erred,  his  humility, regret  and  remorse  compelled  him  to  lay  in  Sajdah  for  40 years crying in repentance:

“O our  Rabb!  We  have  indeed  oppressed  ourselves.  If   You  do  not  forgive  us  and  have  mercy  on  us,  then   undoubtedly, we shall be among the losers.”

If  the  perpetrators  of  the  villainy  belong  to  the  progeny  of Hadhrat  Aadam  (Alayhis  salaam),  it  behoves  them  to  resort to  the  Sunnah  of  our  Ancestor,  Hadhrat  Aadam  (Alayhis salaam). 

But  the  haraam  reaction  of  the  wrong-doers  constrains  us to  believe  that  they  are  following  in  the  footsteps  of Shaitaan  who  defiantly  justified  his  villainy  of disobedience  by  uttering:

“You  (O  Allah!)  have  created  me  from  fire  and  you  have created him from sand. (Hence it is not befitting my dignity  to  prostrate  to  Aadam  even  if  it  is your command).”

The  justification  of  the  palpable  haraam  desecration  is  a desperate  act  akin  to  the  sunnah  of  Iblees  who  justified  his haraam  rebellion  against  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal.  Those  who are  now  justifying  the  evil  desecration  which  can never  be validly  justified  regardless  of  any  plethora  of  Fiqhi technicalities  or  isolated  examples  of  saintly  persons,  are morally  and  spiritually  bankrupt  in  the  same  way  as shaitaan  is  bankrupt.  Truth  and  honour  demand  that  the gross  error  of  the  desecration  be  acknowledged,  and amends be made with Taubah.

The  khuddaam  of  Hadhrat  Makki  are  making  desperate attempts  to  justify  the  sacrilege  and  to  provide  Shar’i grounds  for  the  desecration  which  they  have  so  dastardly perpetrated.  In  a  bayaan  by  one  of  the  khuddaam  a  series  of spurious  arguments  has  been  presented  to  justify  the transportation  and  desecration  of  the  Mayyit.  There  is  no validity in any of the arguments.

In  his  bayaan  the  khaadim  sahib’s  reliance  is  on  some isolated  episodes  pertaining  primarily  to  the  amwaat  of some  of  our  Akaabireen  whose  bodies  were  transported and  buried  in  places  where  they  had  not  died.  This  is  the strongest  ‘daleel’  tendered  by  the  khaadim  sahib  for  the haraam  desecration  perpetrated  by  the  khuddaam  to  the body  of  Hadhrat  Makki  (Rahmatullah  alayh).  In  the abortive  bid  to  justify  the  evil  deed,  the  khaadim  sahib  has closed  his  eyes  –  the  eyes  of  the  heart  –  from  the  command of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  from  the Ijmaa-ee  practice  of  the  Ummah  since  the  age  of Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam),  and  in  typical display  of  peer-puja,  thereby  bringing  himself  within  the purview  of  the  Qur’aanic  prohibition  on  peer-puja.   Mentioning  the  peer-puja  of  Bani  Israa-eel,  the  Qur’aan Majeed states:
“They  took  their  ahbaar  and  ruhbaan  as  gods besides Allah…….”

Statements  (fatwas)  and  acts  in  conflict  with  the  Shariah committed  by  seniors  on  the  basis  of  an  error  in  judgment or  errors  committed  by  their  ghaafil  khuddaam  are  quoted as  ‘daleel’  in  wanton  disregard  for  the  clear-cut  ahkaam  of the  Shariah  which  are  negated  with  isolated  episodes  and even  errors  of  the  Buzrugs.  About  this  despicable  attitude, Allaamah  Abdul  Wahhaab  Sha’raani  (Rahmatullah  alayh) said:  “He  who  clings  to  the  rarities  (and  obscurities)  of  the Ulama, verily, he has made an exit from Islam.”

When  the  eyes  of  the  baatil  are  blind,  the  mind  is incapable  of  correct  application.  About  this  issue,  the Qur’aan Majeed says: 
“The  (physical)  eyes  are  not  blind,  but  the  eyes  within  the breasts are blind.”

Let  it  be  well  understood  that  the  criterion  is  the  Shariah, not  the  isolated  episodes  and  statements  of  the  Buzrugs. Any  statement  or  act  of  any  Buzrug  regardless  of  his  lofty rank,  never  constitutes  a  Shar’i  daleel  if  it  is  in  conflict with  the  Shariah.  Any  baseless  act  of  a  genuine  senior  shall either  be  accorded  a  suitable  interpretation  or  set  aside  if the  conflict  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  Shariah.    But, never  is  it  permissible  to  present  it  as  a  daleel  for  gratifying the  nafs  with  perceived  acts  of  ‘piety’  and  goodness.  The Buzrug’s  status  and  maqbooliyat  may  not  be  presented  in negation  of  the  Shariah,  and  on  such  basis  construe  the  act to be valid in the Shariah.

The  khaadim  does  concede  that: “Hazrat  Wala  did  not  issue any  such  wasiyyat  or  naseehat  that,  ‘Wherever  I  pass  away I  should  be  returned’.”

This  revelation  further  compounds  the  villainy  of  the khuddaam  who  had  taken  upon  themselves  the  liability  of flagrantly  violating  the  Shariah  and  scandalously desecrating the Mayyit.

In  a  bid  to  neutralize  the  effect  of  no  wasiyyat  having  been made  by  Hazrat  Wala,  the  khaadim  adds: “However,  there is  no  doubt  that  Hazrat  Wala’s  desire  to  reside  and  be buried  in  Madinah  Munawwarah  came  before  this  faqeer and  haqeer,  his  khaadim,  on  several  occasions.”   It  is  the desire  of  most  Muslims  to  die  and  be  buried  in  Madinah Munawwarah.  But  such  desire  never  justifies  violation  of the  Shariah  and  desecration  of  the  Mayyit.  The  khaadim sahib  acted  in  flagrant  violation  of  the  Shariah  to  gratify  his nafs  and  to  show  gross  misconceived  ‘respect’  and ‘honour’  for  his  Hadhrat.  In  the  process  of  satisfying  his nafs,  he  remained  blind  and  oblivious  of  the  villainy  which follows  in  the  wake  of  having  the  body  transported  from South  Africa  to  Madinah.

If  it  had  been  the  Divine  Desire  for  the  Hadhrat  to  be buried  in  Madinah,  he  would  not  have  undertaken  the journey  out  of  Madinah  on  the  eve  of  his  Maut.  He  would have  remained  there  and  his  Maut  would  have  claimed  him and  he  would  have  been  buried  honourably  in  the  Holy Place.  The  fact  that  the  Hadhrat  departed  from  the  Holy Land  to  die  within  hours  of  arrival  in  South  Africa,  is adequate  for  concluding  that  it  was  Allah’s  Will  for  him  to be buried here in this country. 

The  question  is:  How  was  it  possible  to  thwart  the  Divine Will?  In  this  dunya,  Allah  Ta’ala  has  granted  us  limited free  will.  While  it  is  the  Divine  Will  to  acquire  Rizq  in only  halaal  ways,  insaan  has  been  endowed  with  the necessary  free  will  to  take  his  Rizq  in  haraam  ways. Similarly,  while  it  is  the  Divine  Will  that  man  abstains from  sin,  he  (man)  has  been  given  the  free  will  to  act  in conflict  with  the  Divine  Will  and  to  indulge  in  sin.  Allah’s command  is  that  a  man  should  not  utter  Talaaq  thrice  in  a single  session.  Despite  this  being  Allah’s  Desire,  the  man has  the  free  will  to  act  in  conflict  thereby  damning  and dooming himself.

In  like  manner,  the  desecration  and  transportation  of  the Mayyit  were  effected  in  conflict  with  the  Divine Command.  It  is  therefore  not  a  conundrum  pertaining  to man’s  ‘power’  of  acting  in  conflict  with  Allah’s  Command. Man  does  so  by  his  own  volition  for  which  Allah  Ta’ala has  granted  him  limited  scope  in  this  dunya.  The  Shariah was  there  as  an  adequate  guide.  But  this  was  ignored  and violated recklessly to give effect to gross nafsaaniyat.

In  an  astounding  display  of  lack  of  understanding  of  the Shariah, the khaadim sahib says in his bayaan:

“The  mas-alah  of  bringing  the  mayyit  from  far  afield  had already  been  resolved  when  Hazrat  Raipuri  (rahmatullah alaih)  made  wasiyyat  in  Raipur  that,  “If  I  pass  away  in Pakistan  then  bring  me  to  Raipur.”  At  that  time  on  the excuse  of  lack  of  means  his  khuddaam  in  Pakistan  buried him  there  in  Pakistan.  And,  let  me  say  this  as  well  that  from Lahore  where  he  passed  away  the  janaazah  was  brought  to Tudya  Shareef,  which  according  to  that  time,  you  know what a distance it was.”
Hadhrat  Raipuri  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  was  a  Buzrug  who flourished  some  decades  ago.  His  wasiyyat  was  in  conflict   with  the  Shariah,  and  such  a  conflict  with  the  Shariah  in  no way  whatsoever  can  abrogate  the  14  Century  practice  of the  Ummah  based  on  the  clear-cut  commands  of  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  on  which  is  structured  the Mas’alah  of  immediate  burial  in  the  place  of  Maut.  Hadhrat Raipuri’s  wasiyyat  resolves  nothing.  It  only  complicated the  matter  for  khuddaam  who  are  inclined  to  peer-puja instead  of  obedience  to  the  Shariah.  The  example  of Hadhrat  Raipuri’s  wasiyyat  is  fallacious.  It  is  not  a  valid premiss  for  structuring  a  Shar’i  mas’alah.  His  wasiyyat  is not  among  the  Dalaa-il  of  the  Shariah.  An  issue  is  resolved in  terms  of  Shar’i  Dalaa-il,  not  in  accordance  with wasiyyats  and  whims  of  Buzrugs,  especially  when  such whim is in conspicuous conflict with the Shariah.

Hadhrat  Raipuri’s  wasiyyat  necessitated  great  delay  in  the burial  while  Rasulullah’s  Command  obligates  the  Ummah to  bury  immediately  without  undue  delay.  The  Command of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  applies  to  all members  of  the  Ummah  whether  Buzrug,  faasiq  and  faajir. A  Buzrug  is  not  exempted  from  Rasulullah’s  command  of immediate  burial.  Nabi-e-Kareem  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) said:

“Make  haste  with  the  Janaazah.  If  he  (the  mayyit)  was  a pious  person,  then  the  (abode)  you  are  sending  him  to  is best.  If  he  was  impious,  then  get  rid  of  him  from  your shoulders.”

“When  the  Janaazah  is  ready  (i.e.    ghusl  and  kafan  have been  completed),  and  the  men    load  it  on  their  necks,  then if  he  was  pious,  he  exclaims:  “Send  me  forward”.  And,  if he  was  impious,  he  wails  and  says  to  his  family:  “Where are  you  taking  it  (the  Janaazah).  Everything  except  insaan hears  its  (wailing)  voice.  If  insaan  had  to  hear  it,  he  will fall down unconscious.”

According  to  the  Hadith  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  there  are  only  two  types  of  mayyit  –  pious  and impious.  Regardless  of  greater  piety,  there  is  no  third category  to  which  Buzrugs,  peers  and  shaikhs  are  assigned. If  they  were  genuine,  they  come  within  the  ambit  of  the ‘pious’.  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said  that the  pious  mayyit  demands  haste  for  his  burial.  He  is  aware of  the  wondrous  abode  of  bliss  awaiting  him.  He  therefore commands  his  relatives  and  khuddaam:  ‘Qaddi  muni!’ (Send me forth!).

Now,  in  response  to  Maulana  Makki’s  call  of  ‘Qaddi muni!’,  his  khuddaam  did  the  direct  opposite.  Instead  of sending  him  forth  to  his  heavenly  abode  of  bliss,  where  did they  send  him?  And  what  did  they  do  with  him?  They  sent him  to  a  stinking  mortuary  here  in  South  Africa  to  be mingled  with  najis  kuffaar  corpses.  Then  they  treated  him like  chattel.  He  was  loaded  like  cargo  in  the  hold  of  a  plane together  with  other  cargo.  Then  in  Jiddah  he  was  again handled  like  cargo.  Are  these  the  abodes  for  which  the Mayyit pleaded: “Qaddi muni!” ??? 

Whilst Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commanded  haste  with  the  burial,  these  miserable khuddaam  who  are  incapable  of  constructively  and Islamically  applying  their  minds,  acted  in  diametric opposition  by  deliberately  delaying  the  burial.  The  Hadhrat died  on  Monday  before  Maghrib,  but  was  buried  on Thursday  after  Fajr.  Is  this  compliance  with  the  Hadith?  Is this obedience to the Shariah?

The  filthy  and  humiliating  act  of  mutilation  dubbed ‘embalming’  is  another  scandalous  chapter  which  shall  be discussed  later,  Insha-Allah.  The  khuddaam  are  most dishonest  in  their  denial  of  the  perpetration  of  this  barbaric act on the body of Maulana Makki (Rahmatullah alayh).

Every  unbiased  Muslim  who  does  not  subscribe  to  peer-puja  will  understand  the  gross  and  flagrant  violation  of  the Shariah  and  the  Ahaadith  committed  by  stupid  friends pandering to their personal emotional dictates.

The  action  of  the  khuddaam  of  Hadhrat  Raipuri (Rahmatullah  alayh)  has  no  validity  in  the  Shariah.  It  does not  constitute  a  Shar’i  daleel.  Burying  the  Hadhrat  in Budiyah  Shareef  away  from  Lahore  where  he  had  died  is the  error  of  the  khuddaam.  In  fact,  even  the  wasiyyat  of Hadhrat  Raipuri  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  is  not  condonable  in terms  of  the  Shariah.  No  Hadhrat  regardless  of  his  lofty status is above the Shariah.

The  argument  of  Budiyah  Shareef  to  justify  transportation to  another  country  and  the  grotesque  acts  of  desecration and  indignity  to  the  Mayyit,  besides  being  stupid  is baseless  and  has  been  tendered  without  having  any  regard for the Shariah. This attitude is the effect of peer puja.

Presenting  another  flaccid  argument  to  justify  the humiliating  method  of  transportation  of  the  mayyit,  the khaadim  sahib  avers:

“Besides  this,  a  year  later  Maulana  Yusuf  Khandhelwi who  was  the  Ameer  of  the  Jamaat  at  that  time,  his  janaazah was taken from Lahore to Delhi and buried there.”  

The  very  same  response  tendered  in  refutation  of  the flapdoodle  ‘daleel’  related  to  Hadhrat  Raipuri,  is  applicable here  to  the  burial  of  Hadhrat  Yusuf  Kandhelwi.  The  error committed  here  too  does  not  constitute  a  Shar’i  daleel. What  the  khuddaam  of  this  Hadhrat  did,  whether  of  their own  accord  or  in  fulfilment  of  a  wasiyyat  was  baatil  and not  permissible.  If  it  was  the  effect  of  a  wasiyyat,  then  the khuddaam  were  guilty  of  peer-  pujar  which  brings  them within the purview of the Qur’aanic castigation:

“They  take  their  ahbaar  and  ruhbaan  as  gods  besides Allah….”

In  the  backdrop  of  Rasulullah’s  explicit  and  emphatic commands  and  the  standard  practice  of  the  Ummah,  the wasiyyats  of  Hadhrat  Raipuri  and  Hadhrat  Yusuf Kandhelwi  have  absolutely  no  shar’i  validity.  It  is  not permissible  to  even  cite  such  wasiyyats  which  are  nugatory of the ahkaam of the Shariah.

Then  the  khaadim  sahib  attempted  to  justify  the  haraam transportation  and  the  haraam  desecration  of  the  mayyit with  the  case  of  Hadhrat  Ayyoob  Ansaari  (Radhiyallahu anhu).  There  is  absolutely  no  resemblance  with  the Janaazah  of  Hadhrat  Ayyoob  Ansaari  (Radhiyallahu  anhu). This  great  Sahaabi  was  carried  on  the  mubaarak  shoulders of  the  Mujaahideen  among  whom  were  many  Sahaabah. His  Janaazah  was  not  delayed  for  days.  His  body  was  not subjected  to  mutilation  and  desecration.  From  the  moment of  his  Maut,  it  was  the  fulfilment  of  the  Sunnah  every  step.  His  desire  was  to  be  buried  at  the  front  extremity  of  the battleline.  This  was  not  in  another  city.  It  was  on  the  same battlefield  where  numerous  Muslims  had  gained  shahaadat. It  was  not  a  case  of  transporting  the  Mayyit  from  one  city to  another.  The  bearers  of  his  Janaazah  walked  to  the  spot of  burial  which  was  at  the  bottom  of  the  walls  of Constantinople.  He  was  not  shoved  in  a  najis  mortuary  nor was his Body treated like chattel loaded with cargo. 

Even  the  Christians  honoured  his  Qabr.  They  would  visit the  Qabr  and  supplicate  for  rain  and  other  needs.  It  is utterly  stupid  to  say  the  least,  to  present  this  episode  as  a basis  for  the  villainy  which  was  committed  to  the  body  of Hadhrat Makki.

Furthermore,  the  khaadim  sahib  baselessly  latched  on  to this  episode,  despite  there  being  no  long  transportation  and desecration,  completely  forgetting  about  the  more  than  a hundred  thousand  Sahaabah  who  were  not  transported  back to  Madinah  for  burial.  They  were  buried  where  they  met their  death.  The  norm  of  the  Sahaabah  and  the  entire Ummah  throughout  the  history  of  Islam  has  always  been  to bury  on  the  same  day  and  in  the  place  where  death occurred.  It  is  precisely  for  this  reason  that  all  Muslims  are appalled  when  they  hear  of  the  mayyit  being  transported  to another  country  in  emulation  of  kuffaar  practices.    It  is  just not  Islamic  practice  to  send  the  mayyit  to  a  mortuary,  to delay  the  burial  for  days  and  to  transport  it  like  cargo  to another country.

Speaking  with  a  forked  tongue  incongruently,  the  khaadim sahib says:

“So  actually  we  should  firstly  understand  that  to  keep  the mayyit  too  long  (ziyada  der  tak)  which  is  unavoidable  in  a journey,  the  change  in  the  mayyit  is  natural—is  in  conflict with  the  honour  of  the  Mayyit.  The  blood  inside,  the  putrid matter  inside  becomes  bacteria.  Through  this,  the  mayyit’s looks  changes.  So  this  is  in  conflict  with  the  honour  of  the mayyit.  This  is  the  actual  illat  of  not  delaying  the  mayyit. To  hasten  in  the  burial  is  in  the  Ahaadith-e-Mubaarak. This is absolutely correct. There is no doubt in it.”  

Despite  conceding  the  veracity  of  the  command  in  the Hadith,  and  acknowledging  the  violation  of  the  honour  of the  Mayyit  caused  by  the  delay,  etc.,  the  khaadim  sahib very  illogically  justifies  all  the  acts  which  are  in  stark contravention  of  what  he  has  conceded  to  be  the  ‘absolute truth’.  The  illat  (raison  d’etre  –  the  purpose)  for  the prohibition  of  transporting  the  mayyit  and  delaying  the burial  is  the  command  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).    Whether  the  facial  form  changes  or  not,  the prohibition remains intact.

The  illat  advanced  by  the  khaadim  sahib  is  the  product  of his  own  opinion.  It  is  not  the  basis  for  the  command  issued by  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  On  the contrary,  the  illat  stated  in  the  relevant  Ahaadith,  is  the abode  of  bliss  towards  which  the  Mayyit  desires  to  quickly proceed,  hence  he  calls  out:  Qaddi  muni!’  (Send  me ahead!),  and  as  far  as  the  impious  mayyit  is  concerned,  the illat  for  the  commanded  haste  in  burial  is  to  get  rid  of  the evil mayyit.

Therefore,  even  if  there  is  assurance  that  the  Mayyit because  of  being  a  Maqbool  Wali,  will  not  decompose  if the  burial  is  delayed,  then  too,  it  will  be  haraam  to unnecessarily  delay  the  burial  and  to  emulate  the  way  of the  kuffaar  who  bury  after  days.  Thus,  the  khaadim  sahib’s claim  of  the  delay  being  ‘jaaiz’  in  this  case  is  utterly baseless.  He  stupidly  bases  his  fallacious  ‘fatwa’  on  what ‘many people believe”. Thus he says:

“Now  many  people  view  that  the  mayyit  of  the  mashaaikh and  seniors  do  not  decompose,  therefore,  delay  in  their burial is jaa-iz. This is clearly stated.”  

Where  is  this  clearly  stated?  What  the  many  juhala  believe is  not  a  daleel  in  the  Shariah.  A  fatwa  cannot  be  blurted  out on  the  basis  of  what  many  people  believe.  The  command  to make  haste  with  the  burial  is  applicable  to  all  –  to  even  the Shuhada  and  the  Auliya  regardless  of  their  bodies  not decomposing.  The  Shariah  may  not  be  subjected  to  change on the basis of whimsical opinion.

The  khaadim  sahib  has  promised  that  a  “complete  treatise” shall  be  published  shortly  in  vindication  of  the  grotesque villainy  which  had  been  perpetrated.  We  await  the  treatise. Insha-Allah, an adequate response shall be forthcoming.

The  khaadim  sahib  further  says: “….this  amal  is  after  the demise.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Buzrugs.  It  is  related to the khuddaam.”

With  this  statement  the  khaadim  attempts  to  create  the impression  that  the  criticism  is  directed  at  the  Mayyit,  but this  is  false.  The  criticism  is  in  fact  for  the  khuddaam  who have  perpetrated  the  villainous  desecration.  It  is  not  in  any way whatsoever directed at the Mayyit

The  khaadim  sahib  alleges  that  the  acts  perpetrated  on  the Mayyit  were  for  his  ‘ikraam’  (respect  and  honour).  His conception  of  ikraam  is  indeed  weird.  ‘Ikraam’  in  conflict with  the  Shariah  is  haraam.  It  is  indeed  surprising  that these  khuddaam  presenting  a  plethora  of  arguments  in negation  of  the  haste  commanded  by  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam).  They  search  for  straws  to  clutch  on  to justify  their  conflict  with  the  clear-cut  command  of Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  They  are  clearly the  victims  of  peer-puja.

The  khaadim  sahib  says:“While  we  are  on  it,  I  submit  that two  Sahaabah  (Radhiyallahu  anhuma)  passed  away  out  of Madinah  Munawwarah.  All  these  points  are  coming  in  the kitaab.” We  await  the  kitaab,  and  shall,  Insha’Allah, adequately  respond  to  “all  these  points”  of  baatil  with which they will be attempting to vindicate their villainy.

Regarding  the  delay  of  the  number  of  days  after  the  death, the  khaadim  sahib  says  that  the  four  day  claim  is erroneous.  According  to  him,  the  death  occurred  on Monday  after  Asr  before  Maghrib.  On  Wednesday  the Mayyit  arrived  in  Jiddah.  The  burial  took  place  after  fajr  on Thursday.  This  is  about  two  and  a  half  days.  Despite  the  ‘4 day’  understanding  being  erroneous,  the  two  and  a  half days  of  delay  is  not  vindicated  by  the  Shariah.  The  evil  of this  long  delay  of  more  than  two  days  and  almost  three nights  is  not  minimized  by  the  erroneous  four  day  claim. The  fact  is  that  there  was  an  inordinate  haraam  delay  of two  and  half  days,  and  within  this  period  of  haraam  delay, the following acts were committed on the Mayyit:

•  Inordinate  impermissible  delay •  Placing  him  in  the  mortuary  with  najis  kuffaar corpses
•  Haraam,  barbaric  embalming.
•  Transporting  with  cargo  in  kuffaar  style  coffin
•  Huge waste  of  tens  of  thousands  of  rands
•  A second  ghusl  in  conflict  with  the  Shariah
• A  second  ‘janazah  salaat’  in  conflict  with  the Shariah.    
(see  full  stops  after  each  point  above)

Instead  of  ikraam,  compounded  humiliation  was  meted  out to  the  Mayyit  by  khuddaam  who  had  failed  to  apply  their brains and who had ignored Rasulullah’s command.

The  khaadim  sahib  brazenly  denies  that  the  Mayyit  was embalmed,  calling  it  a  lie.  Let  it  be  known  that  this khaadim  and  whoever  has  misinformed  him  are  liars.  To export  a  dead  body  the  law  imposes  embalming.  No shipping  agent  will  accept  a  body  for  export  without  a  valid  certificate  to  prove  that  the  corpse  was  embalmed.  The claim  that  khuddaam  were  present  to  ensure  that  the  body was not embalmed may be told to the baboons.

The  first  claim  was  that  only  some  chemical  liquid  was poured  over  the  Mayyit.  Now  comes  the  brazen  denial  of any  act  of  embalming  being  done.  They  are  all  liars.  Furthermore,  as  the  law  requires,  the  body  was  stripped  of its  kafan  and  sealed  in  a  polythene  bag  and  enclosed  in  a kuffaar  style  coffin  and  loaded  together  with  cargo  and chattel.  This  was  the  ‘ikraam’  which  the  khuddaam  offered their Hadhratwala.

In  the  abortive  attempt  to  deflect  the  focus  from  the villainous  desecration  inherent  in  the  very  act  of  exporting a  body  to  another  country,  the  khaadim  sahib,  harps primarily  on  the  aspects  of  delay  and  transportation.  He presents  isolated  incidents  of  buzrugs  being  transported elsewhere  for  burial.  He  ignores  the  commands  of Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  He  attaches greater  importance  to  the  improper  wasiyyats  of  some buzrugs. He ignores the practice of the Ummah

In  this  specific  case  of  the  export  of  the  body  of  Hadhrat Makki  (Rahmatullah  alayh),  the  emphasis  of  the  criticism is  not  restricted  to  only  ‘transportation’  and  ‘delay’.    Whilst these  aspects  are  also  not  permissible,  the  other  acts  of desecration  and  sacrilege  are  of  the  worst  kind  of abomination  and  humiliation  to  which  the  Mayyit  has  been subjected to.

It  is  pertinent  to  ask:  Why  did  they  renew  the  ghusl  in Madinah?  Why  did  they  again  perform  Janaazah  Salaat?   Do  these  khuddaam  follow  any  Math-hab?  Are  they genuine  Hanafis  as  they  portray  themselves  or  are  they  part Hanafi,  part  salafi  and  part  something  else?  What  was  the status  of  the  ghusl,  kafan  and  Janaazah  Salaat  in Pietermaritzburg  where  he  had  died?  What  necessitated  a repetition  of  the  ghusl  and  kafan,  and  on  what  daleel  has this been done?

When  ghusl  was  repeated,  did  they  remove  the  kafan  or was  the  body  denuded  of  its  kafan?  If  the  former,  then why?  If  the  latter,  then  it  confirms  the  notorious  lie  the khaadim has presented.

Citing  the  incongruous  acts  and  statements  of  saintly people  in  negation  of  the  Shariah  is  the  inspiration  and ta’leem  of  shaitaan.  The  Auliya  also  warn  of  this  grave error  of  seeking  to  supersede  the  Shariah  by  citing  the  acts and  statements  of  the  Ush-shaaq.  Hadhrat  Shah  Waliyullah Muhaddith  Dehlwi  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  said  in Tafheematul Ilaahiyah:

“You  hold  (as  daleel)  on  to  the  talk  of  the  maghlubeen among  the  Ush-shaaq  whereas  the  kalaam  of  the  Ushshaaq  should  be  wrapped  up  and  not  narrated.  (i.e.  their   statements and acts should not be cited as proof).” 

Hadhrat  Sayyid  Ahmad  Kabir  Rifaai’ (Rahmatullah  alayh) says  in  Numyaanul  Mushayyid:

“Respected  people!  What  is  it  that  you  are  doing?  You  say Haarith  said  so;  Baayazid  said  so;  and  Mansur  Hallaj  said so.  Before  saying  so,  say  Imaam  Shafi  said  so;  Imaam Maalik  said  so;  Imaam  Ahmad  said  so;  and  Imaam  Abu Hanifah  said  so.  The  statements  of  Baayazid  Bistami  and Haarith  can  neither  drop  you  nor  rise  you.  Imaam  Shafi and  Imaam  Maalik  by  their  statements  show  the  Path  of Salvation and indicate the success of the Law.”

When  the  act  of  Haaji  Imdaadullah  (Rahmatullah  alayh) was  presented  to  justify  Milaad,  Hadhrat  Maulana  Qaasim Nanotwi  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  commented:  “Haaji  Sahib  is not the name of a Shar’i daleel.”

In  the  art  of  peer  puja,  these  so-called  ‘deobandis’  are following  in  the  footsteps  of  the  Barelwi  Qabar  Pujaaris. The ultimate consequence of peer puja is qabar puja.

A student at Madrasah Zakariyya writes:

“Bismihi  Ta’ala 
 
My  teacher,  Mufti  Radhaul  Haq  d.b.  told  us  in  Darse Bukhari  that  we  should  try  to  make  ta-weel  or  find  a  good reason  if  ever  a  great  personality  erred  or  thought  by  us  to err.  There  may  be  a  good  explanation  behind  his  action  that we  should  try  to  look  for.  The  sunnah  also  teaches  us  to make  ta-weel  of  the  mistake  of  others  and  not  be conclusive on what we saw.”

Our  Comment:  This  advice  was  given  in  the  context  of the  transportation  and  desecration  of  the  Mayyit  of  Hadhrat Makki  (Rahmatullah  alayh).  Undoubtedly,  the  advice  is correct.  However,  it  has  not  been  offered  correctly  nor understood  correctly  by  the  audience.

While  the  genuine  Buzrug  should  not  be  criticized  for  his error,  his  error  should  not  be  presented  as  Shar’i  daleel. This  is  the  issue.  The  ta’weel  is  to  save  the  Buzrug  from criticism  and  to  prevent  the  prospective  critic  from maligning  a  Wali  of  Allah  Ta’ala.  This  has,  Alhamdulillah, never  been  our  attitude  and  position.  What  is  being  said  is that  the  errors  of  the  pious  should  not  be      converted  into Shar’i dalaa-il.

In  criticizing  the  haraam  transportation  and  desecration  of the  Mayyit,  the  dead  Buzrug  is  not  being  targeted.  The haraam  attitude  of  his  khuddaam  is  being  criticized,  for they  are  justifying  their  haraam  misdeeds,  which  the Shariah  has  prohibited.  In  this  particular  case,  there  is  no need  for  making  any  ta’weel  of  an  error  of  a  Buzrug.  The Buzrug  has  departed  from  this  world,  and  the  misdeeds  are perpetrated  by  his  khuddaam  who  are  doggedly  justifying their abominations.  

The  student  quotes  Mufti  Radhaul  Haq  as  follows:

“Although  I  give  fatwa  on  quick  and  close  burial,  but  still  I can  find  a  qawl  from  zahirur-riwayah  of  Hanafi  kitaab  that it  is  permissible  to  transport  very  far  the  deceased  before burial”

This  statement  of  the  venerable  Mufti  Sahib  is  a  disservice to  the  Deen  and  it  provides  scope  for  the  commission  of haraam  in  the  name  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab.  The  Mufti Sahib  has  in  entirety  ignored  the  acts  of  desecration  which accompanied the transportation of the Mayyit.

We  shall,  Insha-Allah,  comment  on  the  isolated  ‘qawl’ cited  by  the  Mufti  Sahib,  in  our  next  Response  when  we respond  to  the  treatise  which  the  khuddaam  are  currently preparing.  In  brief,  Mufti  Radhaul  Haq’s  comment  does  not serve  the  interests  of  the  Ummah  and  the  Deen.  It  is extremely  short-sighted  to  say  the  least.  They  do  not  view criticism  objectively.  In  their  emotional  reaction  to criticism, they are oblivious of the harm and damage they cause to the Deen and the Ummah. Their attitude is to defend baatil at all costs, hence they dig out from the kutub obscurities to override the clear-cut rulings of the Fuqaha and the popular understanding and amal of the Ummah

HASTE IS THE COMMAND 

RASULULLAH (SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM)    COMMANDED:       

“MAKE HASTE WITH THE JANAAZAH. 
IF THE MAYYIT WAS PIOUS, THEN THE ABODE TO WHICH YOU ARE SENDING HIM  IS BETTER (THAN THE PLACE WHERE YOU ARE KEEPING HIM).   
IF THE MAYYIT WAS IMPIOUS, THEN GET RID OF HIM FROM YOUR NECKS.”       

Instead of sending the Buzrug to his expected abode of Bliss to which he looks forward, what did his khuddaam do? They subjected him to indignity and humiliation by handling him like chattel and shipped him off like cargo in the  most undignified and abominable manner.

For  their  villainy,  they  should  not  seek  justification  in the  kutub  of  Fiqh,  extracting  texts  which  allude  to transferring  of  bodies  WITHOUT INFLICTING  THE SLIGHTEST ACT OF  HUMILIATION AND DESECRATION.  There  is  absolutely  no  resemblance between  the  mas’alah  in  the  Kutub  and  the  villainy perpetrated  on  the  Mayyit.  Citing  the  wasiyyat  of  a Buzrug  is  a  dastardly  attempt  to  pull  wool  over  the  eyes of  the  public  by  shifting  the  focus  from  the  villainy  of the desecration to the mas’alah of mere transportation.

The Impermissibility of Women Attending the Musaajid

[Jamiatul Ulama, Northern Cape]

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) said:

“The best Salaat of a woman is her Salaat in the innermost recess of her home.”

Upholding the Prohibition  decreed by Hadhrat Umar Ibn  Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu), the Khalifah of the time, Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) said:

“If Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) saw what the women  have introduced (by way of mischief), he would most certainly prohibit them from the Musjid.”

THE FATWA OF THE HANAFI MATH-HAB

(1) Tabyeenul Haqaaiq, Vol. 1,  pages 139  and 140: “They should  not attend congregations, i.e. in  all Salaats, whether they (the  women) are young or old. This is the verdict of the Mutakh-khireen  (Fuqaha of the Ahnaaf) because  of the rise of fasaad in our times.  …….The accepted verdict in our  age is prohibition for all (Salaats)  because of the change in the  times. Precisely for this reason  did Aishah (radhiyallahu anha)  say: “If Rasulullah had seen of the  women what we have seen, then  most assuredly he would have  forbidden them from the Musjid  just as the women of Bani Israaeel  were prohibited. Women have  introduced (in their lives)  adornment, perfume and wearing  jewellery. It was for this reason  that Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  had forbidden them (from  attending the Musjid). The  changing of the ahkaam because  of the changing of the times  cannot be denied, e.g. it is  permissible to lock the Musjid at nights in our age (whereas originally this was not permissible).”

(2) Mabsoot of Imaam Sarakhsi,  Vol. 16, page 37: “Verily, during  the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and Abu Bakr  (radhiyallahu anhu) women used  to attend jama-aat (for Salaat). However, Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) prohibited this, and he was correct (in so doing).”

(3) Al-Ikhtiyaar Ta’leelil Mukhtaar,  Vol. 1, page 139: “During our times nothing of it (i.e. whether the women attending the Musjid  are young or old) is permissible  because of the fasaad of the  times and the rampancy of immorality.”

(4) An-Nihaayah: “Our Fuqaha  base the prohibition of women attending the Musjid on the prohibition declared by Hadhrat  Umar Ibn Khattaab (radhiyallahu  anhu). When he discerned the  fitnah (mischief) which women had initiated, he forbade their emergence.”

(5) Allaamah Aini (rahmatullah  alayh) of the 8th century says: “If Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) could observe the innovations and evils  which the women of this age (i.e.  the 8th century of Islam) have introduced, her rejection (of  women attending the Musjid),  would be more vehement. The  interval between the era of  Aishah’s rejection and  Rasulullah’s time is very little.  The wrongs which the women during the time of Aishah  (radhiyallahu anha) had  introduced were insignificant  compared to the evils which they have introduced during this age (i.e. the 8th century).”

(6) Al-Muheetul Burhaani:  “The  Ruling is prohibition for all  Salaats because of the spread of  fitnah of the age.”

(7) Al-Jauharah: “The verdict  (Fatwa) today is prohibition of  women’s presence (in the Musjid)  for  all Salaat because of the prevalence of mischief.”

(8) Munazzal: “The Fatwa today is  that it is forbidden for women to  attend the Musjid for all Salaats because of the appearance of fitnah.”

(9) Al-Kifaayah: “The Fatwa today  is prohibition of females  attending (the Musjid) for all  Salaats because of the spread of fitnah.”

(10) Mufti Kifaayatullah states in  his treatise, The Prohibition of  Women Attending Gatherings and Public Lectures: “The Ruling  of our Companions is that which  the author of Badaius Sanaai has said. In this there is a consensus  of opinion that a woman cannot  attend Eid or Jumuah Salaat. In  fact, she is prohibited from  attending any/all Salaat (in the  Musjid). This ruling is based on  the Qur’aanic aayat: ‘And remain resolutely in your homes…’. The  emergence of women from their homes is a cause of fitnah.” It is  further stated in Badaai: ‘Women  are not allowed to attend Salaat  with Jamaat. The proof is in the  narration of Hadhrat Umar  (radhiyallahu anhu) wherein he  prohibited women from emerging from their homes.”

(11) Fataawa Alamghiri, Vol. 1,  page 93: “The Fatwa of these  times is that it is impermissible  for women to attend (the Musjid) for any Salaat because this is an era of social decay and fitnah.”

(12) Bahrur Raa-iq, Vol. 1, page  380: “Women should not attend  the Jamaat (Salaat) in view of the aayat: “And remain resolutely in  your  homes…’ and the Hadith of  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) that the Salaat of a  woman in the innermost corner  of her home is better than her  Salaat in the courtyard of her  house, and her Salaat in the  courtyard of her house is better  than her Salaat in the Musjid, and  her home is better for her than  the Musjid. The author of Kanzud  Daqaaiq has mentioned in Kaafi  that the Fatwa of this era is  impermissibility for women to  attend any/all Salaat (in the  Musjid) because of the prevalence of immorality.”

(13) Allaamah Badruddin Aini  states in Sharah Kanz: “Women, be they young or old, are prohibited from attending the  Musjid for Jamaat Salaat because  this is an era of social decay and immorality.”

(14) Ad-Durrul Mukhtaar, Vol. 1,  page 397: “It is not permissible  for women to attend Salaat in congregation, whether it be  Jumuah or Eid or a lecture, even  if she is old and even if it is night  time. This is the final ruling on this issue. Due to the state of immorality, this ruling has been given.”

All the kutub of the Hanafi Math-hab register a firm, resolute  uncompromising prohibition on  women attending the Musjid for  Salaat or for lectures in this era  of fitnah and fasaad – evil and  immorality of men and women.  The Prohibition is based on the  Dalaa-il of the Qur’aan and  Sunnah. Only morons and immoral liberals of this age deny this irrefutable reality of the Shariah.

THE SHAAFI’ MATH-HAB

It will be prudent to state the  Shaafi’ view as well. Miscreants  and morons have an evil habit of misleading people by ascribing  falsities to the Shaafi’ Math-hab.  The Shaafi’ Fuqaha are just as vehement and resolute in prohibiting women from the Musjid as the Hanafi Fuqaha.

(1) I’aanatut Taalibeen, Vol. 2,  page 5: “Yes, it is Makrooh (i.e.  forbidden) for women of  adornment to attend the Musjid  with males because of the Hadith  in Bukhaari and Muslim narrated  from Aishah (radhiyallahu anha)  who said: ‘If Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) had to see what  women have initiated (today),  then most certainly he would  prohibit them from the Musjid  just as the women of Bani Israaeel  were prohibited.” And this prohibition is on account of the fitnah in it (in their emergenc  from their homes to attend the Musjid). The text of Sharh states:  ‘It is Makrooh (reprehensible and forbidden) for a woman to attend  Jamaat of the Musjid if she is young even if she dons shabby  (unattractive/old) garments, and  even if she is not young, but with her there is something of beauty  or the fragrance of perfume.’ And  it is the duty of the Imaam or his representatives to prevent them (from the Musjid).”

(2) Al-Iqnaa li Shurabeeni, Vol. 1, page 164: “It is Makrooh for the women of beauty (adornment) to attend (the Musjid) with males  because of the Hadith of Aishah  (radhiyallahu anha) narrated in  Bukhaari and Muslim…………..”

(3) Al-Majmoo’, Vol. 4, page 172: “When a young woman or even an old women who can be a cause of  lust, intends to attend the Musjid, it is Makrooh for her. It is also Makrooh for her husband or wali to allow her (to attend the Musjid). If it is such an old  woman who is not desirable (i.e.  she is not a cause of lust for  others) and if there is no mafsadah (fitnah/mischief) either  for her or for others, then it is  preferable for the husband to  allow her if she seeks permission.  But if he refuses (to give  permission) then it is not haraam  for him (to refuse).”

(4) Al-Majmoo’, Vol. 5, Page 13: Explaining the prohibition, it is  said: “ …..and because the fitnah  and the ways of evil in these times are abundant contrary to the initial era (of Islam).”

(5) Kifaayatul Akhyaar, Vol. 1,  page 149: “If Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had  to see what women have  introduced, he would most  certainly prohibit them from the  Musjid just as the women of Bani  Israaeel were  prohibited.’  This  then is the Fatwa of Ummul  Mu’mineen in the best of ages.  Then what should be (the fatwa)  in this corrupt time of ours?  Verily many others (Fuqaha)  besides Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) had also prohibited women from  attending the Musjid – others, e.g. Urwah Bin Zubair  (radhiyallahu anhu), Qaasim,  Yahya Ansaari and Maalik… And  this (difference of opinion regarding women’s attendance)  applied to that (early) age. But  during this era of ours, not a  single Muslim will hesitate to  prohibit women except a ghabi  (an ignoramus/moron whose  brains are dense) who lacks  understanding of the deeper  wisdom of the Shariah. He seeks  proof from the zaahiri daleel (i.e.  he looks at only the text/the  words) without understanding  its meaning………….The correct version is resolutely Tahreem (i.e.  it is haraam for women to attend  the Musjid). And the Fatwa is according to it.”

(6) Haashiyataan, Vol. 1, page  222:  “…..the likes of young  women of adornment or old  perfumed women, and it is  haraam for a married woman to  go to (the Musjid) without the  permission of  her husband, and it is haraam for him to permit her because of fitnah from her or on her.”

(7) Bujairmi alal Khateeb, Vol. 2,  page 107: “Women should not  attend Jamaat (in the Musjid) whether they are young or old  because of the spread of fasaad  (evil, immorality). …..The fatwa  today is on prohibition for all …..This includes (the daily) Jamaat  Salaat, Eid, Istisqaa and  gatherings of lectures, especially  the lecture programmes of the  juhhaal (the cardboard muftis and  paper molvis) who masquerade as Ulama whilst their motive is carnal lust.”

THE ‘FATWA’ OF MORONS

In the Shaafi’ kitaab, Kifaayatul  Akhyaar, Vol.1, page 149, the  opinion of morons is vehemently criticized. The author, Ibn Hajar  Haitami (rahmatullah alayh)  citing the famous Hadith of  Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) which constitutes a fundamental basis for the decree of Prohibition, states: 

“If Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) had seen what women  have introduced, then most assuredly he would prohibit them  from the Musjid just as the  women of Bani Israaeel were  prohibited.” (Then he comments):  ‘This, then is the fatwa of Ummul  Mu’mineen during Khairul Quroon  (the Best of Ages – the Age of  the Sahaabah). Then what should  it be during this corrupt age of  ours? (i.e. many centuries after  Khairul Quroon with immorality  on the ascendancy). Others  besides Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) too have stated the prohibition of women attending the Musjid.

Among them are Urwah Bin Zubair (radhiyallahu anhu), Qaasim, Yahya Ansaari, Maalik, and Abu Hanifah once then at another time he gave permission (for old women duringFajr, Maghrib and Isha). Similarly, Abu Yusuf prohibited it. This (prohibition) with some  differences applied to that age  (the Khairul Quroon). However,  with regard to our age (i.e. the  8/9th century), no one among  the Muslimeen will hesitate in  (the fatwa) of prohibiting women,  except a moron lacking in the  understanding of the subtleties  of the Shariah. Verily he (the  moron) argues (and seeks proof)  with the literal text and he applies it literally without understanding  its meaning and without taking into account the wisdom (and understanding) of Aishah  (radhiyallahu anha). …..And, the  Fatwa is on this (i.e  prohibition).  And Allah knows best.”

Ibn Hajar Haitami (rahmatullah  alayh) has made it abundantly  clear that only a moron – a  person with a dense brain whose  intellectual channels are clogged  with stupidity – looks at the text  and simply ascribes to it a literal  effect in terms of the apparent  meaning. He is blind to the many  factors  and circumstances which  fetter the text of the Hadith. The  density of his brain precludes the  moron from understanding the  Fatwa of Wisdom issued by  Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu  anha) and the wisdom of Hadhrat Umar’s prohibition, and the verdicts of the Mutakh-khireen Fuqaha of all Math-habs

Ibn Hajar states in his famed Al-Fataawal Kubral Fiqhiyah, Vol. 1,  page 204, which we reproduce  here for the benefit of all:

“It is appropriate in our age (i.e.  the 8th century) to categorically  decree haraam the emergence of  young and adorned women  because of the abundance of  fasaad (mischief/vice/immorality). The factor which made lawful  (female) emergence during the Khairul Quroon (the age of Rasulullah – sallallahu alayhi  wasallam), the Sahaabah and Taabieen) has most certainly  disappeared, and also has  disappeared (what is mentioned  in the Qur’aanic verse): ‘They (women) should not reveal their  beauty and they should lower  their gaze.” And, similarly is it  with the men. The evils of female  emergence now is categorical.  Then there has been mentioned  what Hadhrat Aishah  (radhiyallahu anha) said  (regarding prohibition of women  attending the Musjid)……….And,  no one will hesitate in  prohibiting women (from the Musjid and emerging from the home in general) except a ghabi who is a jaahil, and who lacks  ability in understanding the  subtleties of the Shariah …………The correct verdict is  categorical Tahreem (i.e. haraam  for women to come to the Musjid), and this is the Fatwa. And, this in a nutshell is our (Shaafi’ Math-hab).”

Thus, according to Hadhrat Ibn  Hajar Haitami Shaafi’  (rahmatullah alayh) and  according to all the Fuqaha of all  the Math-habs, the one who calls  for women to attend the Musjid,  especially in this immoral, libertine age of zina, fisq and  fujoor, is a ghabi, a jaahil, one  who is dim and dense in the brains and due to these  intellectual maladies is unable to  understand the deeper meanings  of the Shariah.

THE INITIAL PERMISSIBILITY AND THE ULTIMATE PROHIBITION

A Clinching Ruling of the Shaafi’ Math-hab

Ibn Hajar Haitami (rahmatullah alayh), the eighth century authority of the Shaafi’ Math-hab has elaborately presented this Prohibition in Al-Fataawal Fiqhiyatul Kubra. He has argued the case from all angles, and has resolutely confirmed the  prohibition for all categories of  women on account of the confirmed fitnah. The pandemic  of fitnah has been incremental  and there is no hope of it receding. Extracts from his lengthy detailed elaboration are as follows:

“With regard to the statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): “Do not prevent the female servants of Allah from the Musjid”, and similar other Ahaadith on this topic, it is  obvious that this permission is  regulated by conditions which the Ulama have explained. These  conditions have been obtained  from the Ahaadith. They are: The  woman must not be perfumed  nor adorned with jewels which make sounds. Her garments  should not be attractive. There  should be no mingling with males. The woman should not be young  or like a young woman who can  be a cause of fitnah. There  should be no fear of mischief in  the road. ……..If even one of  these conditions is lacking, then she will be prohibited (from going to the Musjid or anywhere else).

The condition for permissibility of emerging is the non-existence of fitnah and this is obvious. When emergence is haraam (because of fitnah), then prohibiting (women) is Waajib (on the husband or the guardian).

Furthermore, the statement of Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) reinforces prohibition, for she said: ‘If Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) had seen what  the women have introduced, he  would prohibit them from the Musjid just as the women of Bani Israaeel were prohibited.’

What she (Hadhrat Aishah-  radhiyallahu anha) had deducted  is supported by the statement of  Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh),  viz., ‘The fataawa (verdicts) for people will be in accordance with the immorality which they have introduced.’ The meaning of Imaam Maalik’s statement is what Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) had intended. In other words, if a person introduces such an act for which the Principles of the Shariah dictate a decree other than the decree which had existed before the innovation, then a new decree will be applied according to what has been introduced, not in accordance with what had existed prior to the introduction. ………..

This is supported by her Hadith  narrated by Ibn Maajah: ‘While  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was seated in the Musjid an adorned woman  entered the Musjid walking  proudly showing off her beauty  in the Musjid. Then said  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam): ‘O people! Forbid your women from wearing garments  of beauty and from pride in the  Musjid, for verily, Bani Israaeel  were cursed when their women dressed beautifully and swaggered in the Musaajid.’

When a woman emerges only in  this manner, she shall be prevented. …… (The prohibition)  is further supported by the  statement of Ghazaali in Al-Ihya.  He said: ‘It is Waajib to prohibit  women from attending the  Musaajid for Salaat, for gatherings of knowledge and  thikr when there is fear of fitnah, for verily Aishah (radhiyallahu  anha) had prohibited them. It  was then said to her: ‘Verily,  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) did not prohibit women from jamaa-aat (gatherings in  the Musjid).’ She then said: ‘If  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) had known what the  women have introduced after him, he would most certainly have prohibited them.’

The statement of Ibn Khuzaimah  who is among our Akaabir (senior) Ashaab supports this: ‘The Salaat of a woman in her home is superior to her Salaat in the Musjid of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) despite it being equal to a thousand Salaat. This means the Salaat of men, not of women. Therefore, when it (her Salaat in her home) is superior (than even 1000 Salaat of men who perform in Musjid Nabawi), then the motive which brings her out of the home is either riya (show) or pride, and this is haraam.

Among the worst evils is the  mingling of the ignoramuses  among the masses. Men with  their wives with exposed faces  mix with other men during Tawaaf. Also among the evils is  what the women of Makkah and  others do when they intend to  perform Tawaaf and enter the  Musjid. They adorn themselves and use very strong perfume  which can be smelt from a distance. With this they distract  the attention of the people, and  this constitutes a cause for  attracting gazes towards them,  leading to different kinds of moral corruption. We supplicate  to Allah to guide the rulers to  eradicate these evils, Aameen!  Now ponder! You will find the  situation categorically  demanding prohibition even with  regards to Tawaaf when women  perpetrate acts leading to fitnah.  Thus, this situation further  supports what she (Hadhrat Aishah –radhiyallahu anha) had  said earlier.………. (In view of the  appalling moral decadence) how can prohibiting her not be  incumbent……..and how can it be  said that emergence (from the  home) is permissible for her. This cannot be in the Shariah.

Among the haraam acts is their  (women’s) brushing against men  in the Musjid and the road. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) said: “It is better for a  man to brush against a mud-soiled pig than his shoulders  brushing against a woman who is  not lawful for him.” Narrated by  Tabaraani.….. Therefore if you say:  ‘What, do you prohibit women  from the Musaajid, places of Eid  Salaat and visiting the quboor  besides the Qabar of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? My  response is: ‘How is it possible for me not to say so when there is consensus on this (prohibition)  because of the non-existence of  the conditions of permissibility  for khurooj (i.e. emergence from the home to attend the Musjid, etc.). And that (the conditions  for permissibility) during the age  of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) were piety and moral purity.’

Among the Mutaqaddimeen, the two noble and illustrious Shaikhs and Imaams: Shaikh Taqiuddeen Al-Haseeni and our Shaikh  Alaauddeen Muhammad Bin  Muhammad Bin Muhammad Al-Najjaari May Allah cover them  with His mercy – have (also) stated this (as explained above).  That which both these illustrious  Shaikhs have stated is adequate  for a person who abandons his  desire. Some have inferred that  the view of Tahreem (i.e. haraam  for women to attend the Musjid)  and the claim of consensus on  prohibition are in conflict with  the (Shaafi’) Math-hab. But it is  not so. On the basis of what I  explain from the kutub of the  Math-hab, etc. their purpose is  clarified, and it explains that  there is no conflict (with the Math-hab) in what they have said.
That which they (the two  illustrious Shaikhs) have said is  that, verily, the Fatwa in this age  is the prohibition of women’s  emergence (from their homes to attend the Musjid, etc.). None, but a moron subservient to his  base desires will hesitate in this  (i.e. in accepting that it is  prohibited for women), for verily,  the ahkaam change with the  changing of the people of the  age. This is the correct version according to the Ulama of the Salf and Khalf of the Math-habs.

Tahaawi said that the command  for their emergence was in the  initial period of Islam so that the Muslims may appear large in  number in the eyes of the enemies. It is mentioned in Sharh  Ibn Daqeequl Eid: ‘Verily, in that  time (the initial period of Islam)  the people of Islam were in  numerical inferiority, hence there  was a need to emphasize the  emergence of women and (even)  the females of khudoor (young girls who remain within their  homes)….. It is mentioned in  Musannaf of Ibnul Attaar that  going to the Musjid in the  darkness at the time of safety  from harm and fitnah, was  permitted during the era of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and  for a while during the time of the  Sahaabah. Thereafter this  (emergence from the homes to go  to the Musjid) was prohibited  because of the (fitnah) which  women had introduced such as  adornment, perfume, and their  mischief with men. Then he (the  Author of Musannaf) mentioned the Hadith of Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) in which appears the  prohibition of females. ……………It  is appropriate (i.e. necessary) for a man not to aid his wife or any  woman under his jurisdiction to  emerge from her home.………. This (i.e. their attending the Musjid in the initial period of Islam) has been prohibited for other eras because in their attendance there are many acts of haraam corruption.

And, he (i.e. Imaam Ghazaali) said  in Al-Ihya: ‘It is Waajib to prohibit  women from attending the Musaajid for Salaat and  gatherings of thikr when there is  fear of fitnah. These then are the  different views of the Ulama according to the changing times.

When there is the incidence of  fitnah, then (their attendance) is  haraam without any doubt. The meaning of fitnah is zina and its  introductory steps such as  looking (at females), privacy with  them, touching, etc.

At the time of the prevalence of  haraam acts, the correct view is  absolute haraam, and a Faqeeh  does not hesitate in this (i.e. in  issuing the fatwa of haraam).  ………………….The correct version is  that the Fatwa is absolute prohibition.” (Al-Fataawal Fiqhiyatul Kubra)

It is significant that Ibn Hajar  Haitami (rahmatullah alayh) has  branded the rejecter of  prohibition a moron (ghabi).    Only morons attempt to utilize  their corrupted intelligence to  cancel ahkaam of the Shariah which have existed since the earliest age of Islam and which all the Authorities have confirmed.

The differences of the early  Fuqaha are restricted to ‘old  women’ – old grandmothers –  who are beyond the age of  marriage and who do not  constitute fitnah for even old  men. This is clearly stated in the  kutub of the Shariah. As far as  young, middle-aged and such old  women who flaunt beauty and adornment or exercise an  attraction are concerned, there is  consensus of the Fuqaha of all  Math-habs that it is not  permissible for them to attend the Musjid. However, the moron  deceptively labours to confuse  people with this slight difference.  After the Khairul Quroon era, the  prohibition was extended to even  old women because of the fitnah  of the times – the fitnah of the  women and the fitnah of the men.
As far as the present age – the  15th Islamic century/the 21st  century of the Christian era – is  concerned, immorality is total.  Moral depravity, shamelessness,  lewdness, abandonment of  hijaab, etc. are the order of the  day. Under no circumstances will  it ever be permissible for women to attend the Musjid in these times. The position is worse in  the Haramain Shareefain. The  rulers being immoral are  permitting the perpetration of  immorality and fitnah right inside  the sacred precincts of the Holy  Musaajid. The evil is appalling,  particularly during Tawaaf. The  authorities have grossly failed in  their obligation of maintaining strict segregation and separation of Tawaaf times for the sexes. 

SEPARATE FACILITIES FOR WOMEN AT THE MUSAAJID??

Question: A Mufti in the U.S.A. while acknowledging that the Shariah has prohibited women  from the Musjid is of the view  that in the present age women  are all over in the public.  Therefore separate Salaat facilities at the Musaajid should  be set aside for them. He says  that the Ulama who are against  this are extreme. Please comment.

Answer by Majlisul Ulama:

The advice which the mufti proffers regarding the   construction of separate facilities for females at the Musaajid is extremely short-sighted and not  permissible. This Deen of Islam  was revealed, completed and  perfected more than fourteen  centuries ago. There is no room  for changing the masaa-il of  Islam to accommodate deviation  and what has been impermissible  since the time of the Sahaabah.

Today among the Yahood there  remains not a semblance of the  Shariah of Nabi Musa (alayhis  salaam), and among the  Christians not a semblance of the  Shariah of Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam). The reason for this total  loss of the Shariats of the  previous Ambiya (alayhimus  salaam) is the policy of   subjecting their respective  Shariats to an evolutionary process which permits perennial  change, distortion,  misinterpretation, mutilation and  transmogrification of the Laws  of Allah Ta’ala. Every Tom, Dick and Harry has a licence to interpret and distort the religion in terms of their fanciful  reasoning and nafsaani demands.

But, by the fadhl of Allah Ta’ala  Islam will not be extinguished  because Allah Ta’ala has created a  mechanism to protect the  originality and pristine purity of  this Deen, and that mechanism is  the institution of the Ulama-e-Haqq whose obligation is to act  as the watchdogs of the Divine Shariah.

The proposal to open up the Musjids or to establish separate Salaat facilities attached to the Musaajid for ladies because they  are already wandering in public is  a deception of shaitaan. Such  deceptions of shaitaan are termed Talbeesul Iblees. Shaitaan  approaches ‘scholars’ – shallow -minded ‘scholars’ whose hearts  and minds are anchored to the dunya, and who submit and make  subservient the Shariah to  worldly expediencies – such expediencies which are haraam, and grips them in his tentacles.  Instead of issuing the Shariah’s  ruling for the expediency, the  endeavour – the haraam  endeavour – is to distort and  mutilate the Shariah to conform to the development.

Thus, the endeavour is to give  recognition and confer permissibility to female  participation in public life by  twisting the Shariah’s prohibition  of females attending the Musjid into a confounded ‘permissibility’  which in reality is a haraam  ‘permissibility’. It is illogic and  haraam to change a ruling of the  Shariah simply because women  are participating in public life, shoulder to shoulder with males.  Our reaction should be the  opposite. The prohibition to attend the Musjid should be more  emphasized and women should  be educated and castigated for  their emergence from their homes in emulation of their western counterparts. Their  haraam emergence and participation in public life should  be condemned regardless of  whether they accept or reject. It  is downright stupid and not  permissible to argue that since    women are participating in  brothels, we should open up the  Musaajid for them for Salaat.

The presence of women in public  malls, etc. is not grounds for  transforming a haraam practice  into a permissible one. On the  contrary, the liberal muftis who  are trying to make women’s  emergence acceptable, should  rather fulfil their obligation of  Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil  Munkar by education and propagation to inform women  that their participation in public life in the domain of males is haraam.

If a woman has degenerated to  the level of mingling with the  opposite sex and participating  fully in public life as mentioned  by the ‘mufti’ in his corrupt fatwa, then what prevents her from  performing her Salaat in a corner  of the mall or in the office where  she works or in a corner on the  pavement? In fact, we (males) do exactly so. We perform Salaat no  Musjid nearby. Now if a woman    acts like a man and emerges from  her home to mingle with the  opposite sex in public, then she  too can perform Salaat in the  public as men do.

The entire day she spends in  public. Suddenly when Salaat    time arrives then she will make it  Qadha or forgo it rather than  perform it in the public which she  has made her ‘home’. It is indeed  preposterous and unjust to  charge the prohibition sits with  extremism for preventing women  from the Musjid, when the  women are in fact practising  haraam extremism by being in  public, then aggravating their  haraam extremism and sins by  abstaining from Salaat and  making it qadha simply because  there is no Musjid nearby or no  ladies facilities. Since they have  chosen the haraam practice of  public participation, they should perform their Salaat also in the public.

All the arguments in favour of  women’s facilities are the effects  of Satanism. Shaitaan whispers    his shaitaaniyat into the brains  of moron ‘muftis’ who have a  concept of churning out ‘halaal’  fatwas from haraam acts. Two  haraam acts do not equate to a  halaal act. Thus, the act of female  intermingling is haraam. The act  of  women attending the Musjid  is haraam. These two cannot be fused into a halaal.

By legalizing women’s facilities at  Musjids, the practice will become  entrenched. It will be become a  permanent feature of the  Shariah’s landscape in the same  way as the Yahood and the  Nasaara have made all their  haraam interpolations integral  parts of their respective religions.
The liberal ‘muftis’ who are acting as the representatives of women  in the public, despite acknowledging the reason for the Sahaabah preventing women  from the Musjid, believe that it is  allowed today when the same  dangers have multiplied manifold  in this age of immorality. We  cannot simply resign ourselves to  accepting female intermingling in  the public domain. We must and shall continuously castigate their  evil regardless even if not a single  woman accepts the naseehat of  the Shariah. Our obligation is  only to deliver the clear Message  of the Deen. Hidaayat is the  prerogative of Allah Ta’ala. He  guides whomever He wills, and  He leaves to stray whomever He desires. Our duty is only to guard  the purity of Islam. And, this  obligation demands rejection of  the new-fangled contaminated,  corrupt ‘fatwas’ of the shallow-minded, modernist ‘muftis’ who  are bereft of Khauf-e-Ilaahi  (Divine Fear). It seems that they  believe that they are not going to  die, hence their audacity in  churning out corrupt ‘fatwas’  which only mislead people further  into corruption and moral degeneration.

The errant ‘mufti’ cites the ‘classical’ Fuqaha as if the fatwa  which they had issued was  personal opinion which could be  set aside. He acquits himself as if  the ‘fitnah’ which was and is the  basis for the prohibition, no  longer exists in the present age,  hence he subtly attempts to  restrict the prohibition with what  he describes as “the context in  which the Fuqaha were giving  such verdicts” . Any Muslim of  intelligence who has no shaitaani objective will understand that the “context of the Fuqaha” exists today to a far greater degree to warrant an emphasis on the prohibition. Nothing has developed since the era of the “classical” Fuqaha to warrant a relaxation or amelioration in the  strict fatwa of prohibition. On  the contrary, the fitnah has multiplied manifold.

Arguing in favour of female emergence in conflict with the unequivocal prohibition announced in the Qur’aan and Ahaadith, the liberal ‘mufti’ says:  “The need to emerge out of the house was not like the need we  have in today’s complicated world.”  This is utterly fallacious.  Zina may not be justified nor  mitigated by arguing that the  times of our era differ vastly from  the time when the prohibition was revealed. Such arguments are satanic. The ‘context’ is the same.  Nothing has happened to the  ‘context’ to justify the forging of  a new ‘fatwa’ on an issue in which  the “context” has only worsened.  Furthermore, even if the ‘context’ changes for the better, the prohibition can never be mitigated or relaxed until the day of Qiyaamah because never is it possible for an age such as the age of the Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the  Sahaabah to be resurrected. The ‘fitnah’ which had already developed during the age of the Sahaabah and on which basis the  prohibition was enacted by Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  and the Sahaabah, will not be ameliorated. That fitnah is in a  constant incremental state of worsening.

The liberal mufti very ignorantly  avers that it is “unfair” to prevent  women from the Musaajid in view  of them already being all over the  show and the market places, etc. Thus, he advocates relaxation of  a Shar’i prohibition on the basis  of haraam acts perpetrated by  women. In other words, he confers acceptance and  respectability to women in the streets and market places, hence  the doors of the Musaajid should  be thrown open for them. The  consequence of this stupid,  lopsided satanic logic is nothing  other than the introduction of  the fitnah into our last bastions  of piety, namely, the Musaajid.  The “scholar of piety” who had  advocated this stance, is  extremely short-sighted and  shallow in his knowledge, hence  he ventured this stupid opinion. This very same logic could be  extended to prostitutes in a brothel. In terms of this lopsided  logic emanating from warped  brains, it follows that the  Musaajid should open their doors  for prostitutes to perform Salaat  since they are already on the  streets and in the vice dens plying their haraam abominable trade. The current ‘complicated world’ is  not valid grounds for women’s  emergence. In fact, the contrary  is valid. That is, due to the evils  of the current ‘complicated world’, the need for women to remain  indoors is greater than the need which had existed during the age of the Sahaabah.

He further tries to justify females  going to the Musjid by saying:  “…at times there may be a  genuine need for women to go  out to the Mosques, such as    when travelling…..” This reasoning is deceptive, and another example of Talbeesul Iblees. Firstly, he has been compelled to confess and  concede that the need for  women to emerge from their  houses is restricted to “times of  genuine need”. Such need had  always existed since time  immemorial. Despite their  emergence during times of    genuine need, the prohibition  had remained in force for the  past fourteen centuries.   Womenfolk in our communities  had always emerged from their  homes when there was genuine  need. When this happened, Allah  Ta’ala always made arrangements  for their Salaat to be performed  on time in privacy. 

Genuine need is not prowling in  the malls, market places and  working in factories and offices.  Genuine needs are visiting  relatives, close friends, etc. They  will perform Salaat at the homes  of the people whom they visit. If    they visit for any other valid  reason, they can perform Salaat  wherever they happen to be. But,  the reality is that there is never a  need for qadha, and never such a  situation where they cannot find facilities for Salaat. Their  necessary emergence is seldom, while in this age, their emergence  is an abundance of haraam. And,  for this haraam, the prohibition  may not be abrogated.

Thus, the stance of those who  prohibit women from the Musjid  is never ‘extreme’. It is tantamount to kufr for branding a  Hukm of the Shariah as being ‘extreme’. Every ruling of the Shariah is moderate and designed    for the welfare and best interests  of the Ummah. The miscreant  ‘mufti’ who has branded the  Ulama who prohibit women from  the Musjid as being ‘extreme’ is  implying that the ruling of the  Shariah is ‘extreme’. He should  repent for such denigration of  the Shariah. He plods the path of  baatil and dhalaal.