By Mujlisul Ulama

The custom which is universally prevalent after burial of the mayyit (deceased) is involvement in futility and even frivolity. The family members assemble at the home of the deceased for some feasting, crying, perhaps even wailing, discussing the exploits of the mayyit, and some even for gheebat. In the variety of activities in which the family members engage, the first and foremost Waajib act commanded by the Shariah is disregarded with wanton neglect and even disdain. Attendance to the estate – the assets – of the mayyit is not accorded the least bit of attention although this is the first compulsory obligation after burial.

This neglect perpetrated by 99.9% of the people invariably leads to misappropriation of the mayyit’s assets, usurpation, defrauding, and denial of the correct shares which Allah Ta’ala has apportioned for the heirs. In almost all cases of such flagrant disregard of the Shariah’s command, the consequences are heartrending and vile in the extreme. After some time has lapsed without proper accountability and division of the estate in accordance with the Shariah, the heirs – brothers and sisters – mother and children – aunts and uncles, etc become life-long enemies, each one accusing the other of having usurped his/her rightful share of inheritance.

The prime culprits usually in fiascos of this type are the mayyit’s sons who operate and manipulate the mayyit’s business and assets as if they are the sole owners. Nothing is recorded. No agreement is made with the other heirs. The daughters are generally ignored, and the sons continue with the business as if they have become the sole owners. The estate is allowed to drag on indefinitely until ultimately the issue becomes confrontational. Then commences the long uphill battle of acrimony, accusation, counter-accusation, even violence and kuffaar-court actions to resolve an Islamic issue with kuffaar law. When this stage of corruption is reached, the adversaries, despite professing to be faithful Mu’mineen, see only kuffaar law as their succour. In so doing, they move directly into the glare of Allah’s Decree: “Those who do not rule according to that (Shariah) which Allah has revealed, verily they are the kaafiroon.”

There is a glut of cases of this sort of misery. Whenever Muslims do not submit to the directives of the Shariah, the inevitable consequences are misery, animosity and even life-long disruption of very close family ties. Brothers become enemies to one another; brother becomes the enemy of the sister; mother becomes the enemy of her children; grandchildren become the enemies of their seniors who had perpetrated the corruption in the first instance. Muslims – close family members — are squandering millions of rands in legal fees fighting one another in the courts for the carrion of the world. All the noble and lofty ideals produced by blood ties are eliminated. Observers viewing the scenario from outside are aghast and could be forgiven for doubting the legitimacy of those clawing at each other in their homes and in the courts to lay their hands on the rotting meat of this dunya. If an observer concludes that those fighting each other over inheritance issues are perhaps the illegitimate offspring of the deceased, he could be forgiven because true blood brothers and blood sisters do not or are not supposed to conduct themselves with such vehement acrimony and intense animosity as heirs do for the acquisition of money.

What is the duty of the heirs? After the mayyit has been buried, the first duty of the senior members – usually the adult sons – is to make a detailed meticulous inventory of the mayyits assets – all his assets – even the shoes and the unwashed pair of socks he was last wearing. Every item of the estate has to be recorded. It is essential to understand that every heir’s right pervades every single item in the estate of the mayyit. There is not a single heir, male or female, who has the right to claim a specific item in the estate. Since the rights of all the heirs are related to every item, the division of the assets will have to be with understanding, give and take – with compromise – as is expected of Muslims who have some fear of Allah Ta’ala in their hearts. The heirs are not expected to behave like cats and dogs. They are expected to act responsibly with bigness of heart as is expected of Mu’mineen.

After returning from the Qabrustaan (graveyard), instead of assembling for refreshments and nonsensical conversation, the male heirs and even the female heirs, if they are not ghair mahram, should immediately commence with the work of the inventory. Not an item should be excluded. The emphasis is more on a physical stock-taking of the business assets. The stock and other assets in the shops and factories must be accurately listed. In fact, the stock-taking has to be 100% genuine, unlike the estimates which are prepared for tax purposes.

The male heirs who are in charge of the business of the mayyit should understand that it is haraam for them to continue business operations without an agreement with the other heirs. Every heir has his/her proportionate ownership in every item of the stock, equipment and vehicles, etc. which had belonged to the mayyit. The ownership of the heirs is established simultaneous with the death of their father/relative. It is therefore not permissible for any heir to utilize any asset of the estate without a proper agreement having been made.

If those in charge of the business continue to trade without any agreement with the heirs, they are guilty of usurpation of the assets of the heirs. This happens in 99.9% of cases in which the mayyit leaves behind a business. The trading continues for years and sometimes for even decades. At such a stage more than one generation of heirs become entangled in an almost insoluble mass and mess from which amicable extrication is a virtual impossibility.

One very important fact which all heirs should take note of in a case of such usurpation of assets with which some of the heirs continue the operation of the business, is that despite the usurpation, all future profit yielded by the business belongs to those who operated the business. The future profit, that is, after the demise of the mayyit, does not form part of the estate. The rights of the heirs are related to only the assets which the mayyit had left, not in future profit acquired from the usurped assets. The usurpers will have to face the Reckoning in the Divine Court for their usurpation – for having utilized the assets without the consent of the owners.

An extremely contentitious issue due to ignorance and greed develops when the usurper heirs have to pay the other heirs for the assets they had utilized without consent. The usurpers invariably claim that the value of the assets on the day of demise has to be paid while the other heirs claim the current value. The heirs are entitled to demand that the usurpers pay their share with tangible assets. For example, if the business assets comprised of groceries, and the estate is finalized only after five years, the heirs can claim that their share of the assets be paid in groceries. The usurper heirs may not argue that they will pay whatever the value of the groceries was five years ago at the time of demise. Either they have to pay with groceries or make a reasonable settlement which is acceptable to the heirs.

If the usurper heirs had utilized the gold coins of the mayyit, they have to pay the other heirs in the form of gold coins. They will have to buy gold coins at today’s price and pay the heirs therewith. The value of the coins five years ago has no validity. There are therefore three options to settle the usurpation: (1) Pay in the form of tangible assets (2) Pay the current value of the assets (3) Arrange a compromise settlement acceptable to the aggrieved heirs.

Usually the mayyit’s vehicles are appropriated and misappropriated by the sons who utilize the vehicles to the exclusion of the daughters and other heirs. This issue should be resolved the very day of the demise, immediately after burial of the mayyit. A price mutually agreed on should be fixed for the vehicles. Whoever among the heirs desires to retain the vehicles will have to pay the price minus his share. The cash should then be divided among the heirs in accordance with the law of Inheritance. It is haraam for any one heir to simply take possession of a vehicle and utilize it for himself to the exclusion of the others. The heir purchasing the vehicle/s may arrange to pay the other heirs in instalments. It should however be remembered that all dealings have to be by mutual cooperation and agreement. An heir by virtue of his seniority has no right of imposing his will and decision on the other heirs. It should be expected and accepted that there will have to be a degree of compromise in the process of physically dividing the assets. Most assets cannot be physically divided into bits and pieces. For a successful settlement in this area, the attributes of Imaan play a prominent role. We are not expected to behave like animals and such persons who have no belief in the Aakhirah and the Reckoning in the Divine Court. When distributing the assets, always bear in mind the following advice and promise of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam):

“I guarantee a (special) palace in the middle of Jannat (i.e. the prime site in Jannat) for one who abandons a dispute despite him being rightful (in his claim).”

The score of the household furniture, crockery, cutlery and the mayyit’s clothing, etc. should be settled on the very day of the demise. The distribution of these items should be effected by physical division of the various items into lots of approximately equal value, or individual articles should be sold to heirs who wish to acquire such items or by compromise settlement.

It is of great importance to understand that gifts made by heirs of their shares or waiving of their rights are not valid prior to taking physical possession of their respective shares of the assets. Thus, if an heir makes a ‘gift’ of his/her share of the assets, such gift will not be valid. The heir still retains his/her right. He/she should first be given physical possession of his/her share of the assets. Thereafter, the heir may decide what to do with the assets.

Many people simply donate the mayyit’s clothes to charity. This is not permissible. If all the adult heirs unanimously decide to make a donation of the clothes or of any specific item, then too the rule of possession is essential. The garments should be physically divided into lots and handed over to the heirs. Thereafter they may donate whatever they wish and to whomever they wish. It is impermissible for an heir to canvass the others and to induce them to donate any part of their assets to charity, etc.

The shares of minor (nabaaligh) heirs have to be compulsorily held in trust until they are of discerning age capable of handling their own finances.

This discussion is a brief outline of the action which should be taken by the heirs immediately after burial. An inventory of all the assets immediately after burial is Waajib. All other related issues – and there are many – should be solved and settled with the guidance of Ulama who are experienced in the matter of Inheritance.

Usurpation of the assets of heirs is akin to the crime of murder for which ‘everlasting’ punishment in Jahannum has been threatened.

ﻣﺰﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﭘﺮ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﯼ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ ﻣﺸﮑﻼﺕ ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﺣﻞ ﮐﺮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ؟

ﻣﺰﺍﺭﻭﮞ ﭘﺮ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﯼ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ ﻣﺸﮑﻞ ﺣﻞ ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﺮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﯾﮧ ﺣﻘﯿﻘﯿﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﮐﺎ ﺍﻣﺘﺤﺎﻥ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﮔﻤﺮﺍﮦ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﻭﺍﻟﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺭﺳﯽ ﮐﻮ ﮈﻫﯿﻼ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﻭﺍﻟﯽ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮨﮯ. ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ ﺍﻧﻬﯿﮟ ﺳﺮ ﮐﺸﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﻬﻼ ﭼﻬﻮﮌ ﺩﯾﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻭﮦ ﺳﺮﮔﺮﺩﺍﮞ ﺭﮨﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ.

ﺍﺱ ﮐﻮ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﻨﺎ ﮨﻮ ﺗﻮ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻭﻟﯿﺪ ﺭﺿﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻨﮧ ﮐﺎ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﮧ ﺑﮍﯼ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﮨﮯ: ﺟﺐ ﻭﮦ ﻧﺒﯽ ﺍﮐﺮﻡ ﷺ ﮐﮯ ﺣﮑﻢ ﺳﮯ ﻃﺎﺋﻒ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺸﮩﻮﺭ ﺁﺳﺘﺎﻧﮯ ‘ﻋﺰﯼٰ’ ﮐﻮ ﮔﺮﺍ ﮐﺮ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﺗﯿﻦ ﺩﺭﺧﺘﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﮐﺎﭦ ﮐﺮ ﻭﺍﭘﺲ ﺁﺋﮯ ﺗﻮ ﻧﺒﯽ ﺍﮐﺮﻡ ﷺﻧﮯ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ: ﺍﮮ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺩﻭﺑﺎﺭﮦ ﺟﺎﺅ ﺗﻢ ﺍﺑﻬﯽ ﺗﮏ ﮐﭽﮫ ﺑﻬﯽ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﺮ ﮐﮯ ﺁﺋﮯ، ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺭﺿﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻨﮧ ﺗﻠﻮﺍﺭ ﻟﮯ ﮐﺮ ﺩﻭﺑﺎﺭﮦ ﮔﺌﮯ ﺗﻮ ﺁﺳﺘﺎﻧﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺟﮕﮧ ﭘﺮ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺭﺿﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻨﮧ ﻧﮯ ﺑﺮﮨﻨﮧ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺑﮑﻬﺮﮮ ﮨﻮﺋﮯ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﮞ ﻭﺍﻟﯽ ﻋﻮﺭﺕ ﺩﯾﮑﻬﯽ ﺟﻮ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﺳﺮ ﭘﺮ ﻣﭩﯽ ﮈﺍﻝ ﺭﮨﯽ ﺗﻬﯽ ﺗﻮ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺭﺿﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻨﮧ ﻧﮯ ﺗﻠﻮﺍﺭ ﮐﯽ ﺿﺮﺏ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻭ ﭨﮑﮍﮮ ﮐﺮ ﺩﺋﮯ ، ﭘﻬﺮ ﻧﺒﯽ ﺍﮐﺮﻡ ﷺ ﮐﻮ ﺁ ﮐﺮ ﯾﮧ ﻭاﻗﻌﮧ ﺑﺘﻼﯾﺎ ﺗﻮ ﺁﭖؐ ﻧﮯ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ : ﯾﮧ ﻋﻮﺭﺕ ‏(ﺷﯿﻄﺎﻥ) ﻋﺰﯼٰ ﺗﻬﯽ ، ﺟﻮ ﻟﻮﮔﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﯾﮟ ﭘﻮﺭﯼ ﮐﺮﺗﯽ ﺗﻬﯽ ‏[ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮ ﺍﺑﻦ ﮐﺜﯿﺮ]

ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﮨﻮﺍ ﮐﮧ ﻣﺰﺍﺭﻭﮞ ﭘﺮ ﭼﻮﻧﮑﮧ ﻟﻮﮒ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﻮ ﺳﺠﺪﮦ ﮐﺮ ﮐﮯ ﺷﺮﮎ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ،ﻟﮩٰﺬﺍ ﺍﯾﺴﮯ ﺷﺮﮎ ﮐﮯ ﺍﮈﻭﮞ ﭘﺮ ﺷﯿﺎﻃﯿﻦ ﮈﯾﺮﮦ ﮈﺍﻝ ﻟﯿﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺁﻧﮯ ﺟﺎﻧﮯ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻭﮞ ﮐﻮ ﭘﻮﺭﺍ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ، ﺟﺲ ﺳﮯ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺕ ﻣﻨﺪ ﮐﺎ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﭘﺨﺘﮧ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﯾﮩﺎﮞ ﭘﺮ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﯼ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﺳﮯ ﻣﯿﺮﺍ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﮧ ﺣﻞ ﮨﻮﺍ ﮨﮯ ﺟﺒﮑﮧ ﯾﮧ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﮧ ﺍﺱ ﺁﺩﻣﯽ ﮐﮯ ﺷﺮﮎ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﺳﮯ ﺷﯿﻄﺎﻥ ﻧﮯ ﺣﻞ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ. ﺑﻌﺾ ﺩﻓﻌﮧ ﺷﯿﻄﺎﻥ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﻬﯽ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺗﮑﻠﯿﻒ ﭘﮩﻨﭽﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺟﺲ ﮐﺎ ﺁﺩﻣﯽ ﮈﺍﮐﭩﺮﻭﮞ ﺳﮯ ﻋﻼﺝ ﮐﺮﻭﺍﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺗﻮ ﮐﺎﻣﯿﺎﺏ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﭘﻬﺮ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻭﮞ ﭘﺮ ﺟﺎ ﮐﺮ ﺷﺮﮎ ﮐﺮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺗﻮ ﺷﯿﻄﺎﻥ ﭼﻬﻮﮌ ﺩﯾﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺟﺲ ﺳﮯ ﺁﺩﻣﯽ ﮨﻤﯿﺸﮧ ﮐﯿﻠﺌﮯ ﺷﺮﮎ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﺒﺘﻼ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ.

ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺳﮯ ﮨﺮ ﺑﯿﻤﺎﺭﯼ ﮐﯽ ﺷﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﺸﮑﻞ ﮐﮯ ﺣﻞ ﮐﺎ ﺍﯾﮏ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻣﻘﺮﺭ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﻣﺰﺍﺭﻭﮞ ﭘﺮ ﻣﻨﺘﯿﮟ ﻣﺎﻧﮕﻨﮯ ﻭﺍﻟﮯ ﯾﮩﯽ ﺳﻤﺠﻬﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﮨﻤﯿﮟ ﺷﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻭﺭ ﮨﻤﺎﺭﯼ ﻣﺸﮑﻼﺕ ﮐﺎ ﺣﻞ ﻣﺰﺍﺭﻭﮞ ﭘﺮ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﯼ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﯾﺎ ﻣﻨﺖ ﻣﺎﻧﮕﻨﮯ ﺳﮯ ﮨﻮﺍ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﺱ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻭﮦ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺷﺮﮎ ﺍﮐﺒﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﺒﺘﻼ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ .
ﻗﺎﺭﺋﯿﻦ ﮐﺮﺍﻡ ﺁﭖ ﺫﺭﺍ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺳﻮﭼﯿﮟ!

ﺟﻮ ﻣﺰﺍﺭﻭﮞ ﭘﺮ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﯾﺎﮞ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﻨﺘﯿﮟ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻣﺎﻧﮕﺘﮯ ﮐﯿﺎ

ﻭﮦ ﺑﮭﻮﮐﮯ ﺳﻮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ؟
ﯾﺎ ﻭﮦ ﺑﮯ ﺍﻭﻻﺩ ﻣﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ؟
ﯾﺎ ﻭﮦ ﺷﻔﺎﺀ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﭘﺎﺗﮯ؟
ﯾﺎ ﻭﮦ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﯾﺎﺕ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﯽ ﭘﻮﺭﯼ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﺳﮯ ﻗﺎﺻﺮ ﺭﮨﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ؟

ﯾﻘﯿﻨﺎ ﺳﺐ ﮐﭽﮫ ﺍﻧﻬﯿﮟ ﺩﻭﺳﺮﻭﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻣﯿﺴﺮ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ. ﺟﺐ ﻣﺰﺍﺭﻭﮞ ﭘﺮ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﯾﺎﮞ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻧﮧ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻓﺮﻕ ﻧﻤﺎﯾﺎﮞ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ‘ ﺗﻮ ﭘﻬﺮ ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺳﺒﺤﺎﻧﮧ ﻭﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﮐﻤﺰﻭﺭ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﮐﻮ ﺷﺮﯾﮏ ﭨﻬﮩﺮﺍ ﮐﺮ ﺍﭘﻨﯽ ﺁﺧﺮﺕ ﺑﺮﺑﺎﺩ ﮐﺮﯾﮟ. ۔۔۔

ﺑﮩﺮ ﺣﺎﻝ!-
ﺍﮔﺮ ﺁﭖ ﮐﺴﯽ ﻗﺒﺮ ﭘﺮﺳﺖ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻗﺒﻮﺭﯼ ﺷﺮﮎ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﻭﺍﻟﮯ ﺳﮯ ﮐﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﻣﺰﺍﺭﻭﮞ ﭘﺮ ﺟﺎ ﮐﺮ ﻣﺎﻧﮕﻨﺎ ﺷﺮﮎ ﮨﮯ ، ﺗﻮ ﻭﮦ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺩﯾﮟ ﮔﮯ ﮐﮧ!

ﺟﺐ ﮨﻢ ﻣﺰﺍﺭ ﭘﺮ ﺟﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﭨﮑﭩﮑﯽ ﺑﺎﻧﺪﮪ ﮐﺮ ﻣﺰﺍﺭ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺩﯾﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺗﻮ ﮨﻤﺎﺭﺍ ﺻﺎﺣﺐِ ﻣﺰﺍﺭ ﺳﮯ ﺑﺮﺍﮦ ﺭﺍﺳﺖ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﮧ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﯾﺴﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮨﻤﺎﺭﯼ ﻣﺎﻧﮕﯽ ﮔﺌﯽ ﺩﻋﺎﺋﯿﮟ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﺗﯽ ﮨﯿﮟ۔

ﺍﯾﺴﮯ ﻟﻮﮔﻮﮞ ﺳﮯ ﮐﮩﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﮐﮧ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺁﭖ ﮐﮯ ﻗﺮﺏ ﻭ ﺟﻮﺍﺭ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﻣﻨﺪﺭ ﮨﮯ ﺗﻮ ﺁﭖ ﺍﺱ ﻣﻨﺪﺭ ﻣﯿﮟ ﭼﻠﮯ ﺟﺎﺋﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﮩﯽ ﻋﻤﻞ ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﭨﮑﭩﮑﯽ ﺑﺎﻧﺪﮪ ﮐﺮ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺑُﺖ ﯾﺎ ﺩﯾﻮﯼ ﮐﻮ ﺩﯾﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﺭﮨﺌﮯ۔ ﮐﭽﮫ ﮨﯽ ﺩﯾﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺁﭖ ﮐﺎ ﺩﯾﻮﯼ ﺳﮯ ﺫﮨﻨﯽ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﮧ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﮨﻮﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﮔﺎ، ﭘﮭﺮ ﺍﺳﯽ ﻟﻤﺤﮧ ﮐﭽﮫ ﻣﺎﻧﮓ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﮑﮭﺌﮯ۔ ﯾﻘﯿﻨﺎً ﺁﭖ ﮐﯽ ﻣﺎﻧﮓ ﭘﻮﺭﯼ ﮨﻮﮔﯽ۔

ﺍﺱ ﺑﺮ ﺻﻐﯿﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺍﺭﺏ ﺳﮯ ﺯﺍﺋﺪ ﻟﻮﮒ ﻣﻨﺪﺭﻭﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﺎﻧﮕﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ۔ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﯾﮟ ﺑﮭﯽ ﭘﻮﺭﯼ ﮨﻮﺗﯽ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﻮﺗﯽ ﺗﻮ ﺁﺝ ﻭﮨﺎﮞ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻧﮧ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ۔ ﺁﭖ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺟﺎﮐﺮ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﺎﻧﮓ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﮑﮭﺌﮯ۔

ﮐﺴﯽ ﻣﺰﺍﺭ ﯾﺎ ﻣﻨﺪﺭ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻣﺎﻧﮕﻨﮯ ﭘﺮ ﻣﻞ ﺟﺎﻧﮯ ﮐﺎ ﯾﮧ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﮨﺮﮔﺰ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻥ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺎﻧﮕﻨﺎ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﯽ ﺷﺮﯾﻌﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺟﺎﺋﺰ ﮨﮯ۔ ﺩﯾﻨﮯ ﻭﺍﻻ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮨﮯ ﺟﻮ ﮐﺎﻓﺮﻭﮞ ﮐﻮ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺩﯾﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﺸﺮﮐﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﺑﮭﯽ۔ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻭﮦ ﮐﺎﻓﺮﻭﮞ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﺸﺮﮐﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﮐﻔﺮﯾﮧ ﻭ ﺷﺮﮐﯿﮧ ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺪﻭﻟﺖ ﺩﯾﻨﺎ ﺑﻨﺪ ﮐﺮﺩﮮ ﺗﻮ ﺩﻭﺳﺮﮮ ﮨﯽ ﺩﻥ ﺳﺎﺭﮮ ﻣﺸﺮﮎ ﻭ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻥ ﮨﻮﺟﺎﺋﯿﮟ ﮔﮯ۔ ﻟﯿﮑﻦ ﭘﮭﺮ ﯾﮧ ﺍﻣﺘﺤﺎﻥ ﻧﮧ ﮨﻮﮔﺎ ﮐﮧ ﯾﮧ ﺩﻧﯿﺎ ﺗﻮ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻻﻣﺘﺤﺎﻥ ﮨﮯ ….. ۔

ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﺭﺿﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻨﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺑﯿﻮﯼ ﺳﯿﺪﮦ ﺯﯾﻨﺐ ﮐﯽ ﺁﻧﮑﮫ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺩﺭﺩ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﺗﻮ ﻭﮦ ﺍﯾﮏ ﯾﮩﻮﺩﯼ ﺳﮯ ﺩﻡ ﮐﺮﻭﺍﺗﯿﮟ ﺗﻮ ﺗﻨﺪﺭﺳﺖ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﺗﯿﮟ ‘ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺭﺿﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻨﮧ ﮐﻮ ﭘﺘﮧ ﭼﻼ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻧﮩﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ ﯾﮧ ﺷﯿﻄﺎﻥ ﮐﯽ ﮐﺎﺭﺳﺘﺎﻧﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺟﺐ ﺗﻮ ﯾﮩﻮﺩﯼ ﺳﮯ ﺩﻡ ﮐﺮﻭﺍﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺗﻮ ﻭﮦ ﺁﻧﮑﮫ ﮐﻮ ﺗﮑﻠﯿﻒ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﭘﮩﻨﭽﺎﺗﺎ ﺟﺐ ﺗﻮ ﺩﻡ ﮐﺮﻭﺍﻧﺎ ﭼﻬﻮﮌ ﺩﯾﺘﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺗﻮ ﻭﮦ ﺁﻧﮑﮫ ﮐﻮ ﭼﻬﻮ ﮐﺮ ﺩﺭﺩ ﭘﯿﺪﺍ ﮐﺮ ﺩﯾﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ . ﻟﮩٰﺬﺍ ﯾﮩﻮﺩﯼ ﺳﮯ ﺩﻡ ﮐﺮﻭﺍﻧﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺑﺠﺎﺋﮯ ﺗﻮ ﻣﺴﻨﻮﻥ ﺩﻡ ﮐﺮﻭﺍ . ﻏﻮﺭ ﻃﻠﺐ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺟﺐ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺻﺤﺎﺑﯿﮧ ﮐﻮ ﺷﯿﻄﺎﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺳﮯ ﺗﮑﻠﯿﻒ ﭘﮩﻨﭻ ﺳﮑﺘﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﮩﻮﺩﯼ ﺳﮯ ﺩﻡ ﮐﺮﻭﺍﻧﮯ ﺳﮯ ﺁﺭﺍﻡ ﺁ ﺳﮑﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ، ﺣﺎﻻﻧﮑﮧ ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﮍﺍ ﻣﻀﺒﻮﻁ ﺗﻬﺎ ﺗﻮ ﺁﺝ ﺷﯿﻄﺎﻥ ﺁﺭﺍﻡ ﺳﮯ ﺗﻮ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺑﯿﭩﮫ ﺳﮑﺘﺎ ‘… ﻭﮦ ﻟﻮﮔﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﮔﻤﺮﺍﮦ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻟﮕﺎ ﮨﻮﺍ ﮨﮯ . ﻟﮩﺬﺍ ﺟﻮ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻥ ﺷﺮﮎ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺭﺗﮑﺎﺏ ﮐﺮ ﮐﮯ ﯾﮧ ﺳﻤﺠﻬﺘﮯ ﺭﮨﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﻓﻼﮞ ﺯﯾﺎﺭﺕ ﯾﺎ ﻓﻼﮞ ﻣﻨﺖ ﺳﮯ ﺷﻔﺎﺀ ﯾﺎ ﻣﺸﮑﻞ ﺣﻞ ﮨﻮﺋﯽ ﮨﮯ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺳﭽﯽ ﺗﻮﺑﮧ ﮐﺮ ﮐﮯ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﻋﻘﯿﺪﮮ ﮐﯽ ﺍﺻﻼﺡ ﮐﺮ ﻟﯿﻨﯽ ﭼﺎﮨﺌﯿﮯ ﮐﮩﯿﮟ ﯾﮧ ﻧﮧ ﮨﻮ ﮐﮧ ﭼﻬﻮﭨﯽ ﺳﯽ ﻣﺸﮑﻞ ﺣﻞ ﮐﺮﻭﺍﻧﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺧﺎﻃﺮ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﺳﮯ ﮨﺎﺗﮫ ﺩﻫﻮ ﺑﯿﭩﮭﯿﮟ .
ﮐﺴﯽ ﺟﮕﮧ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺮﺍﺩ ﮐﺎ ﭘﻮﺭﺍ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﻧﺎ ﯾﮧ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺑﺮﮐﺖ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ‘ ﮐﺘﻨﮯ ﻟﻮﮒ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺟﻮ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﯿﻦ ﭘﺮ ﺟﺎﺩﻭ ﮐﺮ ﮐﮯ ﺍﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻧﻘﺼﺎﻥ ﭘﮩﻨﭽﺎﺗﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﭘﻨﺎ ﻣﻘﺼﺪ ﺣﻞ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﺎﻣﯿﺎﺏ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺗﻮ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺩﻭ ﻣﻘﺪﺱ ﻋﻤﻞ ﮐﮩﻼﺋﮯ ﮔﺎ .. ؟ ﺑﯿﺸﮏ ﺟﺎﺩﻭ ﺳﮯ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﻣﺸﮑﻞ ﺣﻞ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﯾﺎ ﻣﺮﺍﺩ ﭘﻮﺭﯼ ﮨﻮ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ‘ ﭘﻬﺮ ﺑﻬﯽ ﺍﺳﮯ ﺳﯿﮑﻬﻨﺎ ‘ ﺳﮑﻬﺎﻧﺎ ‘ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ‘ ﮐﺮﻭﺍﻧﺎ ﺻﺮﯾﺤﺎ ﮐﻔﺮ ﮨﮯ.

ﻟﻮﮔﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺣﺴﻦ ﻇﻦ ‘ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﯾﺎ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺳﮯ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺣﺮﺍﻡ ﺣﻼﻝ ﺍﻭﺭ ﮐﻔﺮ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺑﻦ ﺳﮑﺘﺎ . ﺍﻭﺭ ﺑﮩﺖ ﺳﺎﺭﮮ ﻟﻮﮒ ﭼﻮﻧﮑﮧ ﻋﻘﯿﺪﮮ ﮐﯽ ﺍﮨﻤﯿﺖ ﺳﮯ ﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﻗﻒ ﮨﯿﮟ ‘ ﺗﻮﺣﯿﺪ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺷﺮﮎ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﻤﯿﺰ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﺳﮯ ﻗﺎﺻﺮ ﮨﯿﮟ . ﻟﮩﺬﺍ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﮨﺎﮞ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺎﻧﮕﻨﺎ ﯾﺎ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺎﻧﮕﻨﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﮨﮯ ، ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﻏﯿﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺍﺑﺴﺘﮕﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽٰ ﺳﮯ ﺑﻬﯽ ﺯﯾﺎﺩﮦ ﮨﻮﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ . ﻋﻮﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺟﺲ ﻗﺪﺭ ﮐﺜﯿﺮ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﺴﺐ ﻓﯿﺾ ﯾﺎ ﻣﺸﮑﻼﺕ ﮐﮯ ﺣﻞ ﮐﯿﻠﺌﮯ ﻣﺰﺍﺭﻭﮞ ﭘﺮ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﯼ ﺩﯾﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﺗﻨﮯ ﺑﮍﮮ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﮯ ﮐﯽ ﺩﻟﯿﻞ ﺗﻮ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺠﯿﺪ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻅ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮨﻮﻧﯽ ﭼﺎﮨﯿﺌﮯ ﺗﻬﯽ . ﻣﮕﺮ ﭘﻮﺭﮮ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺁﯾﺖ ﺑﻬﯽ ﻗﺒﺮﻭﮞ ﺳﮯ ﮐﺴﺐ ﻓﯿﺾ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺩﮐﻬﺎﺋﯽ ﺟﺎ ﺳﮑﺘﯽ ﺗﻮ ﭘﻬﺮ ﺍﺱ ﮐﺎ ﻣﺎﺧﺬ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ ۔۔۔۔


By Mujlisul Ulama

It is mentioned in the Hadith, that there are some creatures who are shayaateen (devils) in human form. They beguile the ignorant and the unwary with their glib tongue disgorging haraam and baatil coated with a deceptive ‘deeni’ veneer. One such shaitaan in human form, is the character Tariq Jameel who is causing much damage to the Tablighi Jamaat. He is an enemy from within the ranks of the Tabligh Jamaat. The sooner the Jamaat weeds him out, the better. His propagation of haraam and baatil is undermining not only the Jamaat, but Islam itself. In exposition of Tariq Jameel’s deviation, a Brother wrote:

“The following are some of the excerpts of the speech this deviate Tariq Jameel, delivered in the Central Masjid, Birmingham on 19th November 2013, and in the Baitus Salam Masjid DHA, Karachi on 15th September 2013. In these two foul speeches Tariq Jameel speaks of meeting the Indian actor, Amir Khan, and in this context he advocates baatil in the name of Tabligh. He said:

‘One of our members, Jawwad Waseem sahib who used to indulge in dramas spent four months in Jamaat. When he came to meet us, there was a Moulvi saheb with us, he was saying, “Moulana (Moulana Tariq Jameel’s teacher), this is Jawwad saheb, he used to work in dramas. Now     that he spent four months in Tabligh we are telling him to quit dramas. Moulana replied, “Who will raise those who are lying there, who will raise them’. In order to anger him, he said, ‘Moulana, girls dance nude there’. Moulana replied, “They are our daughters only, our daughters.”

He said they are our daughters only. I have learned the Qur’an from this teacher. They have taught us love – to give love to people. Give love, give love. (A concept of ‘giving love’ which accommodates dalliance with   nude, dancing girls is zina and prostitution – The Majlis) I met Amir Khan (the Indian actor). I didn’t tell him anything about Deen. It was just love. Still I receive his messages. (The moron is over-awed by the messages of a cinema-owner – The Majlis) He said he was never influenced by anyone. I am the one by whom he was influenced. Did I do any magic? It was just love. (It was satanistic ‘love’. – The Majlis) Give love to people. They will come   close. There was no way for meeting (the Indian actor). He didn’t know me, I didn’t know him. I was not getting any opportunity to meet (him). (What is so extraordinary in meeting a cinema-owner? This character betrays his mental inferiority complex. – The Majlis) Allah sent Shahid Afridi (Pakistani cricketer) who is our cricketer. He had a friendship with the actor. I told him over phone to arrange a meeting with him. He arranged the meeting. He said that we have half an hour. I said OK. I went. He (Amir khan) was fearful that a Moulana came. He did not know what to expect. (A faasiq neither fears nor respects a bootlicking molvi who grovels at his feet. – The Majlis)

Would he say: “What you are doing is Haraam. Dancing and singing are haraam. Therefore repent otherwise hell will be your lot. He did not know what would happen. He was afraid.

As soon as I sat down, I started speaking about films. (If this bootlicking molvi had to visit a prostitute, the first thing he would have done would have been indulgence in zina, for such indulgence finds room in his concept of deceptive ‘tableegh’. – The Majlis) After sometime I felt that from 1960 to 1972, he didn’t know the film industry as much as I knew. (He testifies to his own fisq and fujoor. – The Majlis) So he was awed by my knowledge. (Knowledge of fisq, fujoor and Satanism – The Majlis) It was the knowledge of his profession. He was amazed and tense. Sometimes Dilip Kumar was mentioned, sometimes Raj Kapoor, sometimes Mehboob saheb, and sometimes Madan Mohan. That half an hour passed like that. After half an hour, I said, “Our time is over, let us go, let us sit there at the dining table’. We went and sat there. Again the same conversation started. When all his fear had vanished and he was relaxed, 45 to 50 minutes had passed in that conversation. Then I said, “Amir bhai, you have come on Hajj, shall I tell you the Hajj of our Nabi if you permit?’ He replied, ’Yes, surely tell’. Then I   spoke for one and a quarter hour, and he was sitting and listening. He didn’t move from his place. People are hungry for love, but you start giving Fatwas. I learned about Junaid Jamshed (ex-Pakistani singer) that Tablighi members don’t have food at his home because his earning is Haraam. He is very disheartened. He had just recently come into Tableegh. I had a journey ahead. We were going in Jamat. We had to go via Karachi, so I phoned him   to inform him that I would be coming and that I would have food at his home. He said; “At my home?” I said, “Yes, at your home”. He again said, “At my home?” I said, “Yes, at your home”. He repeated: ’Really at my home?” I said, ‘Really at your home’. (Devouring haraam has completely disfigured this molvi’s spiritual countenance. His brains and heart are soiled and corrupted with all the haraam he consumes and in which he so much relishes. – The Majlis)

I was sitting in Raiwand when a person came and said: The owner of Mubarak cinema which was in Lahore, will be coming to Raiwand for a few days. Today he (the cinema-owner) brought something from home and gave it to someone in Raiwand. But he refused to accept it, saying that he could not eat it as his (the cinema-owner’s) earning is Haraam. The cinema-owner was really embarrassed. I said: “Make haste, and bring him to me.” When he came, I asked his name. He said: “Haroon.” I asked about his occupation. Lowering his head, he said that he had a small business. I asked about the type of business he had. He said that it was a small business. I said: Brother, at least tell me what kind of business is it.” He said: “It is a cinema” I asked: “Which cinema is it?”. He replied: “Mubarak cinema, Mubarak.” I said: “Mubarak?” He said: “Yes”. I said: “The one in which I had seen (the film) Shama Parvana’? Mubarak sahib was its owner. His photo appeared. He had died. His sad music used to be played.” (This moron molvi is Shaitaan incarnate! – The Majlis)

He (Haroon) looked at me in amazement. In this way I befriended him. When I saw him   again after some time, he was spending four months (in Tableegh) and he had a big beard. People are hasty in issuing Fatwas. If someone has 100 virtues and one defect, they write off all the virtues.

When we left after the meeting of two hours, Amir Khan came down to see us off. I asked if there shall   be another meeting after today? He said sure. Thereafter I received his message that he had gone to Madinah, and he apologised. I informed him that I would come to Madinah. I had been to Madinah before Hajj, so he said come on 14th. He had  fixed the   time from 4-6 pm for me. So Junaid, another member (Tablighi) and I went there at 4pm. At 4:15 pm our sitting with him started. From 4:15pm to 10:15pm, 6 hours continuously, and he did not even frown or display any sign of being bored. (We wonder what had happened to Maghrib and Isha’ – The Majlis) Then we got up, ready to leave. But he was not happy for us to leave.  

Give love. Then I faced a test. Last year I was in the Ijtima of Raiwand. I received his message that his film ‘Talaash’ is being released. And that I should pray for its success. I thought: “What  now?” Replying is also necessary and prayer also cannot be done. When I received the message, some 10-12 ulama were sitting before me. I asked: “Brothers, I have received this message. Give a response.” They said that this was not their field and that only I should reply. I had been thinking all the day. I didn’t understand   what to reply to save me as well as answering. (Because you are a faasiq moron! What was the   conundrum? What was the mystery which could not be unravelled? When public indulgence in fisq and fujoor – sitting in a cinema, praising fussaaq and fujjaar, praising evil films, dancing with nude dancing girls, etc., etc., are all valid in the wretch’s concept of ‘tableegh’, then why is praying for the success of the pornography not permissible? What is so difficult about this? – The Majlis) Then, the next day also passed. I didn’t understand anything (because your brains are fossilized with fisq and deception – The Majlis). I was making wudhu of Asr when suddenly Allah put an idea in my heart. So I immediately texted him the message, “Amir bhai, Allah rarely gives a creative mind to someone. He doesn’t give it to everyone. This will be a great gift of Allah. In the time I had spent with you, I saw that Allah had   given you a creative mind. You are a creator (of haraam, fisq and fujoor  –The Majlis), and the people who are of this kind, don’t care about success and failure. They are only concerned with   their work.” Immediately I received his response. “You are right, you are right.”

(The following is a different incident). I messaged him (i.e. the Indian actor Amir Khan) that I am Tariq Jameel and am in Hong Kong. Could I call him? If I don’t get his reply, I don’t call him. Sometimes he himself calls me; sometimes he sends me a message that I could call him. So after a while he phoned that he was in Delhi. He was in a conference (with the devils – The Majlis). He had come out when he saw my message. Now he would speak to me. While speaking he said his film (Talaash) succeeded as a result of my dua. I said I had not prayed. 

Brothers, distribute love.….   Pleasure is when you hold someone falling down. What is difficult in calling an evil person evil. Holding the hand of the evil person, and taking him out of the evil is the actual work.

Madrasah is the (place for) the language of Fatwa. The language of the mimbar (pulpit) is not Fatwa. The language of pulpit is persuasion, winning the hearts. If Fatwas are issued against each other from here too, then what is now happening will happen.” (End of the moron’s disgorgement of ghutha (baatil rubbish.)

COMMENT (By Mujlisul Ulama):

Distribution of Muhabbat (love) which is integral to the Qur’aanic methodology of Da’wat and Tableegh commanded in the aayat: “Dispute with them with wisdom”, and in the aayat: “Call to the Path of your Rabb with wisdom and beautiful calling..”, never ever envisages commission of zina with a prostitute in order to please her and to entice her into joining the ladies tabligh jamaat. It (Muhabbat) does not countenance consumption of liquor with a drunkard in order to befriend him for bringing him into the path of Islaah (reformation).   It does not permit the perpetration of fisq, fujoor and haraam to hook flagrant sinners into tableegh activities or to the path of moral reformation.

No one has ever disputed the method of calling people to the Path of the Deen with love and kindness, and with tender words. But, to deceive a transgressor and to minimize the major sins in which he/she indulges by casting oneself into the dregs of Satanism and flagrant sin, is deception piled on deception. It is pure Satanism. It testifies for the fact that this miserable Tariq character is firmly enmeshed in shaitaan’s tentacles. He propagates Satanism whilst labouring under the satanistic deception of his shaitaani method being valid Tableegh. His jahl-e-murakkab is indeed mind boggling.

Contrary to the averment of this moron, the mimbar in fact is the valid and best platform for the dissemination of fatwas – the fatwas of the Deen – the fatwas of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Fatwas are not meant for assignment into antiquity or for oblivion in the kutub or for wiling away the time in academic and technical hair-splitting and atom-splitting argument in Madaaris. The objective of Fatwa is amal to gain Allah’s pleasure and for Najaat (Salvation) in the Aakhirah. But for the moron with his hideous idea of ‘tableegh’ which embraces all shades of fisq, fujoor, baatil and kufr, the masaa-il of the Shariah are a past-time hobby not intended for practical implementation. His jahaalat is colossal.

To win over a person who is plodding the path of sin and baatil, it is never permissible to consume his haraam food, as this vile Tariq moron advocates and practices. If a cinema-owner or a prostitute or a gambler, etc. is engaged in discussion with a view to invite him/her to the Path of Islaah, no one advocates being rude and harsh with them. They are not to be despised. Denying them the display of good conduct is not promoted. But, participating with them in their sins or consuming their haraam food is never ever allowed in the Shariah. The moron’s brains and heart appear to be totally corrupted as a consequence of devouring the haraam gifts offered to him.

When refusing the haraam gift of a person, it is not said that the person should be humiliated or embarrassed. In privacy, the person should be politely and affectionately explained. Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar is Waajib, and this obligation can be discharged beautifully with muhabbat.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not participate in the shirk and idolatry of his kinsmen in order to entice them to the Tauheed of Islam. He was commanded by Allah Ta’ala to proclaim the Haqq without the slightest ambiguity. Words may not be minced. It is haraam to speak with a forked tongue thereby casting the audience into doubt, uncertainly and even dhalaal (deviation). The Haqq is crystal clear. It may not be contaminated with the darkness of the bestial nafs and the deceptive methods of ‘tableegh’ which Shaitaan inspires into the clogged brains of the likes of the Tariq Jameel character.

The Ummah is not in need of deviate morons such as Tariq Jameel to teach Muslims his rubbish methods of satanic propagation. There is a wealth of guidance and a plethora of examples in the glittering ways of our Akaabir Auliya and Ulama who had practically demonstrated the Qur’aanic methodology of calling to Islaah with Beautiful Aquittal. Once Hadhrat Ibraahim Bin Adham (rahmatullah alayh) passed by a man who laid sprawling on the ground. Foam was gushing from his mouth. He bent down to inspect. The man was ‘dead’ drunk. Overcome with grief, Hadhrat Ibn Adham with his handkerchief wiped the foam from the mouth of the drunkard. Whilst wiping, he sadly said: “Allah Ta’ala has bestowed the bounty of the tongue for His Thikr.” After wiping the foam from the man’s mouth, Hadhrat Ibn Adham departed. That night, in a dream he sees a Vision of Allah Ta’ala exclaiming: “O Ibraahim! For My Sake, you cleaned his mouth. Now, for your sake, I have cleansed his heart.” When the drunkard had sobered up, people who had witnessed the episode, informed him. Hadhrat Ibraahim’s statement struck a responsive chord in his heart. He hastened to the Shaikh, made taubah, took bay’t and joined the Jamaat of the Sufiya.

To achieve this objective of Islaah, Hadhrat Ibraahim (rahmatullah alayh) did not consume liquor. He did not have to beat about the bush and convey the idea that liquor is halaal as Tariq Jameel had created the satanic idea of haraam food and haraam earnings being halaal, and of music and cinema being halaal. Regardless of the moron’s intention, his ostensible acquittal is kufr for he, by his practical action, traded the idea that music, haraam food and the fisq and fujoor of the cinema-owner are all halaal. He should renew his Imaan and also his Nikah.

Beautiful Preaching never means forked-tongued ‘tableegh’ which   leaves a man to flounder in the zulmat (darkness) of jahaalat. “Giving love” of which he pretends to be having a monopoly, must never compromise the clear and glittering Haqq of Allah’s Shariah. Consorting with baatil is not Mauizah Hasanah (Beautiful Preaching). On the contrary, it is Satanism. It is talbees-e-iblees.

Conveying the vile notion of nude dancing girls being acceptable in Islam, speaks volumes for this man’s deviation from Siraatul Mustaqeem. He lacks the ability of distinguishing between left and right, hence he is capable of uttering such blasphemous rubbish. Falling head over heels to curry favour with a wealthy cinema-owner bears testimony to this man’s greed for the dunya. He further suffers from gross mental inferiority. Did he ever search for a faqeer in some squatter camp or someone sleeping in the streets for his tableegh? But he went out of his way to gain the favour of a faasiq of wealth. His efforts in this direction are tantamount to bootlegging and bootlicking. Under guise of tableegh he pursues the dunya. Thus, coming within the purview of the Hadith: “With the amal of the Aakhirah, they will pursue the dunya.” This is among the Signs of Qiyaamah. He bootlicks the wealthy fussaaq while ignoring the poor fussaaq. He accords obsequious attention to the wealthy fussaaq. But for the poor who are surrounding him, he has a different approach and treatment. A scholar at the door of the wealthy is indeed a vile character.

This vile character proudly displays his knowledge about haraam films. He excelled even the cinema-owner in this haraam science of fisq and fujoor. And, he is proud of it. His concept of love and tableegh requires the lauding of praise on fussaaq and fujjaar actors, prostitutes and scoundrels in direct conflict with the Ahaadith. Invite the sinners to the Path of Islaah without making a hash of the Deen. The  ‘give love’ concept of Tariq Jameel is a lot of hogwash.

“Moving for four months in jamaat”, is not a halaalizer of haraam food. For the sake of enticing a man into four months, haraam food does not become halaal. It is the abundant consumption of haraam food which has corroded the thinking process of this moron ‘tablighi’.

When an ignoramus requests that dua should be made for the success of his zina, fisq and fujoor, there is no need to wait for kashf (divine inspiration) for understanding what the response should be. But, this moron was in a quandary for a couple of days when he was requested by the cinema-owner to make dua for the success of his zina film. He had to hallucinate some weird response which he attributes to divine inspiration for placating the cinema-owner. His fossilized brain failed to understand the simple logical command of Amr Bil Ma’roof to be beautifully acquitted. A response which   further solidifies the haraam indulgence of the cinema-owner is a satanic response.

This utterly shameless, impostor molvi proudly advertises that he had “watched the sharma parvana film”. He furthermore praises the haraam photo and the haraam music which the moron describes as ‘sad music’. What kind of devilish ‘tablighi’ is this mudhil (one who deviates others from Siraatul Mustaqeem). Regarding such vile specimens of deceit and misguidance, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Verily, I fear for my Ummah the aimmah mudhilleen.” So-called scholars who mislead people are among these ‘aimmah’ for whom Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) expressed fear.

Uttering a blatant lie, Tariq Jameel said: “If someone has a 100 virtues and one defect, they write off all.” From whence did he suck out this blatant falsehood. He should cite specific examples to bolster his baseless contention. If one abstains from eating the haraam food of a cinema-owner, it does not follow therefrom that he has been written off and consigned to Jahannum. If people do not associate with a prostitute, it does not follow that she has been condemned to Jahannam. Dissociation from flagrant sinners is a Shar’i command. Such dissociation is not necessarily the effect of pride. The flagrant sinner is not being despised when he/she is ostracized. We say ‘flagrant’ because everyone is a sinner. But there is a vast difference between those whose sins are hidden, and those who display blatant disregard for Allah’s commands. They recklessly sin and rebel against Allah Ta’ala in public. They advertise their villainy. They are proud to display and promote their fisq and fujoor.

If a faasiq comes forward and expresses the desire to enter into the Path of Taubah and Islaah, no one will despise him/her. On the contrary, he/she will be welcomed. Yes, a moron mudhil has to be written off for not safeguarding the Imaan and Akhlaaq of Muslims.

No one objects to ‘holding the hand of the evil person and taking him out of his evil’. The episode of Hadhrat Ibraahim (rahmatullah alayh) mentioned earlier, adequately portrays the Tareeqah of our Tableegh. The objection is directed at the one like this moron who indulges in the evil of the one who is trapped in evil. He indulges in the evil with the ludicrous and haraam justification of ‘tableegh’. He participates in the fisq and fujoor of the person whom he supposedly invites towards virtue. It is his participation which is abhorrent, haraam and objectionable, not his ‘holding the hand of the evil person’.

Muslims should beware of this fake ‘muballigh’. He is a threat for Imaan. He is a halaalizer of haraam. With his forked tongue he seeks to deviate people to take the path of Jahannam. It is not permissible to listen to his lectures. His speeches are ‘zukhruful qaul’ (satanically adorned speech) according to the Qur’aan Majeed.


Beware of the Tariq Jamil Dajjaal

Since the inception of the long and glorious chain of Nubuwwat with its 124,000 links of Ambiyā and Rusul, every Nabi was a lone, forlorn stranger in a world in which baatil (falsehood) preponderated.

The Ambiya were always supposedly “negligible” and “insignificant”. They were strangers and ridiculed by their communities. They were labelled “Madmen, Sorcerer, Liars, Poets,” etc. They were persecuted and murdered and, ultimately, by the command of Allah Azza Wajal, the Ambiya cursed their Kuffar communities. The Qur’aan Majeed confirms these facts.

Although the Ambiya (Alayhimus Salaam) were unpopular, despised and rejected during the greater part of their mission, Allah Ta’ala bestowed Victory to Them. Thus, the Qur’aan says: “The ultimate Victory is for the Muttaqeen.”

Victory in this context does not mean popularity of the type enjoyed by Iblees, Dajjaal, Pop-singers and the league of Iblees such as Tariq Jamil and the host of other Mudhilleen, no does “Victory” envisage numerical and material superiority. It means acceptance by Allah Azza Wajal and the disgrace of the Kuffaar.View the Victory of Nooh (Alayhis Salaam). After 9 Centuries of Da’wat and Tableegh, only about 80 members of his community accepted Islam. The entire nation was destroyed by Allah Ta’ala in the Great Flood. Hadhrat Nooh (Alayhis Salaam) was extremely unpopular among his people.

There will be a Nabi who will enter Jannat with only one follower. In his entire mission, the Nabi managed to convert only one man to Islam. In Allah’s Wisdom, this was Victory.

Muslims should not follow someone on the basis of his popularity and eloquence of speech. These accomplishments are necessary attributes of Shaitaan and Dajjaal. That is why the Small Dajjaal, Tariq Jamil, is able to adroitly acquit himself with Satanism and dajjaaliyat.

Those who fall into the Shaitaani trap of popularity and the snare of oratory and eloquence, come within the purview of the Qur’aanic Aayat: “If you follow the majority on earth the verily, you will become Mushhrikoon.”

Munaafiqeen Flee From The Musaajid

By Mujlisul Ulama

An adage of the Mashaaikh is:

“A Mu’min in the Musjid is like a fish in water, and a Munaafiq in the Musjid is like a bird in the cage.”

While an encaged bird is restless in its enclosure seeking an escape route, hence will fly out if the cage door is left open, a fish is at ease, comfort and tranquil in the water.

This is the similitude which aptly fits all those who rush out from the Musjid wildly in droves on Fridays immediately after the Fardh Salaat. They have assigned the Sunnatul Muakkadah Salaat to the domain of abandonment.

Those who rush from the Musjid on Jumu’ah to escape the Sunnatul Muakkadah Salaat acquit themselves like ‘wild donkeys’ mentioned in the Qur’aan:

“What is the matter with them turning away from Tadhkirah (admonition/ibaadat), as if they are wild donkeys fleeing from a lion.”

Worse than ‘wild donkeys’ is the danger of nifaaq (hypocrisy) which the ‘wild donkeys’ display when they rush madly out of the Musjid after the Fardh of Jumu’ah Salaat.

The practical consequence of abandoning Fardh, Waajib and Sunnatul Muakkadah Salaat is the same. The consequence is the Fire of Jahannam.

It is haraam to abandon the Sunnatul Muakkadah without a valid reason. The satanic practice of constant abandonment of the Sunnatul Muakkadah Salaat is akin to kufr.

These “wild donkeys” are not occasionally abstaining from the Sunnatul Muakkadah Salaat for a valid reason. They have permanently expunged the Sunnatul Muakkadah Salaat of Jumu’ah.

In view of this evil shaitaani attitude, they should understand that the Wrath and Curse of Allah Ta’ala settles on them.

Allah Ta’ala does not accept even the Fardh Salaat of those who behave like the munaafiqs who are like birds in a cage seeking to fly out. With such conduct, they are not performing Jumu’ah Salaat, their performance is a mock ‘Jumu’ah’ which is struck into their faces like a dirty rag by the Angels.

Even the four Sunnatul Muakkadah prior to the Jumu’ah Fardh have been abandoned by those behaving like ‘wild donkeys’ and hypocrites (munaafiqeen). They shamelessly congregate outside the Musjid indulging in worldly conversation and even satanically smoking. This too is a display of nifaaq.

Before the Fardh, there are four rakaats Sunnatul Muakkadah. After the Fardh, are again four rakaats Sunnatul Muakkadah, then two rakaats Sunnatul Muakkadah.

May Allah Ta’ala guide them to understand their villainy and folly of hypocrisy.

Secularism: A Statolatric Religion to end all Religions

By Umar Rumi

Since the very beginning of the inter-related sister (and sinister) ideologies at the backbone of secularism (liberalism, nationalism, etc) – in XIX-century western Europe, it clearly emerged how – in their polemics with the centuries-long oppression by the catholic church – they aimed not simply at limiting its “interference” [1] in the political realm, but rather at substituting it with a civil religion of State worship, where the all-controlling Westphalian nation-State machine is seen as the ultimate authority and source of morality and guidance, object of blind obedience and utter devotion, not excluding a complete paraphernalia set of praising hymns, compuncted lacrimating odes, official State-related celebrations and festivities, civic mass rituals officiated by the State authorities-priests, worship of flag, graves, monuments mausoleums and secular temples (sic! Such as the “temple of reason” in France), and even “martyrs” who gave their lives for the “higher glory” of their State (as well as – not coincidentally pagan/civic-“divinities”, “goddesses”-portrayed – of Ideals (read, idols and tawaghit) of “Freedom”, “Liberty”, etc.).


Thus, in a short time, what was supposed to free oppressed people from the abuses, exaggerations and yoke of the catholic church, instead enslaved them to the pathetic freemasonic idols of the civic state religion – and this is just but a single example of the common dajjalic strategy of claiming something only to cover up its exact opposite – and I plan to in sha’ Allah complete a series of posts on this #DajjalicInversion.

Even when transplanted in Muslim countries [2], we see how strongly and clearly this secularist/nationalist disease took all the worst expression from its European colonial masters, and, if possible, (as it’s always the case in such cases of emulation, where the subject has to show his iron-like obedience) with even more pathos and ridiculous kitschy applications (just as an example, Google the scenes of collective hysteria and authentic worship taking place at Atatürk’s (Atakufr) shrine/
mausoleum (in pic).


To the point that (if calling to “martyrdom” for the sake of some English-designed flag and boundaries wasn’t enough of nonsense), we often hear the secularists objecting to some minor re-introduction of Islamic practices and laws in Muslim countries (other than by ridiculously shouting “Islamization!!!” – as if Islam had arrived only now in centuries-old Muslim lands!), by invoking its incompatibility with their kuffar colonial-masters-copied “constitutions”, or with the “vision and ideals” of Atakufr/Jinnah or whoever else “father of the country” – who are thus by all means treated as – respectively – “holy Books” and “chosen anbiya'” of their civic religions, against whose “revelations” any law ought to be weighted.

So much, for “open-mindedness” and “rationality”: they replaced the authentic Books of Allah and the Prophets ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ with some loser drunkards, even writing their “ahadith” at every angles of the roads, and erecting them statues for their civic worship.

One would then expect religion to at least be left in peace in its reduced, limited, confined new “private” spaces and mosques, but far from it, the truth is that the secular states are those who actually exploit religion more than any “theocracy” [3] ever would: from Ataküfr-funded “ministry for religious affairs” under full State control, to the nationalized awqaf put under state control (and thus losing their independence – their and that of `Ulama’) all over the Islamic world, from UAE-financed conferences, think-tanks and fatawa to try and get a “religious legitimacy” for their satanic humanist/secularist project, to Sisi co-opting al-Azhar (and coptic priests) having them stand by his side on national TV and demanding them the religious reforms he wants; from Bourghiba (again on national TV) trying to get a fatwa on the permissibility to eat and drink during Ramadan in order to achieve his socialist productivity utopia; from the hailed as “moderate and secular protector of minorities” Bashar al-Asad resting on the back of sectarian fundamentalist militias of foreign volunteers and even threatening to send supposed “mujahidin” to blow-up is European cities when he felt his power was at stake, to other leaders (name withheld) urging Muslims to take filthy offenses on our Prophet ﺻﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠﻢ without saying a word, but then organizing civil disobedience and violent revolts across European capitals once some representatives of his party didn’t get permission to hold a speech in some foreign countries (and then, suddenly goodbye “you have to follow the law of the land” which is instead invoked in every other situation); from khutbahs written by the intelligence departments of “secular” States according to the agenda of the government in charge, to the “collective fatawa” urged by the same apparatuses to back their actions…

The common element in all of these cases is that the real defining of the limits and boundaries of what is deemed right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, the real loyalty, authority and worship, is taken away from God, and placed in the State and its interests, with a sanitized, pacified, reduced version of the Din being sacrificed and exploited for the “higher needs and interests” of the “real god”: the State.

It is thus clear how secularism, far from being an ideology promoting the mere separation of political and religious authority, is the civil religion of Statolatry and consists in the subduing/sanitization of any religion, only tolerated (and manipulated) as long as it accepts to fulfill the “higher objectives” of the State interests and needs, but otherwise replaced with the civic religion of the modern western idols and dogmas and of the state interests.

[1] “interference” is actually specific concept only validly applying to a (that too specific) understanding and definition of “religion”, which is not the Islamic concept and definition of Din, which can’t thus be said to “interfere” in that which is simply one of its branches, rather than a completely separated realm – as instead is for modern Christianity on the basis of its surrender to secularism (not without centuries of bloody resistance) [and with some basis involuntarily having been posed centuries before by its demonification of the “civitas terrena” contrasted to the “civitas dei” by Augustine of Hippo].

[2] I find this term to be inexact in its application to Muslim polities, because, unlike Christian theocracy, the ruler (Khalifah/Sultan) doesn’t claim to rule “on behalf of God”, nor is part of a (for us non-existent) priest class; rather, his role is primarily to overlook at the implementation of the Divine Law (to which he himself is subject, and which he has no authority to twist or change) and protect the rights of Muslims and the protected religious minorities living in the Muslim polity – hence, someone has rather suggested the term “nomocracy”.

[3] Countries whose very nation-building involved the artificial resurrection of their jahili pre-Islamic past in order to forge a new nation with a made-up identity rooted in a distant past as an alternative to Islam – from here, the whole b**s**t about Faraonic Egypt, Sasanid Persia, Turanist heritage, etc.


Similar Readings:

1. Islamic Refutation of Liberalism


3. Islamic Refutation of Communism


Is “Yahweh” Referred to in the Qur’an??

By Ebrahim Saifuddin

There are Christians who tend to make a point that the Bible mentions in Exodus 3:14 that the name of God is “Yahweh” or “Jehovah” (depends on where one puts the vowels) but this name does not appear in the Qur’an. Hence they claim that the Qur’an cannot be the Word of God and Prophet Muhammad ﷺ cannot be a Messenger of God, because there is no reference to the personal name of God which appears in the Old Testament 6823 times.

YHWH (Yahweh) in the Bible

Let’s first read the concerned verse in the Bible in context:

Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”
God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation. – [Exodus 3:13-15]

The Hebrew word that is translated as “I AM” in English, is YHWH (known as the Tetragrammaton) which commonly the Christians read as Yahweh or Jehovah by inserting vowels. The Hebrew form of YHWH is as below:


The objection which Christians raise is that as we see in Exodus 3:15, God says that this is his name forever thus they say if Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was a Messenger of Allah then he should have made some reference to this personal name of God, Yahweh/Jehovah, to prove that he is really a Messenger of God.

Pronunciation of the word YHWH

“Yahweh” and “Jehovah” are two pronunciations formed by humans much later. Although the Jewish Encyclopedia labels the word “Jehovah” to be a philological impossibility, the Christian world tends to use this pronunciation till this day. Coming back to the pronunciation of this word YHWH, the Catholic Encyclopedia brings it to our attention:

“According to a Rabbinic tradition the real pronunciation of Jehovah ceased to be used at the time of Simeon the Just, who was, according to Maimonides, a contemporary of Alexander the Great. At any rate, it appears that the name was no longer pronounced after the destruction of the Temple.”

Moreover we are also informed by the same encyclopedia that “the modern Jews are as uncertain of the real pronunciation of the Sacred name as their Christian contemporaries” [emphasis added]. Hence one thing has been made apparent that neither the Jews nor the Christians know the true pronunciation of this word. This word was considered to be ineffable by the Jews and thus with time people lost the knowledge of its true pronunciation.

Meaning of YHWH (Yahweh)

As it was made apparent that we do not know how to pronounce the word “YHWH”, we must now look and understand what this word means so as to get an understanding of the word itself. The Jewish Encyclopedia informs us that the meaning of the name “YHWH” is “‘He who is self-existing, self-sufficient’, or, more concretely, ‘He who lives’” [emphasis added]. Hence in simplest of terms “YHWH” means The Living and Self-Subsisting.

Did Biblical Jesus use the name YHWH?

Up till now two things have been made clear; the real pronunciation of the word is not available and that the meaning of this word is “self-existing and self sufficient”, in short “He who lives”. So now it must be established whether Jesus did use this name Yahweh in any place. The only verse which Christendom can quote to try to prove that Jesus used this word is in the Gospel of John which is as below:

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” – [John 8:58]

As we see that the verse consists of the phrase “I am”, the Christians say that Jesus has used the word YHWH. So let us take a look at the Greek version of the verse as we all know that the biblical manuscripts with the Christian world are in the language Greek although there is no concrete evidence that Jesus knew this language.

The words translated as “I am” are: ἐγώ εἰμί
Transliterated as: egō eimi
Pronounced as: eg-o’ i-mee’

So the words used here are “ego eimi” which simply means “I am” – a means of designating oneself. Not only “ego eimi” simply means “I am” as one would use “I am” in their everyday talk in the English language, “ego eimi” is no where near to the meaning of YHWH which is seen above to mean The Living, Self Subsisting. So not only does this not sound anything like the proposed pronunciation of the word YHWH, it does not even carry the meaning of the word.

Was “ego eimi” used Exclusively by Jesus?

The term “ego eimi” which simply means “I am” is used in numerous places in the Bible and there are instances when this term is used by people other than Jesus. Just to give a quick example, the blind man whom Jesus cured uses the same words as well in the Gospel of John:

Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.  – [John 9:9]

Do note the deception which the Christian world uses. In the Greek manuscripts there is no “he” in the text. The verse ends at “I am”. The same phrase “ego eimi” is used in the Greek texts. Due to the absence of “he” in the biblical manuscripts, “Young’s Literal Translation” provides the following translation for the same verse:

Others said — `This is he;’ and others — `He is like to him;’ he himself said, — ‘I am [he].’ – [Young’s Literal Translation of John 9:9]

Notice that the term “he” is placed in parenthesis because this word is not present in the biblical manuscripts. Any form of term that is not in the text being translated should be written in parenthesis to convey the meaning and not cause deception such that people would believe that it is part of the original text.

So by using the phrase “ego eimi” was the blind man suggesting that he was YHWH? Obviously not and no Christian would dare to claim that he was. So then why did he use the term “ego eimi”? Simply because this word means nothing but the same as “I am” in the English language.

Similarly there are other examples in the Bible which prove that this phrase “ego eimi” was not used only by Jesus and it certainly does not hold the meaning of YHWH as seen earlier.

If, however Christendom wants to claim that “ego eimi” refers to “YHWH”, the personal name of God, they have to accept that when traveling from Hebrew to Greek, the word was not used as “YHWH” (Yahweh) but an alternate word(s) was used “ego eimi” which was a reference to the actual name YHWH.

Does Qur’an Make Any Reference to YHWH?

So far we have learnt 4 points which I will list so as to refresh all that we have learnt so far:

⚫ Actual pronunciation of YHWH is lost

⚫ YHWH means “Self-Subsisting”, “The Living”

⚫ Jesus did not use the term “YHWH”

⚫ Christians cannot deny that traveling from Hebrew to Greek another term was used to refer to YHWH.

Thus we see that the Qur’an should have a reference to the term YHWH rather than having the term “YHWH” as the Qur’an was revealed in the Arabic and not the Hebrew. The golden question thus would be was any such reference made to the term “YHWH” in the Quran or by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ?

The answer is a definite “YES”.

We have learnt so far that the meaning of the term “YHWH” is The Living, Self Subsisting and although the term “Allah” is used in the Quran, this word simply means “The God”.

However, we know that Islamic teachings inform us of 99 names (attributes) of Allah and the Quran informs us that to Allah belongs the most beautiful names and we can call him by any of these beautiful names:

He is Allah, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Forms (or Colours). To Him belong the Most beautiful names: whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare His Praises and Glory: and He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.  – [Quran 59:24]

Say: “Call upon Allah, or call upon Rahman: by whatever name ye call upon Him, (it is well): for to Him belong the Most beautiful names. Neither speak thy Prayer aloud, nor speak it in a low tone, but seek a middle course between.”  – [Quran 17:110]

Thus we see that there are many different names of Allah, some of which I have listed below:

Al-‘Adl – The Just, The Equitable
Al-‘Afuw – The Pardoner
Al-‘Asim – The Protector
Ad-Dafi` – The Remover of Tribulations
Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem – The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

Just like these above-mentioned beautiful names of Allah we also learn of two other names which combined are read as Hayyul-Qayyum:

Hayyul-Qayyum – The Living, Self-Subsisting

YHWH – The Living, Self-Subsisting

Here it has been proven that there is clear reference to the name YHWH in the Qur’an which crumbles the Christian stand that Islam has no reference to the name YHWH and thus Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is not the Messenger of Allah.

Stressed Importance of Hayyul-Qayyum

One of the verses which has Allah referred to by the name Hayyul-Qayyum is in Ayat-ul-Qursi (The Verse of the Throne). Ayat-ul-Qursi has multitude benefits but apart from Ayat-ul-Qursi having its benefits, this verse with “Hayyul-Qayyum” mentioned in it was referred to by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as the “greatest”:

Ubayy bin Ka’b said: Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him) said: O Abu’ al-Mundhir, do you know the verse from the Book of Allah which, according to you, is the greatest? I said: Allah and His Apostle (May peace be upon him) know best. He again said: Abu’l-Mundhir, do you know the verse from the Book of Allah which, according to you, is the greatest? I said: “Allahu La ilaha illa Huwal Hayyul Qayyum.”  Thereupon he struck me on my breast and said: May knowledge be pleasant for you, O Abu’l-Mundhir! – [Sahih Muslim, Book 4, #1768]

In another narration, Prophet Muhammad ﷺ heard the man use “Hayyul-Qayyum” in his supplication and the Prophet ﷺ said that he has supplicated using Allah’s Greatest Name:

Narrated by Anas Ibn Malik: I was sitting with the Apostle of Allah ﷺ and a man was offering prayer. He then made supplication: O Allah, I ask Thee by virtue of the fact that praise is due to Thee, there is no deity but Thou, Who showest favour and beneficence, the Originator of the Heavens and the earth, O Lord of Majesty and Splendour, O Living One, O Eternal One.

The Prophet ﷺ then said: He has supplicated Allah using His Greatest Name, when supplicated by this name, He answers, and when asked by this name He gives. – [Abu Dawood, Book 2, #1490]

Yet another hadith to show the importance stressed by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ on the Hayyul-Qayyum:

Narrated by Asma’ daughter of Yazid: The Prophet (pbuh) said: Allah’s Greatest Name is in these two verses: “And your deity is one deity; there is no deity but He, the Compassionate the Merciful,” and the beginning of Surah Al ‘Imran, A.L.M. “Allahu La ilaha illa Huwal Hayyul Qayyum.”– [Abu Dawood, Book 2, #1491]


With the grace of Allah it can be seen that there is a clear reference to YHWH in the Quran. This reference is much stronger than what the Christians claim to be a reference to YHWH in the New Testament. The word “ego eimi” is in no way the Greek word for YHWH nor does it hold the meaning of YHWH. However as seen, there is a clear reference to the term YHWH in the Quran as well as the Hadith.

The Quran gives us many beautiful names of Allah, some of which have been mentioned above, and a Muslim can call upon Allah with any of his beautiful names unlike the followers of the Bible who do not even know how to pronounce the ‘personal name’ revealed to them. Indeed much of the truth in those books is lost just like the pronunciation of YHWH is lost and the Quran is sent to restore that which is lost – The Criterion.

Some More Beautiful Names of Allah

Al-Ghani – The Self-Sufficient, The Rich Beyond Need

Al-Awwal – The First

Al-‘Aakhir – The Last

Al-Barr – The Source of All Goodness

Al-Baaqi – The Everlasting One

Al-Haqq – The Truth

Al-Khaliq – The Creator

Al-Kafi – The Sufficient One

Ash-Shahid – The Witness

Tabligh Jamaat and the Criticism about them Not giving Da’wah to Non-Muslims

By Mujlisul Ulama

Question: Some people claim the Tabligh Jamaat is not doing what our beloved Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had done, which is calling non-Muslims towards Allah Ta’ala because till this day there is no effort made to call non-Muslims to enter Islam by this Jamaat. They say that the Tabligh Jamaat only emphasizes on spending time in the path of Allah for 3 days, 40 days and 4 months, and this they say has no basis whatsoever in the Qur’ aan and Sunnah. What is the Shariah’s view pertaining to this matter?

Answer (by Mujlisul Ulama):

Their grounds on which they are criticizing the Tablighi Jamaat are baseless. They are in fact talking drivel. If a person recites Qur’aan Shareef in abundance every day, but does not perform Tahajjud, it will be wrong to criticize him for reciting Qur’aan in abundance by saying that it is not Sunnat to recite 12 and half Juz a day. No one has the right to impose on another person his personal fancy and inclination. The Shariah allows a man to recite 12 and half Juz a day. It is stupid to argue that because there is no basis in the Qur ’aan and Sunnah for reciting twelve and half Juz a day, it is wrong and not permissible for this person to recite this amount of Qur’aan.

You should ask those people who are criticizing the Tabligh Jamaat if they are calling non-Muslims to the Path of the Deen? How many of them are making Da’wah to non-Muslims? Why do they want to impose this act on the Tabligh Jamaat when they themselves are not executing it? If a group chooses to do a particular Deeni activity, no one has the right to criticize them for not doing another Deeni activity. If someone performs 50 raka’ts Nafl a day, no one has the right of criticizing him for not keeping Nafl fasts. If there is a group giving da’wat to non-Muslims, but not to Muslims, then no one has the right to criticize them. They are doing an activity for which they have an inclination.

Similarly, if we are engaged in writing Deeni books and our form of da’wat is restricted to publications distributed to only Muslims, no one has the right to criticize our ‘Demi activity because we are not printing books for non-Muslims. If there is someone who distrib­utes books to non-Muslims, and not to Muslims, then no one has the right to criticize him for not distributing to Muslims. Everyone is entitled to engage in any field of Tabligh and Da’wat to which his heart inclines.

The Tabligh Jamaat is not denying that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had called non-Muslims to Is­lam. But what is wrong with calling Muslims who have be­come like non-Muslims back to the Path of Islam? And, did Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) not give da’wat to Muslims? Those who deny this, must produce their evidence. Did Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) not spend 23 years teaching Muslims how to perform Sa­laat, Fast, perform Hajj, trade, eat food; go to the toilet, dress, get married, bury the dead and all the thousands of masaa-il related to all the departments of Islam? Who taught the Sahaabah all the rules of Islam? Were the Sahaabah Muslims or non- Muslims when Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) gave them the da’wat of the masaa-il of the Deen?

The objectors are plain stupid and soft in the brains. The greater part of Rasulullah’s mission was devoted to teaching Muslims, not non-Muslims. Once the non-Muslims embraced Islam, the da’wat did not end with their acceptance of Islam. In fact the da’wat then commenced and continued until the demise of Rasu­lullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to Muslims.

What is wrong if anyone spends 3 days, 40 days and 4 months in the path of Allah? What is wrong if someone spends one hour in the path of Allah? What is wrong if someone spends 10 minutes or 10 years in the Path of Allah? What is their logical and Shar’i basis for this stupid objection? When some of these objectors go for Umrah for 19 days or five days or one month, are they committing a haraam deed because they do not spend exactly the same time in Umrah as Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had done? Are they committing a haraam deed if they have undertaken 20 Umrahs which has no basis in the Qur’aan and Sunnah?

Even if there is no specific basis for the specific methodology of the Tablighi Jamaat; the question to be asked is: On what basis does this methodology conflict with the Sunnah? Why would this methodology not be permissible? And, why would the methodology of pub­lications, Madaaris, Khaanqas, etc. be permissible? The objectors Should present arguments based on the principles of the Shariah to vindicate their case. Personal opinion and stupid logic have no Shar’i validity.

It should also be understood any method which does not violate any tenet, principle or the spirit of the Deen, and if its objective is the da’wat or teaching of the very same acts of Ibaadat and the very same masaa-il of the Shariah taught by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), then such a method will be classified as Mulhaq Bis-Sunnah and it will hold Sunnah status irrespective of such a method not having existed during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah.

The methodology of the Tabligh Jamaat envisages the da’wat of the very same masaa-il which were imparted by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They are not teaching anything knew. New practices are not being incorporated into the Deen as the Ahl-e-Bid’ah are perpetrating. The Jamaat teaches nothing but the Kalimah and Salaat. So what is wrong with teaching Salaat and the Kalimah?

The objections of the detractors have to be rejected and dismissed as utterly baseless. There is no Shar’i substance in their objections.