The Unsheathed Refutation on the Cursed Dajjal Imran Hosein’s Lies on Ayasofya

By brother Umar Rumi

The Shi`ah-Russian asset, conspiracy theorist, Muslim-genocide cheering dajjal going under the name of Imran Hosein popularized this idea of poor cute Byzantine dhimmis being oppressed by the turning of Ayasofya ex-church into a masjid..

And when confronted with the fiqh of it, he replied “*put that fiqh in the garbage*”.

Yet this Russian-shiah-axis sellout is invited to mosques for talks and respected even by some “madrasah-graduates” (I refuse to call these people “`Ulama”)

I got seriously tired and sick of reading comments by ignorant and bad-informed people crying over the supposed zulm Sultan Muhammad Fatih committed on the “cute byzantine rainbow teddy-bears” by turning their lovely church into a masjid, just repeating Imran Hussain’s baseless nonsense, so I contacted a Mufti and asked him the following question:
“Imran Hussein popularized some pro-Russian filo-“orthodox”-christian anti-Ottoman propaganda with regards to Sultan Fatih converting Ayasofya cathedral into a masjid. And now many people raise objection on how that was supposedly an act of zulm on the poor cute lovely byzantine dhimmis. Could you please shed some light on the actual hukm on dhimmi’s places of worship in case of fath of their countries by Muslims?

More specifically, is it ja’iz for the Muslims to convert their churches into mosques if their cities are conquered by fath (as opposed to their handing over their cities or any other situation, in case such differences are relevant)”.
Respected Mufti Sahab’s reply:

“I would advise reading Shurunbulali’s risala on the topic:

If a town is liberated by force, then the places of worship can be removed, converted etc.

If liberated by agreement (sulh) and part of the agreement includes allowing them to use their churches etc., then existing places of worship cannot be destroyed. Any new places of worship that are erected must be destroyed”.

*So, time to put Imran Hosein and his fanboys in the garbage*.



The following is a faithful reproduction of an article which should be ample for preventing you from devouring the chips which SANHA, MJC and the other haraam scoundrel entities have halaalized.

Please see below a very interesting article regarding a very very common food additive E631 flavour enhancer. The important point to note here in the article is the line that states, ‘You could try writing to manufacturers to ask exactly where it comes from. There’s no guarantee that you’ll get a definitive answer‘. I have personally for the last 2 weeks been trying to get a clear answer on some similar ingredients from the company Simba (who has SANHA approval) and get no joy, they keep beating around the bush and simply dont give straight answers. Perhaps they have something to hide.


Can you tell me about the source of flavour additive E631 which is used in some potato chips/crisps. I cannot tell from anything I’ve read whether it comes from pig’s fat, another animal – or indeed sardine oil? It’s important to many people to avoid products extracted from pigs.


Thanks for sending in your question. The E number known as E631 (or sodium inosinate) is an additive that is used in many products to act as a flavour enhancer and make foods taste good. As well as enhancing other flavours, it’s used frequently in products such as potato crisps as it also helps to reduce the amount of salt needed (and reducing salt intake has become quite a big health concern in recent years, with manufacturers vying to get their levels of salt in products down).

Sodium inosinate comes from inosinic acid, an acid that is naturally found in a variety of animals, such as pigs or fish, such as sardines. In some cases it can also be produced from bacterially fermenting some sugars.

As far as commercial use goes, most manufacturers do source their E631 from animals and fish, whilst a few may use the fermentation method. The tricky bit is if you want to specifically avoid E631 that comes from pork, as most products will not say on their ingredients list exactly where it comes from.

You could try writing to manufacturers to ask exactly where it comes from. There’s no guarantee that you’ll get a definitive answer, but it’s always worth a try and, you never know, some might be receptive and willing to give you the facts. However, if it’s an issue that really concerns you and you don’t want to find yourself unknowingly consuming food with E631 sourced from pigs, probably the best move is to avoid the products completely.

It’s hard work sometimes trying to avoid these pesky E numbers, especially with so many hidden in the foods and drinks we enjoy, but if you really do need or want to avoid certain numbers, scouring the ingredients lists before you buy products is the best way of ensuring you’re not getting more than you bargained for.

We realise the importance for many people of avoiding products extracted from pigs, which is why we’ve published articles such as this one on – E numbers not suitable for a Halal diet – if you’re looking to avoid other E numbers with links to pork products, then you may find this to be a useful read.

The Earliest Da`wah Methodology

By Syed Iqbal Zaheer

It is noticeable from the study of early Muslim history after the Prophet, that the earliest Muslims did not make any special effort to invite peoples of the conquered territories to Islam. Neither was there any official apparatus for this purpose, nor individuals seemed to have formed groups or organizations to systematically present Islam to the non-Muslims residing in territories subdued by force.

Most of the territories of the early Islamic period: Persia, Central Asia, the Caucasian territories, Asia Minor, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc., were brought to control through conquest. The offer in the battle-fields was: (a) become Muslim, (b) remain non-Muslim but pay Jizyah (c) or fight it out.

Almost always the non-Muslims of these areas chose to fight it out, and almost always they were defeated. When they were defeated, Muslims entered their territory, established a new government, and imposed Jizyah. The defeated armies and leaders had expected a grand scale plunder, loot, rape and slaughter: as every army did. But nothing of that sort happened at the time of the Companions and their immediate followers. That left the peoples of the conquered territories in a mild shock accompanied by gradual relief. At that moment they would give anything in return of what they thought was the puzzling behavior of the Muslim army.

Therefore, when the terms of Jizyahwere announced, which were five to ten times less mild in any case (as against the then prevalent 25-50% of all land produce and merchandise for the conqueror – after all that looting, raping and mass murdering),  a new government was in place, Muslims and non-Muslims went about with their business of life, as usual.

Days passed by and nothing was happening. No courts were conducted, and no citizens were ordered to present themselves to attend the court, with folded hands, before the Governor, Army Chief, or anyone else (as was the Roman and Persian custom); nor were there any Abu Ghuraib-like prisons, or Guantanamo type of torture centers (as in our civilized times).

There were no check posts, no raiding of homes to un-earth insurgents, no regular slaughter of civilians to warn the rest how they would be punished if they resisted occupation; nor were there any patrolling by fully armed soldiers, murdering every day, numerous merchants, peasants, men women and children, on the pretext of going after a terrorist; which has been the practice and the way of conducting war of all Jahiliyy societies and all modern so-called civilized, but behind the mask, cavemen’s way of wars. No wonder Israel threatens the neighbor that it will reduce their countries to stone-age (just as Iraq has been reduced to stone-age through proxy war). Those of the stone-age mentality can only reduce others to stone-age, if given the gun.

But no such thing was happening to the Jahiliyy peoples the Muslims had conquered. Many would have thought that perhaps the Muslims were waiting for a command from the center, to begin behaving like the 7th century cavemen (like the 21stcentury civilized men of stone-age). But days passed by and there was no sign of any action.

This weakened those insurgents who were lying low, trying to organize themselves, to strike when an opportunity arose, for, the resentment was there, no matter how the occupiers behaved. All occupiers are hated. But, since, as some fair-minded Western historians have noted (most of them are outright dishonest) Muslim occupation was benign, and so, the resentment was not great. And, without good amount of resentment spreading among the masses, organizing a powerful insurgent activity was not easy. Obviously, there were many sons-of-the-land who were loyal to their former rulers, highly patriotic to their country and indignant towards the Muslims. Such elements did succeed in some areas, in raising a quick army to revolt; but generally, Muslims were able to subdue them.

Insurgency, however, was not a frequent occurrence. Muslims allowed the conquered people to attend their temples, live by their Personal Law, and drink wine and gamble as they would, so long as they did not indulge in these beastly activities publicly.

Yet of course, the apprehensive mood of the conquered people lasted quite a while, and they waited to see what would happen next, quite suspicious that the Muslims were merely showing kind faces before they would launch murderous attacks. After all, hadn’t they been told by their former rulers that the Arabs were blood-thirsty people who would slaughter their children and drink off their blood right in front of their mothers? So, the fears and apprehensions lasted quite a while. (Said an American soldier who raped a 14 year old Iraqi girl, and killed her entire family with the help of other soldiers, “I never thought the Arabs were humans”).

But the prolonged wait-and-see situation was also cooling down the atmosphere, defusing the tension, and lowering the apprehensions. This, as said before, stifled the insurgency efforts. As time drifted on, and the apprehensive non-Muslims gradually began to interact with the conquerors, the fears were reduced. Ultimately, the conquered peoples knew that their fears were baseless, and that these Muslims were a different class of occupiers. As a result, a situation arose in which most would oppose any insurgency, and a few actually offered their services to the Muslims in their battles against their former rulers: Romans, Persians or others.

What made things easy was that the conquered people gradually realized that their new masters had not come for wealth, agricultural products, minerals or other resources of the land. They were not even interested in the wealth of their wealthy men, but rather, were always there to offer a little here, or a little there, to their poor, i.e., the non-Muslim poor. To them, this was amazing. Soldiers of occupying armies are well-known for knocking down a passer by and knocking off his money. (The invaders looted the Iraqi Museum). In contrast, the Muslims were sometimes even feeding their needy – not handing out their left-overs – but right on their own dinner tables.

Further, to their discovery, Muslim soldiers were, by any measure, well civilized, who accorded much respect to their women, (allowing them freeway in the narrow lanes with downcast eyes), occasionally lifting a child and kissing it, or innocently asking the merchant in the market whether they could take the goods now and pay up later, perhaps the next day, and then, amazingly turning up the next day and paying up the merchant in full. These were little things happening everyday that changed the perception of the occupied people over time.

Again, the Muslim soldiers were homogeneous, i.e., every one of them was almost of the same quality, same behavior, same manners and decorum. So, their behavior was predictable: no harm expected any time.

Compare and contrast today’s Western armies with the Muslim armies that conquered millions of acres of land along with millions of hearts of the sons-of-the-land, while the Westerners have neither conquered an inch of Islamic territory, nor the heart of (let alone Muslims), millions of Europeans, including the British, who are in one voice (at the intellectual level) in contempt of their leaders, and condemnation of the invasions. This comparison will explain how the Da`wah machinery functioned in those early days of Islam.

To mark the difference, a few soldiers in the Western armies are fanatics, pure and simple. They believe in the Judeo-Christian fantasy that a turbaned Anti-Christ is just around the corner, about to drop a bombshell with his appearance, and that since he would – according to the Bible experts – pop up in the Middle-east, any, and every Muslim, can be killed now. A few soldiers hold, no less a fantastic belief that Muslims brought down the twin towers, and, therefore, any, and every Muslim, can be shot at sight. A few other soldiers are there because they have no jobs and the only way they can feed their families is by shooting or dropping bombs at anyone the commander signals. A few others know that they are used by their country as mules to be sacrificed for the gangster-politicians, bankmen, corporate owners, Jews, war industry representatives, and other elements. And yet a few who know that if they went back home minus a limb, they will neither find a job nor a shelter, nor yet receive an artificial limb without paying from their own pockets, and so, are full of resentment at being so roughly treated by their own leaders; and therefore: “Fire, Fire.”

In other words, they are not a homogenous group, but disparate elements, hired men and women, who will just deliver what they are expected to deliver, and get the hell out as soon as possible with enough dollars in pockets that will last for a while back home. Except that they unanimously believe that they can kill any one, any time, with complete impunity, they share no other opinion among themselves. This makes these disparate elements, quite a few of whom are disenchanted, disillusioned and frustrated, quite unpredictable and dangerous. They are remnants of the Roman armies that the Muslims encountered early on, the difference between that situation and what prevails now is that today’s Muslims are not allowed to encounter today’s Roman armies.

This comparative study is essential to realize how Muslims of the earliest times penetrated into the hearts of the people, without the use of power of weapons, media, political machinations, buying up politicians, assassinating opposing individuals, installing puppet regimes, provoking extremist reactions, planting terrorists, organizing inside jobs of destruction, etc.

It is not possible to go into greater details of comparison at this point. It is an issue which requires Muslim intellectuals (are there any left around?), to take up as a task of thorough research. Our objective is to point out to the Da`wah workers of today (a misnomer anyway) that it was men and methods that made the difference and not the weapons, in the conversion of millions of people to Islam at its first encounter with a vast number of non-Muslims. The Muslim soldier of those times was the member of a homogenous group: of one faith, one character and one opinion: “We have come here to release you from the slavery of men and bind you to the slavery of God:” words said, words kept.

The strangest of facts, for the (so-called) Da`wah workers of today (with apologies), is that the Muslims of the earliest times were not even offering their religion to the conquered populations. They were not going about distributing copies of the Qur’an; nor were their preachers working among the masses, (openly or surreptitiously as the clergy in soldier’s garbs working in Iraq and Afghanistan). They were not handing out leaflets about Islam, delivering lectures at street-corners, or debating with the Jews, Christian, or Roman Pagan religious leaders demonstrating ‘beyond any doubt’ how Islam was a superior religion, the Religion of Truth, and how those others were false and their holy literatures cock and bull stories of the past. This was not the way of the earliest Muslims. These are sure methods of creating resentment, plugging the ears, and shutting the eyes.

What then were their methods? The answer is, none. That is, no methods were adopted at all. Adopting a method means being artificial, affective, and pretentious. But rather, they stayed natural: natural men and women except that they were Muslims. And that’s what had its impact. They were Muslims, honestly and sincerely. They did not know that the best way of demonstrating the Truth is to live by it. They knew no philosophy and disliked philosophizing. ‘That the best way of presenting the Truth is to live by it,’ is what we learn from them without they having attempting it consciously.

Being Muslims honestly and sincerely made them different from peoples of all times. They did not have to speak about Islam. Their faces, gestures, smiles (or even the famous Arab scowls), were all natural. When a non-Muslim complained of the hard times he was facing (for any of his personal reason), then the exclamation on the face and the sincerity of the gesture, and an ‘Oh’ of the mouth, told him that the conqueror shared his difficulty. When a non-Muslim said thanks for a little service offered by a Muslim, and he said in return, ‘That was your right,’ then the sincerity of the tone sent a cool current into his heart. When at the evening someone knocked at the door, the non-Muslim opened it to find a twittering little girl, and a littler boy, with a little plate covered with a piece of cloth, saying coyly, ‘Uncle, my mother said, give this to auntie,’ then the man was already bowled half over by Islam. Let alone the effect of the gift, when was it last that any foreign child had addressed him as, ‘Uncle?’

When a non-Muslim went to a Muslim state-official complaining against a Muslim, and the official told him, “Look my friend. It is obvious from your explanation that your case is not too strong against the man you are accusing. But it seems you are in some sort of problem. So, let me suggest something. We go together to this Muslim of your mention, and persuade him. We will tell him: ‘Right or no right, you ought to look at this more sympathetically;’” and when the non-Muslim asked, “But what happens when the man refuses? My problem remains,” the Muslim replied, “Well, there is nothing we can do to force the man. After all, it is not his fault. But, if he cannot be persuaded, then I’ll find some other way to help you out. We cannot bank on that man, but you can bank on me. So, let’s go to him first and see what happens.” When the non-Muslim heard these words, he felt convinced that the Qur’an must contain some good things, although he hadn’t seen a copy of the Qur’an yet.

Or, another scenario: A Muslim inquires a non-Muslim acquaintance carrying a sickly child on his shoulder and is told that he is going to such and such a doctor. (That ‘such and such a doctor’ is a Muslim). The Muslim replies, “Well, if you have trust in him, go ahead. But I personally believe that ‘the other guy’ is better qualified.” The non-believer says about the ‘other guy’, “But he is a Jew, and, moreover, so expensive.” The Muslim answers, “I know he is a Jew. I also know that his charges are quite a bit on the higher side. But he is definitely a better doctor, and honest in his trade.” That sort of advice left a strong impression on the non-Muslim acquaintance about what this religion Islam stood for.

If one was a slave, he was eager to be owned by one of the occupiers of his lands. He knew that the day of the occupier buying him was the day of freedom: the next meal would be at his master’s table. Almost hundred percent of second and third generation scholars of Islam were new-Muslims, former slaves, converted in the house of their occupying masters who had vowed that even if set free, they’d not part company with their masters: “Never in my life,” one of them would say.

These, and innumerous such minor incidents that took place as months and years rolled by created the currents of acceptability of the invaders and their religion – which didn’t seem to be too bad after all. (Its full scale grace and beauty were realized only after the faith was embraced).

The above was at the individual level. But it might not be imagined that the exposure was great, for the individual Muslims among the local populations were few; hardly one in fifty. But, the visibility was great. That is, one in fifty outshined the forty-nine if he came into view. Any encounter left an impression of sorts, favorable to Islam. And the same thing was visible in another individual Muslim, so, the impression only got further confirmed. That is the homogeneity we spoke about earlier.

The state and administration did their own Da`wah work of the kind and class identified above. They weren’t talking of Islam. They were demonstrating Islam; not through any scheme worked out for the occupied territories, but rather administrating it, naturally, inartificially, by Islamic principles. No bribes, no gifts, no commission, no myriads of men to circle through before reaching the high official, no paper work, no swearing, no witnessing. If you spoke the truth, the administration believed in you and gave you your right, but if you lied you got severely punished. That was Islamic administration: simple, fast, effective.

When a non-Muslim went to a state official, he did not lecture him on Islam, nor condemn his Jewish, Christian, Magi or Pagan religion. He administered justice. In most cases it was a rough-faced bedouin, rough-tongued man, who looked least friendly, in most cases with a scowl, but he gave the complainant what was his due and told him, “This is your due, no more and no less,” and dismissed him with, “God be with you.” No gesture, no smile, no hypocrisy.

Had the non-Muslim subject ever received “his due” anytime in previous administrations? Did he get anything at all without bribing the officials in between? Had it ever happened anytime during the civilized Roman, Persian or other administrations, that when a pitcher of water was brought in the court, and the Judge signaled to the attendant to pass it through the men sitting around, including the tipsy non-Muslim litigant, before the Judge would drink in the end, with a sigh and the remark, “This is a hot day!” The Judge never said to the litigant, “You are equal to us.”

As simple the Islam, that simple was the administration. When a woman sought help from an official, she did not even know that it was the Governor she was speaking to. There were no sign-boards, no nameplates, no sentries, no personal guards, and no (female) office secretaries because there was no office – so to say. So, when he told her that she could go to the Treasurer and say that I, naming himself, have asked him to give you 10 Dinars, she thought that because she was a non-Arab, he was making fun of her. When she looked at him, quite in askance, with not so bemused eyes, he repeated his words in all earnestness. Ultimately, when she got the money, she turned to the heaven and blessed the new rulers. She couldn’t have got one-tenth of the money from her pervious rulers in 10 days, what she got in one hour. She also got something else that day. When she went back to thank him he remarked, “That was your right. By the way, don’t you have a male in your house: husband, son, someone?” When she said yes, he said, “It would have been sufficient if you had sent one of them. As a woman, you don’t have to take all this trouble.” She knew immediately, what queens those women were who went about in the streets in hijab. “Yes my son,” she muttered to herself as she left, “I didn’t have to go about in this my frail age, if we had a religion like yours.”

True, those who fear Islam have done a good job of scaring the people they enslave, away from Islam and Muslims. They have spread good amount of hatred, suspicion, and apprehension. They are aware that their masses feel disillusioned about the religious, social, political, and economic system, and that Islam may be looked at as an alternative by those whose dignity they trample as they line them up for free food. They have created a mental barrier between their disillusioned people and Islam.

No doubt, this makes presenting Islam in its true color a pretty difficult task. Yet, the difference must be realized between then and now. And the difference is that the earliest Muslims were not saying, like the modern-day preachers, Da`wah workers, speech-makers, seminar lecturers, article writers, debaters, and now a million Islamic Websites: “Islam, Islam, Islam” – with little or no effect.

What was visible to the non-Muslims of the earliest times was, “Islam, Islam, Islam.”

A Balanced View on Shabe Bara’at (15th Night of Sha’baan)

By Shaykh Abdur-Raheem

A significant feature of the month of Sha’ban is that it consists of a night which is termed in Shariah as “Laylatul-bara’ah” (The night of emancipation). This is the night occurring between the 14th and 15th day of Sha’ban.

Does this night have any basis in the shariah or is it’s reverence an innovated practice worthy of being discarded?

This article aims to clarify this issue.
There are certain Hadith which prove that Laylatul-bara’ah” is a meritorious night, in which the people of the earth are blessed by special Divine mercy. Some of these traditions are quoted as follows:

1. Ummul-Mu’mineen ‘Aishah, Radi-Allahu anha says, “Once Rasulullah Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, performed the night Salah (Tahajjud) and made a very long Sajdah until I feared that he had passed away. I searched for him (in the darkness). My hand fell on his sole while he was in sajdah and I heard him saying: ‘I seek refuge of Your forgiveness from Your punishment, and of Your pleasure from Your wrath, and I seek refuge in You from Yourself. I cannot praise You as fully as You deserve. You are exactly as You have praised Yourself.’

Thereafter, when he finished his salah, he said to me: ‘Aishah, did you think that Allah and His Prophet would be unjust to you?’ I said, ‘No, O Prophet of Allah, but I was afraid that your soul was been taken away because your Sajdah was very long.’ He asked me, ‘Do you know which night is this?’ I said, ‘Allah and His Messenger know best.’ He said, ‘This is the night of the half of Sha’ban. Allah Almighty looks upon His slaves in this night and forgives those who seek forgiveness and bestows His mercy upon those who pray for mercy but keeps those who have malice as they were before, (and does not forgive them unless they relieve themselves from malice).’”

2. In another Tradition Sayyidah’ Aishah, Radi-Allahu anha, has reported that Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, has said, “Allah Almighty descends (in a manner He knows best) in the night occurring in the middle of Sha’ban and forgives a large number of people more than the number of the fibers on the sheep of the tribe, Kalb.”

Kalb was a big tribe the members of which had a very large number of sheep. Therefore, the last sentence of the hadith indicates to the large number of the people who are forgiven in this night by Allah Almighty.

3. In yet another Tradition, she has reported Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, to have said, “This is the middle Night of Sha’ban. Allah frees in it a large number of the people from Fire, more than the number of the hair growing on the sheep of the tribe, Kalb. But He does not even look at a person who associates partners with Allah, or at a person who nourishes malice in his heart (against someone), or at a person who cuts off the ties of kinship, or at a man who leaves his clothes extending beyond his ankles (as a sign of pride), or at a person who disobeys his parents, or at a person who has a habit of drinking wine.”

4. Sayyiduna Mu’adh ibn Jabal, Radi-Allahu anhu, reports that Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, has said: “Allah Almighty looks upon all those created by Him, in the middle Night of Sha’ban and forgives them, except the one who associates partners with Him or the one who has malice in his heart”.

There are also many other narrations mentioned in mishkaat ul masaabeeh page 115.

Although the chain of narrations of some of these traditions suffers with some minor technical defects, yet when all these traditions are combined together, it becomes clear that this night has some well founded merits, and observing this night as a sacred night is not a baseless concoction as envisaged by some modern scholars who, on the basis of these minor defects, have totally rejected to give any special importance to this night. In fact, some of these traditions have been held by some scholars of hadith as authentic and the defects in the chain of some others have been treated by them as minor technical defects which, according to the science of hadith, are curable by the variety of their ways of narration. That is why the elders of the ummah have constantly been observing this night as a night of special merits and have been spending it in worship and prayers.

Imam Ibn-Taimiyyah rahmatullahi alayh was asked about the importance of the 15th night of Sha’ban. He replied:

ﺍﻣﺎﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻒ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺭﻭﻯ ﻓﻰ ﻓﻀﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻳﺚ ﻭﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻭﻧﻘﻞ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺎﺋﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻒ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻳﺼﻠﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﺼﻼﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺳﻠﻒ ﻭﻟﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺣﺠﺔ ﻓﻼ ﻳﻨﻜﺮ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ – ﻛﺘﺐ ﻭﺭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﻭﻓﺘﺎﻭﻯ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺗﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﺝ : 23 ﺹ : 132

As for the 15th night of Shabaan, there are many narrations and Athar (quotes from the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) regarding its virtue. It has been reported of the salaf that they prayed in this night. Therefore, praying alone on this night, having precedence in the salaf, is sufficient evidence and something of this kind surely cannot be denied.

Allama Ibnu-Taymiyyah is a scholar notorious for refuting such things, however he accepts the virtue of the night of Baraat, he says,

“So many Ahaadith and reports exist regarding the excellence of the fifteenth night of Shabaan that one is compelled to accept that this night possesses some virtue”. Some of the pious predecessors used to specially devote this night for Salaat. [Faydhul-Qadeer. vol 2., pg 317].

Moulana Abdur Rahman Mubarakpuri, writes in the commentary of Tirmidhi,

“The sheer number of Ahaadith regarding this night serve as proof against those people who refute the excellence of this night”. [Tuhfatul-Ahwazi. vol 2. pg 53].

The Ahaadeeth relating to the virtues of this night have been narrated by 10 different Sahaaba (Radhiyallahu Anhum),

Al-Albani has classed the Hadith of forgiveness in laylatunnisfi min Sha’abaan as Saheeh.

He has narrated it on the authority of 8 sahabah. Their names are as follows.

Abu Bakr siddique
Muaaz ibn jabal
Abu Tha’labah al Khushani
Abdullah ibn Amr
Abu Musa al Ash’ari
Abu hurayrah
Awf ibn Malik
Aisha Siddiqah
radhiallahu anhum ajmaeen.
After giving references he wrote:

ﻭﺟﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﺑﻤﺠﻤﻮﻉ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﻼ ﺭﻳﺐﻭﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ ﺗﺜﺒﺖ ﺑﺄﻗﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﺪﺩﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺩﺍﻣﺖ ﺳﺎﻟﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻒ ﺍﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮﺍﻟﺸﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ، ﻓﻤﺎ ﻧﻘﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﺦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺳﻤﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﺟﺪ ﺹ١٠٧ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺢ ﺍﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻀﻞ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻌﺒﺎﻥ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﻳﺼﺢ، ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ . ﻭ ﺍﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﺍﻃﻠﻖ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻓﺈﻧﻤﺎ ﺍﻭﺗﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺮﻉ ﻭ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻭﺳﻊ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺪ ﻟﺘﺘﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻳﺪﻳﻚ ‏( ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺣﺎﺩﻳﺚ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺤﻪ ﺹ ١٣٨ / ٣ )

“The summary of our research is that this Hadith, with its collective chains, is without doubt saheeh. Whoever classed it as weak did so due to his hastening and his lack of effort in grasping all the chains of narrations, in the manner in which you have seen in the research before you’
(Silsilatul Ahaadeethis Saheehah p138, vol 3).

What Should be Done in this Night?

In order to observe the Night of Bara’ah, one should try to remain awake in this night as much as he can. If someone has better opportunities, he should spend the whole night in worship and prayer. However, if one cannot do so for one reason or another, he can select a considerable portion of the night, preferably of the second half for this purpose, and should perform the following acts of worship:

(a) SALAAH: . Salah is the most preferable act to be performed in this night. There is no particular number of Rak’at but preferably it should not be less than eight. It is also advisable that each part of the Salah like qiyam, rukoo’ and sajdah should be longer than normal. The longest surahs of the Holy Qur’an one remembers by heart should be recited in the Salah of this night. If someone does not remember the long surahs, he can also recite several short surahs in one rak’ah.

(b) Tilawa. The recitation of the Holy Qur’an is another form of worship, very beneficial in this night. After performing Salah, or at any other time, one should recite as much of the Holy Qur’an as he can.

(c) Dhikr. One should also perform as much dhikr as possible.
Kalima Tayyebah 100x
Third kalima 100x
Astaghfaar 100x

One should also recite Salawaat (durood) on Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, as many times as he can. Dhikr can also be done whilst walking, lying on bed, and during other hours of work or leisure.

(d) Dua. The best benefit one can draw from the blessings of this night is prayers and supplications. It is hoped that all the prayers in this night will be accepted by our Lord, insha-Allah.

Prayer itself is an ‘Ibadah, and Allah Almighty gives reward on each prayer along with the fulfillment of the supplicator’s need. Even if the purpose prayed for is not achieved, one cannot be deprived of the reward of the prayer which is sometimes more precious than the mundane benefits one strives for.

The prayers and supplications also strengthen one’s relation with Allah Almighty, which is the main purpose of all kinds and forms of worship.

One can pray for whatever purpose he wishes. But the best supplications are the ones made by Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. These are so comprehensive and all-encompassing prayers that all the human needs, of this world and the Hereafter, are fully covered in the eloquent expressions used in them. Actually, most of the prophetic prayers are so profound that human imagination can hardly match their greatness.

Several books in various languages are available which provide these prophetic prayers, and one should pray to Allah Almighty in accordance with them, whether by reciting their original Arabic text or by rendering their sense in one’s own language.

(e) There are some people who cannot perform any additional Salah or recitations for any reason, like illness or weakness or being engaged in some other necessary activities. Such people also should not deprive themselves completely of the blessings of this night. They should observe the following acts:

To perform the Salah of Maghrib, ‘Isha’ and Fajr with Jama’ah in the mosque, or in their homes in case of their being sick.

They should keep reciting the dhikr, particularly the one mentioned in para (c) above, in whatever condition they are until they sleep.

They should pray to Allah for their forgiveness and for their other objectives. One can do so even when he is in his bed.

(f) The women during their periods cannot perform salah, nor can they recite the Qur’an, but they can recite any dhikr, tasbeeh, durood sharif and can pray to Allah for whatever purpose they like in whatever language they wish. They can also recite the Arabic prayers mentioned in the Qur’an or in the hadith with the intention of supplication (and not with the intention of recitation).

(g) According to a hadith, Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, went in this night to the graveyard of Baqi’ where he prayed for the Muslims buried there. On this basis, some of the fuqaha hold it as advisable in this night to go to the graveyard of the Muslims and recite some Qur’an, and pray for the dead. But this act is neither obligatory nor should it be performed as regularly as an obligatory act.

One should also try and fast the three illuminated days (13,14,15 of lunar month). If it’s hard fast for at least the 15th of sha’baan.

May Allah give us Tawfeeq of worship, and the ability to put into practice whatever we learn.

May Allah forgive us and have mercy upon us.
May Allah be pleased with us.
May Allah help us to get ready for Ramadhan.

Further Read: The “Daleel” (Proofs) for the Virtue of the Night of 15th Sha’ban

Some Points about the Crucifixion

By Bilal Muhammad

Christian Contention:- “The crucifixion of Jesus was a historical fact that was not challenged in the first century.”

Some of our polemical texts will highlight ambiguities in the crucifixion story as narrated in the Bible, for example:

(1) Contradictions on who carried the cross (Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26, and John).

(2) Contradictions on what was written on the cross. (Mark 15:26, Matthew 27:37, Luke 23:38, John 19:19)

(3) The lack of a clear resurrection story in the earliest manuscripts of Mark, which was probably the earliest Gospel.

(4) The witnesses of the crucifixion depend on the Gospel: some women from afar, or Mary and an apostle up close. (Mark 15:40-41, Matthew 27:55-56, John 19:25)

(5) Contradictions on what hour Jesus was crucified (Mark 15:25, John 19:14-15)

(6) Contradictions on what Jesus’ last words were. (Mark 15:34-37, Luke 23:46, John 19:30)

(7) Contradictions on the number of angels or witnesses at the grave of Jesus.

(8) Questions on the original sin: its place in Judaism, why God would need blood to forgive, how a sacrifice can account for future sins, why God would need to wait thousands of years before sending Jesus to alleviate the original sin.

(9) John the Evangelist was seemingly quelling doubts about crucifixion by including a spear thrust into the side of Jesus, to make sure he was dead, which was not mentioned in the three earlier Gospels. (John 19:34)

(10) The Sanhedrin trial of Jesus has no record besides the Gospels, and the trial breaks tens of rules and procedures that are typical of a Sanhedrin trial.

(11) Pilate offered to free one of two men: Jesus, or a rebel by the name of “Barabbas” – in earlier manuscripts, his name was “Jesus Barabbas”, meaning, “Jesus the son of the Father”, it would be funny if the wrong “Jesus” was crucified.

(12) Belief in the crucifixion would basically negate his prophethood in Judaism, according to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, and this was probably by the Jews wanted Jesus crucified rather than simply assassinated.

(13) Jesus’ descent into Hell would negate his Godhood; and is probably taken from Greek hero myth.

(14) A mass resurrection of saints in Matthew 27:51-53 is mentioned in 3 verses, but the account does not appear anywhere else, neither in the other Gospels nor in other texts, even though such a thing would’ve been notable enough to record; at least more notable than Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem.

(15) According to the Synoptic Gospels, all of Jesus’ apostles and family members forsook Jesus and never attended the crucifixion.

(16) In Mark 16, on the Sunday, the women went to anoint Jesus’ buried corpse with spices – this was not a practice, as in Judaism a tomb is not re-opened after it is closed unless there is reason to believe that the person in it is still alive – so there is a subtle implication that these women believed that the one in the tomb was still alive, and needed to be sought for treatment.

(17) Jesus supposedly prophesied that he would be buried for 3 days and 3 nights, but he was only in the tomb for 1 day and 2 nights.

(18) In Matthew 12:40, Jesus compared his three day burial to Jonah’s three days in the whale; but Jonah was alive in the belly of the whale and not dead.

(19) In Luke 4:10-12, Jesus quotes Psalm 91, which if you read in full, suggests that the Messiah will be saved by God and lifted up.

(20) Sacrifices were never crucified.

And Allah knows best.


By Mujlisul Ulama

The Sahaabi, Hadhrat Uthmaan Bin Abil Aas (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that when Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) sent him to be the Imaam of Banu Thaqeef, the last naseehat (advice) of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was:

“O Uthmaan! Shorten the Salaat. Gauge people (the Muqtadis) on the basis of their weak ones because among them are the old, the young,  the weak and those in need.”

In the narration recorded by Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (Rahmatullah alayh), the following is also mentioned:

“You are their Imaam. Consider the weak ones among them, and appoint such a Muath-thin who will not accept wages for his Athaan.”

Imaams are supposed to observe this Sunnah. Although there are specific sized Surahs which are Masnoon for the various Salaat, the Imaam should understand which Sunnah to adhere when he leads a jamaa’t consisting of old, weak, sick and such persons who have to make haste to get to their work. It is Sunnah for the Imaam to shorten his Qir’aat.

This shortening advised by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) applies to the Qiraa’t. It is not Sunnah to omit any Masnoon acts of the Salaat. On the contrary, it is Makrooh and forbidden to omit the Masnoon acts. The advice which some moron muftis give during Ramadhan for shortening the Salaat is evil and haraam. It is not permissible to omit Thana, the Durood and Dua after At-Tahiyaat in the last raka’t of every two raka’t of Taraaweeh. This practice is abominable and not permissible.

Who Should We Follow??

QUESTION: Whom should we Hanafis follow when there is a conflict of opinion among our Ulama? For example Mufti Taqi Uthmaani says that Islamic banking, digital pictures, etc. are permissible whereas the Mujlisul Ulama refutes this view. So how does a layman make a choice?

Answer (By Mujlisul Ulama):

If two medical doctors or two lawyers give conflicting opinions on the same issues, who will you follow? How will you decide whom to follow? Use the same criterion in the event of conflicting opinions of the Ulama.

In the Qur’aan Majeed, Allah Ta’ala reprimanding the masses (the laymen) of Bani Israaeel, states: “They take their Ulama and their Mashaaikh as gods besides Allaah.” Now why does Allah Ta’ala criticize and reprimand the ordinary people for following the rulings of their learned men when it is incumbent for the laity to follow the rulings and guidance of the Ulama? In reality, the ordinary people who love to follow their nafs, and the easy way, do understand what is Haqq and Baatil. Thus, they quickly follow such rulings which satisfy their nafsaani desires whilst deep down in their hearts they know that they are following baatil. For such miscreants and slaves of the nafs, the Qur’aan Majeed says: “In fact, man has awareness of his nafs even though he puts forth excuses (to justify his haraam, nafsaaniyat and shaitaaniyat).”.

Allah Ta’ala has bestowed to insaan a treasure called Aql (Intelligence) which the Mu’min is required to utilize constructively with ikhlaas (sincerity). Then he will arrive at the correct opinion, and follow what is the Haqq.

The Shariah also emphasizes abstention from doubtful issues. The Deen also instructs us to choose the option in which there is ihtiyaat (caution). Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Shun that which plunges you into for that which does not cast you into doubt.” Two glasses of water are placed in front of you, and it is said that one glass contains pure water while the other glass of water contains a few drops of urine or a drop of a lethal poison, but it is not known which glass of water is pure and which one is the contaminated one. In this situation of conflict, which glass will you opt for? If someone, regardless of his elevated status, suggests that you opt for any one of the glasses, or take the one on your left or on your right, etc., will you take the chance? We are certain that you will shun both and opt for caution.

Now when one Aalim says that ‘this meat is haraam carrion’, and the other one says that it is ‘halaal’, why should you dither and be in doubt as to the option you should adopt? In Deeni or spiritual matters, people throw caution aside and blindly follow their bestial nafs presenting the hollow pretext that a certain Aalim says that it is permissible irrespective of the lasting spiritual damage which consumption and participation in the haraam cause.

If one Aalim says that a picture is not a picture, and the other one says that a picture is a picture, then you the layman, is required to use the Aql bestowed to you by Allah Ta’ala so that you do not come under the scope of the above-mentioned Qur’aanic aayat of Divine Reprimand. You are not expected to debase your Aql by enslaving it to your carnal instincts. Your intelligence will be sufficient to convince you that the one who says that a digital picture is not a picture resorts to skulduggery and propagates what his nafs orders him, not what his Aql demands.

Similarly, if one Aalim says that the so-called ‘dividends’ of a so-called ‘Islamic’ bank are riba, and another Aalim says that it is not riba, then even the layman whose brains are not welded to stupidity, will understand that it is in his best Deeni interests and for his Aakhirah to abstain from such a dangerous sin as riba. The principle of Ihtiyaat (Caution) and abstention from doubt should be adopted in every conflict, namely, adopt caution and for practical purposes act on Ihtiyaat and abstain from doubt, and utilize your Aql. You will then be on Rectitude, and there will remain no doubt in you as to what and who is the Haqq.