The Recommended Method of Handshake

Shaking hands when meeting and greeting is part of the Islamic etiquette and is strongly recommended by all the four schools of jurisprudence. There are various hadiths mentioning its virtues. Handshaking is termed as ‘Musafaha.’

Handshake is accepted if it is done with only one hand.

The definition of Musafaha is to place one’s inner palm into the inner palm of another. [See: Lisaan al-‘Arab 7/356]

However according to the Hanafi and Maliki schools, the Mustahabb (preferable) way of handshaking is to use both hands, clasping your right hand into the right hand of the person you are greeting while placing your left hand on the outside of the other person’s right hand. [See for example: Ibn ‘Abideen, Radd al-Muhtaar 6/381]

This is also the view of Imam Al-Bukhari and the majority of the scholars. [See for example: Al-Uthmani, ‘Ilā as-Sunan 17/467]

Imam Al-Bukhari included a chapter in his Sahih bearing the following title:
“The chapter of [shaking] with two hands (bil yadayn). And Hammaad ibn Zayd shook hands with Ibn al-Mubaarak using two hands.” [Al-Bukhari 8/59]

He quotes the following hadith:
‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (radhiyallahu anhu) said: “The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) taught me the Tashahhud, while my palm was between his two palms (Kaffayhi), as he used to teach me the Sura from the Qur’an…” [Al-Bukhari 6265]

Imam Al-Bukhari also cited the following hadith:

‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Razeen said:
“We passed by Rabza. It was said to us:
“Here is Salama ibn al-Akwa.”
I went to him and we greeted him. So, he took out both of his hands (yadayhi) and said:
“I pledged allegiance (bay’a) to the Prophet of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with these…” [Al-Bukhari, Al-Adab al-Mufrad 976]

These narrations clearly show that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the pious predecessors were using both hands in Musafaha.

Imam Ibn Battal in his commentary said:

“Using both hands is the most complete way of handshake and according to the scholars it is Mustahabb.” [Sharh Sahih Al-Bukhari 9/45]

Imam Al-Kashmiri said in his commentary of Jaami’ At-Tirmidhi:

“Abdullah ibn Mubaarak met Hammaad ibn Zayd and they shook hands. This act is valid with one hand, but is more complete with two hands.” [Al-‘Arf ash-Shadhi 2/101]

It is stated in Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya:
“Handshake is permissible and its Sunnah method is to place one’s hands in the hands of another without any barrier, such as a piece of cloth in between.” [Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 5/369]

Shaykhi Zaada said: “The Sunnah in handshake is with both hands.” [Majma’ al-Anhur 2/541]

Shaikh Ifran Nauyock
Al-Kawthari Academy (Mauritius)



(1) An Islamic organization called Youth of Ubuntu (Y.O.U) in Uitenhage has been doing Qurbani for 2/3 years now on their farm which is also a boarding home for their underprivileged students. During the time of Qurbani, the men and young boys challenge each other to catch the sheep making it like a sport, thereby causing distress to the sheep.

Thereafter the sheep are being slaughtered in front of one other. The women and families who paid for their qur’baani sheep come to witness their sheep being slaughtered. Men and women stand together, all dolled up in their ‘eid’ garb. There are also tables and chairs with cakes and savouries. The men and women all sit together under the tree and eat. Is this permissible?

How should the venue of Qurbani actually be? Is it permissible for the women to watch the sheep being slaughtered whilst the menfolk are all around? what is the status of one’s sheep being slaughtered at such a place?

(2)  At the Khanqa KMSZ in Lenasia the women have a section and a time to also slaughter where the men take competitions to see which woman can slaughter best. The people who buy the sheep and cattle do so in the name of a competition to see who can pay for the most sheep or cattle, and who can slaughter the most.

There are many organizations which slaughter in the name of ‘Qurbani’ while making a fun fair out of the occasion the entire day  for entertainment.

Is this  riya and israaf ever permissible in the name of Qurbani since it is supposed to be a time of reflection and sacrifice? Please comment with regards to the true status of Qurbani and how it should be done according to what will be pleasing to Allah.

ANSWER AND COMMENT (By Mujlisul Ulama):

Firstly, it is necessary to understand what actually is Qur’baani. Is it an act of play and amusement for merrymaking and entertainment? In this regard the Qur’aan Majeed narrates:

“When he (Ismaaeel – alayhis salaam –) reached the age that he could run about (with his father), he (Nabi Ibraaheem – alayhis salaam) said: ‘O my beloved son! Verily, I have seen in a dream that I am slaughtering you. Now, see, what is your opinion (regarding this)?’

He (the little boy, Ismaaeel- alayhis salaam) said: ‘O my beloved father! Do as you have been commanded (by Allah). Most certainly, you will find me, if Allah wills, from among the Saabireen (the Patient Ones).’

So when both submitted and Ibraaheem (alayhis salaam) turned him (Ismaa-eel – alayhis salaam) on his side (for slaughtering him), We (i.e. Allah Ta’ala), called him: ‘O Ibraaheem! You have certainly honoured the dream (by fulfilling the command). In this way do We reward the Muhsineen (those who practise virtue).”

Verily this (act of Nabi Ibraaheem and Ismaaeel- alayhimas salaam) is indeed a clear (great) trial.”

And We compensated him with a great (magnificent) sacrifice. And for him (i.e. to commemorate his great sacrifice) we left for posterity (the annual Qur’baani – Sacrifice).”            (As-Saaffaat, Aayaat 102 – 108)

When Hadhrat Ibraaheem (Alayhis salaam) drove the knife on the neck of his little son, by Allah’s command, the son was substituted with a magnificent ram from Jannat.

To commemorate this supreme sacrifice of Hadhrat Nabi Ibraaheem (Alayhis salaam) of his beloved little son, Allah Ta’ala ordained the annual Qur’baani on this Ummah of Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Most certainly, it was an occasion for tears. It is recorded that the Portals of the Heavens were thrown open for the Malaaikah to witness the Supreme Sacrifice. All creation was overwhelmed with supreme sadness as they stared in amazement at the scene of ‘Slaughter’ being enacted at Allah’s command. It was an occasion for shedding torrents of tears and for hearts to break.

But what are these RUBBISHES in our age doing on this occasion of commemorating the Supreme Sacrifice of the two great Nabis of Allah Ta’ala? These villains have bedevilled the Qur’baani obligation and occasion with merrymaking, funfare, cruelty, zina, intermingling of sexes, riya, israaf, takabbur and other evils. They are acquitting themselves as munaafiqeen and kuffaar. They lack the slightest understanding of the meaning of Qur’baani and why Muslims are obliged to offer this Sacrifice annually.

The shaitaani outfits are only concerned with the huge profit they are making from trading with the animals. To maximise their profits, shaitaan has inspired them to pander to the carnal lusts of the people who are by far and large fussaaq and fujjaar. Thus, the haraam entertainment and haraam merrymaking mentioned in the question and observed on the occasion of Eidul Adhaa all over the country where these evil outfits are killing animals in haraam ways for the sake of their pockets, are the activities of those who have no true Imaan in their hearts. People of healthy Imaan will never stoop to the satanic level of rot and degradation – of callousness and cruelty – of fisq and fujoor – which bedevil these so-called ‘qur’baani’ circuses.

The men and women participating in these haraam ‘qur’baani’ occasions are vile RUBBISHES. They are fornicators, rotten to the core. The women who are so audacious to slaughter in the public, taking pride and stupidly displaying their imaginary prowess, and deceiving themselves and the fujjaar (immoral) men in the gallery for whom they (the evil women) are performing and dancing, that they are executing a ‘sunnat’, dwell in satanic self-deception.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) described such women who prance in the public domain as adultresses. They are zaaniyaat.

The entire operation, from beginning to end, conducted by these vile ‘qur’baani’ outfits is HARAAM. What they are doing is not Qur’baani. There is no reward for the villainy, cruelty and immorality which they perpetrate under guise of ‘Qur’baani’. They are not performing any Qur’baani. Their slaughtering is not accepted. There is no reward for the major sins they commit in the name of Qurbaani. On the contrary, every act and step of the organizers and participants is accursed. The La’nat of Allah Ta’ala and His Malaaikah settles on the human devils participating in these merrymaking shows and functions.

It is haraam for women to attend these cruel, evil circus shows. The Mustahab act of seeing one’s animal being sacrificed, becomes haraam in the shaitaani conditions prevailing at these evil entertainment occasions and venues. The atmosphere when making Qur’baani should be an occasion of sadness – sadness which meditation  on the Sacrifice of Nabi Ibraaheem (Alayhis salaam) will most certainly fill the heart of the Mu’min bringing tears to the eyes. It is not a time for enjoyment, especially the zina-type enjoyment which the carnal nafs derives in the mixed gathering of faajiraat and fujjaar.

It is not permissible to purchase Qur’baani animals from these haraam outfits. A cruel mockery is being made of this noble and great Sacrifice of Nabi Ibraaheem (Alayhis salaam).


Qur’bani or the Sacrifice of animals on the 10th, 11th and 12th Zil-Hajj, is a very lofty ibadat decreed by Allah Ta’ala in commemoration of Nabi Ibraahim’s supreme sacrifice of his son Ismaail (alayhis salaam) at the altar of Allah’s Command. The father offering the sacrifice of his little boy for the Love of Allah Ta’ala was not a jocular affair nor an occasion of play or amusement. The noble father and Khaleel (friend) of Allah Ta’ala was ordered to slit the throat of his beloved son with his own hands. He passed his trial in the highest degree of success and Allah Ta’ala substituted a ram for Ismaail (alayhis salaam). It is to commemorate this wonderful and supreme sacrifice of Nabi Ibraahim (alayhis salaam) that we have to sacrifice animals each year on the occasion of Eidul Adha.

Keeping in mind what this ibadat is all about, when the Muslim is about to slaughter or have his animal slaughtered, he should bring to his mind Hadhrat Ibraahim (alayhis salaam) slaughtering his son Hadhrat Ismaail (alayhis salaam). But this thought is furthest from the minds of most people who make the Qur’bani.

One of the gravest acts of transgression committed in negation of the spirit underlying Qur’bani is the gross maltreatment met out to the sacrificial animals. Animals are dragged, kept hungry and thirsty in fear. They are slaughtered at times with blunt knives and by incompetent persons who instead of effecting the Thabah with a clean cut, saw at the neck of the animal. This cruel act – zulm – is a major sin which destroys much of the thawaab of the Qur’bani.

Animals are slaughtered and skinned in the presence of other live animals. The skinning process begins even before the slaughtered animal has become motionless. While some signs of life remain, workers commence skinning the animals. All these acts are reprehensible, cruel, un-Islamic and haraam.

  • Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Verily, Allah Ta’ala has decreed kindness for everything. Theref ore, when you kill, then effect the killing kindly, when you slaughter, then slaughter kindly. Sharpen your knife and be merciful to the animal.” (Muslim, Ibn Majah, Nisai)

  • Hadhrat Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commanded that the knife be sharpened and that it (the knife) be concealed from the animal, and he said: “When anyone of you slaughters, he should make haste.” (Ibn Majah)

This hadith in fact informs us of the understanding which the animal possess. The sight of the knife can produce fear in the animal. It should, therefore, not be displayed in its presence. The animal should not be kept lying down unnecessarily. It should be put on the ground only at the precise moment of slaughter. After laying it down facing the Qiblah, there should be no unnecessary delay in slaughtering it.

In one hadith Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) prohibited dragging of the animal. He ordered that the animal be held by the neck. Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) also forbade that the animal be kept hungry and thirsty while it awaits to be slaughtered.

Once Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) saw a man sharpening his knife after he had laid down the animal. Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) struck the man with his whip and exclaimed:

Do you want to cause many deaths to the animal?

In other words, creating fear in the animal was like multiplying death for it.

Those who maltreat animals and perform cruelly when sacrificing them should remember that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Beware of the dua (curse) of the mazloom, for there is no barrier between it (the curse or call of the mazloom) and Allah.”

Any person or animal who is oppressed or wronged or brutalized is a mazloom. So beware of the curse, which emanates from the hearts of even these dumb animals. They are Allah’s makhluq (creation). No one is entitled to perpetrate zulm on them. Those making Qur’bani should take note of the under mentioned essential requirements:

a) The knife must be very sharp.

b) The animals should be properly fed if they have been acquired some time before slaughter.

c) An animal must not be slaughtered in front of another animal.

d) The animal brought for slaughtering should not see the blood of the other animals.

e) Animals should not be skinned while there is any sign of life visible in them.

f) An animal taken for slaughtering should not be led pass animals which are being skinned.

g) The animal should be caught and brought only when the slaughterer is ready for slaughtering. Usually workers grab hold of the animal well in advance. They hold the animal captive while the slaughterer is still engaged in slaughtering another animal.

h) The animal should be laid down facing the Qiblah.

i) The neck of the animal should not be sawn. Clean cuts should be effected.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “He who shows no mercy, mercy will not be shown to him.”

نقاب پر پابندی

ماخوذ از مکتوب رسالہ ‘المجلس’ مجلس العلماء جنوبی افریقہ مع مترجم

یوروپی ممالک اور الجیریا کی کافر حکومت نے نقاب پر پابندی لگائی ہے۔ بظاہر یہ اسلام دشمنی اور نفرت معلوم ہوتی ہے۔ اس کے باوجود اس پابندی کی حقیقی (بنیادی) وجہ مسلمانوں کا خود شرعی حجاب کو ترک کر دینا ہے۔ جب کہ یہ اللہ تعالی کی طرف سے سزا ہے۔

حجاب صرف نقاب پہننے پر محدود نہیں ہے۔ حجاب تو ایک مکمل نظام ہے جو تقاضہ کرتا ہے کہ مسلمان مستورات گھر كے حدود میں رہیں۔ مسلمان مستورات نے پوری دنیا میں حجاب کو ترک کردیا ہے۔ دراصل وہ نقاب کو آزاد بروک گھومنے اور لوگوں کے مجموعوں میں پھرنے کے لیے اجازت (لائسنس) سمجھتی ہیں۔اب سزا کے طور پر اللہ تعالی نے اسلاموفوبیا (مسلمانوں کے خلاف تعصب) لگا دیا ہے جس کی وجہ سے وہ مستورات جو لوگوں کے مجموعوں میں بھٹکتے پھرنے کی قائل ہیں ان کے لیے ذلت اور خطرہ ہے۔

جب مسلمان خود شریعت کے احکام کو کھلے طور پر  پامال کرتے ہیں تو اللہ تعالی ہمیں مختلف طریقوں سے سزا دیتے ہیں اور ذلیل کرتے ہیں- اسلاموفوبیا (مسلمانوں کے خلاف تعصب) ان میں سے ایک طریقہ ہے۔ مسلمان اس ذلت کے حق دار ہیں جسے انہوں نے اللہ تعالی سے بغاوت کر کے دعوت دی ہے-

Tawajjuh and Tasarruf – An Explanation of the Science of Sufis

Question: The following outrageous claim is made among Sufi circles: The Ahlullāh make an impression on the hearts of their murīds through focus and affectionate gaze. The blessings of this focus results in the rectification of the hearts of the murīds. In fact, there are times when this focus of the shaykh results in outsiders getting the inspiration for guidance and īmān. If this is correct in the Sharī‛at, why could the Chief of all past and future generations Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam not instil guidance in the heart of his beloved uncle, Abū Tālib? Allāh forbid, was he deprived of such focus from Allāh ta‛ālā? We seek refuge in saying such a thing and from showing disrespect.

Answer: Focus is a type of influence which is not within man’s choice. Let alone piety, focus does not even require īmān. The focus of non-Muslims can also be effective for certain periods of time. Nevertheless, focus is proven from the Qur’ān, Hadīth and countless incidents of the righteous. Observe the following:

The Origin of Focus

Hadrat Shāh ‛Abd al-‛Azīz Muhaddith Dehlawī rahimahullāh writes in Tafsīr ‛Azīzī:

The first sign and effect of divine revelation coming to Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam was in the form of true dreams. Whatever he saw in his dreams would be experienced by him exactly like that while in a state of wakefulness. He was then made to become attracted to solitude. Subsequently, he would go alone to the cave of Hirā’ and engage in Allāh’s remembrance. He used to take as much as one week’s food and provisions for himself. When the food and drink were finished, he would return home, get more food and drink, and go back to the cave. In most cases, his stay used to be for less than a month. Occasionally he even stayed over for a full month.

One day he was standing out of the cave to wash his mouth when Jibra’īl ‛alayhis salām suddenly called out: “O Muhammad!” He looked up but did not see anything. He heard this voice a second and third time, and began looking around in confusion. Suddenly a face which was glittering like the sun, in the form of a human, decorated with a crown of light on his head and wearing green clothes appeared before Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam and began saying: “Read!” Some narrations state that he had a green silken cloth in his hand. Something was written on it. He presented it to Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam and said: “Read.” Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam said: “I cannot read.” The person said: “Read!” He embraced Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam and squeezed him so tightly that he felt constricted and began perspiring. This happened three times. On the fourth occasion he said:

Read in the name of your Sustainer who is the creator of all. He created man from a clot of blood. Read, and your Sustainer is the most bountiful. Who taught by the pen. He taught man what he did not know. [Sūrah al-‛Alaq, 96: 1-5]

These five verses settled in Rasūlullāh’s mind and were memorised by him. He writes further on:

The circumstances surrounding this initial revelation to Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam contains a few points which must be borne in mind.

Shāh Sāhib rahimahullāh then writes four points. He writes under the third point:

Jibra’īl ‛alayhis salām was ordered to squeeze Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam so that the effect of Jibra’īl may become firmly embedded – to the point of perfection – in the blessed soul of Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam. The effect of the perfect servants of Allāh ta‛ālā, which the people of the Tarīqat refer to as tawajjuh (focus) is divided into four categories.

Types of tawajjuh

1. Ta’thīr In‛ikāsī: The example of this is of a person who applies a lot of perfume and comes into an assembly. The fragrance of his perfume perfumes the mind of every person sitting in that assembly. This is the weakest type of tawajjuh because its effect only remains for as long as the person is in the company of a Walī. Once he leaves, the effect does not remain with him.

2. Ta’thīr Ilqā’ī: The example of this is of a person who pours oil into a container and places a wick into it. He then comes to a person who has a fire. He touches the wick to the fire, it takes light and becomes a lamp. This effect and focus is stronger than the first type because its effect continues even after the assembly. However, if any calamity or impediment comes upon it, it will leave. In this case, although the lamp was lit, a sudden gush of wind or rain came upon it and extinguished it. This effect cannot culture and rectify the self and the senses.

3. Ta’thīr Islāhī: Through his spiritual power, the mentor rectifies the inner self of the murīd and the senses are put into motion. The example of this is of a person who brings water from a river or well and stores it in one place. He makes canals which connect this water to a pond which has a fountain. He clears the canals of all dirt and grime, and releases the water with full pressure so that the water now gushes forth from the fountain.

This type of effect is stronger than the first two. The self is rectified and the senses are cultured. However, its effect is dependent on the amount of water which is stored, and the extent and cleanliness of the canals. It is not according to the capability of the river or well. However, despite this, if any calamity or weakness befalls the treasure [of water], there will be a drop in the effect.

4. Ta’thīr Ittihādī: Through his spiritual power, the Sufi master takes the murīd under his wing and joins his soul to his murīd’s soul in such a way that the excellences of his soul are transferred into the soul of the murīd. This is the strongest type of effect.

Once this is realized, there is no need for going repeatedly to the shaykh to derive benefit from him. [Tafsīr ‛Azīzī, pp. 559-563, Kutub Khānah Fayd-e-Abrār]

Hadrat Thānwī rahimahullāh writes the following points after relating the incident at the cave of Hirā’:

The angel who came to Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam was Jibra’īl ‛alayhis salām. When he asked Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam to read, it was not required of him to read something which he had learnt before. Rather, it was similar to a teacher displaying the letters a, b, c to a child and asking him to read. In other words, you must read what I show you. Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam replied: “I cannot read.” This could be in the sense that his blessed mind did not go to the meaning of Iqra’. Alternatively, he assumed from the circumstances that Jibra’īl ‛alayhis salām will make him read something which – in order for him to grasp and understand it – required him to be able to read and write from before hand. No matter what, in order to receive and accept what he has been ordered to read, there was a need to strengthen and perfect his capability. It was for this reason that the angel squeezed him several times. In this way, the strength which he receives will enable his heart to focus and gain courage. The action of tawajjuh is proven from this Hadīth.

The reality of tasarruf

Imdād al-Fatāwā volume five contains a booklet of Hadrat Thānwī rahimahullāh titled at-Ta‛arruf fī Tahqīq at-Tasarruf. It has been translated by Hadrat Muftī Muhammad Shafī‛ Sāhib rahimahullāh. A few quotations from it are presented here.

The reality of tasarruf: The reality of it is for special praiseworthy feelings to be conferred on another person. This results in special effects on him. Due to the various objectives and purposes of these effects, they take on different categories and colours. In the terminology of the Sufis, it is known as tasarruf (influence), tawajjuh (focus), himmat (courage) and jam‛e khawātir (gathering of thoughts).

Further on, he writes under the heading Tanbīhāt (cautions):

First caution: Is this tasarruf which the Sufis resort to a Sunnat of Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam? Whatever I have been able to gather in this regard has been explained in part two of my booklet, at-Tarā’if wa az-Zarā’if. I feel it will suffice to quote it verbatim here. It is: It is narrated from authentic Ahādīth that Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam struck his hand on the chests of certain people resulting in their whisperings leaving them. He placed his blessed hand on certain sick people and their illness left them. Some people may assume that he resorted to tasarruf here. It is also not farfetched for a person to furnish these narrations as proof that resorting to tasarruf is Sunnat. However, if we ponder over this, we can conclude that this proof is incomplete. The reason for this is that in order for his action to be a tasarruf, it will have to be proven through an authentic narration that Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam accumulated his spiritual powers in order to produce these results [e.g. removing whisperings, getting rid of an illness]. And this is not proven. In fact, it is possible that he resorted to these actions because he was informed via divine revelation that they will be beneficial to them without having to resort to gathering of his thoughts (concentration) and applying his tasarruf. Based on this possibility, these actions are most certainly not included in the tasarruf as defined by the Sufis. This is why all the ‛ulamā’ of the ummat list these incidents among Rasūlullāh’s miracles which are totally different from tasarruf. The most clear indication that Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam never resorted to tasarruf is that he did not resort to it on the heart of Abū Tālib despite his extreme desire and wish for him to embrace Islam. Instead, he sufficed on making du‛ā’ for his īmān and inviting him to Islam. Even if the performance of tasarruf is at any time accepted with regard to him, it will not prove that it is Sunnat in the definition of the Sharī‛at. The reason for this is that for an act to be Sunnat in the definition of the Sharī‛at, it has to be practised. This is why wrestling is not referred to as Sunnat. This, notwithstanding the fact that Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam wrestled against Rukānah radiyallāhu ‛anhu on one occasion. In fact, even if it is proven to be his habit, it will not be termed a Sunnat-e-Maqsūdah because it is not necessary for a habitual Sunnat to be an act of worship.

Second caution: Is tasarruf a sign of wilāyat, piety and acceptance in the sight of Allāh ta‛ālā? The answer to this is that it is definitely not. Just as other bodily powers, hands, feet, etc. are used, so is the case with tasarruf. This was explained previously. [Imdād al-Fatāwā, vol. 5, pp. 231-233]

Hadrat Thānwī’s book, Sharī‛at Aur Tarīqat contains the following:

A lengthy Hadīth of Hadrat Ubayy ibn Ka‛b radiyallāhu ‛anhu contains the following:

When Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam saw me in the condition which had overcome me, he struck my chest causing me to break out into a sweat. It was as though I was looking at Allāh ta‛ālā out of fear.

The striking of the hand which resulted in this condition is known as tasarruf. Some people are naturally qualified for tasarruf even though they may not enjoy affinity with Allāh ta‛ālā. All it requires is expending one’s courage and will. If others also have a strong courage, they can stop it. The different ways of tasarruf are dependent solely on practice.

Diyā’ al-Qulūb states:

Strange and unique forms of tasarruf are not acquired without first acquiring the bond of self-obliteration and continuity. At the same time, practice or one’s innate power is also a prerequisite for it to be beneficial in Dīn. This is because the fundamental goal of a seeker is benefit in Dīn. The strange and unique forms of tasarruf referred to are those which are connected to sulūk.

Two levels of tawajjuh and tasarruf

There are two types of tasarruf and having an effect. One is to have an effect on a murīd’s inner self through which he develops a pull towards Allāh ta‛ālā. The other is to have an effect on other things of this world, either through courage or supplication.

There are two levels of tasarruf. One is involuntary in the sense that the heart desires for enthusiasm, love for Allāh ta‛ālā, fear of Him and so on to be developed in a certain person. He must make du‛ā’ for the person. There is no harm in it. The second level is the well-known one in the terminology of the Sufis. It entails the shaykh emptying his heart of all dangers and focuses on something specific. He works his imagination with the intention of having an effect or influence. Although this is permissible it is temperamentally disliked. The doer in such a situation is the force of lightening which is placed within man. This force is also found to a large extent in the ground. The falling of a person’s gaze one someone has an effect on the person. The source of mesmerism and tawajjuh which is known to us is the same. The only difference between the two is that one is utilized for a bad purpose and the other for a good one. It is dependent on practice. This is why they practise instilling affinity into others. Some mashā’ikh resort to this practice a lot. However, its benefit does not remain. The one who seeks spiritual feeling, considers it to be beneficial and therefore feels it is enough. This is why he gives up doing good.

There are a few doubts about it: (1) It is not related in the Sunnat. (2) Most people become lazy in carrying out good works. While there is no harm in having an effect on others, the person who practises tawajjuh has no tawajjuh whatsoever towards Allāh ta‛ālā at the time when he is practising it. If someone objects and says that there is no tawajjuh towards Allāh ta‛ālā even in normal ordinary conversations, the answer to him is that this is more serious because the heart has been wilfully emptied [in order to focus on the person]. It seems shameful to have one’s tawajjuh shifted away from Allāh ta‛ālā. This is what normally happens in the circles of tawajjuh.

The prescribed method of rectification is lecturing, advising and du‛ā’. Total tawajjuh is the right of Allāh ta‛ālā. However, it has certain etiquette. (1) One is that the objective and method must be permissible. (2) There must be no external or internal ostentation. A good way of ensuring this is to accompany it with du‛ā’, as we are taught du‛ā’ in the Hadīth. (3) One must not practise it too much for it could be a  tribulation for the doer and the one on whom it is practised. This is why we do not find excessive mention of it with regard to Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam. Some people have committed excesses in this regard and the resulting tribulations bear testimony to it. The worst tribulation in this regard is that it is generally considered to be a feat of perfection, whereas this practice is solely out of necessity.

A necessity is calculated according to the level of necessity and suffice with what is necessary.

Some elders clearly stated that when dhikr does not have any effect on a murīd, the shaykh could resort to tawajjuh. The reason is the same:

Suffice with what is necessary.

Some ignorant people incorrectly assume that the conveying of blessings and benefit is in the control of the shaykh. Muslim Sharīf contains a Hadīth of Hadrat Abū Hurayrah radiyallāhu ‛anhu with reference to the verse:

You cannot guide whom you will. Rather, it is Allāh who guides whomever He wills. [Sūrah al-Qasas, 28: 56]

He says: This verse was revealed with reference to Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam. He was encouraging his uncle, Abū Tālib, towards Islam (and he was not paying heed).

This Hadīth rectifies this wrong assumption completely, viz. when Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam does not have such a power, how can it ever be possible for others!?

Bearing in mind that Dīnī benefit – which is the fundamental task of a shaykh – is totally out of his control, conveying worldly benefit will be even more out of his control. Many ignorant people are caught up in this misunderstanding. We seek refuge in Allāh ta‛ālā. They believe that the Ahlullāh have all divine powers. This belief has also been rectified by the above text of the Qur’ān. [Sharī‛at Aur Tarīqat, pp. 361-364]

Tawajjuh has a temporary effect

Another point which has to be understood is that the effect which results from tawajjuh is temporary. It is not lasting.

The following is contained in the Malfūzāt of Hadrat Thānwī rahimahullāh:

If someone thinks that notorious evil people were automatically rectified by the tawajjuh of certain Sufis, it should be understood that this is a type of tasarruf which is neither within one’s choice nor is it essential for piety. Many Sufis have no power of tasarruf whatsoever. Furthermore, tasarruf has no permanency. It is similar to a person sitting near an oven. As long as he remains there, his entire body will experience warmth. The moment he moves away from it, his body will turn cold. On the other hand, the effect which results from determination and good deeds is long lasting. It is similar to a person who consumes Kushta-e-Tilā in order to create heat within his body. Even if he were to go to the Shimlah mountain, the heat within himself will remain as it was. [Anfās-e-‛Īsā, vol. 1, pp. 14-15]

We learn from the above statement that it is not within a person’s control to bring a person onto the straight path through tawajjuh, just as it is not in the control of any person to guide someone. Tawajjuh is beneficial and effective only if Allāh ta‛ālā wills.

You cannot guide whom you will. Rather, it is Allāh who guides whomever He wills. He knows best those who are guided. [Sūrah al-Qasas, 28: 56]

Therefore, your objection that “if the tawajjuh of a shaykh is a means for rectitude and guidance, how is it that Rasūlullāh’s tawajjuh in respect of his beloved uncle, Abū Tālib, could not result in his guidance?” is baseless. If, according to you, every tawajjuh of Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam is accepted as beneficial for guidance, it would mean that on whoever he applied his tawajjuh, that person most definitely ought to become a Muslim. After all, Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam was commissioned for the guidance of all humanity. It was Rasūlullāh’s earnest desire for every person to be endowed with the wealth of īmān. So much so that Allāh ta‛ālā had to tell him not to be too saddened by the unbelievers’ abstention from īmān:

Would you, perhaps, destroy yourself with grief over them if they do not believe in this message? [Sūrah al-Kahf, 18: 6]

Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam had taken the names of certain unbelievers (like Abū Jahal) and made du‛ā’ for their guidance. Despite this, they were not blessed with guidance. It is obvious that to take the name of a person and make du‛ā’ for him entails focussing totally on that person (tawajjuh).

Refusal – one of the reasons for the ineffectiveness of tawajjuh

Sometimes the shaykh who is practising tawajjuh is an expert, but the murīd has no determination and confidence in the shaykh. In fact, he is refusing him. In such a case, the tawajjuh of even an expert shaykh is ineffective. Hadrat Maulānā Shāh Wasīyyullāh Sāhib Allāhābādī rahimahullāh has written two articles on this subject, ‛Āqibah al-Inkār and I‛tiqād Wa Inkār. These are contained in Ta’līfāt Muslihul Ummat. We present a quotation from it:

Bahjah an-Nufūs, a commentary of Bukhārī Sharīf relates the following incident from an erudite scholar:

A person came to an erudite shaykh with the intention of sulūk. The shaykh instructed him to remain in solitude and left him there for a few days. The shaykh then went to him and asked: “What do you make of my appearance?” The person replied: “You look like a pig.” The shaykh said: “You are right.” The shaykh left him in his solitude for a few days and went back to him and asked him the same question. The person said: “You look like a dog.” The shaykh left him and this continued until one day the person said: “You look like the full moon.” The shaykh said: “Your condition has been set right now.” He then asked him to come out of seclusion.

Look! We learn from this incident that a murīd sees his own self in the shaykh’s mirror. The shaykh was already a full moon from the first day; it is the murīd who went through changes but was attributing them to the shaykh. As his rectification was progressing, he began getting closer to the reality.

Nowadays, in addition to the mashā’ikh, there are many senior ‛ulamā’, scholars, jurists and Hadīth experts. Does every person who remains in their company come out as an expert? It is observed that the majority of those who qualify under them not only possess very little capabilities, they are in fact defective in their capabilities. In fact, they possess no capabilities. We can go to the point of saying that the ignoramuses have taken the place of the ‛ulamā’. Just one or two are worthy of doing some work. If this situation is witnessed in the external sciences, can it be said that it is actually the experts and the Hadīth specialists who are defective? Or can it be said that although their knowledge is accepted in its place, the defect and shortcomings are in the students in the sense that although they studied under such experts, they learnt nothing. When this is the case here, and everyone accepts that it is certainly not the fault of the ‛ulamā’, why is it that when it comes to the spiritual side, only the mashā’ikh are blamed? Why is it not assumed that the fault could be with the murīds, due to which they are not benefiting, and that the shaykh is an expert in his place!!

From among the prerequisites for a shaykh to be an expert, is it also a prerequisite for every murīd of his to be an expert? This is totally against the reality because it could be that the shaykh is an expert but those who frequent him are deprived of his teachings because of their own shortcomings and wrongs. Look at the most perfect of all humans – Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam and his blessed era. Despite living in his era and being in his company, people like Abū Jahal and Abū Lahab remained deprived. Similar was the case with the hypocrites. We learn from this that there are certain prerequisites in order to derive benefit from a person. Prerequisites have to be fulfilled by both – the mentor and the mentee. As for the internal self, it is much more intricate. Thus, its prerequisites are also more intricate. In order to derive internal benefit, it is essential for a person to first fulfil those prerequisites and to remove whatever obstacles he has in its path. If the shaykh alone is an expert, what can he achieve? The seeker too has to be genuine and devoted. Now if a person did not learn under these personalities according to the prerequisites laid down, how can it be the fault of the personalities? [Ta’līfāt Muslihul Ummat, vol. 1, pp. 39-41]

The Maktūbāt of Khwājah Muhammad Ma‛sūm rahimahullāh contains the following:

The tawajjuh of a shaykh-e-kāmil is such that even if mountains of darkness and filth appear from all sides, he can repulse them from a genuine murīd and purify his internal self. This tawajjuh of a shaykh is also beneficial to a seeker when he is in a state of retraction. The shaykh can create expansion very quickly in him and open the path of progress for him.

In short, the basis for success is that companionship and tawajjuh which is accompanied by faith [in the shaykh] and complete submission. In other words, there must be love and handing over one’s self completely from the seeker, and tawajjuh from the shaykh. Love alone – without the tawajjuh of a shaykh – can be a guide. In other words, it can be beneficial and can provide progress. However, tawajjuh of the shaykh alone and no love at all from the seeker cannot be of much benefit. [Ta’līfāt Muslihul Ummat, vol. 4, pp. 153-154]

The Maktūbāt of Khwājah Muhammad Ma‛sūm states:

I received your letter. It arrived at a most opportune time. You requested tawajjuh for yourself and your murīds. We occasionally practice tawajjuh. Allāh willing, we will practise it more. However, it is essential for you to know that the basis for success is “spiritual bond”. It can also be expressed by the words love, conviction and submission. The stronger this bond with one’s mentor, the more the seeker will derive from the blessings of the shaykh’s internal self. The presence of pure love and spiritual bond is sufficient to draw blessings from an expert shaykh, even if there is no tawajjuh from him. Tawajjuh alone, without any love and spiritual bond, is not effective at all. For tawajjuh to be effective, there has to be a suitable recipient for it. Obviously, when tawajjuh is combined with the abovementioned spiritual bond, it will become most splendorous. In short, the basis is a strong spiritual bond and following the Sunnat of Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam. If a person is firmly embedded in these two things, he has nothing to worry about. He will eventually succeed and he will not be deprived of the excellent qualities of the elders. But if there is a defect in either of these two, there is nothing but danger no matter how much the person may exert himself. [Maktūbāt Khwājah Ma‛sūm, p. 102]

From the above text we learn that the reason why Rasūlullāh’s perfect tawajjuh on his beloved uncle, Abū Tālib was not effective was the latter’s refusal. His refusal was not only from the heart but from the tongue as well. The Musnad Ahmad, Bukhārī, Muslim and Nasa’ī state: When Abū Tālib was on his death bed, Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam came to him. Abū Jahal and ‛Abdullāh ibn Umayyah were also present. Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‛alayhi wa sallam said: “O uncle! Say Lā Ilāha Illallāh just once so that I will have one proof with which I could intercede on your behalf in front of Allāh ta‛ālā.” Abū Jahal and ‛Abdullāh ibn Umayyah said: “O Abū Tālib! Are you going to leave the religion of ‛Abd al-Muttalib?” Abū Tālib refused to say the kalimah. The last words which emanated from his tongue were: “On the religion of ‛Abd al-Muttalib.” [Sīratul Mustafā, vol. 1, pp. 280-281]

Why tawajjuh is not effective on a rejecter

The reason for tawajjuh not being effective on a rejecter is that he does not demonstrate any need. His condition reflects his claim to perfection. Hadrat Thānwī rahimahullāh writes:

The effect of tawajjuh falls on a person who considers himself in need of it and does not make any claims to his own perfection. Tawajjuh is effective on the masses but not on the elite because the latter display no need and desire for it. They claim that others are in need of them. [Anfās-e-‛Īsā, vol. 1, p. 49]


A Brother from Pakistan, lamenting the villainy and evil of molvis of the likes of Dajjaal Tariq Jameel, says:

“Tariq Jameel, in a bayaan about some incidents mentioned in Fazaail-e-A’maal, labelled them as extremism and unfit for being presented as Deen. (Pandering to the Arab Salafis and the modernist Zanaadaqah – The Majlis)

Another notorious Youtube ‘mufti’ is also calling to get Fazaail-e-A’maal replaced by Muntakhab Ahaadith (authored by Molvi Sa’d). (Part of a satanic conspiracy to placate Salafis – The Majlis)

Basically what they are saying is: For years they have been calling people towards a ‘baatil extremist deen’ and now they have hit their epiphany and realized that it was all wrong. (From one ghulu’ to another ghulu’. The Tabligh Jamaat’s gravest malady is its ghulu. It is this evil malady which has ruined the Jamaat by deflecting it from the Straight Path of the Shariah. – The Majlis)

Do they even realize what they are telling the public? They stood on a mountain of sand all these years? Nobody realizes, not even their close aides, and no one bothers to ask them. So for all these years you were wrong and now you realize you are right? How can we trust you? (The proof of untrustworthiness is conspicuously portrayed by the two factions standing with daggers drawn to slit each other’s throat. They have cast off their mask of deceptive passivity by demonstrating their true nature par excellence in Bangladesh and elsewhere. – The Majlis)

I feel even though they are giving 2-3-4 bayans daily, and taking Allah’s name on youtube, facebook, videos, tv, in reality they have forgotten Allah, so Allah has made them forget themselves.

The book that brought millions towards deen should be replaced now.

Why is it that when these maulanas and muftis become celebrities, their views start to change, they adopt a moderate ‘deen’; a lot of haraam becomes halaal.   They start to believe they are divinely inspired and they know everything because they are dealing with public, because they are ‘famous’. They refuse to listen to anyone.

Like the incident of Tariq Jameel with Aamir Khan, the actor you wrote about. The ulama told him: Hazrat this is your field you know best what to reply.” Then Tariq Jameel was ‘divinely’ inspired while engaging in wudhu. (They are Devil-Incarnate, hence Rasulullah –Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) –  feared  these ulama-e-soo’ more than Dajjaal – The Majlis)

Did the ulama around him feel any shame in saying “this is your field”. What have you ulama been doing all these years? What did you do in Madrasah for so many years? (They are shayaateenul ins. Devils, especially human devils are bereft of even a vestige of shame. –The Majlis)

The result is that Tariq Jameel believes no one knows the public, the actors, the film industry, musicians, politicians, rulers better than him, and no one can give them dawah better than him.  He will sit with Imran Khan and his wife on the same table and have ‘iftaar’ and dinner, and ulama will clap and kiss his forehead(What else can be expected from an Agent of Dajjaal – The Majis)

When Tariq Jameel’s mistakes are pointed out, the usual defence is that he is a ‘khateeb’. Does being a khateeb mean that you are not a Muslim? You won’t be answerable on Qiyaamat day? You are free to say anything you want to, and that the Shariah doesn’t apply on you?

(This dajjaal is an atheist – The Majlis)

I read a hadith along the lines that the safest person in times of fitnah will be the one who nobody knows. When he shifts from one place to another nobody asks about him in the previous neighbourhood.  It seems that the maqsad of these people is to make everything halaal, undermine ibadaat, nafl ibadaat, taqwa, zuhd, and indulge in all kinds of haraam, futility, haraam and mushtabah food, facebook, youtube, movies, make everything halaal and ridicule those who want to live a life of taqwa. (Nothing surprising. Agents of Iblees have no other occupation other than the profession of undermining the Deen. – The Majlis)

The fatwa you posted from Jamiat-ur-Rasheed in which they stated that watching the Turkish drama is permissible, is a prime example of their hearts being sealed. These muftis have become so blind that they don’t even realize that Allah has made them blind. Therefore, they are unable to differentiate between halaal and haraam.  They make everything halaal in the guise of ‘dawah’. Their logic is make deen ‘easy’; don’t make deen difficult.  They ridicule even the semblance of Taqwa  which other sincere Ulama have – the Ulama who are firm on Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar.   Please comment.

(End of the Brother’s lament)


The following Hadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is adequate comment for the villainy, filth, fisq, fujoor and kufr of the vast majority of molvis and bunkum muftis of this age:

“An age will dawn when nothing of Islam will remain, but its name. Nothing of the Qur’aan will remain, but its text. The Musaajid will be ornate structures devoid of hidaayat. Their Ulama will be the worst under the canopy of the sky. From them will emerge fitnah, and the fitnah will rebound on them.”

A Buzroog commented that: under the canopy of the sky there are even the Yahood, Nasaara, Mushrikeen apes and pigs.” Thus these types of fraud molvis and dajjaali muftis are worse than even the kuffaar, apes and swines. Apes and swines do not tamper and destroy Allah’s Deen. But this Ibleesi task has fallen to the lot of these ulama-e-soo’ who have surpassed the ulama-e-soo’ of the Yahood and Nasaara in villainy and kufr.

They are absolutely bereft of the slightest vestige of Khauf-e-Ilaahi. That is why they are able to so brazenly and flagrantly trample on the Sunnah and undermine the Shariah most recklessly and shamelessly. With their shaitaaniyat they convey the idea that they will not die – there will be no accountability for them. Deep in their hearts is embedded nifaaq. These shaitaani molvis and muftis are in fact worse than the juhala westernized zanaadaqah who parade as Muslims. The harm of these shaitaani molvis and muftis far exceed the damage caused to the Deen by the Zanaadaqah modernists – the secularists who have set themselves up as ‘mujtahideen’.

The scenario is not set to improve. We are on a head-on collision with Qiyaamah. The Signs of Qiyaamah mentioned by our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) have to materialize. The cartel of Dajjaals such as Tariq Jameel, Menk, Suliman Moolla and numerous other Apes and Khanaazeer will incrementally preponderate in the world while Islam and the true Muslims will come within the purview of the Hadith:

“Islam began ghareeb (forlorn and friendless). Soon will it return ghareeb. Therefore glad tidings for the Ghuraba.”

In this Hadith are the glad tidings of Allah’s Pleasure for those who struggle and remain firm on the Sunnah during the times of Fitnah. While we may lament and grieve over the satanic developments engineered by these followers of Dajjaal and Iblees, we should not be surprised. It is to be anticipated.




Is it permissible in our time for females to give lectures to men if the woman lecturer is screened from the males by a barrier?

In response to this question, Salafis in the U.K. have based their fatwa of permissibility on a fatwa of Mufti Kifaayatullah (Rahmatullah alayh). In his Fatwa, Mufti Kifaayatullah states:

“The holy Shariah of Islam does not prohibit women from any Islamic service of which they are capable. Along with guarding Purdah, a woman may give a lecture to a gathering of men.”

Please comment on this Fatwa which the Salafis are using to create confusion.

Answer by Mujlisul Ulama:

Salafis are COPROCREEPS. In addition they exhibit Shiah tendencies, especially taqiyah (holy hypocrisy). The juhala Salafis, while portraying themselves as ‘mujtahids’ higher in calibre than even the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen of the Salafus Saaliheen era, are academically bankrupt and spiritually barren.

They descend into the dregs of ludicrousness by vacillating between extremes. While they claim to deduct the ahkaam of the Shariah directly from the Qur’aan and Ahaadith since Taqleed of the Aimmah Mujtahideen is a capital sin according to these coprocreeps, their academic bankruptcy compels them to resort to Muqallid Muftis of this era which is far, very far from the age of even their Imaam Ibn Taimiyyaah, and even further from the noble era of the Salafus Saaliheen.

The attempt to seek daleel for their coprocreep view from the Muqallid Mufti Kifaayatullah (Rahmatullah alayh) for an issue which has no resemblance to the original mas’alah, is a vivid commentary of their jahaalat. It is indeed ludicrous and laughable when a Salafi seeks daleel from a Muqallid Mufti whose fatwa is out-dated by half a century, and which no longer holds Shar’i substance due to the satanism with which the issue under discussion is bedevilled today.

There is no contention regarding the validity of the Deeni service of a capable female. There is similarly no contention regarding the validity of the Deeni service of a male. Impermissibility has not been predicated to such services whether executed by males or females. However, only a moron Salafi coprocreep and the modernist zindeeqs will cling to the original unadulterated mas’alah even when satanism has become attached to the mubah (permissible) act.

Women performing Salaat in the Musjid was permitted by even Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). However, when satanasim became associated with this original permissible act, the Sahaabah unanimously banned women from the Musaajid. Similarly, on account of the accretion of satanism,  all the Fuqaha of Islam of all Math-habs have declared that it is no longer permissible for women to attend even Walimahs or bayaans to listen to lectures delivered by Ulama.  Attending any kind of function is no longer permissible for women.

Mufti Kifaayatullah’s view is not a Shar’i daleel. For daleel, we have to resort to the Fuqaha, especially the Fuqaha of the Salafus Saaliheen era. All of those illustrious Souls have issued the Fatwa of Prohibition. Thus, it is imperative to set aside Mufti Kifaayatullah’s view.

Furthermore, the situation during Mufti Kifaayatullah’s time was not as rotten and stinking as it is today. In our time, faasiqaat andfaajiraat are generally the ones who deliver copro-lectures to males who attend to cast lustful stares at the faasiqaat/faajiraat, and to derive nafsaanigratification from their voices. There is an incremental preponderance of faasiqaat/faajiraatin the public domain. This vile and rotten phenomenon has also been given great impetus by the wayward Tabligh Jamaat with its women’s wing.

It is HARAAM in this age for women to give lectures in gatherings of males. The dalaa-il for this prohibition in a nutshell are:

  • The Ijmaa-ee ban on women attending the Musjid issued by the Sahaabah.
  • The Fatwa of the Fuqaha of Islam.
  • The evil shenanigans of women and men in our present era.

Mahdi and ‘Eisa are not the Same – Refuting a Qadiani Dajjali Contention

[By brother Waqar Akbar Cheema]

In a certain program[1] of MTA channel one Ahmadi ‘scholar’ presented few arguments in a bid to uphold his religious belief that Mahdi and ‘Eisa Ibn Maryam are two references to the same personality.

Argument 1

The first argument that the Ahmadi ‘scholar’ presents goes as;

A certain narration says that Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, said:

كيف تهلك أمة أنا في أولها وعيسى في آخرها

‘How can that Ummah be destroyed in whose beginning is me, in whose end is ‘Eisa.”

Ahmadi ‘scholar’ contends that in this narration there is no mention of ‘Imam Mahdi’ hence it proves, in his good belief, that there is no separate person as Imam Mahdi.

While this is true that the report is given as such in Tarikh Damishq of Ibn Asakir but elsewhere the full report not only kills his argument but also exposes the gimmicks of the Ahmadiyya intellectual elite. The complete narration says;

لن تهلك أمة أنا في أولها وعيسى ابن مريم في آخرها ، والمهدي في أوسطها

“That Ummah cannot be destroyed in whose beginning is me, in whose end is ‘Eisa and in whose middle is al-Mahdi.”

(Kanzul Ummal 14/266 Hadīth 38671 cf. Kitabul Mahdi of Abu Na’im, Classified as Hasan by Al-Azizi in Siraj Al-Munir Sharah Jami’ Saghir 3/196)

Al-Manawi in his exegesis to this Hadith writes;

أراد بالوسط ما قبل الآخر لأن نزول عيسى لقتل الدجال يكون في زمن المهدي ويصلي عيسى خلفه

“By أوسط ‘before the end’ is meant for the descent of ‘Eisa (Alayhis Salaam) to kill Dajjal will take place during the time of al-Mahdi and he (‘Eisa) will pray behind him.” (Faidh Al-Qadir 5/383 Hadith 7384)

This simply kills the twisting of Murabbis.

Argument 2

Next he uses the following narration to meet his end.

عن أبي هريرة عن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : يوشك من عاش منكم ان يلقى عيسى بن مريم إماما مهديا وحكما عدلا فيكسر الصليب ويقتل الخنزير ويضع الجزية وتضع الحرب أوزارها

Narrated Abu Huraira (Radhiyallahu Anhu) that Prophet, may Allah bless him, said: “It is near that one who lives from amongst you shall meet ‘Eisa bin Maryam. He will be a rightly guided (imaman mahdiyyan] leader and a just ruler …”

Ahmadis argue that as ‘Eisa, may Allah bless him, has been called ‘imaman mahdiyyan’ in this Hadith it means he will be Imam Mahdi spoken about in other Hadith narrations.

Let’s take this absurd argument to task.

What is “Mahdi”?

What? The heading says, ‘What is Mahdi?’ not, ‘Who is Mahdi?’ Yes, indeed that is what needs to be understood in the very first place.

Mahdi is an attribute/characteristic which means ‘rightly guided.’ And it is used for so many people in various Hadith narrations. With a quick look I could find that following people have been called so;

Abdullah bin Jarir (Radhiyallahu Anhu):

In Sahih Bukhari we read that Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, prayed for Sayyidina Jarir bin ‘Abdullah, may Allah be pleased with him;

اللَّهُمَّ ثَبِّتْهُ وَاجْعَلْهُ هَادِيًا مَهْدِيًّا

“O Allah! Make him firm and make him a guiding and a rightly-guided man [mahdiyyan].”(Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 2809)

Mu’awiya (Radhiyallahu Anhu):

According to Jami’ Tirmidhi, the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, prayed exactly the same way for Sayyidina Mu’awiya, may Allah be pleased with him;

اللهم اجعله هاديا مهديا

“O Allah! Make him a guiding and a rightly-guided man [mahdiyyan].” (Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 3842. Classified as Hasan by Tirmidhi and Sahih by Albani)

‘Ali (Radhiyallahu Anhu):

In one Hadith the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, addressing the people said about Sayyidina ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him;

تجدوه هاديا مهديا يأخذ بكم الطريق المستقيم

“You will find him a guiding and a right-guided person [mahdiyyan] who will take you on the right path.” (al-Isaba fi Ma’rifatil Sahaba 2/271. Hafiz Ibn Hajr said, its chain is good [jayyad])

All the Pious Caliphs:

A famous Hadith uses the word for all the pious Caliphs. It read;

فعليكم بسنتي وسنة الخلفاء المهديين

“You must then follow my sunnah and that of the rightly-guided [mahdiyyeencaliphs.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 4607. Classified as Sahih by Albani)

The word ‘mahdiyyeen’ is plural of ‘mahdi.’

Thus we find that all of these great men and many others were ‘Mahdi’ i.e. rightly-guided ones. And by following the Ahmadiyya line of argument we end up with so many Mahdis instead of reaching the conclusion that ‘Eisa, may Allah bless him, alone is ‘mahdi’.

The fact however, is simply that Ahmadiyya try to play with the innocent minds that do not know the Arabic language and have been basically made to think of ‘mahdi ‘as a noun and not an adjective.

A person from the lineage of the Prophet due to appear near the End of Times:

Just like all these people and many others, near the End of Times will appear a person from the lineage of the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, whose being ‘mahdi’ i.e. rightly-guided is testified in original sources of Islam.

The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, said;

المهدي من عترتي من ولد فاطمة

“The Mahdi (lit. rightly-guided) will be of my family, of the descendants of Fatimah.”(Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 4284. Classified as Sahih by Albani and others)

But even he is referred to as ‘Mahdi’ not because it is his name but because he will be a rightly-guided person.

About his name, another Hadith says;

رجلا مني أو من أهل بيتي يواطئ اسمه اسمي واسم أبيه اسم أبي

“A man who belongs to me or to my family whose name is same as my name and whose father’s name is the same as my father’s name.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 4282. Classified as Sahih by Ibn Qayyim, Albani and others)

Why generally only a particular person is referred to as ‘Mahdi’?

Now naturally the question arises, if so many people were given the title of ‘Mahdi’ why only one person is referred to as such? The answer is simple. ‘Eisa, may Allah bless him, is basically a Prophet, Pious caliphs and other companions themselves are praised much by the Qur’an so they have much greater references to be known with. However, the personality known and revered as ‘Imam Mahdi’ is so referred to as it will be his greatest position and as such makes him stand out among all other humans after the Prophets and their companions. And that is the reason we always, retain the word Mahdi when translating the narrations about him. And looking at the subtleties let me say that this contention of ours springs from the very wording of the Hadith and a comparison of various narrations.

Please note, in the narrations using the word ‘mahdi’ (as singular adjective) for ‘Eisa, may Allah bless him, and various companions it is simply ‘mahdi’ i.e. without the article ‘al’ i.e. ‘the’ while the narration about the person to appear near the End of the Times is ‘al-Mahdi’ which makes him stand out among all those for whom this word is used. This is, let me reiterate, because his being rightly-guided is an honor for him greater than any other status of him.

Argument 3

His third argument is about the famous narration that Ahmadis often quote.

لا مهدي إلا عيسى

“There is no Mahdi except ‘Eisa.”

He says that one of its narrators Muhammad bin Khalid al-Jundi is a trustworthy narrator and that ‘Yahya bin Mu’in’ [sic.] graded him as trustworthy.

Firstly Hafiz Ibn Hajr, who has been recognized as Mujaddid by Ahmadis, after careful scrutiny of the various opinions, graded him as ‘Majhul’ i.e. unknown. See al-Taqrib 2/71.

Imam Hakim also classified him as ‘Majhul’ see Tahzib al-Tahzib 9/126

Let’s not forget Imam Hakim is also recognized as Mujaddid by Ahmadiyya.

As to what is attributed to Imam Yahya bin Ma’in (its Ma’in not Mu’in as Ahmadi ‘scholar’ speaks) al-Mizi quotes Abu al-Hassan al-Abri to have said, “If they mention what is said to come from Yahya bin Ma’in, it is not known to the experts among the people of knowledge and reporting.” (Tahzib al-Kamal 25/149)

Infact the narration has multiple issues. Shaykh Albani (in Silsala Da’ifa, Number 77) has mentioned three problems in this.

1. Tadlis of Hassan al-Basri

2. Muhammad bin Khalid al-Jundi being Majhul.

3. Difference in the chain. At another place Muhammad bin Khalid narrates from Aban bin Abi Ayyash instead of Aban bin Salih and he is ‘Matrook’ i.e. rejected. See Tahzib al-Tahzib 9/126

It is for this reason; Imam Ibn Taymiya, al-Saghani, al-Shaukani, Ibn Qayyim, al-Dhahbi, al-Qurtubi, Azimabadi etc. and recently Albani and Shu’aib Arnaut all have graded this narration as dubious.

And it is precisely for this reason Mullah Ali Qari in his commentary to Mishkat al-Masabih writes;

ثُمَّ اعْلَمْ أَنَّ حَدِيثَ: لَا مَهْدِيَّ إِلَّا عِيسَى بْنُ مَرْيَمَ ضَعِيفٌ بِاتِّفَاقِ الْمُحَدِّثِينَ

“Then I learnt the Hadith: There is no Mahdi except ‘Eisa, is weak by the consensus of the scholars of Hadith.” (Mirqat al-Mafatih 8/3448)

Infact Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself accepted that this report is not authentic. He wrote;

“And as to Ahadith about the arrival of Mahdi you know they are all Da’if and problematic contradicting one another so much so that in one narration in Ibn Majah and other books says, ‘There is no Mahdi except ‘Eisa, so how can one rest is his case on such kind of narrations with so much difference and contradictions, weakness and criticism on their narrators, as is not hidden from the scholars of Hadith?”

(Humamtul Bushra pp.148-149 included in Rohani Khazain vol.7 pp.314-315)

Please remember in Sirat al-Mahdi vol.1 p.91 Mirza Bashir Ahmad on the authority of Maulvi Sher Ali quotes Mirza to have said that all his Arabic writings are only a kind of revelation.

So Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself accepted this narration as weak and unreliable. Whatever he said certainly applies to this narration. However his contention about the other narrations is faulty.

Mullah Ali Qari discussing the ‘No Mahdi except ‘Eisa’ narration, writes;

قَالَ الطِّيبِيُّ – رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ: الْأَحَادِيثُ عَنْهُ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – فِي التَّنْصِيصِ عَلَى خُرُوجِ الْمَهْدِيِّ مِنْ عِتْرَتِهِ مِنْ وَلَدِ فَاطِمَةَ، ثَابِتَةٌ أَصَحُّ مِنْ هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ، فَالْحُكْمُ لَهَا دُونَهُ

“Taybi, may Allah have mercy on him, said; And the narrations from the Prophet, may Allah bless him, about Mahdi emerging from his progeny and from the children of Fatima, are proved and authentic than this narration, and their status is different than it.” (Mirqat al-Mafatih 8/3448)

Also note scholars like Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qayyim, Albani and Shu’aib Arnaut who have graded the ‘No mahdi except ‘Eisa’ narration as weak authenticated the other narrations about al-Mahdi.

So we find all the claims of Murabbis are not only erroneous but also show how common Ahmadis are fooled into misleading beliefs risking their life in the Hereafter.

May Allah bring all Ahmadis back to the fold of religion of His Last and Final Messenger, on whom be the peace and blessings of Almighty Allah.

Indeed Allah knows the best!