Category Archives: Atabek Shukurov

Critical Review of Atabek Shukurov’s Book “Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith”

Review by: Waqar Akbar Cheema


Atabek Shukurov wrote a book called Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith, translated by his student Sulaiman Ahmed. Here is a factual review of the book:

The past century and a half has been marked by scores of books, and articles written to question the authority of hadith in varying ways. Some of the proponents of these ideas were blunt and bold enough to say that they considered no hadith as a valid source of Islamic law and etiquette. There were and still are, others who do not claim to reject all hadiths but through their ad hoc approach they provide for themselves the laxity to reject almost every hadith at will. The common, identifying aspects of these groups is in their frank and loud disavowal of the traditional knowledge stream.

Atabek Shukurov’s work Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith, with translation and commentary by Sulaiman Ahmed, is however different because it makes no sweeping claims of the kind. In fact, it uses the name of the earliest and most widely followed scholarly stream within the broader Sunnite tradition. The central and incessantly repeated clamour on almost every page of the book is about rejuvenating and resuscitating the hadith approaches of the Hanafi school. And it is under this label that all the claims are made against hadith, the second primary source of the Islamic worldview.

Knowing the tree by its fruits.

The third manifestation of practical application of Hanafi methodology is in the arguments about hadith reports about the Holy Prophet (ﷺ) being affected by Black Magic. Claiming that the Qur’an is “quite clear”, and that those who claim the Prophet (ﷺ) was affected by magic are wrongdoers and that, if these reports were accepted, they would raise doubts about revelation. The author after rejecting them based on asinine assumptions about the traditional explanations offered, proceeds to claim that accepting these hadith reports and yet being outraged at the publications of the Prophet’s caricatures, “alludes to double standards” (p.241). Finally, as in the beginning of the book (p.4) it is claimed that Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi (d. 333) rejected the hadiths on this account, and denied that the last two chapters of the Qur’an were revealed on this background (p.242). It is, however, striking to note that far from rejecting the hadith and the incident of magic affecting the Prophet (ﷺ), Al-Maturidi actually finds in it, a two-fold proof of Prophethood (wajhān fi ithbāt risālatahu wa nabuwatahu). (Ta’wilāt Ahlul Sunnah, Vol.10, 653)[1] Besides Al-Maturidi, the major Hanafi authority in Hadith, Abu Ja’far Al-Tahawi (d. 321) also accepted the hadith about magic affecting the Prophet (ﷺ) (Sharh Mushkil Al-Athār, Hadith 5935). Among Hanafis Al-Jassās (d. 370) surely rejected the hadith on the subject but this rejection was due to his theologically Mu’tazalite inclinations rather than his expertise as a Hanafi jurist.

Factual errors, insinuations, frauds

The work is also riddled with factual errors, insinuations and even outright fraudulent statements. For instance, it is claimed that Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) had “students who were Maturidi in theology” (p.8) when the founder of the Maturidi school was born no earlier than 235 AH. It is like saying Ibn Mas’ud (d. 32 AH) or ‘Alqama bin Qais (d. 70 AH) were Hanafis.

In arguing against the preservation of hadith the author claims that while we have the divine guarantee for protection of the Qur’an there is no such promise in favor of the hadith reports (p.109). In an attempt to refute the “salafi” claim that Qur’an 15:9 entails the same promise for hadith as well, the author states, “why God does not say what he means if he indeed meant ‘hadith’ when he says ‘Qur’an’” (p.110) while the verse in question (i.e. Qur’an 15:9) does not really use the word “Qur’an” it simply says “dhikr”. It is, however, pertinent to note that just a few pages later the verse is translated correctly and the word ‘Qur’an’ is mentioned only in parenthesis (p.118), apparently because unlike in p.110, there the purpose was not to neutralize an argument for hadith preservation.

In his mention of ‘problems’ with the black magic hadith, in the prologue to the book there is another factual misrepresentation by Atabek Shukurov. He mentions “Abdullah ibn Omar Al-Baidawi”, the author of Anwār Al-Tanzil as “a Hanafi scholar from the thirteenth century” (p.4) whereas in reality Al-Baidāwi was a recognized Shafi’i scholar as evident from his juristic discussions in his tafsir and also from the accounts in biographical dictionaries. That his tafsir is largely a condensation of Hanafi_in_Fiqh Al-Zamakhshari’s tafsir and many later Hanafis wrote glosses over it is not enough to classify Al-Baidāwi as a Hanafi.

Using weak and even fabricated hadith reports to emphasize textual criticism

Regarding the treatment of specific narrations, while the undertone across all chapters of the book is that as per Hanafi methodology isnād analysis alone is not enough to separate the chaff from the wheat, and that textual (matn) criticism is very important, what we find is that in many cases the examples brought are hadith reports that are isnād-wise signally, weak and at times outright fabrications.

On p.36 a report reading “The first thing that was created was a horse, then himself [God]. Then the Prophet ()” is mentioned. Besides the fact that the translation is not faithful the hadith has been recognized as a fabrication. In fact the reference cited for this narration is a Shafiite Al-Suyuti’s “Al-La’ali Al-masnu’ah fi Al-ahadith Al-mawdu’ah” (The Fake Pearls in Fabricated Hadiths), and yet right after quoting the above report it is stated that, “even if the chain is authentic according to the Shafi’is, this is irrelevant to Hanafis” (p.36), which clearly insinuates that Shafi’is somehow accept the chain of this report as authentic.

As an example of “an ahād hadith that is accepted as ‘Sahih’ (according to Shafi’is and Salafis)” contradicting the Qur’an, the author quotes the narration from ‘Umar given by Abu Dawud etc. “The husband will never be asked [by God] concerning the reason for hitting his wife” (p.118). However, many prominent scholars including the ‘celebrated’ salafi hadith scholar Al-Albani have declared it as weak. Others who showed its weakness or graded it as such include ‘Ali bin Al-Madini (as quoted by Ibn Kathir in Musnad Al-Fārūq), Ibn Mulaqqan Al-Shafi’i, Ahmad Shakir, Muhammad bin ‘Abdul Muhsin Al-Turki, Mustafa Al-’Adwi, and Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut.

There is more queer stuff in an example of ahād reports contradicting theology which as quoted in the book reads, “Then above the seventh heaven there is a sea, between whose top and bottom is a distance …” This has been referred to as “a Sahih hadith narrated in Abu Dawood and Ibn Majah …” (p.124) and the citation for this is the Al-Risalah’s First Edition (2009) of Sunan Abu Dawud Hadith 4723 (p.293), but if we check this work we find that the editor Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut has categorically stated that the report is “da’if” (weak). Likewise, the Salafi scholar Al-Albani has also graded it as weak. One wonders how the author fabricated the notion of hadith being “Sahih” in the first place when the very citation he brings mentions its weakness.

Along with the hadith reports from the Messenger of Allah, there is a similar oblivion with regards to a narration from Imam Abu Hanifa. On p.11 the author refers to a report from Tarikh Baghdad wherein it is alleged that Abu Hanifa called a hadith (which is narrated in Sahih Bukhari as well) a “delusion”. However, as clarified by the editor of the referenced edition the report is dubious as it is related on the authority of a weak narrator.

More play on narrations

At one place the author takes exception to a hadith reported by Abu Dawud etc. condemning people who do one of four things including “twisting one’s beard” (p.65). The hadith is clearly mistranslated. The hadith actually condemns “one who ties (a knot in) his beard” (man ‘aqada lihyatahu). Moreover, the author not only refuses to see the actual context of condemnation in the practice being a remnant of the pre-Islamic (jahili) practices, he claims that the hadith was largely unknown and that “Umar had the habit of twisting his beard as did other Sahabah”, and as a reference he provides Al-Tabarani’s Al-Mujam Al-Kabeer, Hadith 54 is cited (p.282). Yet, when we check the cited source we find that it mentions Umar’s twisting of the mustaches, and not beard, in state of anger. The author, as we can see, resorts to two-fold fraud (twisting for tying and beard for mustaches) to cast aspersions on an otherwise authentic hadith.

Disregard for Interpretive devices. Boldness in rejecting hadiths

For the authentic reports discussed, the author is always in a hurry to reject the hadith reports and seeks to attribute rejection of them by Hanafi scholars. He makes no mention of the use of interpretative devices like ta’wīl (interpretation other than the apparent), takhsīs  (specification), tansīkh (abrogation), or tatbīq (reconciliation) etc. It reminds one of Al-Tahawi complaining that one interpreting the hadith differently should not be accused of rejecting it (Sharh Ma’āni Al-Athār, Vol.2, 134). It seems Atabek Shukurov and co. who claims to revive the Hanafi methodology has taken the approach of intra-Islamic polemicists that Al-Tahawi -arguably the most prominent hadith scholar among the Hanafis ever-once encountered, but they are doing it to a more dangerous end.

Atabek Shukurov takes up the issue of another hadith translated in his book as, “When two people engage in a transaction, each of them has the right to choose to annul it as long as they haven’t parted and are still together …”  (pp.10-11) Using the statements of the scholars who differed with Imam Abu Hanifa’s position and accused him of going against it, Shukurov brings it as an example of “some hadith which are completely rejected based on a variety of principles”  (p.10). The reality of the matter, however, is simply that Imam Abu Hanifa interpreted the hadith differently. He said the parting mentioned in the hadith is not in the physical sense, but rather in the sense of agreement. (Sharh Mushkil Al-Athār, Vol.13, 272)

However, it is to be noted that in the above quoted translation of the hadith, the words “and are still together” are unwarranted and actually against the interpretation made by Imam Abu Hanifa. Among “the hadiths [that] are rejected by Hanafi principles”, according to the author, is a “hadith narrated in Abu Dawood by Abu Hurairah; “the illegitimate child is the most evil of the three [meaning out of the mother, father and child”” (p.119). Al-Tahawi Al-Hanafi, however, feels no qualms in accepting this hadith because he brings a report in which Aisha, the mother of the believers, explained the right context of the narration, in that it was actually about a specific person. Al-Tahawi further elucidates that the hadith is not general about every illegitimate child, rather it was specific to a person who hurt the Prophet (ﷺ), and the Prophet (ﷺ) pronounced that he was more evil than his mother and the man who illegally begat him. (Sharh Mushkil Al-Athār, Vol.2, 367-369).

The author then brings the hadith “in Tirmidhi that “whoever drinks wine, then, lash him. If he return to it, then on the fourth time kill him”” as an example of reports contradicting the action of their narrators. He then argues, “this hadith was completely ignored by the Sahabah and never implemented” and therefore, he says, “the Hanafis also reject this hadith” (p.121). Hanafis, like others, do not question the authenticity of this hadith and instead argue that it was in fact abrogated as stated by Al-Tahawi (Sharh Ma’āni Al-Athār, Hadith 4944).

As already noted not all Salafi and Shafi’i scholars have accepted the hadith translated in the book as, “The husband will never be asked [by God] concerning the reason for hitting his wife” (p.118). Furthermore, whereas the author alleges that it contradicts the Qur’anic verse, “If women are obedient do not oppress them” (4:34), it is important to note that the scholars who accepted it (or did not dwell on its authenticity) actually reconciled it with the Qur’an and understood it within the parameters of the said verse.

Since the first part of the verse 4:34 mentions conditional permission to correct wives, Mulla Ali Al-Qari (Al-Hanafi) says “it is for someone who remains mindful of the stipulations and limits regarding hitting” (idha ra’a shurut al-darb wa hududahu) his wife which naturally include not being harsh to her if she remains obedient. (Mirqat al-Mafatih, Vol.6, 375). Worryingly, the notion of a contradiction is fabricated by inserting the words “by God” in the translation of the hadith. In reality the hadith is not by the way of information as to what is not questionable in the sight of Allah, rather it is an instruction to the people that if a husband hits his wife to the extent permissible then they should not infringe their privacy by questioning him about it as is evident from the context in which ‘Umar narrated it (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 122).

On the science and narrators of hadith

The producers of this book seem to be on a mission to reject everything that Muslims in the West, the vast majority of whom are uninitiated in the Islamic sciences find difficult to comprehend. Thus we find that besides attacks on peculiar hadith reports, the axe also falls on the very science of hadith. It is alleged that the “chain of a hadith can be fabricated quite easily” and that “an expert forger” can work in ways “ensuring that the narrators and chains are acceptable” and he, the forger, “can then add any text to this chain and after a few generations when it has been become [sic] widespread it is considered a Sahih hadith, … especially if this tradition is then later narrated in one of the highly respected canonical collections of hadith” (p.110). In hardly minced words the seed of doubt has been sown with regards to all the hadith collections and hadith reports. The emphasis on textual criticism over and above isnād  criticism has taken an override and as an unfortunate consequence, isnād criticism is laid to rest.

The book highlights criticism of ‘Ikrama, the freed-slave of Ibn ‘Abbas (pp.133, 227-228) and goes on to claim that “it is agreed by consensus that he was from the Khawarij” (p.228). Besides the questions around merit and the truth of this allegation against ‘Ikrama, the claim of consensus on this point is certainly false. Ahmad, Al-‘Ijli and Al-Tabari are reported to have vindicated ‘Ikrama of this accusation. (Fath Al-Bāri, Vol.1, 428).

Likewise, the claim that Imam Al-Bukhari “does not narrate from Hanafis” (p.134) is erroneous. Mufīḍ Al-Rahman Al-Shātghāmi’s treatise on the subject, Al-Wardah Al-Hāḍirah, wholly refutes this claim.

Among the weirdest things is the comparison of Muslim narrators and their reports with those of St. Paul and other Christians. In criticism of ahād reports the rhetoric leads the author to say, “if the chain was authentic we would accept the testimony of one person (or a few) that Jesus was indeed crucified or that he was the pre-existent ‘son’ of God? Or how about the testimony of Paul that he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus?” (p.41). This is truly ridiculous as the author conveniently overlooks the simple issue of the reliability of the narrators in the first place and conflates apparent incongruity  between the Qur’an and Hadith, with the Judaeo-Christian beliefs that are plainly refuted in the Qur’an. The absurdity of this line of reasoning reaches the ultimate level when the author goes on to refer to St. Paul as “Tābi’” (p.42) in attempting to fabricate brownie points against hadiths. It is however, interesting to consider how this rhetoric originally aimed at ahād reports focuses on the tabi’un

One of the claims often repeated in the book is about Abu Huraira not being a faqīh (pp.56, 187-188). To this end he uses an anecdote mentioned by Al-Sarakhsi and ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Bukhari about Ibn ‘Abbas’s comment regarding Abu Huraira’s narration on performing ablution (wudu’) for carrying a dead person(p.56). The anecdote is reported without any isnād in the said works. The issue is similar to the better known anecdote in which Ibn ‘Abbas raises a similar question regarding Abu Huraira’s narration on performing ablution for taking something cooked on fire. Just as the ruling for performing ablution, and for taking something cooked on fire is explained by the interpretive device of tansikh (abrogation), which is supported by a narration of Abu Huraira himself (Abu Yusuf’s Kitāb Al-Athār, Hadith 41), this ruling can also be specific in some ways or considered to be abrogated, if verified for its authenticity in the first place. There is proof that Ibn ‘Abbas asked Abu Huraira to give a legal verdict on the more complex subject of divorce, (Muwatta Mālik, Hadith 2110, Sharh Ma’āni Al-Athār, Hadith 4478). ‘Abdul Majīd Al-Turkamani has addressed this issue in his work, Dirāsat fi ‘Ulum Al-Hadith ‘ala Manhaj Al-Hanafiyya  p.236-241, and has given names of Hanafi scholars who have categorically mentioned that Abu Huraira was indeed a faqīh. ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Bukhari from whom the author quotes the above-mentioned anecdote himself writes just a few pages later, “We do not accept that Abu Huraira was not a faqīh. Indeed he was a faqīh.” (Kashf Al-Asrar, Vol.2, 559)

The author also claims about those known for the ability and qualities of narration, unlike those recognized for knowledge and the ability of giving rulings, “if their narration conflicts with analogy, then the analogy takes precedence due to necessity of independent reasoning,” and mentions Abu Huraira and Anas bin Malik as examples (p.54). He further writes, “When there is conflict between analogy and the narration of non-faqīh Sahabi, Imam Karkhi gives priority to the narration whereas Imam Eisaa ibn Abbaan gives priority to analogy and his position is the official stance (‘mu’tamad’)” (p.58). The citation for this claim is Nizamuddin Al-Laknawi’s “Fawatih Al-Rahamut”, whereas in reality the author of the cited work makes no claim for any “official stance” on the issue and merely describes what ‘Eisa bin Aban (and Abu Zaid Al-Dabusi) preferred. Al-Turkamani in his earlier mentioned work  (pp.210-243) has treated the subject at length and shown that unconditional preference of narration over analogy is the opinion authentically narrated from Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad bin Al-Hasan Al-Shaibani and the majority of Hanafi scholars. Conditional preference of analogy over narration is a minority opinion. Naturally, the opinion of the founders of the school and the majority is the one that matters.

Inconsistencies or manifestations of ad hoc approach

Besides, the merits of the positions taken, the book is internally inconsistent as well. While the author first alleged that Hanafis “completely rejected” the hadith about two people engaged in a transaction and the choice to annul it (pp.10-11), later in the book he presents the same hadith as a case of “when the hadith has many meanings … The narrator acting on one of the meanings does not eliminate the possibility of other meanings being correct,” (pp.186-187).

At one place the author finds fault with the hadith; “If a woman marries without the permission of a representative, her marriage is not valid” for being “narrated from one lady Sahabiyah” (i.e. Aisha) and contradicting the principle of “‘Umum Al-Balwaa’” (p.37), but later the same is presented as an example of a case where “the hadith is accepted” (p.186).

Et Cetera Et Cetera

On p.116 the following statement regarding the enumerated eight “Types of Opposition” is translated in a weird and possibly misleading way.

و قبلها الإمام الشافعي رحمة الله في رواية عنه اكتفاء بظاهر الاتصال. و في رواية ردها

The translation of this statement is given as, “In one narration Imam Shafi’i rejects all these categories due to their implicit disconnection and in a second narration he accepts them.” This translation is problematic; one can only wonder why there is an alteration in transposing the sequence of narrations, by placing the acceptance for connection second and the rejection due to disconnection first. Was it to highlight the alleged narration on Al-Shafi’i’s rejection of those categories?

Referencing is also sometimes faulty. A couple of examples from those cross examined include the citation simply “Abu Bakr Al-Rāzi Al-Jassās, “Al-Fusul fi Al-Usul”, Volume 2” without the publisher’s name or a page number (p.286), and for the hadith of Aisha “narrated by Tirmidhi” related to marriage (p.186) the reference is a report from Sunan Abu Dawud, from the chapters on purification.

The index is equally as poor. There is no entry for certain proper names such as, Abu Yusuf, Al-Tahawi and Ikrama. Against the entry “Khawarij” five pages (139, 2014, 205, 206, 243) are mentioned and you do not find anything about Khawarij on these pages.

Finally, while the whole book is about the rant on ‘delivering’ contemporary Hanafis from the ‘Shafi’i Musatalah’, it is ironic that for a qualification of a condition of tawatur (p.25, note 40), the only citation presented is Nuzhat Al-Nazr  of “Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani Al-Shafi” (p.270).


The only thing worthwhile in the book is its binding and the quality of paper used. Content wise it is poor, erroneous, misleading and even carelessly worked out. Far from being a good source to know the Hanafi positions on issues in Hadith sciences, the book altogether misrepresents the school and tries to put a traditionalist garb over the heretical agendas of hadith rejecters. No matter how much the author may have attempted to preempt the expected reaction about his book by creating an air of innocence around him, the fact remains it is clearly an attempt to bereave the Ummah of confidence in hadith and implicating the bastions of Hadith and Sunnah in this sinister game.


[1] Here we quote for our readers relevant passage from Al-Maturidi’s tafsir’s on Surah Al-Falaq;

قيل: إن واحدًا من اليهود سحر رسول اللَّه – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ -، فنزل هذا.

قال أبو بكر الأصم: ذكروا في هذه السورة حديثا فيه ما لا يجوز؛ فتركته.

قال الفقيه – رحمه اللَّه -: ولكن عندنا فيما قيل: إن رسول اللَّه – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ – سحر – وجهان في إثبات رسالته ونبوته.

أحدهما: بما أعلمه بالوحي أنه سحر، وذلك فعل فعلوه سرا منه، ولا وقوف لأحد على الغيب إلا بالوحي.

والثاني: بما أبطل عمل السحر بتلاوة القرآن؛ فيصير لتلاوته في إبطال عمل السحر ما لعصا موسى – عليه السلام …

It has been said (qeel) that a Jew did magic on the Prophet (ﷺ), so this (surah) was revealed.

Abu Bakr Al-Asamm said: They have mentioned regarding this surah some hadith which is impossible. Therefore, I rejected it.

Al-Faqih [Al-Maturidi] said: But to us in what has been said (lakin ‘indana fi ma qeel) about the Messenger of Allah getting affected by magic, there are two ways in proving his prophethood.

First: that he learnt through revelation that magic was performed on him, though it was done secretly. And no one can learn about the Unseen (ghaib) except through revelation.

Second: by the way of removing the effect of magic through the recitation of Qur’an as it happened with the staff of Musa, ‘alaihi al-salam …

Al-Maturidi first refers to the hadith reports about magic affecting the Prophet (ﷺ). He then mentions Abu Bakr al-Asamm, the Mu’tazalite, who rejected hadith reports on this issue. He then responds and mentions his own view in that, it is a two-fold evidence for affirming and proving the Prophet’s truthfulness.

Therefore, regardless of the implications of the word “qeel” in mentioning the hadith about magic affecting the Prophet (ﷺ), it is evident that Al-Maturidi took exception to Al-Asamm’s rejection of the reports on the subject and went on to claim that the reports actually stand among the proofs of Prophethood.

Moreover, careful study of Al-Maturidi’s usage of the word “qeel” in his tafsir, proves that he did not use it to imply weakness of what he related in this way. He used it along with other similar words in the linguistic sense for different reported opinions before forming an opinion about them, and preferring one over the other as mentioned by Dr. Majdi Basallum in introduction to his edition of Al-Maturidi’s tafsir Ta’wilāt Ahlul Sunnah (Vol.1, 331). In the case at hand we see, that he finds no issue with the reports about the incident and rather counts them among the Proofs of Prophethood.


Abu Yusuf, Kitāb Al-Athār, (Beirut: Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, n.d.)Al-Bukhari, ‘Abdul ‘Aziz, Kashf Al-Asrār, (Beirut: Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, 1997)Ibn Hajar, Fath Al-Bāri, (Beirut: Dar Al-Ma’arifa, 1979)Malik bin Anas, Muwatta, (Abu Dhabi, Moassasah Zayd bin Nahyan, 2005)Al-Maturidi, Abu Mansur, Ta’wilāt Ahlul Sunnah, edited by Dr. Majdi Basallum (Beirut: Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, 2005)Al-Qāri, Mullah ‘Ali bin Sultan, Mirqāt al-Mafātih Sharh Mishkāt al-Masābih, (Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, 2001)Al-Shatghami, Mufiḍ Al-Rahman, Al-Wardah Al-hāḍirah fi ahadith talamidh Al-Imam Al-Aʻẓam wa-ahadith Al-ʻulamaʼ Al-Ahnaf fi Al-Jamiʻ Al-sahih lil-Imam Al-Bukhari, (Karachi: ZamZam Publishers, 2002)Al-Tahawi, Abu Ja’far, Sharh Ma’āni Al-Athār, (Beirut: Darul Kitab, 1994)Al-Tahawi, Abu Ja’far, Sharh Mushkil Al-Athār, (Beirut: Mo’assasat Al-Risalah, 1994)Al-Tukamani, Abdul Majid, Dirāsat fi ‘Ulum Al-Hadith ‘ala Manhaj Al-Hanafiyya, (Karachi: Madrasa Al-Nu’man, 2009)

A note on Sulaiman Ahmad: He is only a student at best, and no where near the level of even a basic scholar. This is shown by his many blunders on basic matters in his various “fatwas” of fitna, as well as not knowing basic Hanafi usool, as well as his not understanding basic Hanafi terms. One of his former teachers (whom I keep as anonymous, since Atabek and his cult are fanatical Muslims that persecute and attack all of their opponents) considered him a “Jahil aami” with very poor knowledge of Arabic. 

Demolishing Atabek Shukurov’s satanic opinion of Permissibility of Bank Riba/Interest – Loans

[Majlisul Ulama]




In  this  era  in  close  proximity  to  Qiyaamah,  the  world abounds  with  juhala  and  mudhilleen  who  pose  as ‘authorities’  of  the  Shariah  when  in  reality  they  grope  and grovel  in  a  quagmire  of  jahaalat.  One  such  jaahil  whose articles  and  stupid  ‘fatwas’  are  loaded  with  hogwash  and nafsaani  flotsam,  is  one  Atabek  Shukurov  who  has  set himself  up  as  an  ‘authority’  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab  whilst he  dwells  in  a  mire  of  jahl-e-murakkab.

Some  of  the  flotsam  ‘fatwas’  of  this  mudhil  have  crossed our  path.  Insha-Allah,  we  shall  respond  in  detail  in refutation  of  the  copro-jahl  with  which  his  ‘fatwas’  of  jahl are  besmirched.  It  is  mentioned  in  the  Hadith  that  in  times close  to  the  approach  of  Qiyaamah,  there  will  be shayaateen  masquerading  as  human  beings.  They  will deliver  lectures,  give  fatwas  and  even  recite  the  Qur’aan Majeed  right  inside  the  Musjid  to  lure  and  ensnare Muslims  into  their  den  of  Imaani  destruction.  It  appears that  this  Atabek  character  is  one  of  those  shayaateeni mudhilleen  predicted  in  the  Ahaadith.

This  jaahil  has  written  considerable  drivel  and  hogwash  in his  stupid  ‘fatwas’  on  the  issues  of  mortgages, homosexuality,  smoking,  etc.  If  Allah  Ta’ala  grants  us  the taufeeq,  we  shall  demolish  all  the  rubbish  which  this  latest mudhil  has  excreted  in  his  ‘fatwas’  which  are  the  coproeffects  of  his  jahl-e-murakkab.

In  brief,  we  apprize  the  Ummah  of  the  Haqq  of  the  masaa’il  which  the  mudhil  coprocreep  has  convoluted  and corrupted  with  his  jahaalat  which  maybe  deliberate  and designed  to  further  the  scheme  of  Iblees  in  his  mission  of undermining  and  destroying  Islam.

Know  and  understand  well  that  all  bank  loans  are interest-bearing.  There  is  no  type  of  loan  given  by  a bank  which  is  free  of  interest/riba.  Atabek’s  laborious and  abortive  attempt  to  ‘prove’  that  bank  interest  is not  Riba,  is  the  effect  of  shaitaan  having  gripped  his brains.  Just  as  the  mushrikeen  of  Arabia  would  say: “Trade  is  like  Riba.”,  hence  it  should  be  halaal,  so  too, does  this  agent  of  Iblees,  Atabek  say:  “Bank  interest  is tawkeel.”  This  agent  of  shaitaan  is  at  war  with  Allah and  His  Rasool,  for  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  issues  the following  ultimatum  of  war:  

“…If  you  do  not  desist  (from  devouring  riba),  then  take notice  of  WAR  from  Allah  and  His  Rasool.”

By  no  stretch  of  Imaani  logic  and  Fiqhi  logic  can  such clear-cut  Riba charged  by  banks,  ever  be  interpreted  to mean  anything  other  than  Riba.  Therefore,  all  bank  loans are  haraam.  All  such  loans  are  encumbered  with interest  which  no  brand  of  interpretation  can  ever cancel.

Homosexuality  is  HARAAM.  Homosexuals  are  worse than  adulterers.  Islam  prescribes  the  severest  punishment for  homosexuals. If  homosexuality  is  proved  in  the  court of  the  Qaadhi,  even  the  death  penalty  may  be  applicable. Atabek’s  article  is  designed  to  placate  the  palates  of  his western  kuffaar  masters  whom  he  is  bootlicking.

Smoking breaks the fast. The arguments in negation of this mas’alah are baseless. Insha-Allah, a detailed response shall be forthcoming for the khuraafaat (drivel and trash) which Atabek has expectorated.  The  present article is a refutation of his  stupid mortgage  expectoration, rather nafsaani excretion.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

Verily, I fear for my Ummah the aimmah mudhilleen.”

This Atabek is from amongst the Mudhilleen mentioned in this Hadith.



A  sciolist  deviate,  one  Atabek  Shukurov,  in  the  U.K., posing  as  a  Hanafi  authority,  has  issued  a  corrupt,  baatil, stupid  ‘fatwa’  proclaiming  Riba  to  be  halaal.  Camouflaging  Riba  with  the  epithet  of  ‘mortgage’,  and employing  skulduggery  and  chicanery  to  convolute  Qardh into  Tawkeel,  the  deviate  jaahil  has  confirmed  that  he  is among  the  signs  of  Qiyaamah  predicted  by  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  who  had  mentioned  that  in times  in  proximity  to  Qiyaamah,  people  from  his  Ummah will  make  liquor  halaal  by  the  trick  of  nomenclature. Fanciful  names  will  be  coined  for  the  intoxicating  drinks to  render  it  halaal.

This  Hadith  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  has the  status  of  a  principle,  and  it  is  not  restricted  to  liquor.  It applies  to  all  haraam  practices  and  acts  which  are legalized  and  halaalized  by  means  of  fanciful  names  and fallacious  interpretations.  Thus, Tasweer  (pictures  of animate  objects)  is  opined  to  be  halaal  by  describing  it  as reflection,  digital  picture,  television  picture,  video, etc.

Riba  is  halaalized  by  dubbing  it  profit,  dividend  and  now ‘mortgage’  by  this  jaahil  deviate  whose  jahaalat conspicuously  renders  him  person’  non-grata  in  terms  of the  Shariah.  This  is  the  era  in  which  the  juhhaal  such  as Atabek,  preponderate.  There  are  numerous  such  ‘shaykhs’ of  deviation  prowling  around  the  world  executing  the dictates of Iblees and undermining the Divine Shariah

Atabek,  setting  himself  up  as  a  Hanafi  authority,  has stupidly  and  abortively  attempted  to  convince  Muslims that  in  the  acquisition  of  a  bank  loan,  the  evil  of  Riba  is not  involved.  Bank  loans  according  to  this  Ghabi  ‘shaykh’ are  not  interest-bearing.  His  jahl  is  indeed  shockingly lamentable.  He  truly    belongs  to  that  category  of  jaahil  ‘scholars’  who  gather  firewood  in  the  dark  on  an  intensely dark  night  without  knowing  if  his  hands  are  falling  on excreta  or  a  poisonous  snake.  Such  a  jaahil  ‘scholar’  is described  as  Haatibul  Lail  (one  who  gathers  firewood  in the  darkness  of  the  night).

Before  we  commence  with  our  detailed  refutation  of  his stupid  arguments  which  are  the  products  of  jahl  murakkab   (compound  ignorance),  we  present  this  brief  synopsis  for the  guidance  of  laymen  who    may  not  fully  understand  the academic  nature  of  the  refutation,  or  who  may  find technical  details  quite  boring.  This  synopsis  is  for  the guidance  of  laymen,  and  to  prevent  them  from  indulgence in  one  of  the  worst  sins  –  the  sin  of  Riba  which  in  one Hadith  is  described  as  a  conglomeration  of  more  than  70 major  sins,  the  lightest  of  which  is  like  committing adultery  with  one’s  own  mother.

Despite  the  extreme  danger  of  Riba  and  Allah’s abhorrence  for  it,  and  Allah’s  declaration  of  war  against those  who  indulge  in  Riba,  this  deviate  jaahil  deemed  it appropriate  to  recklessly  issue  a  licence  for  indulging  in Riba  thereby  embarking  on  a  satanic  mission  of  ruining the  Imaan  of  the  ignorant  and  unwary.

Understand  well  that  the  transaction  between  the  bank  and a  man  who  purchases  a  property  with  the  money  advanced by  the  bank  is  a  pure  interest-bearing  loan.  The  fanciful and  stupid  mental  gymnastics  in  which  the  Ghabi  ‘scholar’ engages  in  his  stupid  attempt  to  halaalize  Riba  by  dubbing the  transaction  ‘Tawkeel’,  is  unadulterated  haraam skulduggery.  No  one  should  be  fooled  and  befuddled  by the  utterly  fallacious  ‘fatwa’  of  Mr. Atabek  Shukurov  who has  clearly  demonstrated  that  as  far  as  the  Shariah  is concerned,  he  is  a  jaahil  and  a  mudhil.

No  amount  of  skulduggery  employing  Fiqhi  technicalities will  convince  a  sincere  Muslim  seeking  guidance  on  this issue,  that  the  money  which  a  bank  advances  for purchasing  a  property  is  a  not  a  loan  on  which  interest  has to  be  paid.  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said: “Seek  a  fatwa  from  your  heart.”  Every  Muslim  has sufficient  intelligence  to  understand  what  in  reality  a  bank loan  is.  The  stupidity  of  Shukurov’s  arguments  proffered in  negation  of  bank-riba  defies  incredulity  and  is  an  insult to  intelligence.

In  both  terminology  and  factual  meaning,  a  bank  loan  is  an interest-bearing  loan,  and  no  amount  of  fanciful, technically  sounding  arguments  and  skulduggery  will appeal  to  the  pure  and  simple  intelligence  of  a  mind  which has  not  lost  its  equilibrium  in  the  wake  of  the  pursuit  of worldly  and  nafsaani  objectives.

For  practical  purposes,  Muslims  should  understand  that bank  loans  are  Riba-bearing    transactions,  the  reality  of which  is  not  changed  by  dubbing  such  loans  ‘mortgages’ and  the  gimmick  of  ‘tawkeel’.  Liquor  remains  haraam regardless  of  the  plethora  of  new  names  coined  for  the intoxicant.  Pictures  of  animate  objects  remain  haraam regardless  of  the  new  epithets  by  which  pictures  are  called. Riba  remains  haraam  regardless  of  the  nomenclature fabricated  by  the  commission  of  skulduggery  by  stupid ‘scholars’    and  paper  ‘mujtahids’  of  this  era  in  close proximity  to  Qiyaamah.

It  is  the  reality  of  the  transaction  which  is  the  determinant. BANK LOANS ARE HARAAM.     


In  the  introduction  of  his  garbage  permissibility  of  Ribafatwa’,  which  he  abortively  seeks  to  halaalize  with  the ‘mortgage’  designation,  and  the  convoluted  ‘tawkeel’ fabrication,  the  deviate  ‘scholar’,  Atabek,  says  to  Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Sahib:

The  issue  of  purchasing  a  property  with  the  support  of a  bank  is  well-known  to  be  controversial  amongst  Muslim academics.  It  is  likewise  well  known  that  most  of  the scholars  consider  certain  types  of  purchasing  a  house through  the  banks  to  be  prohibited.”

In  fact  all  the  Ulama  –  genuine  Ulama  –  are  unanimous  in the  fatwa  of  prohibition.  Buying  property  via  the conventional  capitalist  riba  banks  is  haraam.  There  is  no Aalim  who  would  dare  to  say  that  riba  is  halaal,  and  a bank  loan  with  the  encumbrance  of  interest  is  halaal.  Only deviates  of  Atabek’s  ilk  –  the  modernist,  suit  and  tie ‘scholars’ of  ghabaawah  proffer  the  view  of permissibility.  But  their  stupid  ‘fatwas’  are  devoid  of Shar’i  substance.  Even  the  products  offered  by  the  so-called  ‘islamic’  banks  are  contaminated  with  riba,  and most  of  their  deals  are  faasid  and  baatil.

In  describing  the  method  of  the  bank’s  operation  when granting  a  loan,  the  deviate  ‘scholar’  acknowledges  that the  prospective  buyer  of  a  property  “borrows”  money  from the  bank,  and  the  bank  “lends”  him  the  money,  then  with this  money  borrowed  from  the  bank,  he  buys  the  property, and  thereafter  the  borrower  has  to  repay  the  bank  in instalments  “with  some  profit”.  He  describes  the  gain acquired  by  the  bank  for  the  loan  given  as  “profit”,  thus bringing  himself  fully  within  the  purview  of  the  Hadith which  predicts  the  halaalization  of  haraam  by  means  of  the ruse  of  nomenclature.  Describing  pork  as  ‘mutton’  does not  halaalize  the  flesh  of  swine.  Similarly,  describing interest  as  ‘profit’  does  not  render  it  halaal.

According  to  the  Shariah,  a  loan  cannot  acquire  ‘profit’. The  hallucinated  ‘profit’  is  pure  riba.  Despite  accepting that  the  essential  constituents  of  the  transaction  are borrowing  and  lending,  the  jaahil  says  that  the  gain  is ‘profit’.  Making  a  mockery  of  his  own  intelligence,  he avers:  “The  interest  that  the  bank  will  be  charging  the buyer  depends  on  what  they  have  agreed.”  He  has  no alternative  but  to  call  a  spade  a  spade,  nevertheless,  he believes  that  this  haraam  interest  is  halaal.

Shooting  himself  in  the  leg,  he  is  constrained  to acknowledge:

As  times  passes  the  payable  amount  increases  with  it. For  example,  if  the  buyer  borrows  one  thousand  pounds and  pays  it  back  within  the  first  year,  then  he  has  to  pay one  thousand  and  thirty  pounds.  But  as  time  passes  the debt  increases,  because  the  interest  is  not  based  on  the initial  amount  that  is  borrowed  but  rather  on  the  amount which  is  due  each  year.  This  necessitates  the  payable amount  to  differ  based  on  the  time  of  the  payment.”

The  reality  of  Riba  is  conceded  in  this  statement  by  the deviate,  yet  he  stupidly  maintains  that  a  bank  loan  on which  interest  is  paid  is  not    a  riba  bearing  loan.


In  his  attempt  to  legalize  riba,  the  deviate  resorts  to ludicrous  mental  gymnastics,  juggling  with  the  concept  of Wikaalat  (Agency)  and  other  principles  which  have  no bearing  whatsoever  on  the  issue  of    bank  loans.  Thus,  he says:

The  initial  status  of  all  kinds    of  transactions  is  that they  are  permissible.  One  of  the  well-known  principles  of the  Hanafi  School  is  that  everything  beside  these  three  is permissible  by  default:  1.  Bloodshed  2.  Sexual  acts  3. Rituals  of  worship……….Based  on  this,  we  say,  everything is  permissible  unless  it  is    proven  to  not  permissible.”

Regarding  the  bank  loan  issue,  the  introduction  of  the aforementioned  principle  is  indeed  moronic.  

(1)  There  is  no  relationship  between  a  bank  loan encumbered  with  interest  and  this  principle.  The fundamental  constituents  of  borrowing,  lending  and paying  interest,  determine  the  Shariah’s  ruling.  A  clearcut  ruling  of  prohibition of  interest  cannot  be  submitted to  the  contentious  principle    formulated  by  opinion.

The  introduction  of  this  principle,  totally  unrelated  to  the  issue  of  bank  interest  loans,  is  a  silly  exercise  in  futility with  which  the      deviate  modernist  attempts  to  obfuscate  the  conspicuous  clarity  of  the  prohibition  of  bank  interest. However,  since  he  has  moronically  touched  on  this principle,  it  will  be  appropriate  to  discuss  and  refute  its applicability  to  the  issue  under  discussion.

Atabek  has  abortively    attempted  to  convey  the  idea  that   the  principle: “The  initial  (hukm)  regarding  things  is ibaahah  (permissibility).”,  is  the  standard  and  accepted  rule  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab.  This  postulation  is  incorrect. This  is  the  principle  of  the  Jamhur  Shaafi’  Fuqaha,  not  of the  Hanafi  Fuqaha. The  following    elucidation  is presented  in  Al-Ashbaah  wan  Nathaair  ala  Math-habi  Abi Hanifah:

Is  the  Asl  (the  initial  hukm)  regarding  things  Ibaahah (permissibility)  until  such  time  that  there  is  a  daleel (evidence)  to  indicate  the  negation  of  ibaahah  –  and  this  is the  Math-hab  of  Ash-Shaafi’  (rahmatullah  alah)  –  or  is  it (i.e.  the  Asl)  Tahreem  (Prohibition)  until  there  is  daleel for  Ibaahah?  The  Shaafi’iyyah  attribute  this  (i.e.  the  Asl  is Tahreem) to  Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh).

In  Sharhul  Minaar  it  appears:  Things  are  initially  on Ibaahah  according  to  some  Hanafiyyah.  Among  them  is   Al-Karkhi.    Some  of  the  As-haab  of  Hadith  say:  The  Asl  in this is Al-Hazr (prohibition).

Our  As-haab  (the  Hanafi  Fuqaha)  say:  The  Asl  in  it  is Tawaqquf  (Non-Committal),  meaning  that   a  hukm  (of  the Shariah)  is  necessary  for  it,  but  we  are  not  aware  of  it  by means  of  intelligence.

In Hidaayah appears:  The Asl is Ibaahah.”

In  Al-Ash-Baah  wan  Nathaair  (Shaafi’),  the  Shaafi’ position is stated  as follows:

The  Asl  in  things  is  Ibaahah  until  there  is  daleel  to indicate  Tahreem  (Prohibition).  This  is  our  (i.e.  Shaafi) Math-hab.  According  to  Abu  Hanifah  the  Asl  is  Tahreem (Prohibition)  until  there  is  a  daleel  to  establish  Ibaahah (Permissibility).”
In  this  sphere  there  are  three  principles:  Ibaahah (Permissibility),  Tahreem  (Prohibition)  and  Tawaqquf (Non-Committal). Regarding  these  principles  formulated  on  the  basis  of  opinion,  there  is  considerable  difference  of opinion.  These  principles  are  not  cast  in  rock.  They  are  not Mansoos  on  the  basis  of  Wahi  nor  in  terms  of  the  Hadith.   Fuqaha  of  the  same  Math-hab    subscribe  to  differing opinions. Among  the  Hanafis  are  those  who  hold  the opinion  of  Ibaahah  while  others  of    the  Hanafi  Math-hab subscribe  to  the  Tahreem  view,  and      similar  is  the difference  in  the  other  Math-habs.

Furthermore,  these  principles    are  overridden  by  Shar’i Daleel.  They  will  operate  only  in  rare  cases  of  absolute absence  of  Shar’i  daleel.  There  is  also  no  strict  adherence to  these  principles  among  the  Fuqaha.  Consider  an  animal   such  as    the  giraffe (zaraafah).  The     Qur’aan  and Ahaadith  are  silent  regarding  the  permissibility  or prohibition  of  giraffe.  Those  who  subscribe  to  the  Ibaahah principle  opine  that  its  meat  is  halaal  while  those holding the  view  of  Tahreem  say  that  it  is  haraam.  Since  there  is no Shar’i  basis  for  proclaiming  giraffe  haraam,  the  holders of  the  Ibaahah  view  say  that  it  is  halaal.  On  the  other hand,    Imaam  Nawawi  and  Shiraazi  who  are  Shaafi’ authorities,  proclaim  giraffe  haraam  despite  the  Shaafi’ principle of Ibaahah

The  Hanafis  again,  despite  their  principle  of  Tahreem, proclaim  giraffe  to  be  halaal  since  there  is  no  Shar’i  daleel   for  saying  that  it  is  haraam.  From  this,  it  is  clear  that  the actual  determinant  is  Shar’i  daleel.  If  there  is  daleel  for Ibaahah,  the  ruling  will  be  permissibility. On  the contrary,  if  there  is  daleel  for  Tahreem,  the  fatwa  will  be on  hurmat.  Also  according  to  Imaam  Ahmad  Bin  Hambal (Rahmatullah  alayh),  giraffe  is  haraam  despite  the  Asl  of Ibaahah.

Although  the  principle  of  the  Shaafi’  Math-hab  is Ibaahah,  the  majority  of  the  Shaafi’  Fuqaha  have  refrained from  issuing  a  ruling  regarding  the  giraffe.  Neither  do they  say  that  it  is  halaal  nor  haraam  despite  their  Ibaahah   principle.  (Al-Ashbaah  wan  Nathaair  –  Shaafi’).  In  Al-Ashbaah  wan  Nathaair  of  Imaam  Jalaaluddin  Suyuti,  it  is   mentioned:   

The  majority  of  the  As-haab  (Shaafi’  Fuqaha)  have not entertained  this  issue  (of  the  giraffe)  at  all whatsoever,  neither  permissibility  nor  prohibition. Fataawa  Qaadhi  Husain  and  Imaam  Ghazaali  have explicitly  said  that  it  is  halaal……………

Ash-Shaikh has categorically  stated  in  At-Tanbeeh  that  it is  haraam.  In Sharhul  Muhazzab,  Consensus  (Ittifaaq)  is narrated  on  this.  And  so  too  has  Abul  Khattaab  of  the Hanaabilah    said.  No  one  from  the    Maalikiyyah  and  the Hanafiyyah  has  mentioned   it  (the  giraffe),  nevertheless, their  principles  dictate  it  being  halaal.”

Taqiyuddin  As-Subki  (Shaafi’)    mentions  in  his  Kitaab, Qadhaail Arab fi As-ilati Halab:

Shaikh  Abu  Is-haaq  has    categorically  stated  in  At-Tanbeeh  that   the  giraffe  is  haraam……..In  Sharhul Muhazzab,  Nawawi  has  narrated    Ittifaaq  (Consensus)  on the  giraffe’s  prohibition.

In  the  Kitaab,  Asnal  Mataalib  fi  Sharhi  Raudhit  Taalib  it appears as follows:

He  says  in  Al-Majmoo’  that  verily, the  giraffe  is haraam  without  any  difference  of  opinion.”  This  is  despite the  Ibaahah  principle  on  the  basis  of  which  other  Shaafi’ Fuqaha  proclaim  it  to  be  halaal.  There  exists  considerable  difference  and  argument  and conflicting  dalaa-il  in  the  Shaafi’  Math-hab  regarding  the permissibility  or  prohibition  of  the  giraffe  despite  the Jamhur’s  principle  of  Ibaahah

On  the  other  hand,  despite the  Tahreem  principle  of  the  Ahnaaf,  the  Hanafi  Fuqaha     say  that  giraffe  is  halaal.  It  should  be  quite  evident  that  the determinant  is  Shar’i  daleel.    

Consider  the  example  of  the  whale.  In  terms  of  the  Shaafi’ principle,  Ibaahah  applies,  and  not  only  to  the  whale,  but to  all  sea  animals.  However,  according  to  the  Ahnaaf, whale  and  all  sea  animals  are  haraam  despite  a  semblance of  Shar’i  daleel.  Although  a  Hadith    leads  to  the  possible conclusion  of  the  sea  animal  being  a  whale,  the  Hanafi Fuqaha  do  not  accept  that  the  sea  animal  described  in  the Hadith  was  a  whale,  hence  they  maintain  its  prohibition. They  have  their  own  Shar’i  dalaa-il  for  the  hurmat  of  the whale  and  all  sea  animals.  Thus,  the  emphasis  is  on Tahreem  by the Ahnaaf.

What  is  clear  from  the  considerable  difference,  conflict and  ambiguity  in  these  principles  is  that  the  determinant  is Shar’i Daleel which restricts and overrides  the principles.     

(2)  The  claim  that  this  principle  applies  to  trade transactions  is  erroneous. It  applies  to  existing  aspects  of creation  on  which  the  Shariah  is  silent,  e.g.  animals, plants,  a  water  channel  whose  ownership  is  unknown,  i.e. whether  it  is  private  property  or  not,  and  any  existent  for which  there  is  no  ruling  provided  by  the  Qur’aan  or Hadith.

It  is  stupid  and  baatil  to  apply  the  principle  of  Ibaahah  to  a transaction  or   even  a  tangible  substance  merely  because their  names  cannot  be  found  in  the  Nusoos.  It  may  not  be said  that  vodka  and  whisky  are  halaal  on  the  basis  of    the principle  of  Ibaahah.  It  may  not  be  said  that  pudding  is halaal  on  the  basis  of  this  principle  of  permissibility  simply  because  the  name,  ‘pudding’    does  not  exist  in the  Qur’aan  or  Hadith.  The  imperative  need  will  be  to examine  and  establish  what  exactly  are  the   ingredients and  constituents  of  these  substances.  If  the  ingredients  are haraam  or  the  effect  of  the  halaal  ingredients  is  haraam  such  as  intoxication, then  the  Shar’i  daleel  for  Tahreem  is confirmed.    

Similarly, mortgages  cannot  be    said  to  be  halaal  on  the basis  of  the  Ibaahah  principle  simply  because  this  term  is new  and    cannot  be  located  in  the  Nusoos.  The  incumbent   need    is  to  examine    and  establish    what  mortgages  are  all about.  The  introduction  of  the  Ibaahah  principle  in  this regard  demonstrates  the  jahaalat  of  Atabek.  The  simple issue  in  this  regard  is  that  a  bank  loan  is  encumbered  with interest/riba,  hence  it  is  Haraam.  There  is  absolutely  no need  for  the  invocation  of  any  one  of  the  three  principles to  determine    the  Shariah’s  verdict  on  bank-interest.  It  is   glaringly  Riba.  Only  brains  welded  by  stupidity  and aggravated  by  western  liberalism  and  a  bootlicking attitude,  understand  otherwise.

The  mudhaarabah  transaction  of  the  so-called  islamic banks    cannot  be  proclaimed  halaal  on  the  basis  of  the Ibaahah  principle,  and  simply  because  it  has  an  Islamic designation.  The  need  is  to  examine  the  constituents of the  contract  to  establish  the  Shar’i  ruling.

A  plant,  the  properties  of  which  are  unknown  –  whether beneficial  or  poisonous  –  shall  not  be  proclaimed  halaal or  haraam  simply  on  the  basis  of  the  principles  of Ibaahah  and  Tahreem.  The  demand  is  for  establishing the  ruling  on  the  basis  of  Shar’i  daleel.  If  examination confirms  that  the  plant  is  poisonous,  then  obviously  the verdict  will  be  Tahreem.  If  it  is  not  harmful  or  poisonous, the  ruling  will  be  Ibaahah.

It  will  indeed  be  a  rarity  for  the  total  absence  of  Shar’i daleel  to  act  as  the  determinant.  In  such  rare  cases, Tawaqquf  will  apply,  thus  rendering  the  issue  to  the Mushtabah  realm.  As  far  as  bank  loans  are  concerned, there  is  absolutely  no  ambiguity  in    their  nature.  A  bank loan is  pronounced  haraam  by  the  categorical  Nusoos  of the  Qur’aan  and  Hadith.  Only  a  stupid  deviate  having  no affinity  with  the  Shariah  will  muster  the  stupid  audacity to  invoke  the  principle  of  Ibaahah  for  the  determination  of a  ruling  for  a  bank  loan  which  is  encumbered  with  riba. The  principle  may  not  be  used  in  conflict  with  a  mansoos alayh law.

The  unnecessary  and  stupid  introduction  of  the  Ibaahah principle  which  is  totally  unrelated  to   bank  interest/riba, has constrained this digression.  

Exhibiting his skulduggery, the  deviate Atabek says:

Coming  back  to  the  issue  of  mortgage,  I  say  it  cannot be  Riba,  because  the  bank  does  not  ‘lend’  the  money  as per  Shariah  definition  of  lending  or  debt.  That  is  because the  buyer  is  not  free  to  do  with  the  money  whatever  he wants.  The  bank  won’t  allow  him  to  do  anything  with  it except  buying  that  exact  house  which  he  has  agreed  with the bank to buy.  This is not called ’debt’”

Every  person  in  his  sane  senses  will  understand  that  this  is  a  lot  of  hogwash  and  bunkum.  By  what  stretch  of  logic –  kuffaar  or  Islamic  –    does  this  man  interpret   a straightforward,  simple  loan    to  be  some  other  transaction other  than  debt?  He  has  absolutely  not  even  a  single  valid Shar’i  argument  to  bolster  his  rubbish  view.  The  only stupid  and  absurd  ‘daleel’  he  proffers  is  that  the  bank advances  the  loan  for  a  specific  purpose,  namely,  to purchase  only  a  property  and  nothing  else.  There  is  no authority   in  the  Shariah  for  bolstering  this  stupid averment.  It  is  absurd  both  in  terms  of  the  Shariah  and   even  kuffaar  economical  laws.  In fact,  this  stupidity  is repulsive to  intelligence.

The  maximum  that  could  be  said  about  the  bank’s stipulated  condition  is  that  it  is  a  faasid/baatil  shart  –  a baseless  and  invalid  condition.  It  is  nothing  more  than  this.   Whilst  we  do  not  accept  that  this  specific  condition  in  the context  is  unlawful,  for  the  purpose  of  this  discussion  we   shall  assume  that  the    stipulation  by  the  bank  which  is  not Islamically  permissible,    is  invalid.  Now  on  what  Shar’i authority  does  the  deviate  Atabek  base  his  stupid conclusion  of  the  reality  of    the  loan  being  cancelled  in consequence  of  the  invalid    condition?  There  is  absolutely no  authority  for  his  stupid  opinion  sucked  out  from  his nafs  and  constrained  by  modernity.

Just  as  in   the  case  of  Hibah  (Gift),  a  faasid  shart automatically  falling  away  leaving  the  Hibah  valid  and lawful,  so  too  is  it  with  Qardh  (loan  given).  If  a  man making  a  gift,  says: “This  car  is  a  gift  for  you  on condition  that  you  do  not  sell  it.”,  the  gift  is  valid  whilst the  faasid  condition  falls  away.  Similarly,  if  a  loan  is given  with  the  condition  that  the  borrower  should  use  it for  only  a  specific  purpose,  then    whilst  the  condition  is  invalid,  the  loan/debt  remains  valid  Qardh.  The  Fuqaha state in this regard:

Stipulation  of  time  (for  repayment)  is  not  binding  in Qardh  regardless  of  it  being  stipulated  as  a  condition  in the  transaction  or   delayed  to    after  the  transaction.”

The  reason  for  this  is:  “Verily,  Qardh  is    an  act  of Tabarru’ (kindness, favour).”

Qardh  belongs  to  the  class  of  transactions  which  are Tabarru’  (Kindness/Favour).  These  transactions  remain valid  despite  the  faasid  conditions  which  automatically fall  away,  leaving  the  transaction  valid.

If  the  haraam  condition  of  interest  is  stipulated,  the  capital sum  only  is  repayable.  The  haraam  stipulation  does  not cancel  the  reality  of    Qardh.  The  loan  remains  a  loan.

The  Rukn  of  Qardh  is  Ijaab  and  Qubool  according  to Imaam  Abu  Hanifah  and  Imaam  Muhammad.  According to  Imaam  Abu  Yusuf  it  is  only  Ijaab.  The  existence  of  the arkaan  suffices  for  the  validity    of  Qardh  which  remains unaffected  by  the  addition  of  a  faasid  shart.  Acts  of Tabarru’  such  as Hibah  (gifts),  Sadqah  (charity),  Nikah (marriage),  Khula’,  and  the  like  are  all  acts  of  Tabarru’ which  are  not  invalidated  by  faasid  shurootQardh  is  in the  same  category.

Even  a  Mudhaarabah  contract  encumbered  by  a  baatil shart,  remains  valid  whilst  the  invalid  condition  falls away.  Imaam  Muhammad  said:    “If  a  man  gives  a thousand  dirhams  for  conducting  Mudhaarabah  on  a  50-50  basis  profit-sharing  with  the  condition  that   the Mudhaarib  gives  his   land  to  the  Rabbul  Maal  to  enable him  to    cultivate  it  for  a  year  or  his  house  so  that  he  (the Rabbul  Maal)  may  live  in  it  for  a  year,  then  the  shart  is baatil,  and  the  Mudhaarabah  is  valid.”

Even  the  contract  of  Shirkat  (Partnership),  like Mudhaarabah,  is  not  a  Tabarru’  transaction.  Nevertheless, it remains  valid  despite  the  faasid  shart  which automatically  falls  away.  Only  if  the  conditions  extricate the  mudhaarabah  and  shirkat    transactions  from  their reality  by  negating  the  fundamental  constituent  which  is partnership  in  the  profit,  will  it  be  said  that  the   contract  is no  longer  what  it  was  intended  to  be,  hence  invalid.

It  should  now  be  quite  obvious  that  the  deviate  jaahil  has absolutely  not  a  single   viable    argument  for  substantiating his  stupid  and  fallacious  postulate  of   a  bank  loan  not  being  a  loan  (Qardh).  There  is  neither  Shar’i  basis  for  his  baatil  claim,  nor  a  logical  basis.

The  coprocreep  further  avers:   

Thus,  debt  is  the borrowing  of  an  item  from  someone  for  a  certain  period  of time  under  the  condition  of  returning  it  back.  The ownership  of  the  borrowed  item  will  be  transferred  to  the person  who  is  taking  it,  which  necessitates  that  he  is  free to  do  with  it  as  he  wants  —  the  person  who  is  lending  it out  has  no  right  to  dictate  what  he  can  and  cannot  do  with it.”

This  averment  is  defective  and  in  no  way  whatsoever   alters  the  reality  of  Qardh.  As  explained  above,  the  loan remains  a  loan  regardless  of  the  stipulation  of  any  faasid condition  by  the  lender,  the  bank  in  this  case.  In  the  above statement,  the  deviate  has  confused  two  different  types  of debt,  namely,  Qardh  and  DainQardh  is  a  loan  while Dain  is  a  debt  incurred  by  a  trade  transaction  such  as buying  an  item  on  credit.  In  Dain  it  is  incumbent  to   stipulate  the  time  of  payment.  In  Qardh,  no  time  factor applies.  It  is  not  permissible  to  fix  the  time  of  repayment. The  condition  of  a  time  frame  is  baatil  in  relation  to Qardh.  The  creditor  of  the  loan  has  the  right  to  demand repayment  at  any  time  regardless  of  whether  a  time  was  fixed  for  repayment.  The  “certain  period”  mentioned  by Atabek  is  baseless  and  does  not  apply  to  Qardh.  He needs  to  re-visit,  in  fact  re-study,  the  Kutub  of  Fiqh.  It  is clear  that  he  is  ignorant  of  many  Fiqhi  issues,  hence  he blurts  out  flotsam  and  jetsam  thereby    advertising  his  jahl.  Yet,  this  copro-jaahil,  shamelessly    insults  the   very  senior Ulama  of  Deoband.  Only  a  fool  is  ignorant  of  the  Stars  of Uloom  and  Taqwa  produced  by  Darul  Uloom  Deoband  in its  heyday.

The  Hanafi  Fuqaha  state:

  “Verily,  Qardh  is  like  Aariyah (an  item  given  on  loan).  Stipulation  of   a  time  (for returning  the  item)  is  not  incumbent  in  loaned  items.” 

This also  debunks  the  copro-jaahil’s  assertion,  viz.  “for  a certain  period  of  time”.  The  stipulation  of   time  of repayment   applies  to   the  debt  called  Dain,  not  to  Qardh.      

While  the  lender  has  the  right  to  utilize  the  loaned  money as  he  deems  appropriate,  the  stipulation  that  he  may  buy only  a  property  with  the  loan  in  no  way  whatsoever cancels  the  reality  and  nature  of  the  loan.  It  remains Qardh.  The  Kutub  of  Fiqh   are  explicit  in  this  regard.  But the  mudhil  is  ignorant  of  the  Kutub  although  he  has  set himself  up  as  an  expert  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab  and  as  a mujtahid.  The  fellow  is  a  jaahil  paper  ‘mujtahid’  basking in  his  own  jahl-e-murakkab.  No  one   has  claimed  that  the lender  has  the  right  to  dictate  conditions.  The  issue  is  that the  loan  remains  Qardh  despite  the  dictation  of  the  lender. As  far  as  large  loans  are  concerned,  it  shall  be  shown later  that  there  is  a  need  for  the  bank  to  dictate  and advance  the  loan  for  only  a  specific  purpose.

Since  the  Qardh  remains  Qardh  despite  the  stipulation  of a  faasid  shart,  the  copro-jaahil  has  absolutely  no   basis  for  his  copro-interpretation  in  negation  of  the  reality  of  the loan  advanced  by  a  bank  –  a  loan  encumbered    with  Riba.            

The  jaahil  makes  a  big  issue    out  of  an  insignificant  factor  in  the  bank-loan.  He  maintains  that  the  borrower here  is  not  free  to  use  the  money  as  he    wishes.  Even  if  this  be  assumed  to  be  correct,  it  does  not  negate  the  reality of  the  loan  which  remains  Qardh  in  terms  of  the  Shariah. However,  the  factual  position  is  that  the  lender  is  free  to utilize  the  money  for  the  specific  purpose  for  which  he  has requested  the  loan.  He  approaches  the  bank    with  his  stated  wish  to  purchase  a  certain  property.  The  bank  does not  compel  him  to  buy  the  property  of  its  own  choice.  The lender  himself  selected  the  property  and  seeks  a  loan  to pay  the  price.  Thus,  the  bank  advances  him  the  loan  to purchase  what  he  had  selected  of  his  own  free  will.

If  a  lender  advances  a  loan  on  condition that  the  money   may  not  be  used  for  gambling,  squandering  on  haraam  and the  like,  the  reality  of  the  Qardh  is  not  negated.  Similarly, to  safeguard  its  interests,  the  bank  will  agree  to  the  loan   only  if  repayment  is  assured.  Thus,  if  the  borrower  seeks a  loan  of  a  million  pounds  for  a  property  whose  value  is  100,000  pounds,  the  bank  is    entitled  to  refuse,  and  to stipulate  that   only  such  a  property  be  purchased  which guarantees  the  loan.  In  safeguarding  its  interests,  the  bank is  not  dictating  to  the  lender  what  he  has  to  do  with  the money.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  borrower  who  approaches the  bank  for  a  loan  to  purchase  an  item  of  his  own  choice, not  of  the  bank’s  choice.  We  have  mentioned  this   fact   merely  to  highlight  the  stupidity  of  the  jaahil’s  averment. But  in  reality  this    issue  has  no  bearing  on  the  validity  of the  loan.  It  remains  a  valid  loan  regardless  of  the hallucinated dictation by the bank.  


Like  a  drowning  man  clutching  at  straws,  the  faasiq deviate  Atabek  desperately  proffers  the  hallucination  of  a bank  interest  bearing  loan  being  a  contract  of  Tawkeel (Agency). Not  even  a  layman  will  be  fooled  by  such  audacious  stupidity  which  asserts  that  pork  is  transformed  into  mutton  by    mere  imagination. In  presenting  his ludicrous postulate, he says:

The  different  topics  that  I  have  mentioned  necessitate that  a  mortgage  is  Tawkeel  and  not  a  debt  because  the scenario of a mortgage happens as follows

Customer  expresses  his  desire  to  buy  a  house  to  the  bank.

Bank  follows  its  procedure,  then  it  approves  the  buyer  to buy  the  house  on  behalf  of  the  bank  with  the  money  which he  gets  from  the  bank  by  cash  payment.

Then  he  buys  the  house  from  the  bank  by  instalments  over certain  period  of  time.  After  that  he  pays  back  that  money during that time period. 

This  is  the  practical  and  technical  explanation  of  a mortgage.  This  is  because  the  meaning  is  the  most important  thing  in  transactions  and  not  what  one  says  (i.e. it is about what you do and not what you say.”

Let  us  examine  this  hogwash.  The  ‘different  topics’ mentioned  by  the  copro-jaahil  in  no  way  whatever necessitate  that  a  bank  interest-bearing  loan  is  transformed into  Tawkeel  or  in  meaning  it  is  Tawkeel.  In  his disgorgement  of  ‘different  topics’,  he  has  merely  tried  to explain  the  meanings  of  Qardh  and  Tawkeel.  After explaining  the  technical  Fiqhi  meanings  of  these  two transactions,  he  arbitrarily  and  stupidly  without  Shar’i  basis  concludes  that  a  riba  loan  advanced  by  the  bank  is Tawkeel.  His  postulation  is  devoid  of  logical  content  and bereft  of  Shar’i  substance.  Furthermore,  his  corrupt theorizing  is  in  conflict  with  reality.

The  client,  i.e.  the  borrower,  does  not  approach  the  bank   to  purchase  a  house  from  the  bank,  for  the  bank  does  not own  a  house  for  sale  nor  is  the  bank  in  the  business  of buying  and  selling  properties.  Its  profession  is  to  lend money  to  borrowers  on  interest.  Only  a  moron  whose brains  have  been  convoluted  by  Iblees  will  contend   otherwise.  The  client  approaches  the  bank  for  a  loan  which the  bank  will  advance  only  if  he  is  creditworthy.  The procedure  which  the  bank  will  initiate  to    establish  the credit  worthiness  of  the  borrower  and  the  veracity  and viability  of    his  deal  with  the  owner  of  the  house  who  is the  actual  and  the  only  seller,  is  reasonable  and  absolutely necessary.      This  procedure  is  totally  unrelated  to  any  facet of  Tawkeel.  

The  deviate’s  claim  that  the  “bank  appoints  the  buyer  to buy  the  house  on  behalf  of  the  bank”,  is  an  absurd  LIE. Neither  practically  nor  technically  nor  logically  is  there any  veracity  in  this  baatil  claim  of  Atabek.    Furthermore, it  is  blatantly  false  to  say  that  the  bank  gives  the  cash directly  into  the  hands  of  the  borrower.  The  reality  is  that by  Iqtidhaaun  Nass  the  borrower  appoints  the  bank  as  his Wakeel  to  pay  his  debt  owing  to  the  owner  of  the  house who  is  the  true  and  the  real  seller  who  sells  the  property  to the  one  who  borrows  the  money  from  the  bank.  The  bank does  not  purchase  the  property  from  the  seller  as  the  jaahil alleges.  The  bank  merely  makes  payment  on  behalf  of  the borrower  who  is  the  true  and  the  real  buyer.

The  Fuqaha  state:    The  determinant  is  the  actual  meaning (the  reality  of  the  transaction),  not    the  words  (used  to embellish  a  haraam  transaction  for  rendering  it  halaal).  Thus,  if  interest  is  described  as  a  gift,  dividend,  profit, etc.,  it  will  not  change  the  reality.  It  remains  haraam  riba. Whilst  the  copro-jaahil  has  made  reference  to  this principle,  he  has  abortively  attempted  to  apply  it  in  a convoluted  manner  to  legalize  a  bank  interest-bearing loan.  The  true  meaning  of  the  deal  between  a  borrower and  the  bank  is  a  riba  loan.  No  amount  of  skulduggery  can change  this  reality.  Practically,  technically  and  logically the  bank  is  the  lender  and  not  the  buyer  nor  is  the borrower  the  Wakeel  to  buy  a  house  for  the  bank.  The reality  is  the  opposite,  namely,  the  bank  is  the  borrower’s Wakeel to  pay  his  debt  with  the  money  which  he  has borrowed  from  the  bank.
Regarding  the  Tawkeel  dimension,  the  Faasiq  has  placed the  cart  before  the  horse  by  contending  that  the  borrower is  the  bank’s  Wakeel  bish-Shiraa’  (the  agent  to  purchase on  behalf  of  the  bank).  On  the  contrary,  the    bank  is  the Wakeel  of  the  borrower.  Prior  to  advancing  the  loan,  and even  before  the  house  has  been  purchased,  the  bank stipulates  its  interest  which  will  escalate  annually.  The purchase  price  is  paid  to  the  owner/seller  with  the borrowed  money  on  which  the  bank  fixes  its  rate  of interest.

The  plethora  of  faasid  conditions  with  which  all  bank contracts  and  agreements  are  encumbered  does  not  negate the  reality  of  Qardh.  It  does  not  transform  Qardh  into Tawkeel.  Only  juhala  possess  sufficient  stupidity  to  deny this  reality  and  claim  that  the  money  borrowed  from  a bank  is  by  way  of  Tawkeel.

Exhibiting  his  contumacious  jahaalah,  the  copro-jaahil avers:

Thus,  when  the  bank  says  to  the  customer:  ‘this  is  a debt  we  are  lending  you  so  that  you  can  buy  a  house,  and you  have  to  pay  it  back  to  us’,  this  statement  is  incorrect literally  but  yet  correct  by  Iqtidha.  That  is  because  the bank  doesn’t  give  the  ownership  of  the  money  to  the customer  –  the  bank  will  block  you  from  using  this  money for  anything  besides  buying  that  specific  house  –  and  that is not called lending but rather ‘tawkeel’“

Perhaps  the  baboons  in  the  mountains  will  swallow  this stupidity.  Firstly,  the  Faasiq    has  misapplied  the  principle of  Iqtidhaun  Nass   which  is  an  implicit  demand  of  a statement  not  stated  verbally,  but  is  implied.  Saying  that the  bank’s  categorical  statement  of  the  money  advanced being  a  debt  is  literally  incorrect,  but  by  Iqtidha  is  correct, is  an  absurdity  and  self-contradiction  which  portray  this man’s  ignorance  regarding  the  principles  of  Fiqh.

If  the  statement  of  the  bank  is  CORRECT  by  way  of Iqtidha,  it  logically  follows  that  the  bank’s  version  is correct  because  the  demand  of  Iqtidha  is  valid  and incumbent,  and  may  not  be  cancelled  by    verbal/literal statements  which  may  have  a  different  meaning.  The principle  in  transactions  is    that  the  determinant  is  the  true and  actual  meaning,  not  the  words.  Both  the  words  and meaning  of  the  bank  confirm  the  reality  of  Qardh.  Whilst there  is  no  need  for  Iqtidha  to  determine  the  reality  of  the bank’s  interest-bearing  loan,  the  Faasiq  has  shot  himself  in the  leg  by  stupidly  saying  that  the  bank’s  statement  is correct  by  Iqtidha’.  By  making  this  claim  he  has  entrapped himself  into  conceding  that  a  bank’s  loan  is  in  fact  Qardh regardless  of  his  stupid    howling  to  the  contrary.  Both principles,  namely  Ibaaratun  Nass  as  well    as  Iqtidhaaun Nass  (by  his  own  admission)  confirm  the  reality  of  the transaction  to  be  Qardh.  The  reality  precludes  the  idea  of the  bank  having  in  actual  fact  purchased  the  house.

It  has  already  been  explained  above  that  the  stipulation  of a  faasid  shart   does  not  negate  the  reality  of  Qardh.  We again  reiterate  that  payment  by  the  bank  to  the  owner  of the  house  who  sells  his  property  is  not  a  faasid  condition because  the  borrower  approached  the  bank  specifically for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  a  loan  to  pay  for  the  house which  he  intends  purchasing  from  Zaid.  Thus,  the  bank acts  as  the  borrower’s  agent  by  effecting  payment  to  the seller,  viz.  Zaid.  It  is  utterly  fallacious  and  stupid  to  claim that  a  loan  is  not  a  loan  simply  because  the  lender stipulates  that  the  money  may  be  used for  only  paying  the creditor  of  the  borrower.  The  bank  pays  the  seller  on  the instruction  of  the  borrower  to  whom  the  bank  loans  the money  repayable  with Riba.

Making another drivel claim, the Faasiq says:

This  is  not  any  type  of  riba,  because  the  bank  does  not give  away  the  money  to  the  customer.

This  is  rubbish. The  bank  in  reality  does  give  the  money to  the  borrower  to  use  for  the  specific  purpose  for  which he  has  approached  the  bank.  It  is  the  borrower  who  asks the  bank  to  pay  for  the  house  which  he  will  be  buying from  Zaid.  Thus,  the  bank  acts  as  the  borrower’s  Wakeel  to  effect  payment  on  his  behalf.  This  is  the  simple  reality and  nature  of  the  transaction  with  the  bank.

The  claim  that  the  borrower  acts  as  the  representative  of the  bank  to  buy  a  house  for  the  bank  and  that  he  buys  the house  from  the  bank  is  a  donkey  claim.  Perhaps  donkeys may  swallow  this  absurdity.    A  man  of  Fisq  given  to bootlicking  and  emulation  of    the  western  kuffaar  lacks   Fahm.  His  brains  are   encased  in  a  western  straitjacket, hence  he  conjectures  stupid  theories  to  halaalize  riba.  And,  according  to  the  Qur’aan  only  a  man  who  has  been driven  to  madness  by  the  touch  of  shaitaan  legalizes  riba and  claims  it  to  be  trade. The  Faasiq  illustrates  his  jahaalah  in  an  answer  to  a  critic where he says: “If  I  give  you  money  and  say  to  you:  ‘It  is    a  gift  to  your father,  but    you  have  to  buy    food  and  bring  it  to  me  by using  this  money.”,  What  is  it?  Is  it  a  gift  or  maybe  some type  of  ‘usury’  or  also    ‘dowry’?  Owner  of  the  money specifying  one  and  only  way  of  using    it  and  excluding everything else is called “Tawkeel”.  This  answer    confirms  that  this  Faasiq  copro-jaahil  lacks knowledge  of  even  basic  masaa-il.  He  sets  himself  up  as an  authority  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab,  yet  he  is  egregiously ignorant  of  the  fact  that  in  the  example  he  has  cited  to silence  his  critic,  the  gift  remains  a  gift  (Hibah)  despite  the faasid  condition  which  simply  falls  away.  All  transactions of  Tabarru’  in  terms  of  the  Hanafi  Math-hab  remain  valid whilst  the  corrupt  conditions  automatically  fall  away.  On what  authority  does  this  jaahil  claim  that  the  Hibah  has been  transformed  into  Tawkeel  by  the  faasid  condition? He  has  absolutely  no  authority  since  he  blurts  out  trash from  his  nafs. In  his  superficial  exposition  of  Tawkeel,  the  Faasiq  sciolist avers:

The  rukn  of  wikala  is  anything  that  means  ‘offer  and accept’  –  even  indirectly  such  as  silence’.  So  the  real important  thing  is  to  express  that  a  person  is  appointing the second person as a representative.”

This  explanation  is  in  diametric  conflict  with  the  reality  of   the  relationship  between  the  bank  lender  and  the  borrower. There  is  not  even  the  slightest  hint  of  the  bank  appointing the  borrower  to  be  its    representative  to  purchase  a property  on  its  behalf.  Furthermore,  the  issue  of  being  the bank’s  wakeel  to  purchase  a  house  for  the  bank  is  the furthest  from  the  mind  of  the  borrower.  Thus,  there  is absolutely  no  expression    by  any  of  the  parties  which could  be  even  remotely  interpreted  to  mean   the  creation of  a  Wikaalat  contract.  The  conclusion  of  the  sciolist  is plain  skulduggery  and  fraud.  There  has  to  be  an  intention and  an  understanding,  for  that  will  be  the  reality  and  the determinant  in  trade  and  commerce  transactions.  But  the entire  contract  between  the  bank  and  the  buyer  of  the house,  from  beginning  to  end,  pertains  to  borrowing, lending and paying interest.


In  this  regard,  the  copro-jaahil  says:

As  for  the  price  not  being  fixed  but  differing  based  on  the time  of  paying  it  back,  as  we  said,  it  is  permissible according  to  the  two  students  of  Abu  Hanifah  without  any conditions.  It  is  also  permissible  according    to  Abu  Hanifa with  the  condition  that  I  explained  above  (i.e.  for  the  late payment  he  has  to  pay  a  ‘standard  price’,  and  the   ‘standard  price’  is  what  is  known  by  custom).”

His  postulate  is  fallacious.  For  the  validity  of  a  sale,  the price  has  to  be  incumbently  fixed.  An  item  may  not  be purchased  without  the  price  having  been  fixed  at  the session  of  the  sale.  Whilst  a  higher  price  is  permissible  if sold  on  credit,  the  essential  condition  for  the  validity  of the  sale  is  that  the  higher  price  must  be  fixed  at  the  time of  the  sale.  The  price  may  not  be  left  to  fluctuate  and differ  in  a  future  limbo  as  interest  rates  fluctuate  and differ.  The  different  two  prices  –  a  cash  price  and  a  credit price  –  must  be  stated  without  ambiguity  at  the  time  of   contracting  the  deal,  and  one  price  has  to  be  fixed.  The price  may  not  be  left  undetermined  for  future  fluctuation.

The  sciolist  cites  an  example  from  Quduri  without understanding  the  import  of  the  mas’alah.  Firstly.  The mas’alah  in  Quduri  does  not  remotely  refer  to  riba.  The bank’s  transaction  with  the  borrower  has  absolutely  no relationship  with  the  mas’alah    mentioned  in  Quduri  and which  the  copro-jaahil  cites.  Secondly,  the  mas’alah  applies  to  a  valid  trade  transaction  while  the  bank’s transaction  is  a  clear-cut  act  of  lending  money  on  interest, and  no    convoluted  and  stupid  interpretation  can  alter  this reality.  Thirdly,  the  mas’alah  in  Quduri  does  not  relate  to an  unspecified  price  or  a  price  which  is  not  fixed.  In  both cases  the  price  is  fixed.

Quduri  does  not  mention  the  issue  of  two  different  prices as  the  copro-jaahil  attempts  to  hoodwink  laymen  with  his chicanery.  He  cites  the  mas’alah  from  page  103  of Quduri,  but    what  he  claims  is  not  mentioned   in  the section  dealing  with  AL-Muraabah  and  At-Tauliyah.

Imaam  Quduri  merely  states  that  it  is  permissible  for  the buyer  to  increase  the  price  and  for  the  seller  to  increase  the commodity  and  decrease  the  price.  What  relationship  has this  with  the  riba  the  bank  charges?  Each  one  of  the parties  is  merely  exercising  his  right.  If  for  argument’s sake  we  assume  the  stupid  postulate  of  the  copro-jaahil  to have  any  validity  then  in  his  example,  the  bank  is  not  the ‘buyer’.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  ‘seller’  of  the  house. Now  the  bank  (the  hallucinated  seller)  is  mandatorily increasing  the  so-called  ‘price’  (i.e.  the  riba)  from  year  to year  depending  on  the  fluctuation  in  the  rate  of  interest. Thus,  the  copro-jaahil  has  inverted  the  mas’alah  of  Quduri in  his  convoluted,  stupid  exercise  of  presenting  the  bank loan  as  a  trade  transaction.

In  a  valid  sale  transaction,  the  buyer  has  the  right  to increase  the  price  at  will.  The  seller  has  no  right  of increasing  the  price  after  finalization  of  the  deal.  Yes, he  has  the  right  to  decrease  or  give  a  discount  at  his  own wish  and  will  without  such  decrease  being  stipulated  in  the contract  and  without  such  decrease  being    customary.

The  Faasiq  sciolist    conveniently  omits  citing  what Quduri  says  about  Qardh,  and  this  appears  on  the  very same  page  from  which  he  has  cited  the  mas’alah  regarding  increasing  and  decreasing  the    price  and  the commodity  by  the  buyer  and  the  seller  respectively. Quduri states:

Every  Dain  which  is  due,  if    the  creditor  stipulates  a   time  (for  its  payment),  it  becomes    Mu-ajjal  (i.e.  it  will only  be  due  for  payment  on  the  stipulated  date),  except Qardh,  for  verily,    fixing  a  time  (for  its  payment)  is  not valid.”

We  have  earlier  explained  that    Dain  is  a  debt  in  a  sale transaction  while  Qardh  is  a  debt  incurred  by  a  loan.

Explaining  the  invalidity  of    fixing  a  time  for  payment  of Qardh, the Fuqaha say:

Verily,  Ta’jeel  (fixing  a  time)  is  not  valid,  i.e.  it  is  not binding.  Thus,  if  at  the  time  of  giving  the  loan,  or thereafter,   a      known    time  is  fixed,  it  will  not   be  valid. The  lender  has  the  right  to  demand  immediate  payment because  Qardh  is  Aariyah  (giving  a  loan  of  an  item)  which is  (an  act  of  (Tabarru’  (kindness/favour),  and  Ta’jeel  in Tabarru’ is not binding.” (Aini and Fathul Qadeer)

The  sciolist  may  check  the  kutub  to  ascertain  what  he  has omitted  by  his  chicanery.  The  Qardh  remains  valid  whilst the  baatil  condition  automatically  falls  away.    

The  other  example  of  paying  the  tailor  one  price  if  he   stitches  the  garment  ‘today’  or  lesser  sum  if  he  prepares  it  for  the  next  day,  also  has  absolutely  no  relationship  to  the bank  loan  scenario.  By  itself  it  is  a  valid  contract  in which  there  is  no  ambiguity  and  no  fluctuation  of  the service  fee  for  stitching  the  garment.  The  amount  is  fixed at  the  time  of  the  deal.  The  price  does  not  fluctuate  in  a limbo  of  ambiguity,  and  it  has  no  truck  with  bank  interest.   There  is  no  ‘differing’  in  the  fee  which  is  arranged  and  agreed  during  the  transaction.  The  analogy  posited  by  the sciolist  jaahil  is  glaringly  fallacious.

The  sciolist  Atabek  has  pivoted  his  baatil  opinion  on  the fallacious  basis  of  a  bank‘s  loan  not  being  Qardh,  and  for its  justification  he  arbitrarily  and  stupidly  claims  that  the loan  cannot  be  Qardh  because  the  bank  restricts  its  used for  a  specific  purpose,  namely,  the  purchase  of  a  property. There  is  absolutely  no  authority    in  the  Shariah  for  this  ludicrous  opinion.  At  most,  it  could  be  ventured  that  the  stipulation  is  faasid.  On  the  assumption  that  it  is  faasid, the  reality  of    Qardh  remains  unchanged.  The  loan  is valid.  Only  the  condition  falls  away.  Thus,  there  is  no transformation  of  the  Qardh  into  Tawkeel.

Neither  is  there  a  stupid  metamorphosis  nor  is  there  a Tawkeel  agreement  isaalatan  (initially),  nor  has  any  such contract  subsequently  come  into  being.  From  whichever angle  the  matter  is  examined,  only  a  Riba  Loan  emerges. But  like  the  mushrikeen  of  Arabia,  this  Atabek  sciolist expectorates:  “Riba  is  like  trade”. Only  he  camouflages this  opinion  of  the  mushrikeen  by  saying “A  bank  loan (with  Riba)  is  Tawkeel.”  Only  a  spiritually  blind  heart  has the  raw  and  kufr  audacity  of  proclaiming  an  interestbearing  bank  loan  to  be  halaal,  dubbing  it  Tawkeel  by nafsaani  hallucination.  May  Allah  Ta’ala  save  us  from corruption  of  the  heart  caused  by  Rijs  divinely  cast  on  the brains, as the Qur’aan Majeed says: 

And,  He  (Allah)  casts  Rijs  (FILTH)  on  those  who    lack Aql.”  (those  who  fail  to  understand  that  the  sun  shines during the day time).

Refuting the Jaahil Atabek Shukurov’s Baatil Fatwa regarding Smoking not invalidating the Fast

By Majlisul Ulama


According to the U.K. Zindeeq, Faasiq, deviate Atabek Shukurov, who has  set himself up as an ‘authority’ of the Hanafi Math-hab,  smoking tobacco and using an inhaler do not  invalidate the fast. This jaahil has  disgorged some absolutely spurious and stupid arguments to bolster his corrupt view which is in  diametric conflict with  the Fatwa of all Four Math-habs of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah

The Fuqaha of all Four Math-habs have unanimously  ruled that smoking breaks the fast. According to the Hanafi Math-hab, intentionally smoking  during Ramadhaan necessitates the obligations of Qadha as well as the 60 day Kaffaarah. Seeking to overturn the Ijma’ of the Four Math-habs, this modernist Zindeeq exhibits his jahaalat  which confirms that he is ignorant of the Shar’i concept of  Saum. He does not  know even the  proper meaning of Fasting. 

His article of jahl portraying his  jahl-e-murakkab (compound ignorance), is bereft of even a shred of  Shar’i evidence for his haraam view. He has miserably failed to  cite even a single text from any of  the Fuqaha of any of the Math-habs to bolster his  haraam fallacy structured  on the basis of corrupt personal opinion.  Fasting is an injunction of the Shariah

Fasting  has been ordained for Muslims since the era of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).  Its definition  cannot be re-interpreted  on the basis of  the logic of a copro-jaahil whose brains are  operating within the constriction of the straightjacket of  western  modernity. In his article he has presented absolutely no Shar’i daleel for his haraam view. He abortively attempts to  prove his  baseless view in terms of  analogies which are fallacious.  His fallacies shall, Insha-Allah, be dissected and demolished  further on in this article. 


He who inhales medicine, then  perceives the taste of the smoke  in his throat, should make qadha of  the fast.” (As-Sulaimaaniyyah) 

If water drawn into the nostrils reaches the brains, then qadha is obligatory.” (Al-Khazaanah, narrating from Imaam Abu Hanifah – Rahmatullah alayh) (The same ruling will apply to smoke inhaled intentionally). 

If he  (intentionally)  causes smoke to enter into his throat, his fast is invalidated, regardless of  the type of smoke it may be. Thus, if he brings  the incense close to him and smells its smoke, hence causing it to enter into his throat whilst he  is aware of his fast, then his fast is broken. Whether   (it be the smoke of) oudh, ambar or anything besides these two because it is possible to  refrain from causing  the muftir from entering the stomach. (Muftir is something which invalidates the fast.) Numerous people are oblivious of this fact.”  (Haashiyatut Tahaawi ala Duraril Hukkaam) 

Or he intentionally  causes smoke to enter his stomach or his brain, then the fast is invalidated  because of the presence  of something which breaks the fast. This applies to the smoke of  substances other than ambar and oudh. And, in these two  Kaffaarah also becoming incumbent is not far-fetched. Likewise  (is the ruling) regarding  the latest type of smoking which has been innovated in this age. (i.e. smoking tobacco and cigarettes)” (Maraaqil Falaah)

On this basis, regarding the bid’ah which has been innovated  presently—when it is smoked, Kaffaarah becomes obligatory. We supplicate to Allah for forgiveness and protection.”  (Maraaqil Falaah Sharh Noorul Eedhaah) 

If he causes smoke to enter his throat, the fast is invalidated regardless of the type of smoke even if it is of oudh or ambar whilst he is aware (that he is fasting), for it is possible to  abstain from it.” (Durrul Mukhtaar) 

From this, the ruling pertaining to smoking (tobacco) is  known. In  a poem Ash-Shurumbulaali said in his Sharah  of Al-Wahbaaniyyah: “Its smoker during  the fast, there is no doubt in the fast  being invalidated.”  (Raddul Muhtaar)  

If he inhales medicine and perceives its taste in his throat, he  has to make qadha of the fast.”   (Binaayah) 

If he causes it to enter into his throat, his fast is invalid. Thus if  he inhales  its smoke and causes it to enter into his throat, his fast breaks.”   (Majma’ul Anhaar) 


The reaching of smoke in the throat by burning (something), e.g. oudh, similarly the  smoke from  a boiling pot of food, invalidate the fast just as  the vapour by smoking a pipe.”          (Manhul Jaleel Sharh Mukhtasar Khaleel) 

It is obligatory to abstain from whatever reaches the throat, be it a substance which dissolves or not.”   (Manhul Jaleel) 

“He who inhales smoke or anything besides it whilst fasting, verily the fast is invalidated, for verily, the nose is the upper passage-way reaching the throat. On him is qadha (of the invalidated fast). And if it is during Ramaadhan, then (also) he will be liable for azaab (punishment)  if he  deliberately does so.  …….Al-Lakhmi said: ‘Snuffing is prohibited. The snuffer is able to prevent  it reaching the throat. There is no difference  (of opinion) in the invalidation (of the fast).” 

“What  do you say regarding  a person who smokes during the day of Ramadhaan? Is Kaffaarah obligatory?”  

Answer:  “Yes, Kaffaara is obligatory  if  it reaches in  his stomach………In  Al Mukhtasar  (it  appears):  Regarding  the  smoke  which  (is  acquired)  by  smoking, it  invalidates (the  fast)  because  it  is  a  physical form.  It  reaches  the throat. In  fact sometimes it reaches even the stomach.”

“What  do  you  say  regarding    the  placement  of  smoke  in the  mouth  between  the  lower  lip  and  the  teeth  and  spitting out  the  saliva  tainted  with  it?  Will  the    fasting  person’s fast  be  invalidated,  and  will  Kaffaarah  be  incumbent  if this  was  do ne  intentionally  during  Ramadhaan valid reason?”

Answer:  Placement  of  smoke    in  this  manner  in without the  mouth is  in  conflict  with  the reality  of  fasting  which  is  to withhold  from  the  lusts  of  the  stomach  and  private  organs  from the  rise  of  Fajr  Saadiq  until  the  completion  of  sunset with  an  intention……Its taste  reaches  the  throat,  for  verily, the  brain  derives  enjoyment    from  it  just  as  the  enjoyment of  the  smoke  derived  by  sucking    a  pipe  or  by  snuffing with  it  from  the  nose,  or  (this  described in  the  question)  is  worse.  There  is  no  doubt  in  the  invalidation  of  the  fast and  the   obligation of  the  Greater  Kaffaarah  if  this  is  done intentionally  during  Ramadhaan  without  valid  reason. Fitr  (the  fast  breaking) is  more  confirmed  by it (i.e the smoking)  that  the fitr  resulting  from  oiling  the  head  and the  taste  reaching  the  throat  from  the  pores,  and  (more confirmed)  that  inhaling  the  vapours  from  a  (boiling)  pot (of  food).  This  is  well known  to  the  masses. When  they hear  that someone  saying  that  the  fast  is  not  broken  or that  he  hesitates  in  saying  this  (i.e.  that  the  fast  is  broken), then  they  are    surprised  by  it,  and  they  attribute  such  a statement  and hesitation  to  ignorance  and little  awareness (of  reality).   (Such  as  the  ignorance  of  this  copro-jaahil, Atabek)……… Therefore,  how  is  it  possible  to  aver  that  it does  not  invalidate  the  fast.  Or  to  hesitate  (in  saying it breaks the  fast)?

Abdul  Haqq  has  narrated  in  Tahzeebut  Taalib  from  As Sulamaaniyyah: ‘He  who  inhales medicine  and  perceives its  taste  in  his  throat,  then  most  certainly  his  fast  is broken…….They  (the  Fuqaha)  have  said  that  one  who inhales  vapour  from  a  pot  of  food,  very  his  fast  is  broken, for  verily,  the  vapours  of  food  have  a  physical  form  which strengthens  the  brain.  Thus,  the  resultant  acquisition  is like  that  acquired  by  eating.  It is  not hidden  that  the  mouth is  the  nearer  to  the  throat  than  the  nose  and  the  pores  of the head, and it (the  mouth) is wider than  both………” (Fathul  Ulal  Maalik fil Fataawa  ala  Mathhabil  Imaamil Maalik)

When the vapour of  a  pot of  food reaches  the throat, the fast  is  invalidated  and  qadhaa  is  incumbent.  From  this (i.e. the  same  ruling  applies)  is  the  vapours  of  smoking with a reed (or pipe).

When  the  vapour  of food) reaches bukhoor or  the  vapour  of  a  pot  (of the throat,  then  qadha  become  obligatory because  both  of  them  are  is  physical  body  formed.” (Bulghatis  Saalik li Aqrabal  Masaalik)

Vapours arising from lighting a pipe, and similarly the vapour of a pot—when it reaches the throat, qadha is compulsory. And from this is also with a pipe, etc., for verily, it reaches the throat. In fact (it reaches) the stomach.” (Haashiyah Ad-Dusooqi ala Sharhil Kabeer)  


In Baijurmi: The smoking which has now developed, which is called At-tatun,-May Allah curse the one who has initiated it – verily it is of the evil innovations. Our Shaikh Az-Ziyaadi used to  issue fatwa in the beginning that the fast does not break because at that time he was not aware of its reality. However, when he saw its effect from the pipe with which it is smoked, then he retracted (his earlier view) and issued fatwa that it breaks the fast.”     (I’aanatut Taalibeen) 

And from it (i.e. the things which invalidate the fast) is the popular kind of smoking.”   (Nihaayatuz Zain) 

But, smoking tobacco is excluded (from the things which do not break the fast), for verily, from it physical form is acquired.”   (Bushral Kareem) 

The popular smoking invalidates the fast just as the smoke of a wick.” (Tuhfatul Habeeb ala Sharhil Khateeb)

If the vapour is from the popular smoking of this time, then it breaks the fast.”       (Futuhaarul Wahhaab)  


He who swallows smoke intentionally, his fast is  invalid.”  (Mataalib Ulun Nuha fi Sharhi Ghaayatil Muntaha) 

He who swallows smoke intentionally, his fast is invalid.”         (Kashful Qinaa’ ala Matnil Iqnaa’) 

In the Kitaab, Al-Mausooatil Fiqhiyyah, the following is mentioned:  “The Fuqaha are unanimous that the popular smoking during fasting breaks the fast because it is among the mufttariyaat (the things which break the fast).” 

As his basis for his fallacy, Atabek citing from Hanafi texts, says:     

The red box states that dust particles, smoke, the taste of remedies/medicines and the smell of perfume do not break the fast. This evidence can also be found in the other  authoritative  works  of  the  Hanafis  such  as  Bahe ur Taiq, An Nahr, Fath al Qadir and Wilayah.

It  is  also  to  be  found  in  a large  number  of  Hanafi  texts that  using  a  steam  room  whilst  fasting  does  not  break your  fast.  In  a  steam  room  you  are  breathing  in  water vapour  which also potentially  enters  your oesophagus (food),  with  a  much  larger  volume  or  ‘dose’  of  water  than is given by  an inhaler  (albeit not  pressurized).

The  abovementioned  trash  is  the  only  ‘daleel’  which Atabek  has managed  to  hallucinate  for  his fallacious  view that smoking does  not  break the fast.

Either  he  has  deliberately  and  conveniently  ignored  the explicit  texts  stating  the  breaking  of  the  fast  with intentional  smoke  inhalation  to  be  found  in  the  large number  of  Hanafi  texts,  or  he  is  unable  to  understand what  is  written  in  these  authoritative  kutub  of  the  Ahnaaf and  of  the  other  Math-habs.  The  very  same  kutub  from which  he  has  cited  the  above,  clearly  state  that  intentional smoke  inhalation  breaks  the  fast.  Refer  to  the  references from  the Hanafi texts quoted above.

There  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the  “red  box”  to  bolster  the trash  disgorged  by  Atabek.  Since  he  is  not  all  that  stupid to  have  understood  the  reality  in  the  “red  box”,  he conveniently  refrains from  presenting  the  translation  of the text from Al-Muheetul Burhaani. The  text  states:

When dust, smoke, the taste of medicine and the fragrance of perfume is perceived in the throat, it does not invalidate his fast because abstention from it is not possible.” 

This refers to the taste, dust, etc. entering the throat involuntarily and of its own accord, not by an act of the Saa-im (Fasting person). This distinguishing factor shall be explained further on. 

Explaining the issue which appears to be an unfathomable conundrum for the deviate Atabek, the Kutub of the Ahnaaf state: 

“It is said in  Al-Burhaan: His fast does not break if dust enters his throat or the effect of the taste of medicine, because it is not possible to abstain from it as is mentioned in Al-Fath. I say that from this stems that when it is  possible to abstain from dust which enters the throat, then the fast will be invalidated if he does so (i.e. if he intentionally  casues it to enter into his throat). Az-Zaylai said: ‘When dust or a fly enters his throat (i.e. of its own accord) whilst he is aware of his fast, his fast does not break because he is unable to prevent this. Thus it resembles smoke (which enters of its own accord, not intentionally inhaled). This (ruling) is according to Istihsaan (application of discretion). However, according to Qiyaas the fast breaks because of a muftir reaching the stomach.  …The reason for (adopting) Istihsaan is the inability to prevent it, hence  it  is  like  the  moisture  which  remains  in  the  mouth after rinsing (the  mouth).

In Fathul  Qadeer it  is  mentioned:  “When  vapour  and  dust enter  the  throat  (of  their  own  accord),  the  fast  does  not break,  for  verily,  abstention  from  their  entry  is  not possible from  the nose  when the  mouth is closed.”  I say: On  this  basis  when  he  causes  smoke  to  enter  into  his throat  regardless  of  the  type  of  smoke  whilst  he  is  aware  of  his  fast,  then  his fast  breaks. Whether  it  be  (the  smoke) of  oudh or  ambar  or  anything  else  because  of  the possibility  of  abstention from  causing a muftir to enter in the stomach. Numerous people are  oblivious  of  this.”

The  deviate  Atabek  conveniently  or  ignorantly  overlooks this  categorical  statement  in Haashiyah  Shurumbulaalui as well  as in all other Hanafi texts.

In Maraaqil  Falaah,  it  is  mentioned:  “…Or  if  he  causes smoke  to  enter  into  his  stomach  or  brain  by  his  intentional action  (then  the  fast  will  break)  because  of  the  presence of fitr………The  same  (ruling  applies) to  the  smoking  (i.e. of  tobacco) which has  been innovated in this  era.”

In Raddul  Muhtaar it  appears  as  follows:  “(The  fast  does not  break  if)  dust  or  a  fly  or  smoke  enters  the  stomach whilst he is  aware of  his fast because of the impossibility to  abstain  from  it.  This  is  in  terms  of Istihsaan. The benefit  (i.e. the  logical  conclusion)  of  this  is  that  if  he causes  smoke  to  enter  his  throat  whilst  he  is  aware  of  his fast,  the  fast  will  break  regardless  of  the whether  it  is  oudh or ambar type  of  smoke   because  of  the  possibility  of abstaining from  it.  Therefore be aware (and ponder) over this as Ash-Shrumbulaali has elaborated.”

Elaborating  on  the  entry  of  dust  or  a  fly  or  smoke  which does not invalidate the fast, it is said in Raddul  Muhtaar:i.e.  It  (the  dust,  fly  or  smoke) with the entered  of  its  own  accord action of the fasting person.

From all the  Hanafi  texts,  it  is  abundantly  clear  that  the Fuqaha  have  made  a  clear  and  categorical  distinction between   involuntary and voluntary inhalation  of  smoke. All  the  Hanafi  kutub  explicitly  mention  that  while involuntary inhalation  of  smoke  does  not  invalidate  the fast,  voluntary  and  intentional inhalation  does  invalidate the  fast.  The  deviate  has  utilized  the  ruling  applicable  to involuntary  inhalation  to  cigarette-smoking voluntary  and  intentional  inhalation  of  smoke   which  is  laden  with harmful  substances  such  as  tar,  nicotine,  etc.  which  end up as solid   formations inside the  body.

In  having  ignored  the  ruling  of  the  Fuqaha  pertaining  to voluntary  and  intentional  inhalation  of  smoke,  and  deceptively  and  stupidly  utilizing  the  ruling  of  involuntary  inhalation  for  extravasating  his  copro-fatwa of  baatil,  Atabek  has  committed  chicanery  and skulduggery.

All  the  Fuqaha  are  unanimous  in  proclaiming  the invalidation of  the Fast  if  the fasting person intentionally inhales smoke.

In  his  three-page  trash  article,  in  more  than  two  pages  he abortively  attempts  to  logically  ‘prove’  that  an  asthma inhaler  does  not  invalidate  the  fast.  His  stupid  ‘proofs’ towards  this  end  have  already  been  refuted  an demolished  in  the  aforegoing discussion.  Towards  the end  of  his  article  of ghutha he  arbitrarily,  without  making even  an  attempt  to  present  any  Shar’i  daleel,  claims  that smoking  cigarettes,  tobacco,  pipe  and  the  like does  not  break  the  fast.  Since  he  is  totally  bereft  of  Shar’i  dalaa’il for  his  haraam  excretion,  he  has  miserably  failed  in  his attempt.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  he  is  unaware  of  the Consensus  of  the  Fuqaha  on  this  issue,  namely,  mal’oon smoking  invalidates  the  fast.  Smoking  tobacco  is  not  an act  which  has  been  innovated  yesterday.  Muslims  have been  smoking  the  accursed  substances  for  several centuries,  having acquired the accursed practice from  the western kuffaar

As  explained  above,  the  Fuqaha  make  a  clear  distinction between  involuntary  inhalation  o f  smoke  and  intentional inhaling.  Whilst  the  former  does  not  break  the  fast,  the latter  does  invalidate  the  fast.  It  is  indeed  mind-boggling to  believe  that  the  intentional  inhalation  and  consumption of  a  physical  substance  with  all  its  poisonous,  harmful and  haraam  effects  does  not  render  the  fast  invalid.  The deviate jaahil treats  this  serious  issue  with  extreme insignificance.  Lacking  in  fear  for  Allah  Ta’ala  he  is prepared to destroy  the  Ramadhaan  Fasts of  innumerable stupid  Muslims  who  are  addicted  to the  shaitaani  practice of  smoking  in  the  style  of  the  inmates  of  Hell.  He  appears to  have  no  Imaani  idea  of  accountability  and  the assumption  of  the  burdens  of  the  sins  of  others  whom  he is satanically  misguiding.

Indeed  it  is  only  a  brain    deranged  and  destroyed  by the affliction  of RIJS  divinely  inflicted  on  the  followers  of shaitaan  that  fails  to  understand  that  the  intentional inhalation  of  clouds  of  poisonous  smoke  filled  with poisonous  tar,  nicotine,  etc.,  which  gather  and  block  the lungs,  arteries and  the  other    organs  of  the  body  do  not invalidate  the  Fast.  The  inhalation  of  tobacco  smoke which  travels  from  the  mouth  and  nose  down  the  throat into  the  lungs  and  other  organs,  including  the  stomach, causes  all  these  organs  to  rot  with  cancer.  The  throat  rots, the  lungs  rot,  the  heart  rots  the  liver  rots,  the  pancreas rots,  the  kidneys  rot  and  the  rest  of  the  body putrefies.  The smoke enters the brain  and causes it to also rot.

All  substances,  be  it inedible , which  are  intentionally ingested  and  which  reach  the  throat  or  the  brain  or  the stomach, nullify  the Fast. Only zindeeq juhala deny  this Shar’i  reality.  The  Fuqaha  state  that  even  ignoramuses wonder at  the jahl of the one who holds the  view that the intentional  ingestion  of  smoke  via  the  mouth break the fast.

The Fatwa of the Fuqaha, viz., smoking invalidates the Fast,  has not been designed  for deterring people from  this haraam poison as the deviate seeks to convey. The objective of the Fatwa is to save the  Ramadhaan Fasts of  people – stupid people – who may be misled by  moron Haatibil Lail Zindeeq so-called ‘scholars’ who are bereft of  valid Ilm of the Deen.

Atabek Shukurov and the Mu’tazila

Atabek Shukurov claims to follow the Hanafi and Maturidi schools. However his basic usool, and many of his fatwas at times contradict all of the Hanafis, whilst at other times contradict the vast majority of the Hanafis. Yet he deceives his audience by claiming to be Hanafi and Maturidi. In reality he follows the Mu’tazila school in Aqidah, and the Wahabi school in fiqh (since both he and the wahabis make their own fiqh up as they go along).

Here is an example where Atabek follows the Mu’tazila school and rejects the Prophet:

In the prologue of his book “Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith” he says that Ibn Hajar (d.1449/852) said regarding the Hadith in Bukhari where the Prophet has magic done upon him, it’s ‘only rejected by heretics’. He then goes on state that the Hanafis have ‘instead rejected it outright based on their classical principles’.

The point about the Hanafis rejecting the Hadith will come later, but it’s important to note here that Badr al-Din al-‘Aini (d.1453/855) a famous Hanafi scholar who was a contemporary of Ibn Hajar said the exact same thing about those who reject this Hadith. Al-’Aini says

وَقد اعْترض بعض الْمُلْحِدِينَ على حَدِيث عَائِشَة، وَقَالُوا: كَيفَ يجوز السحر على رَسُول الله

He states ‘Imam Abi Mansur al-Maturidi (d.994/333)… denied the notion that the Prophet was affected by black magic at all and rejected this Hadith. He (al-Maturidi) also said the reason for the revelation (Asbab al-Nuzul) of ‘Surah Falaq’ and ‘Surah al-Nas’… was not as a result of magic at all…’

Having referred to the two places of references he gives to the above observation, the first point where al-Maturidi supposedly rejects the Hadith, has no mention of the Hadith. As for the Tafsīr of Surah Falaq, then he actually does mention this Hadith as a Sabab al-Nuzul and also quotes ‘al-Faqih’ (initially I thought he was referring to the Hanafi Abu Nasr al-‘Iyadi, but Mufti Muntasir Zaman pointed out that it seems that ‘al-Faqih was added by the scribe to clarify when al-Maturidi is making his own point) defending the Hadith from the Mu’tazili al ’Asam. Here’s the Arabic:

قال الفقيه – رحمه اللَّه -: الأمر بالتعوذ به يحتمل وجوها ثلاثة:

أحدها: على التعليم، لا لنازلة كانت في ذلك الوقت؛ لكن لما علم اللَّه – تعالى – من عظيم شر من ذكر بما يظن بالأغلب أن شر ما ذكر يتصل بالذي ذكر في علم الله تعالى؛ فأمرهم بالتعوذ به، كما أخبر في أمر الشيطان: أنه عدو لهم، وأنه يراهم من حيث لا يرونه؛ ليكونوا أبدا معدين متيقظين فزعين إلى اللَّه – تعالى – معتصمين، وهذا أحق في التعليم من الذي ذكر في سورة الناس؛ لأنه أضر من ذلك العدو؛ لأن ضرره إنما يتصل به بإتيانه ما دعاه إليه الشيطان، وما يوسوس في صدره الوسواس، وذلك فعله يمكنه الامتناع عنه، وهذا الضرر يقع بفعل غيره من وجه لا يعلم مأتاه -أعني: شر النفاثات ونحو ذلك- فهو أحق في تعليم العباد فيه، والأمر بالفزع إلى من بلطفه جعل ذلك الفعل ممن ذكرنا معمولا فيه مؤثرا.

والثاني: ما قيل: نزل جبريل – عليه السلام – على رسول اللَّه – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ – فقال: ” إن عفريتا من الجن يكيدك؛ فتعوذ بأعوذ برب الفلق، وبرب الناس من شره إذا أويت إلى الفراش “.

والثالث: قيل: إن واحدًا من اليهود سحر رسول اللَّه – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ -، فنزل هذا.

قال أبو بكر الأصم: ذكروا في هذه السورة حديثا فيه ما لا يجوز؛ فتركته.

قال الفقيه – رحمه اللَّه -: ولكن عندنا فيما قيل: إن رسول اللَّه – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ – سحر – وجهان في إثبات رسالته ونبوته.

أحدهما: بما أعلمه بالوحي أنه سحر، وذلك فعل فعلوه سرا منه، ولا وقوف لأحد على الغيب إلا بالوحي.

والثاني: بما أبطل عمل السحر بتلاوة القرآن؛ فيصير لتلاوته في إبطال عمل السحر ما

لعصا موسى – عليه السلام – وأن هذا في كونه آية أعظم مما فعل موسى عليه السلام؛ لأن ذلك يتنوع بتنوع ما له الفعل والعمل من حيث الجوهر والطبع من حيث مرأى العين؛ فإنه ثعبان يلقف ما صنعوا. فأما إبطال السحر وعمله بتلاوة القرآن لا يكون إلا باللطف من اللَّه تعالى، واللَّه أعلم.

The underlined part clearly defends the Hadith.

4) He states ‘Imam Abu Bakr Jassas al-Razi al-Hanafi… stated ‘the ignorant of the Hashawis (anthropomorphists) narrated this Hadith without knowing it was fabricated’. 

He has here accurately presented Jassas’s view but is this one quote enough from a Hanafi sufficed to claim this is the Hanafi view? When looked at carefully we realise that this was a Mu’tazili view, a group which Jassas is famous to have been influenced by (as mentioned by al-Dhahabī and proven with examples by the contemporary Hanafi, Sa’id Bakdqsh). We have already seen al-Maturidi refute the Mu’tazili al-‘Asamm for this view by quoting Abu Nasr al-’Iyadi (or referring to himself). Furthermore, Jassas never attributes this view to the founders of the Hanafi school let alone claim this was the Madhab in any way or form.

Interestingly, this very same Hadith was quoted by Abu Ja’far al-Tahawo, who is senior to Jassas, approvingly in his Sharh Mushkil al-Athar

– حَدَّثَنَا فَهْدُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، حَدَّثَنَا فَرْوَةُ بْنُ أَبِي الْمَغْرَاءِ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُسْهِرٍ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهَا قَالَتْ: ” سُحِرَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَتَّى إِنْ كَانَ لَيُخَيَّلُ أَنَّهُ لِيَفْعَلُ شَيْئًا وَمَا فَعَلَهُ. قَالَتْ: فَدَعَا فِي بَيْتِي، ثُمَّ قَالَ لِي: ” يَا عَائِشَةُ، أَشَعَرْتِ أَنَّ اللهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ قَدْ أَفْتَانِي فِيمَا اسْتَفْتَيْتُهُ فِيهِ؟ جَاءَنِي رَجُلَانِ فَقَعَدَ وَاحِدٌ عِنْدَ رَأْسِي، وَالْآخَرُ عِنْدَ رِجْلَيَّ، فَقَالَ أَحَدُهُمَا لِصَاحِبِهِ: مَا وَجَعُ الرَّجُلِ؟ قَالَ: مَطْبُوبٌ، قَالَ: وَمَنْ طَبَّهُ؟ قَالَ: لَبِيدُ بْنُ أَعْصَمَ، قَالَ: وَفِيمَا سَحَرَهُ؟ قَالَ: فِي مُشْطِ وَمُشَاقَةٍ، وَجُفِّ طَلْعَةِ ذَكَرٍ، قَالَ: أَيْنَ؟ قَالَ: فِي بِئْرِ ذَرْوَانَ، فَأَتَيْتُهَا فَكَأَنَّ مَاءَهَا نُقَاعَةُ الْحِنَّاءِ، وَكَأَنَّ رُءُوسُ نَخْلِهَا رُءُوسُ الشَّيَاطِينِ، فَأَمَرْتُ بِهَا، فُطُمَّتْ “. فَقُلْتُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ، قَدْ أَخْرَجْتَهُ؟ قَالَ: ” لَا، قَدْ عَافَانِي اللهُ ” وَكَرِهْتُ أَنْ أُثَوِّرَ عَلَى النَّاسِ مِنْهُ شَرًّا “

وَحَدَّثَنَا فَهْدٌ، حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ يُونُسَ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنِ الْأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ يَزِيدَ بْنِ حَيَّانَ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَرْقَمَ، قَالَ: سَحَرَ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ رَجُلٌ مِنَ الْيَهُودِ، فَاشْتَكَى، فَأَتَاهُ جِبْرِيلُ صَلَوَاتُ اللهِ عَلَيْهِ بِالْمُعَوِّذَتَيْنِ، وَقَالَ: إِنَّ رَجُلًا مِنَ الْيَهُودِ سَحَرَكَ، وَالسِّحْرُ فِي بِئْرِ فُلَانٍ، فَأَرْسَلَ عَلِيًّا رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ، فَجَاءَ بِهِ، فَأَمَرَهُ أَنْ يَحِلَّ الْعُقَدَ، وَيَقْرَأَ آيَةً، فَجَعَلَ يَقْرَأُ وَيَحِلُّ، حَتَّى قَامَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَأَنَّمَا أُنْشِطَ مِنْ عِقَالٍ، فَمَا ذَكَرَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِذَلِكَ الْيَهُودِيِّ شَيْئًا مِمَّا صَنَعَ، وَلَا رَآهُ فِي وَجْهِهِ ” فَفِي هَذَيْنِ الْحَدِيثَيْنِ مَا قَدْ دَلَّ عَلَى بَقَاءِ عَمَلِ السَّحْرِ إِلَى الْوَقْتِ الَّذِي كَانَ سُحِرَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَلَى مَا فِي هَذَيْنِ الْحَدِيثَيْنِ، وَإِذَا جَازَ بَقَاؤُهُ إِلَى ذَلِكَ الزَّمَانِ، جَازَ بَقَاؤُهُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ

The underlined part is al-Tahawi using the Ĥadīth as evidence.

Finally, the late Hanafi scholar, Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri (d.1933) took Jassas to task specifically on the point that the Hadith somehow affects the truth of the Prophet’s Prophethood, where he states 

قوله: (حتى كان يرى أنه يأتي النساء، ولا يأتيهن) فاحفظ هذا اللفظ، فإنَّه صريح في أن السحر كان في أمور النساء، ولم يكن له تعلق بأمور الشرع، وفي أكثر الألفاظ إيهامٌ، كما في الرواية الآتية، ففيها: أنه فعل الشيء، وما فعله، وفي الرواية الماضية: يخيل إليه أنه يفعل الشيء، وما فعله، فسبق إلى بعضهم الإِطلاق، نظرًا إلى اللفظ، فجعل يؤوله، حتى أن أبا بكر الجصاص أنكر هذا الحديث رأسًا، واتضح مما قلنا أن الحديثَ صحيحٌ، وأنه يتعلق بأمور النِّساء خاصة، ولا يمس غير هذا الباب

Furthermore, Imam Maturidi says (as also mentioned by Mustafa Ceric in Roots of Synthetic Theology in Islam: A Study of the Theology of Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi (d. 333/944)”:

قال الفقيه – رحمه اللَّه -: ولكن عندنا فيما قيل: إن رسول اللَّه – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ – سحر – وجهان في إثبات رسالته ونبوته.

أحدهما: بما أعلمه بالوحي أنه سحر، وذلك فعل فعلوه سرا منه، ولا وقوف لأحد على الغيب إلا بالوحي.

والثاني: بما أبطل عمل السحر بتلاوة القرآن؛ فيصير لتلاوته في إبطال عمل السحر ما

In the above, Imam Maturido responds to the Mu’tazili contention that the Prophet being affected by magic in some way denounces his claim to Prophet-hood. Maturidi states that in fact that the Prophet being affected by magic, can establish his claim to Prophet-hood in two ways

1) That the Prophet was informed through revelation that he had magic performed on him, this could not be possible for a false Prophet.

2) That by the recitation of the Quran the magic was negated; this shows the truth of the Quran. (end of description of quote).

The following is an example of Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi using the passive voice ‘qila‘ (it is said), and he accepts the opinion:

وقوله: ولَا تَشْتَرُوْا بِآيٰتِيْ ثَمَنًا قَلِيْلًا.

قيل: بحجتى.

قال الحسن: الآيات في جميع القرآن هي الدين؛ كقوله: اشْتَرَوُا الضَّلٰلَةَ بِالْهُدٰى [البقرة: ١٢، ١٧٥].

وأما عندنا فهو الحجج، وقد ذكرنا أن اسم الشراء قد يقع من اختيار الشيء بالشيء وإن لم يتلفظ بلفظ الشراء.

Al-Maturidi, Ta’wilat Ahl al-Sunna, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya (2005), vol.1, p.445


[Majlisul Ulama]

In this era in close proximity to Qiyaamah, the world abounds with juhala and mudhilleen who pose as ‘authorities’ of the Shariah when in reality they grope and grovel in a quagmire of jahaalat. One such jaahil whose articles and stupid ‘fatwas’ are loaded with hogwash and nafsaani flotsam, is one Atabek Shukurov  who has set himself up as an ‘authority’ of the Hanafi Math-hab whilst he dwells in a mire of  jahl-e-murakkab.

Some of the flotsam ‘fatwas’ of this mudhil have crossed our part. Insha-Allah, we shall respond in detail in refutation of the copro-jahl with which his ‘fatwas’ of jahl are besmirched. Here we briefly make mention of some of his haraamfatwas’ of jahaalat to alert Muslims of this mudhil agent of Iblees. It is mentioned in the Hadith that in times close to the approach of Qiyaamah, there will be shayaateen masquerading as human beings. They will deliver lectures, give fatwas and even recite the Qur’aan Majeed right inside the Musjid to lure and ensnare Muslims into their den of Imaani destruction. It appears that this Atabek character is one of those shayaateeni mudhilleen predicted in the Ahaadith.

This jaahil has written considerable drivel and hogwash in his stupid ‘fatwas’ on the  issues of mortgages, homosexuality, smoking, etc. If Allah Ta’ala grants us the taufeeq, we shall demolish all the rubbish which this latest mudhil has excreted in his ‘fatwas’ which are the copro-effects of his jahl-e-murakkab.

In brief, we apprize the Ummah of the Haqq of the masaa-il which the mudhil coprocreep has convoluted and corrupted with his jahaalat which may be deliberate and designed to further the scheme of Iblees in his mission of undermining and destroying Islam.

Know and understand well that all bank loans are interest-bearing.  There is no type of loan given by a bank which is free of interest/riba. Atabek’s laborious and abortive attempt to ‘prove’ that bank interest is not Riba, is the effect of shaitaan having gripped his brains. Just as the mushrikeen of Arabia would say: “Trade is like Riba.”, hence it should be halaal, so too, does this agent of Iblees, Atabek say: “Bank interest is taukeel.” This agent of shaitaan is at war with Allah and His Rasool, for the Qur’aan Majeed issues the following ultimatum of war:

“…If you do not desist (from devouring riba), then take notice of WAR from Allah and His Rasool.”

By no stretch of Imaani logic and Fiqhi logic can such clear-cut Riba   charged by banks, ever be interpreted to mean anything other than Riba. Therefore, all bank loans are haraam. All such loans are encumbered with interest which no brand of interpretation can ever cancel.

Homosexuality is HARAAM. Homosexuals are worse than adulterers. Islam prescribes the severest punishment for homosexuals.  If homosexuality is proved in the court of the Qaadhi, even the death penalty may be applicable. Atabek’s article is designed to placate the palates of his western kuffaar masters whom he is bootlicking.

Smoking breaks the fast. The arguments in negation of this mas’alah are baseless. Insha-Allah, a detailed response shall be forthcoming for the khuraafaat (drivel and trash) which Atabek has expectorated.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Verily, I fear for my Ummah the aimmah mudhilleen.”

This Atabek is from amongst the Mudhilleen mentioned in this Hadith.