Category Archives: Basic Islamic Laws


By Mujlisul Ulama

Bukhaari and Muslim narrate from Ibn Abbaas (Radhiyallahu anhu) that (on his death bed) Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “May Allah curse the Yahood and Nasaara, for they make the graves of their Ambiya Musaajid.” She (i.e. Hadhrat Aishah – Radhiyallahu anha) said: ‘He warned against doing as they did.’

Muslim narrated from Abil Hibaaj Al-Asadi that Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) said to me: “Should I not send you to do that for which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had sent me? Do not leave any image, but destroy it nor any raised grave, but flatten it.”

Muslim narrated from Jaabir (Radhiyallahu anhu) that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbade that graves be plastered; that (buildings) be built over it (graves), and sitting on it.


Question: The Barelwi bid’atis and Haqqani grave-worshippers claim  that building tombs, plastering and elevating the graves of the Ambiya and the Auliya are not forbidden. In an article on this topic they have provided a range of arguments to justify these practices. Are any of their arguments valid? Please explain in detail for our understanding.

Answer: The arguments of the grave-worshippers portray the shirk which pollutes their brains. There is no validity whatsoever for even one of their stupid and spurious contentions. Let us examine the stupidities of the grave-worshippers:

(1) They claim: “The reason for building a Mazaar is to make the status of the Saint or Prophet apparent or distinct to mankind, for respect towards such great people is actually respect for Islam.”

The status of a Nabi and Wali is apparent and distinct during   their very lifetime and this is perpetuated after their demise by their Teachings.

The elevated status of a Nabi is understood and observed by all Muslims. Such observation was never and is never reliant on elevated graves, plastering graves and erecting mausolea which are  evil practices prohibited by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself. The vast majority of the Ummah does not gain the opportunity of even visiting these abominable structures erected by grave-worshippers. Minus these haraam constructions, respect and honour for Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are not diminished by even an iota. And, this is because the honour, love and respect Muslims have in their hearts for Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) were never reliant on the death and graves of these august Personalities of Islam, but were dependent on their teachings which they delivered to the Ummah from Allah Ta’ala.

The love for Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) exudes from the Sunnah which is adopted by his devotees in practical life. Acts of grave-worship and other shirki stupidities enacted at the tombs of the Saints, far from honouring and respecting them, pains their souls and are in flagrant violation of the demand of Imaan. In the Ta’leemaat of the Ambiya and the Auliya there is absolutely no condonation for the avalanche of shirk, fisq and fujoor which are the salient features and practices prevailing at the mazaars of the grave-worshippers.

The mazaars are notorious venues for qabar puja (grave-worship). The stench of Hinduism percolates the very atmosphere and environment of the mazaars. There is absolutely no affinity between Tauheed and a mazaar whose practices are the very antithesis of the Tauheed taught by the Ambiya and the Auliya.

Nowhere in the Qur’aan and Hadith is there any directive for respecting the Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Auliya by means of constructing stupid kuffaar and mushrik type tombs and perpetrating acts of grave-worship for which the mazaars are notorious.

On the contrary, on his deathbed, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) invoked la’nat (curse) on the Yahood and Nasaara for constructing tombs and mausolea.

Once Hadhrat Umm-e-Habeebah (Radhiyallahu anha) and Hadhrat Umm-e-Salmah (Radhiyallahu anha) narrated to Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) that in Habshah they had seen a church in which were pictures. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commented:

“Verily, when a pious man from them dies, they construct a musjid (mausoleum) over his grave and adorn it with these pictures. They will be the worst of creation by Allah on the Day of Qiyaamah.”  

Thus, the builders of mausolea and mazaars are shiraarul khalq (the worst of creation). It should be understood that apes and pigs are also part of creation. These Qabar Pujaaris who worship the mazaars are worse than even these animals.

(2) Stupidly claiming the existence of tombs in Islam, the grave-worshipper says:

“The First tomb in Islam: Grave of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) is “INSIDE” room of the house of Ayesha (ra).”  

This is a moronic ‘daleel’ for the claim. The Mubaarak Qabr of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) inside the room of Hadhrat Aishah (Radhiyallahu anha) is not a tomb nor a mausoleum. The Sahaabah had never converted the Qabr of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) into a tomb. They did not plaster over the Mubaarak Qabr. To this day it remains unplastered in an enclosure.

Burying inside a room is exclusive for a Nabi, not for a non-Nabi. There is no Shar’i evidence to substantiate the baseless extension of this to a Wali. Furthermore, ‘inside a room’ is not a mazaar. It is also not permissible to bury a Wali inside a room. He has to be buried normally as are all Muslims buried.

In Islam, burying inside the room of Hadhrat Aishah (Radhiyallahu anha) is restricted to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (Alayhis salaam) who will be buried alongside Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Besides these four exceptions, there has never been a fifth one.  Hadhrat Uthmaan (Radhiyallahu anhu) who was also among the Khulafa-e-Raashideen and who was martyred in Madinah Munawwarah was not buried in the room.

It is blatantly false to describe their simple graves inside the room as ‘constructed shrines’. This room was not built over any grave. It had existed long before the four blessed graves, hence it is not a mausoleum. They are simple graves inside a room, and in the annals of Islam, these are the only four exceptions. The host of other constructed, plastered graves and mazaars are the shirki artefacts of the followers of Iblees, the Qabar Puja gang who prostrates and circumambulates the graves. They acquit themselves like mushrikeen at the mazaars. There is absolutely no resemblance and no affinity between the mazaars of shirk of the Qabar Puja miscreants and the simple graves inside the room of Hadhrat Aishah (Radhiyallahu anha).

There were innumerable Auliya of lofty status among the Sahaabah and Taabieen, but mazaars were not constructed for them. If burial inside a room as was for the Four, a practice to be emulated, the Sahaabah would have been the very first to have adopted it. But not a single Sahaabi had adopted this practice. It was confined to the Four illustrious Personalities. Never was this practice extended to any other Wali by the Sahaabah and Taabieen.

(3) The third baseless and stupid argument of the grave worshippers is that in the Qur’aan is mentioned that the Muslims had built a Musjid over the Ashaab-e-Kahaf (the Companions of the Cave). In this regard, the moron Qabar Pujaari states:

“Qadhi Thana Ullah Panipati (Rahumuhullah) writes in his great Tafsir al Mazhari: After the death of Ashaab al Kahf a dispute occurred between Muslims and non-Muslims. The Muslims said that they will make a Masjid over them because they were of our faith whereas the disbelievers said they will build other buildings on it where people will live…This Ayah is proving that Mosques could be made near graves of Awliya in order to say salaat in them. Tabarruk is also attained through the tombs of the Awliya.”

The moron further presents the following tafseer in an abortive attempt to bolster his spurious ‘proof’:

“The Mushrikeen said: We will build a building over it and worship Allah in it but the Muslims said: We have more right over them and we will surely “BUILD A MOSQUE” so that we can pray there and worship Allah. (Tafsir at-Tabri)”  

Briefly, this is blatantly erroneous. In the first place, no one is aware of these Men. They had disappeared inside the mountain. There are no graves of these Companions of the Cave. To this day, there is also the belief that they are still alive, sleeping inside the Cave where they are concealed. Even if they had died, they died inside the mountain cave which has been hidden from the sight of people. No one knows where they exactly are, and no one had ever buried them.

Thus the Musjid which was constructed was a MUSJID for Salaat at the mountain side. It was not a tomb or a mausoleum which housed dead bodies.

This argument is absolutely corrupt and baseless on the basis of several discrepancies:

a) Relevant to the Ashaab-e-Kahaf (the Companions of the Cave), there were no graves, not a single one. No one knows to this day with absolute certitude whether they are still alive or whether they have already died after Allah Ta’ala had aroused them from their slumber of more than three centuries.

When they arose from their sleep, only one of them emerged from the Cave to go to the town to purchase food without realizing that centuries had lapsed. When the reality was unravelled, a crowd followed him back to the mountain to meet the rest of the group. On reaching the Cave, he went in and Allah Ta’ala hid the Cave from the people. It miraculously sealed and to this day no one is aware of the whereabouts of the Cave and its Inmates. Thus, there were no graves. There was no building, tomb or Musjid or any other type of construction built over the Ashab-e-Kahaf.

b) The two groups, i.e. the Mushrikeen and the Muslimeen, desired to erect a temple and a Musjid respectively. The Muslims prevailed and constructed a Musjid on the side of the mountain at the approximate location of the Cave. This Musjid was NOT a tomb. It was not a mausoleum. It was not a plaster on graves. There were no graves inside this Musjid.

c) Qadhi Thanaullah Panipati states in his “great Tafsir al-Mazhari”, as well as all other Mufassireen in their respective Tafseers that the Aayat proves that “Mosques could be made near graves of Awliya”.

Firstly, regarding Ashaab-e-Kahaf, there were no graves. Secondly, building Musjids near to the graves of the Auliya never was an issue of contention. No one disputes this permissibility. Thirdly, the Tafaaseer, including Tafseer Mazhari, explicitly state: “near to the graves of the Auliya”. Nowhere is it mentioned that it is permissible to build Musjids ‘over’ the graves of the Auliya. The Qur’aanic term ‘over’ in the context means ‘near’. There were no graves over which to erect a structure, and the Mufassireen explain it to mean ‘near’. Musjids may be built and have been built near to the graves of even ordinary people. Fourthly, the close environment at the graves of the Auliya being blessed is not denied. This is not the subject of contention. The issue is building Musjids/tombs over the graves of the Auliya. This is haraam and shirk.

d) The Qabar Pujari, cites selectively from Tafseer Mazhari, conveniently omitting the following narrations stated by Qadhi Thanaullah in his “great Tafzir al-Mazhari”:

(i) Muslim narrated from Abil Hibaaj Al-Asadi that Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) said to me: ‘Should I not send you to do that for which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had sent me? Do not leave any image, but destroy it, nor any raised grave, but flatten it.’

(ii) Muslim narrated from Jaabir (Radhiyallahu anhu) that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbade that graves be plastered; that (buildings) be built over it (graves), and sitting on it.

(iii) Bukhaari and Muslim narrate from Ibn Abbaas (Radhiyallahu anhu) that (on his death bed) Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “May Allah curse the Yahood and Nasaara, for they make the graves of their Ambiya Musaajid.” She (i.e. Hadhrat Aishah –Radhiyallahu anha) said: ‘He warned against doing as they did.’”  

Qadhi Thanaullah Panipati (Rahmatullah alayh) commenting on these Ahaadith in his “great Tafsir al-Mazhari”, in the discussion of the very same Aayat from which the Grave-Worshipper has selectively cited, says:

“These Ahaadith indicate the prohibition (Makrooh Tahrimi) of plastering graves, erecting buildings over them and raising the graves. There is no indication in these narrations for prohibition of building Musjids near to the graves.”

In his abortive bid to support his baseless claim, the Qabar Pujaari deemed it expedient to ignore these Ahaadith presented by Qadhi Panipati, as well as his comment, in his “great Tafsir al-Mazhari”, believing that all the readers of his flotsam article are, like him, morons who will be blissfully ignorant of the full tafseer presented by Qadhi Thanaullah (Rahmatullah alayh). 

(e) Should we feign stupidity momentarily and accept that a Musjid was built over the dead bodies of Ashaab-e-Kahaf, then too, this act of a community centuries or perhaps thousands of years prior to the advent of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), may not be presented to abrogate the explicit   commands of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had specifically prohibited the construction of structures over graves and had ordered their demolition as the aforementioned and other Ahaadith as well as the Ijma’ of the Fuqaha confirm.

In the eras of the Ummats of bygone times some acts which were permissible, are forbidden in our Shariah. Examples: Making Sajdah for seniors; marrying more than four wives; liquor, etc. Furthermore, some acts which were forbidden for Muslims of bygone times are permissible for us, e.g. consuming Qur’baani meat. It was haraam for them, but halaal for us. It is only ignoramuses who seek to legalize a practise which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had prohibited.

(f) The issue of contention is the construction of Musjids and mausolea over graves. But, the moron grave-worshipper presents proof for the permissibility of building Musjids near to graves. He miserably fails to present any valid argument for the subject under discussion.

4) Presenting another flapdoodle ‘daleel’, the moron grave-worshipper says:

“Imam Muhammad (rah) said: Abu Hanifah (rah) informed us saying that Salim al-aftas narrated to us saying “There is no Prophet who has not fled from its (his) people towards the Ka’ba to worship Allah, and around it there are graves of 300 Prophets.”

This moron grave-worshipper has presented this ludicrous, silly argument despite the fact that the 300 graves of the Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam) are invisible and non-existent as far as people are concerned. There are no graves regardless of them being buried there. In fact, the billions of Muslims are not even aware of these graves of the Ambiya. Furthermore, there are numerous places on earth which once upon a time were graveyards, but which today may be market-places, etc.

This ‘daleel’ is actually a daleel against him because all 300 graves of the Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam) around the Ka’bah have been flattened and demolished. There is not a single grave of any Nabi visible around the Ka’bah.

Furthermore, the moron’s argument is devoid of any intelligence. The Ka’bah was never built on or over graves. In fact, it was not built even near to graves. There existed no graves when the Ka’bah was constructed by Hadhrat Nabi Aadam (Alayhis salaam). The narration from Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh) says that the graves are ‘around’ the  Ka’bah. This does not render the Ka’bah a tomb or a mausoleum. The topic of contention is not graves near to a Musjid. The issue is the haraam mushrik practice of constructing buildings over the graves.

In the narration of Imaam Abu Hanifah cited by the moron, there is no mention of constructing buildings on or over graves. Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh) only mentioned that there are 300 Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam) buried in the surroundings of the Ka’bah.

(5) The Qabar Pujaari’s final argument is the worst drivel in the compound of nonsensical arguments he has presented. This stupid ‘daleel’ is his assertion of the existence of elevated and plastered graves of numerous Auliya, and of mazaars which their shirk-inclined juhala followers had constructed.

He asks: “Why did people since 1000 never demolished it if they could find it against Qur’an and Sunnah?”  

For the edification of this moron, it will be salutary for him to know that ‘people’ did demolish such raised graves and tombs by the thousand. These ‘people’ were the Salafis. If demolition by ‘people’ is proof for the evil of these tombs, then the Salafis who had demolished these shirki structures had demonstrated the proof.

Better proof than the Salafis is Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who had instructed Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) to demolish all elevated graves. During his Khilaafat, Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) renewed the act of grave-demolition as the narration mentioned earlier shows.

The moron’s claim that they do not worship the graves of the Auliya is like shaitaan’s claim that he worships only Allah Ta’ala. This claim of the Qabar Pujaari is blatantly false. Any person may visit any of these mazaars, especially in Ajmer, and observe the villainy of shirk being practised at the gravesides of the Auliya. The claim of only ‘taking tabarruk’ is another blatant LIE. They worship the graves. They make sajdah and tawaaf of the graves. They make vows in the name of the Auliya. They direct their supplications to the inmates of the graves, etc., etc. They are soiled and filthied in a plethora of shirki practices at the mazaars.

There is no daleel in Imaam Shaafi’ ‘taking tabarruk’ from Imaam Abu Hanifah’s grave. We all ‘take tabarruk’ from the Quboor of the Auliya. But it is Waajib to abstain from visiting the mazaars where there is a preponderance of mushrik Qabar Pujaaris enacting their numerous acts of shirk. ‘Taking tabarruk’ does not countenance worshipping the graves as these moron bid’atis do. ‘Tabarruk’ in this context means to supplicate to Allah Ta’ala asking Him to accept one’s Dua by virtue of the Qurb (Proximity) the Buzrug has with Allah Ta’ala.

Assuming that these miscreants do not worship the graves, then too, it is imperative to obey Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who had commanded the demolition of elevated graves, the prohibition of constructing over graves, and plastering over the graves. He had invoked the la’nat of Allah Azza Wa Jal on the Yahood and Nasaara specifically for their construction of buildings and temples over the graves.

The audacity with which these Qabar Pujaaris oppose the explicit Ahaadith Nusoos and the Ijma’ of the Ummah on the prohibition of elevating graves, plastering over graves and constructing monuments and mazaars is akin to kufr. It appears that they have no Imaan, hence constructing buildings on graves and worshipping graves are of greater importance than obedience to the commands of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The treachery and chicanery of the moron grave-worshipper constrained him to selectively quote from Tafseer Mazhari. He makes no mention of the Ahaadith prohibiting these haraam structures – Ahaadith cited by Tafseer Mazhari. Mazaars are the very antithesis of Tauheed. 


A Mausoleum is a monument or an impressive sepulchral construction built in memory of someone.

In its undated letter, the Imam Ahmed Raza Academy of Durban made an abortive flapdoodle attempt to legalize the erection of mausolea by citing the following Qur’anic verse:

“Some said: Construct a building over them.’ Their Lord knows best about them. Those who prevailed over their affairs said: Let us surely built a place of worship over them.’

In accordance with the commentaries of this verse of the Qur’an, which is found in Surah Hashiyah, Imam Bayzawi says: From this it is understood that to erect a Mausoleum for the special people, i.e. Pious Saints and Ulema, is permissible.’  

Firstly, there is no Surah in the Qur’an Majeed named ‘Hashiyah’. Secondly, this verse cited by the Raza Academy is verse 21 of Surah Kahaf. Thirdly, the tafseer which the Raza Academy attributes to Imam Baidhaawi (Bayzawi) is not to be found in his commentary of the verse under discussion. Imam Baidhaawi does not say in the commentary of this verse that erection of mausolea for the Saints and Ulema is permissible.

Presenting the tafseer of this aayat, Baidhaawi says:

‘A group said: ‘We shall build over them a building so that people may live in it and that they establish (by) it a village.’ Others said: ‘Most assuredly we shall erect over them a Musjid for performing Salaat therein.’ Then they built nearby a Musjid.”

The Raza Academy then cites the tafseer of Imam Fakhruddin Razi. However, the following passage is omitted:

“Verily, the kuffar said: ‘They (Ashab-e-Kahaf) were on our religion. Therefore, we shall erect over them a building (i.e. a mausoleum). And, the Muslims said: ‘They were on our Deen. We shall, therefore, erect over them a Musjid.”  

The dispute in the episode of Ashab-e-Kahaf was a dispute between Muslims and Kuffaar. While the kuffaar wanted a mausoleum to be built in memory of the Youths of the Cave, just as the grave-worshippers desire, the Muslims wanted to erect a Musjid nearby in which to worship Allah Ta’ala.

The word ‘over them’, in the context here means nearby. Thus, Baidhaawi translating it, says: “near to it”. Tafseer Bayaanul Qur’an translates it as “nearby them”. The term, over them, is mentioned in both instances, i.e. in the kuffaar’s expression of constructing a mausoleum and in the Muslims’ expression of erecting a Musjid. However, a mausoleum is built literally over the grave, hence the term over in relation to the kuffaar’s proposal refers to the construction of a mausoleum over (literally speaking) the graves. This would have been possible when considering the interpretation that the youths had died and were then buried. If the interpretation of their disappearance is considered then a mausoleum built near to the location of their disappearance would still be said to be ‘over them’.

However, they did not succeed in building of a mausoleum over their graves in view of the disappearance of the youths from the scene. But, it is correct to translate the word (over them) literally in relation to the construction of mausoleum because mausolea are in fact built over the graves. But, this term mentioned in the aayat in relation to the erection of a Musjid means “near to them” or ‘nearby at the mouth of the cave’. It cannot and does not mean “over” the graves of the youths. There were no graves. The Men of the Cave were not buried. They simply disappeared into the mountain.

A Musjid’s purpose is different from the purpose of a mausoleum. The function of a Musjid is for the ibaadat (worship) of Allah Ta’ala. Stating this difference, Hadhrat Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), the Leader of the Mufassireen, said:

“They (the Muslims and the Kuffaar) disputed regarding the building. The Muslims said: ‘We shall build near to them a Musjid because they were on our Deen and died as Muslims.’ The Mushrikeen said: ‘We shall build over them a building (i.e. a mausoleum)‘”(Tafseer Mazhari).

The proposal for building a mausoleum, according to aayat 21 of Surah Kahaf, was the desire of the Kuffaar and Mushrikeen while the proposal for building a Musjid was the desire of the Muslims. Imam Raazi in his tafseer explicitly states that it was the kuffaar’s desire to erect a mausoleum, but according to the Qur’an the wish of the Muslim prevailed and a Musjid was built.

Understanding this negation of the erection of a mausoleum, the Raza Academy translated the word appearing in verse 21 of Surah Kahaf as ‘a building’. It avoids the word mausoleum because this very same Qur’anic aayat negates the mausoleum proposal by stating the prevalence of the Muslims’ desire of building a Musjid.

The Hadith prohibiting the erection of mausolea appears on the very page from which the Raza Academy cites the permissibility. The Hadith of prohibition is:

“Jabir narrated that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbade that the grave be built and that (a building) be built over it and that (anyone) sits on it.”   (Muslim)

Presenting the tafseer of this Hadith, Mulla Ali Qari states in Mirqat:

“It is said in Al-Azhar: ‘The prohibition of building graves is on account of reprehensibility. And this includes mausoleum.

The prohibition with regard to the building is on account of karahat (reprehensibility) if in one’s own property. And, it (the prohibition) is on account of hurmat (being haraam) if in a public cemetery. Demolition (of the mausoleum) is compulsory even if it is a Musjid (i.e. if the mausoleum is used as a Musjid).”

The permissibility stated by some sheikhs on which the Raza Academy relies is baseless. The permissibility view is in diametric conflict with the express prohibition of building mausolea stated by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Qur’aan in verse 21 of Surah Kahaf rejects the idea of a mausoleum as explained. Any view which contradicts the Qur’aan and Hadith has to be rejected regardless of it being the opinion of reliable sheikhs. The final word is the Fatwa of the Jamhoor Fuqaha and Ulama.

The erroneous opinion of any authority has to be incumbently set aside. But the grave-worshippers opt for setting aside the categorical command of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) for the sake of gratiating their Qabar Puja instincts. 

Even if it is assumed that the construction of mausolea is permissible, then too, these monuments of shirk will be banned because when corruption, kufr and shirk become associated with Ibaahat (permissibility), the permissible act becomes forbidden in terms of the principles of the Shariah. This is a unanimous principle of Islamic Law.

The Grave-Worshippers have attempted to enlist Shaami in support of their baatil contention. However, Shaami does not support mausolea construction. In Shaami it is stated:

“And, a building (i.e. mausoleum) shall not be raised over it (the grave): i.e. it is haraam…. Regarding (the erection of a) building over the grave, I have not seen any (Aalim) who has adopted its permissibility.”  

It is narrated from Abu Hanifah that it is forbidden to build over the grave any building whatsoever, be it a room, a dome or the like because Jabir (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbade the plastering of graves; writing on graves and that buildings be erected over graves. Narrated by Muslim and others.”

Regarding mausolea over graves, Imam Shafi said: “I saw the Aimmah in Makkah commanding the demolition of buildings erected over graves.” (Kitaabul Umm).

Muhaddith Allaamah Ali Qari Hanafi Makki said: “And it (acts of bid’ah) which the Aimmah of the Muslims have rejected, are such as buildings (mausolea) over graves and plastering of the graves.” (Mirqaat)

Shami further states: “It is not proper (i.e. not permissible) to bury the deceased inside a house even if it is small. This way (of burying inside a house) is exclusive with the Ambiya.”

This explicit ruling refutes the validity of the permissibility view. In view of the fact that burying inside a building is exclusive with the Ambiya, the unsubstantiated opinion of permissibility is unacceptable. 

The Raza Academy’s attempts to confer permissibility for the mausoleum proposal by citing Hadhrat Maulana Shabbir Uthmani’s tafseer is ambiguous and deceptive. Hadhrat Shabbir Uthman did not speak on the permissibility of erecting mausolea. He simply explained the dispute between the two parties regarding the type of construction to be built near the cave. The Muslim will of erecting a Musjid prevailed. Thus, Tafseer Uthmani states:

“However, those who were influential and powerful (i.e. the Muslims) in the city, decided to build a place of worship (Musjid according to the Qur’an) near the Cave.” (Brackets ours.)

The people of “deep devotion” who wanted to erect a mausoleum were in fact the kuffar. The rejection of this idea is stated in the very passage from Tafseer Uthmani cited by the Raza Academy:

“Yet, those laden with grief and those with competent power, decided upon the building of a place of worship (Musjid) near the Cave.”

Thus, the decision was to build a Musjid, not a mausoleum. The aims and purpose of a Musjid are widely different from those of a mausoleum.

Regarding their citation of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s statements, namely,

“The Hadith forbade all buildings on the grave but did not forbid a grave in the building.”

The permissibility of a grave inside a building is exclusive with the Ambiya. It is not permissible for non-Ambiya. Furthermore, the grave-worshippers acknowledge that the Hadith forbade all buildings on the grave. They are therefore compelled to concede that mausolea which are buildings on/over graves are haraam.

i) As mentioned earlier, ‘a grave inside a building’ is exclusive with the Ambiya. Only a Nabi may be buried inside a house.

ii) Hadhrat Thanvi’s statement (as cited by the Raza Academy) is explicit in stating the prohibition of erecting mausolea, hence it says: “The Hadith forbade all buildings on the grave.”  

The Bid’atis’ desire to erect a mausoleum in the cemetery is “a building on the grave” which according to Hadhrat Thanvi is forbidden. 

iii) Hadhrat Thanvi never meant that just anyone can be buried inside a building. He clearly held the opposite view.

In fact even the bid’atis refute the permissibility of a mausoleum over the grave of laymen. Stating this, the letter of the Raza Academy says:

Ordinary Muslims: The creation of a mausoleum for an ordinary Muslim is forbidden…..”

iv) Hadhrat Thanvi is well-known for his anti-bid’ah, anti-grave worship and anti-mausolea stance. It is therefore scraping the very bottom of the barrel to attempt to salvage substantiation for the permissibility of mausolea from any statements of Hakimul Ummat Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi.

In the tafseer of aayat 21 of Surah Kahaf in which the preference of erecting a Musjid is stated, Tafseer Qurtubi says in volume 10:

“Thus, erecting Musjids over the grave and preforming Salaat in them and building (mausolea) over them, etc. among the things coming within the scope of the Sunnah’s prohibition, are forbidden and not permissible because Abu Dawood and Tirmizi narrated that Ibn Abbas said: ‘Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) cursed women who visit the graves and those who erect Musajid (or mausolea) over the graves and those who (decorate the graves) with lights.’ Tirmizi said: ‘On this subject are (also) the narrations of Abu Hurairah and Aishah. The Hadith of Ibn Abbas is Hadith Hasan (i.e. a hadith classification). Bukhari and Muslim narrating from Aishah said that Umme Habibah and Umme Salmah were speaking of a church which they had seen in Habshah Abyssinia. In it were pictures. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Verily, those people, when a pious man among them died, they would build a place of worship over his grave and draw those pictures therein. They will be the worst of creation by Allah Ta’ala on the Day of Qiyamah.”  

Tafseer Qurtubi continues:

“Our Ulama said: ‘It is haraam for Muslims to make the graves of the Ambiya and the Ulama places of worship (Musajid)…… Therefore, Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) warned against acts like this and he closed the avenues which lead to it (idolatry).”  

He thus said: ‘Allah becomes greatly wrathful on people who make Musajid of the graves of their Ambiya and their saints.’  

“Regarding the high elevated buildings (mausolea) as (the people of) Jahiliyyah (pre-Islam period of ignorance) would erect for the purpose of honouring and venerating, these (the mausolea) shall be demolished and destroyed. Verily in it (mausolea) is the utilization of worldly adornment in the first stage of the stages of the Aakhirah and also (in it is) emulation of those who venerate and worship the graves (like the Qabar Pujaris). With regard to these meanings and the text of the prohibition, it is appropriate to say: It is Haraam. (Qurtubi, vol. 10)

In a baseless bid to prove the permissibility of erecting mausolea, the Raza Academy says:
“One of the proof that is usually given by those who object to the erecting of mausoleums is that in Islam, it is not permitted to build on the grave thus to erect “mausoleum is not permissible’.

In refutation of this claim we must say that the prohibiters of mausolea do not base the prohibition on the prohibition of plastering the grave. Such plastering on top of the grave is a separate haraam act apart from the erection of mausolea. The plastering on top of graves is forbidden whether a mausoleum is erected over a grave or not. The prohibition of erecting mausolea is based on the following factors:

1) The express prohibition stated by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the Hadith narrated by Hadhrat Jabir (radhiyallahu anhu), which reads: “Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbade that the grave be plastered (i.e. flattened and plastered over) and that (a building) be erected over it.” (Muslim)

The authorities of the Shariah clearly state that the Qur’aanic terms (in Surah Kahaf) mean ‘to build a building over the grave.’ Thus, the prohibition of mausolea is clearly stated by our Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

2) In Sahih Bukhari, under the heading, ‘The section on building a musjid over the grave’, the following hadith is narrated:

“Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) said: ‘When Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) became ill, some of his wives talked about a church they had seen in the land of Habshah, which was named Mariah. Umme Salmah and Umme Habibah (radhiyallahu anhuma) had come from the Land of Habash and they explained about the beauty of the church and (they mentioned about) the pictures in it. He then lifted his head and said:

‘Those people, when a pious man among them died, they would build over his grave a place of worship, then draw those pictures therein. They are the worst creation by Allah.”  

In another hadith Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) says:

“Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said during his illness in which he had died: ‘May Allah curse the Yahood and Nasara – they make the graves of their Ambiya Musjids’.”

In other words, it was the practice of the kuffaar to erect buildings, mausolea and places of worship over the graves of the Pious people. They then made these tombs and mausolea places of worship perpetrating kufr and shirk just as the Ahl-e-Bid’ah and Grave-worshippers of our age are doing. It was for this reason that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) invoked the la’nat (curse of Allah) on the builders of mausolea.

3) The Qur’anic verse no. 21 of Surah Kahaf negates the proposal of erecting a mausoleum. Preference was given to the erection of a Musjid near to the Cave.

4) An additional factor of prohibition apart from the first three primary factors is the irrefutable fact that ALL mausolea are haunts of bid’ah, shirk and other evil practices. Islam has no relationship with institutions of polytheism (shirk).

Presenting another utterly baseless argument in favour of tomb-structures (mazaars/mausolea), the Raza Academy says:

“The other objection made by those who are objecting to the Mazaars is usually this, that Muslims going there prostrate to graves. It is not a common practice for Muslims to prostrate or bow before graves. Neither do Muslims make Tawaaf of the graves. This is a baseless and flimsy accusation and if anyone acts in such an unIslamic manner, then this is not an argument to substantiate that Mausoleums should not be erected. As a matter of fact due to sheer ignorance, some Muslims even act un-Islamically in the Mosques. Does this mean that Mosques should not be built?”  

No, this does not mean that Mosques should not be build. The aforementioned statement of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah confirms that they acknowledge that acts of grave-worship do occur at the mausolea although (according to them) they are ‘not common’. But this is blatantly false. The truth is that the various acts of worship mentioned in this statement are, not only common, but are essential acts of worship associated with the mazaars of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah or the Qabar Pujaris. Only people who have absolutely no respect for the truth can deny these realities of grave-worship taking place at the mazaars. One can only dismiss the claim made in the statement with scorn and contempt for its blatant falsity.

The analogy which the Raza Academy draws between Mosques and mausolea is highly erroneous. While Musaajid are among the Maqaasid (objectives) of Islam, mausolea are objects of curse. While Islam commands the erection of Musajid, it denounces the erection of mausolea. In Islam there is absolutely no encouragement for the erection of mausolea.

On the other hand, there is considerable emphasis and great merit for the erection of Musjids. Since Musjids are integral institutions of Islam, they cannot be abandoned on account of the accretion of un-Islamic factors. On the contrary, mausolea have no significance in Islam. They are abhorrent structures. They lead to acts of grave worship, kufr and shirk, hence they are accursed. In view of these facts, they are banned even prior to their erection to prevent the spread of idolatry which is the very antithesis of Tauhid. It is thus baseless to argue the case of the mausoleum on the basis of the Musjid.

The Raza Academy alleges:

“These Mausoleums date back to the early days of Islam.”  

The “early days of lslam” in relation to the Shariah are the days of the Sahaabah and their immediate successors. None of the Sahaabah had ever erected a mausoleum. On the contrary, Hadhrat Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) once ordered the removal of a tent placed over a grave. The illustrious Fuqaha among the Taabieen did not teach the erection of mausolea. People of ignorance and bid’ah, much later erected mausolea over the graves of great Auliya and Masha-ikh.

The claim that l “learned Muslim scholars were responsible for the erection of Mausoleums” is devoid of truth. Ignorant men of bid’ah were responsible for these accursed haunts of shirk and kufr.

The claim that the righteous Ulama of India, Pakistan, etc., etc., support the erection of mausolea is baseless and false. Those so-called ulama aligned to the Qabar Pujari sect are the ones who support the structures of shirk and kufr known as mausolea or “Mausoleums” to the Raza Academy of Bid’ah.

To Summarise:
1) The Qur’an refutes the erection of mausolea.
2) The Hadith invokes Allah’s curse on those who erect mausolea.
3) The Authorities of Islam from the time of the Sahabah reject mausolea.
4) Mausolea are not Islamic structures.
5) All four Math-habs condemn mausolea.
6) Mausolea are associated with kufr and shirk which are inseparable from the institutions of mazaars operated by the Grave-worshippers.

The Ahl-e-Bid’ah should also understand that they cannot eke out substantiation for their desires of shirk by producing any seemingly conflicting statements of our Akaabireen (Senior Masha-ikh), whether it be Hakimul Ummat Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali or Muhaddith Abdul Haq Dehlwi. The instruction of our seniors is to discard any of their statements which appear to clash with the Proofs of the Shariah. Furthermore, the Bid’ah group is adept in the art of quoting out of context, presenting half-truths and attributing even blatant lies to the Ulama-e-Haq.

We say to the Qabar Pujari jamaat:

Present your arguments on a common platform, namely, the Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijma and Qiyaas. Any opinion in conflict with these Dalaa-il (Proofs) stands rejected regardless of the personality such opinion emanates from. It therefore, does not serve the Bid’atis any benefit to seek substantiation from ambiguous statements of some of our Seniors. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:


علماء دیوبند ﻣﻔﺘﯽ ﺭﺷﯿﺪ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﮔﻨﮕﻮﮨﯽ ﺭﺣﻤﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﭘﮧ اعتراض (ﮐﮧ ﺍﻧﮩﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﺩﯾﻮﺍﻟﯽ ﮐﯽ ﻣﭩﮭﺎﺋﯽ ﮐﻮ ﮐﮭﺎﻧﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﺰ ﮐﮩﺎ ﮨﮯ) کا جواب


ﺑﺮﯾﻠﻮﯼ ﺣﻀﺮﺍﺕ، ﻣﻔﺘﯽ ﺭﺷﯿﺪ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﮔﻨﮕﻮﮨﯽ ﺭﺣﻤﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﭘﮧ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻡ ﻟﮕﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻧﮩﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﺩﯾﻮﺍﻟﯽ ﮐﯽ ﻣﭩﮭﺎﺋﯽ ﮐﻮ ﮐﮭﺎﻧﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﺰ ﮐﮩﺎ ﮨﮯ ، ‏
(ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼ ﺭﺷﯿﺪﯾﮧ ﺹ : 575‏)

ﺍﻭﺭ ﺩﻭﺳﺮﺍ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻡ ﻟﮕﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﻓﺎﺗﺤﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺷﺮﺑﺖ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﭩﮭﺎﺋﯽ ﻭﻏﯿﺮﮦ ﮐﮭﺎﻧﺎ ﻧﺎﺟﺎﺋﺰ ﮨﮯ۔
‏(ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼ ﺭﺷﯿﺪﯾﮧ ﺹ 120:‏) ۔

ﺑﺮﺍﺋﮯ ﻣﮩﺮﺑﺎﻧﯽ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺿﺎﺣﺖ ﮐﺮﯾﮟ۔ ﮐﯿﺎ ﯾﮧ ﺻﺤﯿﺢ ﮨﮯ؟


‏(ﺍﻟﻒ) ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼ ﺭﺷﯿﺪﯾﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻏﯿﺮ ﻣﺴﻠﻢ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺳﮯ ﮨﻮﻟﯽ ﯾﺎ ﺩﯾﻮﺍﻟﯽ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﭘﺮ ” ﺑﮧ ﻃﻮﺭ ﺗﺤﻔﮧ “ ﺟﻮ ﮐﮭﺎﻧﺎ ﻭﻏﯿﺮﮦ ﺑﮭﯿﺠﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺣﮑﻢ ﺷﺮﻋﯽ ﺩﺭﯾﺎﻓﺖ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﮔﻨﮕﻮﮨﯽ ﺭﺣﻤﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻧﮯ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﮐﮭﺎﻧﮯ ﮐﻮ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﻟﮑﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﻇﺎﮨﺮ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮭﺎﻧﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺣﺮﺍﻡ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﮐﯽ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ؛ ﮐﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﮧ ﯾﮧ ” ﭼﮍﮬﺎﻭﺍ “ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ، ﻋﺎﻡ ” ﺗﺤﻔﮧ “ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﮔﺮ ” ﭼﮍﮬﺎﻭﺍ “ ﮨﻮ ﺗﻮ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﺣﺮﺍﻡ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺷﺒﮧ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ۔

(ﺏ‏) ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼ ﺭﺷﯿﺪﯾﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﯾﮧ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻟﮑﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﻓﺎﺗﺤﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺷﺮﺑﺖ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﭩﮭﺎﺋﯽ ﻭﻏﯿﺮﮦ ﮐﮭﺎﻧﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﺰ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ، ﺍﺱ ‏( ﺹ : ‏) ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﻮ ﯾﮧ ﻟﮑﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ” ﻣﺤﺮﻡ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺫﮐﺮ ﺷﮩﺎﺩﺕ ﺣﺴﯿﻦ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﺍﮔﺮ ﭼﮧ ﺑﺮﻭﺍﯾﺎﺕ ﺻﺤﯿﺤﮧ ﮨﻮ ﯾﺎ ﺳﺒﯿﻞ ﻟﮕﺎﻧﺎ ﺷﺮﺑﺖ ﭘﻼﻧﺎ ﯾﺎ ﭼﻨﺪﮦ ”ﺳﺒﯿﻞ“ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺷﺮﺑﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺩﯾﻨﺎ ﯾﺎ ﺩﻭﺩﮪ ﭘﻼﻧﺎ ﺳﺐ ﻧﺎﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺗﺸﺒﮧ ﺭﻭﺍﻓﺾ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﺳﮯ ﺣﺮﺍﻡ ﮨﯿﮟ“ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﮔﺮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺍﺷﮑﺎﻝ ﮨﻮﺗﻮ ﺗﺤﺮﯾﺮ ﮐﺮﯾﮟ۔


سوال: غیر مسلموں کے تہوار جیسے ہولی، دیوالی، کرسمس ڈے، کے موقع پر ان کی طرف سے بھیجی گئی مٹھائی کھانا، یا کوئی اور تحفہ لینا جائز ہے یا نہیں؟

الجواب بتوفیق اللہ تعالٰی:

غیر مسلموں کے تہوار کے موقع پر ان کی طرف سے بھیجی گئی مٹھائی کھانا، یا کوئی اور تحفہ لینا جائز ہے، چنانچہ ……

ابن تیمیہ کہتے ہیں:

“کفار کی عید کے دن ان سے تحائف قبول کرنے کے بارے میں: حضرت علی رضی اللہ عنہ سے مروی ہے کہ نوروز کے دن انہیں تحفہ دیا گیا تو آپ نے اسے قبول کر لیا۔

اور مصنف ابن ابی شیبہ میں روایت ہے کہ:

“ایک عورت نے حضرت عائشہ رضی اللہ عنہا سے استفسار کیا: ہمارے بچوں کو دودھ پلانے والی کچھ مجوسی خواتین ہیں، اور وہ اپنی عید کے دن تحائف بھیجتی ہیں، تو عائشہ رضی اللہ عنہا نے فرمایا کہ: “انکی عید کے دن ذبح کئے جانے والے جانور کا گوشت مت کھاؤ، لیکن نباتاتی اشیاء (پھل فروٹ) کھا سکتے ہو”

ان تمام روایات سے پتا چلتا ہے کہ کفار کی عید کے دن ان کے تحائف قبول کرنے میں  کوئی حرج نہیں ہے، چنانچہ عید یا غیر عید میں انکے تحائف قبول کرنے کا ایک ہی حکم ہے،

کیونکہ اس کی وجہ سے انکے کفریہ نظریات پر مشتمل شعائر کی ادائیگی میں معاونت (مدد) نہیں ہوتی”

البتہ کفار کی عید کے دن ان کو ہدیہ دینے حرام ہے، کیونکہ یہ انکے کفریہ نظریات اور عقائد پر رضامندی کا اظہار اور معاونت ہے، جو کہ حرام ہے،

یعنی غیر مسلموں کے تہوار پر ان کا تحفہ لے تو سکتے ہیں، لیکن انکو دے نہیں سکتے،

اس کے بعد ابن تیمیہ نے متنبہ کرتے ہوئے بتلایا کہ اہل کتاب کا ذبیحہ اگرچہ حلال ہے، لیکن جو انہوں نے اپنی عید کے لئے ذبح کیا ہے وہ حلال نہیں ہے، چنانچہ: “اہل کتاب کی طرف سے عید کےدن  ذبح کیے جانے والے جانور کے علاوہ انکے [نباتاتی] کھانے یعنی پھل فروٹ دال سبزی وغیرہ خرید کر یا ان سے تحفۃً لیکر کھائے جا سکتے ہیں۔

جبکہ مجوسیوں کے ذبیحہ کا حکم معلوم ہے کہ وہ سب کے ہاں حرام ہے،

خلاصہ یہ ہوا کہ: غیر مسلموں سے تحفہ قبول کر سکتے ہیں، لیکن اس کی کچھ شرائط ہیں:

1-  تحفہ (اگرجانور کے گوشت کی صورت میں ہے) تو شرط یہ ہے کہ انہوں نے اپنی عید کیلئے ذبح نہ کیا ہو،

2- اور اس تحفے کو انکی عید کے دن  کی مخصوص  رسومات میں استعمال نہ کیا جا تا ہو، مثلا: موم بتیاں، انڈے، اور درخت کی ٹہنیاں وغیرہ۔

3- تحفہ قبول کرتے وقت آپ اپنی اولاد کو عقیدہ ولاء اور براء کے بارے میں لازمی وضاحت سے بتلائیں، تا کہ ان کے دلوں میں عید  یا تحفہ دینے والے کی محبت گھر نہ کرجائے۔

4- تحفہ قبول کرنے کا مقصد اسلام کی دعوت اور اسلام کیلئے اسکا دل نرم کرنا ہو، محبت اور پیار مقصود نہ ہو۔

5- اور اگر تحفہ ایسی چیز پر مشتمل ہو کہ اسے قبول کرنا جائز نہ ہو تو تحفہ قبول نہ کرتے  وقت انہیں اسکی وجہ بھی بتلا دی جائے، اس کیلئے مثلاً کہا جا سکتا ہے کہ:

“ہم آپ کا تحفہ اس لئے قبول نہیں کر رہے کہ یہ جانور  آپکی عید کے لیے ذبح کیا گیا ہے، اور ہمارے لئے یہ کھانا جائز نہیں ہے”

یا یہ کہے کہ: “اس تحفے کو وہی قبول کر سکتا ہے جو آپکے ساتھ آپکی عید میں شریک ہو، اور ہم آپکی عید نہیں مناتے، کیونکہ ہمارے دین میں یہ جائز نہیں ہے، اور آپکی عید میں ایسے نظریات پائے جاتے ہیں جو ہمارے ہاں درست نہیں ہیں” یا اسی طرح  کے ایسے جواب دیے جائیں جو انہیں اسلام کا پیغام سمجھنے کا سبب بنیں، اور  انکے کفریہ نظریات کے خطرات سے آگاہ کریں۔

فائدہ: ہر مسلمان کیلئے ضروری ہے کہ اپنے دین پر فخر  کرے، دینی احکامات کی پاسداری کرتے ہوئے باعزت بنے، کسی سے شرم کھاتے ہوئے یا ہچکچاتے ہوئے یا ڈرتے ہوئے ان احکامات  کی تعمیل سے دست بردار نہ ہو، کیونکہ اللہ تعالی سے شرم کھانے اور ڈرنے کا حق زیادہ ہے۔

مفتی معمور-بدر مظاہری، قاسمی (اعظم-پوری)

Machine Slaughtering and the Shariah

By Mujlisul Ulama


Among the signs of the impending Hour of Qiyaamah is the commercialization of institutions of the Deen. Worldly and monetary motives will underline even acts of Ibaadat. Among such institutions of Islam which have become thoroughly commercialized are Hajj, Madaaris, and Thabah (Islamic slaughter). Mentioning the signs of Qiyaamah, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“The world will be pursued with acts of the Aakhirah.”

Acts of ibaadah will be made the media for achieving worldly and monetary goals. Of all the commercialized Deeni institutions, the Islamic system of Thabah (Slaughtering of animals) has suffered the most. No other Islamic institution has become socommercialized, so mutilated, and destroyed as the holy system of Thabah.

The last couple of decades have seen some of the worst scoundrels, thugs, deceits andeven munaafiqeen manipulating the Deen’s institution of Thabah for the realization of their mercenary agenda. Men who are the scum of mankind have ganged up in the form of carrion ‘halaalization’ outfits. The congeries of these vile outfits operating in a drunken stupor, driven to insanity by their inordinate lust for money, have destroyed every Deeni vestige with which the Qur’aan and Sunnah have adorned the holy system of Thabah.

Nothing – absolutely nothing – remains today of the Islamic institution of Thabah whose only purpose has become to parasitically suck from the business sector millions of rands for halaalizing carrion in the name of Thabah, and to promote the business empires of the Yahood and Nasaara. The commercialized so-called ‘halaal’ slaughteringis nothing but pure brutal torture, suffering and haraam killing of billions of chickens and animals world-wide in the name of Islam when in fact the chief supervisor of this sordid killing is Shaitaan himself.

Just as saahireen (sorcerers – perpetrators of black magic) are subservient to Iblees, so too are all these ‘halaal’ outfits the slaves of the Devil-in-Chief. –that Devil, Mardood, La-een, Iblees who had flagrantly  refused to prostrate for Aadam (alayhis salaam) at the Divine Command. These carrion and pork halaalizers are the illegitimate progeny of that Devil.

Not satisfied with the multi-million rand income annually flowing into its coffers, one pork and carrion halaalizing outfit in pursuit of more haraam boodle is contemplating halaalization of carrion produced by machine-slaughter.

Millions of animals are killed by machine in foreign countries, such as Europe and Australia. The satanic haraam agencies are exploring foreign markets to augment the haraam millions they are currently netting. Thus they are planning their evil case for the halaalization of the carrion produced by machine-slaughter.

In this brief discourse the Shariah’s view and ruling on the prohibition of machine-slaughtering is explained. It is hoped that Muslims will wake up from their slumber and struggle to rid themselves of the addiction of carrion meats, and not  plunge further into the cesspool of iniquity by consuming the filth which machine-slaughtering produces and which some  haraam ‘halaal’ outfits are  scheming to halaalize.


8 Rabiul Awwal 1433

31 January 2012



Of vital importance in understanding the Shar’i ruling on this question is to establish who actually is doing the slaughtering (thabah). Is the machine doing the slaughtering or the operator of the machine? There is no difficulty in establishing who or what is doing the actual slaughtering of the animal. The operator of the machine merely presses a button and the machine comes into action. The assistant/s merely usher the animal or bird into the slaughtering machine. Human action then ceases and the animal is automatically slaughtered by the power-operated machine. The only relationship which the human operator has with the process is to switch on the machine. The only relationship which the handler of the animal has is to steer the animal into the machine. Beyond this, they have no participation in the actual act of thabah. The act of thabah is effected SOLELY by the machine operating automatically, i.e. the actual cutting of the neck-vessels is done by only the machine. No reasonable person can deny this indisputable fact that the animals are slaughtered by the machine and not by any human being. Hence, in regard to the actual slaughtering it is conclusively proven that this is effected by the machine. We have now established that the slaughterer (the thaabih) in this case is the automatic machine and not the operator of the machine or the one who drives orushers the bird/animal into the machine.

About the thaabih (actual slaughterer), the Shariat decrees:

“And, among its (Shar’i thabah’s) conditions is that the thabih be a person of the’ millat of tauhid…….” (Hidayah)

“Among its conditions is that the thaabih is a Muslim or a Kitabi.” (Raddul Muhtaar)

There is absolutely no difference of opinion on this issue. Unanimously – according to all Matha-hib – has it been established that an absolute and obligatory condition for the validity of Shar’i thabah is that the act of thabah MUST be effected by a human slaughterer (thaabih).

Elaborating further on this Fardh (compulsory) requirement, the Shariat states:

“Among its conditions is that the thabih be an understanding person. Hence, the slaughtered animal of an insane person and a child who does not understand will not be consumed.” (Raddul Muhtaar)

Elaborating on the unlawfulness of the animal slaughtered by an insane person, Raddul Muhtaar states:

“Because an insane person has no intention. And, the validity of intention (qasd) is with that which we have mentioned, viz., the author’s statement: `When he is able to understand the Tasmiah, realizes the animal and possesses the ability (to slaughter).’ It is for this reason that he says in Jauharah: ‘The thabeehah (slaughtered animal) of a child who does not understand, of an insane person and of an intoxicated person who does not understand will not be consumed.’ (Shurambulaliyah)”

“Verily, an insane person has no intention (qasd.)” (Raddul Muhtaar)”

The slaughtered animal will be halaal if the thaabih understands the Tasmiah and the thabeehah.” (Hidayah)

“If he (the thabih) does not understand the Tasmiah nor understands (perceives orrealises) the thabeehah, it (the animal so slaughtered) is not halaal.” (Hidayah)

“And, qasd (conscious intention) has been decreed a condition in thabah.” (Minhajut Talibeen of Imam Nawawi)

The aforementioned references indicate very clearly that according to the Shariat, the thaabih (the actual slaughterer) must be a human being who possesses understanding or intelligence so that he may discharge the condition of qasd (intention) and understand what act he is executing. He, himself, i.e. the actual slaughterer MUST understand that he is slaughtering; reciting the Tasmiah, and he must perceive the animal. In short, one of the essential requisites of valid and lawful Shar’i thabah (slaughtering) is conscious-ness of the slaughterer. The following facts will be clear from the references cited above:

(a) The thabah (slaughtering) of an insane person although Muslim reciting the Tasmiah at the time of thabah and severing the required four vessels, is not valid. An animal slaughtered by an insane Muslim will not be halaal notwithstanding the fact that he has slaughtered “correctly”.

(b) If a child who is not of proper understanding effects thabah “correctly” by reciting Tasmiah and severing the four neck vessels, the animal will nevertheless be haraam.


The Shar’i emphasis on the essentiality of CONSCIOUSNESS, INTENTION and UNDERSTANDING of the slaughterer (thaabih) is abundantly manifest. It has already been established that the actual slaughterer in machine-slaughtering (the mode of automatic slaughtering effected by machines) is the automatic power driven machine, not the one who ushers the animals into the machine. In so far, as the machine is concerned the essential Shar’i requirement for the validity of Shar’i thabah, viz., consciousness is absolutely non existent. The animals slaughtered unconsciously by the machine being haraam is, therefore readily comprehensible and indisputable on the basis of Shar’i proofs. When the Shariat brands as haraam animals slaughtered “correctly” by children and insane persons who happen to be members of Islam, then to a greater degree will the Shariat apply its ruling of haraam to animals slaughtered by an inanimate and an unconscious machine. An inanimate machine does not enjoy a status higher than a child or an insane Muslim.

The reference cited above informs us that another compulsory condition for the validity of Shar’i thabah is that the slaughterer be a Muslim or a Kitaiabi, but the slaughterer in automatic machine slaughtering is not a human being. The slaughtering force in this case is an inanimate machine. Thus, in the absence of this condition too, the slaughtered animal of the machine is haraam.

The Shariat emphasises much the demand that slaughtering MUST be effected by a human being and that animals slaughtered by non-humans are haraam. It should not be assumed (as some supposedly learned people have done) that because of the non-existence of power driven, electrically    operated slaughteringmachines in the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Shariat is silent or ambiguous on the slaughtering effected by such machines. The Shariat of Islam is the Law of Allah Ta’ala which brings within the ambit of its decree all and every exigency and development until the Day of Qiyamat. Declaring its emphasis on human slaughtering, in negation of machine or inanimate and unconscious slaughtering, the perfect and all-embracing Shariat of Muhammadur Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) says:

“The shart (i.e. a compulsory stipulation for the validity of Shar’i slaughtering) is that a human being wounds the animal (in case of thabah idhtirari) or slaughters it. With out this (human slaughtering) it (the animal) will be like an animal which has been gored to death or an animal which has fallen to its death.” (Raddul  Muhtaar)

The slaughtering accompanied by all its Shar’i conditions (shurut) must be executed consciously and intentionally by direct action of a human being. And, by direct action, the Shariat means that the act of severing the required neck-vessels must be executed manually- the instrument (alah) of cutting to be wielded and directly manipulated by the hand of the thabih (slaughterer). The actual act of cutting must be effected by the instrument operated by the power of the human hand and not by mechanical power or some other external force. The Shariat emphasises the condition of  human power for the validity of thabah to such an extent that human power – man’s personal act – is stipulated as a condition for the validity of even thabah idhtirari (viz., killing the animal by means of an arrow or sharp instrument in case of game or even domesticated animals which have gone wild and out of man’s control). Thus Imam Shafi (rahmatullahi alayh) states in Kitaabul Umm, Vol. 2:

“Thakat (i.e. Shar’i thabah) is of two kinds. One kind pertains to animals over which man has control. In this class is thabah (actual slaughtering accompanied by all Shar’i conditions) and nahr (The second class of slaughter-thakat), pertains to animals not in man’s control. In this class (of thakat) the human being captures (or kills) an ‘animal by means of a silaa (sharp weapon) with his HAND (biyadihi); or a human being with his HAND shoots the animal with an arrow. Hence, it  (Shar’i Thakat or slaughter) is the ACT OF MAN’S HAND.”

Imam Shaafi’s repeated use of the phrase, “bi yadihi” or “with his hand” indicates the Shar’i emphasis on human power – the power of the human hand actually driving the knife or instrument to bring about thabah. Therefore, a type of “slaughter which is not the direct consequence of the power of man’s hand a slaughter in which the required neck-vessels are severed by an instrument NOT driven by the power of a human hand, but by mechanical power or some other external force,” will not be Shar’i thakat.

In defining Shar’i slaughter, Imam Shafi (rahmatullah alayhi) stresses,


If human hand-power was not a stipulation for the validity of Shar’i thabah, then Imam Shafi (rahmatullah alayhi) would not have defined such thabah as “the act of man’s hand” nor would he have stressed that the weapon must be wielded by man’s hand; neither would he have said that the arrow must be shot with man’s hand. If the driving force of man’s hand in effecting the thabah was not a Shar’i stipulation then it would have sufficed if Imam Shaafi (rahmatullah alayhi) had said: “with a weapon or with an arrow”. There would then have been no need to condition the wielding of the weapon and the shooting of the arrow with “man’s hand”. The Shariat thus very clearly negates automatic slaughtering in which an inanimate machine NOT driven by human power, executes the act of slaughter.

Thabah – not an automatic act

Automatic slaughtering has been invalidated by the Shariat in unambiguous terms. Stating the invalidity of automatic slaughtering, the authoritative and famous Book of Islamic Jurisprudence, Hidayah states in Volume 4:

“Thabah (slaughtering) is not attained (i.e. not valid) by means of only the instrument, but (is valid) by means of isti’mal (use). And, that (i.e. use) in both (the hunting dog and the hunting falcon) is by means of irsal (intentionally despatching or setting loose the dog or falcon in pursuit of the game). Hence, the irsal takes the place of shooting the arrow and driving the knife.”

Here two terms of utmost significance appear, viz., “isti’mal” and “imrarus sikkeen”. Isti’mal means “to employ”; “to use” and “imrarus sikkeen” means “the driving of the knife” or “to drive the knife”. This employment and driving of the knife must be effected by means of the human hand as appears elsewhere in the books of the Shariat, e.g. Kitaabul Umm cited above. Besides the clear text of the Shar’i verdicts on this issue, the grammatical connotation of the term, “isti’mal” a member of the word-class, Istif’al renders the translation of the term as: to seek use; to make use; to bring into action. The word category to which “isti’mal” belongs negates automatic use or automatic action from its meaning. An instrument could be used manually – by man’s direct force or it can operate automatically, without the direct force of man. If the instrument – the knife in our case – is driven by the force of man’s hand, it will be described as “Imrarus sikkeen”, and the term “isti’mal” will apply. But if the instrument operates of its own accord i.e. automatically – then it will not be described as imrarus sikkeen nor will the word isti’mal be applicable to it. On the contrary, the phrase, bimujarradil  alah which appears in the aforementioned quotation from Hidayah will then apply to it. The meaning of the phrase is: “by means of only the instrument”, in other words, automatic operation of the instrument or the operation of the instrument without human power or force. Hence, it is stated explicitly:

“Thabah (Shar’i slaughter) is not attained (not valid) by means of only the instrument, but by (it being) employed (or used).”

It is further clarified that the meaning of this “employment” or isti’mal is “to drive the knife”:

In case someone attempts to fallaciously argue that by switching on the machine, man is employing or “using” it, thereby fulfilling the requirement of isti’mal, and hence imrarus sikkeen, we better exhibit the fallacy of such argument. Firstly, it will only be one not versed in Arabic who will resort to such a baseless argument. Secondly, only one ignorant of the clearcut Shar’i meanings assigned to these terms, will argue thus. Thirdly, the statement of the Shariat, viz. (Thabah is not attained by means of only the instrument, negates this argument.

What does the Shariat mean by saying not that slaughtering is not valid if the instrument is used? The inference from this statement is clear. If the instrument is used, thabah is valid. If the instrument is not used, thabah is not valid. But, the question remains: If the instrument is not used, how could slaughtering be effected? In rejecting slaughter in which the knife is “not used”, but operates of its own accord – automatically -Shariat negates the assertion that isti’mal exists in automatic operation. In saying: i.e. slaughter by the instrument itself is not thabah, the Shariat accepts the fact that an instrument can slaughter or kill without the direct action of man, i.e. without the power of the human hand although such instrument is setup or set into motion by man’s operation or activity. In this case man’s operation is confined to setting the instrument into motion and is not extended to the actual cutting of the neck-vessels. The Shariat has beautifully illustrated such automatic slaughtering for us to ensure that we remain in no doubt and to protect adherents of the Deen from being hoodwinked by “fatwas” of the nafs.

In the following citation appears an example of automatic slaughter achieved by the operation or activity of man, but not with the hand-slaughtering power of man. Man’s operation is merely confined to setting up the apparatus which executes the slaughter.

“Thus, a pit dug (to trap game) is none of the two kinds of thakat  (Shar’i  slaughter) whether a weapon (silah a sharp instrument, e.g. spear, sword, dagger) is fixed in the pit or not.”

In this illustration a man sets up the apparatus to trap and wound/kill a wild animal. In the process his action is confined to the setting up of the apparatus and is not related to the actual wounding or killing. Since the animal was killed in the trap automatically and not by the power of the human hand, the Shariat proclaims the animal haraam and excludes this automatic form of killing from the definition of Shar’i thabah. On the contrary, if the man had killed the wild animal by directing the weapon to the animal with his own hands, then the animal would have been halaal. The Shariat gives as its reason for proclaiming this automatic killing haraam, the fact that human force was not utilized to kill the animal:

“The condition (shart) for the validity of Shar’i thakat is that the animal must be wounded by a human being or that a human being must slaughter it. Without this (human action), the animal will be like an animal gored to death or like an animal which was killed by falling.” (Raddul Muhtaar)

Illustration (b)

“A man sets up a spear (or any other instrument in a trap) for the purpose of hunting a zebra. After a while he finds the zebra dead (having been killed by the spear-trap). The zebra is not halaal… because the condition (for the validity of Shar’i thakat which renders an animal halaal) is that a human being wounds it or slaughters it. Without this (human action) the animal will be like one gored to death or having fallen (from a height) to its death.” (Raddul Muhtaar)

In this example, no pit was dug.  The apparatus of slaughter, viz., a spear was set up in a way which would wound or kill an animal passing by it. An animal was trapped in this spear trap and killed. The Shariat brands the animal thus killed as haraam because the act of killing was NOT the effect of direct human force. If on the other hand the animal was killed by the spear driven by the force of the man’s hands, then it (the animal) would have been halaal. This illustration furnished by the Fuqaha also clearly negates the validity of automatic killing.

Illustration (c)

“If a person sets up a sword or a spear (as a trap to kill game), then drives the game towards it (the sword or spear) and it reaches the sword/spear which slaughters it (the animal), its consumption is not halaal because the slaughter is without the killing of any person.” (Kitaabul Umm)

In this illustration too, the apparatus of killing is set up by a human being but in the actual killing of the animal, human force is not a feature. The killing is by the inanimate cutting device. The human being’s action in the process is confined to setting up or setting in motion the apparatus. Hence, the Shariat brands the automatically killed animal haraam and furnishes as its grounds:


In illustration (c), above, the operator of the apparatus (no matter how primitive the method of automatic slaughtering is in this illustration) is a Muslim who recites the Tasmiah when setting up the apparatus which will bring about the death of the animal. He then drives the animal towards the instrument which will kill. In other words, he operates his automatic-killing apparatus and drives the animal towards it. The animal is then killed automatically by the sword. The Shariat brands the animal as haraam since the cause of the killing is attributed by the Shariat to the apparatus and not to the man who operates the apparatus or the automatic machine. Automatic slaughter in terms of the Shariat is killing effected by any means without the direct force or power of the human being:

“The condition being that a human being must wound the animal or slaughter it…” (Raddul Muhtaar)

Illustration (d)

“A goat brushed against the knife which is in the hand of a person. As a result, it’s gullet and wind-pipe are severed. The goat will not be halaal.” (Minhajut Talibeen of Imam Nawawi)

In this illustration, the animal is killed, not by the act of a human being, but by the goat brushing against the knife. The killing is thus executed automatically, and the Shariat proclaims it haraam despite the fact that the knife is held in the hand of a human being and the required vessels are severed. (According to the Shafi Math-hab the vessels required to be compulsorily severed are the gullet and the wind-pipe, hence we have said, “required” here. However, according to the Hanafi Math-hab the required vessels to be severed are at least three.) The slaughtering although effected by a knife held in the hand of a Muslim, is nevertheless not valid according to the Shariat because such killing was not by the force of the human hand.


(In refutation of a fatwa which had declared the carrion produced by machine-slaughtering to be halaal.)

Hadhratul Allamah Maulana Mufti Mahmood Sahib, Mufti and Shaikhul Hadith of Madrassah Qasimul Uloom, Multan, Pakistan states about the automatic machine-slaughtering:

“After the explicit fatwa of the animal slaughtered by this (automatic) method being halaal, it is absolutely meaningless to merely say that this method is contrary to the Sunnat. Makruh, cruel or that the thaabih’s (slaughterer) act in slaughtering by this means is bad. Even if the one who presses the button be a Muslim and recites the Tasmiah at the time of pressing the button, then too the thabeehah (slaughtered animal) of the machine will not be halaal. On the contrary. It will be carrion.

It is evident that the only act of the one who presses the button is the restoration of the electrical power which was disconnected from the machine when it was switched off. In pressing the button, the operator has merely removed the impediment which restrained the activation of the machine. He merely removed this impediment thereby permitting the action of the machine. In reality, the blade of the machine and the cutter of the neck of the animal will bedriven by electrical power and not the driving force of the hand of a Muslim. Thus, the slitting of the throat of the animal is the act of the electrically driven machine and not the act of a Muslim.

In thabah, it is a shart (a compulsory condition) that the direct act, i.e. the driving force of the hand, of the thabih be effective in rendering the slaughter. But in regard to the machine, the act of the one who presses the button is confined to removing the Impediment. How then can the act of Tabah by removal of the impediment be asserted to be the act of the remover? How can the remover of the impediment be described as the thaabih? The following example will clarify this more.

(1) A Majusi (fire-worshipper) with knife in hand is about to slaughter an animal. Another person grabs hold of his hand restraining him from executing the act of slaughtering. A Muslim, then, reciting, Bismillahi Allahu Akbar, releases the Majusi’s hand from the refraining force (the grip of the one who was holding the Majusi’s hand) and he (the Majusi) simultaneously executes the slaughter, slitting the throat of the animal. Will the animal be halaal?

In this example the act of removing the impediment was rendered by a Muslim reciting the Tasmiah, nevertheless, in view of the fact that the actual driving force in slaughtering the animal was the Majusi, the animal thus slaughtered is branded haraam. The act of the remover of the impediment has not been considered here.

(2) Similarly, a sharp instrument or knife is suspended by rope. An animal is positioned under it. A Muslim reciting the Tasmiah cuts the rope and the instrument by virtue of its impact when it strikes the animal slits the throat of the animal. Will the animal be halaal? Will the actual act of slaughtering be attributed to the Muslim who removed the impediment? Will he be described as the thaabih and will it be said that the slaughtered animal is the thabeehah of a Muslim?

Most assuredly, the animal in both these examples will not be halaal. How can it then be said that animals slaughtered by a machine are halaal? What is the difference between the animal slaughtered by the methods in the examples and by the machine?

Even if for a brief moment this reality be overlooked and it be accepted that pressing the button is an affective and voluntary act (in so far as the slaughtering is concerned), it should be well understood that the act of the button presser for the switch-operator) ceases upon him having pressed the button. His act is non-existent in the motion of the machine and at the time of the machine cutting the throat. The machine moves continuously while throats are being cut. The machine-operator ceases his action prior to the slaughtering.

The fundamental difference between Thabah idhtirari (pertaining to game and animals out of control) and Thabah Ikhtiyari, the act of slaughtering is in fact, imrarus sikkeen (a Muslim driving the knife with his power), and in Thabah Idhtirari, rami (the act of shooting the arrow) and irsal (the act of setting loose the trained hunting animal) is proclaimed by the Shariat to be the substitutes of thabah. Imam Shafi (rahmatullah alayhi) also stipulates “human action” for the validity of Thabah Ihtiyari. In Kitabul Umm, page 198, Vol. 2, he states:

“Thakat is of two kinds. (1) That in which man has control over the animal. This form is thabah and nahr. (2) That in which man has no control over the animal. This form is that man kills the animal by means of a weapon with his hand or he shoots an arrow with his hand. Thus, it (Thakat) is the act of the hand. And, that which Allah Azza Wa Jal has made halaal by means of trained hunting animals which catch (game) with the act of man is like the arrow which strikes (with the act of man). But, a pit dug (to trap game) is none of the two kinds of thakat whether there be a weapon in it or not. If a man sets up a sword or spear, then drives the game (towards the sword-trap) and the animal reaches it and is thus slaughtered, its consumption is not lawful because it is slaughtered without the act of anyone (any human being).”

There is absolutely no doubt in the fact that animals slaughtered by the automatic slaughtering machine are not slaughtered by the act of a human being not does the power of man’s hand operate in slitting the throat. It is precisely for this reason that even a person of the least understanding will not attribute the cutting of the throat to the act of man, but will say that it is an animal slaughtered by the machine.

Qur’aanic Purdah – A Refutation of the Modernists’ Anti-Islamic Views

Note: In this age of closer proximity to the Day of Qiyamah, we are witnessing emergence of  modernists so-called “sunni shaykhs” and “molvis” who are implementing their own deviated opinions in the names of Islam and the Shari’ah. The worrying aspect is that such people are emerging from historically reputed educational institutions like Al-Azhar which has now deviated drastically from Siraat Mustaqeem, sadly this tumour of modernism is also spreading to other institutions  as well, may Allah Ta’ala by His Mercy save the students of the Deen from the tentacles of the modernists.

Nearly a decade ago, one of the modernist “Shaykh” of Al-Azhar named Muhammad Sayyid al-Tantawi had claimed that “niqab has nothing to do with Islam”, taking this as their “trump card”, the modernists have began to criticize the Islamic institution of Hijab and started issuing their shaytani pamphlets to deviate the laymen. It should be borne in mind that their will be many such modernists who will again and again proclaim such statements in the future, it is important to refute their silly arguments. The following article will refute one such pamphlet regarding the Niqab issue disgorged by a modernist:

By Mujlisul Ulama

Question: Shaikh Tantawi of the Al-Azhar university in Egypt has criticized the Niqaab and has urged that it be banned. Please comment.

Answer: Modernists and liberal so-called sheikhs are propagating against many teachings of Islam. We have answered the type of ignorance which Tantawi propagates in our booklet, Qur’aanic Purdah which refutes the baseless contention that Hijaab is a mere `custom’. The ignorant sheikh has lost the road.

Qur’aanic Purdah

By Mujlisul Ulama

A pamphlet, titled IS PURDAH ISLAMIC?, authored by a modernist group (A. Kays & Associates), is replete with kufr and baatil in that the views expressed are in diametric conflict with the Qur’aan and Sunnah. The pamphlet seeks to impress unwary and ignorant people with its so-called ‘research’ approach. But, only like-thinking modernists and ignoramuses will perhaps be influenced by the drivel written in the pamphlet in the name of research.

The very first paragraph of the pamphlet demonstrates the shallowness of the ‘research’ of deviate modernists who lack in entirety in the Shar’i conception of Imaan. Displaying gross ignorance, the authors of the pamphlet allege:

“IN THE FIRST PLACE the word Purdah is not Arabic (the language of the Holy Qur’aan). The Arabic alphabet has no ‘p’. Purdah is of Persian origin and it has many meanings:….”

This presentation is an attempt to befuddle the minds of people who are unable to think for themselves. If a term is not of Arabic origin, it does not follow that the concept or the teaching/practice which the term denotes is not Islamic – is not Qur’aanic. The conclusion which the modernist authors desire people to draw from their puerile observation is that the Islamic institution of Purdah/Hijaab is in actual fact not Islamic – not Qur’aanic – because the word Purdah is not Arabic. This conclusion is absurd.

NAMAAZ is not of Arabic origin. Nowhere in the Qur’aan does the word, NAMAAZ, appear. But it will be stupid and absurd to claim that the institution of Salaat is not Islamic – not Qur’aanic – because the term, NAMAAZ, is Persian. Only ignoramuses can venture such absurd conclusions.

Then the modernist authors seek to peddle the idea that the Fuqaha of Islam have designated the face-veil as PURDAH. In other words, it is their claim that Purdah as used by the authorities of Islam means the face-veil. This allegation is fallacious. Purdah does not refer to the face-covering. The face-veil is known as NIQAAB, not Purdah.

PURDAH is an Islamic concept. It is the Institution of modesty, antipromiscuity, anti-nudity and anti-vulgarity. It is the Islamic Institution which brings within its purview all acts and teachings pertaining to hayaa (modesty, shame and respect). The face-veil is simply one item of Purdah, just as dress is an item of Purdah. In the context of the Shariah’s order, PURDAH is applicable to both males and females.

The literal meanings (with which the modernists wish to impress) are of no significance and of no consequence. Of importance and significance are the Shar’i meanings and expositions attached to the term used to denote the Institution of Islam. Thus, the literal meaning of Namaaz is of no importance. The Shar’i meaning denoted by the Persian term, NAMAAZ, is of significance to the Ummah. Similarly, the literal meanings of the Persian term, PURDAH, are not our concern. Our concern is the Institution of Islam regardless of what word is used to denote it – whether a Persian, Chinese, English or Latin term. Different nations have different words to describe the Institutions of Islam. It never follows from the non-Arabic terms that the institutions these terms represent are not Qur’aanic or not Islamic. We should be concerned with meanings, not the words used to convey the meanings.

The Kays group says in its pamphlet:

“THE TERM generally indicated a woman in a veil, from head to toe, the face being covered.”

This statement is false. People who understand the meaning of Purdah never refer to a woman in a veil as ‘purdah’. While a woman in veil and cloak will be said to be observing purdah or hijaab, the term itself does not indicate a woman with veil as claimed by Mr. Kays and company.

Purdah as understood by its proponents (i.e. the authorities of the Shariah) means the Islamic practice of separation of the sexes. Every act of such segregation comes within the scope of Purdah or Hijaab. Thus when a man lowers his gaze when a shameless woman without veil comes in his presence, it will be said that he is observing purdah. When a man comes to a home and the females withdraw into seclusion, it will be said that they are observing purdah whether they are donning cloak and veil or seductive garments. Their act of segregating themselves from the males is called purdah, i.e. this particular act is part of purdah or an item in the Islamic concept of Purdah.

The Kays group states:

“PURDAH-NASHEEN means a veiled woman or one who stays behind a curtain or does not come out of the house.”

The Urdu/Persian word ‘nasheen’ means sitting. Purdah Nasheen women means women who live in Purdah, i.e. secluded from males. A woman who observes all Islamic demands of modesty and decorum in both dress and conduct, living in separation from ghair mahrams, will be described as a purdah nasheen woman even if she does not wear the cloak and veil in her state of separation and even if she wears revealing and seductive garments in privacy for the sake of her husband. On the contrary, a woman who wears a face-veil, but wanders around the streets and drives about in cars (i.e. she herself drives), is not a purdah nasheen woman. In a town in Kenya, women in droves prowl the streets after Maghrib. All of them wear a face-veil. A stranger will wonder at these ‘purdah nasheen’ females roaming the streets immediately after the Maghrib Athaan. For the benefit of the Kays group, these so-called ‘purdah nasheen’ females are all prostitutes plying their vile trade. Such women can never be termed purdah nasheen solely on account of wearing a niqaab (face-veil). Again we shall emphasise that while the veil is an item of purdah, it is not PURDAH itself nor is a woman with a niqaab necessarily purdah nasheen. The Urdu dictionary, Firozul Lughaat defines purdah nasheen as follows: a female who conceals (herself); a female who sits in purdah; a chaste woman; a (morally) pure woman. It does not mean a woman with a veil. If a woman donning a niqaab does not subscribe to the Shar’i institution of Purdah/Hijaab, she will not be described as a purdah nasheen lady of Islam.

The modernist writers of the pamphlet further claim:

“PURDAH is often confused with HIJAAB which is an Arabic word used in the Holy Qur’aan in several places.”

The confusion lies in the thinking of Kays and his associates. His allegation is tantamount to the claim:

“Namaaz/Prayer is often confused with Salaat which is an Arabic word used in the Holy Qur’aan in several places.”

If by Namaaz we refer to the Islamic Institution of Salaat – i.e. Salaat as taught by the Qur’aan and Sunnah – it will be absurd to claim that there exists confusion in using these words for Salaat. Similarly, if by the word PURDAH we mean the Islamic Institution of Hijaab, no confusion whatever is implied. Crooked thinking and oblique mental vision conjecture the idea of confusion.

In an attempt to impress ignorant people with their so-called ‘research’, the group presents a definition of Raaghib. Thus is it said by this group:

“The great Arab linguist, Raaghib, says it means a kind of obstruction/impediment which prevents the reaching of one thing to another, concurred by lexicologist Ibn Faras (Ref. Taaj and Muheet).”

The attempt to deny the Shar’i validity of the Niqaab (face-veil) by trying to sound academic, is futile and stupid. Instead of Raaghib’s definition of ‘al-hijaab’ being any substantiation for the baseless claim of the Kays group, it on the contrary provides proof for the Shar’i command of Niqaab. Raaghib’s definition applies aptly to the Niqaab because the Niqaab is in fact an “obstruction/impediment which prevents” the lustful gazes of men “reaching” the face of the woman donning the Niqaab. The Shariah imposes the Niqaab precisely to create the obstruction or the impediment so necessary for the maintenance of moral purity of both man and woman.

Undoubtedly, Purdah and Hijaab is one and the same thing. In the same way that Namaaz and Salaat is the same thing, Purdah and Hijaab is the same thing. It matters not that the terms Namaaz and Purdah are not Arabic. The teachings and demands of Purdah are identical with the teachings and demands of Hijaab. Insha’Allah, this will be substantiated with conclusive Shar’i evidence.

Since Kays and his associates are labouring under a gross misconception regarding the meaning of Purdah, they can ignorantly mock:

“They somehow misinterpret the Qur’aanic term to mean a Ninja-style veil, though the Holy Qur’aan does not say this, nor implies it even indirectly!”

(An implication is an indirect reference. Therefore to say: “nor implies it even indirectly!” is both superfluous and inaccurate.)

The reference of the above statement is to “Indo-Pak preachers”. By claiming that ‘Indo-Pak preachers’ propagate the incumbency of the Niqaab, Kays and his associates have displayed stark ignorance of the reality. The Niqaab is not restricted to India and Pakistan. The entire Arab World, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Turkey and most Muslim countries have adopted the Niqaab since the very inception of Islam in their lands. To this day innumerable Muslim ladies of almost every nation on earth don the Niqaab. It is only the modernist, immoral pseudo-Muslim women aping every style of the kuffaar West, who have renounced the veil. It is indeed a great travesty of the truth to aver that the veil is the invention of the ‘Indo-Pak preachers’. The Niqaab is the introduction and command of Islam – the command of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah of which Kays and his associates are wholly ignorant notwithstanding their childish research.

In a smattering outline of the ‘history of the veil’, the pamphlet claims that the following communities also had adopted the Veil of Virtue and Modesty:

The elites and priests of  the Assyrians.
➡ The Greeks.
➡ The Zoroastrians of Persia.
➡ The Jews.
➡The pre-Islam Arabs.
➡ Some castes in India among the  Hindus.
➡ Christians.
➡ Some Christian sects to this day wear the veil.

The modernists, in their ignorance, have failed to understand that the VEIL which formed part of the culture of all these and other communities was in fact a remnant of the Islamic Culture which they had inherited from their respective Ambiyaa (alayhimus salaam).

Allah Ta’ala has sent a Nabi or Rasool to every community. Man was not created and left like the beasts of the jungle to be nourishment for some other species of creation. Man was despatched to earth to prepare himself for the Aakhirah. Hence, a Rasool was sent to guide every nation to the Path of Jannat. In this regard the Qur’aan Majeed says:

“For every nation was a Rasool.”   (Aayat 47, Surah Yunus)

Whatever goodness and virtue are observed in non-Muslim communities, even in pagans, were inherited from the Shariahs of the Ambiyaa which were sent to the various nations of the world. Highly civilized nations such as the Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, etc., were not left to shaitaan and the vagaries of the nafs. A Nabi came to every nation. The rites of Hajj practised by the pre-Islamic Arabs were not the products of their paganism. They had inherited the rituals of Hajj from their ancestor, Hadhrat Ibraaheem (alayhis salaam). In the course of time, they drifted from the Path of Islam and corrupted all the acts of Ibaadat and the Beliefs which they had initially acquired from Hadhrat Ibraaheem and Hadhrat Ismaa’eel (alayhimas salaam).

That all civilized communities had the veil for their womenfolk, is indicative of this practice being a unanimous demand of civilized culture – culture which was brought and taught by the Ambiyaa (alayhimus salaam). On the contrary, nudity, semi-nudity, immodesty, female exhibition and the like are acts of shaitaan. Such acts of immodesty are the hallmark of uncivilized communities of savages and barbarians.

In Surah Ahzaab, aayat 59, Allah Ta’ala announces the command of Hijaab/Purdah pertaining to the covering of the entire body, including the head and face. Thus, Allah Ta’ala says:

“O Nabi! Tell your wives, your daughters and the women of the Mu’mineen that they draw over themselves their jalaabeeb (outer-cloaks or shawls)….”  

Kays and company defines the jilbaab as follows:

“The jilbaab was a fairly large piece of cloth draped around the neck and over the shoulders, hanging on the back as a showpiece, or to wrap around the  whole body.”

This description of the jilbaab is misleading and erroneous. Tafseer Mazhari describes the jilbaab as follows:

“It is a sheet (or shawl) which a woman wraps around her, ontop of her dress and head-scarf (khimaar)…. Ibn Abbaas and Abu Ubaidah (radhiyallahu anhuma) said: ‘The women of the Mu’mineen were commanded to conceal their heads and their faces with the jalaabeeb, except  one eye.”  

Tafseer Ibn Katheer states in its description of the jilbaab:

“Jilbaab is the shawl over the head-scarf (khimaar). This has been stated by Ibn Mas’ud, Ubaidah, Qataadah, Hasan Basri, Saeed Bin Jubair, Ibraaheem Nakh’ai, Ataa Khuraasani and others.

Ali Bin Ali Talhah narrates that Ibn Abbaas said: Allah ordered the women of the Mu’mineen that when they emerge from their home for a need, they should cover their faces from ontop of their heads with the jalaabeeb and leave exposed one eye.

Muhammad Bin Sireen said: I asked Ubaidah Salmaani about Allah’s statement (viz. they should hang over themselves their jalaabeeb). He then (practically demonstrated) by concealing his face and head, and exposing his left eye.”  

Tafseer Abi Sa-ood defines the jilbaab as follows:

“Al-jilbaab: Is a cloth bigger than the khimaar (head-scarf) smaller than the ridaa’ (shawl). A woman covers her with it from ontop of the head.

It is said that it is the shawl. It is every garment with which women conceal their faces and their bodies when they emerge (from their homes) for needs.

Sadi said that it conceals her one eye, and her face.”  

Commenting on the aayat 59 of Surah Ahzaab, Abu Bakr Jassaas says:

“Since it was the practice of the Arab women to leave their faces open like slave-girls, and this would invite the gazes of men, Allah and His Rasool ordered them (women) to hang down (irkhaa’) the jalaabeeb over them when they intend to emerge for their needs.

Ibn Abbaas and Ubaidah Salmaani said that it covers a woman so much that only her one eye remains exposed to enable her to see.”

All other authoritative books of Tafseer describe the jilbaab and the method of donning it in the same way as mentioned above, i.e. the jilbaab was worn from ontop of the head and covered the face as well.

None of the great and illustrious Mufassireen whose references we have cited was among the ‘Indo-Pak preachers’. The authorities from whose works we present our proofs are all Sahaabah, Taabieen and other great authorities of the Shariah.

The encyclopaedic LISAANUL ARAB of Ibn Manthur Jamaluddin  Muhammad al-Ansaari defines Jilbaab as follows:

“Jilbaab is bigger than the khimaar (the long head-scarf) smaller than the ridaa’ (the outer shawl). The woman conceals with it her head and breast.”  

These definitions presented by the authorities of the Shariah are adequate for understanding that the jilbaab is not a garment worn from the neck downwards. Even if it was worn in this fashion prior to the command issued for the observance of PURDAH/HIJAAB (i.e. to conceal the head and face), aayat 59 of Surah Ahzaab ordered women to conceal their heads and faces with their jalaabeeb henceforth. Their style of wearing the jilbaab beyond the home precincts was changed by this aayat of Surah Ahzaab. There is unanimity of the Shar’i authorities on this issue.

It should be further understood that the Arab Muslim ladies (i.e. the Sahaabiyyah or female Sahaabah) were accustomed to don a khimaar and a ridaa’. Khimaar is a big, long head scarf. Ridaa’ is the big sheet which is wrapped around the body. When they ventured out of their homes (i.e. even prior to the revelation of the PURDAH aayat of Surah Ahzaab), their hair, head, breasts and body were well covered. The command to ‘hang over them’ their jalaabeeb will be meaningless, if the purpose was merely to cover the hair. The order would have been redundant since the khimaar already took care of the hair and head. The ridaa’ took care of the body. But for greater and complete PURDAH with a view to thwart the evil and lustful gazes of the fussaaq and munaafiqeen, the command was issued to conceal the face with the jilbaab. And on this score there is copious evidence and the authoritative ruling of the Sahaabah and Fuqaha in general.

In Saheeh Muslim, the jilbaab is described as such a big garment which could be wrapped around two women.

The garment which normally covered the bosoms of the women was the large head-scarf (ornhi) which extended from over the head, down over the bosoms until the waist and even lower down. The Qur’aan Majeed mentions the khimaar distinct from the jilbaab. Thus, in aayat 31 of Surah Noor, the Qur’aan declares:

“They should put their khumur (plural of khimaar) over their bosoms….”  

With regard to the jilbaab, aayat 59 of Surah Ahzaab commands that they ‘hang their jilbaabs OVER them’. The head is part of ‘them’ and it is the point from which ‘hanging’ of the jilbaab is instructed. Its function is apart from the function of the khimaar. Its primary function is to conceal the FACE while the primary function of the khimaar is to conceal the head and the bosom. After the command was received, ladies would cover their faces in varying degrees depending on circumstances. Some covered their faces completely exposing only one eye to enable them to see. This was the standard way in which the jilbaab was donned. At times both eyes were exposed while some say that the greater part of the face was covered. But there is unanimity among the authorities of the Shariah that the purpose of the jilbaab was to conceal the FACE from the lustful and shaitaani gazes of the fusaaq and munaafiqeen and to distinguish the chaste females of Islam from slave-girls and prostitutes.

The following extract from our article, ISLAMIC HIJAAB (PURDAH), further explains the JILBAAB:

She must be properly and thoroughly covered in a loose outer-cloak which totally conceals her entire body including her face. In the following aayat, the Qur’aan Shareef commands this Hijaab:

“O Nabi! Say to your wives, your daughters and the women of the Believers that they draw over them their jilbaabs (outer-cloaks). That (covering with the jilbaabs) is the least (requirement) so that they be recognized (as respectable and honourable ladies) and not be molested (by evil men)”. [Surah Ahzaab, aayat 59]

A jilbaab is an outer sheet or cloak which during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was large enough to conceal two women. The way in which the ladies during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah wore the jilbaab covered them from head to feet including the face. The term yudneena – (they should lower or draw down) appearing in the above aayat orders that the cloak be drawn over from above and lowered in such a way as to conceal the face as well. Covering the face outside the home precincts was the standard and normal practice of the womenfolk during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In this regard Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) narrates:

“During the occasion of Hajjatul Wida when people passed near to us, we (the ladies) would draw the jilbaab over the head and the face. When they (the people) departed from us, we would open our faces”. (Abu Dawood)

Imam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) mentions in Ihyaaul Uloom:

“Women emerged (during the time of Nabi (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam) with niqaabs on their faces”.  

Niqaab is a cloth which conceals the face and not a transparent veil. In a Hadith in Abu Dawood an incident is described in which a young man was martyred. His mother, wearing a jilbaab fully covering her face came into the battlefield to enquire about her son. With face fully covered she appeared in the presence of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Some people were surprised to observe that the lady donned face-covering even during an emergency and on such a grave occasion. When she learnt of their surprise, the mother of the slain Sahaabi said:

“My son is lost, but my shame and modesty are not lost”.  

In Durrul Mukhtaar, the authoritative Islamic Law Book, the following verdict of the Shariah is recorded:

“Young women are compulsorily prohibited from revealing their faces in the presence of men”.  

These narrations are sufficient to indicate that it is an Islamic demand of compulsion for women to conceal their faces when circumstances compel them to leave the home boundaries. This practice of concealing the face was not a later introduction, but existed from the very time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Certain narrations which indicate that, women appeared in the presence of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) should not be misconstrued and understood to have been the normal practice. Such narrations pertain to either incidents prior to the revelation of the Law of Hijaab or to special circumstances which were exceptional cases and not the normal rule.

From the aforegoing discussion it should be abundantly clear that Purdah or Hijaab does not mean ‘niqaab’ or the face-veil. The Niqaab is rather an item of Hijaab/Purdah.

Regarding the Niqaab, Kays and company state:

“Niqaab or Burqa means the same, but the Holy Qur’aan does not use these words.”

It is surprising for so-called ‘research scholars’ to speak such drivel in a bid to refute the fourteen century practice of the Ummah. Of what significance is the non-appearance of these terms in the Holy Qur’aan? Does it mean that a practice is invalid and unsubstantiated simply because direct reference to it is not made in the Qur’aan Majeed? Any such conclusion is obviously not only Islamically absurd, but it is downright stupid. The number of Salaat raka’ts is not mentioned anywhere in the Qur’aan and so is a myriad of other Shar’i laws. Will it be sensible for anyone to conclude that the laws of Islam which are not mentioned in the Qur’aan have no validity simply because they do not appear in the Qur’aan Majeed? We need not dwell further on this self-evident absurdity and fallacy which the modernists are attempting to propagate.

Secondly, it is erroneous to claim that niqaab and burqa mean the same thing. The “Indo-Pak preachers” never made this claim. Niqaab refers to only the veil which conceals the face while burqa is the outer-garment or the jilbaab. The niqaab forms part of the burqa. In the early days, i.e. during the age of the Sahaabah, the jilbaab or the loose sheet served the purpose of covering the entire body as well as the face. The present day burqa is a more convenient form of jilbaab. The face-covering (niqaab) is a separate item attached to the outer-garb or sometimes it is  apart. Thus, the niqaab is part of the burqa, but it is never the burqa.

Although the words, niqaab and burqa are not in the Qur’aan Majeed, both these terms are Arabic and are mentioned in numerous Kitaabs of the Ulama of Islam many centuries before the era of the “Indo-Pak preachers”. The ladies of Arabia referred to their outer-garment (i.e. their  Purdah dress – their jilbaab) as ‘BURQA’. Thus, LISAANUL ARAB states:

“Al-Burqa: It is well-known to the women of Arabia.”  

Niqaab too is defined as “the cloth concealing the face of the woman”. These meanings could be ascertained from any Arabic dictionary. Both these terms are Arabic and not ‘fabrications’ of the “Indo-Pak preachers” as Kays & Co. would like Muslims to believe.

Undoubtedly, the “Indo-Pak preachers” borrowed the same Arabic terms to describe the outer-garb and the face-cloth which Muslim ladies had adopted. Any Urdu dictionary will describe burqa as:

“a kind of mantle or veil covering the whole body from head to foot.”  

On the other hand, niqaab is defined as only a veil. Since its function is to veil only the face.

Regardless of the non-appearance of these terms in the Qur’aan or whether niqaab and burqa mean the same thing, it cannot be cited in negation of the concealment of the female’s face in public because aayat 59 of Surah Ahzaab, the Ahaadith and the permanent practice of the Sahaabi ladies and of the Ummah down the long corridor of Islam’s fourteen century history bear evidence with the greatest clarity that it is Waajib for the female to conceal her face in public. The exercise to refute the validity of face-concealment by attempting to sidetrack the minds of unwary and ignorant people by the employment of fallacious arguments centring around words, is stupid and futile.

The pamphlet of the modernists asks:

“If the face was to be covered why the command not to look at it?”

Firstly, modernist logic cannot be employed to refute and negate the commands of Allah Ta’ala. Regardless of how logical an argument may appear, it cannot be cited to negate any teaching of the Shariah. The Qur’aan, the Sunnah and the Tawaaruth of the Ummah very clearly uphold the practice of concealing the face. This irrefutable practice of the Ummah cannot be negated and proclaimed invalid simply because some deviates in this belated century present their logical understanding. The clear-cut ahkaam of the Shariah cannot be abrogated by an implied conclusion extracted by modernists who have absolutely no footing, no grounding and no standing in the firmament of Shar’i Uloom.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah had greater and the proper understanding of the aayat in which Allah Ta’ala commands men to cast down their gaze. Despite their knowledge and understanding of the aayat, their womenfolk concealed their faces in public. And, they did not come up with the stupid doubts of kufr emanating from the modernists of our day.

Secondly, the instruction to ‘cast down the gaze’ is not restricted to viewing the faces of females. The Mufassireen, commenting on this aayat state that the prohibition to stare applies to all things which are unlawful to look at. Thus, a man should cast down his gaze even for young lads on account of the fitnah of being attracted to unnatural acts. Looking at any part of the satr of either man or woman is haraam. The thighs of males so much exposed in these immoral times also come within the scope of this prohibition to stare.

Thirdly, it is quite possible that inspite of having their faces concealed with a jilbaab to which a niqaab has not been fitted, the woman’s face may become momentarily exposed due to her movements. On such occasion, the man should lower his gaze.

Fourthly, when a man passes by a woman, he should lower his gaze even if her face is concealed. It is an act of misconduct and despicable to stare at a woman even if she is completely covered in her burqa. It is still necessary to cast down the gaze. It is indeed rude to stare at females even if they are covered in their jilbaabs with their faces concealed.

There is, therefore, absolutely no valid argument for the denouncers of Islamic Purdah in the verse instructing men to cast down their gaze. There is no conflict between this aayat and the Niqaab.

The aayat ordering down-casting of the gaze is not restricted to only Muslim women. Non-Muslim women do not wear the jilbaab. Muslim men will always have to cross paths with them in all times and in all lands. There is thus an imperative and a great need to cast down the gaze.

In a futile attempt to deny the Shar’i command for the woman to conceal her face in public, Kays & Associates say in their pamphlet of baatil:

“When the Hadith says, look properly at the prospective bride before proposing as it develops affection, but how does one see if the Command was to cover the face.”

“Research scholars” should display at least rudimentary understanding of the subject matter they desire to dilate. The Shariah allows a woman to expose any part of her aurah or satr for a valid need. If any part of her body requires medical treatment, then it is permissible for her to reveal that part. There are exceptions to all the rules of the Shariah. Opening up the face for the valid reason of marriage is lawful. This is a specific ruling of the Shariah in which there is no dispute. A specific situation or concession cannot be cited as a basis for the negation of the law itself. A woman is allowed to reveal her face, not only for allowing a prospective groom to see her, but also when she has to appear in front of the Qaadhi. But these concessions do not cancel the general prohibition. The Qur’aanic aayat commanding  concealment of the face (i.e. verse 59 of Surah Ahzaab) remains intact notwithstanding the concessions applicable to certain cases and situations. It is, therefore, childish to wonder: ‘how does one see….”

Kays & Associates display stark ignorance of the Shariah in the following statements appearing in their baatil pamphlet:

“The Holy Prophet (S) asked some women on Pilgrimage NOT to cover their faces and hands, even then they covered it when strange men passed by. It seems that the Commands on modesty had inspired a fashion, thinking that it was far better to incline towards more modesty than less.”

For their baseless conclusions which they raise on the grounds of Ahaadith which they have not quoted, they tender the following Kitaabs: Muatta-e-Imaam Maalik, Abu Dawood and Tirmizi. Let us now refer to Muatta-e-Imaam Maalik to ascertain the worth of the conclusions of the modernist group. The following Hadith narration appears in Muatta-e-Imaam Maalik:

“Naafi’ narrates that Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) said: The woman in ihraam should not place a niqaab on her face nor wear gloves.”

The instruction stated by Hadhrat Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) is for women in the state of ihraam. It does not apply for those who are not in ihraam. It is quite evident from this instruction that it was the practice of the Sahaabiyyah (ladies) to conceal their faces under normal and daily circumstances, hence the need to issue an express directive prohibiting wearing of the Niqaab during ihraam. One of the compulsory conditions of ihraam for ladies is that the cloth should not touch their faces. The usual niqaab cannot be donned without it touching the face, hence the prohibition. In the same way as it is forbidden for men in ihraam to cover their heads, so is it prohibited for women to cover their faces in ihraam in such a way which allows the niqaab cloth to touch their faces.

Another Hadith also in Muatta-e-Maalik:

“Faatimah Bint Munthir said: We would cover our faces in the state of ihraam when we accompanied Asmaa Bint Abi Bakr (radhiyallahu anhuma) and she would not object.”

They would don a face-veil in such a way which prevented the cloth from touching the face. The cloth would overhang on a protuberance placed on the head. This narration too substantiates that it was the normal practice of the ladies during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah to conceal their faces in public from the lustful gazes of men. Faatimah Bint Munthir mentioned that they did this in the company of the Sahaabiyyah, Hadhrat Asmaa (radhiyallahu anha), in substantiation of their practice of concealing their faces even during the state of ihraam. This is how strongly the ladies of Islam felt about the imperative need to conceal their faces in public.

Let us now study  the Hadith in Abu Dawood. Mujaahid narrates:

“Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) said: Travellers (on mounts) would pass by us whilst we were in the state of ihraam together with Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). When they came near to us, we would hang our jilbaab over our face. When they would pass (and be at a distance) we  would open (our faces).”

Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) states the Islamic practice on donning the niqaab with great clarity. It is abundantly clear from the attitude displayed by Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) and the other ladies with her that it was the practice for women to conceal their face, hence they considered it incumbent to do so even during the state of ihraam when it is not permissible to allow the niqaab cloth to touch the face. Thus, if the niqaab is worn in such a way by the muhrimah that it does not touch her face, there is no penalty since the Ihraam Prohibitions have not been violated.

On the occasion when Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) and other ladies of Rasulullah’s (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) House were on Hajj, Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam) had accompanied them. They would cover their faces inspite of being in ihraam when men would approach, but Nabi-e-Kareem (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) never reprimanded them or even requested them to refrain from the act of concealing their faces as Mr. Kays would like us to believe.

Let us now study a little the Hadith on this subject in Tirmizi:

In a Hadith narrated by Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) enumerating the prohibitions of Ihraam, he states that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“The woman in ihraam should not wear a niqaab nor gloves.”

In this narration it is clearly stated that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbade the donning of the niqaab during the state of ihraam. The prohibition is directed by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) exclusively to women in ihraam. This is categorically stated in the Arabic text of the Hadith. This prohibition further substantiates that it was the practice of the females in the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to wear a niqaab. It is therefore, silly, to say the least, to ascribe the practice of the Sahaabi ladies concealing their faces to some ‘fashion’ inspired by the Qur’aanic command to adopt Modesty and Purdah. If we accept for a brief moment that the ladies derived the inspiration for greater modesty from the Qur’aanic command, then no one has the right to denounce such holy inspiration, least of all modernists who are extremely ill-equipped in matters pertaining to Shar’i Uloom. When Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not prohibit women from wearing the niqaab when they were not in ihraam, when he did not prohibit them from concealing their faces in a particular manner even during the state of ihraam and when he did not forbid them from concealing their faces with their jalaabeeb, how can the modernists of Kays & Associate’s ilk arrogate such a right to themselves?

In a Hadith appearing in Bukhaari Shareef, Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) enumerating  the prohibitions of ihraam, said:

“Women should not wear the burqa (i.e. during ihraam).”

The burqa (or the jilbaab) entailed concealment of the face. In the context of the Hadith, her statement means that the burqa should not be worn in such a manner which allows the cloth of the niqaab to touch the face. In fact, in a narration mentioned earlier in this article, Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) explicitly says that they would hang their jalaabeeb from over their heads to conceal their faces when male travellers would approach. And, this was during ihraam.

From all the aforegoing Ahaadith it will be seen that the view expressed by Kays is a figment of his imagination. His claim that the practice of concealing the face in vogue during the time of the Sahaabah was simply a ‘fashion’ of “some women”, is ridiculous. It is false to claim that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had asked “some women NOT to cover their faces and hands….” This was specially meant for the state of ihraam, and even then they were not prohibited from concealing their faces in a way which prevented the cloth from touching the face. The Ahaadith of Hadhrat Aishah and Hadhrat Asmaa and of others bear ample testimony to this fact.

The attempt to induce people to swallow the falsehood that the niqaab, burqa and jilbaab are the creations of the ‘Indo-Pak preachers’, viz. The ULAMA-E-HAQQ of the last two centuries, is despicable. This fallacious supposition completely ignores that the institution of Purdah along with its items such as the burqa and niqaab, were in force during the age of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and were the direct product of the Qur’aanic Commands.

Kays and his associates claim:

“The word HIJAAB has been used as a misnomer for a garment.”

He then goes on to present a meaningless discussion totally unrelated to the topic. In the first instance, the word Hijaab is not used for a garment. Hijaab is used to signify an institution, viz., the Islamic institution of separation between men and women. There are various dimensions of Hijaab applicable to both males and females. Just as women have to adopt hijaab so too do men have to.

Words are immaterial. The meanings are of importance. Whether Qur’aanic or Islamic Salaat is called Namaaz, Prayer, or Dua, etc., is of no significance. If by these non-Arabic terms the proper Shar’i meaning of Salaat (i.e. Qiyaam, Qira’t, Ruku, Sujood, etc.) is conveyed, there is absolutely no Shar’i proscription in the utilization of such terms. Similarly, it is of no significance if alien terms are used to denote the Qur’aanic or Shar’i concept of male-female seclusion/separation. Whether the term is hijaab, purdah, niqaab, veil, face-cloth or pyjamas, it is of no significance as long as these terms convey the Qur’aanic meaning of the Hijaab verses and the Sunnah way of women observing modesty, viz., concealing their faces in public, remaining indoors, etc., etc. Mr. Kays is simply attempting to bamboozle the minds of unwary people by putting up an ‘academic’ front and discussing words. This is a plain attempt to sidetrack the issue and to pull wool over the eyes of unsuspecting people.

The claim of the ‘INDO-PAK PREACHERS’, i.e. of the Ulama-e-Haqq of India and Pakistan in this age is that the system of Hijaab they are advocating is the precise code of Modesty and purity of conduct which the Qur’aan and Sunnah command. This lofty code of Hijaab – Qur’aanic and Sunnah HIJAAB or PURDAH commands that:

➡ Women conceal their faces in public whether with a burqa, niqaab, jilbaab, outer-cloak or a blanket made of jute-sackcloth.

➡ Women remain within the precincts of the home and emerge only when necessary.

These are the main constituents of Hijaab which brings within its purview a host of acts and rules pertaining to Haya (shame and modesty) and moral purity.

All four Math-habs unanimously rule that during ihraam it becomes incumbent on women to conceal their faces from males. However, there is some difference of opinion regarding the manner of concealment.

This difference is explained as follows in BAZLUL MAJHOOD:

“….Verily, they (the Fuqaha) differ as to when it becomes necessary (to conceal the face) because of Hijaab for strangers (i.e. ghair mahrams). According to the Hanafiyyah and Shafi’iyyah it is obligatory to ensure that nothing of the (niqaab) cloth touches the face. It (the niqaab) should be kept at a distance from the face by means of some protuberance. The Hanaabilah and Maalikiyyah say that it does not matter even if the cloth of the ghitaa (i.e. niqaab) touches the face because of need.”

The entire world of Islam – all the authorities, right from the time of the Sahaabah, speak of Hijaab and Niqaab, but the modernist deviates lacking in Shar’i Uloom very audaciously put forward  their untenable baatil and fallacies.

Mr. Kays, in his pamphlet of baatil and confusion, embarks on a little discussion regarding the principles of Hadith. It is clear from his claims that the smattering of information he has gleaned about this branch of Islamic Knowledge amply displays his ignorance of Usool-e-Hadith. Infants should not attempt to swim in the deep waters of oceans. The comments of Kays on the categories of Ahaadith have illustrated his lack of understanding of the subject of Usoolul Hadith. He has seen somewhere that a certain Hadith is described by the authorities as ‘Mursal’ for example. He then concludes that such a Hadith is literally speaking ‘defective’, ‘weak’, hence ‘rejected’. He fails to understand that the terms given to Ahaadith narrations by the Muhadditheen are technical in import. It does not follow that Mursal narrations or Dhaeef narrations or Ahaadith categorized as AAHAAD are rejected, and the ‘rational’ law cannot be based on such an ‘Hadith’ as he claims.

He very ignorantly says: “This so-called Hadith is recorded by Abu Dawood (Sunan) who himself says it is Mursal.” This statement demonstrates that Kays does not understand even the definition of Hadith, hence he stupidly labels the narration, ‘so-called Hadith’. One qualified in the science of Usoolul Hadith, will not commit such a childish blunder which leaves us aghast in view of its emanation from one who professes to be a ‘research scholar’.

He further claims that it is the rule of the Muhadditheen and Fuqaha that if a Hadith does not belong to the Mutawaatir category, it can be discounted. This is utterly baseless.

Let it be understood that in the first instance, the science of the Principles of Hadith, unlike Usoolul Fiqh and Fiqh, is not binding on the Aimmah Mujtahideen and the Fuqaha who acquired their Ilm from the Sahaabah and the Students of the Sahaabah.

The conditions and principles of Hadith formulated by Imaam Bukhaari (rahmatullah alayh), for example, 200 years after the Sahaabah cannot be cited as a basis for the rejection of a fatwa issued by the Students of the Sahaabah or by the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen such as Imaam Abu Hanifah and Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayhima) who appeared long before the dawn of the age of the Muhadditheen. When a Mujtahid cites a Hadith in substantiation of his Fatwa, it automatically implies that the Hadith which is his basis, is an authentic Hadith in which there is no vestige of doubt irrespective of the category to which a Muhaddith had assigned to it a century or two later.

In the presence of Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen such as Hammaad,  Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Maalik and numerous others of the Taabieen age, Imaam Bukhaari and the many Muhadditheen of his age and thereafter are all infants.

Coming back to the question of the acceptability or rejection of a Mursal Hadith, let it be known that according to the Ahnaaf (Hanafis) and Maalikis, a Mursal Hadith is acceptable for Hujjat (for a firm basis on which to base Shar’i Law) without reservation. In fact, they assert that the ‘irsaal’ in the Hadith indicates the perfection of the authenticity. They have their proofs for their claim. This is not the occasion to elaborate. According to Imaam Shaafi (rahmatullah alayh) if the Mursal narration is bolstered in some other way, it will be accepted even if it has been categorized as Dhaeef.

For the benefit of Mr. Kays and his associates, he should be informed that regardless of the classification of the narrations, all the Ahaadith in the following Kitaabs are SAHEEH: Muatta Imaam Maalik, Saheeh Bukhaari, Saheeh Muslim, Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan, Saheeh Haakim, Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah and many others.

For his further information the Muhadditheen assert that all the Ahaadith in the undermentioned books are worthy of Ihtijaaj (i.e. to cite as a basis for a ruling) inspite of the fact that some of the narrations in these Kitaabs are classified as Hasan and Dhaeef. These Books of Hadith are: Sunan Abi Dawood, Jaami’, Tirmizi, Sunan Nisaai, Musnad Ahmad, etc.

The above have been mentioned  by way of sample. Only deviates and those plodding the Path to Jahannum will venture to pick up a few scattered pebbles from the multi-faceted science of Hadith Principles and throw them at the illustrious Aimmah Mujtahideen and Fuqaha who were in entirety independent of the presentations of Imaam Bukhaari and other Muhadditheen two centuries later.

Lest the thrust of our rebuttal of the baatil pamphlet be forgotten, we should at this juncture repeat that:

➡ The incumbency of the NIQAAB (face-cloth for concealing the female’s face in public) is the product of aayat 59 of Surah Ahzaab.

➡ This incumbency is supported by the general practice of the ladies of the age of Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam), of the ladies of the Taabieen age, of the ladies of the Tab-e-Taabieen age and of the ladies of the Ummah down Islam’s long passage of 14  centuries.

A Shar’i Practice which is upheld and supported by such a mass of solid proof can never be discounted by the oblique logic of the liberals and modernists of this age – liberals who hold no pedestal in the firmament of Shar’i Uloom.

Kays claims in his pamphlet that “rational law cannot be based on Mursal and Aahaad narrations which are to be discounted and rejected”. This he claims to be “the Rule of Law of the Muhaddith and Jurist”. He later cites a narration in which it is mentioned that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) stated that the male thigh is part of the aurah (i.e. part of the body which has to be compulsorily concealed). This particular Hadith has been variously classified by the Muhadditheen. Some say that it is Maudhoo’, some say Dhaeef, some say it is Hasan, etc. The Hadith appears in Abu Dawood, Bukhaari, Tirmizi and other Kitaabs. Inspite of its classification, the great Fuqaha, long before Imaam Bukhaari and the classification of the Hadith by the later Muhadditheen, utilized it as the basis for formulating the Waajib law of the male’s Satr. It is thus haraam to expose the thigh. This severe ruling has been issued on the basis of this Hadith which Kays asks Muslims to discount and reject.

The above is but one example of the formulation of LAW on the basis of Ahaadith which have been classified in the ‘weak’ category by the later Muhadditheen. It is indeed silly and irrational to seek to negate the Shariah formulated by the Sahaabah and Taabieen by bringing the Hadith classification of the later Muhadditheen in conflict with the system of the Fuqaha who had no need for the Hadith classification of the later Muhadditheen.

While these modernists have no respect for the Muhadditheen and do not accept the science of Hadith classification of the Muhadditheen, they only seek to extract support for their baatil views from whichever principle the Muhadditheen had formulated. If a principle of the later Muhadditheen seemingly conflicts with the verdicts of the Fuqaha, they will quickly and gleefully cite it in an attempt to reject the Faqih’s fatwa. It is for this reason that their statements and arguments are replete with contradictions.

Kays and his associates say that the Hadith pertaining to the ‘aurah’ is an Ahaad Hadith. In his definition of Aahaad Hadith, Kays says:

“….that if an Hadith is Ahaad (a single report) and not Mutawaatir (not repeated by other reliable recorders) then it is not an undisputed statement and can therefore be discounted.”

Far from discounting the ‘aurah’ Hadith, the Jurists have made it their strongest basis for declaring the thigh to be part of the aurah.

Kays has also failed to understand the meaning of Khabr-e-Waahid or Hadith known as Aahaad. He has defined it wrongly. Aahaad Ahaadith are classified into different categories. One category pertains to number of narrators in each epoch. With regard to this factor, this type of Hadith is divided into three kinds: Mash’hoor, Azeez and Ghareeb. This is not the occasion to go into detailed definitions of each kind of classification. It suffices to say that:

➡ All Aahaad narrations are not the effects of single reporters.

➡ It is not a principle that Ahaad cannot constitute a basis for the formulation of Ahkaam (the  ‘rational’ law stated by Kays).

This brief explanation on Hadith categories has been presented merely to show that Kays & Associates have no proper understanding of the branch of knowledge known as Usoolul Hadith.  

They are therefore  not competent to speak on this subject. As far as the Laws of the Shariah are concerned, the criterion is the verdict promulgated by the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen, not the classification of Hadith by the later Muhadditheen. When a Hadith is authentic by the Fuqaha, it becomes irrefutable evidence for the Law. The task of setting out the Shariah in a systematic form was entrusted to the Fuqaha whose age commenced with the age of the Sahaabah. 

The Students of the Sahaabah were the Fuqaha and the Mujtahideen of the first epoch. The Ahkaam which have been transmitted on the authority of the Fuqaha, long before the age of the Muhadditheen, constitute the Shariah.

In Ainul Hidaayah appears the following:

“The Ulama of the Taabieen era accepted a narration when its authenticity is established by them. Imaam Shaafi has stated this in his Risaalah. Ibn Abdul Barr said that this order (referring to a particular narration) is Mash’hoor according to the Ulama-e-Taareekh and Ma’roof according to the Aimmah among the Fuqaha. Thus it resembles Mutawaatir. Since it resembles the category of Mutawaatir, there is no need for a sanad.”

The following appears in Raddul Mukhtaar:

“When the Mujtahid deducts (a law) on the basis of a Hadith, it in fact is evidence for the authenticity of the Hadith.”  

Among the abundant nonsense contained in the pamphlet, we shall quote one more claim of drivel:

“What the Holy Prophet of Islam had done for the emancipation of womankind was mercilessly undone when the Khilaafat (rule by consultation) was seized for the father-to-son kingship of the Umayyads, assisted by their sponsored scholars.”

Mr. Kays is unable to decide who had “re-enslaved” womankind – the Umayyads who were all Arabs and closely related to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) or the “Indo-Pak preachers”? In this nonsensical slander we shall only discuss briefly at this juncture, Mr. Kays definition of khilaafat. He has defined khilaafat as “rule by consultation”.

In the same way as he has sucked many of his contentions from his thumb, so too has he sucked this one. Khilaafat does not mean rule by consultation. Khalifah means a representative or a successor. The Khalifah is the Representative of Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam) who in turn was the Khalifah of Allah Ta’ala on earth. While shura (consultation) is Sunnah in all affairs, the rule of the Khalifah is distinctly autocratic – subject to Divinely imposed Laws. 

He governs according to the Shariah, hence he is the Representative of Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam). The Khalifah is not obligated to follow the decision of any consultative assembly as the juhhaal modernists enamoured by the kufr concepts of western democracy would like us to believe. The decision of the Khalifah is final and absolute whether it conforms or conflicts with the unanimous decision of all the citizens in the land.

Mr. Kays should make a bit deeper ‘research’ to ascertain the literal as well as Shar’i meanings of Khalifah and Khilaafat. If he does, he will feel ashamed of advertising the nonsense which clutters his so-called ‘research’ pamphlet. May Allah Ta’ala guide the Ummah and protect the Imaan of the unwary from the ravages of shaitaaniyat.

Mr. Kays states in his pamphlet:

“Every thinking Muslim accepts the Holy Qur’aan as the only source of Divine Laws.”

Does the modernist wish the Ummah to accept that the countless millions of Muslims, the world over, from the inception of Islam down to this day, were not thinking Muslims on account of their allegiance to the views and verdicts of the illustrious Fuqaha, Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and Mufassireen, the first group of whom acquired their Ilm of the Deen from the Sahaabah? Does the modernist think that Muslims can accept that the great authorities of Islam from the age of the Sahaabah were not ‘thinking Muslims’ because they never propagated the lewd and libertine opinions which the kufr-mongering modernists inherited from their kufr masters and tutors at kuffaar universities? Does the modernist think that only he and his ilk are ‘thinking Muslims’ and those who devoted their lives to the pursuit of Qur’aanic and Hadith Ilm were not ‘thinking Muslims’?

Let the modernists understand that all thinking Muslims refute the contention that “the Holy Qur’aan is the only source of the Divine Laws

Mr. Kays and company, in their pamphlet of baatil, had attempted to disprove the rulings of the Fuqaha by presenting some Hadith classifications. They contend that a law cannot be formulated on the basis of a mursal narration. Then they presented the argument of Aahaad narrations, etc. Now, let them prove their contention from the Qur’aan, the “only source of Divine Laws”. Where in the Qur’aan does it say that “rational law” cannot be based on a mursal Hadith?

While the Ulama-e-Haqq cite the Qur’aan, Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah in support of the VEIL and Separation between men and women (i.e. HIJAAB/PURDAH), the modernist, in his pamphlet cites Lady Sukaynah, a great grand-daughter of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Where in the Qur’aan does it say that the act or views of a great grand-daughter of the Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), many decades after Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), constitute Divine laws? How come the views of the Lady have suddenly become transformed into Divine Law? Those who claim that the Qur’aan is the only source of Divine Law should desist from hiding behind the skirts of historical ladies when they are in a tight corner lacking in ability to present proofs from the “only source of Divine Laws”.

Those who claim that the Qur’aan is the only source of Divine Law, should confine themselves to only Qur’aanic verses. They have no right to cite Ahaadith. They have no right to cite any of the Fuqaha. Just as their citation of the bible or gita in substantiation of their arguments will be baseless and rejected, so too their arguments on the basis of Hadith, etc., are MARDOOD (accursed and rejected).

The Ummah believes in the Qur’aan, the Hadith and abide by the expositions of the Fuqaha who gained their knowledge from Rasulullah’s (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) Students. We are, therefore, entitled to bring into operation all Shar’i arguments in defence of the Haqq of Islam. 

On the other hand, the mulhideen and the zindeeqs – the modernists – donning external masks of Islam, have no right to cite any basis whatever other than what they have stupidly opined to be “the only source of Divine Laws”. May Allah Ta’ala protect Muslims from the villainy of Ilhaad.

Mr. Kays and his ilk should state unequivocally if they believe that Fajr has two raka’ts, Zuhr four, Asr four, Maghrib three and Ishaa four raka’ts. They must let the Muslim community know if they believe that 2½% Zakaat is Fardh every year. And, what are their beliefs about:

➡Burying the dead? Can we  cremate?
➡ Is it required of  Muslims to drape the body with Masnoon Kafan as everyone does this day?
➡ Does nocturnal emission of semen obligate ghusl-e-janaabat? ➡ Putting on Ihraam garb for Hajj?
➡ Observing the numerous rules of Hajj, Salaat and other acts of Ibaadat?

Yes, in short, what are your beliefs pertaining to the numerous beliefs and practices of Islam to which the Ummah subscribe?

If you accept the validity of the aforementioned enumerated acts of Islam, then on what basis? You believe that the Qur’aan is “the only source of Divine Laws”. Where in the Qur’aan is the number of raka’ts mentioned? Where is it said in the Qur’aan that every raka’t has one ruku’ and two sajdah? Where is it said in the Qur’aan that Surah Faatihah should be recited in every raka’t and At-tahiyaat be recited in a sitting after every two raka’ts? Where do the myriad of other Shar’i rules exist in the Qur’aan – “the only source of Divine Laws” in the opinion of the modernist?

Nowhere in the Qur’aan will Mr.  Kays and his associates find any reference for all the masaail of the Shariah, yet we are sure that even if he and his ilk reject the myriad of Islamic rules, they at least will ostensibly say that Five Salaat are fardh every day. If they do believe in this Pillar of Islam, let them show us where in the  Qur’aan  it  appears  that  Fajr, Zuhr, Asr, Maghrib and Ishaa are fardh Salaat. And, where in the Qur’aan does it say that Salaat is the NAMAAZ which every Muslim accepts?

Truly, these modernists are trapped in the quagmire of their own baatil and dhalaal. They are unable to distinguish day and night and right from left, hence their ‘research’ is a concoction of confusion, contradictions, absurdities, kufr and baatil.

In an absurd attempt to reject the Shariah of the Qur’aan, Kays presents this drivel:

“What we find today in some Kitaabs is mainly the result of deep penetration by the Zanaadeeq (Persian convert hypocrites) and the king sponsored scholars.”

What a disgusting conclusion for a ‘research scholar’ professing to be a Muslim? Which Kitaabs are you referring to, Mr. Kays? Enumerate the Kitaabs. Which Persian hypocrites are you speaking of? Let the Muslim community know of your inner thoughts concealed in ambiguity. Mention the ‘hypocrites’ you have in mind and state the names of their kitaabs so that the community can judge them and their kitaabs in the mirror of the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

Is Kays & Associates perhaps referring to Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) and his companions? Or to Imaam Maalik, Imaam Shaafi, Imaam Ibn Hambal (rahmatullah alayhim) and to the other countless Fuqaha of Islam whose thousands of Kitaabs are extant today? There are not only “some Kitaabs” as mentioned by Kays. There are thousands of Kitaabs authored by the greatest Fuqaha and Ulama of Islam. Kays should mention the “some Kitaabs” to which he has made reference.

Does Kays perhaps know and understand the sources from whence the vast treasure of Islamic knowledge has been acquired? Does he realise who were the fountain-heads of this Knowledge which is today to be found in thousands of Kitaabs? Does he know who the Shuyookh (Ustaadhs) of Imaam Abu Hanifah were? Most certainly not the “Persian convert hypocrites” whom he has imagined.

To enlighten him and others we shall outline the Avenues of Imaam Abu Hanifah’s Uloom. Once Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) speaking about the authorities from whom he obtained his Ilm said: 

“I acquired the Knowledge of Ibn Umar (who was a senior Sahaabi) from the Ashaab of Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). I acquired the Ilm of Ibn Mas’oud (radhiyallahu anhu) from the Ashaab of Ibn Mas’oud (among the most senior Sahaabah). I acquired the Ilm of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) from the Ashaab of Hadhrat Ali (a very senior Sahaabi). I acquired the Ilm of Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) from the Ashaab of Hadhrat Anas. I acquired the Ilm of Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) from the Ashaab of Abu Hurairah (a very senior Sahaabi).”

These five top-ranking Sahaabah, viz. Hadhrat Ibn Umar, Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Ibn Mas’oud, Hadhrat Anas and Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhum) were the Fountain-heads of the Qur’aanic and Hadith Knowledge of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh).

At this juncture there is no need for us to enumerate the very lengthy list of the names of the illustrious Muhadditheen, Mufassireen and Fuqaha (not Persian convert hypocrites) among the Taabieen who had acquired their knowledge from the aforementioned five senior Sahaabah. The numerous Fuqaha, Muhadditheen and Mufassireen among the Taabieen were the Ustaadhs of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh).

The same holds good for Imaam Maalik (rahmatullah alayh). The golden chain of his Ilm is closely linked to the Sahaabah. Thus, the knowledge which today exists in the innumerable Kitaabs of the four Math-habs of Islam is the authentic Ilm of the Sahaabah. The concoction of the “Persian convert hypocrites” is a fabricated figment in the minds of Kays and his associates.

Kays & associates should understand that they cannot befuddle and misguide the community by making stupid and sweeping claims which they cannever hope to substantiate with sound evidence. 

To say that what exists of Islam today is only the supposedly few kitaabs supposedly authored by imaginary “Persian convert hypocrites” is tantamount to claiming that Islam had died with the rise of the Ummayad Empire and for the past thirteen and a half centuries this Deen was hidden, mutilated and battered beyond recognition like Christianity, and that today in this age of kufr and evil some modernists who cannot even perform Salaat properly or who lack the correct knowledge of the rules of Tahaarat, have suddenly stumbled on the true Islam and gained the qualifications for correctly elaborating the Qur’aanic meanings.

Alas! These modernists cannot make even proper tilaawat of the Qur’aan. What do they understand of its meanings! May Allah Ta’ala save Muslims from the calamity of shaitaani modernism.


The ludicrousness of the modernist argument is dumbfounding. They seek to deny the validity of the Shariah by citing and distorting practices of individuals who have no rank in the firmament of Islamic Knowledge.

On the specific issue of PURDAH, the modernists in their attempt to scuttle the Qur’aan and Sunnah, cite the attitude and manner of Lady Sukaynah, the grand-daughter of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). In the first instance, the mulhideen have slandered this Lady by alleging that she did not observe PURDAH. Secondly, assuming that she was not in favour of PURDAH, her practice and view are of no significance as far as the Shariah is concerned. According to Mr. Kays she was 9 years old on the occasion of the episode of Karbala.

It is clear that she is not a Sahaabiyyah. Even if the modernists can present any of her statements (which they did not) to conflict with Qur’aanic PURDAH, it will be summarily rejected since the views of individuals carry no Shar’i weight if in conflict with the Qur’aan, Sunnah and the Ijmaa’ of the Ummah regardless of their noble birth and regardless of their family ties to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Now let Mr. Kays and his group cite Lady Sukaynah’s statements and inform us of the category her words occupy in the classification of the Muhadditheen. Kays was quick to embark on a puerile explanation of Hadith classification of the Muhadditheen. Now let him state Lady Sukaynah’s narration and its classification. Let him present the sanad of her riwaayaat and the class thereof, whether Saheeh, Dhaeef, Maudhoo’, etc., etc.

How can Mr. Kays expect the Ummah to be so stupid as to swallow unknown historical data of dubious origin and distortion in a bid to abrogate the Qur’aan, Sunnah and the authoritative rulings of the Fuqaha – the Students of the Sahaabah? Lady Sukaynah and other ladies of history have no ranking in Shar’i Uloom.

Their words and actions cannot be cited in abrogation of the Shariah. While the Ulama cite the Qur’aan, the Sunnah, the Sahaabah, the Fuqaha among the Taabieen and the unanimous practices of the Ummah, modernist deviates come up with the feeble, ambiguous and misinterpreted statements and actions of ladies who are unknown in Ilmi circles of the Shariah despite their noble linage.

Men who lack understanding in the application of Shar’i Law, in its Sources and operation should stick to their worldly occupations of monetary pursuit and not dabble in things beyond their mental capabilities.

The pamphlet of Kays & Associates is in entirety bereft of any Shar’i proof for their contentions of baatil. The modernist group has tendered only their personal opinion and a distorted version of the actions of an historical lady whose statements and acts do not constitute the Law of the Shariah. For people (the modernists) of such baseless opinion, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“Verily, the people of opinion are the enemies of the Sunnah.”

Islamic Ruling about Yoga

Question: Is it permissible for us as Muslims to practice yoga, as it is originally a kind of Hindu worship?


Praise be to Allaah.


There are differences of opinion among contemporary scholars on the ruling on practising yoga. Some of them are of the view that it is not allowed at all, others are of the view that it is permissible without any reservations. Yet others differentiated between some of its practices and others; they allowed those that are in accordance with shari‘ah and forbade those that are contrary to it. 

None of them denied – as far as we know – that the origin of this practice stems from idolatrous Hindu beliefs then Buddhism. Hence those who allow it in all cases took away from it anything that has to do with beliefs and spiritual matters, and passed the ruling on it on the basis that it is regarded as physical exercise. Those who forbade it did so because of its religious origins and the resemblance to those idol worshippers, and because of the harm it causes to the body, and other reasons. As for those who differentiate between one type and another, their opinion is not acceptable because it is not possible to eliminate the bad and because people are not able to distinguish between what is permissible and what is forbidden in it. 

So it is both spiritual and physical exercise which was originally aimed at reaching oblivion and entering into a state of connection with God!

In the book al-Yoga wa’l-Tanaffus (yoga and breathing) by Muhammad ‘Abd al-Fattaah Faheem (p. 19), it says: 

“Yoga in the sacred Indian language means union and contact with God, i.e., union between the body, the mind and God which helps man attain knowledge and wisdom and develops his thought by developing his knowledge of life; it protects him from sectarianism, religious fanaticism, narrowmindedness and shortsightedness when searching; it makes him live a life of contentment both physically and spiritually.” 

In al-Mu‘jam al-Falsafi by Jameel Sulayba (2/590) it says:

“Yoga is a Sanskrit word which means union; it is used to refer to a kind of spiritual exercise that is practised by the wise men of India for the purpose of union with the universal spirit. Yoga is not a school of philosophical thought; rather it is an artistic way of doing some exercises that release the soul from physical and mental gravity and take it step-by-step towards reality. The Yogi is the wise man who practices this way.” End quote.

Both quotes taken from Mazaahirat al-Tashabbuh bi’l-Kuffaar fi’l-‘Asr al-Hadeeth wa Atharuha ‘ala al-Muslimeen.

In the definition of Yoga we see that it means union, i.e., union of man with the spirit, which is the universal spirit, by which they mean God. Hence the aim of this practice is to be a way of combining all other religions. Dr Ahmad Shalabi – who is a specialist in the religions of India – says:

“The union of Buddha with the Hindu gods is nothing but a return to belief in ‘Jnana Yoga’ i.e., the ‘path of knowledge’ which sees truth in all religions and philosophies. But this truth is only a particle of the greater, complete truth. This school of thought does not object to any religion or philosophy; it thinks that any religion or philosophy is not everything and is not the whole truth. The one who believes in this way of thinking does not belong to any religion or school of thought, because he regards the followers of all different religions as his brothers, no matter how they differ. So Jnana Yoga is a way that encompasses all beliefs and refuses to be restricted by any of them. We should highlight the fact that propagating and promoting this way of thinking is aimed at fighting Islam indirectly. I have seen these attempts in several countries. Islam is the force that defeated both Christian and Buddhist missionaries, so if they can manage to divert people in one way or another – even in the name of Jnana Yoga that encompasses all beliefs and does not restrict itself to any one of them – that is a great victory for them. After they have managed to divert the Muslim from Islam at the end of this smart trick, then it is possible to make him doubt and then pull him into another sphere. So let the Muslim beware of Yoga and its trickery and those who promote it.” [Adyaan al-Hind al-Kubra , p. 174]

We think that forbidding it altogether is the correct approach. We have studied the words of many concerning this practice, and we have decided to sum up the comments on it from a book that deals specifically with the ruling on this practice, by a writer whom we trust with regard to his methodology and beliefs; he is a doctor who knows what he is saying when he criticises it even from a health point of view. This writer is Dr Faaris ‘Alwaan and his book is called al-Yoga fi Mizaan al-Naqd al-‘Ilmi , which was published in Cairo. Everything that we will quote below is from this book, but it should be noted that we cannot quote everything that it says in the book. Hence we will limit it to a definition of this practice and the discussion of the Islamic ruling on it; whoever wants to know more may refer to the book.


What is Yoga?

Yoga means union; one of its prominent teachers says that it is union of man with the spirit.
Yoga involves various exercises and rituals, but the most important and most famous of them is an exercise called Surya Namaskar [known in English as the “Sun Salutation”], which means in Sanskrit: “prostration to the sun on eight parts of the body”. And they defined these parts as the two feet, the two knees, the two hands, the chest and the forehead.

It is preferable for the one who practices yoga to be naked, especially the chest, back and thighs; to face the sun when it is rising and when it is setting if he wants Yoga that is sound and beneficial; and to fix his gaze and focus his attention on the disc of the sun, and be attached to it completely, which includes his body, his faculties, his mind and his heart. If he is in a built-up area and cannot see the sun, he is allowed to draw the disc of the sun in front of him on the wall. One of them said: If the one who is practising yoga is a believer in a religion and is concerned about committing an act of disbelief, there is nothing wrong with him drawing any image in front of him and focusing on it completely!

Yoga also includes pondering one’s body deeply and thinking of and examining every part of the body, starting with the toes and going up to the head when waking up and before getting up from one’s bed, and doing the opposite, from the head down to the toes just before sleeping, and it is not allowed to forget or be distracted from this important task!

Whoever wants to benefit from yoga should also be vegetarian.

And he has to repeat specific words out loud whilst doing these exercises. These words are called mantras, the most famous of which are the beeja mantras, which are hram, hreem, hraim, hraum, hara. Some syllables are also repeated in yoga, such as Aum (or Om).

In addition to that, it is essential to repeat the twelve names of the sun, because this is a major and important part of Yoga.

Names of the sun include:

Rafanama, which means, “I bow my head to you, O one whom everyone praises.”

Suryanama, which means, “I bow my head to you, O guide of all.”

Bahaanafinama, which means, “I bow my head to you, O bestower of beauty.”

Safeetarnama, which means, “I bow my head to you, O bestower of life” etc.

And they claim that this repetition is very beneficial.

One of those who practices yoga says that he wakes up at 3.30 a.m. and continues practising yoga and offering its special prayers until 6:15 a.m. And in the evening he does the same thing from 6 p.m. until 6:30 p.m.

Thus he spends three and a quarter hours every day practising yoga, and he says that some of them spend more time than that, claiming that the more time they spend on it the more beneficial it is. [Al-Yoga fi Mizaan al-Naqd al-‘Ilmi , p. 13-18]


The Islamic ruling on practising yoga

To sum up, it is not permissible for the Muslim to practice yoga at all, whether he does it on the basis of belief or imitating others, or because he is seeking a particular so-called benefit. That is due to a number of reasons which we may conclude from what is mentioned above, and which we will sum up as follows:

1. Because Yoga is contrary to Tawheed and involves associating other deities with Allah, may He be exalted, and because it involves prostrating to the sun and repeating its names.

Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Say (O Muhammad): I am commanded only to worship Allaah (Alone) and not to join partners with Him” [al-Ra‘d 13:36]

“If you join others in worship with Allâh, (then) surely (all) your deeds will be in vain, and you will certainly be among the losers”
[al-Zumar 39:65].

2. Because it involves imitation of idol worshippers and resembling them, and the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever imitates a people is one of them.” Narrated by Ahmad, Abu Dawood and al-Tabaraani from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him).

3. Because some of its practices are harmful to most people and lead to serious health consequences for them. Some of its practices involve sitting in a very strange and shameful way, and sitting in a lazy way, oblivious to what is going on around one. This is also harmful from a health and psychological point of view. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm.” Narrated by Ahmad and Ibn Maajah from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him).

4. Because it is a waste of time doing something that does not bring anything but harm and loss in this world, and calamity and despair in the Hereafter. The trustworthy Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “A person’s feet will not move on, on the Day of Resurrection, until he has been asked about four things: his life and how he spent it, his knowledge and what he did with it, his wealth and from where he acquired it and on what he spent it, and his body and how he used it.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi from Abu Barzah.

5. Because it is a clear call to imitate animals and detracts from human dignity, such as: adopting nakedness, resting on all fours in most of the exercises (Surya Namaskar or sun salutation) and the special posture in the third and eighth exercises.

6. Because many of those who tried to practice what is called scientific yoga or behavioural therapy fell into the pit of drugs and addiction, and this remedy has been proven to be ineffective and of no benefit.

7. Because it is based on lies and charlatanry; its promoters rely on deceit and twisting the facts in spreading it. Thus it attracted the attention of a large number of those who are simple-natured and many of those who are weak in faith.

8. Because a few of those who practice yoga or some other esoteric or deviant trends may perform extraordinary feats, people are deceived by it. But in most cases they are only using devils among the jinn as in the case of magic and so on, and this is haraam according to Islam.

9. Most of the advice given by the promoters of yoga is harmful to the individual, including the following:

(a) Nakedness and what it causes of cultural, sexual, psychological and physical diseases.

(b) Exposing the skin to the sun. We have seen the harm that this causes, especially when there is lengthy exposure to the sun.

(c) Fixing the gaze on the disc of the sun, which causes severe damage to the eyes.

(d) Encouraging a vegetarian diet for which Allah has not revealed any authority. [Al-Yoga fi Mizan al-Naqd al-‘Ilmi, p. 84-86]

And Allah knows best.

From islamqa.

Fireworks – Artefacts Of Iblees

Question: Is it permissible to sell fireworks? A Mufti says that there is ‘leeway’ for selling fireworks. He basis his ‘leeway’ on the fact that fireworks can be used for SOS flares. Is his argument valid? Please comment in detail.

ANSWER (By Mujlisul Ulama): How is it possible for any ‘leeway’ in a horrendously satanic haraam activity such as fireworks? A Muslim with healthy Imaan only has to follow Rasulullah’s command: “Seek a fatwa from your heart.”, and he will readily understand that there is absolutely no leeway for permissibility in buying, selling and playing with fireworks.

The factors which render fireworks haraam are glaringly conspicuous. It indeed boggles the mind that a Mufti is able to   mislead the unwary and the ignorant by saying that there is ‘leeway’ in fireworks. Among the   factors of hurmat which render fireworks haraam beyond any vestige of doubt are:

1) Shaitaani Israaf. Who is the Muslim who fails to understand the villainy and notoriety of sending up in flames and bangs the ni’mat of wealth bestowed by Allah Ta’ala? Once Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said to Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) that on the Day of Qiyaamah he will be questioned about even the dates he consumes. Then Nabi-e-Kareem (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) recited the Aayat: “And most certainly on that Day will you be questioned about the bounties (of Allah Ta’ala).”

Literally, fireworks is burning out the ni’mat of money, and this renders the destroyer and the ingrate the brother of Iblees as mentioned in the Qur’aan Majeed: “Do not be wasteful, for verily the wasters are the brothers of the   shayaateen, and shaitaan unto his Rabb was ungrateful.” Thus, those who send their money to Jahannam via the medium of fireworks are just as ungrateful to Allah Ta’ala as Iblees.

2) Fireworks are purely Tashabbuh bil kuffaar. It is a satanic activity initiated by kuffaar – Hindu mushrikeen and Christian kuffaar. Imitating the kuffaar is a major sin and could even deliver one to the brink of kufr.

3) Aggravating the Tashabbuh is the fact that fireworks generally as observed by the ignorant masses are resorted to on the occasion of Diwaali, Guy Fawkes, and in India even on the glorious auspicious Night of Laylatul-Baraa’t.

4) The seller of fireworks is worse than the actual perpetrators, for he arranges, brings together and prepares a whole community of juhala to indulge in this satanism. He needs to be impaled, executed and his corpse left on public display for days. He is the chief agent of shaitaan. He leads the   ignorant and unwary servants of Allah Ta’ala along the pathway to Jahannam where he will see and   suffer the real fireworks of Allah’s Athaab.

5) The time for this satanistic display is the night when Allah Ta’ala descends to the Fourth Samaa’ and calls out to His servants to seek His special mercy and forgiveness. At this auspicious time, the ignorant Muslims are worshipping Iblees with their firework-jahannami displays and indulgences.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) even forbade unnecessary conversation after Isha’. Allah Ta’ala has created the night primarily for rest, sleep and ibaadat. But the Mufti Sahib grants ignorant Muslims latitude and ‘leeway’ to indulge in shaitaaniyat during the holy moments of the night time.

6) Fireworks are not maal (tangible commodity) which could be merchandise for sale. The sale itself is baatil. The proceeds of fireworks are haraam. But the maajin (moron) muftis of this era in which jahl-e-murakkab (compound ignorance) preponderates, will dig out some obscurity to halaalize baatil.

7) Every year we have reports of injury to people and animals caused by the reckless shaitaaniyat of those intoxicated with satanism when they indulge in fireworks.

These are some reasons for the total and absolute prohibition of fireworks. It is indeed lamentable that an article has to be written   to induce understanding of an issue whose prohibition to understand is as simple as the prohibition of riba, pork, liquor, gambling and all major sins. May Allah Ta’ala remove the cobwebs from the brains of molvis who see ‘leeway’ in fireworks, alcohol, pictures of animate objects, carrion and the plethora of   western sins which the maajin characters are halaalizing on the basis of such ta’weel which is absolutely baseless, stupid and ludicrous. 

Thus, the SOS ‘daleel’ is pure, silly rubbish by which the mufti   advertises his jahaalat. Every moron knows that the millions of rands of fireworks of a great variety are not for SOS purposes. How can a mufti acquit himself so stupidly to disgorge the SOS trash to explain the varieties of haraam fireworks with which adults and children play and burn in the streets on Diwali and Christmas occasions? Indeed the brains have become vermiculated by shaitaani manipulation. 

SOS flares are rare episodes occurring in mid-ocean where no soul exists and no one is aware of. When mention is made of ‘fireworks’ every jaahil understands that the reference is not to SOS flares, but to the artefacts of Iblees for Diwali and Guy Fawkes and similar other kuffaar occasions.

The Shariah’s View on Voting in Democratic Elections

By Majlisul Ulama

Democracy is a kaafir system.The laws fabricated by this system are in conflict with the Shariah. When one votes in this system, one is appointing/electing a person to fabricate/make laws which are in conflict with the Shariah. It is therefore not permissible to vote in such elections. The Qur’aan Majeed states: “And, those who do not decree according to that (Shariah) which Allah has revealed, verily they are the kaafiroon.” However, if the situation in a country requires Muslims to vote for their own safety and welfare, then it will be permissible.

For example, in India, the Congress Party is a secular organization which pledges freedom of religion while the extremist Hindu Party has sworn to convert Muslims to Hinduism and to transform the Musaajid into temples of idolatry. Furthermore, the Hindu extremists are behind the riots which lead to the slaughter and destruction of Muslims. In such a scenario it is necessary for the Muslims to vote for the secular party which is not hostile to Muslims. Such voting will be with the intention of securing the safety of Muslims, and not for the purpose of being participants in the kufr law-making process.

If circumstances demand, there is scope for permissibility. But Muslims may not become part of the law-making process of the country. If there are Muslim members of parliament, it will be haraam for them to vote for any legislation which conflicts with the Shariah. If they do, they lose their Imaan, and this is precisely the status of most ‘Muslim’ members of parliament in all the countries,whether Muslim or non-Muslim. They all are murtads.