Category Archives: Basic Islamic Laws

Ruling on Selling Tobacco

Question: Is it permissible to sell tobacco and cigarettes? Is the income halaal? A Mufti says that it is permissible and the earnings of it are halaal.

Answer (By Mujlisul Ulama);

The mufti is the type whom the Fuqaha label as ‘maajin’ (a moron, a buffoon, a chap lost in compound ignorance). Tobacco is extremely harmful for the health. It causes cancer and a host of other destructive diseases. It ruins the health and the brains of the user. Such harmful and poisonous substances are haraam. One of the elements of hurmat (prohibition) is dharar (harm). A harmful substance is haraam. Ingesting poison is haraam whether the effects of the poison are immediate or delayed (slow-poisoning) such as tobacco.

In addition to the destruction tobacco inflicts on the body, brains and the rooh, its odour is offensive to Musallis and the Malaaikah. People reeking of the vile stench of tobacco should ensure that they change their stinking dress when going to the Musjid. The offensive stench percolates from the body onto the clothes.

Since tobacco is haraam by virtue of the element of dharar, it is haraam to sell it. The earning derived from this poisonous substance is likewise haraam. It should be given as Sadqah without niyyat of thawaab.

ELECTIONS, VOTING AND MUSLIM PARTICIPATION

By Mujlisul Ulama

WHAT SAYS THE SHARIAH?

Numerous Muslims are writing to us querying the permissibility or impermissibility of participating in the upcoming elections. Is it permissible to take part in the elections? To vote or not to vote? This is everyone’s question.

If Imaan is healthy and strong, the Mu’min will have no need for doubt and uncertainty, and to query this issue. The elements in the kuffaar voting system and the system itself are conspicuous and really are not in need of expert brains nor for much Shar’i knowledge. The glaring conflicts and contraventions which have to be committed by indulgence in the kuffaar system are too apparent and vividly clear and simple to understand. Regarding such glaringly conspicuous and simple issues, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Seek a fatwa from your heart.”

But the heart will issue the correct fatwa only if the Imaan is not contaminated, polluted and darkened with fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and even kufr which are dominantly prevailing maladies of the entire Ummah of this era. The deluges of doubtful food, haraam carrion, cellphone pornography, haraam earnings, etc., etc. have extinguished the inherent nooraani propensity and ability of understanding of Muslims. Thus they are unable to distinguish between Haqq and baatil, vice and virtue, haraam and halaal. To add to this misery, is the villainy of the scoundrel molvils and sheikhs who are promoting fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and even kufr in the name of Islam.

(1) The very system of governance of non-Muslims is in flagrant and wild conflict with the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Whether it is democracy or any other kuffaar-manufactured system of law, it is in conflict with the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Such a system of law is branded the law of Jaahiliyyah by Allah Ta’ala in the Qur’aan Shareef.

(2) Voting for a system which is in total conflict with the Qur’aan and Sunnah is haraam. This is an obvious Shar’i position which no Muslim with any Imaani understanding can deny. Only ulama-e-soo and bootlicking so-called ‘muslim’ politicians have the kufr propensity of denying Qur’aanic truths.

(3) All the candidates without a single exception are either kuffaar, fussaaq and fujjaar. They are crooks, bandits, scoundrels, looters of the public treasury, etc. If the candidate happens to be a professed ‘muslim’, he will, in addition to his fisq and fujoor, be a zindeeq or a munnafiq or a murtad. At the very minimum he will be a faasiq/faajir. Voting for such personnel causes the Arsh of Allah Azza Wa Jal to shudder.

(4) Besides the very concept and the system per se being haraam, the ramifications of participation in voting consist of haraam activities. Intermingling of sexes is the very first major sin a Muslim has to commit when voting. Photography, bootlicking, hooliganism, etc. are all inherent to kuffaar elections.

(5) ‘Muslim’ candidates who manage to win elections as representatives, rather agents, of some non-Muslim political party are constrained to seal their lips on Islamic issues and to promote the values, ethos and every haraam act of the party.

Just one current example of such kufr bootlicking is the campaigning for the elections by one faasiq, Ismail Vadi. He holds some post in the present government. Although he is known as a Muslim, perhaps he performs Salaat and fasts, he is first and foremost an advocate of the law of jaahiliyyah about which the Qur’aan states:

“Those who do not govern according to that (Shariah) revealed by Allah, verily, they are the kaafiroon.”

The Nusoos of the Shariah are numerous to condemn and excommunicate this character and all others of his ilk who masquerade as Muslims. This chap attended or visited the Lord is My Shepherd Church in Lenasia to campaign for the party he represents. He bootlicks the pastor and the politicians. His priority in life is the promotion of kufr law. In diametric conflict with the Qur’aan and Sunnah he calls on all, Muslims and non-Muslims, to indulge in gross Shar’i violations by participating in voting. He lacks understanding of kufr and Imaan. He is in terms of the Qur’aan Majeed: “Summum, Bukmum Umyun” – Spiritually dumb, blind and deaf. The thought of Maut, the Qabr and Qiyaamah is furthest from his mind and the minds of those who participate in the law of jaahiliyyah.

It is haraam to participate in any aspect of non-Muslim governance. Voting is not permissible. Furthermore, there is no imperative need (Shar’i haajat/dhuroorat) for diverging from the Shar’i prohibition. Pork cannot be consumed, even one morsel, when a person is not facing death due to starvation. The same principle is applicable to voting.

May Allah Ta’ala guide this bootlicking, humiliated community of Muslims.

The Pagan-Christian Origins of “Valentine’s Day”

What is it and Where did it come from?

Consider Valentine’s Day, a day that after dying out a well deserved death in most of Europe (but surviving in Britain and United States) has suddenly started to emerge across a good swath of Muslim countries. Who was Valentine? Why is this day observed? Legends abound, as they do in all such cases, but this much is clear: Valentine’s Day began as a pagan ritual started by Romans in the 4th century BCE to honor the god Lupercus. The main attraction of this ritual was a lottery held to distribute young women to young men for “entertainment and pleasure”– until the next year’s lottery. Among other equally despicable practices associated with this day was the lashing of young women by two young men, clad only in a bit of goatskin and wielding goatskin thongs, who had been smeared with blood of sacrificial goats and dogs. A lash of the “sacred” thongs by these “holy men” was believed to make them better able to bear children.

As usual, Christianity tried, without success, to stop the evil celebration of Lupercalia. It first replaced the lottery of the names of women with a lottery of the names of the saints. The idea was that during the following year the young men would emulate the life of the saint whose name they had drawn. (The idea that you can preserve the appearance of a popular evil and yet somehow turn it to serve the purpose of virtue, has survived. Look at all those people who are still trying, helplessly, to use the formats of popular television entertainments to promote good. They might learn something from this bit of history. It failed miserably) Christianity ended up doing in Rome, and elsewhere, as the Romans did. The only success it had was in changing the name from Lupercalia to St. Valentine’s Day. It was done in CE 496 by Pope Gelasius, in honor of some Saint Valentine. There are as many as 50 different Valentines in Christian legends. Two of them are more famous, although their lives and characters are also shrouded in mystery. According to one legend, and the one more in line with the true nature of this celebration, St. Valentine was a “lovers’” saint, who had himself fallen in love with his jailer’s daughter.

Due to serious troubles that accompanied such lottery, French government banned the practice in 1776. In Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Germany also the ritual vanished over the years. Earlier, it had been banned in England during the 17th century when the Puritans were strong.

However in 1660 Charles II revived it. From there it also reached the New World, where enterprising Yankees spotted a good means of making money. Esther A. Howland, who produced one of the first commercial American Valentine’s Day cards called — what else — valentines, in the 1840s, sold $5,000 worth – when $5,000 was a lot of money – the first year. The valentine industry has been booming ever since.

The history of Valentine’s Day serves as a powerful lesson for Muslims. St.Valentine became a Saint trying to resist free sex. Even though there was an attempt to Christianize it, today St.Valentine’s day is gone back to its roots. No one even knows that the Church even tried to ban the St. Valentine’s Day. Rather, most people think of romance, cupid and his arrow, which are vestiges of pagan Rome.

Pagan Origins of Valentine’s Day

The first information about this day is found in pre-Christian Rome, when pagans would celebrate the “Feast of the Wolf” on February 15, also known as the Feast of Lupercalius in honour of Februata Juno, the Roman goddess of women and marriage, and Pan, Roman god of nature.

On this day, young women would place their names in an urn, from which boys would randomly draw to discover their sexual companion for the day, the year, and sometimes the rest of their lives. These partners exchanged gifts as a sign of affection, and often married.

Christian Influence on Valentine’s Day

When Christianity came onto the scene in Rome, it wanted to replace this feast with something more in line with its ethics and morality. A number of Christians decided to use February 14 for this purpose. This was when the Italian Bishop Valentine was executed by the Roman Emperor Claudius II for conducting secret marriages of military men in the year 270.

Claudius II decided that single men made better soldiers than those with wives and families, so he outlawed marriage for young, single men, who made up his military. Valentine defied Claudius and performed marriages for young couples in secret. When his actions were revealed, Claudius put him to death. Another version of the story says that Valentine was a holy priest in Rome, who helped Christians escape harsh Roman prisons where they were often beaten and tortured.

Valentine was arrested and sent to the prefect of Rome for this. He found that his attempts to make Valentine renounce his faith were useless, and so recommended he be beaten with clubs, and later beheaded. This took place on February 14, 270.

According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, there are at least three different Saint Valentines, all of whom are Christian martyrs of February 14. One of them is described as a priest from Rome (as mentioned above), another as bishop of Interamna (modern Terni), and the third from Africa.

It was in the year 496 that Pope Gelasius officially changed the February 15 Lupercalia festival to the February 14 St. Valentine’s Day to give Christian meaning to a pagan festival. The holiday become popular in the United States in the 1800’s during the Civil War.

As well, Pope Gelasius ordered a slight change in the lottery for young women that would take place during the pagan festival. Instead of the names of young women, the box would have the names of saints. Men and women were allowed to draw from the box, and the purpose of this was to copy the ways of the saint they had selected for the rest of the year.

Pagan Customs of Valentine’s Day 

A number of the customs connected to Valentine’s Day originate in the belief in England and France during the middle Ages, that on February 14, birds began to pair.

Fourteenth and 15th centuries’ French and English literatures make indirect references to the practice. Those who chose each other as husband and wife on Valentine’s Day apparently called each other their Valentines.

In terms of the Valentine’s greeting “Your Valentine” which today you find on a number of Valentine’s Day cards, the above-mentioned Roman priest Valentine actually sent the first ‘valentine’ greeting himself.

While he was in prison awaiting execution, he apparently fell in love with a young girl who would visit him. Before he died, he allegedly wrote her a letter, signed ‘From your Valentine,’ In terms of the virtually naked, arrow-shooting cupid character, which shoots people with its arrows to make them fall in love, this character is a vestige of Roman pagan times. Cupid was described as the son of Venus, the Roman god of love and beauty. You usually find Cupid’s picture on Valentine cards and other paraphernalia.

Islamic Perspective on Valentine’s Day

We should avoid anything associated with pagan immoral practices – We do not need to honour or celebrate the death of a Christian “saint” – Islam does not encourage flirting or suggestions of romantic relationships before marriage – Love between families, friends and married people does not need to be celebrated on a day with such un-Islamic origins.

Question: In recent times, celebration of the Valentine Day has spread, particularly among female students. It is a Christian celebration, and it is (manifested) with fully red costumes, clothing and shoes, and exchange of red roses. What is the ruling on celebrating this holiday?

Answer: Celebrating the Valentine Day is not permissible because:

Firstly, it is an innovated holiday that has no basis in the Shari’ah.

Secondly, it calls to love and passion.

Thirdly, it calls to keeping one’s heart busy with nonsense matters which contradict the guidance of the righteous predecessors, may Allah be pleased with them.

So it is not permissible that anything from the signs of that holiday takes place on that day, whether it relates to eating, drinking, clothing, giving gifts, or other than that. It is incumbent upon the Muslim to be proud of his/her religion and that he/she does not blindly follow every crier. May Allah the Exalted protect Muslims from every trial, apparent and hidden, and that He give them protection and guidance. Ameen.

Question

Some people celebrate Yawm al-Hubb (Valentine’s Day) on February 14 [the second month of the Christian Gregorian calendar] every year by exchanging red roses as gifts. They also dress up in red clothing, and congratulate one another (on this occasion). Some sweet shops produce special sweets – red in colour – and draw hearts upon them. Some shops advertise their goods which are specially related to this day. What is the Islaamic view [concerning the following]: Celebrating this day? Buying from these shops on this day? Selling – by shop-owners who are not celebrating – the things which are used as gifts, to those who are celebrating?

Response: The clear evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah – and this is agreed upon by consensus (Ijmaa) of the early generations of the Muslim Ummah – indicates that there are only two ‘Eeds in Islaam (days of celebration): ‘Eed al-Fitr (after the fast of Ramadhan) and ‘Eed al-Adha (after the standing at ‘Arafah for pilgrimage).

Every other ‘Eed – whether it is to do with a person, group, incident or any other occasion – is an innovated ‘Eed. It is not permissible for the Muslim people to participate in it, approve of it, make any show of happiness on its occasion, or assist in it in any way – since this will be transgressing the bounds of Allah: “…and whoever transgresses the bounds of Allah, he has wronged his own self,” [Surah at-Talaaq, Aayah 1]

If we add to this fabricated ‘Eed the fact that it is one of the ‘Eeds of the disbelievers, it is sin upon sin. This is because it is Tashabbuh (imitation) of the disbelievers, and a type of Muwaalaat (loyalty) to them. And Allah has prohibited the believers from imitation of them and having love or loyalty for them in His Mighty Book (Qur’aan). It is also confirmed from the Prophet (sal-Allaahu ‘alayhe wa sallam) that he said: “Whoever imitates a people is one of them.”

‘Eed al-Hubb (the celebration of Valentine’s Day) comes under the category of what has been mentioned here, since it is one of the pagan Christian holidays. Hence it is not permissible for any Muslim, who believes in Allah and the Last Day, to participate in it, approve of it, or congratulate (anyone on that occasion). On the contrary, it is obligatory to abandon it and stay far away from it – in response to Allah and His Messenger, and to distance oneself from the anger of Allah and His punishment.

Additionally, it is forbidden for a Muslim to assist or help in this Valentine’s Day, or any other of the forbidden/illegal celebrations in any way whatsoever – whether by food or drink, selling or buying, production, gift-giving, correspondence, announcements, etc. All of these things are considered as co-operating in sin and transgression and disobedience of Allah and His Messenger. Allaah, the Glorious and Most High, says:

“… and co-operate with one another in righteousness and piety, and do not co-operate in sin and transgression. And fear Allaah! Verily Allaah is severe in punishment,” [Surah al-Ma’idah, Aayah 2]

Likewise, it is obligatory for every Muslim to adhere strictly to the Qur’aan and Sunnah in every situation – especially in times of temptations and corruption. It is incumbent that he/she understand, be aware and be cautioned from falling into the deviations of those whom Allaah is angry with and those who are astray and the immoral people who have no fear of punishment – nor hope of reward – from Allaah, and who give no attention at all to Islaam.

It is necessary for the Muslim to flee to Allaah, the Most High, seeking His Hidaayah (Guidance) and Thabaat (Firmness) upon the Path. Verily, there is no Guide except Allaah, and no One Who can Grant Firmness except Him.

Astrology and Palmistry: Differentiating the means from Cause

By Qafila blog

image

A scholar says that it is permissible to show one’s hand to palmist. ‘ilm al-ghayb is only known to Allah. No one denies that. The palmist only uses the means to assess and predict a future just like the weather forecast.

Moreover, it is also said that Sayiduna Idrīs ‘alayhi salām was granted the knowledge of astrology! How is it to use Astrology and palmistry in this capacity? How is it to believe in these?

Answer

Bismillāhi Ta’ālā

The general principle regarding “means” (asbāb) is that they should not be regarded as the “cause”, rather considering them as a means to conclude the outcome is permissible. However, sharī’ah has excluded ‘ulūm al-nujūm (astrology) from this principle. This means that sharī’ah has strictly prohibited deducing outcomes using astrology as a means (and not a cause).

It is not necessary to understand the reason behind this exception. Nonetheless, the apparent wisdom for this rule seems to be that people persist in it to such an extent that majority who revert towards astrology, tend to start believing in it. They no longer regard it as a means. Over and above that, there is no benefit in this knowledge, instead many a times one faces problems due to it.

(Since there is no conclusiveness on the wisdom of its prohibition) it can also be said that sharī’ah negates astrology being a means as well. This means that the aspects and factors which an astrologer looks at while assessing, sharī’ah classifies these factors to be fallacious. However, the generality of means is evident in the Sun and moon.

Another angle could be that astrology and farsightedness as an academic field is correct, however their principles are not established one any evidence. Hence, they are prone to much error, which many a times becomes a means of ill-wishing. Ill-wishing is a fitna and instilling negativity springs plenty a fouls. This is one of the reasons the process of identifying a thief through facial recognition is impermissible in sharī’ah.

It is mentioned that when someone wished to speak to Plato, he would ask for a picture of the seeker. Then by way of ‘ilm al-firāsah (farsightedness), if he happened to be worthy of being met, a meeting would be granted. Once Plato refused to meet a person on this very basis, and the visitor said that Plato’s farsightedness is not correct. This is because, the ills which Plato has found in me, used to be there at one time, but now I have rectified myself. When a person such as Plato can be deceived by this knowledge, and become a means of ill-feelings, then the harm is clearly plausible.

In any case, sharī’ah has strictly prohibited us from these types of knowledges. It is mentioned in Ṣaḥiḥ al-Muslim, “Whoever comes to a soothsayer and asks him anything, then his ṣalāh will not be accepted for forty nights.”

Similarly, it is mentioned in a riwāyah of al-Mustadrak and Musnad al-Aḥmad, “Whoever comes to a predictor or soothsayer, and he believes in that which he says, then he has renegaded (kufr) from that which was revealed upon Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)”.

image

It is mentioned in another riwāyah of Sunan al-Arbi’ah and Musnad al-Aḥmad, “Whoever comes to a fortune teller and believes in what he says, or comes to a woman in state of ḥayḍ, or approaches her from back passage, then he is free of what was revealed upon Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)”

‘Allama Ṭabrānī raḥimahullah mentions that whosoever comes upon a soothsayer and asks him of something, then a curtain is drawn between his repentance and him for forty nights, and if he believes the soothsayer, then he has committed kufr.

(قوله: والتنجيم) هو علم يعرف به الاستدلال بالتشكلات الفلكية على الحوادث السفلية. اهـ. ح. وفي مختارات النوازل لصاحب الهداية أن علم النجوم في نفسه حسن غير مذموم، إذ هو قسمان: حسابي وإنه حق، وقد نطق به الكتاب. قال الله تعالى – {الشمس والقمر بحسبان} [الرحمن: 5]- أي سيرهما بحساب. واستدلالي بسير النجوم وحركة الأفلاك على الحوادث بقضاء الله تعالى وقدره، وهو جائز كاستدلال الطبيب بالنبض من الصحة والمرض ولو لم يعتقد بقضاء الله تعالى أو ادعى الغيب بنفسه يكفر، ثم تعلم مقدار ما يعرف به مواقيت الصلاة والقبلة لا بأس به. اهـ. وأفاد أن تعلم الزائد على هذا المقدار فيه بأس بل صرح في الفصول بحرمته وهو ما مشى عليه الشارح. والظاهر أن المراد به القسم الثاني دون الأول؛ ولذا قال في الإحياء: إن علم النجوم في نفسه غير مذموم لذاته إذ هو قسمان إلخ ثم قال ولكنه مذموم في الشرع. وقال عمر: تعلموا من النجوم ما تهتدوا به في البر والبحر ثم امسكوا، وإنما زجر عنه من ثلاثة أوجه:

أحدها: أنه مضر بأكثر الخلق، فإنه إذا ألقى إليهم أن هذه الآثار تحدث عقيب سير الكواكب وقع في نفوسهم أنها المؤثرة،

وثانيها: أن أحكام النجوم تخمين محض، ولقد كان معجزة لإدريس – عليه السلام – فيما يحكى وقد اندرس.

وثالثها: أنه لا فائدة فيه، فإن ما قدر كائن والاحتراز منه غير ممكن اهـ ملخصا. (الدر المختار وحاشية ابن عابدين – دار الفكر (1/ 43))

And that which is mentioned about Sayiduna Idrīs ‘alayh salām being taught of astrology through means of waḥy, then:

Firstly: The report is not established authentically.

Secondly: The principle of astrology are established with proof, such that we say that this knowledge is exactly what has been mentioned in regards to Sayiduna Idrīs ‘alayh salām.

Thirdly: Majority of astrologers consider these stars to be cause for the outcomes, which is open shirk. (hence it cannot be attributed to Sayiduna Idrīs ‘alayh salām).

And Allah Ta’ala Knows Best,

Muftī Rashīd Aḥmad Ludhiyānwī raḥimahullāh.
Aḥsan al-Fatāwa Vol. 1 Pg. 54

صحيح مسلم (4/ 1751)
125 – (2230) حدثنا محمد بن المثنى العنزي، حدثنا يحيى يعني ابن سعيد، عن عبيد الله، عن نافع، عن صفية، عن بعض أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: «من أتى عرافا فسأله عن شيء، لم تقبل له صلاة أربعين ليلة»

المستدرك على الصحيحين للحاكم (1/ 49)
15 – أخبرنا أبو عبد الله محمد بن عبد الله الصفار، ثنا أحمد بن مهران الأصبهاني، حدثنا عبيد الله بن موسى، حدثنا عوف بن أبي جميلة، وأخبرنا عبد الله بن الحسين القاضي بمرو، حدثنا الحارث بن أبي أسامة، حدثنا روح بن عبادة، حدثنا عوف، عن خلاس، ومحمد، عن أبي هريرة، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «من أتى عرافا أو كاهنا فصدقه فيما يقول، فقد كفر بما أنزل على محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم» . «هذا حديث صحيح على شرطهما جميعا من حديث ابن سيرين، ولم يخرجاه، وحدث البخاري، عن إسحاق، عن روح، عن عوف، عن خلاس، ومحمد، عن أبي هريرة قصة موسى أنه آدر»

سنن أبي داود – المكتبة العصرية (4/ 15)
3904 – حدثنا موسى بن إسماعيل، حدثنا حماد، ح وحدثنا مسدد، حدثنا يحيى، عن حماد بن سلمة، عن حكيم الأثرم، عن أبي تميمة، عن أبي هريرة، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: «من أتى كاهنا» قال موسى في حديثه «فصدقه بما يقول» ثم اتفقا «أو أتى امرأة» قال مسدد: «امرأته حائضا أو أتى امرأة» قال مسدد: «امرأته في دبرها فقد برئ مما أنزل على محمد»

المعجم الكبير للطبراني (22/ 69)
169 – حدثنا علي بن عبد العزيز، ثنا سليمان بن أحمد الواسطي، ثنا يحيى بن الحجاج، ثنا عيسى بن سنان، عن أبي بكر بن بشير قال: سمعت واثلة بن الأسقع يقول: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: «من أتى كاهنا فسأله عن شيء حجبت عنه التوبة أربعين ليلة، فإن صدقه بما قال كفر»

STUNNED ANIMALS ARE NOT HALAAL

By Mujlisul Ulama

THE OPINION OF THE HALAAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE OF MAURITIUS IS INVALID AND BASELESS.

In an opinion expressed by Mufti Mackoojee of the Halaal Research Committee of Mauritius, the view of permissibility of stunning with the consequence of halaal meat is propounded in stark contravention of the Shariah.

The Mufti says: “The Halaal Research Committee on the other hand, have (has) the moderation to accept stunning.” The ground for its wholehearted acceptance of the haraam and brutal method of stunning animals, is stated by the Mufti to be: “Because it simply conforms to the Qur-aan and Sunnah.”

The Mufti has displayed lamentable ignorance of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. It is incredible for a Mufti to portray such gross jahaalat of the divine system of Thabah as to baselessly and falsely attribute a brazen lie  to the Shariah by claiming that the brutal kuffaar stunning method conforms to the Qur’aan and Sunnah. He has not presented a single nass from the Qur’aan, Ahaadith or from the statements of the Fuqaha and our Akaabir Ulama to substantiate the satanically baatil claim of the satanic method of stunning conforming to the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

Far, extremely far from the Qur’aan and Sunnah, according to Hakimul Ummat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh), stunning while being haraam, is tantamount to kufr if approved and believed to be a valid and a virtuous system. Relative to Mufti Mackoojee, he is guilty of kufr on the basis of his tahseen (approval) of this kuffaar shaitaani method. To the best of our knowledge, not even the vile halaal certificate cartel comprising of SANHA, MJC, NIHT, etc., has made tahseen of stunning. For the sake of perpetuating the flow of the boodle into their haraam coffers, the cartel has reluctantly  accepted the method without believing it to conform with the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Thus, whilst these carrion halaalizers are committing blatant haraam, Mufti Mackoojee is guilty of blatant kufr by making tahseen of a kuffaar method which is in stark conflict with the method revealed to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by Allah Azza Wa Jal. We therefore urge the Mufti to retract his baatil  view, to renew his Imaan and to make Taubah for the kufr  which he has attempted to pass off as a Shar’i injunction – as a hukm ordered by the Shariah.

The poor mufti, despite claiming conformity with the Qur’aan and Sunnah, is constrained to admit the possibility of the stunned  animals  perishing prior to Thabah, hence he says:  “Nonetheless, if the animal is found dead after stunning, then it is a carrion and a carcass and hence haraam. Slaughtering it will not render it halaal.”

What has constrained the mufti to concede the possibility of stunning leading to the death of the animal? No one should labour under the deception or misapprehension regarding this fact – namely, that innumerable animals perish after stunning. Expert slaughterers have confirmed it. Besides confirmation by inspections of a variety of people and organizations, the simple reality is that it is haraam according to the Shariah to inflict any kind of injury on the animal prior to Thabah. Denial of this fact is kufr – kufr which expels from the fold of Islam.

What was the shaitaaniyat or the nafsaaniyat which has influenced this mufti to shove a satanic, brutal kuffaar method into the Islamic system of  Thabah? He has attempted to shove into the Shariah the cruel bid’ah of stunning. After more than 14 centuries of the Shariah’s history, we believe that this is the first satanic attempt to grant Qur’aanic and Sunnah status to a method of Iblees. Hitherto, all those who have, for the sake of monetary gain, accepted stunned animals for Thabah, have done so reluctantly whilst accepting the method to be un-Islamic.

Not a single one of the many ibaaraat (texts from the kutub) cited by the Mufti has any relevance to stunning. Not a single iota of condonation percolates from the quoted texts which all refer to an injured animal being slaughtered whilst still alive. The texts nowhere legalize pre-slaughter infliction of injury, which is Haraam according to the Ijma’ of all the Fuqaha of all Math-habs. If an injured animal is found alive and slaughtered whilst alive, then its meat will be halaal. This is not the issue. The issue for which the mufti issued his convoluted baatil  ‘fatwa’ is stunning – the infliction of injury before slaughter, and this is practiced on a massive scale. It is integral to the kuffaar system of killing animals. It is a kaafir method on which the mufti has satanically attempted to bestow Qur’aanic and Sunnah status. In other words, it is a great act of thawaab to stun, main, injure and brutalize an animal before slaughtering it. This is a satanic view emerging from a brain jarred by shaitaani influence. Even a child will understand the villainy of this shaitaani brutality if shown to him.

The mufti should understand that simply lumping together Arabic texts which have no relevance to the subject matter is not adequate for securing the objective of deceiving even the ignorant and unwary masses. It is exceptionally naïve to believe that such stupid citation from the  kutub will pass the discernment of the Ulama. He has not displayed any erudition in the field of Shar’i Uloom with his nonsensical citations. We advise him to acquire expertise in Fiqh under qualified and superb supervision to enable him to understand and distinguish between valid citation and ghutha.

In the conclusion of his erroneous production of unrelated texts from the kutub, Mackoojee produces the text from Shaami.  Translating the text, he says:

“And the preferred view is that any (consumable) animal that is slaughtered when it is still alive, then it will be eaten (halaal). And Fatwa is on this view. (This is because the ayah above mentioned) “unless you have slaughtered it”, is mentioned without any attached conditions.”
There is no contention and no dispute regarding this mas’alah according to the Hanafi Math-hab. An injured animal will be halaal if slaughtered whilst it is still alive. There is, however, difference of opinion of other Math-habs as well as among the Hanafi Fuqaha on even this mas’alah. Nevertheless, the  Mukhtaar  view is on permissibility. But this has no relevance to the claim of permissibility of Satanism, namely, stunning is permissible, and furthermore, not only permissible, but an act of  thawaab in view of it allegedly conforming to the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Under no circumstances is shaitaaniyat permissible. Leave alone it being Sunnah and supported by the Qur’aan. Something is drastically incongruent with the thinking process of Mackoojee.

The Qur’aanic aayat from which this lost mufti seeks to extravasate capital and support for his absolutely baatil view, is Aayat 145 of Surah’ An’aam. This Aayat very clearly states that the following types of animals will be haraam except if slaughtered whilst they are still alive:

⚫ Al-Munkhaniqah  – An animal which has been throttled to death

⚫ Al-Mauqoothah    – An animal beaten to death

⚫ Al-Mutaraddiyah  – An animal which dies after falling from a height

⚫ An-Nateehah – An animal gored to death by another animal

⚫ Ma-akals sabu’u’ – An Animal which died after being eaten by another animal.

After mentioning the hurmat of these animals which have died as a consequence of different forms of injuries, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“Except that which you slaughter (make thabah)”. i.e. You find them with rooh (i.e. alive), then you make thabah of them.” 

This is the tafseer of the Aayat. It is ludicrous and moronic to claim on the basis of the permissibility of effecting thabah to an injured animal, that the infliction of the act of injury is  permissible, and not only permissible, but an act of merit and thawaab since it is hallucinated to be in conformity with the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

The Qur’aan states that the meat is halaal if an injured animal is slaughtered whilst it is alive. It does not say that the infliction of the injuries of throttling, beating the animal, casting the animal from a height, having the animal gored by another animal, and having an animal partly eaten by another animal is halaal. Infliction of pre-slaughter injury is haraam. But Mackoojee claims on the basis of this Aayat that the haraam act of stunning is a halaal, Sunnah act of merit. Wala houla….

In a piece of stupid advice to the cartel of carrion halaaizers, this mufti says:

“Halaal monitoring organizations should verify the stunning to be to norm to keep the animal alive at slaughtering time.”

In the pursuit for the boodle objective, he has proffered this silly advice. Millions of animals are daily slaughtered all over the world by the shaitaan’s system of killing. It is humanly impossible to supervise the system effectively and adequately. It is impossible – a total impossibility – to ascertain if each and every one of the  millions – tens of millions – of animals  is alive at the point of slaughter.

Stunning kills, but the followers of Iblees are in denial.

Stating his vote of no confidence in Allah’s system of Thabah, this wayward mufti alleges:

“For security of the slaughter man and to limit the uncontrolled damage after slaughtering, there is the need of stunning. Stunning is to electrically numb the chicken or to hurt the bull in the head so as to limit its struggle for its life during and after slaughtering.”

He must shame himself and get lost on some island or in some jungle to hide his shame for the kufr  with which this statement is impregnated. He has implied that Allah Ta’ala has given us an imperfect system of Thabah  which needs to be complemented with the ways of the kuffaar. He implies that, Nauthubillaah – Allah Ta’ala has missed out some vital elements from the Islamic system of Thabah, hence the  “uncontrolled damage after slaughtering”, i.e. damage in the wake of the pure Islamic system of slaughter. The mufti’s jahaalat  has blinded him to the kufr  which he has disgorged for halaalizing a system of killing described by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as: Shareetatush Shaitaan (the slaughter of the devil).

Shar’i Thabah is among the Shi-aar (Salient Features) of Islam. Any system at variance with this divine system is Shareetatush Shaitaan.

Then the luckless soul avers that stunning as practiced on bulls is merely some ‘hurt’ caused to “limit its struggle”.  Did Mackoojee ever see bulls being stunned? It is not a little ‘hurt’ caused to the bull. A metal bolt is savagely shot into the skull of the bull. It smashes the skull and the brains of the bull. The bull instantaneously drops in the pen, and will perish in minutes or even in seconds. There is absolutely no return to life for such brutalized bulls. The injury inflicted so barbarically assures the death of the bull. There is absolutely no recovery from this fatal injury, hence in terms of the other Math-habs as well as the Hanafi Math-hab, the meat will be haraam. In terms of the other Math-habs, the meat will be haraam since the animal is mortally injured and its death will be attributed to the injury, not to Thabah.  According to the Hanafi Math-hab, there is no certitude that the bulls are alive at the time of slaughter.

And, besides the issue of the bulls being alive or dead, of crucial importance is the hurmat of replacing the Islamic system of Thabah with Shareetatush Shaitaan. A healthy Imaan cannot tolerate consuming the product of Shareetatush Shaitaan.

The mufti has committed compound stupidity by elevating the devil’s system to Qur’aanic and Sunnah status. Such stupidity has constrained him to issue a ‘fatwa’ which is unadulterated kufr. The meat of all stunned animals is haraam. May Allah Ta’ala guide us all and keep us on Siraatul Mustaqeem  until the very end of life.

کرسمس اور اسلام

ﺑﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﯿﻢ

ﻏﯿﺮ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺗﮩﻮﺍﺭﻭﮞ ﻣﺜﻼ ﮐﺮﺳﻤﺲ ﻭﻏﯿﺮﮦ ﮐﯽ ﺧﻮﺷﯽ ﻣﻨﺎﻧﺎ

ﺗﺤﺮﯾﺮ : ﺳﺎﺟﺪ ﺧﺎﻥ ﻧﻘﺸﺒﻨﺪﯼ

ﻧﻮﭦ : ﯾﮧ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﻓﯿﺼﻞ ﺍٓﺑﺎﺩ ﮐﮯ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺟﻌﻠﯽ ﭘﯿﺮ ﮐﮯ ﺧﻼﻑ ﻟﮑﮭﺎ ﮔﯿﺎ ﺗﮭﺎ ﺍﺏ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﮐﯽ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺖ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﻧﺎﻡ ﻧﮑﺎﻝ ﮐﺮ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺗﺮﺍﻣﯿﻢ ﮐﺮﮐﮯ ﺷﺎﯾﻊ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺭﮨﺎ ﮨﮯ ۔

ﻗﺎﺭﺋﯿﻦ ﺍﮨﻠﺴﻨﺖ ! ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯽ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﮐﯽ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻧﺠﺎﺕ ﺍﺱ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺗﮏ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺟﺐ ﺗﮏ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﺑﺎﻃﻞ ﻣﺬﮨﺐ ﮐﻮ ﭼﮭﻮﮌ ﮐﺮ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﻧﮧ ﮐﺮﻟﯿﮟ ﭼﻨﺎﻧﭽﮧ ﺭﺏ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺭﺷﺎﺩ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ:

ﻟَﻘَﺪْ ﮐَﻔَﺮَ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯾْﻦَ ﻗَﺎﻟُﻮْ ٓﺍ ﺍِﻥَّ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ﮬُﻮَ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺴِﯿْﺢُ ﺍﺑْﻦُ ﻣَﺮْﯾَﻢَ ﻭَ ﻗَﺎﻝَ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺴِﯿْﺢُ ﯾٰٓﺒَﻨِﯽْ ﺍِﺳْﺮَﺍٓﺋِﯿْﻞَ ﺍﻋْﺒُﺪُﻭْﺍٓ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧَ ﺭَﺑِِّﯽْ ﻭَ ﺭَﺑَّﮑُﻢْ ﺍِﻧَّﮧ ‘ ﻣَﻦْ ﯾُّﺸْﺮِﮎْ ﺑِﺎﻟﻠّٰﮧِ ﻓَﻘَﺪْ ﺣَﺮَّﻡَ ﺍﻟﻠّٰﮧُ ﻋَﻠَﯿْﮧِ ﺍﻟْﺠَﻨَّۃَ ﻭَﻣَﺎْﻭٰﮦُ ﺍﻟﻨَّﺎﺭَ ﻭَﻣَﺎ ﻟِﻠﻈَّﺎِﻟﻤِﯿْﻦَ ﻣِﻦْ ﺍَﻧْﺼَﺎﺭٍﻟَﻘَﺪْ ﮐَﻔَﺮَ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯾْﻦَ ﻗَﺎﻟُﻮﺍٓ ﺍِﻥَّ ﺍﻟﻠَّﮧَ ﺛَﺎﻟِﺚ ‘’ ﺛَﻼَﺛَۃ ﻭَﻣَﺎ ﻣِﻦْ ﺍِﻟٰﮧٍ ﻭَّﺍﺣِﺪ ‘’ ﻭَّ ﺍِﻥْ ﻟَّﻢْ ﯾَﻨْﺘَﮭُﻮْﺍ ﻋَﻤَّﺎ ﯾَﻘُﻮْﻟُﻮْﻥَ ﻟَﯿَﻤَﺴَّﻦَّ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯾْﻦَ ﮐَﻔَﺮُﻭْﺍ ﻣِﻨْﮭُﻢْ ﻋَﺬَﺍﺏ ‘’ ﺍَﻟِﯿْﻢ ‘’ ۔
‏( ﺳﻮﺭۃ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺋﺪﮦ : ﺍٓﯾﺖ ۷۲۔۷۳ ‏)

ﺗﺮﺟﻤﮧ : ﺑﮯ ﺷﮏ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﯿﮟ ﻭﮦ ﻟﻮﮒ ﺟﻮ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻭﮨﯽ ﻣﺴﯿﺢ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﺮﯾﻢ ﮐﺎ ﺑﯿﭩﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺣﺎﻻﻧﮑﮧ ﻣﺴﯿﺢ ﻧﮯ ﺗﻮ ﯾﮧ ﮐﮩﺎ ﺗﮭﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﮮ ﺑﻨﯽ ﺍﺳﺮﺍﺋﯿﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺕ ﮐﺮﻭ ﺟﻮ ﻣﯿﺮﺍ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺭﺏ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺗﻤﮩﺎﺭﺍ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺑﻼﺷﺒﮧ ﺟﺲ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﺎ ﺷﺮﯾﮏ ﭨﮭﺮﺍﯾﺎ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻧﮯ ﺍﺱ ﭘﺮ ﺟﻨﺖ ﺣﺮﺍﻡ ﮐﺮﺩﯼ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﮭﻨﻢ ﺍﺱ ﮐﺎ ﭨﮭﮑﺎﻧﮧ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻇﺎﻟﻤﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﻣﺪﺩﮔﺎﺭ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺑﮯ ﺷﮏ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﯿﮟ ﻭﮦ ﺟﻮ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺑﮯ ﺷﮏ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﯿﻦ ﺧﺪﺍﻭٔﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﺍﯾﮏ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺧﺪﺍ ﺗﻮ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ ﻣﮕﺮ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﮔﺮ ﯾﮧ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺳﮯ ﺑﺎﺯ ﻧﮧ ﺍٓﺋﮯ ﺗﻮ ﺟﻮ ﺍﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ‏( ﻣﺮﯾﮟ ﮔﮯ ‏) ﺿﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﺩﺭﺩﻧﺎﮎ ﻋﺬﺍﺏ ﭘﮩﻨﭽﮯ ﮔﺎ۔

ﺍﻥ ﺍٓﯾﺎﺕ ﻣﺒﺎﺭﮐﮧ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻃﻮﺭ ﭘﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﭘﺎﮎ ﻧﮯ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮐﮩﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺩﯾﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﮔﺮ ﯾﮧ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﻣﺸﺮﮐﺎﻧﮧ ﻋﻘﺎﺋﺪ ﺳﮯ ﺗﻮﺑﮧ ﻧﮧ ﮐﺮﯾﮟ ﺗﻮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﺎ ﭨﮭﮑﺎﻧﮧ ﺟﮩﻨﻢ ﮨﮯ ۔ﺍﻭﺭ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﮩﻮﺩﯾﻮﮞ ﺳﮯ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﯽ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺍﺭﺷﺎﺩ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ :

ﯾٰﺎَﯾُّﮭَﺎ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﯾْﻦَ ﺍَﻣَﻨُﻮْﺍ ﻟَﺎ ﺗَﺘَّﺨِﺬُﻭْﺍ ﺍﻟْﯿَﮭُﻮْﺩَ ﻭَ ﺍﻟﻨَّﺼَﺎﺭٰﯼ ﺍٓﻭْﻟِﯿَﺎٓﺉً ﺑَﻌْﻀُﮭُﻢْ ﺍَﻭْﻟِﯿَﺎٓﺉَ ﺑَﻌْﺾٍ ﻭَّ ﻣَﻦْ ﯾَّﺘَﻮَﻟَّﮭُﻢْ ﻣِﻨْﮑُﻢْ ﻓَﺎِﻧَّﮧ ‘ ﻣِﻨْﮭُﻢْ ﺍِﻥَّ ﺍﻟﻠَّﮧَ ﻻَ ﯾَﮭْﺪِﯼ ﺍﻟْﻘَﻮْﻡَ ﺍﻟﻈَّﺎﻟِﻤِﯿْﻦَ۔ ‏( ﺳﻮﺭۃ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺋﺪﮦ : ﺍٓﯾﺖ ۵۱ ‏)

ﺗﺮﺟﻤﮧ : ﺍﮮ ﺍﯾﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻮ ! ﯾﮩﻮﺩ ﻭ ﻧﺼﺎﺭﯼ ﮐﻮ ﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﻧﮧ ﺑﻨﺎﻧﺎ ،ﺍﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺑﻌﺾ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﻮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺗﻢ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﭘﮭﺮﺍ ﺗﻮ ﻭﮦ ﺍﻧﮩﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻇﺎﻟﻤﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﮨﺪﺍﯾﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺩﯾﺘﺎ۔
ﺍﺱ ﺍٓﯾﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻃﻮﺭ ﭘﺮ ﺍﺭﺷﺎﺩ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺩﯾﺎ ﮐﮧ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﮩﻮﺩﯾﻮﮞ ﺳﮯ ﮨﺮ ﮔﺰ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﯽ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﺤﺒﺖ ﮐﮯ ﭘﯿﻨﮕﮯ ﻧﮧ ﺑﮍﮬﺎﻧﺎ ﯾﮧ ﺗﻤﮩﺎﺭﮮ ﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﺍٓﭘﺲ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺩﻭﺳﺮﮮ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻣﻤﺎﻧﻌﺖ ﮐﮯ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺗﻢ ﺑﺎﺯ ﻧﮧ ﺍٓﺋﮯ ﺗﻮ ﭘﮭﺮ ﯾﮩﯽ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﻮ ﮐﮧ ﺗﻢ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﮭﯽ ﺍﻧﮩﯽ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺳﮯ ﮨﻮ۔ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻗﺎﺿﯽ ﻋﯿﺎﺽ ﻣﺎﻟﮑﯽ ﺭﺣﻤۃ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ :

’’ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻟﻢ ﯾﮑﻔﺮ ﺍﺣﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﺎﺭﯼ ﻭﺍﻟﯿﮭﻮﺩ ﻭﮐﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺎﺭﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﯿﻦ ﺍﻭ ﻭﻗﻒ ﻓﯽ ﺗﮑﻔﯿﺮﮬﻢ ﺍﻭ ﺷﮏ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺿﯽ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺑﮑﺮ ﻻﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﯿﻒ ﻭﺍﻻﺟﻤﺎ ﻉ ﺍﺗﻔﻘﺎ ﻋﻠﯽ ﮐﻔﺮﮬﻢ ﻓﻤﻦ ﻭﻗﻒ ﻓﯽ ﺫﺍﻟﮏ ﻓﻘﺪ ﮐﺬﺏ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﯿﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﮏ ﻓﯿﮧ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﮑﺬﯾﺐ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻟﺸﮏ ﻓﯿﮧ ﻭﻻ ﯾﻘﻊ ﺍﻻ ﻣﻦ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ۔ ‏( ﺍﻟﺸﻔﺎﺀ : ﺝ۲ : ﺹ ۱۷۰۔ﺣﻘﺎﻧﯿﮧ ‏)

ﺗﺮﺟﻤﮧ : ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻉ ﮨﮯ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﮐﻔﺮ ﭘﺮ ﺟﻮ ﮐﺴﯽ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯽ ﯾﮩﻮﺩﯼ ﯾﺎ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺍﯾﺴﮯ ﺷﺨﺺ ﮐﻮ ﺟﻮ ﺩﯾﻦ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﺳﮯ ﺟﺪﺍ ﮨﻮﮔﯿﺎ ﮨﻮ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﻧﮧ ﮐﮩﮯ ﯾﺎ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮐﮩﻨﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﻮﻗﻒ ﮐﺮﮮ ﯾﺎ ﺷﮏ ﮐﺮﮮ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﻗﺎﺿﯽ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺑﮑﺮ ﻧﮯ ﺍ ﺳﮑﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﯾﮧ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺋﯽ ﮐﮧ ﻧﺼﻮﺹ ﺷﺮﻋﯿﮧ ﻭ ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻉ ﺍﻣﺖ ﺍﻥ ﻟﻮﮔﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﮐﻔﺮ ﭘﺮ ﻣﺘﻔﻖ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺗﻮ ﺟﻮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﮐﻔﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺗﻮﻗﻒ ﮐﺮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﻭﮦ ﻧﺺ ﻭ ﺷﺮﯾﻌﺖ ﮐﯽ ﺗﮑﺬﯾﺐ ﮐﺮﺗﺎﮨﮯ ﯾﺎ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺷﮏ ﺭﮐﮭﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﯽ ﺳﮯ ﮨﻮﺳﮑﺘﯽ ﮨﮯ ۔

ﺍﻥ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﻧﺼﻮﺹ ﺳﮯ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﮨﻮﺋﯽ ﮐﮧ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯽ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﻧﮧ ﺳﻤﺠﮭﻨﮯ ﻭﺍﻻ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻥ ﺳﮯ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﯽ ﻭ ﻣﻮﺍﻻﺕ ﺣﺮﺍﻡ ﮨﮯ ﻣﮕﺮ ﺍﻓﺴﻮﺱ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﮐﮩﻨﺎ ﭘﮍﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻧﺎﻡ ﻧﮩﺎﺩ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻥ ،ﻣﺤﺒﺖ ،ﺍﺧﻮﺕ ،ﺑﮭﺎﺋﯽ ﭼﺎﺭﮦ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻣﻦ ﮐﮯ ﺧﻮﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﺍٓﮌﻣﯿﮟ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﭘﯿﺎﺭ ﻭﻣﺤﺒﺖ ﺩﻭﺳﺘﯽ ﯾﺎﺭﯼ ﮐﮯ ﺍﯾﺴﮯ ﺗﻌﻠﻘﺎﺕ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﺭﮐﮭﻨﺎ ﭼﺎﮨﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﻣﺬﺍﮨﺐ ﺍﯾﮏ ﮔﻠﺪﺳﺘﮧ ﮐﯽ ﺷﮑﻞ ﺍﺧﺘﯿﺎﺭ ﮐﺮﻟﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻣﻦ ﮐﮯ ﻧﺎﻡ ﭘﺮ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺬﮨﺒﯽ ﺗﮩﻮﺍﺭ ’’ ﮐﺮﺳﻤﺲ ‘‘ ﮐﻮ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﯿﺴﯽٰ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﮐﺎ ﺟﻨﻢ ﺩﻥ ﻣﺎﻥ ﮐﺮ ﺑﮍﮮ ﺩﮬﻮﻡ ﺩﮬﺎﻡ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﮐﻮ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﻣﻞ ﮐﺮ ﻣﻨﺎﯾﺎ ﺟﺎﺭﮨﺎ ﮨﮯ ۔ﺣﺎﻻﻧﮑﮧ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﻧﮯ ﮐﺎﻓﺮﻭﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺗﮩﻮﺍﺭﻭﮞ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺷﺮﮐﺖ ﮐﻮ ﮐﻔﺮ ﻟﮑﮭﺎ ﮨﮯ۔

ﮐﺮﺳﻤﺲ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻥ ﺧﺪﺍ ﮐﺎ ﻏﻀﺐ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ

ﺍﺧﺒﺮﻧﺎ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺑﮑﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﺳﯽ ﺍﻧﺎ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺍﺳﺤﺎﻕ ﺍﻻﺻﺒﮭﺎﻧﯽ ﻧﺎ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻓﺎﺭﺱ ﻧﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺳﻤﺎﻋﯿﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺨﺎﺭﯼ : ﻗﺎﻝ : ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﯽ ﻣﺮﯾﻢ ﻧﺎ ﻧﺎﻓﻊ ﺑﻦ ﯾﺰﯾﺪ ﺳﻤﻊ ﺳﻠﯿﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﯽ ﺯﯾﻨﺐ ﻭ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺭﺙ ﺳﻤﻊ ﺳﻌﯿﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﯽ ﺳﻠﻤۃ ﺳﻤﻊ ﺍﺑﺎﮦ ﺳﻤﻊ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺨﻄﺎﺏ ﺭﺿﯽ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﯽ ﻋﻨﮧ ﺍﻧﮧ ﻗﺎﻟـ : ﺍﺟﺘﻨﺒﻮﺍ ﺍﻋﺪﺍٓﺀ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﻟﯿﮭﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺼﺎﺭﯼ ﻓﯽ ﻋﯿﺪﮬﻢ ﯾﻮﻡ ﺟﻤﻌﮭﻢ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺨﻂ ﯾﻨﺰﻝ ﻋﻠﯿﮩﻢ ﻓﺎﺧﺸﯽ ﺍﻥ ﯾﺼﯿﺒﮑﻢ ﻭﻻ ﺗﻌﻠﻤﻮﺍ ﺑﻄﺎﻧﺘﮭﻢ ﺗﺨﻠﻘﻮﺍ ﺑﺨﻠﻘﮭﻢ۔
‏( ﺷﻌﺐ ﺍﻻﯾﻤﺎﻥ : ﺝ۷ : ﺹ ۴۳۔ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻟﮑﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﯿﮧ ﺑﯿﺮﻭﺕ ‏)

ﺗﺮﺟﻤﮧ : ﮨﻤﯿﮟ ﺧﺒﺮ ﺩﯼ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺑﮑﺮ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﯽ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺍﺳﺤﻖ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺍﺣﻤﺪﻧﮯ ﺍﻥ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺳﻤﻌﯿﻞ ﺑﺨﺎﺭﯼ ﻧﮯ ﻭﮦ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﺮﯾﻢ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻧﮑﻮ ﺧﺒﺮ ﺩﯼ ﻧﺎﻓﻊ ﺑﻦ ﯾﺰﯾﺪ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﻧﮯ ﺳﻨﺎﺳﻠﯿﻤﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺯﯾﻨﺐ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻭﮦ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺎﺭﺙ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﻧﮯ ﺳﻌﯿﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺳﻠﻤﮧ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﻧﮯ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﻭﺍﻟﺪ ﺳﮯ ﺳﻨﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻧﮩﻮﮞ ﻧﮯ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻤﺮ ؓ ﺳﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍٓﭖ ؓ ﻧﮯ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﮯ ﺩﺷﻤﻨﻮﮞ ﯾﮭﻮﺩ ﻭ ﻧﺼﺎﺭﯼ ﺳﮯ ﺑﭽﻮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻋﯿﺪ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﺍﮐﮭﭩﮯ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻧﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺑﮯ ﺷﮏ ﺍﻥ ﭘﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻧﺎﺭﺍﺿﯽ ﺍﺗﺮﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮈﺭﺗﺎ ﮨﻮﮞ ﮐﮧ ﮐﮩﯿﮟ ﻭﮦ ﺗﻤﮩﯿﮟ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻧﮧ ﭘﮩﻨﭻ ﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺍﻧﺪﺭﻭﻧﯽ ﺑﺎﺗﯿﮟ ﻣﺖ ﺟﺎﻧﺎ ﮐﺮﻭ ﮐﯿﻮﻧﮑﮧ ﺗﻢ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻋﺎﺩﺗﯿﮟ ﺳﯿﮑﮫ ﺟﺎﻭ ﮔﮯ ‏( ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺍﻥ ﺳﮯ ﻣﺘﺎﺛﺮ ﮨﻮﺟﺎﻭﮔﮯ ‏) ﺍﺳﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺭﻭﺍﯾﺖ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ :

ﺍﺧﺒﺮﻧﺎ ﺍﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺳﻢ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﻓﯽ ﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺑﯿﺮ ﺍﻟﮑﻮﻓﯽ ﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﯽ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻔﺎﻥ ﻧﺎ ﺯﯾﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺒﺎﺏ ﻧﺎ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻘﺒﮧ ﺣﺪﺛﻨﯽ ﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺑﻦ ﺩﯾﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﮭﺬﻟﯽ ﺍﻥ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺨﻄﺎﺏ ﻗﺎﻝ : ﺍﯾﺎﮐﻢ ﻭ ﻣﻮﺍﻃﻨۃ ﺍﻻﻋﺎﺟﻢ ﻭ ﺍﻥ ﺗﺪﺧﻠﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﯿﮩﻢ ﻓﯽ ﺑﯿﻌﮭﻢ ﯾﻮﻡ ﻋﯿﺪﮬﻢ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺨﻂ ﯾﻨﺰﻝ ﻋﻠﯿﮩﻢ۔
‏( ﺷﻌﺐ ﺍﻻﯾﻤﺎﻥ : ﺝ۷ : ﺹ۴۳ ‏)

ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻤﺮ ؓ ﻧﮯ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﯾﺎ ﺗﻢ ﺍﭘﻨﮯ ﺍٓﭖ ﮐﻮ ﺑﭽﺎﻭٔ ﺍﮨﻞ ﻋﺠﻢ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺎﺵ ﺳﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻨﻊ ﮐﯿﺎ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺕ ﺧﺎﻧﻮﮞ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﻋﯿﺪ ﮐﮯ ﺍﯾﺎﻡ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﮨﻮﺍ ﮐﺮﯾﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﺎ ﻏﻀﺐ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ۔

ﻗﺎﺭﺋﯿﻦ ﺍﮨﻠﺴﻨﺖ ! ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻤﺮ ؓ ﺗﻮ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﺎ ﺩﺷﻤﻦ ﮐﮩﮧ ﺭﮨﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﮐﺮﺳﻤﺲ ﮐﮯ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﭘﺮ ﺟﻤﻊ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﺳﮯ ﻣﻨﻊ ﮐﺮﺭﮨﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﺎ ﻏﻀﺐ ﻭ ﻧﺎﺭﺍﺿﮕﯽ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﮨﻮﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ ﻣﮕﺮ ﯾﮧ ﺟﻌﻠﯽ ﺻﻮﻓﯽ ﮐﮩﺘﺎ ﮨﮯ ﮐﮧ ﯾﮧ ﺧﯿﺮ ﻭ ﺑﺮﮐﺖ ﻭﺍﻻ ﺩﻥ ﮨﮯ ۔ﺍﺏ ﮨﻢ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﻣﺎﻧﯿﮟ ﯾﺎ ﺣﻀﺮ ﺕ ﻋﻤﺮ ؓ ﮐﯽ ؟

ﮐﺎﻓﺮﻭﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺍﯾﺎﻡ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﮐﻔﺮ ﮨﮯ

ﻣﻼ ﻋﻠﯽ ﻗﺎﺭﯼ ﺣﻨﻔﯽ ﺭﺣﻤۃ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﮧ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ : ؎

ﻓﯽ ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﺮﯼ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﯼ ﯾﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭﻭﺯ ﺷﯿﺌﺎ ﻭ ﻟﻢ ﯾﮑﻦ ﯾﺸﺘﺮﯾﮧ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺫﺍﻟﮏ ﺍﺭﺍﺩ ﺑﮧ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭﻭﺯ ،ﮐﻔﺮ ﺍﯼ ﻻﻧﮧ ﻋﻈﻢ ﻋﯿﺪ ﺍﻟﮑﻔﺮۃ۔ )) ﺷﺮﺡ ﻓﻘﮧ ﺍﻻﮐﺒﺮ : ﺹ ۴۹۹ ۔ﺑﯿﺮﻭﺕ ‏)

ﺍﮔﺮ ﮐﺴﯽ ﻧﮯ ﻧﻮﺭﻭﺯ ‏( ﻣﺠﻮﺳﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻋﯿﺪ ‏) ﮐﮯ ﺩﻥ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﺍﯾﺴﯽ ﭼﯿﺰ ﺧﺮﯾﺪﯼ ﺟﻮ ﺍﺱ ﺳﮯ ﭘﮩﻠﮯ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﺧﺮﯾﺪﺗﺎ ﺗﮭﺎ ،ﺍﺱ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺭﺍﺩﮦ ﺍﺱ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﺍﺀ ﺳﮯ ﻧﻮﺭﻭﺯ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﺗﮭﺎ ﺗﻮ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﻮﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﮔﺎ،ﺍﺱ ﻟﺌﮯ ﮐﮧ ﺍ ﺱ ﻧﮯ ﮐﺎﻓﺮﻭﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻋﯿﺪ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﮐﯽ۔

ﻣﺰﯾﺪ ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ :

ﻟﻮﺍﻥ ﺭﺟﻼ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺧﻤﺴﯿﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﺎ ﺛﻢ ﺟﺎﺀ ﯾﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭﻭﺯ ﻓﺎﮬﺪﯼ ﺍﻟﯽ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﮐﯿﻦ ﯾﺮﯾﺪ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﺫﺍﻟﮏ ﺍﻟﯿﻮﻡ ﻓﻘﺪ ﮐﻔﺮ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﻭ ﺣﺒﻂ ﻋﻤﻠﮧ ﺧﻤﺴﯿﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﺎ۔
‏( ﺷﺮﺡ ﻓﻘﮧ ﺍﻻﮐﺒﺮ : ﺹ ۵۰۰ ‏)

ﺍﮔﺮ ﮐﺴﯽ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻧﮯ ﭘﭽﺎﺱ ﺳﺎﻝ ﺗﮏ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﯽ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺕ ﮐﯽ ﭘﮭﺮ ﻧﻮﺭﻭﺯ ﮐﺎ ﺩﻥ ﺍٓﮔﯿﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﻧﮯ ﮐﺴﯽ ﻣﺸﺮﮎ ﮐﻮ ﮐﻮﺋﯽ ﮨﺪﯾﮧ ﮐﺮﺩﯾﺎ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﻧﯿﺖ ﺍﺱ ﮨﺪﯾﮧ ﺳﮯ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﺗﮭﯽ ﺗﻮ ﺍﺱ ﻧﮯ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﮐﻔﺮ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﭘﭽﺎﺱ ﺳﺎﻝ ﮐﯽ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺕ ﺑﺮﺑﺎﺩ ﮨﻮﮔﺌﯽ۔

ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍٓﮔﮯ ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ :

’’ ﻭ ﻋﻠﯽ ﻗﯿﺎﺱ ﻣﺴﺎﻟۃ ﺍﻟﺨﺮﻭﺝ ﺍﻟﯽ ﺍﻟﻨﯿﺮﻭﺯ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻮﺳﯽ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻓﻘۃ ﻣﻌﮭﻢ ﻓﯿﻤﺎ ﯾﻔﻠﻌﻮﻥ ﻓﯽ ﺫﺍﻟﮏ ﺍﻟﯿﻮﻡ ﯾﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﮑﻔﺮ ‘’

ﯾﻌﻨﯽ ﺍﺳﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻣﺠﻮﺳﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﻧﻮﺭﻭﺯ ﮐﮯ ﺟﺸﻦ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻥ ﻧﮑﻠﻨﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺟﻮ ﮐﭽﮫ ﻣﺠﻮﺳﯽ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻥ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻔﺖ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﯾﮧ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮐﻔﺮ ﮐﻮ ﻻﺯﻡ ﮐﺮﺗﯽ ﮨﮯ ۔

ﺍﺏ ﻧﺎﻡ ﻧﮩﺎﺩ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﭼﯿﻠﮯ ﺟﻮ ﮐﺮﺳﻤﻦ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻥ ﮐﯿﮏ ﮐﺎﭨﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﮔﯿﺖ ﮔﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺟﺸﻦ ﻣﻨﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﺎ ﯾﮧ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻥ ﺭﮨﮯ؟
ﻋﻼﻣﮧ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺷﮭﺎﺏ ﯾﻮﺳﻒ ﺍﻟﮑﺮﺩﺭﯼ ﺍﻟﺤﻨﻔﯽ ؒ ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ :

’’ ﻭﮐﺬﺍ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻠﻤﯿﻦ ﯾﻮﻡ ﻓﺼﺢ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﺎﺭﯼ ﻟﻮ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻘۃ ﻟﮭﻢ۔ ‏( ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼ ﺑﺰﺍﺯﯾﮧ : ﺝ۳ : ﺹ ۱۸۶ ‏)

ﺍﺳﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻧﻮﮞ ﮐﺎ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﻋﯿﺴﺎﺋﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻋﯿﺪ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻥ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﻥ ﮐﯽ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻘﺖ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﮐﯿﻠﺌﮯ ﮨﮯ ﺗﻮ ﯾﮧ ﺳﺐ ﺑﮭﯽ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﻮﮔﺌﮯ۔

ﻋﻼﻣﮧ ﺑﺰﺍﺯﯼ ﻧﮯ ﺍﯾﮏ ﺑﮍﯼ ﻋﺠﯿﺐ ﺑﺎﺕ ﮐﯽ ﺟﻮ ﺻﻮﻓﯽ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﮐﮯ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﮐﮯ ﺑﺎﻟﮑﻞ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﮨﮯ ﻭﮦ ﮐﮩﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ ﻧﻮﺭﻭﺯ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻥ ﻧﮑﻠﻨﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻭﮦ ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺳﺮﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﯾﻨﺎ ﺟﻮ ﻣﺠﻮﺳﯽ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﺳﮯ ﺗﻮ ﯾﮧ ﮐﻔﺮ ﮨﮯ ،ﺍﻭﺭ ﯾﮧ ﮐﺎﻡ ﺍﮐﺜﺮ ﻭﮦ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎﻥ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺟﻮ ﻣﺠﻮﺳﯿﺖ ﭼﮭﻮﮌ ﮐﺮ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﻻﺋﮯ ﭘﺲ ﻭﮦ ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﺍﻥ ﻣﺠﻮﺳﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﻑ ﻧﮑﻠﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﺠﻮﺳﯿﻮﮞ ﮐﯽ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻘﺖ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﺱ ﮐﯽ ﻭﺟﮧ ﺳﮯ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﻮﺟﺎﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻓﺴﻮﺱ ﮐﮧ ﺍﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺑﮭﯽ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ‘‘ ۔ ‏( ﻓﺘﺎﻭﯼ ﺑﺰﺍﺯﯾﮧ : ﺝ۳ : ﺹ ۱۸۶ ‏)

ﻗﺎﺭﺋﯿﻦ ﮐﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﻥ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﮧ ﺟﺎﺕ ﺳﮯ ﯾﮧ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺭﻭﺯ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﮐﯽ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﮨﻮﮔﺌﯽ ﮐﮧ ﮐﻔﺎﺭ ﮐﮯ ﻣﺬﮨﺒﯽ ﺗﮩﻮﺍﺭﻭﮞ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ،ﺍﺱ ﺩﻥ ﺍﻥ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﺟﻤﻊ ﮨﻮﻧﺎ،ﻭﮦ ﺟﻮ ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﮐﺮﺗﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﻥ ﮐﻮ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﯾﮧ ﺳﺐ ﮐﻔﺮ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍﻥ ﺳﺐ ﮐﺎ ﮐﺮﻧﮯ ﻭﺍﻻ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﮐﯽ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﯿﮟ ﮐﺎﻓﺮ ﮨﮯ ۔

WOMEN VISITING GRAVEYARDS

QUESTION

Is it permissible for women to visit the graveyard? A Mufti from the U.K. says that it is permissible? A South African mufti says that there is ‘scope’ for women to ‘occasionally’ visit graveyards. This mufti lists three conditions for the permissibility:

Hijab should be adhered to
There should be few or no people in the graveyard
No Shar’ee laws such as intermingling, should be violated.

We have always understood that just as it is not permissible for women to visit Musjids, so too it is not permissible for them to visit graveyards. Please comment.

ANSWER (By Mujlisul Ulama):

The ‘muftis’ of this age are not muftis. They are cranks and quacks. They lack in Aql. They lack expertise in issuing fatwa, yet they proudly proclaim themselves to be attached to some Darul Ifta. They fail to understand when and how to apply the principles, and they dig out texts from the kutub to foster and even solidify existing fitnah and fasaad.  Due to their liberalism, inclination to westernism, and lack of suhbat of the Saaliheen, they are what the Fuqaha term, maajin ‘muftis’, i.e. buffoon, moron.

The mufti who enumerated the three conditions brazenly displays the moronity to qualify himself for the ‘maajin’ title. None of the three conditions are met in this age, and never will these conditions be satisfied until the Day of Qiyaamah. On the contrary, the fitnah and fasaad  will increase and degenerate by leaps and bounds. The only thing these muftis who claim permissibility for a haraam act, have achieved, is to portray their jahaalat and their inaptitude. They are not fit to issue fatwa.

The conditions for permissibility mentioned in the kutub are not to effect nafsaani hallucination. In addition, these muftis are out to court the pleasure of the juhala, shameless women who are addicted to prowling in the public domain.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Allah curses females who visit the quboor.”  This is the fundamental basis on which a genuine mufti will issue the Fatwa of Prohibition. He will not resort to Fiqhi technicalities and imaginary scenarios to extravasate permissibility for a deed which is impregnated with fitnah. The stupid muftis of today fail to take lesson from the ban which the Sahaabah had enacted on women, preventing them from the Musaajid despite that  age having been Khairul Quroon, and despite the females having been Waliahs, and despite Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) having permitted them. It was still the noble age when many of the noble Wives and the vast majority of Sahaabah with their exceptionally pious wives were living.

Today, even men are mugged in graveyards. Women have been raped in graveyards. There is no safety on the roads, leave alone in a quiet graveyard where there may be no people, and  when it is the time that the maajin character advises women to emerge from their homes in conflict with the Qur’aanic prohibition, to visit the graveyard.

Initially it was permissible for women to move out of their homes to attend to real needs locally without an accompanying mahram. While a mahram is a Waajib condition for permissibility of travel by a woman, today it is Waajib that she has a mahram with her even if she goes to visit someone in the same street. The terrible explosion of crime, does not permit a woman to go about even locally without a mahram. By what stretch of intelligence and Imaani logic can a mufti ever issue a fatwa to permit women to go to graveyards in today’s scenario of absolute fitnah and fasaad? Furthermore, the fitnah is not restricted to crime and dangers. A primary fitnah is the woman herself. That is why the Hadith says that the whole of a woman’s body is aurah, and when she emerges, the Devil casting surreptitious glances at her lies in ambush to utilize her for fitnah and fasaad. That is why according to the Hadith la’nat  settles on a woman who  rides a horse and drives a vehicle, and that is why Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) described women  as Habaailush shaitaan (Traps of the Devil).

The moron muftis who disgorge just any disingenuous ghutha  which they call ‘fatwa’ miserably fail to take cognizance of the factors which prohibit women from visiting the graveyards. They do not even understand the logistics for a woman to reach the graveyard in this age. How do these muftis propose women should go to the graveyard? With mahrams or without?

If she has to go with a mahram, then why? She is not going on a journey. The only reason will be to protect her against criminals. Thus, if there is such a danger which necessitates a mahram to accompany her locally for a non-essential visit outside the home, then it is adequate grounds for a fatwa of prohibition.

If there is no need for a mahram, then how should she go? Private or public transport? Public transport is unimaginable for a Muslim woman. If private transport driven by her or some otherfaasiqah, then this act too is haraam. The haraam is thus compounded. Exposing her to the danger of being alone in the graveyard, driving a vehicle, intermingling on the roads, etc., are compounded haraam.

Thus, in both scenarios – with or without a mahram, it is haraam for a woman to visit the graveyard. Furthermore, the moron mufti acquits himself with staggering stupidity by suggesting, as a condition for the permissibility, that there should be few or no people at the graveyard. What is the meaning of a few people? And from which finger did the mufti suck this condition? What assurance will the prospective female visitor have that the ‘few’ people will be only females? There are no separate times for men and women for visiting graveyards. Even if there happen to be a few people, the women will incumbently exposed to the males. This is in violation of Hijaab which the maajin mufti says is a condition for the validity of the permissibility.

And, how will she know that there will be no people present on her arrival at the graveyard. Further, if  there are no people on her arrival, what prevents people arriving  after her arrival?

The third condition for the permissibility suggested by the mufti is that “no Shar’ee laws are violated”. From the very moment she leaves home to go to the graveyard, she will be in violation of the Shariah. Her emergence  (khurooj) from her home, her driving a vehicle, exposure to the public in the streets, exposure to people in the graveyard and exposure to the  danger of being mugged or worse, and the threat of Divine Curse settling on her, are all factors  in violation of the Shariah.

Denial of the existence of real fitnah attendant to females visiting the graveyards and being in the public domain is either the effect of gross ignorance or satanism. When the Sahaabah banned women from the Musaajid 14 centuries ago on the basis of fitnah, what conclusion will a healthy Aql arrive at in this evil age in which fitnah and fasaad  preponderate?

There is absolutely no scope for permissibility. It is haraam for women to visit graveyards just as it is haraam for them to go to the Musaajid, thikr functions, jalsah functions, walimah functions, and any other type of function.