Category Archives: Basic Islamic Laws

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.

Tadaawi Bil-Haraam — Medical Treatment with Haraam and Filth


Regarding blood donation a Mufti says that to donate blood is permissible when there is a need. Since the need for a transfusion develops at any time, it is permissible to donate blood to a blood bank, but the blood must be given free and may not be sold. Is this fatwa correct? In support of the fatwa the Mufti quotes the following text from Ad-Durrul Mukhtaar:

“It is permissible for an ailing person to drink urine, blood and eat carrion for medical treatment when a Muslim physician informs him that there is cure in it, and when a lawful (remedy) as a substitute is not available.
If the physician says that these (haraam substances) will hasten recovery (from the sickness), then there are two views.”

Then providing an interpretation for the Hadith of Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu), namely: “He (Allah) has not created your shifa (cure) in substances made haraam for you.”, Allaamah Shaami mentions: ‘This possibly means that it applies to such a sickness for which a medicine which is not haraam is available……….It is also valid to say that the prohibition is lifted on account of haajat (need). Thus in the case of need it will not be said that the shifa’ is with haraam. Verily, it will be with halaal.”

Please comment on this confusion.

ANSWER (by Mujlisul Ulama):

The confusion is the effect of the Mufti not applying his mind, and simply extracting texts from  the  kutub for mass consumption.

Firstly, the Hadith narrated by Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) is the determinant which establishes prohibition. The ihtimaal (possibility) mentioned in Shaami is extremely far fetched. It is a mere ‘possibility’ – a figment of personal opinion which does not override the Hadith which states the law with the greatest clarity. The opinion unsubstantiated by Nass, in fact which is in conflict with the Nass, has to be incumbently set aside regardless of the calibre of the Aalim who flourished 12 centuries after Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The rule of Tadaawi bil haraam (medical treatment with haraam substances) is not denied. It is a separate mas’alah which relies on other evidences of the Shariah. For the sustainment of this mas’alah the interpretation which argues away the clear import of the Hadith of Hadhrat Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) is uncalled for and not valid. The irrefutable fact is that Allah Azza Wa Jal has not ordained the shifa’ of his Ummah in filth – in najaasat – and substances which He has made haraam, and which are abhorrent to Imaan. Blood, urine, faeces, pus, carrion and all types of najaasat are repugnant and repulsive for Muslims. 

It is the natural attribute of kufr to incline to and prefer filth and haraam while the natural attribute of Imaan is to repel all these disgusting items of filth. Thus the Hadith narrated by Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) has literal application and is not the subject for elimination by way of some flapdoodle interpretation which is bereft of Islamic validity.

There are three essential conditions for the permissibility of medical treatment with haraam substances:

(1) The haajat (need) is real. It is a life-threatening situation or the patient suffers severe pain.

(2) The total unavailability of a halaal medicine.

(3) Its shifa’ (curing property/ability) must be confirmed by an expert Muslim physician.

While Tadaawi bil haraam is permissible when the necessary conditions are found, it does not follow that filth and haraam substances should be stored for future use. When the emergency develops, then on the basis of the aforementioned conditions, the haraam substances may be used if available. It is not permissible to plan treatment with najaasat and haraam substances for future use.

It is not permissible to establish urine banks, faeces banks, blood banks and pork carrion banks for future use in cases of emergencies. The establishment of such banks is the effect of atheism. Muslims nowadays are overwhelmed by the influence and brainwashing of the atheists, hence every filth and haraam substances are considered to be absolute medical necessities. But Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that there is a cure, i.e. a halaal cure, for every disease. However, whilst the kuffaar medical fraternity is diligent in using filth for discovering new medicines, the Muslim medical fraternity, obsequiously follows in their footsteps. They have become supine bootlickers. Instead of parting ways and branching off into halaal, they too believe that blood, urine, faeces and all types of filth and najaasat are the primary cures for diseases. This attitude portrays their extreme Imaani deficiency and even lack of Imaan. They lack trust in the advices and claims of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

It should be well understood, and this is not difficult for a Muslim, that filth and haraam are not for normal use. The law of consuming pork applies when a person is on the verge of death due to hunger. The concession to consume just sufficient pork or a haraam substance is for an emergency or when there is an extreme need. It is not to be developed into a norm or a normal practice.

The same applies to Tadaawil bil haraam. The use of haraam elements as medicine is the absolutely very last resort. It does not follow from this concession that Tadaawi bil haraam be elevated to a normal and an acceptable institution for everyday use regardless of the stringent conditions for permissibility lacking.

According to the kuffaar cult of life, filth and unlawful substances have been developed as a primary institution of medical treatment and medicine. It is not a concession or an exception for the kuffaar. The western medical establishment has incorporated najaasat and haraam into its sphere of treatment. In fact, it constitutes the most important constituent of its methodology. Filth is integral to western medicine.

Our muftis with their extremely myopic vision and supine deeni attitude have accepted this kuffaar satanic institution as the acceptable norm for all cases and circumstances. But they labour in self-deception and they hoodwink the unwary masses with the Tadaawi bil haraam rule.

Treating sicknesses with filth and haraam is the very first resort of the kuffaar medical establishment into which Muslim doctors have been assimilated and swallowed. Since Muslim doctors acquired their medical knowledge at the boots of their kuffaar tutors, their brains are fitted with such straitjackets which do not permit them to see or understand the folly and villainy of the filth and haraam which are being utilized as normal and primary methods of treatment.

The fatwa of the mufti in fact is a licence for regarding as permissible the use of najaasat and haraam for normal and everyday medical treatment irrespective of the factor of haajat as specified by the Shariah. Blood transfusion is a standard and a normal procedure to adopt regardless of the lack of the Shar’i conditions on which permissibility is based. In fact, najaasat is the first option of the western medical establishment.

While there are millions of pure, halaal and beneficial substances in the plant and stone kingdoms from which medicine could be made, the focus of the kuffaar medical experts is primarily on blood, urine, faeces, pus, carrion and every kind of filth. That is the effect of their kufr, and Muslim   doctors have inherited this filth from their kuffaar superiors.

Hadhrat Mufti Muhammad Shafi (Rahmatullah alayh), in his Jawaahirul Fiqh, in his discussion on Tadaawi bil haraam, being cognizant of the evils of najaasat and haraam substances, states:

“Firstly, whatever Allah Ta’ala has declared haraam and prohibited, is for the benefit of humanity, and is based on great wisdom (Allah’s Wisdom). It is quite apparent that Allah Ta’ala is Aleem (The All Knowing One), Khabeer (The One Who is Aware) and Hakeem (The One of Wisdom). No decree of His is futile and without benefit. Therefore, the only possibility for ordaining substances to be haraam is that they are harmful for mankind. Even if some benefit is discernable in these substances, then too the harm is overwhelming.

Some of the harms affect the physical body while some are such harms which ostensibly are not related to the physical body. However, these are harms which are detrimental for the human Soul. These harmful effects exercise a great influence on moral character and attitude.

Everyone understands the first type of harms, namely that which is harmful for the physical body. All medical systems are aware and acknowledge the harms of such substances, e.g. carrion, etc.

However, spiritual health and disease are not tangible, hence not visible to the eyes. There is no instrument by which this could be measured. The medical physicians are unable to diagnose these conditions. Only those who are the physicians of the Rooh understand these intangible or spiritual harms (caused by najaasat and haraam). They are able to diagnose spiritual health and sickness. In their view spiritual health is of greater importance than physical health.

Whatever the Shariah has made haraam and prohibited is only for the benefit and well-being of people. These substances sometimes harm the body, sometimes the soul and sometimes both.” (End of Mufti Shafi’s naseehat)

It does not behove Muslims to focus on and even incline towards najaasat and haraam. Such an attitude is inherent to the shayaateen and the kuffaar. Establishing blood banks, faeces banks, urine banks, pus banks, pork banks and banks of all types of filth is not permissible. Such acts of filth are integral to satanism and it has a natural affinity with the kuffaar. Kufr and shaitaaniyat are extremely compatible.

In an emergency filth and najasaat may be used for medical treatment provided the essential three conditions are fulfilled. It will be permissible, not incumbent. Medical treatment is not Waajib. We wonder if the mufti will relish a bowl of faeces for curing a grievous disease if the kuffaar doctors assure him of shifa’. There are medical and curing properties in even the faeces of swines. But about Insaan, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“Verily, We have ennobled the progeny of Aadam and We have granted them control in the land and on the ocean, and We have   given them Tayyibaat (pure, wholesome and halaal foods)…….”
It is indeed a sad and a dismal commentary on the brains of the muftis who are at pains to establish najaasat and haraam as a first, primary and normal practice of medical treatment on the misconceived basis of the rule of Tadaawi bil haraam which may be invoked in only cases of emergency and dire need. But this rule cannot be presented as a basis for permissibility of donating blood, faeces, urine, etc., for future use. In fact, the issue of ‘future use’ is hallucinatory in view of the fact that these types of filth are now considered the first and primary options. The argument for permissibility of blood, faeces, urine and pork banks is bereft of Shar’i daleel and in conflict with Imaani rationality.

The contention that blood, urine, etc. may not be traded is a laughable incongruence. The hallucinated permissibility of blood and urine banks applies to a scenario of dire need and emergency. When in such circumstances it becomes permissible to consume blood, urine, faeces and pork, then what debars the permissibility of trading in these substances of filth? Assuming that in cases of real and dire need the faeces is available only at a price, then by the same token that eating the faeces has been made halaal by the mufti, buying the faeces will   be permissible to a greater degree. Paying for the faeces, blood, urine and pork is of a lesser nauseating gravity than actually consuming these artefacts of Iblees. The mufti has simply disgorged the impermissibility after having lapped it up from somewhere. Furthermore, the norm today is to pay exorbitant prices for the filth available at hospitals where the transfusion takes place.

Furthermore, the norm today is to pay exorbitant prices for the filth available at hospitals where the transfusion takes place.

And, regarding transfusion of blood, Imaam Shaafi’s view should exercise a salubrious effect on the mufti sahib. In Kitaabul Umm, Imaam Shaafi’ (Rahmatullah alayh) says:

“If a person transfuses blood under his skin, and there is growth on it, then it is incumbent on him to extract this blood and repeat all the Salaat which he had performed after having transfused the blood (into his body).”

Commenting, Mufti Shafi (Rahmatullah alayh) says in Jawaahirul Fiqh:

“Blood is part of the human being. When it is extracted from the body it is najis. The actual demand of this is that generally it is haraam to transfuse the blood of a person into another person. Being part of the human body demands this, and it being najaasat ghaleezah demands hurmat.”

This is the actual ruling of the Shariah, and this ruling may not be swept under the carpet to accommodate the filthy, haraam institutions of the western kuffaar. In the absence of the three Waajib conditions stipulated by the Shariah for the permissibility of Tadaawi bil Haraam, the general practice of transfusing blood prevalent nowadays is haraam.

Erosion of the ahkaam of the Shariah is the effect of desensitization which in turn is the effect of wide scale prevalence. This erosion is further fostered and aggravated by the lackadaisical attitude of the muftis of this era. Their lack of in depth understanding due to lack of Taqwa which is an alien concept for them, renders them incapable of comprehending the damage they are causing to the Shariah of Allah Ta’ala. They just bend backwards to accommodate within the Shariah just every haraam and filthy practice and institution of the kuffaar. This bootlicking culture is extremely lamentable. While it is understandable and acceptable that doctors whose brains are harnessed by their kuffaar masters and tutors, this miserable and repugnant attitude is not expected of the ulama.

Haphazard and piecemeal application of the principles of the Shariah is haraam. A perfect example of this type of convoluted application of a Shar’i principle is the rule of Tadaawi bil haraam. This principle is supposed to be applied only if the requisite demands of the Shariah are satisfied. But the muftis are utilizing this principle to halaalize filth and haraam in normal circumstances when the necessary Shar’i conditions are non-existent.


(1) Tadaawi bil haraam is an established principle of the Shariah. There is no contention regarding this issue. But there are essential conditions for its lawful operation. These have already been explained.

(2) Establishing blood banks, faeces banks, urine banks, pork banks and the like of najaasat banks will always be haraam. Storing filth and haraam substances for future anticipated cases of need is not permissible.

(3) Tawakkul (Trust in Allah) and Tafweedh (Assigning one’s affairs to Allah), are Waajib commands stated in the Qur’aan and Ahaadith. The very minimum Waajib degree of these attributes for the masses is to abstain from transgressing the limits of the Shariah. While the higher degrees of Tawakkul and Tafweedh are the preserve of the Auliyae Aarifeen, observance of the Zahiri Shariah is Waajib for all Muslims. This fact is not understood by the ulama of this era, hence all the corruption which their corrupt fatwas excrete. 

Sanctity Of The Human Body in Islam

Some concerned Muslim medical students studying abroad in Dublin, Ireland have posed the question of experimentation and mutilation of dead human bodies. The article appearing hereunder is pre­sented for better understanding and greater clarification of this question.

By Mujlisul Ulama

INSAAN or man is the highest and the noblest of Allah Ta’ala’s creation. His importance and rank is such that Allah Ta’ala has created the entire universe. for his sake and made subservient to man all forces of nature. The Quraan Shareef is very explicit in making this claim. The elevated rank of man has been emphasised by Allah Ta’ala command­ing the Malaa-ikah to pro­strate in the presence of Adam (alayhis salaam), pro­genitor of the human race. And, what more can illu­strate the reverence of man than the following verse of the Quraan Shareef:

“And, remember when Allah said to the Malaa-­ikah: Verily, I shall be creating a Representative on earth…”

The entity of “INSAAN” consists of physical body and celestial soul (Rooh). Both these constitute inte­gral, and essential parts of this being known as man. The physical body minus the soul, by virtue of it be­ing a fundamental consti­tuent of Insaan deserves all the respect, dignity and re­verence Islam commands for the total “Insaan”, i.e. man-body and soul. Allah Ta’ala has commanded that we show respect and reverence to not only the dead body of man; but to even the nails’ and the hairs which are removed. These too can­not be discarded in dis­respect. The nails and hair even have to be buried. Be­cause of the great respect Islam orders for man, all forms of uses and benefits from the human body (dead body) or from any part of the human body are for­bidden. The Shariah de­crees:

“It is Haraam to derive any benefit fuse) from the hair of man, and from all his parts be­cause of the reverence (or respect) of man. But, his hair, his nails and all parts of him shall be bu­ried.”   [SHARHUL MUSLIM-NAWAWI]

So great is the respect Is­lam orders us to show man that long after his death when he has disintegrated and transformed into soil, the Shariah commands that when we pass by his grave we should not trample or to “mutilate” this man’s grave then the degree of unlaw­fulness for “mutilating” his body is emphasised to a far greater extent. The elabo­rate measures  – rituals, and practices — designed and or­dered by Islam to be ob­served in the burial of dead human bodies all impress the great reverence and sanctity of the human body – that the body of man is an object of respect; that it should not be disrespected in any way, leave alone mu­tilation suffered at the hands of experimentation. The following extracts from the Islamic Law Books illu­strate the great treatment of respect and reverence meted out by Islam to the human body.

“And, when the person dies, his jaws are to be tied and his eyes to be closed… In this (ac­tion) is the maintenance of man’s beauty,-eit is recomended (Mustahsan, i.e. meritorious) to do so.” [HIDAAYAH]

Immediately upon death the jaws are to be tied with a ribbon and the eye-lids to be closed to prevent the un­seemly sight of a gaping and gazing dead body.

“(While giving the dead body a bath) they should cover the body’s privacy with a cloth, so as to fulfil the compulsory duty of concealing the `satr’ (private parts).” [HIDAAYAH].

The dead body is an ob­ject of high reverence, hence Islam commands it be treat­ed with respect by bathing it ceremoniously and even concealing the private parts of the dead body from the sight of the living.

“The table (on which the body shall be laid) is to be perfumed… be­cause this is part of the respect (and reverence) which is to be shown to the dead body.” [HIDAAYAH]

itr – perfume for the dead. The senses – physical senses – ­are dead as well. Of what use then is the act of per­fuming the dead? Allah Ta’ala desires us to respect that vehicle — the human physical body — which was the receptacle of the cele­stial soul for which Allah Ta’ala ‘created the entire universe.

“Hunoot (a kind of per­fume) shall be rubbed onto his (the dead body’s) head and in his beard, and camphor shall be rubbed on those parts of the -body which touched the ground in Sajdah because this is deserving of greater re­spect.”   [HIDAAYAH]

In explaining the reason for the unlawfulness of uti­lizing the skin of man for any purpose, the authorita­tive Law Book of Islam SHARHUN NIQAAYAH, states:

“… so that mankind do not become audacious in disrespecting that object (human body) which Al­lah Ta’ala has revered, by using its parts (organs, hair, nails, etc.) And, be­cause it is not permissi­ble to derive benefit from it (human body) because of his reveren­ce.”

The above are merely a few examples of respect for the dead body. A host of rules; all indicating and em­phasising the great respect and reverence of the dead body, is related to the treat­ment of the dead body from the time man dies un­til after burial.

So high is the regard for the body of man that Is­lam commands that it could not be used for even saving life. The Law Books of Islam state that if two people are lost or stranded in some remote part and one is on the verge of dying due to starvation it is not lawful for the one to dis­member or cut part of his flesh to feed his companion so as to save his life. This is so, despite the fact that Islam makes lawful even the eating of swine flesh when one is reduced to such dire straits of starvation.

No matter how great the advantages to medical science the experimentation and mutilation of human bodies may be, Islam does not condone this sacrilege inflicted upon an object which Allah Ta’ala Himself respects and commanded mankind to revere. The physical body is not the property of “INSAAN”; it does not belong unto him; therefore he has no right to misuse this vehicle assigned to his care for a while. The human body is a sacred trust which Allah Ta’ala has given man, hence he cannot destroy it by suicide, by donating it and by mutilat­ing it.

It has to be conceded that the purpose underlying the “mutilation” of dead bodies by medical science is noble, but Islam does not justify and legalise all means for the attainment of a noble and a laudable pur­pose. All means unlawful in Islam are to be shunned in our endeavours to attain our noble goals. And, expe­rimentation with dead man bodies is a method un­lawful in Islam.