Category Archives: Basic Islamic Laws

Astrology and Palmistry: Differentiating the means from Cause

By Qafila blog

image

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

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

Answer

Bismillāhi Ta’ālā

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Firstly: The report is not established authentically.

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

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

And Allah Ta’ala Knows Best,

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

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

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

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

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

STUNNED ANIMALS ARE NOT HALAAL

By Mujlisul Ulama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⚫ Al-Mauqoothah    – An animal beaten to death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

کرسمس اور اسلام

ﺑﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﯿﻢ

ﻏﯿﺮ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺗﮩﻮﺍﺭﻭﮞ ﻣﺜﻼ ﮐﺮﺳﻤﺲ ﻭﻏﯿﺮﮦ ﮐﯽ ﺧﻮﺷﯽ ﻣﻨﺎﻧﺎ

ﺗﺤﺮﯾﺮ : ﺳﺎﺟﺪ ﺧﺎﻥ ﻧﻘﺸﺒﻨﺪﯼ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ﮐﺮﺳﻤﺲ ﮐﮯ ﺩﻥ ﺧﺪﺍ ﮐﺎ ﻏﻀﺐ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﮨﻮﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ

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

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

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

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

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

ﮐﺎﻓﺮﻭﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺍﯾﺎﻡ ﮐﯽ ﺗﻌﻈﯿﻢ ﮐﺮﻧﺎ ﮐﻔﺮ ﮨﮯ

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

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

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

ﻣﺰﯾﺪ ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ :

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

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

ﺍﻭﺭ ﺍٓﮔﮯ ﻟﮑﮭﺘﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﮐﮧ :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WOMEN VISITING GRAVEYARDS

QUESTION

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

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

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

ANSWER (By Mujlisul Ulama):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAUSOLEUMS & MAZAARS – MONUMENTS OF SHIRK AND KUFR

By Mujlisul Ulama

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

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

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

MAZAARS – MONUMENTS OF SHIRK AND KUFR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANOTHER BASELESS ARGUMENT OF ANOTHER GRAVE-WORSHIPPER

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

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

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

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

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

Presenting the tafseer of this aayat, Baidhaawi says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tafseer Qurtubi continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In another hadith Hadhrat Aishah (radhiyallahu anha) says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Raza Academy alleges:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We say to the Qabar Pujari jamaat:

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

ALLAH TA’ALA HAS CURSED THE YAHOOD AND NASARA (BECAUSE) THEY MADE THE GRAVES OF THEIR AMBIYA PLACES OF WORSHIP (i.e. MAUSOLEA AS IS THE PRACTICE OF THE QABAR PUJARI SECT).  

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

سوال:

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

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

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

جواب:

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

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

ضمیمہ

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

الجواب بتوفیق اللہ تعالٰی:

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

ابن تیمیہ کہتے ہیں:

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

اور مصنف ابن ابی شیبہ میں روایت ہے کہ:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Machine Slaughtering and the Shariah

By Mujlisul Ulama

INTRODUCTION

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.

MUJLISUL ULAMA OF S.A.

8 Rabiul Awwal 1433

31 January 2012

*******************************************************************

WHO IS THE THAABIH (SLAUGHTERER)

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 ANIMAL SLAUGHTERED BY A CHILD WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND, BY AN INSANE PERSON AND BY AN INTOXICATED PERSON WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND, WILL NOT BE CONSUMED’ (Jauharah,  Shurambulaliyah, Raddal Mukhtar)

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,

“THUS IT IS THE ACT OF MAN’S  HAND”

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:

“BECAUSE ITS SLAUGHTERING IS WITHOUT THE KILLING OF ANY HUMAN.”

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.

ALLAAMAH MAHMOOD ON MACHINE-SLAUGHTERING

(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.