Category Archives: Modernists

“This thing isn’t Islam, this is Arab culture” – The New Fitnah of the Modernists

A new Fitnah which is becoming popular nowadays is:

“This thing isn’t Islam, this is Arab culture”

Mostly the adherents of this statement are Quranists, liberal/
secular muslims, Modernist scholars and their Followers and also Non-Muslims. The things which they do not like which includes beard and most importantly the covering of women instantly guise as only cultural phenomena.

For the Muslims their identity is not defined by an area or place, rather it is identified by their viewpoint of life (aqeedah), their specific thaqafa (culture), loyalty (al wala) and purpose (maqsad): to take mankind out of darkness and into the light (Noor). The difference in the atmospheres, geography, history, etc,.. of an area from another area are simply outcomes of this identity.

The Muslim identity is only should be known by their faith not by their mere geography and culture. If one say that covering of women is Arab Culture. Then how does every place Islam has been spread has always have the existence of covered women. Mostly the ones who use this claim are Hadith Rejectors. It was the Pre-Islamic era when women were naked. It was the light of Islam which gave them the concept of Chastity and Modesty.

To make long story short, The only Culture/Tradition we can adhere to is only Islam. Mixing “law or Customs/Norms of the land” with Islam is like mixing poison with water.

Interpretation of the Qur’aan – Not Permissible for even the Ulama

By Mujlisul Ulama


A MISCREANT MODERNIST who himself is unaware of his Imaani status, whether he is a zindeeq, mulhid or munaafiq, claims that modernists like him with some secular education and lawyers with LLB degrees and others of such ilk who have made a self-study of some books on Islam, or a study under fussaaq university professors have the right to interpret the Qur’aan and to bandy fatwas based on such corrupt and unqualified opinion of non-entities.

He further avers that the Ulama in South Africa have always claimed that it is only their right to interpret the Qur’aan and to deliver lectures in the Musaajid. The miscreant modernist and others of his brand are merely displaying their stark ignorance of issues pertaining to the Shariah. It was never claimed that it was the exclusive right of the Ulama to interpret the Qur’aan. The claim of the Ulama has always been that it is the right of only Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to interpret the Qur’aan. The Deen of Islam is not the product of human interpretation of the Qur’aan. Islam is the perfected and finalized Code of Law revealed by Allah Azza Wa Jal.

The Ulama do not interpret the Qur’aan. The obligation of the Ulama is to defend the Shariah – to safeguard Islam from the attacks of marauders such as the modernist zindeeqs and mulhids who lack totally in the qualifications of Knowledge. Without possessing any qualifications they aspire to enter into the elevated domain of the Ulama.


Islam is the product of Wahi (Divine Revelation). It is not the product of human interpretation, least of all the interpretation of modernist fussaaq and zindeeqs who lack adequate knowledge of even the basic masaa-il of Tahaarat and Salaat. Yet, their arrogance and ignorance constrain them to set up business as mujtahids’. Their ijtihaad’ and interpretation are akin to the inferior plastic toys manufactured in China.

In rebuttal of the charge made by these modernist donkeys, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whoever, speaks about the Qur’aan with his opinion, should prepare his abode in the Fire.” Hadhrat Umar Ibn Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu) describing these modernist asses of bloated self-opinion, said: “Verily, the people of opinion are the enemies of the Sunnah.” To clinch this argument, the Qur’aan-e-Hakeem declares in rejection and condemnation of these modernist miscreants who distort and mutilate the Deen of Allah Azza Wa Jal:

“Why do you (O ignoramuses!) dispute in matters in which you lack knowledge?” [Aal-e-Imraan, aayat 66]

“Verily, many (are the miscreants) who mislead (others) without knowledge.” [An-Nisaa’, 119]

With their compound jahaalat the modernist zindeeqs endeavour to mislead juhhaal of their ilk.

“Who is a greater oppressor than the one who fabricates lies about Allah without knowledge.” [An-Aaam, 144]

These unqualified modernist mulhideen are among the greatest ‘oppressors’. They come within the full glare of this and other Qur’aanic strictures.

“Do not fabricate anything regarding which you have no knowledge. Verily, the ears, eyes and the heart, everyone of them will be subjected to questioning (by Allah Ta’ala).” [Bani Israaeel, 36]

“And among people there is such (a miscreant) who disputes about (the laws) of Allah without knowledge, and he follows every rebellious shaitaan.” [Hajj, 3]

This appropriately describes the modernist zindeeq who seeks to set himself up as an authority of the Shariah despite his lack of qualifications.

“In fact, the transgressors follow their base desires without knowledge. Who then can guide one whom Allah has misled?” [Ar-Rum, 29]

Modernist miscreants who speak without Shar’i qualifications are transgressors who voice nothing but their silly opinions – products of their jahaalat.

“And, among the people are those who dispute about (the laws of) Allah without knowledge, without guidance and without a glittering kitaab.” [Luqmaan, 20]

All modernist zindeeqs suffer from this malady stated in this aayat. Their arrogance and pride do not allow them to submit to those who have the requisite Ilm to speak on matters of the Deen.

“And they do not have knowledge in this regard. They merely  conjecture.” [Al-Jaathiyah, 24]

“Only the unbelievers dispute in the aayaat of Allah. Therefore, do not let their strutting in the cities deceive you.” [Al-Mu’min, 4]

Zindeeq is a class among the kuffaar. Modernist zindeeqs who subject the Qur’aan to their whimsical opinions and forge interpretations of their nafs display their kufr.

“Those who dispute in the verses of Allah without proof (qualified Ilm of the Deen), (indeed their crime) is a great sin by Allah and by those who Believe. In this way does Allah seal the heart of every arrogant oppressor.” [Al-Mu’min, 35]

“Verily, those who dispute in the aayaat of Allah without any proof (Knowledge) having come to them, verily, in their hearts is a (lust for) greatness which they will not attain. [Al-Mu’min, 56]

The unqualified modernists who dispute and deny the Shariah of Allah Ta’ala and who attempt to wrought changes in this Deen qualify themselves for Divine  Wrath. Rejecting their disputation and interpretation of the Qur’aan, Allah Ta’ala says: 

“Those who dispute about Allah after acceptance of Him (of His Deen), their disputation is baseless by their Rabb, and on them is Wrath (of Allah), and for them is a severe punishment.”   [As-Shura, 16]


The ‘Ulama’ are not a special class in society in terms of lineage, race, or any other worldly and artificial factor. The speciality of the Ulama has never been posited on any such grounds. But, indeed the Qur’aan and the Ahaadith do allocate a special – an extremely elevated – pedestal to the ‘Ulama. Qur’aanic verses declaring the elevation of the Ulama, is aayat 11 of Surah Mujaadalah:

“Allah elevates the Believers among you, and those who have been granted Ilm by many ranks.”

This aayat is explicit in declaring  the superiority of the Ulama. By virtue of the Knowledge of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, they occupy a lofty pedestal, loftier than the rank of even the pious ordinary Mu’mineen. Hence, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Verily, the Ulama are the Heirs of the Ambiya”. Numerous Ahaadith testify to the superiority of the Ulama. While the modernist zindeeq tries to deny this superiority, nothing will be able to dislodge the Ulama-e-Haqq from the pedestal of elevation divinely bestowed to them. They are the Officers of Allah Azza Wa Jal here on earth. They are the Defenders of His Law and they are the Representatives of His Nabi.

This lofty pedestal is not for every molvi, least of all for the LLB asses who are awarded a mantle of ‘qualification by a bunch of donkeys. A man does not become a qualified Aalim by virtue of his MA and LLB secular qualifications. University donkeys (professors) cannot appoint Ulama. Speaking on this subject, Hakimul Ummat Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayh) said: “The affirmation of a few donkeys does not elevate a man to the status of Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam).”


Nowadays, we find cranks with LLB qualifications aspiring to be mujtahids. They labour under the colossal misconception of their LLB scrap degrees and their secular law professions elevating them to the lofty pedestal occupied by the Ulama. We reiterate that the Ulama are not a racial class nor is their hallowed status the effect of lineage nor of wealth nor of any other worldly factor. In the early epoch of Islam, emancipated slaves were among the great Mujtahideen and Spiritual Masters of the Ummah. What promoted them to such a lofty pedestal? It was their qualification. They acquired the Ilm of the Deen which the Sahaabah had imparted. They acquired Ilm of the Deen authoritatively from expert Ulama who were linked to a Golden Chain of Asaatizah linking up with Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). There is no missing link in this Chain which binds the qualified Ulama to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

An Aalim of the Deen is one who acquires his Ilm from Asaatizah who are all, without any exception, links in the Golden Sanad which emanated from the noble and blessed Breast of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). An Aalim is not one who sits at the feet of kuffaar professors wallowing in physical and spiritual janaabat, nor does he acquire damaged knowledge from fussaaq and fujjaar Muslim professors in a spiritually and morally filthy university in an environment of fisq and fujoor. 

There is no barrier for any Muslim to become an Aalim and become an Ambassador of the Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Any person from whichever wrung of society he may be, be he a scavenger, may aspire to enter into the domain of the Ulama. The Ilm of the Deen is not the capital of any special class of persons. This is where the stupid modernist seek to mislead ignoramuses. He and others of his ilk are usually at pains in the attempt to create the picture of the Ulama positing themselves as a special racial class. This is furthest from the truth. Even the modernist zindeeq may join the ranks of the Ulama. He only has to abandon his Irtidaad, renew his Imaan and pursue the Knowledge of the Deen from authorities of the Shariah whose Sanad is authoritative. Then the qualifications of Ilm will be conferred on him as well. But, a book study, a self-study, a study under men of kufr, fisq and fujoor will never elevate him to the pedestal which Allah Ta’ala has conferred to the Ulama-e-Haqq.


As long as a man does not possess qualified Ilm of the Deen, he remains a donkey who cannot become an Aalim by being invested with ‘authority’ by a group of other asses. A donkey appointed by asses remains a donkey. He does not become a qualified Aalim. Commenting on the trend of asses appointing donkeys, Hakimul Ummat Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayh) said:

“Nowadays, every person considers himself to be an Aalim and a Mujtahid. But when he is confronted by a Muhaqqiq then he discovers that his ‘knowledge’ is pure jahl (ignorance). Only if a Muhaqqiq affirms your knowledge, then regard it to be correct otherwise it is nothing but jahl.…. Even among the Ulama, everyone is not a Muhaqqiq. A very few among them are (in the class of) Muhaqqiqeen. The majority possesses only book knowledge. Their knowledge is restricted to translating the Arabic.

Nowadays the situation has deteriorated so much that one who studies Meezaan (i.e. the ABC of Arabic grammar) is regarded as a molvi, and the one who has completed darsiyaat (the academic course) is portrayed as if he is a registered molvi. Ilm (i.e. qualified Ilm of the Deen) is not restricted to this (i.e. to mere textual knowledge). Beyond this there is another Ilm by means of which one becomes a qualified Muhaqqiq. By this Ilm he acquires the aptitude of Ilm.”

The modernist miscreant who excels in heresay and kufr, and those who seek to pass off their scrap LLB degrees as qualification for Ijtihaad should understand that they remain donkeys, and donkeys cannot become Ulama notwithstanding their braying. About their braying, the Qur’aan Majeed says: “Verily among the worse of sounds is the braying of an ass.” So, understand well, Mr. Unqualified Modernist! You remain an ass which cannot aspire for the lofty pedestal which Allah Ta’ala has conferred to the Ulama, and if all the university donkeys unite in the attempt to jack you onto the stage of the Ulama, you will remain where donkeys dwell. Donkeys cannot propel an ass to the pedestal of Isaa (alayhis salaam), and as long as you remain a donkey, you have no right to  speak in any Musjid. If you do, you are a fraud!


Response to the Modernist Contention: “It is Not in the Qur’aan!”

By Mujlisul Ulama

SOME IGNORAMUSES WHEN arguing to negate a confirmed tenet of the Shariah, surface with the retort: “It is not in the Qur’aan!”. At the juncture when this argument is presented, it should be realized that the best response for such mental density and total ignorance is to adopt the following Qur’aanic advice: “And when the jaahlioon (ignoramuses) address them (the Mu’mineen), they say: ‘Peace”. In other words, the intelligent Mu’min honourably terminates the discussion and does not degenerate to the level of ignorance of his adversary.

In the context of academic and rational debate and discussion, the aforementioned retort perhaps is the lowest ebb of ignorance. A man who is equipped with even a basic understanding of the Shariah – he need not be an Aalim – understands the ludicrousness of this argument which exposes the total jahaalat (ignorance) of the one presenting this stupidity.

Firstly, the invalidity of this argument is conspicuously manifest because the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah (the Followers of the Four Math-habs) do not claim that Islam with its Divine Shariah is confined to the Qur’aan Majeed. It never was the contention of any authority of the Shariah, that everything of Islam is to be found in the Qur’aan in detailed form. It is not contended that the Qur’aan is the only Source of the Shariah. This retort would be appropriate only if directed to deviates who claim that every iota of the Islamic Shariah is found in the Qur’aan. But we are not concerned with such deviates. There may be a deviate sect known as Ahlul Qur’aan, who may proffer the preposterous principle that whatever is not in the Qur’aan is not Islam. But there never existed such a legal quibble in the jurisprudence of the Shariah.

The absence of a specific rule, teaching, custom, practice, etc. from the Qur’aan is not grounds for invalidity or spuriousness of such a tenet. Morons for example argue that since the incumbency of the beard is not stated in the Qur’aan, keeping a beard is not Waajib (obligatory). Morons of this calibre who operate within the extremely restrictive confines of their ignorance and lack of knowledge of the Shariah are too dense in the mind to understand that the performance of the five daily Fardh Salaat too is not found in the Qur’aan. The number of Fardh, Sunnat, Witr and Nafl raka’ts, the methodology of Salaat such as the particular method of Qiyaam, Ruku’, Sajdah, Qiraa’t, folding the hands, Qa’dah, Tashahhud, Durood, Dua, Salaam and the myriad of specific masaail related to Salaat are not to be found anywhere in the Qur’aan.

In fact, the term ‘salaat’ literally means to supplicate, to bestow blessings, to praise, tasbeeh (to glorify), mercy, etc. It does not mean the specific and peculiar style of Islamic prayer which we perform five times a day. Similarly, Zakaat and the innumerable rules regulating this fundamental institution of Islam are not to be found anywhere in the Qur’aan. 

The Qur’aan merely commands: “Establish Salaah and give Zakaah”. If the stupid ‘principle’, ‘it is not in the Qur’aan’, has to be applied, 95% of the Shariah will have to be expunged. The Qur’aan is the Divine Scripture of Guidance in which reference is made to some tenets of Islam, and on the basis of which the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen (the highest category of Jurists of Islam) have evolved the immutable Usool (Principles) of the Islamic Shariah.

The greater part of the Shariah comprises of the teachings of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which are encapsulated in his verbal pronouncements and practical demonstrations. Further, a great part of Islam is based on Qur’aanic and Hadith principles evolved by the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen. Thus, the argument: ‘It is not in the Qur’aan’, is the dictum of morons who are academically bankrupt, and who are absolutely bereft of the slightest vestige of congeniality with knowledge. The Sources of Islam are Kitaabullah (The Qur’aan), the Sunnah (the verbal and practical expressions of Rasulullah – sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Ijma’ (the Consensus of the Authorities of Islam), and Qiyaas (the Shariah’s process of Analogical Reasoning).

So, when any crank or moron flings the argument, ‘It is not in the Qur’aan’, your only response should be: “Our Islam is not confined to the Qur’aan. Peace on you. We do not engage the Jaahileen in discussion.”

Muslims and having Dogs – Reponse to a Modernist Arguments

An article appeared in the Huffington Post ‘What’s up with Muslims and dogs’ written by Ingrid Mattson. She attempts to prove that prohibition of dogs is a cultural issue and has nothing to do with Deen. Ingrid Mattson’s profile states that she is a professor of Islamic studies. Below is the article from Huffington Post. 

We had many requests to respond to the article. 

Advocate Mufti Emran Vawda has adequately responded to the article rebutting her erroneous claims and expounding the reality of dogs from the Shariah perspective with academic references.

It is very unfortunate that today the claim as professor of Islamic studies has become a title without any merit. This becomes very clear from the texts cited by Advocate Mufti Emran Vawda.  Anyone having little knowledge of Ahaadith would have known these Ahaadith referred to in the response. The article makes an enjoyable academic read. 

_ Mufti Ebrahim Desai 

What’s Up With Muslims and Dogs?

By Ingrid Mattson

I’m not a big follower of reality television, but was happy to hear about TLC’s new reality show “All-American Muslim.” We know that personal contact is the best way to break down stereotypes, but with Muslims less than 2% of the U.S. population, many Americans will never get to know a Muslim. Meeting us through reality television might not be ideal, but it’s better than nothing.

After watching “All-American Muslim” for a few weeks, I now believe that the show is good for our community beyond the way it might lessen prejudice against Muslims. The additional benefit is that the show has engaged our community in discussing some of the many challenges we face making distinctions between critical religious values and flexible cultural practices. In the fourth episode, the issue of Muslims having dogs in the home came up, and this is worth further discussion.

In this episode, newly-wed Arab-American Shadia tells Jeff, her Irish-American convert husband, that she does not want his dog to move with them to their new home. Shadia has allergies, and her asthma is exacerbated by the dog’s hair. This is an understandable and common dilemma. But Shadia bolsters her position with statements about the impermissibility for a Muslim to have dogs in the home. Her father will not pray in the house if the dog is there, she says, because dog hair is impure and a prayer space needs to be pure. Later, Shadia backs off from the religious argument, admitting that the main reason she doesn’t want a dog in the house is “I wasn’t raised with dogs; I’m not used to them.” I appreciated this moment of honesty. The use of a religious norm as a trump card in an argument we want to win is a temptation we all face.

So what is the Islamic position about dogs? In fact, there are a variety of opinions according to different legal schools. The majority consider the saliva of dogs to be impure, while the Maliki school makes a distinction between domestic and wild dogs, only considering the saliva of the latter to be impure. The question for Muslims observant of other schools of law is, what are the implications of such an impurity?

These Muslims should remember that there are many other impurities present in our homes, mostly in the form of human waste, blood, and other bodily fluids. It is fairly common for such impurities to come in contact with our clothes, and we simply wash them off or change our clothes for prayer. When you have children at home, it sometimes seems you can never get away from human waste. But we manage it, often by designating a special space and clothing kept clean for prayer.

Some Muslims object to having a dog in the home because of a prophetic report that angels do not enter a home with dogs in it. If a Muslim accepts this report as authentic, it still requires an analysis of context to determine its meaning and legal application. Ordinary people are not recipients of divine revelation through angelic messengers, so it is possible that this statement, although in general form, might suggest a rule for the Prophet’s home, not all homes. This interpretation is strengthened by the fact the Qur’an states that angels are always present, protecting us and recording our good and bad actions.

Whatever the implications of this report, there is no doubt that the Qur’an is positive about dogs. The Qur’an allows the use of hunting dogs, which is one of the reasons the Maliki school makes a distinction between domestic and wild dogs – since we can eat game that has been in a retriever’s mouth. But most compelling is the Qur’anic description of a dog who kept company with righteous youths escaping religious persecution. The party finds shelter in a cave where God places them in a deep sleep; the Qur’an (18:18) says:

You would have thought them awake, but they were asleep And [God] turned them on their right sides then on their left sides And their dog stretched his forelegs across the threshold

This tender description of the dog guarding the cave makes it clear that the animal is good company for believers. Legal scholars might argue about the proper location of the dog – that he should stay on the threshold of the home, not inside – but home designs vary across cultures. In warm climates, an outdoor courtyard is a perfectly humane place for a dog – its physical and social needs can be met in the yard. This is not the case in cold climates, where people stay indoors most of the day for months at a time.

Extreme concern about the uncleanliness of dogs likely arose historically as Islam became more of an urban phenomenon. In medieval cities, as in modern cities in under-developed countries, crowding of people and animals leads to the rapid spread of disease and animal control is not a priority. A few run-ins with an aggressive or diseased animal can result in excessive caution, fear and negativity.

I have long felt badly that many Muslims fear dogs as a result of negative experiences and that they resort to confused religious reasoning to shun them. It is one of the reasons why I try to introduce my students and friends to my very sweet, very large dog Ziggy.

Ziggy came into our home to be like the dog in the cave: to keep company to my child who lies in exile from the world because of a debilitating illness. He has been nothing but a blessing – guarding the house while we sleep, forcing me to exercise daily, and showing us, as he happily follows our tiny cat around the yard, that if cats and dogs can get along so well, then we people have no excuse.

There is another reason why I love having my dog around. Ziggy came from Tennessee. He was rescued by an animal control officer who uses her own resources to save dogs who would otherwise be destroyed in a few days. Tina saves as many dogs as she can by bringing them home and putting them up for adoption on the internet. When I called Tina to speak about adopting Ziggy, she had 65 dogs she had rescued out in her yard. After being disheartened by some terrible things that have come out of Tennessee lately – mosque burnings and anti-Shari`ah legislation among them – I love looking at Ziggy and thinking about the woman with the thick southern accent and big heart who saved his life.  (End of the Article)


Muslims and Dogs: Is it really just a cultural thing?

Post by: Emraan Vawda[1]

A boil that erupts on the foot does not necessarily mean that one has to rush of to the podiatrist. It could be indicative of a serious imbalance in the blood, which is likely to affect the whole body. When I received a copy of an article entitled “What’s Up With Muslims and Dogs?”[2] by Ingrid Mattson, I could not help discern the underlying hidden malady that incidentally manifested itself through the topic of Muslims keeping dogs in the home. The brief column is a good example of the common ailment of apologetics coupled with pseudo-scholastics.

The unique feature of traditional Islamic learning is the continuous chain of authorization. A genuine Islamic scholar is tutored for a considerable period under the feet of a master until such time that he/she receives Ijaazah (authorization). The teacher himself or herself must have been similarly authorized. The uninterrupted and verifiable chain of reliable transmitters eventually links up directly with the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). It is this unparalleled feature that sets traditional Ulama apart from self styled scholars of Islam. Therefore the following maxim has been repeatedly echoed over the past fourteen centuries:

Had there been no safeguard such as continuous transmission, anyone could have said anything they wished.

The column is a stark example of personal confusion passed off as Islamic academics, supposedly representing the correct position of the religious texts.

The writer attempts to transpose the prohibition of keeping dogs in the home from the religious source to a social misunderstanding. It is after all, she argues, just a cultural thing, and has been ignorantly attributed to the Islamic religious texts. In an attempt to urge the reader to “back off from the religious argument”, she endeavours to re-interpret the texts. Herein lies the fundamental flaw of her reasoning. No matter how one interprets the religious texts, it is nonetheless an interpretation of religion, which cannot be relabelled as culture. It remains religious, whether or not we agree with such an interpretation.

In order to bolster her theory, she raises the question of the status of dog’s saliva. However, the topic under question was whether the prohibition of keeping dogs in the home is based on Islam or culture. The impurity or otherwise of dog’s saliva is merely one factor that could influence the real question. There are other reasons why Islam has prohibited the keeping of dogs in the home, as will be elucidated below. Zooming in on the matter to saliva conveniently obscures the topic’s broader religious angle.

The writer narrows the topic to the dog’s saliva. What she does not tell us is that there are different views within the Maliki school, one being that the saliva is impure. Even if we accept the view within the Maliki school that the saliva is not impure, how do we explain the fact that according to all the Ulama (scholars) within the Maliki school the keeping of dogs as pets is reprehensible. According to the majority of schools, all the dog’s body fluids, including sweat, are impure. Two of the four juristic schools view the hair that falls of the dog as impure as well. Muslims’ concern about the purity of their body, clothes and immediate environment can hardly be termed as something cultural. It is precisely a religious issue. This belies the writer’s vociferation that Muslims need to back off from the religious argument.

Very strangely, the impurity issue is sort to be downplayed by the ridiculous proposition that those with children at home have impurity all over the place, and they still manage to live with it. I don’t know whether this is a cultural thing or not. Maybe in the ‘All American Muslim’ culture homes with children have impurities spread all over the place. Where I come from, certainly this is the furthest from the truth. The same goes for the majority of Muslims in the world. Yes, with young children there is the occasional mishap which is attended to. Otherwise, the purity within the Muslim is always maintained.

The writer is then compelled to address the reality that the issue of keeping dogs within the home transcends beyond the issue of impurity. It has a spiritual dimension. The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) has said:

Whoever keeps a dog; other than the dog for guarding the crops, hunting, or guarding the livestock; looses one Qiraat of reward every day. [Bukhari and Muslim]

In another Hadith (Prophetic saying) Qiraat is described as the reward equivalent to Mount Uhud, a huge mountain outside of Madinah Munawwarah.

Yet another Hadith states:

The angels do not enter the home wherein there are pictures or dogs.

In an attempt to diminish the significance of the Hadith, the writer begins with “If a Muslim accepts this report as authentic…”. She suggests that it is a question of personal preference for Muslims to choose certain reports and reject others. In fact the very thread and theme of her article is premised on the approach that she first has her ad hominem view on dogs, and then goes cherry picking to the religious texts to suit her own personal conclusions. Anything that comes in the way is re-interpreted or explained away to suit her objectives. This narration appears in the following books of Hadith compilation: Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmithi, Abu Dawood, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Ibn Hibban, Baihaqi, Haakim, Tabrani, Ahmad, etc. It has been accepted as authentic by the authorities in the field of Hadith, and therefore there is no “if” that applies here.

The ludicrousness intensifies when the writer suggests that since we cannot receive revelation, this Hadith does not apply to us. The following quotation from Allamah Dimyari succinctly addresses this point:

The angels that do not enter the homes that have a dog or picture within them are those angels that distribute mercies and blessings; and who seek forgiveness on behalf of the Muslims. As far as the recording angels and those instructed to remove the souls at the time of death, they enter all homes. The recording angels do not leave a person under any condition, since they are ordered to write down and preserve all a person’s actions. [Hayaatul Hayawaan al Kubra]

Some angels are also deputed to inspire good thoughts into the hearts of Muslims.

If the only function of angels was to convey revelation, then the Hadith would be, in the estimation of the writer, absurd. It would imply that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is discouraging his followers from the impossible, which is non-sensical. It is preferred that we dismiss the writer as non compos mentis than rather even remotely attributing absurdity to the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).

The writer then resorts to the oldest trick used by modernists, the fallacious not-found-in-the-Qur’aan argument. She postulates that since there is no negative mention of dogs in the Qur’aan, therefore it is not a religious issue but a cultural one. Like one cannot expect the Constitution of a State to include every law and rule, similarly the Qur’aan does not contain every fine detail. It lays out the principles. In numerous verses we are instructed to follow the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), and that is our second source of the detailed laws.

If we had to follow the not-found-in-the-Qur’aan argument, we would not be able to carry out our most basic religious duties. Where in the Qur’aan does it say that we have to perform the mid-day prayer, at what time, and how many raka’at (units of prayer)? The Qur’aan does not tell us how much Zakaat (compulsory charity) should be discharged. The list can go on infinitely. What the Qur’aan instructs us to do is to follow the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). For Muslims, therein is our guidance, and it is here that we locate our attitude towards keeping dogs in the home, not in our culture.

The writer then resorts to utter drivel in order to dramatise her cultural thing hypothesis. She says:

Extreme concern about the uncleanliness of dogs likely arose historically as Islam became more of an urban phenomenon. In medieval cities, as in modern cities in underdeveloped countries, crowding of people and animals leads to the rapid spread of disease and animal control is not a priority. A few run-ins with an aggressive or diseased animal can result in excessive caution, fear and negativity.

I have long felt badly that many Muslims fear dogs as a result of negative experiences and that they resort to confused religious reasoning to shun them.

After acknowledging that there are Prophetic reports on the topic, she still wishes to locate the source in culture and not religion. As Muslim communities urbanised, they had a few run-ins with dogs, which resulted in fear and negativity. This then germinated into “confused religious reasoning”. The poor lady is the one who is really confused.

She accepts that there are valid concerns around the purity related to dogs. Muslims are overtly concerned about issues of purity as it is a pre-requisite of prayer. She then shifts the entire scenario and implies that it was solely a case of human experience. As if, so to say, there was no religious position on dogs. There existed a pure vacuum. In this vacuum, Muslims of the past had some negative experiences with dogs. The poor souls were in search for some basis on which to shun dogs. They therefore invented a religious dimension in order to give some force to their own negative human experiences. In other words, the religious dimension is a fabrication of the mind, it is a myth and an invention to pacify human fears. The implication is that the Prophetic reports are something invented by Muslims to give credence to their inner negativity. Concerns around purity are fictions introduced by the jurists. They do not really exist. Those who attribute a religious dimension to the topic do so since they are confused.

The absurdity of her hypothesis is self manifest and does not require an in-depth analysis.

As alluded to above, the discussion goes deeper than the mere issue of dogs. The ruptures generated by this type of article penetrate far beyond the surface, and have the potential of damaging a Muslim’s faith. Those brought up in Muslim homes have learnt Islam through observation. Islamic norms and practices were imbibed through experiencing practical Islam. A relatively small fraction of Islamic awareness is attributable to formal Islamic education. Such Muslim have accepted and placed faith in the generally accepted norms and practices of the religious communities in which they were brought up. The overwhelming majority of Muslims would have learnt through experience that Muslims do not, for religious reasons, keep dogs at home. They had hitherto absolute confidence in the general attitude of their religious communities.

Somebody now comes along and claims that the entire Muslim communities were wrong, were all relying on “confused religious reasoning” and were in error in giving it a religious connotation. In reality it was a cultural thing. Muslims were for over a millennium confused and without guidance. In this enlightened age we are able to trace the real source of their attitudes. It is only now in the 15th Hijri century that we are truly guided and realised the colossal error. With a few more debates of this nature on relatively minor issues, the confidence this Muslim has in his experience of Islam through observation is shattered. His whole community has been proven wrong, and his entire Islamic experience has now been rendered spurious. The issue may be minor – the keeping of dogs – but the implications are catastrophic. My entire Muslim community, including the learned, were ignorant and mislead. We had all along taken such norms and practices for granted. From now on, nothing can be taken for granted. Everything is up for debate, even the most accepted of norms. We need to rethink the whole of Islam as we know it. It is this shattering of confidence and faith that is the most destructive consequence of this exercise aimed at reinventing Islam.

This is not to say that all communal experience must be taken to correctly represent Islam. There are certain cultural practices that have been confused with Islam. However, in this discussion we are dealing with a norm that is universal. Wherever one goes one would experience practicing Muslims abstaining from keeping dogs in the home. The writer now wishes to reverse a fourteen century old position in order to suit her whims.

It is a reality that some Muslims drink liquor, commit adultery, sodomise or abandon the compulsory prayers. As long as they accept these misdeeds to be their own personal weakness, there is hope of repentance and reformation. Salvation is dependent on acknowledgement of our weaknesses. To some degree or the other we all sin. What is frightening is the recent trend of justifying our sins and weaknesses. Islam is being re-interpreted to suit our own fancies. Guilt is pacified by the re-invention of Islam. Herein lies our self destruction. May Allah Ta’ala save one and all.


[1] An Islamic scholar and Mufti (juriconsult) from Durban, South Africa.


Modernists’ & their Primary Conspiracy against Islam

By Mujlisul Ulama

“Those who dispute in the aayaat of Allah after it has been accepted, their disputation is utterly baseless by their Rabb. For them there is a severe punishment.” [Surah Shuraa, aayat 16]

“None but those who have become kaafir dispute in the aayaat of Allah. Therefore, do not allow their (arrogant) strutting in cities to deceive you.” [Sura Mu’min, aayat 4]

“But before them the nation of Nooh had denied (the Deen), and many groups after them. And, every group plotted to grab (and neutralize) him (their Nabi), and they disputed (with him) with falsehood to subvert with it the Haqq (of the Deen), Then (suddenly) I apprehended them. Behold! How (terrible) was My punishment.” [Surah Mu’min, aayat 5]

Islam is today encircled by a variety of enemy forces — human and jinn shayaateen. The conspiracy of the combined forces of Shaitaan-in-Chief (Iblees) is to destroy Islam and its Ummah. Towards this end, he has harnessed his forces and positioned them o­n a wide variety of fronts.

In this o­nslaught against Islam, the least potent or the weakest is the enemy o­n the political front. In fact, the political ascendancy of the kuffaar and their domination of the lands of Islam are not really part of the conspiracy of Shaitaan. Rather, this phenomenon is part of the Athaab of Allah Ta’ala. Thus, the threat is not the political domination of the kuffaar and the punishment they are meting out to Muslims. They are simply a manifestation of Allah’s Punishment o­n us.


We have o­n the o­ne side the menace of the Christian missionaries who have made huge inroads in the Ummah with their kufr which they have succeeded to implant in numerous backward and remote Muslim regions. But this too is not the primary enemy. These overt enemies while constituting a threat, are not as great a menace to Islam as the enemy which lurks within the Ummah. The most poisonous and lethal enemy for Islam in this century consists of the munaafiqeen and murtaddeen who are concealing within the folds of the Ummah.


The Munaafiqeen (Hypocrites) and the Murtaddeen (Apostates — those who have reneged from Islam, albeit covertly) — are classified by the eternal Shariah of Allah Ta’ala as Mulhideen. They are such notorious villains who proclaim themselves to be Muslim, in fact authorities of Islam while they cannot even recite the Qur’aan Majeed properly nor are versified with the eleme ntary rules of Tahaarat and Salaat. They advertise themselves as being the ‘intelligentsia’ while they grovel in abject jahaalat  (ignorance). They profess to be Muslim while at heart they are kaafir.

These Mulhideen and apostates are the products of kuffaar universities. They have studied under kuffaar or apostate professors and have acquired scrap degrees in a secular branch of kufr learning called ‘Islamic Studies’. o­n the procurement of their scrap Ph.D degrees doled out by kuffaar masters wallowing in constant impurity – spiritual, ceremonial and physical najaasat — they believe in their jahaalat  that they have superseded the illustrious Sahaabah and Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen in the various branches of Shar’i Uloom. These Mulhideen are the greatest enemies of Islam and the Ummah, not Mr.Bush and Mr.Blair. The latter two fellows will soon disappear from the scene by an Act of Allah Azza Wa Jal Who has dispatched them to fulfill a specific purpose.


On the contrary, the main enemies, the apostates from within, like rats are gnawing at the foundations of Islam. Their methodology inherited from their kuffaar and zindeeq university masters is to create confusion in the minds of ignorant people with the idea that the Immutable Shariah of Allah Ta’ala is not Islam. The massive falsehood which these apostates are working o­n to confuse, deviate and mislead unwary Muslims is that the Shariah with its Qur’aanic and Sunnah Fiqh is a centuries later product — an accretion — which has no origin in the Qur’aan and Sunnah.


The disputation of these Mulhideen and Munaafiqeen come squarely within the scope of the Qur’aanic aayat:

“Those who dispute in the aayaat (Shariah) of Allah after the acquisition of acceptance (for this Shariah), their disputation is false (baatil, baseless), and for them there is a severe Athaab (the Punishment of Hell-Fire.”

They are the fuel of Jahannum. About these apostates Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’aan that they and stones will be the fuel of Jahannum wherein they will be scorched and scalded everlastingly with no hope of escape. They are worse than outright kuffaar who are waging a political war against the nations of Islam. These enemies from within are the worst kind of spiritual vermin leaching o­nthe Body of Islam.

Deep in their hearts they do understand their apostasy. But since they suffer from incorrigible nifaaq, they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge what they conceal in their breasts. It is this guilty conscience of apostasy which has constrained o­ne such miserable apostate to moan that the penalty for irtidaad (apostasy) is not death, and that the death penalty for kufr and irtidaad has been introduced by the later Fuqaha. His ignorance is staggering and mind-boggling. His stark ignorance of this acknowledged Divine Decree testifies to his own jahaalat, irtidaad and kufr.


The aayat cited at the beginning, explicitly clarifies that the criterion of immutability is the Acceptance of the Shariah by the Ummah. Whoever denies any aspect of the Shariah after it has been accepted by the Ummah and after it has been operative in the Ummah for fourteen centuries since the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), is a murtadd for whom the aayat announces Allah’s “severe punishment”. It is simple logic to understand this Qur’aanic criterion for recognizing the Haqq —the Shariah of Allah Ta’ala. The Qur’aan clearly states “after its acceptance”. Disputing in the Deen and denying the realities of Islam and the transcendental truths of the Immutable Shariahafter these have been accepted by the Ummah is clearcut kufr which renders the denier a confirmed and a confounded apostate, for which the prescribed Shar’i punishment is a disgraceful execution —the ultimate penalty which the apostate denies in vindication of his own apostasy.


The colossal stupidity of the apostates who pretend to be Muslims is conspicuously displayed by their denial of the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) while at the same time acknowledging that there are five compulsory Salaats every day. They deny the Ahaadith, but acknowledge the number of raka’ts of Salaat. They acknowledge what they term “the basic rituals of Islam”, but they deny the very Ahaadih o­n the basis of which all these “basic rituals of Islam” are structured. The Qur’aan Majeed is silent o­n the details of these rituals —details which so far the apostates overtly accept and even profess to follow.

Their colossal stupidity and mental derangement are vividly portrayed by the fact that they claim that the text of the Qur’aan, not its meanings, is sacred and immutable while in the same breath they deny the Ahaadith o­n which is based the authenticity of the Qur’aan itself. Minus Ahaadith, there is no Qur’aan. The Qur’aan was not revealed to these apostates nor to anyone else besides the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The momentous endeavour to compile the Qur’aan into its present Book form was the sacred task of the Sahaabah who had established the authenticity of each aayat by means of Saheeh Ahaadith. They did not compile the Qur’aan in its existing form as a consequence of Wahi having come to them.


It is precisely for this reason that the Qur’aan repeatedly commands the Ummah to follow the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In fact, these apostates portraying themselves with Muslim hues, have no alternative other than to turn to the Fuqaha and the Fiqh they left for posterity in order to glean the rules and the methodology for the “basic rituals of Islam”. They cannot acquire these innumerable masaail from the Qur’aan. They are too stupid to understand the science of Hadith which is Wahi in another form, hence wholly incapable of deducting any masaail from the sacred compilations of Hadith. They are therefore, forced to gain the elementary rules of the “basic rituals of Islam” from simple text books which the Ulama whom they despise have compiled for Madrasah kids.


The writings of the apostates, the mulhideen and zindeeqs, are restricted to a clamour — making much noise. They blabber a lot, but their blabbering is devoid of substance. They simply lump together vocabulary to impress and confuse unwary and ignorant people. But anyone who possesses some degree of intelligence will not fail to discern the utter barrenness of their statements. They are adept in o­nly o­ne art, viz., shouting claims. They make vociferous claims which are products of their stupid opinions. But every claim they put forward lacks in entirety in evidence of the Shariah.


One jaahil belonging to the clan of apostates and munaafiqeen makes the claim that a striking feature of contemporary Muslim society is its failure to have kept up with the contemporary world. This ridiculous claim is a manifest assertion of his ignorance. What precisely is meant by this stupid claim?

Let it be known that the ills and woes of contemporary Muslim society are the consequences of having kept abreast with the contemporary world. If Muslims had remained anchored to the Sunnah of Rasulullah’s Camel Age, they would still have been the masters and rulers of the world which they had dominated and reigned during the epoch of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen. But the curse of ‘having kept up with contemporary society’ has utterly ruined the Ummah.

Who precisely is the “contemporary society” the apostate has mentioned? It is no other the kuffaar society. This society whom the apostates desire the Muslim Ummah to emulate and follow is the society of the kuffaar, the western kuffaar to be precise. On the contrary, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) warned the Ummah o­n the very issue of ‘keeping up’ with the kuffaar, especially the western kuffaar —the Yahood and Nasaaraa. The Qur’aan and the Sunnah repeatedly warn the Ummah against what the apostates of this age are propagating. Hence, in o­ne Hadith Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)said:

“Whoever emulates a people, is of them.”

The apostates irrationally attempt to explain to their kuffaar masters and to the ignorant masses that the cause of the Ummah’s present humiliation and fall from their former pedestal of glory is to be attributed to Muslims lagging behind the west in the secular spheres of life. Then they descend to the to the falsity of claiming that the cause of this lagging behind is the Ulama who teach the masses about the events which will transpire below the earth in the grave and above the heavens in Jannat.

But, any person with a decent degree of pure Aql will understand that the Sahaabah rose to their pedestal of glory and brought the world at their feet in subjugation to Islam when they propagated the things which transpire beyond the grave and above the heavens. It was when they had eliminated hubb-e-dunya (love of this material world) and inculcated in themselves an aversion for the pleasures and wealth of the world, that Allah Ta’ala elevated them to the heights to which history testifies.


When the Ummah abandoned this spiritual Path of the Sahaabah and vied with the kuffaar in an attempt to “keep up” with their products and concepts of kufr, fisq and fujoor as the apostates are propagating, Allah Ta’ala cast them from the pinnacles of glory into the depths of humiliation to lick the boots of the kuffaar as the apostates are presently doing.


Westernized Muslims, apostates, zindeeqs, mulhids and munaafiqs who are all awed and enamoured by the technological advancement of their kuffaar masters and leaders fail to understand why they (i.e. the conglomeration of mulhideen) are unable to attain similar strides of progress in the fields in which the kuffaar excel. They emulate the kuffaar 100% in every aspect of their lives to the extent of having jettisoned Imaan from their hearts and embracing kufr and irtidaad. In order to gain the advancement in the secular spheres which the kuffaar have achieved, the apostates sulking within the Ummah have accepted every rule and law in the book of kufr. They are the victims of mental colonization imposed o­n their brains by their western kuffaar masters. They live like these kuffaar. They dress like them. They devour haraam like them. They believe like them. They imitate and ape the kuffaar in every aspect and sphere of life. But inspite of all their efforts in the realm of emulation of the kuffaar they fail miserably to reach the technological heights of advancement attained by their masters. They remain the slaves of these western masters, licking their vomit and their boots.


When they feel hopelessly lost in the mire of confusion unable to fathom the cause of their rot and backwardness, shaitaan in the plot to divert them from reality and to keep them anchored and rooted in their mire of spiritual mess and in the morass of immorality — western immorality — in which they grovel, whispers into their spiritually darkened andcorroded hearts that the cause of their decadence and retrogression is the Ulama whom these apostates slander and accuse of fostering ‘fossilization’ and the ‘backwardness’ in which these very apostates are sinking deeper by the day.


The absurdity of their contention will be manifest to any unbiased Muslim who cares to examine even superficially this fallacious claim. The Ummah, by far and large, has cast off the sacred Fetters of the Shariah and the Sunnah. Muslims by the millions have plunged headlong into the abyss of kuffaar emulation and have sold their souls to shaitaan to become the slaves of the west. While retaining their Muslim names, they have abandoned their Muslim identity. Secular universities and other institutions which are the bastions of western liberalism, apostasy, kufr, fisq and fujoor, flourish in all the Muslim lands. Modernism and liberalism with all their concomitant consequences of vice and immorality have overrun the Muslim world.

The World of Islam is today ruled and held in the captivity of kufr and crass materialism by apostates who are all products of western secular institutions. The Hosnis, Gaddaafis, Musharrafs and the like are all members of the breed of apostates spawned by western kuffaar institutions. They are at the helm of Muslim affairs, not the Ulama, not the orthodox Madaaris, not the Mashaaikh of the Khaanqahs. The masses inhabiting Muslim countries all have the outward appearances of kuffaar. Thus, the Muslim inhabitants of Pakistan by far and large look like Hindus. The Muslim inhabitants of Palestine, almost all of them, are in appearance replicas of the Yahood of Israel. The Muslims in western countries look like the Yahood and Nasaaraa of those lands. Not o­nly do they look like them, they live and die like these kuffaar.

The field of the Ulama is severely confined and their influence is curtailed. Their platform is restricted to the Musaajid which are frequented o­n a daily basis by about 10% of the Ummah, Fridays and Eid Days excluded. Even those Muslims who are not kaafir at heart, and who subscribe to the orthodox doctrines and rituals of Islam as propagated by the Ulama of the Camel Age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), in their practical life have adopted the lifestyle of the western kuffaar. So while they do not unite with the apostates in their apostasy, they are at o­ne with them in practical life.

How can any fair-minded Muslim now blame the Ulama for the retrogression of the Ummah when almost the entire Ummah is desperately slogging to keep pace with the western kuffaar in material progress. In wealth, the Muslims are the wealthiest. In the love of the world with its material pleasures and comforts, their love is second to none. In the establishment of western institutions of learning such as universities and colleges, there is a proliferation of such accursed appendages of shaitaan in all the Muslim lands. In armaments, every Muslim country has a gigantic stockpile of surplus of an array of sophisticated weaponry which they acquire from their western masters. Their lagging behind in production of weapons, computers and the paraphernalia which accompany technological advancement despite having kept abreast in the establishment of westernized institutions of technological learning, is a mystery for them. By what line of logic can any fair-minded person attribute this gross failure of the westernized apostates to the preachings of the Ulama who confine themselves to the propagation of morality which most Muslims hardly bother about?

In which way does the propagation of the Ulama retard the technological progress of the Ummah? Assuming that the Ulama teach opposition to scientific study and the study of technology, how did such teaching affect and retard the worldly progress of Muslims, when more than 90% of the Ummah follow the lifestyle and the calling of the West in defiance of the ta’leem and naseehat of the Ulama?

Consider the example of Turkey which has been held in the steel grip of its kuffaar rulers since the time the Khilaafate was dismantled and the Empire of Islam dismembered and devoured by the kuffaar. Did the Ulama from that time have any grip o­n the masses? Did orthodoxy or kufr materialism preponderate Turkish society or did the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) govern the lives of the Turkish masses? In fact, with the dismantling of the Khilaafate was ushered in the process of the dismantling of the Deen with all its orthodox institutions. The process of modernization in total emulation of the western kuffaar is the state religion to this day. The Deen and its Ulama representatives had absolutely no say in that unfortunate miserable land of Islam.

Islam was outlawed and even today the law has banned Madrasah ta’leem, yet they call themselves Muslims notwithstanding their flagrant flaunting of apostasy. Turkey has followed the western path in a way that has superseded even the communist USSR and other backward western nations such as Spain, Portugal and Greek. Has Turkey become a world power? Has its materialist kufr technological ideology achieved for it the glory of the old orthodox Ulama influenced Ottoman Empire? Similar transformation has occurred in every Muslim land. Apostasy has dominated and is dominating. Materialism is the goal of almost 100% of the inhabitants of the Muslim lands. Western education and technology are being pursued by Muslims in all lands of Islam. But, by the day they are retrogressing. In which way are the Ulama responsible for this corrupt state of affairs? What role did the Ulama play in holding back a people who are in hot pursuit of all and everything that western technology and science have to offer? No reasonable person will concur with the absurdities which the mouths of the apostates gorge out in their venomous outpourings against the Deen of Allah Ta’ala.


Now just view the undermentioned bunkum of o­ne apostate:

“What it implies is that Muslims are behind in their understanding of Islam and operationalising its principles in the contemporary world today.”

We reiterate that these apostates and zindeeqs blow a lot of hot air signifying absolutely nothing. In plain and simple terms, they speak bunkum, to put it respectfully. The aforementioned sentence consists of words with a meaningless equation. Let the apostate spell out the meaning of this stupid, empty theory devoid of substance. In which way are they behind in their understanding, and in which way has this type of understanding contributed to the backwardness and humiliation of the Ummah. The apostate need to offer a rational explanation for the bunkum he has gorged out from his throat. Consider the example of this type of apostate who has totally aligned himself with westernism and whatever goodness in his opinion westernism stands for. They follow the west and so have their progenitors in this race of emulation done for more than half a century. Yet, we see no progress inspite of their ascendancy to the helm of the political affairs in every land of Islam. Apostates are holding the reigns of political power in all Muslim countries. Apostates in control of Muslim affairs have established western institutions and opened up the way for the avalanche of every evil accompanying western material and technological advancement. But what are we witnessing? Despite the glut of immorality, filth, lesbianism, homosexuality, rape, plunder, murder, robberies, etc., etc. the worldly progress and the technological successes and advancements of these immoral kuffaar nations have continued unabated while the Muslim nations who have plunged madly after their western masters aping them in all walks of life, including technology, are lagging far behind their western masters. What is the mystery in this? What is the secret of kuffaar material success and what is the underlying cause for the gross failure and abject humiliation of the Muslim people who have made the western kuffaar their masters and guides? o­nly those men can answer these questions about whom Allah Ta’ala states in the Qur’aan-e-Kareem:

Only the Men of intelligence take lesson (and can understand).”

Men of kufr, irtidaad and nifaaq — mulhideen — can never fathom this mystery. How is it possible for these apostates to understand this contradiction and mystery when apostasy blights the intelligence and blinds the spiritual senses? How can these human shayaateen ever comprehend the cause of their own backwardness and retrogression despite their western Ph.D degrees when Allah Ta’ala has cast a veil o­n their aql in consequence of their irtidaad and kufr? For them, the Qur’aan declares the “severe punishment of Allah” because they dispute about the Shariah of the Qur’aan with the motive of rejecting Allah’s Deen.

They are like the people of Nooh (alayhis salaam) mentioned in the second aayat at the beginning of this discussion, and like the people of the other Ambiya (alayhimus salaam). They all had disputed in the Deen of Allah Ta’ala, hence His Athaab overtook them. The very first step in the System of Divine Punishment is the imposition of the domination of their kuffaar masters who will maintain them under their boots of grinding oppression and in disgrace. This is the Sunnah of Allah to which the Qur’aan testifies.

The Qur’aan Majeed declaring Mr. Trump and his alliance as a manifestation of Allah’s Athaab,  in Surah Bani Israaeel:

“We had declared with clarity to Bani Israaeel in the Kitaab: ‘Most certainly, you will spread 
corruption o­n earth twice, and most certainly you embark o­n great rebellion. (Aayat 4)

Then when the first Prediction (of Allah) materialized, We sent against you, Our servants (like Nebucanazzer, Mr.Trump and 
Netanyahu) who are powerful in warfare. Then they fanned out (overran) the centres of the 
cities. And that was a promise decreed.” (Aayat 5)

Then when the second prediction 
materialized (Allah sent other people of war against you) to disfigure your faces and to 
penetrate the Musjid (Al-Aqsa) as they had penetrated it the first time, and they utterly devastated every place they overran.”  (Aayat 7)


The apostate contends that the closure of the doors of Ijtihaad has had a devastating effect o­n Muslim development. This is an old grouse of the disgruntled fraternity of modernists and apostates. It is a monotonous theme they sing without ever having managed to explain just how the ‘closing of the doors of Ijtihaad’ has retarded Muslim development. The apostate stating his grouse in a paper of fisq, cites the examples of the penalty for apostasy and stoning to death for adultery. But he miserably fails to explain just how these rulings which the Ulama have ‘fossilized’ in consequence of having closed the doors of Ijtihaad have retarded Muslim development and had a devastating effect o­n it.

How many adulterers had been stoned to death in the time since the closure of the doors of Ijtihaad? And, how many apostates have been executed since that time? If there were a handful of such executions, how did these devastate the Ummah and retard its technological progress and prevent it from gaining political ascendancy and domination?

In the last sixty years since the process of independence of Muslim countries was initiated and the West had succeeded in its scheme of installing apostates and modernist fussaaq and fujjaar to govern all the lands of Islam, howmany people had been executed for apostasy and stoned for adultery in the Muslim lands? o­ne, two, three or none? Can the humiliation of the Ummah and the abject corruption, impotency and decadence of these lands and their people be sensibly attributed to this ‘fossilization’ of Fiqhi Laws?

The lands of Islam under the sway of apostates and fussaaq modernists have produced innumerable technocrats, scientists, nuclear physicists, engineers, doctors, lawyers, technicians, etc., etc. University education fostering apostasy, liberalism and spawning immorality abound in the Muslim world. o­nly a small minority of the o­ne and half billion Muslims o­n earth engage in advanced ‘fossilized’ Madrasah education which rigidly keep the doors of Ijtihaad shut and prevent the infiltration of the apostates and mulhideen into the domain of the Shariah, and this small minority is confined to regions such as Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. All over the Muslim world the system of Islamic education has been ‘revolutionized’ and the syllabi of the apostates operate in the so-called Islamic universities. But why do we see no technological progress akin to western advancement in the Muslim lands held in subjugation under the yoke of apostasy, kufr, fisq and fujoor of the apostate rulers and their myriads of supporters? What role did the closing of the doors of Ijtihaad play in this backwardness and impotency of the apostate-dominated Muslim lands?

“Do not let the arrogant strutting 
of the kuffaar in the cities deceive you. (Their material prosperity) is slight benefit (for them). Then their abode will be Jahannum. Indeed, it is an evil  abode.” (Qur’aan)

The task of levelling accusations and slander against the Ulama is simple. Lumping together vocabulary to produce meaningless contentions is an easy exercise for those bereft of wisdom and aql. But the apostates lack in entirety in the ability to back up their fallacies with rational and intelligent argument.

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

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

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

By Mujlisul Ulama

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

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

Qur’aanic Purdah

By Mujlisul Ulama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Kays group says in its pamphlet:

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

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

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

The Kays group states:

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

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

The modernist writers of the pamphlet further claim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kays and company defines the jilbaab as follows:

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

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

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

Tafseer Ibn Katheer states in its description of the jilbaab:

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

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

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

Tafseer Abi Sa-ood defines the jilbaab as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) mentions in Ihyaaul Uloom:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the Niqaab, Kays and company state:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The pamphlet of the modernists asks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Hadith also in Muatta-e-Maalik:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kays and his associates claim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This difference is explained as follows in BAZLUL MAJHOOD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Ainul Hidaayah appears the following:

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

The following appears in Raddul Mukhtaar:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Kays states in his pamphlet:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticizing the Noble Predecessors

By Mujlisul Ulama

“It is indeed sheer stupidity to criticize any of the Mutaqaddimeen servants of the Deen. (The Mutaqaddimeen are the illustrious Fuqaha of the first two centuries of the Islamic era.) Such criticism is like finding fault with superbably baked bread. It is very simple to criticize. But to render the services of the Mutaqaddimeen is entirely another matter. If anyone should attempt to do what they had presented, he will then understand the reality (of his stupidity and the reality of their yeoman services). Today, when a slight problem pertaining to a new development arises, not even one aspect of it can be solved satisfactorily. But the illustrious predecessors had solved and formulated tens of thousands of masaa’il.”

The dearth of true Ilm-e-Deen, the shallowness in understanding and the superficiality of academic knowledge in this age bear testimony to what Hakimul Ummat (rahmatullah alayh) says above. In the endeavour to formulate a fatwa on any new development nowadays, ‘academies’ are established; national and international conferences are organized; millions of dollars are squandered in traveling, hotel expenses, etc. and in setting up these futile ‘fiqh academies’ and conferences of ostentation. Scholars from different countries jet in to participate in the conferences of mockery and futility.

Five star hotel accommodation is arranged for the ‘delegates’ and ‘scholars’. Their only function at the conferences is to present a ‘paper’ on a mas’alah and to ostentatiously ‘discuss’ the issue for a day or two. Much of the time is squandered in devouring ‘20 course’ meals, welcoming speeches and sight-seeing. All this at public expense at a time when the Ummah is wallowing in grinding poverty and misery. Yet these Ulama of the world find the leisure and pleasure for such academies and conferences of futility and show.

After all the noise, then too they fail to issue a proper ruling based on the Principles of the Shariah. They mouth their personal opinions and issue their ‘fatwa’ as if it is part of Wahi (Divine Revelation).

Regardless of any modern or new development, be it in any sphere of life, thorough research by some Ulama-e-Haqq in the privacy of their Madaaris, homes or libraries is adequate for the formulation of the correct Rulings based strictly on the Principles of the Shariah as expounded and employed by the illustrious Fuqaha of the Khairul Quroon era.

Inspite of the modern day ‘scholars’ of the ‘academies’ and ‘conferences’ having set themselves up as Mujtahideen, not a single one of them is independent of the works of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen. Every scholar and Aalim is totally reliant on the Kutub of the Mathaahib, even the Salafis who have an inveterate aversion for the Salf-e-Saaliheen, the Exponents of Taqleed. No one and no scholar can speak on any new development in Shar’i terms without being constrained to make reference to the Works of our illustrious Predecessors, the Aimmah Mujtahideen.

Simple issues such as banking, modern medical practices, test-tube babies, abortion, so-called Muslim Personal law issues, etc., remain insoluble inspite of years of discussion, conferences. The more they deliberate, the more intractable become the issues. The true Ulama have departed from the world and the Janaazah of Ilm is on the move to the Qabrustaan. Today is the age of the Juhala (Ignoramuses). According to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) a time will dawn on us when the ignorant will turn to the ignoramuses for the acquisition of fataawa (rulings on Shar’i matters). The muftis of ignorance will be astray and lead others astray into deviation (dhalaal). An example of such jahaalah is the ‘fatwas’ emerging from places like Egypt. Riba, deeming Hijab as non-Islamic origin (we will post an article later this week In Sha Allah), baatil and kufr are all declared permissible on the basis of fallacious interpretation.