Category Archives: Modernists

Modernists/Reformists/Deformists follow Shaytan’s Footsteps

By Brother Umar Rumi

What do the following “scholars”/“intellectuals” have in common?:

Javed Ghamidi (Pakistan)
Wahiduddin Khan (India)
Adnan Ibrahim (Jordan – Austria)
Hassan Farhan Maliki (Saudi Arabia)
“Mufti” Abu Layth “al-Maliki” (UK)
Atabek Shukurov (UK)
Caner Taslaman (Turkey)
Mustafa Islamoğlu (Turkey)
Rashid Shaz (India)
..and others.. (feel free to suggest other names in the comments)

Other than their modernism, they all share an important think: they all deny the coming back of Isa ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ and the coming of the Dajjal.
One might wonder, why so much interest in denying Dajjal’s arrival, and from “scholars” and “thinkers” from quite different backgrounds and nations?…

I always used to think, how could someone who read the description of Dajjal’s coming, could still fall for it; now I’m starting to understand it better; the denial of his coming is one of its tools (as well as the “don’t judge” nonsense).

Brother Syed Shaheeruddin Ahmed mentioned the following hadith:

“The Dajjal will not appear until the people become negligent in talking about him, and until the Imams abandon talking about him on the Minbar”.
[Majma al-Zawa’id]

When refuting modernists we often (myself first) tend to focus only on a “rational” level, on their logical inconsistencies, reasoning flaws, lies and fabrications, forgetting what is also an extremely important side: those people are paving the way for the coming of the Dajjal, and are Dajajilah themselves.

And before someone starts with the usual Adab card, you “don’t judge”, the “you don’t know what’s in their hearts”, the “but they have been studying from since before you were even born”, rest assured, I’ll come to these flimsy objections soon in sha’ Allah.

By the way, this also shows the importance for Orthodox Sunni Muslims of various backgrounds to keep in touch and maintain relations with each other across national and linguistic boundaries; first of all because we’re a unique body and Ummah and we need to crush the divisions among us, but there is also a further benefit of being able to analyze such threats coming from various side in a more clear way: when we realize that it’s not just Ghamidi in our Pakistan, that it’s not just Islamoğlu in our Turkey (and so on and so forth) but rather we can see a clear phenomenon taking place across countries where people at the same time start saying the same things in Arabic, Urdu, Turkish, Malay.. Well, this gives a whole new dimensions to those that might otherwise seem just “local phenomenon” or “individual issues”.

And, this will empower us into being able to analyze better what’s going on and what’s the best reaction, ideally to be take together.

The same could be argued about the need to analyzing the new threat of the Bin Bayyah/Hamza Yusuf/al-Awni, UAE-Saudi project in a proper way.


[By Jamiatul Ulama Northern Cape]

Displaying this selective brand of Taqleed, the modernists resort to a downright dishonest Taqleed of Imaam Ghazaali (Rahmatullah Alayh) in their attempt to ‘prove’ the permissibility of music and musical instruments. While they reject every aspect of Imaam Ghazaali’s ta’leem on all other issues of the Shariah, which militates against their opinions, they are rapid in expressing their Taqleed of his view on singing and music.

After conceding the Ijma’ of the Fuqaha of the Four Math-habs on the prohibition of music and musical instruments, Imaam Ghazaali (Rahmatullah Alayh) proceeds to argue exceptional cases of permissibility. In his argument he does not negate the general rule of prohibition. Rather, he presents a case of permissibility for certain exceptions such as divine songs to engender spiritual ecstasy. However, it has to be reiterated that even his case for limited permissibility is untenable in view of the conflict with the Ijma’ of the Fuqaha which represents the Shariah’s position from the age of the Sahaabah as the evidence has been explained in books written by the Ulama-e-Haq!

For the modernists, Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) has importance in only the issue of music. As far as the entire Shariah is concerned, other than the exception of singing and music, Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) is lumped into the same category of orthodoxy which the modernist deviates dispose and deprecate with a vehemence pleasing to only shaitaan and heretics. Consider the fact that Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) propagates the prohibition of eating food from tables. He advocates eating on the ground as the Sunnah. Eating on tables is bid’ah according to Imaam Ghazaali (Rahmatullah Alayh). 

The views of Imaam Ghazaali on Purdah are undoubtedly chagrin to the modernists. In short, Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) is an orthodox Muslim, a ‘fanatic’ like the Molvis except for some latitude on the issue of singing and two musical instruments, the duff and the flute, which he opined to be permissible in certain circumstances with certain restrictive conditions. He avers that it is an innovation to use soap content even though he does not brand these as haraam. Nevertheless, this is the position which he adopts. The modernists who have made a selective Taqleed of Imaam Ghazaali, should henceforth refrain from the utilization of all soap, soap powders and detergents. 

“Lick your fingers after eating” commands Imaam Ghazaali. This practice is detestable to the modernist juhhaal who have western kuffaar masters to serve and appease. It is a practice viewed with revulsion by the western intellectual masters of the modernist deviates prowling in the shadows of the community, hence they will not make Taqleed of Imaam Ghazaali in this practice of the Sunnah.

The clinching argument in this debate pertaining to Imaam Ghazaali’s view is that since his view is in conflict with the Ijma’ of the Four Math-habs, it is devoid of substance. It has to be incumbently set aside. A conflicting opinion which developed many centuries after the Sahaabah and the Fuqaha of Khairul Quroon (The First three pious ages of Islam), is not the Fatwa of the Shariah. It is the erroneous opinion of an individual.

It has been said: “Every Aalim slips” just like every good horse slips and falls. Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) has aptly summed up their (the modernists’) intellectual derangement with his comment: “Complete blindness is better than oblique vision.”

“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.