Category Archives: Sunnah of the Prophet

Dining Tables & Chairs and a Corrupt Fatwa

By Mujlisul Ulama
QUESTION:  Mufti  Taqi  of  Darul  Uloom  Karachi,  Pakistan  has  issued  a  fatwa  saying  that  eating  from  tables  sitting  on  chairs  is  neither  forbidden  nor  in  conflict  with  the  Sunnah.  He avers  that  there  is  no  daleel  for  the  contention  that  eating in  this  manner  is  contrary  to the  Sunnah  and  forbidden.

According  to  the  Mufti,  abandonment  of  only  Sunnatul Muakkadah  acts  could  be  termed  to  be  contrary  to  the Sunnah,  and  such  acts  are  acts  of  ibaadat  which  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  had    practised  with  constancy. 

He  describes  eating  on  the  floor  in  Sunnah  style  to  be  Sunnat-e-Aadiyah,  adoption  of  which  is  not  compulsory,  and  abandonment  of  which  is  not  sinful  nor  in  conflict  with  the  Sunnah.  His  argument  is  that  the  actions  which  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  did  not  do  as  ibaadat,  are  called  ‘aadiyah’,  and  it  is  perfectly permissible  to  abandon  such  Sunnat  acts,  and  such abandonment  is  not  Makrooh  and  should  not  be  criticized.  Hence  if  any  other  mubah  practice/custom  is  substituted  for  such  Sunnats,  then  it  will  not  be  in  conflict  with  the Sunnah. 

According  to  the  Mufti,  Rasulullah’s  abstention  from  eating  from  tables  and  sitting  on  chairs  for  eating,  is  not  a  daleel  for  contending  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  Sunnah  to  eat  from  tables. 

This  fatwa  has  bewildered  and  confused  many  Muslims  who  eat  according  to  the  Sunnah  style  and  who  believe  that  it  is  not  permissible  to  sit  on  chairs  for  eating  from  tables.  Please  enlighten  us  on  this  issue.


In the Qur’aan Majeed Allah Ta’ala says:

“Those  who  devour  riba,  do  not  stand  except  as  one  who  has been  driven  to  madness  by  the  touch  of  shaitaan.”  

Mufti  Taqi  and  the  conglomerate  of  his  underling  maajin  muftis  of  his  Darul  Uloom  who  have  endorsed  his  fatwa,  have  legalized  riba  and  also  devour  riba.  Mufti  Taqi  is  the  first  deviate  mufti  from  among  the  Deobandis  who  had halaalized  one  of  the  worst  acts  of  satanism,  viz.,  riba.  The bunkum  and  rubbish  opinion    which  he  has  issued  on  the   issue  of  eating  food  from  tables  in  the  style  of  the  western  kuffaar  whose  boots  are  today  being  licked  with  relish  by  the  Ulama-e-Soo’  and  almost  the  whole  Ummah,  is  the  effect  of  shaitaani  insanity  of  the  type  mentioned  in  the aforementioned  Qur’aanic  Aayat.

In  his  insane  attempt  to  justify  his  madrasah’s  tables  and  chair  system,  and  the  displacement  of  the  Sunnah,  this  confused  mufti  has  gone  to  inordinate  lengths  to  eke  out  ‘perfect  permissibility’  for  his  adoption  of  the  western  kuffaar  system  of  eating  from  tables  –  the  system  with  which  he  has  replaced  the  14  century  Sunnah  way  of  eating  food  from  the  floor  in  the  style  of  all  the  Ambiya,  all  the  Sahaabah,  all  the  Auliya  and  the  entire  Ummah,  of  even  fussaaq  and  fujjaar.  It  is  only  in  recent  times  that  Muslims  overwhelmed  by  western  culture,  are  regarding bootlicking  and  following  kuffaar  practices  right  into  the “lizard’s  hole”  respectable  and  honourable. 

They  come  within  the  purview  of  the  Qur’aanic  stricture: “What!  Do  you  search  for  honour  from  them?”

The  aql  of  mufti  Taqi  has  degenerated  into  a  lamentable quagmire  of  incongruency  which  precludes  him  from distinguishing  between  right  and  wrong,  halaal  and  haraam,  Sunnah  and  kuffaar  customs  for  which  he  has  a  strong  inclination.  When  shaitaan  manipulates  the  aql  of  a scholar,  especially  a  scholar  for  dollars,  he  will  present  even  kufr  as  an  act  of  perfect permissibility.

The  strongest  daleel  for  the  evil  of  mufti  Taqi’s  haraam  view  is  the  abandonment  of  the  more  than  14  century  Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  of  the  entire  Ummah.  It  is  a  wicked  satanic  abandonment  in  favour  of  the  adoption  of  the  custom  and  way  of  the  enemies  of  Islam  –  the  western  kuffaar  who  are  perpetually  conspiring  the  destruction  of  Islam.  These  misguided  Karachi  muftis  have  eliminated  the  Sunnah  in  favour  of  the  practice  of  the  western  kuffaar.

Even  on  the  assumption  that  the  Sunnah  style  of  eating     belongs  to  the  Sunnah  Aadiyah  category,  then  too,  to  abandon  it  for  the  adoption  of  a  kuffaar  way  is  haraam.  The  argument  presented  by  mufti  Taqi  in  justification  of  his  displacement  of  the  Sunnah  system  at  his  madrasah  and  replacing  it  with  the  kuffaar  style  tables  and  chairs  is  not  only  flaccid.  It  is  utterly  moronic,  baseless  and  unbefitting  people  who  profess  to  be  Heirs  of  the  Ambiya,  Ulama,  and  Shaikhs. 

If  this  Sunnah  is  supposed  to  be  Sunnah  Aadiyah,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  may  be  scuttled  or  eliminated  for  the  sake  of  a  kuffaar  practice.  This  supposedly  Sunnah  Aadiyah custom  which  has  been  the  way  of  the  Ummah  for  more than  14  centuries,  and  which  is  still  the  practice  of   hundreds  of  millions  of  Muslims,  and  of  almost  all  the  Deobandi  Madaaris,  and  there  are  thousands  of  them,  may  not  be  displaced  to  make  way  for  a  kuffaar  system  which  is  not  mubah  as  the  maajin  muftis  of  Karachi  contend.  Far  from  being  mubah  (permissible)  it  is  haraam  for  Muslims  to  adopt  it  at  the  cost  of  abandoning  the  established  Sunnah  way  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  even  if  such  practice  is  labelled  Sunnah  Aadiyah  by  the  miscreant  muftis.

Abandoning  the  Sunnah  and  replacing  it  with  a  kuffaar custom  is  a  perfect  example  of  Tashabbuh  Bil  Kuffaar  on  the  basis  of  which  all  our  Akaabir  Ulama  have  declared   eating  from  tables  to  be  haraam  Tashabbuh.  Mufti  Taqi’s contention  that  the  element  of  Tashabbuh  has  been  eliminated  in  view  of  this  kuffaar  practice  having  become  the  norm  of  all  nations,  is  corrupt,  deceptive  and  baseless.  This  contention  is  a  blatant  lie.  He  operates  a  Darul  Uloom,  and  there  are  thousands  of  Deobandi  Darul  Ulooms  all  over  the  world.    The  practice  in  Darul  Uloom  Deoband  and  in  almost  all  other  Deobandi  Institutions  with  rare  exceptions  such  as    the  Karachi  madrasah,  is  eating  on  the  floor  in  Sunnah  style.  It  is  not  the  norm  in  our  Madaaris  all  over  the  world  to  eat  in  kuffaar  style.

The  tables  and  chairs  system  has  been  introduced  at  mufti Taqi’s  madrasah,  not  because  it  is  the  norm  of  the  Ummah. It    has  replaced  the  centuries  old  Sunnah  way.  Mufti  Taqi  killed  the  Sunnah,  then  introduced  the  kuffaar  system.  He  gave  preference  to  the  kuffaar  system  over  the  Sunnah system.  According  to  his  own  admission,  the  kuffaar  system  is  more  convenient  and  better  than  the  Sunnah  system,  hence  its  adoption  and  the  booting  out  of  Rasulullah’s  mubaarak  system  by  the  very  persons  who  profess  to  be  the  standard  bearers  of  Islam.  Their  claims  are  hollow  and  downright  hypocritical.  They  have  conspicuously  portrayed  an  attitude  of  kufr.

It  is  vile  for  the  mufti  to  turn  a  blind  eye   on  the  Sunnah  way  prevailing  at  all  Darul  Ulooms,  and  to  justify  his haraam  displacement  of  the  Sunnah  with  the  kuffaar  norm adopted  by  the  juhala  masses.  It  is  indeed  shockingly lamentable  for  muftis,  supposedly  senior,  of  a  well-known  Darul  Uloom,  to  accept    the  way  of  the  juhala  awaam  for  abandoning  the  Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).  While  these  moron  muftis  seek  to  scuttle  the Sunnah  with  their  ‘aadiyah’  technicality,  the  whole  Ummah  from  the  era  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  has  always  considered  this  practice  inviolable  and  Sunnatul  Muakkadah.  And  whatever  Fiqhi  category  the  Sunnah  may  be  assigned,  it  is  haraam  –  it  is  a  major  sin  to  scuttle  and  abandon  it  for  the  sake  of  adopting  a  kuffaar  system.  Preference  to  a  kuffaar  system  over  and  above  the  Islamic/Sunnah  system  is  in  fact  kufr.  Thus,  mufti  Taqi’s  haraam  displacement  of  the  Sunnah  has  exceptionally  grave  consequences  for  his  Imaan.  

The  argument  of  eating  from  tables  having  become  the  norm,  hence  the  element  of  Tashabbuh  no  longer  applies,  is  a  deceptive  canard.  It  is  grossly  misleading  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  has  been  installed  only  by  displacement  of  the  Sunnah.  Mufti  Taqi  and  the  students  at  his  madrasah did  not  find  their  seniors  eating  at  tables.  His  entire  life passed  by  observing  that  all  the  Ulama  –  his  seniors  –  and all  the  students  of  his  father,  Hadhrat  Mufti  Muhammad  Shafi  (Rahmatullah  alayh),  the  founder  of  the  Darul  Uloom which  Mufti  Taqi  is  westernizing,  eating  from  the  floor.  There  was  no  norm  of  tables  and  chairs.  He  has  been  the  very  first  unfortunate  one  to  kick  out  the  Sunnah  to  replace  it  with  the  kuffaar  system.

The  Fiqhi  categorization  by  the  Fuqaha  of  the  Ahkaam  and  practices  of  the  Deen  are  not  meant  for  providing  a  licence  for  abandoning  the  Sunnah  on  the  basis  of  some  technical  classification  which  morons  interpret  as  a  permissibility  for  mutilating  and  abandoning  the  practices   imparted  to  the  Ummah  by  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  which  were  staunchly  upheld  by  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Auliya  and  even  the  masses  of  every  age.

In  a  very  misleading  argument  to  justify  the  abandonment  of  the  Sunnah  by  substituting  it  with  the  kuffaar  system,  mufti  Taqi  says:

“The  system  of  eating  from  tables  has  been  adopted  at Jamia  Darul  Uloom  Karachi  because  considerable  waqf money  has  to  be  used  for  the  arrangement  to  sit  on  the  floor  for  such  a  great  number  of  students.  Practically  it  posed  numerous  problems.  Hence  the  aforementioned   system  (i.e. the  kuffaar  system)  has  been  adopted.”

This  is  a  disgraceful  acquittal  of  intellectual  insipidity  totally  unexpected  of  a  senior  mufti.  The  satanic  madness  stemming  in  the  wake  of  the  vile  process  of  halaalization  of  riba  and  pictures  is  quite  palpable  in  this  stupid  argument.  Whilst  mufti  Taqi  seeks  to  pull  wool  over  the  eyes  of  the  juhala  with  the  stupidity  of  wasting  waqf  money  to  uplift  and  clean  the  dastarkhaans,  he  conveniently  overlooks  the  tens  of  millions  of  dollars  he  squanders  in  futile,  ostentatious  building  projects  to  enhance  the  false  worldly  glitter  of  his  little  darul  uloom  empire  in  total  obliviousness  of  the  Qur’aanic  stricture:  “Do  you  construct  mansions  as  if  you  will  be  living  (in  this  dunya)  forever!”  

It  is  an  insult  to  intelligence  to  even  entertain  the  silliness  of  expending  considerable  waqf  funds  to  uplift  the  dastarkhaans  (the  cloths  on  which  the  food  is  placed).  

Whether  the  cloths  are  placed  on  the  floor  or  on  the  western  kuffaar  tables,  these  have  to  be  uplifted  and  cleaned.  And  what  about  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  Students  eating  on  the  floor  in  the  thousands  of  Madaaris?  These  Madaaris  are  comparatively  speaking,  poor,  lacking  in  the  huge  amounts  of  surplus  funds  which  flow  into  the  coffers  of  Mufti  Taqi’s  Madrasah.  Yet,  they  very comfortably  observe  the  Sunnah  custom  of  eating  on  the  floor  in  Rasulullah’s  style.  There  are  Madrasahs  which have  thousands  of  Students,  and  they  observe  the  Sunnah without  the  slightest  problem. 

The  problems  which  mufti  Taqi  proffers  to  justify  the  kuffaar  style  which  he  has  introduced  to  displace  the  Sunnah  practice  are  figments  of  his  hallucination.

All  those  who  have  been  to  Makkah  and  Madinah  during Ramadhaan  are  aware  of  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of musallis  having  Iftaar  on  thousands  of  dastarkhaans  on  the  floor.  Without  any  problem  these  cloths  are  quickly  uplifted  within  a  couple  of  minutes  in  preparation  of  Maghrib  Salaat.  There  is  absolutely  no  validity  for  the  bunkum  which  has  been  disgorged  in  justification  of  the  kuffaar  practice  adopted  at  Darul  Uloom  Karachi.                                                   
It  should  be  quite  clear  to  unbiased  people  that  the introduction  of  the  western  system  at  the  expense  of  the displacement  and  killing  of  the  Sunnah  system  is  the  satanic  effect  of  western  colonization  of  the  brains  of  the  muftis  and  molvis  of  the  Karachi  madrasah.  Mufti  Taqi’s  despicable  dalliance  with  the  capitalist  riba  bankers  has  desensitized  his  Imaani  susceptibilities,  and  the consequence  of  this  dalliance  is  the  elimination  of  the  Mumin’s  inhibition  to  the  ways and  customs  of  the  kuffaar.  

When  even  senior  muftis  fall  by  the  wayside,  having  been deflected  from  Siraatul  Mustaqeem,  and  incrementally abandoning  the  Sunnah,  then  we  can  understand  the implications  of the  Hadith:  “Then  there  shall  dawn  an  age when  holding  on  to  the  Deen  will  appear  like  holding  on  to an  ember (a  burning  coal).”

In  the  dastardly  attempt  to  justify  the  scuttling  of  the Sunnah,  Mufti  Taqi  seeks  to  confuse  and  bog  down  people in  a  maze  of  technicalities  to  create  the  idea  of  perfect permissibility  of  displacing  the  permanent  Sunnah  to  make  way  for  a  kuffaar  style.  The  issue  with  which  we  are confronted  is  not  the  juridical  or  academic  classification  of  the  practice  of  eating  on  the  floor.  Whether  it  is  Sunnatul Muakkadah  or  Sunnat-e-Aadiyah,  is  not  the  issue.  The  real  issue  is  the  displacement  of  the  Sunnah  of  Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  and  substituting  it  UNNECESSARILY  with  a  kuffaar  practice.  The  adoption  of  the  kuffaar  system  and  giving  it  preference  over  the  Mubaarak  way  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  is  undoubtedly  Tashabbuh  Bil  Kuffaar.  One  need  not  be  an  Aalim  to  understand  this  simple  fact.  One  only  needs  to  follow  Rasulullah’s  command:  “Seek  a  fatwa  from  your  heart.”   Specifically  in  relation  to  the  Madrasah,  the  element  of  Tashabbuh  is  glaringly  visible  since  the  introduction  of  the  kuffaar  system  entailed  the displacement  of  the  Sunnah.  It  is  not  a  case  of  the  western system  being  found  in  the  Madrasah  by  Mufti  Taqi,  having been  introduced  decades  before  he  was  even  born.  The  reality  is  that  he  organized  the  displacement  of  the  Sunnah  to  establish  the  kuffaar  system.  The  Tashabbuh  is  thus confirmed.  He  has  introduced  an  evil  practice.  According  to  the  Hadith,  the  one  who  initiates  an  evil  practice  will have  to  bear  the  load  of  the  sins  of  all  those  who  adopt  it. 
The  argument  that  eating  from  tables  sitting  on  chairs  has become  the  norm,  hence  the  element  of  Tashabbuh  has  been  eliminated,  is  absolutely  corrupt.  It  is  totally  unexpected  of  an  Aalim  of  the  Deen  who  has  genuine  love  for  the  Sunnah  and  conscious  of  his  obligations  to  Allah  Ta’ala  to  utter  such  a  corrupt  ‘daleel’.  Firstly,  in  so  far  as  the  Madaaris  are  concerned,  there  is  no  norm  of  tables  and chairs.  To  this  day  the  Sunnah  of  the  floor  is  the  sacred  norm.  So  when  Mufti  Taqi  introduced  the  kuffaar  system of  tables  and  chairs,  he  did  not  act  in  consonance  with  the ‘norm’.  There  was  no  norm  of  tables  and  chairs  in  the Madaaris,  nor  is  there  such  a  norm  today,  except  in  some liberalized  western  boot-licking  institutions.  On  the  contrary,  he  perpetrated  the  act  of  kufr  of  displacing  the  14  century  Mubaarak  Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  which  was  and  still  is  the  norm  of  the  Ummah,  especially  in  Deeni  institutions  and  in  the  homes  of  the  People  of  the Deen

Thus,  the  act  of  introducing  tables  and  chairs  by  Mufti  Taqi  was  not  merely  adopting  a  norm  –  a  non-existent  norm.  It  was  the  ignominious  and  haraam  displacement  of  the  Sunnah.

In  his  corrupt  fatwa,  Mufti  Taqi  states: “Eating  from  a  table  is  per  se  (fi-nafsihi)  permissible.  According  to  the  Shariah  it  is  not  prohibited  because  there  is  no  daleel  (for  the  prohibition).  Similarly,  eating  from  tables  sitting  on  chairs  is  not  even   contrary  to  the  Sunnah.”

In  addition  to  this  argument  having  no  Shar’i  validity,  it  is baseless  and  corrupt.  Fi-nafsihi  this  practice  is  prohibited  since  it  is  in  conflict  with  the  Sunnah.  It  displaces  the Sunnah.  It  is  a  preference  over  and  above  the  Sunnah.  It  is  the  custom  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara.  It  is  Tashabbuh  with  them.  It  is  contrary  to  the  more  than  14  century  practice  of  the  Ummah.  It  was  the  custom  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam),  of  all  the  Ambiya  (Alayhimus  salaam),  of  the  Sahaabah,  of  the  Auliya,  of  the  Ulama  and  of  the  entire  Ummah.  It  is  the  practice  of  the  mutakabbireen  (the  proud ones).

If  these  facts  are  not  adequate  for  the  understanding  of  an Aalim,  then  there  is  an  imperative  need  for  him  to  engage  in  deep  introspection  for  the  examination  of  the  health  of  his  Imaan,  and  to  detect  and  eliminate  the  disease  of  emulating  the  kuffaar.

The  averment  that  the  kuffaar    system  of  tables  and  chairs  is  not  in  conflict  with  the  Sunnah  because  of  the  idea  that  it is  not  a  Sunnatul  Muakkadah  act,  is  palpably  baatil.  It  is   erroneous  to  assign  the  Sunnah  system  of  eating  to  the  class  known  as  Sunnat-e-Aadiyah.  The  Sunnah  system  is  the  only  system  of  the  Ummah,  and  it  has  been  such  a  system  since  the  age  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).  At  no  stage  in  Islam’s  history  was  it  abandoned  and  substituted  with  any  kuffaar  system.  The  illustrious  authorities  of  the  Shariah  have  upheld  it  as  the    Sunnah  and   any  other  system as  bid’ah  and  contrary  to  the  Sunnah. 

Furthermore,  as  mentioned  earlier,  the  issue  does  not  centre  around  the  classification  of  this  Sunnah  practice  of  the Ummah.  The  issue  is  the  displacement  of  the  14  century Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  its substitution  with  the  custom  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara enemies  of  Islam.

If  there  had  been  any  system    of  tables  and  chairs  of  the Sunnah,  then  only  would  there  have  been  some  validity  in the  claim  of  it  not  being  contrary  to  the  Sunnah.  However,  since  the  only  system  of  this  Ummah  has  been  the  Sunnah  of  the  floor,  it  is  utterly  baseless  to  say  that  the  kuffaar  system  of  tables  and  chairs  is  not  contrary  to  the  Sunnah.  The  significance  and  importance  of  this  system  confirm  that  it  is a  Sunnatul  Muakkadah  or  Sunnatul  Huda  custom.

Mufti  Taqi  states  that  an  act    which  Nabi  (Sallallahu  Alayhi wasallam)  had   executed  as  an  ibaadat  and  which  he  had adopted  with  permanency,  is  Sunnatul  Muakkadah,  and abandonment  of  such  an  act  or  practising  in  conflict  with  it  is  abominable.  He  irrationally  and  without  daleel  excludes  from  this  definition  the  Sunnah  system  of  eating  on  the  floor.  Firstly,  Sunnatul  Huda  is  not  restricted  to  acts  of  ibaadat,  i.e.  acts  of  ritual  ibaadat.  In  the  wider  sense,  all  actions  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  come  within  the  ambit  of  ibaadat.

Using  the  miswaak  is  an  act  of  ibaadat  for  which  there  is considerable  thawaab.  Its  deliberate  abandonment  is  sinful  despite  its  Fiqhi  classification  of  Istihbaab,  and  the  Fuqaha  have  categorically    ruled  that  denial  of  its  Sunnah  validity  is  kufr.  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  has  made  muwaazabat  (i.e.  practised  permanently)  on  the  miswaak,  on  washing  the  limbs  thrice  in  Wudhu,  on  making  masah  of  the  whole  head,  and  on  many  other  acts  which  are  all  part  of  the  concept  of  Sunnatul  Huda  despite  their Istihbaab  classification.  Abandonment  of  these  Mustahab  non-ibaadat  acts  (i.e.  not  being  ritual  acts  of  ibaadat)  for  no  valid  reason,  is  not  permissible.  Therefore  excluding  the  Sunnah  system  from  Sunnatul  Huda  is  baseless  and  corrupt.

The  chicanery  of  employing    technicalities,  and  that  too incongruently,  does  not  rescue  Mufti  Taqi  from  the   predicament  he  has  cast  himself  into  –  the  vile  predicament  of  substituting  the  Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  with  the  system  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara.

Proffering  another  corrupt  contention,  Mufti  Taqi  says: “If a  mubah  (permissible)  method  is  adopted,  it  will  not  be  said that  it  is  in  conflict  with  the  Sunnah.”

The  very  first  premise,  a  mubah  tareeq,  is  baseless.  The  kuffaar  system  is  not  mubah.  On  the  contrary  it  is  haraam.  It  is  in  conflict  with  the  permanent  Sunnah  system.  It  is  a  displacement  of  the  Sunnah.  There  is  no  mubah  substitute  for  the  Sunnah  system  of  the  floor  just  as  there  is  no  mubah  substitute  for  the  Sunnah  system  of  Thabah  (slaughtering  animals).  The  Shar’i  system  of  Thabah  despite  not  being  a ritual  act  of  Ibaadat,  cannot  be  substituted  with  any  other system  even  if  the  fundamentals  of  Thabah  are  fulfilled.  It  is  baatil  to  claim  that  the  Sunnah  system  of  Thabah  is  not  among  the  Sunan  Huda.  The  same  argument  applies  to  all  Sunnah  practices  which  have  been  adhered  to  with  constancy  from  the  time  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).  

Another  example  is  the  Islamic  system  of  burial,  and  carrying  the  Janaazah.  This  system  may  not  be  abandoned  nor  is  abstention  permissible  without  valid  reason  despite  this  system  not  being  a  ritual  act  of  ibaadat.  But  in  the  wider  meaning  of  the  Shar’i  concept,  it  is  in  fact  ‘ibaadat’,  and  it  cannot  be  excluded  from  the  Sunan  Huda.  Substituting  this  Sunnah  system  with  any  other  system  will  be  haraam  despite  the  objective  of  internment  underground  being  achieved  by  some  kuffaar  system  as  well.  In  brief,  all   systems  of  the  Sunnah  come  within  the  purview  of  Sunan  Huda,  hence  are  Sunnatul  Muakkadah,  abandonment  of  which  is  sinful.  The  sin  is  aggravated  if  the  Islamic  system  is  abandoned  for  the  sake  of  a  kuffaar  system  which  is preferred  over  and  above  the  Sunnah  custom.  It  is  for  this very  reason  that  Hadhrat  Maulana  Ashraf  Ali  Thanvi (Rahmatullah  alayh)  says  that  stunning  animals  prior  to slaughter  is  tantamount  to  kufr  regardless  of  the  fundamentals  of  Thabah  being  executed. 

While  arbitrarily  attempting  to  relegate  the  Sunnah  eating system  to  the  Sunnat-e-Aadiyah  category,  Mufti  Taqi  abortively  struggles  to  bolster  his  claim  with  a  Hadith.  It  should  be  understood  that  the  Fiqhi  terms  of  Sunnatul  Muakkadah,  Sunan  Huda,  Sunnat-e-Aadiyah,  etc.  did  not  exist  during  the  age  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  and  the  Sahaabah.  These  juridical  terms  were  coined  much  later.  The  attempt  to  substantiate  the contention  of  the  system  being  Sunnat-e-Aadiya  with  the  Hadith  of  Hadhrat  Anas  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  is  therefore baseless  and  corrupt.    

The  attitude  and  practice  of  the  Sahaabah  were  to  give practical  expression  to  every  order,  practice  and  method  of Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  regardless  of  the classification  of  the  ahkaam  a century  or  so  later.

In  fact,  the  Hadith  of  Hadhrat  Anas  (Radhiyallahu  anhu) confirms  that  eating  on  the  floor  was  the  permanent practice  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  In  presenting  this  Hadith,  Mufti  Taqi  has  in  fact  negated  his  corrupt  view.  In  the  Hadith,  Hadhrat  Anas  (Radhiyallahu anhu)  says:  “Nabi  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  never  ate  from  a  table….” Mufti  Taqi  cites  this  Hadith  in  the  attempt  to  show  that  abstention  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  from  something  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  hurmat (prohibition)  is  the  consequence  of  such abstention. 

It  is  mentioned  in  the  Hadith  of  Hadhrat  Anas  (Radhiyallahu anhu):

“Nabi  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  never  ate  from  a table  nor  from  small  plates  nor  was  bread  with  fine  flour prepared  for  him…..  Qataadah  was  asked:  ‘On  what  would  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  eat?’  He said:  ‘On  a  dastarkhaan.”  (i.e.  on  a  cloth  which  was  usually  of  leather). 

It  has  not  been  contended  by  anyone  that  every  abstention of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  signifies  hurmat (prohibition).  For  the  confirmation  of  hurmat  there  will  be  other  factors.  Rasulullah’s  abstention  from  fine/sifted  flour  does  not  signify  prohibition  because  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Salafus  Saaliheen  during  the  era  of  Khairul  Quroon  consumed  such  bread.  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  had  abstained  from  wearing  trousers.  His permanent  garment  was  the  izaar  (lungi).  Wearing  trousers  is  not  prohibited  on  the  basis  of  this  abstention  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Ummah  after  them  had  always  worn  trousers.  There  was  no  stricture  from Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  or  the  Sahaabah  to indicate  hurmat

However,  as  far  as  eating  on  the  floor  is  concerned,  it  has  always  been  the  only  custom  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam),  the  Sahaabah  and  the  Ummah  of  every  era.  The  virtues  of  eating  on  the  floor  from  a  dastarkhaan  have  been  stated  in  the  Hadith.  The  illustrious  Ulama  of  all  ages  have  condemned  the  kuffaar  system  labelling  it  Makrooh  Tahreemi  and  bid’ah.  The  prohibition  is  not  based  solely  on  abstention  by  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  The  prohibition  of  the  kuffaar  system  of  eating  is  not  proclaimed  solely  on  the  basis  of  the  Hadith  of  Hadhrat  Anas  (Radhiyallahu  anhu).  The  variety  of  dalaa-il  for  substantiating  the  prohibition  is  the  subject  of  the  discussion  in  this  treatise.

There  is  no  basis  and  no  proof  for  Mufti  Taqi’s  corrupt  view  in  the  Hadith  of  Hadhrat  Anas  (Radhiyallahu  anhu).  Grossly  misinterpreting  this  Hadith,  Mufti  Taqi  says: “Therefore,  even  though  this  method,  i.e.  eating  on  the  floor  from  a  dastarkhaan  is  close  to  the  Sunnah,  better  and  a  cause  for  barkat  and  good  fortune,  and  in  normal  circumstances  it  should  not  be  abandoned  without  valid  reason,  however,  if  for  some  reason  this  method  (of  the  Sunnah)  is  omitted  and  another  mubah  (permissible) method  adopted,  then  it  may  not  be  labelled  as  makrooh  and  not  permissible.  Hence  the  prevalent  custom  of  tables  and  chairs  is  not  even  makrooh.”

In  proffering  this  weird  argument,  Mufti  Taqi  has degenerated  from  the  sublime  to  the  ridiculous.  In  brief,  he has  disgorged  bunkum.  The  juxtaposition  of  this  averment with  both  the  zaahiri  and  baatini  dimensions  of  the  Deen  demonstrates  the  incongruities  with  which  this  statement  is  riddled.  Firstly,  Mufti  Taqi  alleges  that  the  method  of  sitting  on  the  floor  and  eating  from  a  dastarkhaan  in  the  style  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  is  “close  to  the  Sunnah”.  Now  what  is  the  Sunnah  method  if  this  method  is  “close  to  the  Sunnah”?  Is  there  some  other  Sunnah  method  practised  by  Nabi-e-Kareem  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)  and  the  Sahaabah?  If  yes,  it  devolves  on  Mufti Taqi  to  present  that  method. 

The  reality  is  that  there  is  no  other  Sunnah  method  besides  the  method  of  eating  from  a  dastarkhaan  on  the  floor.  The allegation  of  the  one  and  only  Sunnah  method  being  “close  to  the  Sunnah”  is  ludicrous.  It  is  like  saying  10  is  close  to 10,  or  Makkah  is  close  to  Makkah.  It  will  be  proper  to  say  that  9  is  close  to  10  and  Azeeziyah  is  close  to  Makkah.  Thus,  the  absurdity  of  saying  that  sitting  on  the  floor  to  eat  is  “close  to  the  Sunnah”  is  quite  evident.

Secondly,  the  Mufti  Sahib  says  that  the  Sunnah  method  is “better  and  a  cause  for  barkat  and  good  fortune”. Unequivocally  it  can  be  said  that  tables  and  chairs  are bereft  of  the  goodness,  blessings  and  sa-aadat  (good fortune)  with  which  Allah  Ta’ala  has  endowed  the  system of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Now  what  will  induce  a  senior  Mufti  who  is  the  head  of  a  sacred  Darul  Uloom  established  by  his  august  father,  Hadhrat Mufti  Muhammad  Shafi  (Rahmatullah  alayh),  to  displace the    Mubaarak  and  Waajib  Sunnah  system  and  substitute  it with  the  mal-oon  system  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara  who are  avowed  enemies  of  Islam?  What  induces  a  senior  Aalim  to  degenerate  to  this  extremely  low  ebb  of bootlicking?  To  say  the  least,  is  it  intelligent  and  valid  to eliminate  the  Sunnah  system  of  the  Ummah  for  replacing  it with  the  system  of  the  kuffaar?  Every  Muslim  who  acts according  to  Rasulullah’s  command:  “Seek  a  fatwa  from your  heart”,  will  understand  the  villainy  which  Mufti  Taqi  has  perpetrated.  Instead  of  defending  and  preserving  the Sunnah,  he  flagrantly  kills  the  Sunnah  and  commits  the greater  crime  of  defending  and  justifying  the  abomination  which  has  been  installed  at  his  Darul  Uloom.

Being  enamoured  by  the  false  and  satanic  glitter  of  the  West,  Mufti  Taqi  deemed  it  appropriate  to  spurn  the barakaat  and  sa-aadat  which  Allah  Ta’ala  so  munificently offers  the  Mu’mineen  who  adopt  the  Sunnah  of  Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).  

Thirdly,  Mufti  Taqi  advises: “in  normal  circumstances  it  should  not  be  abandoned  without  valid  reason”. He  concedes  that  omission  of  the  Sunnah  should  be  only  in abnormal  circumstances.  What  were  the  abnormal  circumstances  prevailing  specifically  in  his  Darul  Uloom  to  necessitate  and  constrain  expungement  of  the  Sunnah  system?

The  only  silly  reason  tendered  by  him  to  justify  the  unholy and  kufr  displacement  of  the  Sunnah  and  the  introduction  of  the  kuffaar  system  is  the  hallucination  of  considerable money  having  to  be  spent  to  lift  the  dastarkhaans  and  effect the  necessary  cleaning.  This  reason  displays  imbecility  of thinking,  ludicrousness  and  the  total  bankruptcy  of  rational  and  Shar’i  arguments  to  bolster  his  indefensible  adoption  of  the  kuffaar  system  which  necessitated  the  eradication  of  the  Sunnah  system.

Assuming  that  there  is  some  validity  in  the  ‘considerable cost’  stupidity,  there  is  no  shortage  of  funds  in  the  coffers of  Darul  Uloom  Karachi  which  receives  contributions  of millions  of  dollars  for  even  wasteful  and  unnecessary embellishment.  Is  it  intelligent  to  assume  that  the  relatively extremely  little  cost  incurred  to  remunerate  servants  for  clearing  the  dastarkhaans,  will  cast  the  Darul  Uloom  into  financial  straits? 

If  clearing  the  dastarkhaans  entails  ‘considerable’  cost,  is  the  Sunnah  so  cheap  and  unimportant  to  justify withholding  this  necessary  expenditure  and  to  rather discard  such  an  important    Sunnah  system  whose  barkat and  sa-aadat  Mufti  Taqi  concedes?  It  is  satanic niggardliness  for  a  multi-billion  dollar  institution  to  refuse paying  the  pittance  to  servants  for  clearing  dastarkhaans  in  the  endeavour  to  uphold  and  honour  the  Sunnah  system  of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Furthermore,  if  the  niggardliness  cannot  be  overcome  due  to  the  attitude  of  insignificance  and  disdain  (Istikhfaaf)  displayed  by  Mufti  Taqi,  then  it  will  be  salutary  for  him  to  visit  the  Haramain  Shareefain  during  Ramadhaan  to  learn  how  thousands  of  dastarkhaans  are  cleared  in  a  matter  of   six  or  seven  minutes  –  dastarkhaans  on  which  tens  of  thousands  of  people  have  their  Iftaar  with  a  big  variety  of  edibles.  And,  this  clearing  process  does  not  cost  even  a  dollar.

If  clearing  the  dastarkhaans  from  the  floor  entails ‘considerable’  cost  as  Mufti  Taqi  wishes  people  to  swallow  his  myth,  does  clearing  the  table  cloths  from  the  kuffaar  tables  and  chairs  not  involve  similar  cost?  Or,  are  all  the table  cloths  left  on  the  tables  allowing  the  millions  of  flies  to  have  their  own  feast  on  the  waste  of  the  left-overs? 

If  the  cost  factor  has  any  validity  –  which  of  course  is  a huge  LIE  –  then  the  students  themselves  should  clear  the dastarkhaans.  They  should  appreciate  the  value  and thawaab  of  engaging  in  a  little  menial  work  as  done  by  the students  of  other  Madaaris  who  all  sit  on  the  floor.

We  also  advise  Mufti  Taqi  to  visit  Darul  Uloom  Deoband, Mazaahirul  Uloom  in  India  and  other  large  Madaaris  elsewhere to  learn  how  they  cope  with  the  Sunnah  system.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is  that  it  is  not  the  cost  factor  nor  any  inconvenience  whatsoever  which  constrained  the  kufr displacement  of  the  Sunnah  system  and  the  adoption  of  the  kuffaar  system.  The  determinant  for  embracing  the  kuffaar  system  is  inferiority  complex  which  has  enamoured  the  western  systems  to  the  ulama  of  the  darul  uloom.

Colonized  brains  –  colonized  by  the  West  –  have  induced  the  commission  of  the  dastardly  satanic  act  of  eradicating  the  Sunnah  for  the  sole  objective  of  substituting  it  with  the system  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara.  About  these  enemies  of  Islam,  Allah  Ta’ala  states:

“O People  of  Imaan!  Do  not  take  the  Yahood  and  Nasaraa as  friends.  They  are  friends  amongst  themselves.  Whoever from  among  you  (Mu’mineen)  befriends  them,  then  verily  he  is  of  them.  Verily,  Allah  does  not  guide  a  transgressing people.”  

Numerous  Qur’aanic  verses  and  Hadith  narrations  forbid emulation  of  the  kuffaar.  It  is  not  permissible  for  Muslims  to  abandon  Sunnah  systems  for  the  sake  of  adopting  kuffaar practices  and  customs. Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  had  predicted  that the  time  will  dawn  when  Muslims  will  follow  the  Yahood and  Nasaara  right  into  the  “lizard’s  hole”  in  a  drunken stupor  of  emulation,  and  this  process  of  mental  serfdom displayed  by  most  ulama  of  this  era  has  resulted  in  the elimination  of  Islamic  and  Sunnah  systems  in  an incremental  process  of  the  erosion  of  the  ahkaam  of  the Shariah.

It  is  most  lamentable  that  the  pernicious  shaitaani  process of  erosion  of  the  Deen  is  being  spearheaded  by  muftis  from  the  institutions  which  are  supposed  to  be  the  headquarters  and  bastions  of  the  Sunnah.  In  this  context  can  the  following  prediction  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  be  well  understood: 

“Soon  shall  there  dawn  an  age  when  nothing  will  remain  of  Islam  but  its  name.  Nothing  will  remain  of  the  Qur’aan,  but  its  text.  The  Musaajid  will  be  ornamental  structures  bereft  of  guidance.  The  Ulama  will  be  the  worst  of  the  people  under  the  canopy  of  the  sky.  From  them  will  percolate  fitnah,  and this  fitnah  will  rebound  on  them”.  

This  is  the  predicted  fate  which  has  overtaken  and overwhelmed  Darul  Ulooms  such  as  the  madrasah  of  Mufti  Taqi. 

In  another  puerile  attempt  to  justify  the  displacement  of  the Sunnah  and  the  adoption  of  the  kuffaar  system,  Mufti  Taqi abortively  argues  that  one  of  the  reasons  why  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  did  not  use  a  table  for  eating,  was  the  unavailability  of  tables.  He  argues  that  since  tables  were  not  the  prevailing  custom,  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)  did  not  use  it.  He  implies  by  this  stupidity  that  if  tables  had  been  available,  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  would  have  ate  from them.

This  is  another  example  of  degeneration  into  ludicrousness. The  fact  that  tables  are  mentioned  in  the  Ahaadith  and  that  this  specific  Hadith  of  Hadhrat  Anas  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  negates  the  use  of  tables,  and  for  which  the  reason  is  palpable,  the  argument  of  Mufti  Taqi  is  devoid  of  Shar’i  substance.  Although  Mufti  Taqi  cites  the  two  prime  reasons  proffered  by  the  Mufassireen  for  Rasulullah’s abstention  from  using  tables  for  food,  he  (Mufti  Taqi) conveniently  overrides  these  reasons  with  the  stupidity  of unavailability  of  tables.  He  does  concede  the  following facts:

1)  The  actual  reason  (i.e.  for  abstention)  is  that  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  for  several  reasons  and  wisdoms  had  adopted  a  life  of  zuhd  (abstinence),  qanaa-at (contentment)  and  simplicity.  For  these  reasons  Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  did  not  use  tables.

2)  The  second  reason  (for  abstention)  is  that  frequently   the  use  of  tables  is  motivated  by  takabbur  (pride).

Although  it  is  quite  obvious  that  these  were  the  reasons  for not  using  tables,  Mufti  Taqi  harps  on  an  unsubstantiated opinion.  There  is  no  corroboration  for  this  opinion  in  the  Hadith.  On  the  contrary,  the  first  two  reasons  proffered  by  the  Mufassireen  are  confirmed  by  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  who said:  “I  eat  like  a  slave………”   

He  further  convolutes  this  irrational  opinion  with  his averment  that  since  the  tables  were  of  copper,  they  were  too  cumbersome  to  handle.  Two  men  were  required  to  lift  a table.  Ignoring  the  real  rationale  for  eating  on  the  ground,  Mufti  Taqi  latches  on  to  this  ridiculous  opinion.  Its absurdity  is  self-evident.

Mufti  Taqi  argues  that  the  Hadith  of  Anas  (Radhiyallahu anhu)  does  not  confirm  prohibition.  It  has  not  been contended  that  the  prohibition  of  eating  from  tables  is reliant  on  the  Hadith  of  Hadhrat  Anas  (Radhiyallahu  anhu).  The  Hadith  is  presented  merely  to  corroborate  and  add  emphasis  to  the  prohibition  of  adopting  the  kuffaar  system.  In  the  case  of  Mufti  Taqi’s  Madrasah,  the  introduction  of  the  kuffaar  system  has  special  notoriety.  Its  abomination  is aggravated  by  the  displacement  of  the  Sunnah  system. There  was  no  vacuum  to  fill  for  facilitating  the  eating  process  of  the  students.  The  kuffaar  system  was  brought  in  to  displace  the  Sunnah  system.

Mufti  Taqi  further  argues  on  the  basis  of  the  Hadith  of Hadhrat  Anas  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  that  just  as  this  Hadith mentions  Rasulullah’s  abstention  from  tables,  so  too  does  it  mention  his  abstention  from  eating  bread  of  fine  flour  and  eating  from  small  plates.  In  terms  of  this  convoluted  logic,  he  implies  that  those  who  claim  tables  are  haraam/bid’ah/ in  conflict  with  the  Sunnah,  should  likewise  prohibit  fine  flour  and  eating  from  plates.

If  a  jaahil  layman  argues  in  this  fashion,  it  will  be understandable.  But  for  a  senior  Mufti  to  acquit  himself  so  irrationally  is  unexpected.  There  are  dalaa-il  for  the permissibility  of  eating  bread  made  of  sifted  flour  and  also for  small  plates.  The  strongest  daleel  for  this  permissibility  is  the  irrefutable  fact  that  the  Sahaabah,  Fuqaha  and  Auliya did  not  criticize  it  even  if  they  abstained  from  such  luxuries because  of  their  Zuhd  (abstinence  and  austerity).  On  the  contrary,  the  kuffaar  system  of  tables  has  been  criticised  and  condemned  as  bid’ah  and  haraam  by  innumerable  Ulama  of  all  ages.  

In  another  abortive  attempt  to  justify  the  displacement  of  the  Sunnah  system  to  substitute  it  with  the  kuffaar  system,  Mufti Taqi  mentions  the  following  Hadith, also  of  Hadhrat  Anas (Radhiyallahu anhu):     

“Qataadah said: ‘We used to come to Anas Bin Maalik (and according to the narration of Ishaaq, the cook of Anas would be standing). In the narration of Daarmi his khwaan (table) was present. One day Anas said: ‘I do not know if Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had ever seen bread made of sifted flour or a whole roasted goat.”  

On the basis of this narration, Mufti Taqi laboriously argues:                                                              
“From this Hadith the use of a khwaan (table), bread of sifted flour and roasted goat by Hadhrat Anas (Radhiyallahu anhu) is confirmed – things which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) never used in his entire life. …… It is therefore known that Rasulullah’s abstention from using a table is not a proof for its prohibition or for it being Makrooh.” 

It is firstly erroneous to conclude on the basis of this Hadith that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had never eaten roasted meat or bread from sifted flour. There are other narrations which confirm that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did consume roasted meat.

Furthermore, the Sahaabah freely partook of roasted meat and bread from sifted flour. The consumption of these foods was not in emulation of any kuffaar style. There is not a single authority in the history of Islam who had ever hinted that eating roasted meat or bread from sifted flour was reprehensible in the slightest degree. Not even the noble  Sufi  Auliya  who  are  famed  for  their  rigorous austerity  and  abstention  from  luxuries  and  comforts  had  ever  hinted  that  these  foods  are  in  conflict  with  the  Sunnah. There  never  existed  the  slightest  dispute  in  the  history  of Islam on these foods.

No  one  in  the  history  of  Islam  has  ever  sought  a  fatwa  on the  permissibility  of  eating  roasted  meat  and  bread  of  sifted flour.  It  never  ever  was  an  issue.  But  eating  from  tables, and  further  aggravating  it  by  sitting  on  chairs  at  tables  is  entirely  a  different  issue.  Eating  from  tables  whilst  sitting  on  the  ground,  i.e.  not  sitting  on  chairs  in  western  kuffaar  style,  is  a  hotly  disputed  practice  in  this  belated  era  in  close  proximity  to  Qiyaamah.  There  is  absolutely  no  doubt  that the  Sunnah  system  is  to  have  the  food  on  the  floor.  The dastarkhaan,  food  and  the  eater  all  have  to  be  on  one  level on  the  ground.  This  is  the  permanent  Sunnah  practice  of Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam),  the  Sahaabah,  the Taabi-een  and  the  entire  Ummah  until  recent  times.  In  this  current  era  liberals  are  attempting  to  scuttle  the  Culture  of  the  Sunnah  by  clinging  to  rarities  at  the  peril  of  jettisoning  their  Imaan.  

Mufti  Taqi  states  in  his  article,  Issuing  Fatwa  on  the  Ruling  of  another  Math-hab:  “Imaam  al-Awzai’i  said:  ‘Whoever  adopts  the  rarities  of  the  ulama  has  left  Islam.’    Hafiz  al-Dhahabi  said:  ‘Whoever  chases  the  concessions  (i.e.  the  easiest  positions)  of  the  madhabs  and  the  slips  of  the  mujtahids,  then  indeed  his  religion  has  become  brittle,  as  al-Awzaa’i  and  others said………he  has  gathered  all  evil.”  

To  bolster  the  haraam  practice  of  the  western  kuffaar  at  the expense  of  displacing  the  14  century  Sunnah  system,  Mufti Taqi  is  guilty  of  the  crime  mentioned  by  Imaam  Auzaa’i (Rahmatullah  alayh)  and  numerous  other  illustrious authorities  of  the  Deen,  and  which  he  himself  records  in  his article.  Thus,  citing  the  rarity  of  the  ‘table’  mentioned  in  the  narration  of  Hadhrat  Anas  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  brings  Mufti  Taqi  within  the  purview  of  the  grave  stricture  stated  by Imaam  Auzaa’i  and  numerous other  Fuqaha.

In  like  manner,  Mufti  Taqi  has  baselessly  attempted  to     support  the  displacement  of  the  Sunnah  style  from  his Madrasah  with   a  statement  of  Imaam  Ghazaali  who  said  that  raising  the  food  on  a  maa-idah  (a  raised  floor-table)  is  not  prohibited.  This  citation  by  Mufti  Taqi  is  baseless  because:

a)  Imaam  Ghazaali’s  view  on  this  issue  is  among  the unacceptable  rarities  which  is  not  supported  by  the  Fuqaha of  any  age.

b)  It  is  a  view  which  is  in  conflict  with  the  Sunnah.

c)  Imaam  Ghazaali  does  not  deny  the  Sunnah  system.

d)  Imaam  Ghazaali’s  view  does  not  advocate  displacement  of  the  Sunnah  for  the  sake  of  adoption  of  the  system  of  the Yahood  and  Nasaara.

e)  Imaam  Ghazaali’s  view  pertains  to  only  the  maa-idah, NOT  to  tables  and  chairs  which  are  the  specific  practice  of the  western  kuffaar.

f)  The  maa-idah  is  not  a  western-style  table  which  stands  high  above  the  ground,  making  sitting  on  the  floor  to  eat  impossible.

g)    The  maa-idah  precludes  the  use  of  chairs.  Therefore  it necessitates  eating  whilst  sitting  on  the  ground,  not  on chairs.

h)  There  is  no  resemblance  between  the  maa-idah  and  the western  style  of  the  high  table  and  chairs.  

i)  Even  the  use  of  the  maa-idah  does  not  cancel  the  system  of  sitting  on  the  floor  to  eat.

j)  Mufti  Taqi  did  not  introduce  the  maa-idah  style.  He displaced  the  Waajib  Sunnah  system  with  the  kuffaar system  thereby  emulating  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara  right  into  the  “lizard’s  hole”  as  predicted  by  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  On  this  issue  he  did  not  even  practice  on  the  rarity  which  one  could  erroneously hallucinate  as  a  ‘concession’.  Furthermore,  a  rarity  or  a concession  may  not  be  adopted  for  displacing  the  Sunnah  system.  It  is  a  temporary  measure  necessitated  by  valid  cause.  There  is  no  valid  reason  for  having  displaced  the  centuries old  Sunnah  system  from  the  Madrasah.

Thus,  the  difference  between  what  Imaam  Ghazaali (Rahmatullah  alayh)  said,  and  the  evil  displacement  of  the Sunnah  perpetrated  by  Mufti  Taqi  at  his  Madrasah  is  like  the difference  between  Jannat  and  Jahannam. 

The  attempt  to  extravagate  capital  from  the  Hadith  of Hadhrat  Jaabir  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  is  baseless  just  as  the attempt  to  extract  support  from  the  Hadith  of  Hadhrat  Anas  (Radhiyallahu  anhu).  Mentioning  the  Hadith,  Mufti  Taqi  says:  “Salaam  Bin  Miskeen  said:  ‘I  went  to  Jaabir  Bin  Zaid  who  was  eating  from  a  khwaan  of  khalanj  (a  type  of timber).”

It  is  not  necessary  that  the  ‘khwaan’  mentioned  here  was  a raised  platform  such  as  a  small  raised  floor-table  or  bench. It  is  possible  that  the  ‘khwaan’  was  a  timber  board  placed  flat  on  the  ground.  And,  if  it  was  a  slightly  raised  platform  which  is  also  described  as  maa-idah,  it  never  was  a  high  western  table  necessitating  eating  by  sitting  on  chairs  in  western  style.  Hadhrat  Jaabir  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  sat  on the  floor  eating  from  the  ‘khwaan’,  and  this  too  is  a  rarity,  not  the  norm  of  the  Sunnah.  There  is  no  basis  in  this  narration  for  displacing  the  Sunnah  system  for  the  sake  of  adopting  the  system  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara.

The  use  of  the  term  ‘table’  to  describe  the  maa-idah  or  the khwaan  is  a  deception.  It  seeks  to  give  validity  to  the western  style  of  sitting  on  chairs  and  eating  from  high tables  whereas  the  maa-idah/khwaan  necessitated  sitting  on the  floor. The  deception  is therefore  palpable. 

It  is  therefore  absolutely  baseless  to  argue  tables  and chairs  on  the  basis  of  maa-idahkhwaan,  roasted  meat  and sifted  flour.  The  presence  of  a  table  in  the  home  of  Hadhrat Anas  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  may  not  be  cited  as  a  ‘daleel’  for  the  permissibility  of  displacing  the  Islamic/Sunnah system  for  the  kaafir  system  nor  is  there  any  daleel  for  adopting  the  kuffaar  system  of  tables  and  chairs  in  the  Hadith  of  Jaabir  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  or  in  the  isolated,  rare  view  of  Imaam  Ghazaali  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  for  the  reason  explained  above.

Rasulullah’s  abstention  from  using  a  khwaan,  contrary  to   Mufti  Taqi’s  idea,  is  in  fact  the  basis  for  the  Sunnah  system  of  eating  which  the  Ummah  has  clung  to  for  the  past  more  than  fourteen  centuries.  This  is  such  an  abstention  which  constitutes  a  valid  daleel,  hence  the  firm adherence  of  the  Ummah  to  the  Sunnah  style,  and  the denunciation  of  tables  and  chairs  by  the  Ulama  of  the Ummah.

Arguing  abortively  in  the  attempt  to  negate  the  element  of  Tashabbuh  bil  kuffaar,  Mufti  Taqi  says:  “It  is  appropriate to  clarify  here  that  generally  with  regard  to  eating  from tables,  etc.  it  is  said  to  be  the  style  of  aliens  (i.e.  kuffaar),  hence  it  is  emulating  the  fussaaq  and  kuffaar. However, this  was  valid  when  the  use  of  tables,  etc.  were  specific with the Yahood and Nasaara………
However,  now  during  our  age  this  practice  has  become so  universal  even  among  Muslims  that  it  is  no  longer associated  specifically  with  any  nation  or  religion. Therefore,  now  it    cannot  be  prohibited  on  the  basis  of Tashabbuh,  moreover,  when  the  intention  for  using  tables, etc. is not to emulate aliens”

The  universality  of  the  western  practice  among  the  juhala (the  ignorant  masses)  does  not  justify  the  displacement  of  the  Sunnah  system  from  a  Darul  Uloom  which  is  supposed to  be  a  Beacon  of  the  Sunnah.  Shaving  the  beard  is  a universal  practice  among  Muslims.  Standing  and  urinating has  also  become  universal,  hence  standing  urinals  have been  installed  by  the  thousand  at  Arafaat,  Mina,  etc.  to  enable  the  Hujjaaj  to  relieve  themselves  in  the  style  of western  donkeys.  It  does  not  behove  a  Darul  Uloom  to seek  guidance  and  daleel  from  practices  of  the  awaamun naas.

A  Darul  Uloom  has  to  incumbently  act  in  accordance  with  Rasulullah’s  Command:

“Whoever  adheres  to  my  Sunnah  at  the  time  of  the corruption  of  my  Ummah  will  receive  the  reward  of  a hundred shuhadaa’.”  

The  Ulama  are  not  expected  to  make  taqleed  of  the  awaamun  naas.  If  an  anti-Sunnah  practice  has  become  universal  among  the  ignorant  masses,  it  is  not  expected  of  Ulama  and  of  people  who  love  the  Sunnah  to  present  such  universality  of  the  ignorant  masses  as  daleel  for  the  abandonment  and  displacement  of  the  Sunnah.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  the  obligation  of  the  Ulama  to  condemn  the  introduction  of  kuffaar  practices  from  the  very  inception,  and  not  wait  for  these  evil  practices  to  become  rampantly  prevailing  in  the  Muslim  community.

If  ‘universality’  is  a  valid  daleel  for  abandoning  Islamic  practices  and  Sunnah  customs,  then  the  very  same  fate  which  the  Shariah  of  Nabi  Musaa  (Alayhis  salaam)  and  the Shariah  of  Nabi  Isaa  (Alayhis  salaam)  have  suffered  will  befall  the  Shariah  of  Muhammadur  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam).  ‘Universality’  is  a  creeping  disease.  It  is  a  cunning  trap  of  Iblees.  With  this  creature  he  gradually  erodes  the  Sunnah,  desensitizes  the  Ulama  and  entrenches  the  kuffaar  systems  in  the  Muslim  community  at  the  cost  of  killing  of  the  Sunnah  custom.

Most  Ulama  today  are  blind  to  this  evil,  creeping  disease. To  provide  justification  for  their  own  weakness  which  constrains  them  to  participate  in  the  kuffaar  customs,  these  Ulama  monotonously  proffer  the  corrupt  argument  of  the  kuffaar  practice  having  become  aam  (universal).  Such  mentality  is  most  lamentable.  Even  senior  Ulama  display  the  lamentable  spiritual  malady  of  succumbing  to  the  satanic  creature  of  universality.  Then  they  offer  flabby  opposition  to the  kuffaar  custom. 

The  Qur’aan  Majeed  in  praise  of  the  deendaar  people  (the men  of  Taqwa)  says:  “They  do  not  fear  the  insults  (and criticism)  of  those  who  insult.”   We  fail  to  understand  the  claim  of  some  senior  Ulama  regarding  the  universality  of  anti-Sunnah  customs  among  the  Sulaha.  These  Ulama  say  that  when  an  initially  haraam  kuffaar  practice  becomes universal  among  the  awaam  and  the  Sulaha,  then  the element  of  tashabbuh  no  longer exists. 

We  do  not  understand  if  they  have  correctly  understood  the meaning  of  ‘Sulaha’  or  ‘Saaliheen’.  The  Sulaha  do  not adopt  kuffaar  practices.  They  do  not  substitute  the  Sunnah with  the  customs  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara.  One  who does  so  cannot  be  from  among  the  Sulaha.  Whilst  an abhorrent  custom  can  become  universal  among  the ignorant  masses,  it  is  never  acceptable  to  the  Sulaha.  Outward  appearance  is  not  an  adequate  qualification  for  attaining  the  status  of  the  Saaliheen.  Any  ‘buzrug’  who  prefers  the  custom  of  the  kuffaar,  and  displaces  the  practice  of  the  Sunnah,  cannot  be  a  Saalih.

In  these  times  when  Islam  has  become  forlorn  and  engulfed  by  the  fitan  of  fisq,  fujoor,  bid’ah  and  kufr  which  have  become  universal  among  Muslims  all  over  the  world, it  is  extremely  moronic,  to  say  the  very  least,  to  dig  for  technicalities  in  the  kutub  to  further  weaken  the  Sunnah  Culture  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  the  Sahaabah.  This  is  the  age  when  the  Darul  Uloom  has  to compulsorily  prevail  on  the  Talaba  to  revive  the  Sunnah practices  which  the  Ummah  has  murdered  and  banished  for the  sake  of  adopting  kuffaar  styles  and  systems.  The  massive  problem  with  the  Madaaris  and  the  Ulama  today  is  that  they  have  become  signs  of  Qiyaamah.  Knowledge  is being  imparted  to  gain  the  dunya.  Ilm  is  pursued  for objectives  other  than  the  Deen.  That  is  why  there  is  the insistence  on  liberalizing  and  modernizing  the  Madrasah, and  in  this  direction  Mufti  Taqi  has  committed  the  worst  crimes.   

The  objective  of  a  Darul  Uloom  must  be  only  the  Aakhirat, not  the  dunya.  If  the  objective  is  to  acquire  worldly  success,  another  path  and  profession  should  be  chosen,  not  Ilm-e-Deen.

Even  if  an  Islamic  practice  has  been  abandoned  and  a  kuffaar  system  has  become  universal  in  the  Ummah,  it  remains  the    obligation  of  the  Ulama  to  be  steadfast  in  Amr Bil  Ma’roof  Nahy  Anil  Munkar,  and  to    constantly  make  the  best  endeavours  to  revive  and  re-introduce  the  Sunnah.  It  is  satanic  to  become  complacent  with  a  kuffaar  system  which  has  displaced  the  Sunnah.  It  is  this  evil  complacency  which  has  made  acceptable  to  the  Ulama  at  large  the  kuffaar  system  of  slaughter  –  a  system  which  is horrendous  and  in  conflict  with  Islam’s  system  from  the very  beginning  to  the  end,  yet  the    molvis  and    sheikhs have  becoming  so  desensitized  that  they  now  believe  in the  ‘superiority’  of  the  kuffaar  system  of  slaughter  which  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  described  as  Shareetatush Shaitaan – The Slaughter of the Devil.  

Universality  is  the  consequence  of  erosion,  and  erosion  of  the  ahkaam  and  practices  of  the  Sunnah  is  a  gradual process  which  if  not  stemmed  and    halted  will  ultimately  eliminate  the  entire  Deen  with  its    Sunnah  Culture.  When universal  prevalence  has  displaced    a  Sunnah  system,  it  devolves  on  the  personnel  of  the  Deen  to  vehemently  combat  the  disease  and  to  give  practical  expression  to   commands  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  such  as  the  Hadith  pertaining  to  the  reward  of  a  hundred  martyrs  for  adhering  to  Sunnah.  However,  instead  of  the  Ulama  fulfilling  their  obligation  of  protecting  and  reviving  the  Deen,  they  are  nowadays  flowing  with  the  tide  of  fisq,  fujoor,  bid’ah  and  kufr  under  guise  of  the  creature, ‘universality’  thereby  perpetuating  the  satanic  plot  of   erosion – erosion  of  the  Sunnah  and  undermining  the  Deen.

It  is  unexpected  of  senior  Ulama  and  Darul  Ulooms  to  fall by  the  wayside  of  jahaalat  and  to  follow  the  juhala  and  the awaamun  naas.  Furthermore,  the  displacement  of  the Sunnah  system  at  Mufti  Taqi’s  Madrasah  and  the  adoption of  the  kuffaar  system  was  an  act  in  pure  emulation  (Tashabbuh)  of  the  kuffaar.  There  was  no  prevailing  universality  within  the  domain  of  his  Madrasah  nor  in  any  other  Madrasah  of  the  world  affiliated  with  Deoband.  And,  if  any  miscreant  madrasah  had  adopted  the  kuffaar  system, then  it  was  the  duty  of  Mufti  Taqi  to  proffer  Naseehat  for  the  reinstatement  of  the  Sunnah  system.  On  the  contrary,  he  boots  out  the  Sunnah  from  his  Madrasah  to  replace  it with  the  system  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara,  then baselessly  justifies  it  with  the  fallacy  of  universality.

In  reiteration,  for  better  understanding,  it  should  be  said  that  the  permissibility  of  the  khwaan  mentioned  in  some kutub  is  not  the  kuffaar  style  of  eating  from  high  tables sitting  at  chairs  in  perfect  emulation  of  the  Yahood  and Nasaara.  The  khwaan  is  on  the  ground  and  the  people  sit on  the  ground  to  eat,  not  on  chairs.  Therefore,  the khwaan/maa-idah  basis  cited  to  justify  the  current  tables and  chairs  system  is  a  huge  deception.  Committing  this deception,  Mufti  Taqi,  conveniently  refrains  from  mentioning  ‘chairs’.  In  the  many  times  he  has  mentioned  ‘tables’  in  his  fatwa,  he  says:  ‘tables,  etc.’  What  is  this  ‘etc.’?  It  refers  to  chairs,  but  he  has  avoided  mentioning  chairs  to  make  the  Tashabbuh  less  conspicuous.  This  is  tantamount  to  concealment  of  the  Haqq.  There  is  no  resemblance  between  the  western  table  and  the khwaan/maa-idah  mentioned in  the  Hadith.

If  the  baseless  ‘universality’  argument  had  to  be  accorded credence,  and  on  its  basis  just  forget  about  the  massive erosion  of  the  Sunnah  Culture,  then  today  in  South  Africa there  would  not  have  been  any  Muslims  donning  Sunnah   attire  and  eating  their  food  in  Sunnah  style.  Almost  all  of those  in  South  Africa  who  have  an  Islamic  appearance,  eat on  the  floor,  use  Miswaak,  etc.  are  ‘converts’  from  modernism  to  the  Sunnah.  The  efforts  of  the  Akaabir  Ulama  of  Deoband  who  had  inspired  us,  as  well  as  the  efforts  of  the  Tabligh  Jamaat  have,  Alhamdulillah,  brought  about  profound  changes  in  our  western  way  of  life.  If  Mufti  Taqi’s  fallacies  had  to  be  adopted,  then  today  Muslims  in  this  country  would  have  sunk  further  into  the  quagmire  of  westernization  with  its  accompaniment  of  atheism,  fisq  and  fujoor.  This  is  the  fate  of  Muslims  in  South  America  as  well  as  in  other  countries  where  liberal  views  such  as  those  promoted  by  Mufti  Taqi  have  totally  displaced  all  vestiges  of  the  Sunnah  to  make  way  for  the    evil  systems  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara.  It  is  indeed  lamentable  that  a  Darul  Uloom  which  is  supposed  to  produce  Heirs  and  Representatives  of  the  Ambiya  (Alayhimus  salaam)  has  accepted  bootlicking  of  western  modernity.  

He  also  quotes  from  Tuhfatul  Ahwazi  without  presenting  the  translation.  The  statement  says:  “At-Turashti  said: ‘Eating  on  the  khwaan  has  always  been  the  practice  of  the   proudful  affluent  people  and  the  practice  of  the  arrogant oppressors  so  that  they  do  not  have  to  bend  their  heads  at  the  time  of  eating.”

Just  as  the  cross  has  always  been  the  symbol  of  shirk  and kufr  of  the  Christians,  so  too  has  eating  from  a  raised platform  (khwaan  or  a  table)  been  the  feature  and  practice of  the  proud  affluent  oppressors.  Just  as  the  cross  will  never  become  permissible  for  Muslims  on  the  basis  of  its universal  adoption,  so  too  will  western  tables  and  chairs  for eating  never  be  acceptable  for  Muslims  regardless  of  the element  of  universality.  However,  the  factual  position currently  is  that  eating  in  western  style  is  not  the  universal  custom  of  the  people  who  are  outwardly  of  Deeni appearance.  They  eat  on  the  ground  in  Rasulullah’s  style, and  even  wayward  Muslims  are   incrementally  adopting  the  Sunnah.  In  such  a  scenario  it  is  extremely  bad-deeni (irreligious)  and  evil  to  promote  the  western  kuffaar  style.  The  ta’leem  should  be  in  the  direction  of  re-introducing and  reviving  the  Sunnah.

Mufti  Taqi’s  notion  that  the  introduction  of  the  style  of  the Yahood  and  Nasaara  at  his  Madrasah  was  for  ease  and better  arrangement  implies  deficiency  in  the  Sunnah.  By implication  this  idea  is  kufr.  It  is  an  attitude  of  ridha  bil  kufr  (being  pleased  with  kufr)  at  the  expense  of  denigrating  the  Sunnah.  There  can  be  no  better  system  than  any  of  the practices  of  the  Sunnah.  The  very  same  haraam  corrupt  logic  is  utilized  by  the  Carrion  Clique  such  as  SANHA  and the  MJC  to  halaalize  carrion  meat  and  chicken  products.  Since  the  kuffaar  commercial  system  is  designed  to  facilitate  mass  production,  these  unfortunate  miserable  halaal  certificate  vendors  in  pursuit  of  monetary  objectives have  not  only  halaalized  the  Shareetatush  Shaitaan  system,  but  believe  in  its  superiority  over  the  Divine  System  of  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  Hadhrat  Maulana  Ashraf  Ali  Thanvi  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  said  that  this  attitude  regarding  the  kuffaar  slaughtering  system  is  tantamount  to  kufr.

The  displacement  of  the  Sunnah  system  of  eating  by  the  Darul  Uloom  on  the  basis  of  the  hallucination  of  the western  system’s  easier  and  better  arrangement  is  the  effect  of  an  attitude  of  kufr,  for  there  can  be  no  better  and  no  easier  system  than  the Sunnah.

The  element  of  Tashabbuh  bil  kuffaar  remains  and  this  is the  precise  rationale  for  the  displacement  of  the  Sunnah system  by  Darul  Uloom  Karachi  and  for  the  introduction  of the  system  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara.  The  authorities  of  this  Darul  Uloom  should  hang  their  heads  in  shame. Instead  of  promoting  and  entrenching  the  Sunnah,  they  are  complicit  in  the  destruction  of  the  Sunnah.

The  objective  of  the  Fuqaha  for  classifying  the  Sunnah  into Sunan  Huda  and  Sunan  Zawaaid  was  never  for  overriding  any  class  of  Sunan  nor  for  giving  preference  to  the  systems  and  customs  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara  on  the  flapdoodle  basis  of  hallucinated  universality,  nor  to  provide  vindication  for  Molvis  who  maul,  mangle  and  mutilate  the  Sunnah  to  overcome  imaginary  difficulties.

Furthermore,  eating  in  the  Sunnah  style  is  not  among  the Sunan  Zawaaid  as  is  being  peddled.  It  is  the  Sunnah system  adopted  by  the  entire  Ummah  since  the  age  of Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  It  is  an  integral constituent  of  Islamic/Sunnah  culture  which  cannot  be substituted  with  a  system  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara.  If  it was  as  insignificant  as  today’s  molvis  are  peddling,  the  Ulama  of  all  ages  would  not  have  vigorously  promoted  and defended  it.

Abstaining  from  eating  bread  of  sifted  flour  is  rightly  from the  Sunan  Zawaaid.  Precisely  for  this  reason,  no  one  has ever  imposed  on  the  Ummah  the  need  to  abstain  from  such bread.  But  eating  on  the  ground  is  entirely  a  different matter.

In  the  adoption  of  the  style  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara  all three  ways  of  Sunnah  sitting  are  abandoned.  The  Sunnah methods  of  sitting  are  possible  only  when  seated  on  the floor  to  eat.  Furthermore,  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  ordered  removal  of  shoes  when  eating.  The  technicality  of  the  Fiqhi  classification  for  this  command  does  not  detract  from  the  importance  and  significance  of  the  command.  It  may  not  stupidly  be  averred  that  removal  of  shoes  when  eating  was  among  the  Sunan  Zawaaidh  because  this  practice  was  imposed  by  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  on  the  entire  Ummah.  It  was  not confined  to  himself.

The  brains  of  some  Ulama  are  disgustingly  retrogressive  and  afflicted  by  the  calamity  of  inferiority  complex  acquired  from  their  colonial  masters.  Despite  conceding  the superiority  of  the  Sunnah  system,  they  still  maintain baselessly  that  tables  and  chairs  western  style  are permissible  as  a  substitute  for  the  Sunnah.

The  view  that  sitting  on  the  ground  to  eat  is  ‘closer  to  the Sunnah’,  is  corrupt.  If  sitting  on  the  floor  is  closer  to  the Sunnah,  then  with  which  other  system  is  the  comparison   intended?  Sitting  on  the  floor  is  the  only  Sunnah.  There  is no  other  system  which  could  be  described  as  ‘close’  to  the Sunnah,  which  could  validate  the  averment  of  ‘closer’  to  the  Sunnah.  There  is  in  fact  only  one  Sunnah  way,  and  that  is  to  sit  on  the  ground  to  eat.  The  western  system  is  in conflict  with  the  Sunnah.  Labelling  it  permissible  is  a lamentable  fallacy.  There  will  be  some  sense  in  saying  that sitting  on  the  ground  and  eating  from  a  khwaan,  not  a western  table  and  chair,  is  ‘closer’  to  the  Sunnah,  but  to  say  that  sitting  on  the  ground  and  eating  in  the  manner Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  ate  is  closer  to  the Sunnah, is moronic.

Hadhrat  Mufti  Muhammad  Irshaad,  Shaikhul  Hadith  of Madrasah  Riyaadhul  Uloom,  states  in  his  kitaab,  Shamaaile-Kubraa,  which  was  endorsed  by  Hadhrat  Mufti  Nizaamuddin Shaamzai (Rahmatullah alayh):

“It  is  Masnoon  for  the  food  to  be  on  a  dastarkhwaan  placed  on  the  ground.  This  is  close  to  Tawaadhu’ (humility).  The  system  of  aliens  (Yahood  and  Nasaara)  has  become  prevalent  in  our  culture.  It  is  indeed  lamentable that  its  evil  and  detestability  are  not  even  perceived.  On  the  contrary,  it  (the  system  of  tables  and  chairs)  is  regarded  as  respectable  and  honourable,  especially  on  wedding occasions.  We  seek  Allah’s  protection!  (In  fact,  even  on Darul  Uloom  jalsah  functions,  tables  and  chairs  are  now  in  vogue  in  wedding  style.  We  believe  that  the  forerunner  in this  evil  practice  is  Mufti  Taqi’s  Madrasah  –  Mujlisul Ulama).  This Makrooh Bid’ah has become the custom.

The  People  of  Imaan  should  have  a  vehement  aversion for  this  system.  Neither  should  one  adopt  this  system  nor attend  functions  where  this  system  (of  tables  and  chairs)  is observed  because  this  is  the  custom  of  the  Mal-oon  and Maghdhoob nations of the Yahood and Nasaara.

Nowadays  affluent  Muslims  view  as  reprehensible  to sit  on  the  ground  to  eat.  The  system  of  aliens  has   substituted  the  Way  of  the  Sunnah.  Al-Iyaaz  Billaah!   To  eliminate  this  evil  system  today  is  the  equivalent  of  the  reward  of  a  hundred   martyrs. 

Eating  from  tables  whilst  sitting  on  chairs  is  Makrooh Tahreemi.  Mullah  Ali  Qaari  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  says  that  it  is  the  way  of  the  mutakabbireen  (the  proud  and  arrogant)  and  bid’ah.  In  Kaukabud  Durri,  Allaamah  Gangohi  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  said  that  since  in  our  age  there  is  also  Tashabbuh  with  the  Nasaaraa,  hence  it  is  Makrooh Tahreemi.  (NB  The  Tashabbuh  with  Nasaara  is  an  added or  and  aggravating  factor  of  prohibition.  Even  if  this  element  is  not  present,  the  practice  of  tables  and  chairs  being  in  conflict  with  the  Sunnah  and  the   way  of  the  mutakabbireen, remains impermissible. – Mujlisul Ulama) 

Continuing  with  his  exposition,  Hadhrat  Mufti  Irshaad says:

Waleemah  is  Sunnah  and  eating  from  tables  and  chairs  is bid’ah.  If  the  food  is  served    in  accordance  with  the   Sunnah,  then  the  Masnooniyat  (Sunnah  nature)  of  the  Waleemah  remains  intact.  However,  if  the  function  consists  of  makrooh  and  bid’ah  factors,  then  accepting such  an  invitation  and  participating  are  prohibited. Nowadays  in  some  places  the  food  is  consumed  whilst standing.  This  is  indeed    despicable  and  prohibited.  It  is forbidden  to  go  to  such  places.”   (End  of  Mufti  Irshaad’s discourse)

Shaitaan  spreads  his  snare  with  extreme  cunningness.  He erodes  Imaani  inhibitions  to  evil  and  sin  by  degrees.  He  gains  entry  into  the  fortress  of  Imaan  by  concentrating  his attack  initially  on  the  external  guard  posts  created  by  Allah Ta’ala  for  the  protection  of  Imaan.  These  guard  posts  are  the  Mustahabbaat,  Sunan  Zawaaid  and  Aadaab  which  Mufti  Taqi  and  the  liberal  ulama  of  this  era  are  rubbishing  off  as  factors  of insignificance.

By  degrees  Shaitaan  erodes  Imaan.  Today  they  have  kicked out  the  Masnoon  system  of  eating  on  the  ground,  and  have adopted  the  impermissible  kuffaar  system  of  tables  and chairs.  Tomorrow,  when  the   requisite  degree  of   desensitization  of  Imaan  has  been  achieved  by  the   abominable  creature  of  ‘universality’  which  is  a  trap  of Iblees,  then  eating  like  monkeys  standing  and  prancing  will  become  the  style  even  in  the  Darul  Ulooms  which have fallen prey to shaitaani inroads.

Some  Ulama,  awed  by  the  creature  of  ‘universality’  and western  modernity,  issue  fatwas  with  forked  tongues. Whilst  conceding  and  saying  that  if  the  element  of  Tashabbuh  is  present,  then  sitting  on  chairs  and  eating from  tables  is  Makrooh  Tahreemi,  but  in  the  absence  of  Tashabbuh,  the  kuffaar  system  is  permissible.  With  such  fatwas  they  are  rendering  Islam  and  the  Ummah  a  great disservice.  The  obligation  of  the  Ulama  is  to  strengthen  the bond  which  Muslims  have  with  Allah  Ta’ala.  This  is possible  only  by  the  cultivation  of  Taqwa.  And,  minus  strict  observance  of  the  Sunnah,    the  acquisition  of  Taqwa  is  an impossibility.

Therefore,  even  if  a  genuine  Mufti,  due  to  lack  of  insight and  Imaani  wisdom,  believes  that  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara system  without  the  element  of  Tashabbuh  is  permissible,  then  too  his  Imaani  Ghairat  should  constrain  him  from  issuing  a  fatwa  of  permissibility  thereby  increasing  the  chasm  between    the  servants  and  Allah  Ta’ala.  His obligation  is  to  endeavour  to  increase  the  focus  on  the Aakhirah.  Thus,  even  if  he  believes  that  in  terms  of  his dalaa-il,  the  evil  system  is  permissible,  then  too,  without contradicting  his  view,  he  should  promote  Rasulullah’s system  and  emphasize  the  utmost  importance  of  observing the Sunnah.

It  is  intolerable  that  an  Aalim  of  the  Deen  presents  the flimsy  front  of  Sunan  Zawaaid  to  scuttle  the  Sunnah  and  to entrench  the  kuffaar  system. Hadhrat  Maulana  Naeemuddin  states  in  Rajaal-e-Rashid:

“Nowadays,  following  the  ways  of  Europe,  eating  whilst  standing  and  from  tables  and  chairs  is  increasingly  becoming  the  custom.  If  someone  professes  some  Deeni  concern,  then  an  arrangement  is  made  to  eat  from  tables  whilst  sitting  on  chairs.  In  reality,  both  these  ways  are  in  conflict  with  the  Sunnat.  The  objective  is  nothing  but  to  display  wealth and  to  emulate  the  people  of  the  West. 

For  its  permissibility,  the  excuse  of  need  (dhuroorat)  is presented  whereas  there  is  neither  dhuroorat  nor  majboori. It  is  extremely  lamentable  that  even  deendaar  people  and Ulama  participate  in  such  functions.  Thus,  they  become cause for permissibility for these functions.

Hadhrat  Qaari  Saheb  never  participated  in  such  functions. If  sometimes  circumstances  constrained  him  to  be  present, he  would  ensure  that  a  separate  arrangement  is  made  on  the ground  for  him.  If  such  an  arrangement  could  not  be  made, he  would  leave  the  function  without  eating.  He  frequently commented:  “If  deendaar  people  and  the  Ulama    abandon   going  to  these  functions,  then  perhaps  the  masses  will  become  somewhat  reformed.  But,  it  is  extremely  painful  to  observe  that  these  people  (the  deendaar  ones  and  the  Ulama)  participating  in  these  functions.  Furthermore,  they  do  not  only  participate,  they  present  arguments  for  the permissibility  of  these  functions  (where  eating  is  from  tables and sitting on chairs).”

He  also  mentioned  that  Shaikhut  Tafseer,  Hadhrat  Maulana  Ahmad  Ali  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  would  never  sit  at  a  table  to  eat.”

Qaadhi  Athar  Mubaarak  Puri  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  narrates about  Hadhrat  Husain  Ahmad  Madani  (Rahmatullah alayh):

“The  captain  of  the  ship  had  arranged  an  elaborate  feast  in honour  of  Hadhrat  Madani.  Numerous  people  had participated.  Tables  and  chairs  were  beautifully  arranged and  laden  with  food.  When  Hadhrat  Madani  went  upstairs and  saw  the  arrangement,  he  said:  “I  do  not  eat  from  tables and  chairs.”  Immediately  on  hearing  this  comment,  the captain  instructed  the  workers  of  the  ship  to  remove  the  tables  and  chairs,  and  to  arrange  the  food  on  the  floor.”  

Remember  that  any  act  of  a  senior  which  is  in  conflict  with the  Sunnah,  should  not  be  presented  as  an  argument, regardless  of  his  elevated  status.  The  act  of  the  Buzrug  may  not  be  presented  in  negation  of  or  to  water  down  the  importance  of  the  Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).  Therefore,  Hadhrat  Thanvi  (Rahmatullah  alayh) having  sat  once  in  his  lifetime  at  a  table  with  his  legs  drawn  on  to  the  chair,  is  not  a  daleel  for  permissibility,  nor  does  it  negate  the  Sunnah  in  any  way  whatever.  The  molvis of  today  attempt  to  awe  and  bamboozle  the  ignorant  and the unwary with such rare acts of senior Ulama. 

The  effect  of  the  fatwa  of  Mufti  Taqi  is  entrenchment  of the  kuffaar  system  and  minimization  of  the  absolute importance  and  significance  of  the  Sunnah  system.  Whilst   innumerable  Muslims  from  the  laity  are  incrementally   coming  closer  to  the  Sunnah,  the  corrupt  fatwa  of  Mufti Taqi  presents  an  obstacle  in  the  revivification  of  the Sunnah  –  a  revivification  for  which  there    is  the  reward  of  a hundred shuhadaa’.

We  advise  the  Mufti  Sahib  to  confine  the  technical discussion  of  Sunan  Huda  and  Sunan  Zawaaid  to  the  Madrasah  students.  It  should  be  restricted  to  the  academic domain,  and  not  miserably  exploited  to  justify  the displacement  of  the  Sunnah  and  the  introduction  of  the system  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara.

The  Deen  with  all  its  practices  and  customs  is  for  practical implementation.  These  practices  and  customs  constitute  the Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  The classification  of  the  Sunnah  into  categories  is  not  a  licence for  omission  and  abandonment  of  any  act  of  the  Sunnah. Nowadays  it  has  become  common  in  Ulama  circles  to regard  with  insignificance  such  Sunnah  practices  which  have  been  classified  Sunan  Zawaaid.  These  Sunnah  acts  are  not superfluous. Notwithstanding  the  Fiqhi classification,  it  is  incumbent  to  observe  all  acts  of  the  Sunnah.  Abstention without  valid  reason  is  not  permissible.  

The  main  charges  against  Mufti  Taqi  in  this  haraam  fiasco are:

•  He  has  displaced  the  Sunnah  system  at  his  Madrasah.

•  He  has  substituted  the  Sunnah  system  with  the  kuffaar  system.

•  To  justify  this  travesty,  he  proffers  flapdoodle  arguments  which  have  no  relationship  to  the  crime  he  has  committed.

•  Mufti  Taqi  did  not  find  in  his  Madrasah  tables  and  chairs  to  satisfy  the  hallucination  of universality.  The  Madrasah  did  not  have  tables  and  chairs  for  eating  purposes.  The  ‘universality’  pertains  to  the  ignorant  masses  on  the  outside. The  switch  to  the  kuffaar  system  was  a  new process set in motion by Mufti Taqi.

Muslims  have  two  styles  of  eating.  One  is  sitting  on  the floor  with  the  food  also  on  the  floor  on  a  dastarkhwaan. The  other  is  to  sit  on  chairs  at  a  table.  This  is  the  system  of  the  kuffaar  whilst  the  former  is  the  system  of  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  Which  system  should Muslims  adopt?  The  fatwas  of  Muftis  is  not  required  to understand  this  issue.  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) said: “Seek a fatwa from your heart.”

Casting  aside  all  the  technicalities  which  are  baselessly proffered  to  justify  the  kuffaar  system,  one  has  to  only consult  one’s  conscience  for  guidance.  Is  it  proper  for  a Muslim  to  abandon  the  system  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam),  and  to  substitute  in  its  place  the  system of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara?  Look  into  your  heart  and  seek a fatwa  from  it.

“And  Allah  guides  whomever  He  wills.” [Qur’aan]


Headgear (Topi) & Islam

[Majlisul Ulama]

WHEN A YOUNGSTER allegedly presented his kufr leanings to his allegedly ‘molvie’ teacher regarding the Wajib (compulsory) Sunnah practice of wearing a topi (Islamic headgear), his errant modernist uncle with kufr leanings of equal or worse intensity, patted himself on his own back by blurting out: “I was very proud of my nephew.”

In an attack on the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) – on the Sunnah of the Islamic Headgear which is compulsory at all times, not only when performing Salaat – the miscreant uncle writing in the modernist tabloid, Al-Qalam, sought to elevate his little nephew by denigrating the child’s Ustaad. In brief, the kufr argument goes as follows:

➡ The Sunnah headgear is nothing – it is non-sense – it is a mockery. This is the clearimplication

➡ There is no ‘daleel’ for the claim that the topi is necessary – as if the miscreant modernist writer understands anything about daleel.

➡ The ‘molvie’ teacher was allegedly stumped by the stupid alleged argument of the child.

➡ The book, Fiqh us-Sunnah of the modernist Egyptian writer, Sayyid Sabiq, supersedes the consensus of the entire Ummah – of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen, of the Fuqaha and the 14 century practice of Islam, viz., the compulsory wearing of a topi or Islamic headgear.

➡ That what is written by Sayyid Sabiq is the final word in daleel. In fact it surpasses the Dalaail of the Fuqaha (Jurists of Islam) – those Jurists who were the Students of the Sahaabah.

Citing from Sabiq’s book, the miscreant modernist presents the following passage in refutation of Islam’s practice of the topi:

“Ibn Asakir related that the Prophet would sometimes remove his cap and place it in front of him as a sutrah. According to the Hanafiyyah one can pray with his head uncovered. In fact they prefer this if it is done out of a sense of humility and awe. There is no evidence whatsoever that it is preferred to cover one’s head while praying.”  

If the so-called ‘scholar’, Sabiq, had failed to understand the narration he had cited due to his own shallowness of understanding and deviation from the Path of the Sunnah, then we can overlook the miscreant modernist’s inability to grasp what the cited Hadith states, conveys and implies. It should be understood that Sayyid Sabiq is not an authority on the Shariah. He is one of the semi-modernist deviates who finds it difficult to distinguish between right and left, light and darkness. When a man quotes a total non-entity as his daleel, then it is a vociferous proclamation of his own ignorance. His talk about ‘daleel’ is truly laughable.  

The very first thing which is portrayed saliently in Ibn Asakir’s narration is the irrefutable fact that it was the permanent practice of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to wear a topi, hence the statement:“…the Prophet would sometimes remove his cap…”  This statement knocks the bottom out from Sabiq’s claim, from the miscreant’s ‘daleel’ and from the child’s alleged argument which the phantom ‘molvi saheb’ allegedly could not answer. 

The narration does not even allude to a bare-head practice which modernist Muslims have acquired from their western kuffaar masters and teachers. It plainly states that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would sometimes depart from his normal permanent practice of wearing his topi and use it for a specific purpose. The narration does not purport that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) usually or permanently performed Salaat without a topi / turban. And a turban without a topi is haraam

Furthermore, the narration explicitly states that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would sometimes remove his topi to use it “as a sutrah”. In this narration which the modernist deviate seeks to present as a ‘daleel’ for the bare-head kufr practice, there is no mention of ‘sense of humility and awe’.  The reason for this sometimes (rare) practice of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is explicitly stated to be “as a sutrah”. We presume that the miscreant modernist understands what a sutrah is, hence we shall not elaborate on its need and significance. Every Muslim who possesses a basic education of the elementary Deenyaat taught to seven year olds in the Maktabs, will know that a topi is not normally used as a sutrah. For some reason or the other, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used his topi on the particular occasion as a sutrah.  He had removed his topi for a reason – a good reason – to use it as a sutrah. He did no remove his topi in emulation of the kuffaar practice which the modernist deviates in our age have adopted as their ideal and permanent practice, and in opposition and derision of the Sunnah practice of covering the head. 

Far from Ibn Asakir’s narration being a ‘daleel’ for the kufr practice of baring the head, especially in Salaat, it is on the contrary a confirmation of the Waajib practice of covering the head. The sometimes dimension explicitly and emphatically confirms the imperativeness of donning a topi, especially for Salaat purposes because it clearly conveys to men of intelligence – not to modernist ignoramuses – that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) always wore a topi and on this particular occasion he had departed from his usual practice to use his topi as a sutrah. The attitude of an intelligent Muslim of sound Imaan would be to seek an explanation for Rasulullah’s occasional and rare departure from his permanent practice and Sunnah. The intelligent Muslim will not attempt to justify and solidify a kaafir style by means of the Nabi’s occasional practice, moreover when the reason for the exception is clearly stated. 

The modernists should engender in themselves the ability to ruminate although the density of their intellectual faculty and contamination of their Imaani faculty do make this difficult. They should make an effort to view narrations with their Aql, not with their nafs (emotion). Why would a professed Muslim seek to negate a practice which the Ummah has inherited from the Sahaabah? And, why will a professed Muslim prefer a style which is salient and lovable to the kuffaar? It is not only the issue of the topi. There is a deep disease gripping at the hearts of modernists – the disease of kufr and nifaaq. It is to these diseases they have to jar their hearts and ponder and try to fathom the direction in which they have drifted and in which they are abysmally sliding. 

Then on the basis of this narration, Mr. Sayyid Sabiq, the so-called Egyptian scholar who is the uncle’s ‘daleel’, claims: “According to the Hanafiyyah one can pray with his head uncovered.”
This is a stupid falsity which Mr. Sabiq has sucked out from his nafs because he, himself inclines to the western kuffaar practice of exposing the head. Mr. Sabiq has absolutely no Shar’i proof for this stupid arbitrary conclusion which he has erroneously made on the basis of Ibn Asakir’s narration. According to the Hanafiyyah (the Hanafis) and the entire Ummah, it is necessary to cover the head, not only during Salaat, but at all times. In fact, Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), the leader and chief of the Hanafiyyah, was so rigid in wearing his topi that even in privacy he did not bare his head. When he was asked about his practical emphasis and rigidity in this regard, Hadhrat Imaam A’zam (rahmatullah alayh) replied: “Should I not feel shy for the Angels?” Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) abhorred being without a topi even when he was alone in his bedroom because he did not want the Malaaikah to see him bare-headed like the kuffaar. So, what Mr. Sabiq has alleged is plain drivel which he was constrained to gorge out in justification of the western practice of immodest baring of the head – a practice which is abhorrent in Islam. The abhorrence of this western kuffaar practice is amply illustrated by the fact that the Fuqaha have ruled that a man who struts about in public without topi is Mardoodush Shahaadat, i.e. his testimony is unacceptable in an Islamic Court of Law. The uncle’s daleel is thus arrant nonsense and a display of stupidity which he has irrationally exhibited in a puerile attempt to present Islamic validity for a practice which is a conspicuous feature of identification in the western kuffaar culture. For the uncle, the warning of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) should be an adequate eye-opener:

“Whoever emulates a nation becomes of them.”

The proud uncle and all those of his ilk should at least be honest to themselves by acknowledging only to themselves that they have acquired the bare-head practice from their western tutors. Never did they gain this immodest practice from the Sahaabah or from the Taabieen or from the Tabe Taabieen or from the Ummah at large.

To this day it is the Sunnah of the Ummah at large, of course with the exclusion of the western-educated deviates – to wear topis  and amaamahs. The uncle knows in the innermost recess of his heart to which camp he belongs inspite of the external profession of Islam.

The claim that “according to the Hanafiyyah, one can pray with his head uncovered ” is a deception intentionally fabricated to mislead. It is similar to saying:  according to the Hanafiyyah, one can pray with the entire body naked as long as the portion from the knees to the navel is covered”. Or it is like saying: according to the Hanafiyyah one can pray, with his wife’s dress. Or like saying: according to the Hanafiyyah one can pray with his  kurtah wrapped around his satr  zone, and his pants wrapped around his upper body. In fact, according to all the Math-habs, the Salaat will be validly discharged in any one of these styles of lunaticism. But, is it permissible to perform Salaat in such an evil state without valid reason? Does the modernist cult inherited from westernism tolerate that a person performs Salaat dressed in his wife’s dress, and then step into the Musjid to advertise his style, and then to argue that his satr is covered, hence his Salaat is valid? Unisex garments are valid wearing apparel in the cult the modernist deviates emulate. But, does the Imaani intelligence of the Mu’mineen tolerate performance of Salaat in such maloon attire?

We are certain that inspite of the  uncle’s modernity and deviation from the Sunnah, he has not yet  degenerated into the despicable  rut in which the derangement of  a man’s natural attitudes  constrain wholehearted  acceptance of the male’s 
acclimatisation to attire which  belongs exclusively to the  female’s wardrobe. We are sure that as yet, the uncle does not believe that one can pray with the panties and dress of one’s wife.  If he has already degenerated to the degree of acceptance, then of  course, this naseehat is not meant for him by any stretch of  imagination. Assuming that he  still enjoys the degree of  intellectual equilibrium and  discernment which make such  female attire reprehensible for a  male, then it shall be argued that tashabbuh bin nisaail mu’minaat (emulating the Believing women  of Islam) is a lesser crime than tashabbuh bil kuffaar (emulating  the kuffaar). But while our uncle  will most assuredly castigate a  man who struts around in his  wife’s dress, notwithstanding her being a pious Muslimah, he condones and reveres a man who adopts the bare-head practice of the kuffaar. Let everyone understand this mas’alah clearly – From the time of Hadhrat Aadam (alayhis salaam) until the advent of Muhammadur Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and from his time until this time, it always was the practice of all Muslim Ummats to cover their heads. The lewd custom of baring the head developed just recently in emulation of the western kuffaar

It should also be understood that the reprehensibility and the lewdness of head-exposure no longer have gravity and notoriety because Muslims by their adoption of western norms have lost their Imaani inhibitions to evil and immodesty. They have become thoroughly desensitised. Their acclimatisation to western norms and styles has blinded them, hence they are unable in their spiritual blindness to perceive the degree of the evil which accompanies the bare head. 

In an attempt to vindicate his overt profession of Islam, the uncle avers: “…..I will be accused, because I am ‘anti-‘ulama’. I am not.” In fact, uncle is anti-Sunnah – anti-Islam. The Ulama are proud scapegoats because Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has made the Ulama-e-Haqq the Shields which protect his Sunnah. It is these Shields which guard the Shariah ensconced in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. The uncle’s pleading of not being ‘anti-ulama’ neither impresses nor conceals the kufr which springs from a corrupt mind and a heart despoiled by kufr inclinations and preferences. For the benefit of such modernist brothers who have as yet not degenerated into the lowest ebb of deviation which qualifies a man for kufr and irtidaad, the Fuqaha have ruled: “Miswaak is Sunnah, but its denial is kufr.”  

Denying, ridiculing, mocking and treating with disdain and insignificance any act, teaching, practice, custom, tenet or belief of Islam is kufr. So, if uncle and his ilk are not comfortable with a topi in front of western eyes, then let them discard it while acknowledging their Imaani deficiency to themselves in their hearts. At least, then  there is some hope that when the “hearts and eyes of men are upturned” – Qur’aan, at the time of Maut, the Kalimah may still manifest itself on the tongues of such corrupt and unjust deviates who spent and abused their entire lives imitating a people who wallow in physical and spiritual najaasat – janaabat and kufr

As for Mr. Sabiq’s Fiqhus Sunnah, it is an insult to place it alongside or in the same shelf on which the Kutub of the Fuqaha of Islam are placed. Neither Mr. Sabiq nor his book has any standing in the firmament of Islamic Uloom. The poor molvi sahib while totally unimpressed with the stupid ‘daleel’ of the child, was constrained to maintain silence in consideration of his job. While he is a molvi sahib to be pitied and sympathised with, he is not an Aalim of the Deen in the meaning of the Qur’aan. 

The article written by the uncle is drivel from beginning to end. In it he only spews out the noxious effects of the ilhaad which the heart harbours. His claims and arguments are too puerile, insipid and Islamically ridiculous to entertain intelligently. 

Our booklet, Islamic Dress Code According To The Sunnah , discusses the issue of the topi in greater detail.  Salaam on those who follow the Hidaayat of Allah.  
P. O. BOX 3393

The Mustahab Manner Of Clipping Nails

[Compiled from various sources]

Hadhrat Anas (Radhiyallahu Anhu) relates that the Messenger (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam said, 

“Do not let forty days elapse without  trimming the moustache and pairing  the nails.” [Muslim]

Meaning that we should cut our nails  within forty days. It has been stated that the consequence of keeping long nails are:

1. There will be no blessings in 
your wealth.

2. You will become poor.

3. Illness will plague you.

4. Almighty Allah and His Holy Prophet  Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam will be  displeased with you.

5. The devil sits on long nails. 

The Messenger Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam would cut his nails every fifteen days.


The preferred way of cutting the nails is as follows: Start with the right hand. Index finger, fore finger, ring finger  and little finger. Then move onto the left hand. This time start with the little finger first, then ring finger, fore finger, index finger, the thumb and  lastly the thumb of  the right hand. (repeat) (ask if the process is understood, if not repeat a 3rd time) It is recommended to wash the hands  after cutting the nails. The  following order when clipping is preferred for toe nails: Again start with the  right foot. Small toe first and proceed  until the big toe. Then move onto the  left foot. This time you start with the big toe and conclude with the small toe. (repeat) (ask if the process is understood if not repeat a 3rd time).

Nowadays it is common to see sisters with nail polish or fake nails on. It is  NOT permissible by Shari’ah (Islamic law) to do this. Most of the nail  varnishes are made from unlawful (haraam) ingredients. If you apply nail polish a coating is formed on top of your nails. This prevents water from  penetrating fully into your nails whilst performing ablution or ghusl. Ablution and ghusl are incomplete and any acts of worship carried out are not accepted. If your ablution and ghusl are not accepted you are counted as impure and the angels do not enter that house where there is a impure person. However, the same acceptable effect  can be created on your nails by  applying henna. This is a recommended act. As stated in a Hadeeth taken from Abu Dawood: Hadhrat Aisha  Radhiyallahu Anha narrates, “A women made a sign from behind a curtain to indicate that she had a letter for the Apostle of Allah Azza wa jal. The Prophet Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam  closed his hand saying, “I do not know  this is a man’s or a woman’s hand”. She  said, “No a woman.” He Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said, “If you were a  woman, you would make a difference  to your nails. Meaning with henna”. A  lot of sisters, without realising bit their nails. This  should not be done as it is  disliked and a predisposition to  infectious diseases. For example if one  has big nails more then likely that under the nails there will be germs  and bacteria. When the nails are bitten the germs are  transferred into the mouth and down the gut and into the stomach. Many sisters tend to bit their nails because they can’t be bothered cutting them or  because they have a  habit of  doing do. This habit can be  broken if sisters made the intention to cut their nails  because it is Sunnah  to do so and Insha Allah Azza wa jal they will  gain reward.

To recap-Nails should be cut within  40 days. It is Sunnah to cut our nails every 15 days. Nails should not be bitten. For hand nails, start with  the right hand index finger and finish  with the right hand thumb. For the feet start with the small toe on the right  foot and finish with the small toe on  the left foot. After cutting the nails  bury them all. We are all made from  the soil, thus we should be put back to the earth. May Allah Azza wa jal give us all the ability to act upon what has been said today and give us the ability to  teach others the way of clipping the nails.



Is there any SUNNAT of cutting nails? i.e: Is there any day preferred to cut nails or any preferred order of cutting nails or particular day in which it is preferred not to cut nails. 


Assalāmu `alaikum Warahmatullāhi Wabrakatuh, 

Pairing ones nails is a sunnah of Nabi salallahu alayhi wasallam. The nails should be paired whenever the need arises. 

῾Allāmah Tahtāwi rahmatullah alayh (d.1231H) mentions that nails should be paired once a weak and preferably on a Friday. If one delays from pairing once a week (due to slow growth of nails or some other reason) then he should pair them once in fifteen days. Leaving the nails unpaired for more than forty days is a sin. 

There is no sunnah of pairing the nails in a specific sequence or order. However, there are different opinions about what is the preferred sequence. 

Imām Ghazāli rahmatullah alayh (d.505H) has preferred and expounded on a particular sequence for pairing nails in his Ihyā’ Ulūmid Dīn. He mentions that one should start pairing the nails from the Shahadah finger of the right hand and then move towards the right till the small finger. Then one should start with the small finger of left hand and move towards the thumb of the left hand. Finally one should finish pairing at one’s right thumb. 

῾Allāmah Nawāwi rahmatullah alayh (d.676H) has mentioned in his Al Majmū῾Sharhul Muhadhib that this view of Imām Ghazāli rehmatullah alayh is acceptable except for the part where he says that the right thumb should be delayed it the end. ῾Allāmah Nawāwi rahmatullah alayh says that pairing the right thumb before starting the left hand will fulfil the preference of “beginning (an action) with the right”. 

Mullah ῾Ali Qārī rahmatullah alayh (d.1014H) has thus conclusively mentioned in Mirqāt ul Mafatīh Sharah Mishkātil Masābīh that the preferred method is to start from the right index finger (Shahadah finger) to the right small finger then the right thumb. Thereafter, for left hand start from the small finger and ending towards the thumb. 

Pairing of the toe nails will be from the small right toe to the small left toe. 

With regards to specifying a particular day too, different opinions have been mentioned in the books. ῾Allāmah ibn Hajar rahmatullah alayh makes clarification of these views and mentions that the most appropriate view is that there is no reason to make any day specific for pairing ones nails. However, one may choose Jumu῾āh (Friday) to pair ones nails since most people reserve this day to clean themselves and beautify for the congregation. 

Mawlana Faisal bin Abdul Hameed 
Student, Darul Iftaa 

Checked and Approved by, 
Muftī Ebrahim Desai 

Cutting Nails on Wednesdays:

Is there a Hadith where Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) prohibited cutting nails on Wednesday or any other day?


I have not come across a Hadith prohibiting the clipping of one’s nails on a Wednesday. However ‘Allamah Sakhawi (rahimahullah) has stated that there is no authentic narration which states any specific day or specific way of clipping one’s nails. Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) has also echoed similar sentiments.

(Al Maqasidul Hasanah, Hadith: 772, Fathul Bari, under Hadith: 5889)

Imam Bayhaqi (rahimahullah) has recorded two weak narrations,  which state that Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) would prefer to trim his nails on a Friday.

(Refer: Fathul Bari)

Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) has quoted few statements of the scholars of the past stating that it is preferable for one to clip ones nails on a Friday. He then goes on to say that clipping ones nails on a Friday falls under the fact that we are commanded to cleanse ourselves thoroughly on a Friday. Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah), in one of his views, has also deemed it Sunnah to clip one’s nails on a Friday.

(Fathul Bari, under Hadith: 5889)

And Allah Ta’ala Knows best

Answered by: Moulana Suhail Motala

Approved by: Moulana Muhammad Abasoomar

Checked by: Moulana Haroon Abasoomar

Isbaal — The Ruling of Wearing One’s Garment Below the Ankles

[By Muhammad ibn Suleman Chothia]

Our discussion will entail the following:

1. Introduction
2. Ahadith with prohibition due to pride
3. Ahadith with general prohibition (without mention of pride)
4. Aathaar (Narrations) of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum)
5. The Grace of our Role Model’s garment ﷺ
6. Misconceptions and their clarifications


Allah Ta’ala in enumerating His gifts upon us said, “O children of Adam, We have bestowed upon you clothing to conceal your private parts and as (a means of) adornment. However, the clothing of righteousness – that is best. That is from the signs of Allah that perhaps they will remember.” [Surah Al-A’raaf: 26]

One of the interpretations of “clothing of righteousness” is clothing which shows humility. (Qurtubi Vol.9 Pg.186, Ruhul Ma’aani Vol.9 Pg.72)

Abdullah bin ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Whoever wears a garment of pride and vanity in this world, Allah will clothe him in a garment of humiliation on the Day of Resurrection, then set it ablaze.” (Sunan Ibn Majah #3607)

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Eat, give charity and clothe yourselves, without being extravagant, and without pride.” (Sunan Nasai #2559)

Therefore, in dressing, one should opt for clothing that expresses humility and refrain from clothing which has the hint of arrogance and pride in it. 

In doing so, it is also necessary to exercise caution. One should not hastily ascribe piety (humility) to himself and his choices (of clothing) and absolve himself of conceit and pride. Allah Ta’ala, who is fully aware of the hearts and their conditions, has prohibited us from claiming purity and piety. He says, “So do not claim purity for yourselves. He (Allah) knows best who are the (truly) pious.” [Surah Najam:32] 

One manner of dress which denotes pride and arrogance is the garment which hangs below the ankles of males. Below we will discuss this issue in light of the Quran, Hadith and opinions of the pious predecessors. I ask Allah to open the truth for us, help us to accept it and grant us the ability to follow it.

Before we start, we will like to point out the rulings which the scholars of the Ummah agree upon:

1. The scholars agree that wearing one’s garment up to mid-calf is a Sunnah of the Messenger ﷺ, which many Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) practiced.

2. They also agree that it is permissible for a male to wear his garment up to the ankles.

3. They also agree that it is Haraam and a major sin for a male to intentionally let his garments hang below his ankles out of pride.

4. They also agree that a woman is permitted to let her clothing hang below her ankles. (If she is in sight of a non-mahram, then they agree that she must cover her ankles.)

The one case, on which the scholars disagree, is when the male’s garment is extended below his ankles without pride. Many scholars are of the opinion that it is makrooh (reprehensible) while a large group still maintain that this is also haraam and totally prohibited.

N.B. This ruling of isbaal applies when a person is standing. If a person bends, for instance, into ruku, or a person sits and his garment goes below his ankles, then this is permissible and the ruling of isbaal does not apply.

The evidences for the above will be mentioned below along with a detailed discussion on the point upon which the scholars disagree.
The many authentic ahadith which have been narrated concerning ‘Isbaal’ or lowering the garments below the ankles, are of two types.

1. Those ahadith which prohibit lowering the garments due to arrogance and pride.

2. Those ahadith with general prohibition (without mention of pride).

Ahadith with the Prohibition Due to ‘Pride’

All the scholars agree that it is prohibited for a male to lower his garments below his ankles if he does such out of arrogance. It is counted as a major sin. (See ‘Zawajir’ of Ibn Hajr Makki Vol.1 Pg.164-165 #109, ‘Fathul Bari’ of Ibn Hajr Asqalani Vol.13 Pg.266)

This is due to the many ahadith which clearly prohibit it in the sternest manner.

Hadith 1:  
Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Allah will not look, on the Day of Resurrection, at a person who drags his izãr [below his ankles] out of pride and arrogance.” (Bukhari #5788 and Muslim #2087).

• Imam Nawawi states, “The meaning of ‘not looking at him’ is not having mercy on him and not looking at him with mercy.” (Sharh Sahih Muslim Vol.14 Pg.61) 

Hadith 2: 
Abdullah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates from the Prophet ﷺ that he said, “Isbaal applies to the izãr (lower garment), the qamis (upper garment) and the a’mamah (turban). Whoever lets any of them drag out of pride, Allah will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection.”   (Abu Dawud #4094 and Nasa’i Vol. 8 Pg.208).

• Imam Nawawi (rahimahullah) states that its chain is sound. (Sharh Sahih Muslim Vol.2 Pg.116)
• From this hadith we learn that isbaal is not only restricted to the lower garment but it applies to any garment which is worn from above the ankle. (Socks and overall garments worn for protective purposes would not come under this ruling. See ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.3 Pg.257)

Imam Tabari (rahimahullah) said that most narrations used the word ‘izãr’ or ‘lower garment’ because in that era most people used to wear izaars and ridaas.  (See ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.264) However, it also applies to thawb, qamis, jubbah and jackets etc. 

Hadith 3:
“Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “While a man was walking, dragging his garment with pride, he was caused to be swallowed by the earth and will go on sinking in it till the Day of Resurrection.”  (Bukhari #3485 and Muslim #2088).

• The muhaddith Qurtubi (رهمح الله) writes in his commentary on ‘Sahih Muslim’, ‘Al-Mufhim’, “This hadith shows that a person should abandon feeling safe from an immediate punishment on sins and that it is haraam and a major sin for a person to feel proud of himself, his clothing and style.” (Vol.5 Pg.406)
Hadith 4 
Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “He who drags his clothing out of pride, Allah will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection.” I (Shu’bah) asked Muharib (رهمحام الله), “Did he mention the lower garment?” He replied, “He did not specify any lower or upper garment.” (Bukhari #5791 and Muslim #2085e).

• Shu’bah and Muharib (رهمحام الله) are both narrators of this hadith. Muharib (رهمح الله), the teacher, explicitly states that the word used was thawb (clothing or garment) and that there was no specification of any lower and upper garment. Therefore, the rule will apply to any type of clothing that is dragged below the ankles. 

Hadith 5
Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) said that I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) saying, “Whoever drags his izãr during the prayer out of pride, then he is not in any halaal with Allah or haraam.”  (Abu Dawud #6371.

• The narrators are all reliable, said Shaikh Shuaib Arnawut.

• The muhaddithun have differed whether it has been narrated as a hadith of the Prophet (ﷺ) or statement of Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu). Imam Tabarani (رهمح الله) narrates it as a statement of Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) with a sound chain. Since it is a statement which cannot be said based on one’s rational, it will still be in the ruling of a Prophetic hadith. (See ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.256)

• This hadith has been explained in several ways:

i. ‘Any halaal’ means, ‘He (Allah) will not make it permissible for him to commit sin’, which is interpreted to mean ‘He (Allah) will not forgive him of the sins he commits’. ‘Any haraam’ means, ‘He (Allah) will not prevent him’, which is interpreted to mean, ‘He (Allah) will not protect him from committing sins’.

ii. Allah will not permit him into Jannah and He will not prohibit the Hell Fire on him.

iii. He is not doing a permitted action and Allah does not have any respect (ihtiraam) for him.

iv. He has left the halaal and haraam of Allah, meaning he has left the laws of Allah. (See ‘Bazlul Majhood’ Vol.3 Pg.573 and ‘Awnul Mabood’ for the first three Pg.313)

v. Allah does not care about him or his salah. (See ‘Sharh Aiyni’ Vol.3 Pg.170)

vi. He does not believe in the halaal and haraam of Allah.

vii. Allah has freed Himself from him and he has left the Deen. (See ‘Manhal Azb’ Vol.5 Pg.24)

• Regardless of whichever interpretation is taken, it denotes a very severe warning. 

Hadith 6
“Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Whoever arrogantly drags his garment, Allah will not look at him on the Day of Judgement.” So, Umm Salamah said: “What should the women do with their hems?” He said: “Lower them a hand-span.” So, she said:  “Then their feet will be uncovered.” He said: “Then lower them a forearm’s length, and do not add to that.” (Tirmithi #1731 and Nasai #5338) .

• Imam Tirmithi (رهمح الله) said, “It is sound (and) authentic.”

• The lowering started from the mid-calf.

• After narrating this hadith, Tirmithi (رهمح الله) commented, “In this hadith, there is a concession for women to drag their izãr because it covers them better.”

• All the scholars agree on this concession for the women. (Sharh Nawawi on Muslim Vol.14 Pg.62)

• If she is in front of a non-mahram, then they agree she must cover her ankles. 

Ahadith with General Prohibition (without mention of pride) 

As for the one who lowers his garment below his ankle, without pride, then this is also haraam and is considered a severe sin according to the most correct scholarly opinion. (See ‘Faidhul Bari’ Vol.6 Pg.72-3, ‘Kitabul Nawazil’ Vol.16 Pg.344, ‘Fatawa Qasmiyah’ Vol.23 Pg.479, ‘Aap ke Masaail aur unka Hal’ Vol.8 Pg.361, ‘Fatawa Haqqaniyah’ Vol.2 Pg.416, ‘Hadith ke Islahi Madhameen’ Vol.10 Pg.77, ‘Tuhfatul Alma’i’ Vol.5 Pg.65 & 106, ‘Kifayatul Mufti’ Vol.9 Pg.156)

This is due to the many ahadith which prohibit this, in the harshest words, without any restrictions. Rather, many ahadith state that lowering the garments below the ankles is an act of pride and arrogance, in itself. And arrogance is a major sin. May Allah purify us from it. 

Hadith 1 
Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “The part of an izãr which hangs below the ankles is in the Fire.”  (Bukhari #5787). 

• The literal meaning is that the person’s foot below the ankles or his clothing will enter the Fire. The scholars have explained this in a few ways:

i. What is meant is the foot beneath the clothing will enter the Fire. Once a part of the person enters the Fire, obviously, his whole body will follow.

ii. Along with the person, even that part of his clothing will enter the Fire. This is like the statement of Allah, “Indeed, you [disbelievers] and what you worship other than Allah are the fuel of Hell…” [Surah Anbiyaa: 98]

So Allah will also throw the idols, which the kuffar worshipped into the Fire, along with them, as a means of intensifying their remorse and highlighting their stupidity, that those from whom they sought prosperity and honour cannot even save themselves from the Fire. (Tafsir Uthmani Vol.5 Pg.262)

Similarly is the case of the garments from which they hoped honour, it will be of no avail to them. (Fathul Bari Vol.13 Pg.256, ‘Hadith ke Islaahi Madhameen’ Vol.10 Pg.80)

• Therefore, this hadith clearly states that the one who hangs his lower garment below his ankle will enter the Fire of Hell.

• There is no restriction here of pride. Any act in which the Messenger (ﷺ) warns of entering Hell by committing it is considered a major sin. (Tafsir Ibn Jarir Vol.6 Pg.652-3 {Surah Nisaa: 31}, ‘Zawajir’ Vol.1 Pg.5-6)

Even if one was to consider it a minor sin, it would become a major one in either of the following two situations:

i. If it is accompanied with pride
ii. If one persist in doing it.

• Below, we will learn that dragging one’s garments below the ankles is almost synonymous with pride, if not pride itself.

• Sa’eed ibn Jubair (رهمح الله) reported that a man asked Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), “How many major sins are there? Are there seven?” Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “They are closer to seven hundred than seven, but no sin is major if forgiveness is sought and no sin is minor if it is constantly repeated. (Tafsir Ibn Jarir Tabari Vol.6 Pg.651 {Surah Nisaa: 31}, ‘Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim’ Vol.3 Pg.934 #5217, Hafiz Ibn Muflih authenticated its chain in ‘Aadaab Shar’iyah’ Vol.1 Pg.153)

• The muhaddith and faqeeh, Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanvi As-Shaheed (رهمح الله) considered lowering the garment below the ankles a major sin, especially in our times. (See his Fatawa collection ‘Aap ke Masail aur unka Hall’ Vol.8 Pg.361)

This will be explained later on, Allah willing. (See ‘Clarification of Misconception’ #5)

Hadith 2 
Abu Dharr (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Three are those with whom Allah would neither speak to on the Day of Resurrection, nor would look at them nor would He purify them and there is a painful chastisement for them.” The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) repeated it three times. Abu Dharr (radhiyallahu anhu) remarked: “They failed and they lost; who are these persons, O Messenger of Allah?” He replied: “The one who wears his lower garment below his ankles, the one who reproaches (on the favours he did to someone) and the seller of goods by false oath.”  (Muslim #106).

• This hadith mentions many extremely severe punishments for those who drag their garments below the ankles:

i. Allah will not speak to them. This means He will not speak to them in the manner that He will speak to the righteous people whom He will be pleased with. Rather, He will speak to them in anger. It can also mean that He will ignore them. Most commentators say it means He will not speak to them in a manner that will benefit them and please them. It can also mean He will not send the angels to them with greetings. It can also mean that Allah will not speak to them directly, which is an honour, in itself.

ii. He will not look at them. This means He will not look at them with mercy. Rather, He will look at them with anger.

iii. He will not purify them. This means Allah will not purify them from the filth of their sins. It also can mean He will not praise them. And whomsoever Allah does not praise, He punishes. (See ‘Sharh Nawawi’ on ‘Muslim’ Vol.2 Pg.116 and ‘Al-Mufhim’ Vol.1 Pg.302-3 for the explanations given)

iv. They will be given a painful punishment other than the above. 

• This person has been placed in the same row as a liar.

• He has been placed in the same row as the one, who is so evil in character, that he reminds people of the favours he did to them. 

Hadith 3 
Abdur-Rahman (رهمح  الله) said: “I asked Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu) about the izãr, and he said: You have come to the one who knows about it. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘The izãr of the Muslim is to mid-calf, and there is no sin if it comes between that and the ankle, but whatever is below the ankle is in the Fire. The one who lets his izãr drag out of pride, Allah will not look at him.”  (Abu Dawud #4093, Ibn Majah #3573, and Ahmed #11010). 

• The muhaddith, Shaikh Shuaib (رهمح الله) said, “Its chain is authentic on the condition of Muslim.”

• This hadith is the clearest in mentioning the distinction between two different sins: 

Sin 1; The one who lets his lower garment drag below his ankle without pride➡He will enter the Fire.

Sin 2: The one who intentionally drags his lower garment below his ankle out of pride➡Allah will not even look at him with mercy on the Day of Judgement.

Hadith 4
Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) reported: “I happened to pass before Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) with my lower garment trailing. He said: ‘Abdullah, tug up your lower garment,’ I tugged it up, and he again said: ‘Some more,’ and I tugged it further. Afterwards, I was cautious in practicing that. Some of the people said: To what extent? Thereupon he said: ‘To the middle of the shanks.’”  (Muslim #2086). 

• Again, this hadith has no restriction of pride. The Messenger (ﷺ) commanded Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) to raise it without accusing him of pride.

• Allamah Qurtubi (رهمح الله) writes, “This shows that it is such a sin that should not be allowed, rather, one should prohibit it, even if the person may have done it by mistake.” (Al-Mufhim Vol.5 Pg.406) 

Hadith 5
Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates, “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) clothed him with two garments of the garments of siyaraa, which Ferooz had gifted him. So, I wore the izãr and it drowned me in length and width. So, I dragged it on the ground. I then wore the upper garment and covered my head with it. So the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) held my shoulders and said, “O Abdullah lift your izãr, because whatever touches the ground of the izãr until below the ankles is in Hell.” Abdullah ibn Muhammad said, “So I never saw a person who was stricter in lifting his clothes than Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu).”  (Musnad Ahmed #5713)

• Shaikh Arnawut (رهمح الله) said, “It is Sound.” 

• This hadith mentions more details. Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) heeded to the Messenger’s ﷺ command right away until his death. There is no mention of pride in any of these two narrations. 

Hadith 6
Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated: “Once, a person was praying, letting his lower garment trail. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to him: ‘Go and perform wudhu.’ He went, performed wudhu and then returned. He (ﷺ) again said: ‘Go and perform wudhu.’ He again went, performed wudhu and returned. (On witnessing this) someone asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah, why did you order him to perform wudhu?’ He (ﷺ) replied: ‘He was praying with the lower garment trailing, and Allah Ta’ala does not accept the prayer of a man who lets his lower garment trail.’”  (Abu Dawud #638 and ‘Musnad’ Ahmed #16628).

• Imam Nawawi (رهمح الله) said that its chain is authentic on the condition of Muslim. Hafiz Haithami (رهمح الله) said that Ahmed (رهمح الله) narrates it and the transmitters are those of the Sahih. (Riyadhus Saliheen Pg.373 #797, ‘Majmauz Zawaid’ Vol.5 Pg.126 Conversely, others have held that Abu Ja’far in the chain is unknown. Based on this, the chain would be slightly weak. See: ‘Sharh Aiyni’ Vol.3 Pg.169, ‘Kifayatul Mufti’ Vol.9 Pg.156 and Arnawut on ‘Musnad’. However, Tirmithi has graded one of Abu Ja’far’s hadith as ‘sound’ [#3442]. Hafiz Ibn Hajr graded him ‘maqbool’ (accepted) in ‘Taqreeb’. This means that his hadith is accepted if supported with a mutaabe’. Well, it is supported by the shaahid of Ibn Masud quoted above. Azim-Aabaadi also considered the hadith sound in ‘Awnul Mabood’ Pg.313. Allah knows best.)

• This hadith indicates to the prohibition of lowering the garments without any restriction of pride to the extent that the man was commanded to re-do his wudhu.

• The command to re-do the wudhu may have been to expiate for the sin committed, as wudhu washes away sins. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Whoever performs ablution as I have done, his previous sins will be forgiven.” (Ibn Majah #285 Busiri authenticated it in ‘Misbahuz Zujajah’ Pg.260)

• The salah did remain valid. This is why he wasn’t told to repeat it.

• However, a person will be deprived of the benefits of salah such as forgiveness of sins, purification of the heart, divine reward in the Hereafter, etc. This is what is meant by the salah not being accepted by Allah Ta’ala. (Dalilul Faliheen Vol.5 Pg.342, Shaikh Afzal Ismail, Commentary of Riyadhus Saliheen Vol.2 Pg.175) 

Hadith 7 
Abu Jurayy Jabir ibn Sulaim (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Lift your lower garment halfway up your shin; if you cannot do it, have it up to the ankles. However, beware of trailing the lower garment, for it is from pride and Allah does not like pride.”  (Abu Dawud #4084 and Tirmizi #2722, Bukhari in ‘Adabul Mufrad’ #1182).

• Imam Tirmithi said, “Its chain is sound and authentic.”

• This hadith clearly states that lowering the garments below the ankle is an act of pride in itself.

• Hafiz Ibn Hajr Asqalani says in ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.267,

“In summary, letting down the garment (below the ankles) entails dragging it, and dragging the garment entails pride even if the person did not intend pride.” 

Hadith 8 
The Prophet (ﷺ) said to Sufyan ibn Abi Sahl (radhiyallahu anhu), “Do not trail your garments (below the ankles), because Allah does not like those who trail their garments.”  (Ibn Majah #3574 and Sahih Ibn Hibban #5442). 

• Hafiz Busiri authenticated its chain in ‘Misbahuz Zujajah’. (Pg. 467)

• This hadith again mention that Allah dislikes those who lower their garments below the ankles without any mention of pride. 

Hadith 9 
Huzaifah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated, “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) took hold of the calf of my shin – or his shin – and he said: “This is the place of the Izãr, if you must lower it, then a little below, and if you must lower it, then the lzar has no right to be on the ankles.”  (Tirmithi #1783 and Ibn Hibban #5448) . 

• Again, the Messenger (ﷺ) clearly states that the garment has no right on the ankle. Obviously, below is worst. There is no restriction of pride here either.

• Ibn Hibban (رهمح الله) said that this is the furthest limit on the male’s body which is wajib to practice on with regards to hanging the lower garment. 

Hadith 10
Abu Umamah (radhiyqllahu anhu) said, “Once we were with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and we met Amr ibn Zurarah Ansari (radhiyallahu anhu) (who was wearing) a lower and upper garment, which he had trailed below his ankles. The Messenger (ﷺ) took the corner of his garment humbly and started saying, ‘O Allah, Your bondsman, the son of your bondsman and bondswoman,’ until Amr ibn Zurarah (radhiyallahu anhu) heard him and turned to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, my shins are thin.’ He replied, ‘O Amr ibn Zurarah, surely Allah beautified the creation of everything. O Amr ibn Zurarah, surely Allah does not love the one who trails his garment below his ankles.’” Thereafter the Messenger (ﷺ) showed him that the izãr should be up to eight fingers below the knees.  (Tabarani in ‘Kabir’ #7909. Also, see ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.267).

• Allamah Haithami and Hafiz Ibn Hajr (رهمحام الله) both said that the narrators are all reliable. (Majmauz Zawaid Vol.5 Pg.124)

• Once again, there is no restriction of pride in this hadith. Hafiz Ibn Hajr (رهمح  الله) comments, “It is clear that Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) did not intend to be arrogant by this lowering of his garment. Yet, the Messenger (ﷺ) prohibited him because it is from the actions which are most likely committed out of arrogance.”  (Fathul Bari Vol.13 Pg.267)

Hadith 11 
Sharid (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) saw a man trailing his izãr below his ankles so he hastened towards him or he jogged [until he lifted his garment]. He (ﷺ) then said, “Lift your izãr and fear Allah.” The man [exposed his knees and] said, “I am clubfooted. My knees collide with one another when I walk.” He remarked, “All of Allah’s creations are good.” That man was never seen after that but that his izãr was in the middle of his shin [until he died].   (Tabarani in ‘Kabir’ #7238 and Musnad Ahmed  Vol.4 Pg.390. The words between the brackets [] are Ahmed’s). 

• Hafiz Haithami (رهمح الله) said, “The narrators of Ahmed are narrators of the Sahih.” (Majmauz Zawaid Vol.5 Pg.124)

Allamah Munawi (rahimahullah) states that Imam Suyuti (rahimahullah) wrote the abbreviation of authenticity on this hadith.  (See ‘Faidhul Qadeer’ Vol.1 Pg.476)

• “Fear Allah” and refrain from that which Allah has made haraam. (See ‘Faidhul Qadeer’ Vol.1 Pg.475-6)

• This Sahabi had a defect in his legs, yet the Messenger (ﷺ) instructed him to lift his garments above his ankles. May Allah grant us the ability to practice on His commands in all circumstances. There is no mention of pride in this hadith. 

Hadith 12 
Samurah ibn Jundub (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates from the Prophet (ﷺ) that he said, “Whatever is below the ankles of the izãr is in the Fire.”  (Musnad Ahmed #20098). 

• Shaikh Arnawut (رهمح  الله) said, “Its chain is authentic.”

• N.B. When a hadith is narrated by a different Sahabi (radhiyallahu anhu), it is counted as a separate hadith. 

Hadith 13
Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) said that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Surely Allah will not look at the one who lowers his garment below his ankles.”  (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #25308).

• The muhaddith, Shaikh Muhammad Awwamah (هظفح الله) graded it authentic. 

Hadith 14 
Abu Ad-Dardã (radhiyallahu anhu) said to Sahl ibn Al-Hanzaliyyah (radhiyallahu anhu), “Tell us something that will benefit us and not harm you.” He said, “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to us, ‘What a good man Khuraim Al-Asadi is, except that his hair comes down to his shoulders and his izãr hangs below his ankles.’ News of that reached Khuraim (radhiyallahu anhu) and he went and took a knife and cut his hair until it came to his ears, and he lifted up his izãr to mid-calf.”
(Abu Dawud #4089).

• Hafiz Ibn Hajr classified it sound in ‘Al-Amaali Mutlaqah’. (Pg.36 Also see Arnawut’s research on ‘Musnad Ahmed’ Vol.29 Pg.159-162)

• The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) did not mention anything about Khuraim (radhiyallahu anhu) being proud. Therefore, even if one was to hang his garment without pride, it is not allowed. 

Hadith 15
Abdullah ibn Abil Hudhail (رهمح الله) narrates that Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ concerning the izãr. So, he took hold of the middle of the calf of the shin. So, he requested, “Increase (it) for us, O Messenger of Allah.” So, he held the lowest part of the calf of the shin. So, he requested, “Increase (it) for us, O Messenger of Allah.” So, he ﷺ replied, “There is no good in anything lower than this.” (Musnad Abi Bakr’ #123)

• Shaikh Arnawut (رهمح الله) said that the narrators are reliable, however there is an uncertainty in whether Ibn Abi Hudhail heard from Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) or not. Abu Zur’ah said, “Ibn Abi Hudhail from Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) is mursal.” It is, however, supported by the narration of Huzaifah (radhiyallahu anhu) quoted above. (See Arnawut’s research on ‘Musnad Abi Bakr’ Pg.156, ‘Marasil’ of Ibn Abi Hatim #407)

Aathaar (Narrations) of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) 

The following are narrations in which the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) instructed others to lift their garments above their ankles. Pride is an action of the heart and the traits of the heart are from the unseen. Obviously, the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) did not receive any revelation so they were not aware if someone is doing it out of pride or not. Yet, they instructed them to lift their garments. This shows that the prohibition applies in all cases. 

Athar 1 
Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) saw a person trailing his lower garment, whereupon he said: “From whom do you come?” He described his relationship (with the tribe he belonged) and it was found that he belonged to the tribe of Laith. Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) recognized him and said: “I heard Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) with these two ears of mine saying: ‘He who trailed his lower garment with no other intention but pride, Allah would not look toward him on the Day of Resurrection.’”  (Muslim #2085f).

• Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhum) prohibited him from dragging his garments and used the hadith which mentions the restriction of pride. Obviously, he didn’t know what was in his heart. So, this shows that the ruling is general. There are other incidents where Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) reprimanded people for dragging their garments below their ankles. (See ‘Tamheed’ of Ibn Abdil Barr Vol.3 Pg.274-5)

One more will be mentioned below under the title of ‘Misconceptions and their Clarifications’. 

Athar 2 
Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) saw a person whose lower garment had been trailing and this person started to strike the ground with his foot. He [Abu Hurairah] was the governor of Bahrain and the person was saying: “Here comes the Amir, here comes the Amir.” He (Abu Huraira) reported that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: “Allah will not look toward him who trails his lower garment out of pride.” 
(Muslim #2087).

• Stamping one’s feet is not necessarily an act of arrogance. Rather in certain cases it is even praise worthy. For instance, to show the kuffar that the Muslims are strong and not weak. Even the Messenger ﷺ ordered the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) to march when doing tawaf in the Umaratul Qadhaa because the Kuffar of Makkah had said the fever of Madinah has weakened the Muslims. (Sahih Bukhari #1602)

Therefore this person most likely was stamping in that manner as Bahrain still had Jews and Majusis there. 

Athar 3
Kharashah (رهمح الله) said that Umar (Ibn Khattab) (radhiyallahu anhu) called for a blade and lifted the izãr of a man above his ankles. Then he cut what was below that. He (Kharashah) said, “It is though I am looking at the ends of his garment flowing down his heels.”  (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #25326. Shaikh Shathri authenticated it in his ‘Ta’leeq’ on ‘Musannaf’ Vol.13 Pg.529)

• Some people say, why do scholars speak about such ‘minor’ issues as dragging the trousers below the ankles when the Ummah is in need of much greater advice? Subhaanallah, Allah forbid. This is the Amirul Mumineen, one of the most outstanding leaders this World has ever seen, taking out his precious time to personally cut the lower garment of one who was dragging it below his ankles. 

Athar 4
There is also another narration collected by Bukhari, which will be mentioned below, in which Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) commanded a youth to lift his garment above his ankles after Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was stabbed by the Majusi. (Bukhari #3700).

• Once again, the leader of the super power of the time, was on his death bed, instructing someone to lift his garment above his ankles. May Allah Ta’ala give us the tawfeeq to honour and practice every single one of his commands. 


Allah Ta’ala said in the Quran Majid that the one who wishes to please Allah and succeed in the Hereafter should follow in the way, method, style and Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) “Certainly, you have in the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.”  [Surah Ahzab: 21]

The grace and style of the garments which the Messenger (ﷺ) and his companions wore is a well-known fact.  

1. Ubaid ibn Khalid (Or Ubaidah ibn Khalaf. The difference of name is a Sahabi does not cause any weakness to the narration). said, “I was walking and upon me was a sheet which I was dragging. So, a man said to me, ‘Lift your garment because it is cleaner (or more righteous) for you and long lasting.’ So I looked and it was the Prophet (ﷺ). I said, ‘It is a burdah malhaa (a black sheet with white lines).’ The Messenger (ﷺ) retorted, ‘Don’t you have a role model in me?’ He said, ‘When I looked I saw that his garment was up to the middle of his calf.’”
(Musnad Ahmed Vol.5 Pg.364, Tirmithi in ‘Shamail’ #114,  and Nasai Sunan Kubraa #9602).

• Hafiz Ibn Hajr classified its chain good (Fathul Bari Vol.13 Pg.266-7). Imam Suyuti indicated to its authenticity in ‘Jameus Sagheer’ and Munawi and San’ani (رهمحام  الله) did not disagree with him in their respective commentaries on ‘Jameus Sagheer’. (See ‘Faidhul Qadeer’ by Munawi Vol.1 Pg.476 and ‘Tanweer’ by San’ani Vol.2 Pg.287)

2. Salamah ibn Akwa’ (radhiyallahu anhu) said that Uthman ibn Affan (radhiyallahu anhu) used to wear his izãr until his mid-calf and would say, “This is how my companion, the Nabi ﷺ, used to wear his izãr.”
(Shamail Tirmithi #115).

• Even though the Sahabi, Salamah (radhiyallahu anhu) knew the style of the Messenger’s izãr himself, he spoke of Uthman’s style to point out that this Sunnah was established and practiced by the great Sahabah including the Khulafaa Rashideen (radhiyallahu anhum). (Sharh Munawi Vol.1 Pg.173, ‘Jamul Wasail’ Vol.1 Pg.173 )

3. Abu Sulaiman (His name is Ayub ibn Dinaar) [Jarh wat Ta’deel Vol.2 Pg.246 #877] narrates from his father that he said, “I saw Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) while he was wearing a najrani izãr up till mid-calf.”  (‘Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #25329 Vol.12 Pg.503)

4. Abu Ishaq (رهمح  الله) said, “I saw people from amongst the companions of the prophet wearing their izãrs until mid-calf.” He then named, “Usamah ibn Zaid, Ibn Umar, Zaid ibn Arqam and Baraa ibnul Azib” (radhiyallahu anhuma). (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #25327 Vol.12 Pg.503) 

In Summary, the Sunnah of the Messenger (ﷺ) and many of his companions (radhiyallahu anhum) was to wear the lower garments until mid-calf. Between mid-calf and the ankles is a permissible area. On the other hand, wearing any garments below the ankles is prohibited on males. The punishment for this is entrance into the Fire of Jahannam, may Allah protect us from it. If one knowingly does it out of pride, then he will be in a worst situation, as Allah Ta’ala will not even look at him with mercy on the Day of Judgment. This is the more precautionary opinion, for the outward purport of many strongly-worded Prophetic ahadith state such. 


Misconception 1:
Why do some ahadith place the condition of ‘if it is done out of pride’? 

• Clarification: 
This is to show that the matter is more severe for the one who intentionally does it out of pride. Allamah Sindi (رهمح  الله) says in his ‘Hashiyah’ on ‘Sunan Ibn Majah’, “What is apparent is that this limit is there even if one does not do it out of pride. Yes, if pride is also added to hanging it below the ankle, then the matter is more severe.” (Vol.4 Pg.148) And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 2:
It is a case of (Mafhoomul Mukhalafah). That is, the prohibition mentioned a restriction of pride, therefore the opposite ruling will apply when the restriction is not found. 

• Clarification:
Many mujtahidun do not consider this (Mafhoomul Mukhalafah) a valid principle of deducing laws. Even those who use it as evidence, mention a condition that the restriction should not have been mentioned based on it being the norms of such situations. For instance, in the Quran Majid, Allah Ta’ala says, Haraam on you (to marry) are …. your step-daughters, whom are in your care.” [Surah Nisaa: 23]

The restriction of “in your care” here was mentioned because this is the norms of such a case. (The step-father usually takes care of his wife’s children from her previous marriage).

Therefore, its absence will not invert the ruling. It will still remain haraam on a man to marry his step-daughter even if he never took care of her. Similarly, Allamah San’ani (رهمح  الله) states that the restriction of “pride” in some of the ahadith is to indicate that those who usually let their garments below their ankles, do so out of pride. Therefore, if this restriction is not there, then it will not cause the ruling to turn around. (See ‘Istifaaul Aqwaal’ by San’ani Pg.42)

This is also supported by the hadith which called dragging the garments below the ankle, an act of pride in itself. And Allah Ta’ala knows best.

Misconception 3:
Applying the restriction to the general ahadith will apply in this case. That is, when certain ahadith are general and others are restricted, then one of the principles of Fiqh is to apply the restriction to the general ahadith. Accordingly, since some ahadith have the restriction of pride, it will also apply to those which are general. 

i. Indeed, this is one principle of Fiqh that is applied in some instances. However, another principle of Fiqh is that the general hadith is practiced on its generality and the restricted one with its restriction. So, we will practice on the general one without any restrictions. The hadith of Abu Saeed Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu), (“Whatever is below the ankle is in the Fire. The one who lets his izãr drag out of pride, Allah will not look at him.”), collected by Abu Dawud (رهمح الله) and others, strengthens the use of this principle here, as it mentions both the scenarios in one hadith, the general and the restricted, and they both were prohibited by mentioning different punishments. Allamah San’ani (رهمح الله) says, “The ahadith indicate that whatever is below the ankles is in the Fire, and this entails prohibition. Other ahadith indicate that whoever drags it out of pride, Allah will not look at him. This also entails prohibition. They also point out that the punishment for the arrogant is a specific punishment, which is Allah not looking at him. This is one of the things that falsifies the claim that it is only prohibited on the proud.” (Istifaaul Aqwaal Pg.26)

ii. One of the conditions for applying the restriction to a general text, for those who use this principle, is that it should not be concerning a prohibition. If the issue is one of prohibition, as is the case with the issue of isbaal, then it is not valid to apply the restriction of one text to the generality of the other. This is explained by Hafiz Ibn Daqeequl Eid in ‘Ihkamul Ahkaam’. (Vol.1 Pg.60 Also see: ‘Al-Bahrul Muheet’ by Zarkashi Vol.3 Pg.430-1). And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 4:
The Messenger (ﷺ) told Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) that since he is not letting his garment hang “out of pride”, there is no punishment for him. Therefore, this should also apply to us.  

• Clarification:
Below we will reproduce the complete hadith and then explain it:

Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Allah will not look, on the Day of Resurrection at the person who drags his garment (below his ankles) out of pride.” On that Abu Bakr (هنع الله يضر) said, “O Allah’s Messenger, one side of my izãr hangs low unless I meticulously take care of it.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “You are not one of those who do that out of pride.”   (Bukhari #5784). 

• This narration is usually considered the strongest evidence put forward by those who wish to wear their garments below their ankles. From the following analysis, Allah willing, it will become crystal clear that this narration is actually evidence against their position.

From this hadith, the following points become clear:

i. Only one side was going below Abu Bakr’s (radhiyallahu anhu) ankle. So how can one use this to intentionally hang both sides down his ankles? (See ‘Tamheed’ of Ibn Abdil Barr Vol.3 Pg.247)

ii. Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) was not doing it intentionally. How can this be evidence for those who purposely and intentionally wear their trousers below their ankles? (Ibid)

Rather, the scholars wrote that Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) was very slim and his garments would not stay on him tightly. They would slip off of his hips. Allamah Kirmani (رهمح الله) said he had a slight hunch to his back which also caused his garment to slip off. (Kirmani Vol.21 Pg.53, ‘Umdatul Qari’ Vol.21 Pg.438, ‘Minhatul Baari’ Vol.9 Pg.76)

iii. When he realised it slipped off, he would lift it up. (Umdatul Qari Vol.21 Pg.438) These people never lift it up.

iv. Since Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) didn’t wear it below his ankles intentionally and he would ensure to lift it when he realized it slipped below, there was no question of him being arrogant. Yet, he asked the question concerning his situation. Therefore, this means that he understood it to be general and not restricted to pride. Otherwise, his question would not make sense. (Faidhul Bari Vol.6 Pg.72)

v. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) received revelation from Allah and by it he would know the state of the heart of a person. So, he had the right to testify of the purity of Abu Bakr’s (radhiyallahu anhu heart.

vi. Since the Messenger (ﷺ) is no longer amongst us, we are not able to claim purity for anyone. Allah alone knows who is pure at heart.

vii. Some scholars say that, out of all the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum), only Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) was given the reassurance that he is not doing it out of pride. Therefore, this was a specific permission for him. There is no other Sahabi who was afforded this, not even Umar, Uthman or Ali (radhiyallahu anhum). So how can we, who are drowned in sin, claim purity? (Tawdhehaat Sharh Mishkaat Vol.6 Pg.467)

viii. The scholars say that this hadith shows that if one’s garment was to unintentionally fall below one’s ankles, then he would not be taken to task for it. However, this in no way means that one should be careless about it.

ix. Even though this narration clearly negates pride from Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu), Imam Bukhari (رهمح الله) still mentioned it under the ‘Book of Clothing’, this is to point out that this hadith is a general guideline of wearing garments, without paying attention to the issue of arrogance. (Faidhul Bari Vol.6 Pg.72   

x. Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), the narrator of this hadith, used to always keep his garments at mid-calf. It is not narrated that he allowed letting the garments go below the ankles for anyone. 

xi. Rather, Hafiz Ibn Abdil Barr (رهمح الله) mentions a narration in ‘Tamheed’ in which Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) instructed Abdullah ibn Waqid to lift his garment above his ankles. Ibn Waqid said, “There are some sores on my legs.” Ibn Umar replied, “Even if.” Ibn Abdil Barr (رهمح الله) comments, “This is clear that Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) held it reprehensible for a person to drag his garments in all conditions.” (See ‘Tamheed’ of Ibn Abdil Barr Vol.3 Pg.247) And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 5:
All those who wear their trousers below their ankles claim that “We don’t do it out of pride.” 

• Clarification:
i. Allah Ta’ala says, “So do not claim purity for yourselves. He is most knowing of who fears him.” [Surah Najam: 32]

ii. Hafiz Ibn Hajr Asqalani (رهمح الله) writes in ‘Fathul Bari’, “[The faqeeh and muhaddith, Qadhi Abu Bakr] Ibnul Arabi (رهمح الله) said, ‘It is not permissible for a man to let his garment cover his ankles and say, ‘I am not dragging it out of pride’, because the prohibition includes this in its wordings. It is not permissible for he whom the text includes in ruling to say, ‘I am not following it because the primary reason is not in me’, because this is a claim that is not accepted. Rather his lengthening of his lower garment below the ankles is a sign of his pride.’” Then Hafiz Ibn Hajr (رهمح الله) states that this is supported by the hadith, “Beware of trailing the lower garment, for it is from pride.” (Fathul Bari Vol.13 Pg.267)

iii. Shaikh Ibn Ataullah Iskandari (Hafiz Ibn Hajr quotes Hafiz Zahabi (الله اهمحر) saying, “Ibn Ataullah had an extraordinary grandeur, lofty status in the hearts and contribution in virtue. I saw Shaikh Tajuddeen, when he returned from Misr, holding his advices and subtleties in very high regard. He used to speak in the Jame Azhar on a chair with such a speech that revived the hearts. He had combined the statements of the People (i.e. Zuhhad) with the narrations of the Salaf and other topics. So, he had a lot of followers. He had the signs of goodness on him.” ‘Durr Kaaminah’ Vol.1 Pg.274) said, “He who attributes humility to himself is really proud.” (Kitabul Hikam, ‘The Book of Wisdom’ Pg.215, ‘Ummul Amraadh’ by Shaikh Zakariyah Kandhelvi Pg.19)

Humility is the belief that one is the most contemptible and lowest person. The consideration of greatness in oneself is pride. So, the one who puts forth the claim that he is humble is in actual fact considering himself to be elevated. Thus, he is a man of pride. (‘Ikmalus Shiyam’ by Shaikh Abdullah Gangohi Pg.215 White Thread Press)

iv. If we were to assume that it is not always an act of pride, then Ibn Hajr (رهمح الله) says that it is still an action that has a high possibility of pride. (Fathul Bari Vol.13 Pg.267)

v. Ubaid ibn Khalid (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “I was walking and upon me was a sheet which I was dragging. So, a man said to me, ‘Lift your garment because it is more righteous for you and long lasting.’ So, I looked and it was the Prophet (ﷺ). I said, ‘It is a burdah malhaa (a black sheet with white lines).’ The Messenger (ﷺ) retorted, ‘Don’t you have a role model in me?’ He said, ‘When I looked I saw that his garment was till the middle of his calf.’” [  Shamail Tirmithi #114. Its chain is good. (‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.266-7)].

a. Some scholars explain that by saying it is a black sheet with white threads, the Sahabi was indicating that it was not a garment with which one can show off and be proud of. However, the Messenger (ﷺ) informed him of two things. One, there is more piety in lifting it above, as one may feel he is not proud but in actual fact he is. Another point is that we should not feel we are above following the style of the Messenger (ﷺ). This is why the Messenger (ﷺ) rebuked him in a stern manner and said, “Don’t you have a role-model in me?”

b. Another point the scholars derived from this is that one should lift his trousers high so as to prevent any possibility of it dragging below the ankles. This is called  or “closing the doors and means of sin”. (Sharh Munawi Vol.1 Pg.172, ‘Jamul Wasail’ Vol.1 Pg.172, ‘Mawaahib Ladunniyah’ by Baajuri Pg.235)

vi. The faqeeh and muhaddith, Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanvi (رهمح الله) states that in our times (20th and 21st century. The respected Mufti was assassinated in 2000 CE. May Allah accept his martyrdom) the people who are accustomed to wearing their trousers, pants and lower garments below their ankles consider it an act of honour, rather, they feel ashamed and disgraced in lifting it above the ankles. They look with utmost disdain at the Sunnah of the beloved Prophet (ﷺ), which is wearing the garments at mid-calf. Now you tell me, “Is the cause for this anything other than arrogance and pride?” This is why the respected mufti considered it a major sin, especially in our times. Rather, he went a step further and said, “Further than a major sin, there is a fear of losing one’s Iman by looking at the Prophetic Sunnah in a condescending manner.” (Aap ke Masaail aur unka Haal Vol.8 Pg.361)

vii. In many of the narrations mentioned above, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had instructed many Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) to lift their garments above their ankles. Would we say (May Allah forbid), that those Sahabah were doing so out of pride? Obviously not.

viii. If anyone had the right to say, ‘I don’t do it out of pride,’ it was Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu), but he never made such claims of purification. So, who are we to profess such piety? And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 6:
Yazid ibn Abi Habib (رهمح الله) narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to hang his izãr in front of him and lift it from the back. (‘At-Tabaqaat’ Ibn Sa’d Vol.1 Pg.395 ) 

• Imam Suyuti graded it mursal in ‘Jame’us Sagheer’. (Jame’us Sagheer with ‘Taweer’ Vol.8 Pg.563) 

• Clarification:
i. This hadith is mursal, which is one of the types of weak hadith according to the muhaddithun. A mursal hadith is when there is a break in the link of the chain of narration after the tabi’ee. Yazid ibn Abi Yahya (رهمح الله) was a tabi’ee, which means he did not meet the Messenger ﷺ. Therefore, there is a break in the link of this chain of narration. However, a mursal hadith is still used as evidence according to the majority of the mujtahidun, the likes of Abu Hanifah, Malik and Ahmed ibn Hanbal (رمهمح الله). Imam Shafi’ee (رهمح الله) also uses it as evidence when it fulfills a few conditions.

ii. When a hadith is vague, like this one, then it must be interpreted to coincide with the other explicit narrations. Many ahadith mention that the Sunnah and usual method of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was to wear his garments up to mid-calf.

iii. This is why, Allamah San’aani (رهمح الله) explains that this hanging in front was to the extent of the permission given, which is up to mid-calf. (Taweer Vol.8 Pg.563. Permission was given from between mid-calf to above the ankles). And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 7:
Ikrimah (رهمح الله) narrated that he saw Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) wearing an izãr; he let the edge of the izãr touch the top of his feet in front and he lifted it higher at the back. I said, “Why are you wearing the izãr in this manner?” He said, “I saw the Messenger of Allah wearing it like that.” (Sunan Abu Dawud #4096)

• Shaikh Muhammad Awwamah classified it as sound. (Ta’leeq ala ‘Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah’ Vol.12 Pg.503 #25328)

• Some people use this hadith to say that we can drag our garments below our ankles without any restriction of a particular style. 

• Clarification:
i. Firstly, if we were to assume this was the Messenger’s ﷺ regular style of wearing his izãr, it does not clearly state that the front part went below the ankles. The edge of the izãr can touch the top of the foot without going below the ankles, especially when the back part is clearly above the ankles. By taking all the other numerous ahadith on this issue in to consideration, we must interpret it to mean that it did not go below the ankles.

ii. Even if we were to assume it may have gone below the ankles at the front, it clearly did not go below from the back. Also, this manner would leave the ankles exposed and not covered. Therefore, if one was to prove permissibility from this hadith, the izãr would have to be worn in this exact manner. However, this is only possible if one is wearing a lungi or loincloth, which can be tied in such a manner that the front part reaches the top of the foot while the back part stays higher up. This style is impossible with a trouser and extremely difficult with a qamis or jubbah. Those who would like to use this hadith to permit wearing the trousers below their ankles, would never wear them in this manner. 

iii. This is the only hadith that mentions this method of wearing the izãr. All the other ahadith clearly state that the Messenger’s style ﷺ was to wear the garments up to mid-calf. Similarly, the other Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) who followed the Messenger’s style ﷺ, wore it up to mid-calf. Therefore, this hadith will be explained in light of what is established.

iv. The great muhaddith and faqeeh, Mulla Ali Qari explains, “Maybe this occurred once from him (the Messenger ﷺ) and Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) happened to see it. This is why he is alone in this style of wearing the izãr from amongst the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum).” (Mirqatul Mafatih Vol.8 Pg.236, The muhaddith Shaikh Idris Kandhelvi also mentioned this interpretation in ‘Ta’liqus Sabih’ Vol.4 Pg.395)

v. Some scholars state that if one was to wear the loincloth in this manner, where the front part is on the top of the foot and the back part is above the ankles and they are exposed, then it would not come under the prohibition of isbaal. (See ‘Awnul Ma’bood’ Pg.1758, ‘Mazahir Haqq Jadid’ Vol.4 Pg.197 Maktabatul Ilm, ‘Khairul Mafatih’ Vol.5 Pg.154)

Refer to point ii of this clarification. And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 8:
It is narrated that Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) used to let down his izaar. He was asked concerning it, to which he replied, “I am a man whose shins are thin.” (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #25313)

• Clarification:
i. If a person’s shins are slim then he will simply conceal them by letting the garment below the midway of his calves. There is no need to hang it below the ankles.

ii. Hafiz Ibn Hajr (رهمح الله) said, “This hanging narrated from Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) means below the preferable place (of half the calf). It should never be imagined that it went below his ankles.” (Alqamah said, “Ibn Masud was the most similar to the Prophet in his ways, style and mannerism.” [Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #32906])

How could one ever accuse such a great Sahabi, who was known to follow the Messenger (ﷺ) in all his ways, styles and mannerism, of defying the Messenger’s command? Ibn Masud (هنع الله يضر), himself, has narrated that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prohibited from dragging the izãr below the ankles. (Ibn Abi Shaibah #25303, Abu Dawud #4222, Sahih Ibn Hibban #5682-3 and Hakim in ‘Mustadrak’, who classified it authentic. As for the student of Ibn Masud, Abur Rahman ibn Harmalah, then he is truthful. See ‘Jarh wa Ta’dil’ Vol.5 Pg.222-3, ‘Thiqat’ Ibn Hibban Vol.5 Pg.95 and ‘Ta’leequl Awwamah’ on ‘Kashif’.) And Allah knows best.

iii. Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) also narrated that on the day Umar ibn Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) was stabbed by Abu Luluah, the Majusi, with such a wound that subsequently took his life, a youth entered upon Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). The youth started to praise him. Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) saw that he was dragging his izãr. So he said, “O my nephew, lift your izãr because, in it, is more fear for your Rabb and cleaner for your garment.” Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) used to always remark, “Amazing! Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) saw the right of Allah upon him. So, the situation he was in did not prevent him from speaking about the right of Allah.”  (Ibn Abi Shaibah #25312 Ibrahim Nakhai’s Marasil from Ibn Masud are authentic. See ‘Tabribur Rawi’ Vol.3 Pg.166 and Shaikh Muhammad Awwamah’s Ta’lee).

Bukhari also collected it in his ‘Sahih’ but from a different Sahabi, Amr ibn Maimun (radhiyallahu anhu) #3700.

iv. Once Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) saw a man who was hanging his lower garment. So, he told him to lift it up. The man retorted, “And you, O Ibn Masud, lift your lower garment.” Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “My feet are slim and I lead people in Salah.” Umar ibn Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) learnt about this and flogged the man saying, “You were rebuking Ibn Masud?” 
(‘Siyar A’laam Nubalaa’ Vol.1 Pg.491-2 Shaik Shuaib said, “Its narrators are reliable.”)

Above, two narrations of Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) were mentioned, which showed how strict he was on the issue of the garment hanging below the ankles. Therefore, this clearly shows that Ibn Masud’s garments were simply below the preferable limit and not below the ankles.

v. Rather, the following narration proves that he would never drag it below his ankles. Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) saw two men performing Salah, one had his izãr below his ankles and the other was not completing his ruku and sujood. So, he smiled. They asked, “What makes you smile, O Aba Abdir Rahman?” He replied, “I am surprised at these two men that one has his izãr below his ankles, so Allah will not look at him and as for the second, then Allah will not accept his salah.”  (Musannaf Abdur Razzaq #3735 and Tabarani in ‘Kabir’ #9366 Vol.9 Pg.314-5) And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 9:
Many scholars say the prohibition is based on pride, and if there is no pride then it is not haraam

• Clarification:
i. The truth is not measured by people, rather people are measured by the truth. The overwhelming evidences as explained above does not support this opinion of theirs. 

ii. Even though these scholars didn’t consider it haram when it is without pride, they still say it is reprehensible (makrooh) and blameworthy.  (See: ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.266, ‘Fatawa Hindiyyah’ Vol.5 Pg.333, ‘Tamheed’ Vol.3 Pg.244, ‘Al-Muntaqa Sharh Muatta’ Vol.7 Pg.226, ‘Al-Majmoo’ Vol.4 Pg.338, ‘Al-Mughni’ Vol.2 Pg.298)

iii. Hafiz Ibn Hajr said that even if one was to consider it makrooh to drag the garment below the ankles then that would be in the case where the garment is not unnecessarily long. In other words, it would apply to the one whose garment is actually above his ankles but slips down, like in the case of Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu). If it is too long, then it would be considered prohibited from many aspects.

a. It would be considered extravagance, (Allah says, “…do not spend wastefully. Indeed, the wasteful are brothers of the devils…”) [Surah Israa: 26-27].

b. It would be considered imitating women. (All the scholars agree that women must hang their garments below their ankles. Kawkab Wahhaj Sharh Muslim Vol.21 Pg.376)

The Messenger (ﷺ) has cursed those men who imitate women and vice versa. [Bukhari #5885 ] He has also specifically cursed those men who wear the garments of women. [Hakim in ‘Mustadrak’ Vol.4 Pg.194, ‘Sahih’ Ibn Hibban #5751. Its chain is authentic on the conditions of Muslim.]

c. If the garments are dragging, then they can collect impurities from the ground. Ubaid ibn Khalid (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “I was walking and upon me was a sheet which I was dragging. So, a man said to me, ‘Lift your garment because it is cleaner for you and long lasting.’ So, I looked and it was the Prophet (ﷺ).” [‘Shamail’ Tirmithi in  #114. Its chain is good. [‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.266-7] 

d. Faqeehul Ummah Mufti Mahmud Hasan (رهمح الله) adds a fourth reason where it would become haraam. He says that nowadays those who wear their trousers below the ankles are doing so in following the style of the West. Therefore, they will come under the prohibition of emulating the kuffar and fussaq. (Fatawa Mahmoodiyah Vol.27 Pg.413-4)

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Whoever imitates a people, he is one of them.” [Abu Dawud collected this hadith in the chapter entitled, “Garment of Fame and Vanity”. #4031 Ibn Hajr states in ‘Bulooghul Maraam’ #1416, “Authenticated by Ibn Hibban.”]

iv. One should also note that everyone agrees that the Messenger (ﷺ) used to wear his garments above his ankles at half calf. Therefore, this is the Sunnah. The Sahabah, the likes of Uthman, Ali, Ibn Umar, Anas, Jabir and others (radhiyallahu anhu) also used to wear their garments at half calf. (See ‘Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah’ from narration #25327 to #25331)

So these scholars are in no way promoting wearing any garment below the ankles. Rather they all were strong in practising on the Sunnah.

v. Even though they say that it is not haram to hang the garments below the ankles, they do not claim that any person is free from pride. This is a hidden trait of the heart that is not easily discerned. Rather, Allah Ta’ala states, “So do not claim purity for yourselves. He is most knowing of who fears him.”  [Surah Najam: 32]

vi. After discussing this issue in his commentary of ‘Sahih Muslim’, Shaikhul Islam Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani (هظفح الله) concludes, “The original primary cause (illat) behind the prohibition of dragging the garments below the ankles is ‘pride’, as the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) explicitly mentioned in the hadith on the topic. However, establishing ‘pride’ is a hidden matter and the one who is afflicted by it does not realise it. Therefore, the cause (sabab) was placed in the position of the primary cause (illat). The cause (sabab) is hanging the garments below the ankles. This is like qasr (shortening the prayers) in travel. The primary cause (illat) is ‘difficulty’. However, ‘difficulty’ is an ambiguous matter which does not come under any rule. Therefore, the cause (sabab) was placed in the position of the primary cause (illat). The cause (sabab) is travel. (So, whenever anyone travels, he will shorten his prayers whether he is in any ‘difficulty’ or not.) Based on this, whenever the garments go below the ankles, the prohibition will apply unless it was unintentional, because in such a case the absence of ‘pride’ is definite. This is so because ‘pride’ is not established by an action in which the slave does not have an intention. It is from this angle that the Messenger (ﷺ) allowed Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) concerning his garment falling below his ankles. He said to him, ‘You are not one who does it out of pride.’ In this manner, all the narrations are reconciled. And Allah knows best.” (See ‘Takmilah Fathil Mulhim’ Vol.4 Pg.108) 

Misconception 10:
I am a person who likes my trousers below my ankles. I find it beautiful and the Messenger (ﷺ) had told a Sahabi, who had asked about beautiful clothing which he liked, it is not a problem as Allah loves beauty. 

• Clarification:
The hadith in question is as follows: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Whoever has a speck of pride (arrogance) in his heart, shall not be admitted into Paradise.” A man asked, “I like for my clothes to be nice, and my sandals to be nice?” So, he said: “Indeed Allah is Graceful and He loves beauty. Pride is refusing the truth and belittling the people.” [Muslim #91 ]

From this hadith, we learn that it is allowed for a person to wear permissible clothing even if it may be beautiful, expensive and valuable, once he does not belittle people by doing such. The other condition is once he does not refuse the truth. In other words, Shariah has placed some guidelines with regards to clothing which are part of the truth. Rejecting these guidelines is arrogance and pride. Below we mention a few guidelines as an example:

i. A man is not allowed to wear silk
ii. A man is not allowed to wear gold

• The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Wearing silk and gold has been made unlawful for the males of my Ummah and lawful for its females.” [Collected by Tirmithi #1720 He said it is sound and authentic. Also see Sahih Bukhari #5831].

iii. The thighs of a man are part of his awrah (private-parts) which is to be covered.

• Jarhad (radhiyallahu anhu) said that the Prophet (ﷺ) passed by him while his thigh was exposed, so the Prophet said, “Cover your thigh, for indeed it is awrah.” [Collected by Tirmithi #2798. He said it is sound]  From these guidelines, we see that the hadith concerning the permissibility of wearing beautiful clothing is not subjected to one’s whims and fancies. Rather, it is restricted to the guidelines set out by Shariah. Therefore, a man will not be allowed to wear silk, gold or expose his awrah simply because he considers them beautiful. In the same manner, Shariah has prohibited a man from dragging his clothing below his ankles and has considered this an act of arrogance itself. The evidences have been mentioned above in details. So, it will not be permissible for someone to drag his pants below his ankles, simply because he considers it beautiful. We ask Allah to beautify in our hearts and eyes the Sunnah of His Messenger (ﷺ). And Allah Ta’ala knows best.  

Misconception 11:
We are living in the twenty first century. The style and fashion of today dictates that we wear our trousers below our ankles. If we lift them above our ankles, people will laugh at us and ridicule us.

• Clarification:
The faqeeh, muhaddith and reviver of the Sunnah, Mufti Ahmed Khanpuri (rahimahullah) says in his commentary of ‘Riyadhus Saliheen’ that if you practise on the Deen, then you will be ridiculed and laughed at. Remember, the noblest humans, the Prophets of Allah (alayhimussalam), including our role model, the final Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) were all ridiculed and laughed at. Rather, if we are laughed at by the kuffar and fussaq for practising on the Sunnah, then that is a sign that we have passed the exam. It is not something that we should be grieved about. On the other hand, if we follow the fashion of the kuffar and fussaq, then they will not be able to save us from the punishment on the Day of Judgement. [Hadith ke Islaahi Madhameen Vol.10 Pg.82-83] And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 


In summary, whether one hangs his garment below his ankles intentionally as an act of pride or without any such intention, it is still prohibited and a sin. There are severe punishments mentioned in many ahadith concerning both of these scenarios. We will list them below:
• Allah Ta’ala will not speak to him. 
• He will not look at him. 
• He will not purify him. 
• The man will be given a painful punishment. 
• He has been placed in the same row as a liar.
• He has been placed in the same row as one who reminds people of the favours he did to them.
• His salah is not accepted.
• Allah Ta’ala has lost respect for him.
• Allah Ta’ala does not care about him.
• He has left the laws of Allah.
• He does not believe in the halal and haram of Allah Ta’ala.
• Allah Ta’ala has freed Himself from him.
• He will enter the Hell Fire. 

We conclude with what Zhahabi said concerning those who fool themselves on this issue. In response to the one who lets his garment hang below the ankle and says ‘I am not doing that out of pride’ he said: 

“We see him behaving in an arrogant manner and purifying his foolish self. And you see him looking at a text (hadith) that is general in meaning, and he restricts it on the basis of another, separate hadith, in the meaning of pride. 

He allows a concession based on the words of al-Siddeeq (Abu Bakr) (radhiyallahu anhu), who said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, my izaar slips down,’ and he (ﷺ) said: “O Abu Bakr, you are not one of those who do that out of pride.’ 

We say: Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) did not tie his izaar in such a way that it hung below the ankles in the first place, rather he tied it so that it came above the ankle, but it slipped down after that. 

And the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “The izaar of the believer should come to mid-calf, but it does not matter if it comes between (that point) and the ankle.” The same prohibition applies to the one who lets his trousers cover his ankles, or makes his sleeves too long. All of that is from pride which is deeply hidden in the soul.”  [Siyar A’laam al-Nubala Vol.3 Pg.234]

Let us ponder over the following ahadith: The beloved Prophet (ﷺ) said, “One who holds an atoms weight of kibr (arrogance) within his heart will not enter paradise.” [Sahih Muslim 91c] 

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Whoever leaves (certain) garments out of humility to Allah while he is able to (wear), Allah will call him before the heads of creation on the Day of Judgement so that he can select whichever garments of faith he wishes to wear.” [Collected by Tirmithi #2481 and He graded it sound. He also said, “’Garments of faith’ is the garments of Paradise which are given to the people of faith.”] 
May Allah purify our heart from pride and may He save our limbs from actions of pride. May He guide us to practice on each and every Sunnah of his beloved Messenger of Allah ﷺ.   

28 Rabiyul Akhir 1438 = 1/26/2017

Checked and Approved by Mufti Muhammad Mahdi

The Sunnah of Dusting the Bed-Sheet Before Sleep

Very Valuable Information!

The wisdom behind dusting one bed sheet before sleeping.
Why should we dust our bed sheets??
                                                            This is what we’re going to reveal and here is where the scientific challenge and the conclusion by western scientists:

When someone sleeps some dead cells die and are dropped onto his bed sheet.. 
                                                            And whenever he wakes up he leaves it behind and hence it accumulates.  
                                                           This dead cells are invisible by naked eyes and can hardly be destroyed.  
                                                             When the quantity of these dead cells increases they easily penetrate back into the body causing serious sickness… May Allâh forbid.  
                                                             These western science tried to destroy the cell using various disinfectant such as dettol and the like, but all in vain… The dead cells neither moved nor disappear.    
One of scientist said, he tried the dusting as in the Hadith three times and was astonished to find that all the dead cells disappeared!!       
The Prophet ﷺ said:                                                
“Whoever goes to his bed, he should dust his bed three times, because he doesn’t know what was left behind”…. Most people think it is a way of eliminating small insects but don’t know that the issue is so much greater than that…  
                                                            It is very sad to find that most of us ignored such teachings of the Prophet ﷺ.

Please spread this message and let the whole world know that whatever ALLÂH commands is for the benefit of man kind. سُبْحَانَ اللهِ.

Qailoolah – The Sunnah Short Afternoon Nap

[Majlisul Ulama]

More  than  fourteen  centuries  ago  Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  exhorted  observance  of  Qailoolah  –  the  short  afternoon  nap,  whether  before  or  after  Zuhr  SalaatQailoolah  is  a  Sunnah  practice.  In  addition  to  being  rewarded  for  observing  a  Sunnat,  there  are  the  health  benefits  which although  mentioned  briefly  by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam),  are  being  discovered by  the  atheists  of  this  age.

Allah  Ta’ala  being  our  Creator, knows  what  is  best  for  our  health  –  physical  as  well  as  spiritual  health. In  the  following  report,  the  atheist  experts  also  confirm  the  benefits  of  Qailoolah.  Although  they  are hardcore  materialists,  they acknowledge  the  spiritual  effect of  Qailoolah,  hence  they  have concluded  from  their  tests  and experiments  that  Qailoolah,  in  addition  to  physical  benefits  also  produces  ‘happiness’  which  is  a  dimension  of  spirituality.  Thus  they  say:

Daytime  snooze  ‘a  key  to happiness’

Saturday  Star  1  Apr  2017
LONDON:  The  secret  of  happiness  could  be  as  simple  as  having  a  quick  snooze  in  the  daytime,  research  suggests.

A  study  found  that  taking  naps  of less  than  30  minutes  improves  our  sense  of  well-being,  as  well  as  boosting  performance.

The  researchers  have  suggested  a  new  word  to  describe  the  contented  feeling  after  a  brief  doze: nappiness.

Professor  Richard  Wiseman,  of  the  University  of  Hertfordshire,  said: “Previous  research  has  shown  that  naps  of  under  30  minutes  make  you  more  focused,  productive  and  creative,  and  these  new  findings  suggest  that  you  can  also  become  happier  by  just  taking  a  short  nap.”  However  the  study  found  that  those  who  took  longer  naps  were  less  happy  than  those  who  did  not  nap  at  all.

More  than  1,000  people  took  part  in  the  study,  conducted  for  the  Edinburgh  International  Science  Festival.

Among  the  participants,  66%  of  “short  nappers”  who  slept  for  less  than  half  an  hour  reported feeling  happy,  compared  with  56%  of  “long nappers”  and  60%  of  those  who  never  napped.  – Daily  Mail

The Waajib Fist-Length Beard

[Majlisul Ulama]


A Mufti, namely, Mufti Abdullah al Mahmudi, in an article/fatwa says  that according to many Hanafi  Ulama it is permissible to trim the beard to less than one fist-length. This is a new version of the mas’alah as it has hitherto  been known to us. Please check the fatwa and comment, especially on the following section:

“However, many Hanafi Ulama  have considered trimming the beard shorter than a fist’s  length to be permissible as there  is no explicit prohibition for  trimming the Beard under a fist’s  length in the original Hanafi texts. It was only Imam Ibnul Humam (D.861) and those who came after him like Allamah Ibn  Abideen Shami who declared it to be Haraam in the Hanafi Madhhab
Furthermore,. no mention of  prohibition has been recorded in  the original Hanafi texts from Imam Abu Hanifah himself, nor  from Imam Abu Yusuf,  Muhammed or Zufar  (Rahimahumullah). Also, the Hadith emphasizes the  lengthening of the Beard but has  not explicitly prohibited  trimming it. Infact, in Kitabul  Aathaar of Imam Abu Yusuf, the following narration is recorded:

Translation: Imam Abu Yusuf  narrates from Imam Abu Hanifah, who narrates from Hammad who narrated from Ibrahim an Nakha’i (Rahimahullah) that he said:  “There is nothing wrong for a man to trim his beard as long as he  does not imitate the people of  Shirk” (Kitabul Aathaar by Abu Yusuf, Pg:235)

Based on this, many Hanafi  Ulama are of the opinion that if  one does trim his Beard under a  fist’s length, he will not be sinful  as long as one does not shave it  off completely. All Hanafi Ulama  are unanimous that the Sunnah  and recommended length of the beard is that it should be a fist’s length all around.”

Answer (By Majlisul Ulama)

The moron, jaahil ‘mufti’ maajin does not name some of the  ‘many Hanafi Ulama’ who believe  that trimming the beard less  than a fist length is permissible.  His argument presented in  conflict with the more than 14  century unanimous Ruling of the fist-length beard is baseless. He  displays his liberal leanings and  lack of understanding of the mas’alah with his corrupt and convoluted opinion.

Who are the Hanafi Ulama who  believe that it is not sinful to cut the beard to less than a fist-length, and that such a  sinn er  will not be a flagrant faasiq?  Perhaps he has in mind moron  ‘ulama’ of this age. But their  views have no validity in the  Shariah. There is Ijmaa’ the Hanafi Math-hab on the fist of length  beard and that it is haraam to cut/trim it to a size less than  a fist-length.

His claim that trimming shorter than a fist  length is only the view of Ibnul Humaam (died 861 Hijri), is the  product of his convoluted opinion. There is not a single  Hanafi Faqeeh who had held the  view of permissibility of the  ‘shorter’ length. Since the time  of the Sahaabah, the practice  was the fist length. The practical  example of the Sahaabah and  which example all the Hanafi  Fuqaha adopted, is the clearest and strongest evidence for the Ijmaa’ of the Math-hab on this issue. It is the height of  stupidity to contend that the prohibition was initiated by Ibn  Humaam. There is not a single Hanafi Faqeeh in any age who  had averred a contrary opinion.  The opinion of the liberal morons  of our time are devoid of Shar’i substance, and have no validity  in the Shariah.

The maajin mufti’s claim: “there  is no explicit prohibition for trimming the beard under a fist’s  length in the original Hanafi texts”, is a portrayal of his jahaalat. When there is Ijmaa’of  all the Ulama of former times and later times, on this prohibition, the explicitness is glaringly conspicuous. No Aalim of Haq and no evil aalim of former times had ever understood that it was permissible to cut the beard shorter than a fist length. Not even the ulama-e-soo’ of former times held the corrupt opinion which this maajin ‘mufti’ is propagating in stark conflict with the Ijmaa’i stance of all our Ulama. 

Ibn Humaam (Rahmatullah alayh) was not a mufti maajin. If his explicit statement in this regard  had been erroneous, there would have been numerous Hanafi Ulama of his age and subsequent ages who would have refuted his contention. But there is not a single Hanafi Faqeeh or Aalim from his time and thereafter, who had ever refuted or even contested the mas’alah as stated by Ibn Humaam. This ‘mufti’ maajin appears to be the first mujrim or one of the liberal mujrimeen of this age who propagates the haraam view of permissibility of cutting shorter than a fist length. 

There is not a single Math-hab which holds the corrupt opinion propagated by the maajin character. On the contrary, the other Math-habs, prohibit even any type of beard-cutting. According to the other Math-habs, cutting to even a fist length is haraam. They do not consider the fist-length Hadith sufficiently sound for permitting any kind of cutting. 

The mas’alah as it appears in Faidhul Baari –Sharah Saheehul Baari, is:   

“Verily, they (the Fuqaha) have differed regarding the beard. What is afdhal (better)? It has been said that cutting that which is in excess of a fist is afdhal as is mentioned in Kitaabul Aathaar of Imaam Muhammad. And, it has been said that I’faa’ mutlaqan (leaving it to grow  unrestrictively) is afdhal. But to cut it less than a fist length is  haraam Ijmaa-an (i.e there is a consensus on prohibition) among the Aimmah (Rahim ahumullaahu ta’ala).”

Should the explicit statement in  Faidhul Baari be accepted or the stupid, haraam view of the ‘mufti’  maajin of this day? Did this unbaked maajin ‘mufti’  understand the mas’alah better  than Allaamah Anwar Shah  Kashmiri (Rahmatullah alayh),  Author of Faidhul Baari wherein  he explicitly mentions Ijmaa’ on the hurmat of cutting shorter than a fist length? 

In all the Kutub it is explicitly  mentioned that cutting the beard is only when it is longer than a  fist length. No one has ever  advocated cutting less than a  fist length as the moron ‘mufti’  alleges baselessly.

“Al-Kaaki said: ‘The length of the  beard is the extent of a qubdhah  (fist-length) according to us  (Ahnaaf). Whatever is in excess  of this (qubdhah), its cutting is  incumbent (waajib)…” (Al Binaayah)       

Cutting only the ‘excess’ is  permissible. The excess is more  than a fist-length. Explaining  this fact further, it is stated in Nukhbul Afkaar: “The Salaf  differed regarding the limit for    (its length to grow ) Among them are those who have not placed  any limit (on its growth) except  that it should not be grown for the sake of shuhrat (fame/attracting attention/pride and  the like). (For then) he should cut from it. Maalik has disliked  excessive lengthening. Among them (i.e. Fuqaha) are those who  limit it to a qubdhah. Thus, the  excess over a qubdhah should be  removed. Among them are those  who regard it reprehensible  (Makrooh Tahrimi) to remove  anything from it except in Hajj and Umrah.”

“Abu Haamid said: ‘There is difference regarding the length of the beard. It has been said that if a man cuts from his beard the portion beyond his qubdhah, then there is nothing wrong with it. Verily, Ibn Umar and a Jamaa’at of the Salf-e-Taabieen had done so (i.e. cut off the excess below a qubdhah). Ash-Sha’bi and Ibn Sireen preferred this.  Al-Hasan and Qataadah said: ‘Leaving it (to grow) is more preferable)……..” 

It should be palpably clear that the difference of opinion among the Fuqaha is applicable to only the excess below one qubdhah. There is no difference regarding the prohibition of cutting less than a fist-length. There is Ijmaa’ of all authorities of all Math-habs that such cutting is haraam. 

In Durarul Hukkaam Sharh Ghuraril Ahkaam, it is mentioned:  

“Cutting from the beard less than a fist-length as is the practice of some westerners and hermaphrodites, no one (among the Ulama/Fuqaha) had permitted it.    

Regarding lengthening the beard, Muhammad narrating from Imaam Abu Hanifah said: ‘It should be left (to grow) until it is thick and abundant. Cutting from it is Sunnah in that portion in excess of a qubdhah.” 

Imaam Muhammad narrated Imaam Abu Hanifah’s statement in which he explicitly states that cutting applies to only the ‘excess’, not to anything else as the maajin ‘mufti’ hallucinates. ‘Sunnah’ in the context means the incumbent practice for adoption. It does not mean permissibility for discardence. The Fardh Salaat is also ‘Sunnah’ in the meaning of it being the practice of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It is not a practice of Islam to shorten the beard to less than a fist length. There is not a single authority of Islam since the inception of Islam, who has ever advocated the permissibility of shortening the beard as the moron ‘mufti’ promotes. 

In Ghaayatul Bayaan, the noble Author, Qiwaamuddeen Itqaani (died 758 Hijri) states:   

“Regarding I’faaul Lihyah (lengthening the beard), there is difference of the people (i.e. of the Fuqaha). Some said that it should be left to grow (unrestrictedly) without cutting or clipping. That in reality is the meaning of I’faa’. Our Ashaab (i.e. the Ahnaaf) said that I’faa’ is to leave it to grow until it is thick and abundant, and cutting it is Sunnah and that is that a man should hold his beard in his fist and cut  that portion which is  more than it (his fist). So has Muhammad narrated in Kitaabul Aathaar narrating from Abu Hanifajh. This is what we accept.” 

In An-Nihaayah Sharh Al-Hidaayah, it is mentioned:   “According to us (the Ahnaaf), the length of the beard is the extent of the qubdhah (fist). It is incumbent to cut that portion more than this………..In his Jaami, Abu Isaa said: ‘Lightening the beard is from the good fortune of a man.” 

It is the height of folly, capable from only a jaahil masquerading as a mufti, to interpret or misinterpret the term khiffah (lightening) to mean a licence to shorten the beard  less than a qubdhah. The extent of shortening is prescribed in all the Kutub of the Shariah

It is said in Raddul Muhtaar:   “Regarding cutting from it whilst it is less than this (i.e. fist-length) as some westerners and hermaphrodites do, no one (among the Fuqaha) has  permitted it.”

This negation is not attributed  to only Ibnul Humaam. It states explicitly that “no one”  has ever  permitted it. It is only this  upstart ‘mufti’ maajin of our  time who is abortively  attempting to peddle the idea  that ‘cutting more than a fist  length’ was a permitted practice since the inception of Islam. But his baatil is manifest.

The qubdhah stipulation which  is the limit for cutting stated unanimously by all the Fuqaha  since the inception of Islam, is in fact the explicit prohibition for  cutting shorter than a fist length. It is therefore absolutely moronic to aver that “no mention of prohibition has been recorded in  the original Hanafi texts.” The moron ‘mufti’  displays  extraordinary jahaalat in his baseless conclusion. The lack of understanding in the sphere of Ifta of this ‘mufti’ is  staggeringly lamentable. He  portrays complete ignorance of the consequences of the  technical designations with  which the Fuqaha have clothed the Ahkaam  of  the Shariah.   

Mustahab and Sunnat in their  technical sense do not mean a  free license for the discardence  of the ahkaam. Acts of such  technical appellation remain  practically and literally Waajib  irrespective of the negation of  the technical/Fiqhi meaning of   Wujoob. For example, while    facing the animal towards the  Qiblah at the time of Thabah is  not technically designated Waajib, it remains practically Waajib to  face the animal towards the  Qiblah. The emphasis of    practical Wujoob is such that  Sahaabah would  refuse to  consume the meat of an animal  which had been intentionally  turned away from the Qiblah.

Similarly, whilst there is no  explicit prohibition of hanging an animal upside down, Sanha-MJC  style when effecting Thabah, only morons and those who have  sold their souls to Iblees, contend that it is permissible to hang the chickens upside down when  slaughtering. The  permanent Shar’i method – the Sunnah method – is in fact the explicit prohibition for any other method. Thus deliberate discardence of technical Mustahab without valid reason, is gravely sinful and haraam. If the discardence is motivated by an attitude of insignificance, scorn or disdain, it will be termed Istikhfaaf which is kufr. If the discardence is the consequence of a lackadaisical attitude or monetary greed as is the case with the carrion halaalizers, it will be Fisq provided they believe in their hearts that their action is haraam. If  they halaalize the haraam kuffaar method with which they  have displaced the Sunnah method, then such discardence will be kufr

The permanent Sunnah practice is Waajib irrespective of the technical categories to which the Fuqaha have assigned the Ahkaam. Ibnul Mulaqqeen states in his Al-I’laamu bi Fawaaid Umdatil Ahkaam:

“From the Hadith is gained the difference between Tanzeeh and Tahreem prohibition….And that (difference) in the Urf of the Sahaabah is related to Ilm. However, with regard to amal (practice), they did not differentiate in it. But they would totally abstain from Makrooh Tanzeehi and Tahreemi. Whoever has investigated their actions, statements and the principles of the Shariah will find the issue to be so.”  [Vol.4, page 468] 

Explicit prohibition is not reliant on explicit words. The explicit Sunnah method is in fact adequate for the explicit prohibition of the method/style which is at variance or in conflict with the teaching of the Shariah. Thus, the ‘mufti’s’ interpretation of ‘lack of explicit prohibition’ on the basis of which he halaalizes   the kabeerah sin of cutting the beard shorter than a qubdhah is the  effect of gross jahaalat.

Then, advertising his gross jahaalat the maajin ‘mufti’ presents a statement from Kitaabul Aathaar of Imaam Abu Yusuf (Rahmatullah alayh), which reads:  

“There is nothing wrong for a man to trim from his beard as long as he does not imitate the people of shirk.” 

On the basis of his understanding or misunderstanding of this citation, the maajin ‘mufti’ concludes:

“Based on this, many Hanafi  Ulama are of the opinion that if one does trim his beard under a fist’s length, he will not be sinful as long as one does not shave it off completely.”

The Ummah is incremently being deprived of genuine Ulama. With the departure of the true Ulama, there remain only flotsam characters who are bereft of  understanding, hence  they disgorge  such  corrupt and convoluted  gutha fatwas which distort and mutilate the Shariah thereby misleading the ignorant and the unwary. 

If the interpretation by the maajin ‘mufti, given to Imaam Abu Yusuf’s statement had to be correct, it will follow that even a telescopic beard, short of complete facial barrenness, will also be permissible, and a haraam goatee beard with the sides bare will also be permissible. Only total shaving will be prohibited. In terms of his logic, besides the factor of Tashabbuh bil kuffaar, there is absolutely no restriction on  trimming/cutting the beard in any way. This baatil conclusion is the effect of the wholesale chicanery which the moron ‘mufti’ has perpetrated regarding Imaam Abu Yusuf’s narration. 

In his presentation of Imaam Abu Yusuf’s narration from Kitaabul Aathaar, the Haatibul Lail  ‘mufti’ maajin is guilty of three shaitaani acts of chicanery: 

(1) Concealing the Haqq. While he mentions the narration of Imaam Abu Yusuf  in which appears the term ‘ya’khuthu’ (he takes, meaning, cutting/trimming), the ‘mufti’, in order to bolster his  corrupt opinion based on misinterpretation, conveniently  ignores four Hadith narrations accompanying the  narration on which he basis his convolution. 

(2)  He ignores the explicit tafseer of the term ‘ya’khuthu’ mentioned in the Ahaadith which he has concealed, believing that his deception will go undetected. 

(3) He presents his misinterpretation in diametric conflict and rejection of the Ijma’ of the Ummah on this issue. 

Chicanery No.1

The Ahaadith which he has concealed are the following:

(a) Yusuf narrates from his father who narrates from Abu Hanifah from Naafi’ from Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhuma): “Verily he (i.e. Ibn Umar) used to  ya’khuthu’ (cut) from his beard.”

(b) Yusuf narrated from his father from Abu Hanifah from Al-Aithan, from Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhuma) that verily he (Ibn Umar) used to hold with the fist on his beard, then ya’kuthu (cut) from it the portion which exceeded the qubdhah (fist).”

(c) Yusuf narrated from his father from Abu Hanifah from Naafi’ from Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhuma): ‘He (Ibn Umar) used to ya’khuthu (cut) from his beard. (d) Yusuf narrated from his father from Abu Hanifah from Naafi’ from Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhuma) that…………he (Ibn Umar) used to ya’khuthu (cut) from his beard.”   

These four narrations accompany the narration cited by the maajin ‘mufti’, but whose concealment  he deemed expedient for peddling his fallacy. 

Chicanery No.2

In the narration cited by the ‘mufti’, appears the very same word ya’khuthu (he cuts), and this narration is the very next one, No.1041, whilst its tafseer, viz., “He would cut the portion which  traversed  the qubdhah”, appears in Hadith No.1040, just one line above the narration which the maajin ‘mufti’ had ripped from its context. 

Narration No.1039 in the same section, also mentions that Hadhrat Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhuma) would cut (ya’khuthu) from his beard. The limit of the cutting is explicitly stated in narration 1040, which is the qubdhah (fist). Furthermore, this limit of cutting (ya’khuthu) is explicitly stated in numerous kutub of the Shariah, and this is the view on which there exists Ijmaa’ of the Ahnaaf, without a single voice of dissent since the inception of Islam to this day.  The ‘many Hanafi Ulama’ who allegedly differ, have not been named by the maajin ‘mufti’ – not a single one. Liberals of our era have no significance, for they all belong to the Hufaalah class of ulama-e-soo’.

It is inconceivable that Imaam  Abu Yusuf (Rahmatullah alayh)    had a meaning other than qubdhah for the cutting (ya’khuthu) when he, himself  presents Hadhrat Ibn Umar’s  qubdhah limit practice in substantiation of the  permissibility of cutting the  beard when it has exceeded the  fist length.

It should be noted that Imaam  Abu Yusuf and all Hanafi Fuqaha  of every age of Islam have cited  Hadhrat Ibn Umar’s practice of cutting to the limit of qubdhah in  negation of the view of the Shaafi’ Math-hab in its  interpretation of the term I’faa’  (to lengthen). ‘Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had  ordered I’faa’ of the beard.  According to the Shaafi’ Fuqaha, the I’faa’ (lengthening)  has to be unrestricted, cutting  anything therefrom being  haraam. However, the Ahnaaf  Fuqaha interpret I’faa’ restrictively. The practice of  Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Umar and  of other Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu anhum), explicitly permits  cutting, hence precludes the Shaafi’ view of unrestricted I’faa’.

The Hanafi Fuqaha also cite the  practice of Hadhrat Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu  anhuma) in  prescribing the permissible limit  of cutting. Thus, the argument    among the Fuqaha of the two  Mathhabs is on the term I’faa’. While  according  to  the  Shaafis, I’faa’ is mutlaq (unrestricted),  the Hanafis say that it is  muqayyad (restricted) with the qubdhah length. This is the  actual meaning of Imaam Abu  Yusuf’s statement of the  permissibility of cutting (ya’khuthu) from the beard. He    specifies that the cutting should  not be in emulation of the    people of shirk who also kept  beards which entail restricted I’faa’ ,hence they would cut their  beards. The Yahood keep beards  longer than qubdhah , and  perhaps other people of shirk  also do, hence the warning that  when restricting I’faa’, it should  not be in imitation of the kuffaar.  It NEVER means to cut and shorten to less than a fist length.  This is a satanic inspiration. 

The maajin ‘mufti’ has attempted with his own baatil ta’weel to negate the explicit tafseer of the term ya’khuthu mentioned by Imaam Abu Yusuf (Rahmatullah alayh) in his Kitaabul Aathaar

Chicanery No.3

The third satanic act of fraud perpetrated by the Haatibul Lail ‘mufti’ is his reckless and stupid opposition  to the Ijmaa’ of all the Hanafi Fuqaha of all ages, and his  ludicrous attempt  of  attributing the prohibition to Ibnul Humaam of the 8th century and to Ibn Aabideen of the 12th century. If  Ibnul Humaam had been the first Faqeeh to have  issued the Fatwa of prohibition as the ‘mufti’ hallucinates or  stupidly presents, then  most certainly there would have been many Hanafi Fuqaha who would have contested his Fatwa. But not a single Hanafi Aalim or Faqeeh had ever breathed a difference since his era to this day. This upstart maajin ‘mufti’ of today is the first moron who has stupidly ventured what no Faqeeh has ever stated. 

In the entire history of Islam since its inception to this day, there has never been any difference of opinion among the Authorities – the Fuqaha, Muhadditheen and the Ulama-e-Haqq – regarding cutting the beard less than a qubdhah. The difference is confined to only I’faa’ (lengthening). According to the Ahnaaf, I’faa’ is restricted with qubdhah, while according to the Shawaafi and also others, I’faa’ is unrestricted, that is the beard must be allowed to grow irrespective of the length it reaches. 

Imaam Abu Yusuf’s statement regarding akhth (cutting), applies to the qubdhah  length, and to substantiate this,  are the practices of the Sahaabah, notably Hadhrat Ibn Umar, Abu Hurairah and also of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam). Less than a qubdhah is hallucination inspired by Iblees.

It  is observed that the maajin  ‘mufti’ has designate himself “ al-Mahmudi” ostensibly relating  himself to Hadhrat Mahmudul Hasan Gangohi (Rahmatullah alayh) whose compilation of Fataawa is known as Fataawa  Mahmudiyyah. This  ‘mufti’  should have consulted Fataawa  Mahmudiyyah to ascertain the  view of his patron, Hadhrat    Mahmudul Hasan. In Fataawa  Mahmudiyyah, Hadhrat Mahmudul Hasan says:

“Keeping a beard is Waajib. It is  haraam to shave or cut it prior to  it having reaching the prescribed  limit…….Cutting the beard is of the practices of the Ajam (non- Arab kuffaar). Today it is a salient feature of many of the  people  of shirk and  idolaters such as the English, Hindus and those who  have no morality in Deen ….(Mirkaat) 

Cutting in it (the beard) is  Sunnat, and this is that a man should hold his beard with his  hand, and cut off that portion  which is longer than a fist. So  has Muhammad narrated in  Kitaabul Aathaar from Imaam  Abu Hanifah. And this is what  we adhere to….Muheetus Sarakhsi, Tahtaawi.” (Vol.6)

In the Hadith Shareef, it is  explicitly said: “Increase the  beard; lengthen the beard; make  abundant the beard.” The  (axiomatic) demand of these  terms is that there should not  have been a limit to increasing  the beard (i.e. it should be  allowed to grow unrestrictively),  and that cutting (anything whatever) should have been totally impermissible. But, the  amal of  the Sahaabi narrator of  the Hadith was to cut the  portion of his beard in excess of  one fist length. Imaam  Muhammad has narrated this Hadith in Kitaabul Aathaar, and  he has stated that this is the  Math-hab of Imaam Abu Hanifah
It is not narrated from any  Sahaabi that the beard was cut  before it reached one fist  length….It is thus known that  this is what the Sahaabah had  understood from the Hadith    (pertaining to lengthening and  cutting the beard). On this is  enacted Ijmaa’. Thus, to interpret  the Hadith in any way in conflict  with the understanding of the  Sahaabah is not permissible. (This is precisely what the maajin ‘mufti’ is guilty  of). Such a  meaning (as peddled by the  maajin character) cannot be the  meaning (intended by) Nabi  Akram Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam. On the contrary, it is  the meaning fabricated by the  mind of the one who presents  such a meaning which is a  fabrication thrust on to the  Hadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam). For this there is severe warning of punishment.   For such a person, is the warning  of Jahannam.

It is mentioned in Durre-Mukhtaar that NO ONE (i.e. no  one among the Fuqaha)  has    averred  that  it  is  permissible  to  cut  the beard  bef ore  it  has  reached  one fist length.. It is  self-evident that since the  command is to lengthen the  beard, cutting will be nugatory of it, and conflicting with the command is sinful. Those who  cut before the beard has reached  one fist and content themselves  with short-cropped beard or little  more than this, should present the hadith proof for such cutting.”  (Vol.5)

The Shar’i limit of the beard is  one qubdhah (fist). Imaam Muhammad has narrated this in  Kitaabul Aaathaar with its Sanad. It is mentioned in Fathul Qadeer,  Durre Mukhtaar and in other Kutub of Fiqh to cut before the  beard reaches one fist or to cut    it to less than one fist is not permissible by anyone (of the  Fuqaha). No one has stated that  this is permissible. This is in the  category of Ijmaa’” (Vol.1) 

No one has ever said that cutting the beard before it has reached one fist or to cut it less than a  fist–length is permissible. This shaving and cutting are  tashabbuh with aliens (kuffaar).  It is also self evident that such a  person’s testimony is not  acceptable nor is he an aadil.”. (Vol.14) 

These explicit Fatwas of Hadhrat  Mufti Mahmudul Hasan, as well as the fatwas of all our Akaabir  Muftis and Ulama, categorically  damn and reject the haraam  rubbish disgorged by the maajin ‘mufti’ who relates himself to  Mufti Mahmudul Hasan with the appellation, ‘al Mahmudi’.  There  is not a vestige of  proof for the haraam view of permissibility for  cutting the beard less than a qubdhah.

We have dealt with  mild severity with the  propounder of the haraam opinion in view of the notriety of his fraud and falsehood. His crime is of the gravest proportions. He has  attributed falsehood to all the Hanafi Fuqaha prior to the 8th century, including Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Abu Yusuf and  Imaam Muhammad (Rahmatullah alayhim). Furthermore, he has  rejected the unanimous view  of  all our Akaabuir Ulama, and he  has fabricated the despicable lie  of the prohibition having been  fabricated by the illustrious Ibnul  Humaam (Rahmatullah alayh) of  the 8th century, when in reality  Ibnul Humaam was merely  narrating the official and the  only one Ijmaa’ee view of the  Ahnaaf which has been  transmitted to him down the centuries by way of authoritative Naql (Narration).